Sccy Forum

jomojo · Joined: 13 Jun 2008 Posts: 31

I know, I know many of you think I am traitor. Perhaps I have been polluted by the Liberal anti-gun nuts. But Just hear me out. I actually do a lean a bit to the left, but have strong disagreements with those who don't believe in all of the Bill of Rights, ie 2nd Amendment. I am lucky that my Congressman leans to the left but doesn't believe in taking away our guns. But I digress.
The reason I believe in the Background checks is, I have worked in the mental health field, and have dealt with many nut jobs who shouldn't be allowed near a butter knife, much less a gun. In my state, those persons who have been deemed a threat to themselves or others or those whom have been forcibly committed, it is illegal for them to own guns. There is an appeal process involving a letter from your shrink stating you no longer pose a threat.
I am not naive, I know these nut jobs and criminals can get guns in many illegal ways, but that is not the point. They shouldn't be allowed to purchase one with the simple ease of walking into a gun shop. Just because they can get them illegally, doesn't mean we should make it the least bit easier.
But I do believe background checks need to be radically updated to not punish those who are law abiding. In my state of Washington if you have a CCW, or as we call them CPLs, you do not have to go through any additional checks or waiting periods. All you have to do is present this license to the gun shop while checking out. No wait, no issues at all. I just simply had to let them photocopy it and attach it to their copy of the bill of sales. This works great. I think it needs to be expanded though. For those who do not have a CCW. As in you go through one background check buying one gun, and you don't have to wait or go through it again for a given period, say a year. So anything new you buy you just give them a reference number or something. This could work well for states that require gun show background checks. You could simply take care of things before you even show up and walk home with your gun. The second part of the strategy is dramatically increasing the penalty for ex cons and such caught illegally possessing a gun. Unless they are still on parole, it is considered a small offense, in most places, for these guys to illegally posses a gun. In many states it is considered a misdemeanor or Class C felony to illegally poses a gun. At most punishable by 6 weeks in jail, in most places. In many cases it is just a fine. They lose the gun, and then turn around and go buy another gun.
If you think a violent offender should have the right to have a gun, then I don't think we can come to an understanding or mutual ground.
So I invite your input, disagreements and find fault in my logic or arguments. I put this forward as a reasonable course of action and is not intended to start an ugly pissing match. Anyone not responding in a reasonable way, I will do my best to refrain from responding.

2guntom · Joined: 14 May 2008 Posts: 139 Location: Tennessee

That was a long dishortation. In fewer words, explain your proposal again.

jomojo · Joined: 13 Jun 2008 Posts: 31

I can clarify something if you would like. But I don't like simplifying slightly nuanced ideas. If I was unclear on something please let me know. If you are just feeling lazy, and not feeling like reading something than, no way ;)

2guntom · Joined: 14 May 2008 Posts: 139 Location: Tennessee

jomojo wrote:
1) But I do believe background checks need to be radically updated to not punish those who are law abiding.

2) In my state of Washington if you have a CCW, or as we call them CPLs, you do not have to go through any additional checks or waiting periods. All you have to do is present this license to the gun shop while checking out. No wait, no issues at all. I just simply had to let them photocopy it and attach it to their copy of the bill of sales. This works great.

3) I think it needs to be expanded though. For those who do not have a CCW. As in you go through one background check buying one gun, and you don't have to wait or go through it again for a given period, say a year. So anything new you buy you just give them a reference number or something. This could work well for states that require gun show background checks. You could simply take care of things before you even show up and walk home with your gun.

4) The second part of the strategy is dramatically increasing the penalty for ex cons and such caught illegally possessing a gun. Unless they are still on parole, it is considered a small offense, in most places, for these guys to illegally posses a gun. In many states it is considered a misdemeanor or Class C felony to illegally poses a gun. At most punishable by 6 weeks in jail, in most places. In many cases it is just a fine. They lose the gun, and then turn around and go buy another gun.

The thoughts ran together so I have broken this into 4 sections.

Section 1; I completely agree. Abolish the background checks altogether. "The right of the people... shall NOT be infringed." And the supreme court agrees.

Section 2; that is nice. Tennessee is much rougher. I do background checks EVERY SINGLE TIME a person buys a gun or guns. If they come back the next day for another purchase, I HAVE TO run another background check. The state charges $10 each time and this is passed on to the customer. This is the same for me, LE, military, the mayor, anybody.

3 and 4 I'll get back to you later; I'm off to work

jomojo · Joined: 13 Jun 2008 Posts: 31

Actually I said that back ground checks should not be entirely abolished, just radically updated. I believe you can lose certain rights, when you say murder a person.

2guntom · Joined: 14 May 2008 Posts: 139 Location: Tennessee

"The right of the people... shall not be infringed." The supreme court said it was an individual right. Anything that impeeds me acquiring a firearm is an infringement.

The criminals are a different story, but then, again...

Does a person have to have a background check before he/she buys a bottle of booze? If he/she has a history of crime that is inspired, influenced, or perpetuated by drinking, should they be deprived of spirits, particulary when property and persons have been hurt?

Does a person have to have a background check before they buy an automobile? If they have a history of accidents, moving violations, etc, should they be deprived of the right to purchase an automobile, particularly when property and persons have been hurt?

Why should we demonize guns? It's not the gun's fault. If we limit access to firearms to criminals, we would have to limit access to knives, crowbars, cigarette lighters, any flamable liquids, any large and/or blunt objects, etc to attempt to be effective. I even heard of a dope dealer that abducted an ex-girlfriend and held her head under scalding water running from the bathtub spigot. So we would have to either restrict water or the power to heat it.
In an attempt to limit the criminal's "lifestyle" we have prisons. All jails and prisons are so overcrowded this is not effective. Judges are corrupt, police officers have so many laws that they are more liable at times than the criminals.

We need to realize that people are bad. It has nothing to do with anything more. A person with hatred can use a broken stick or his bare hands to cause property damage, personal injury, or death.

jomojo · Joined: 13 Jun 2008 Posts: 31

All excellent and logical points my friend.
On a side note in my state you can't buy a car without insurance and a Drivers license. It is also quite easy to lose those if you are considered a menace on the road. So in essence you have to have at least a good enough record to not lose them.
I digress. Maybe I am looking for to pragmatic of solution. I don't foresee Background checks going away, so maximizing the process seems like a good idea.
But really what should be done is keep violent offenders in jail, and those who are considered a danger to themselves or others remain in the mental hospital. But for that too happen, we would have to stop handing out mandatory sentences to non violent crimes and radically expand our nations mental health capacity.
The only mandatory sentencing I believe in is a minimum sentence of the rest of their lives for 1st or second degree murder.
But now we have to let these guys out to make room for some dumb pot head, because a judge is required to give some mandatory sentence.

I have seen such stupid things. I saw one juvenile get 6 months for nearly beating some girl to death and another kid get 14 months for having 3 ounces of weed. Neither had priors.

WDfrmTN · Joined: 18 Oct 2008 Posts: 25 Location: W.Tenn

I've bought and sold several firearms - but only two from licensed firearms dealers. Two background checks against around a dozen or so private purchases and sales.