Who should own guns? should there be background checks?

[menecer24]

Originally Posted by jednp

I agree with you on that point... but.. having a restraining order against you doesn't make you guilty.. does it? yet it can still be a reason to deny a purchase in my state. All it shows is they have good reason to believe someone may be a threat to someone.. so they issue a restraining order. They don't have to be guilty of any crime.. they could have just been threatening someone a lot, but not convicted of it.

If you're reported stalking people, reported comitting arson... I feel that a temporary denial for you to purchase a weapon is an OK thing to do. I think at the very least those things should be known to police on a background check... so they can take a 2nd look.. make some sort of appeals process someone can go through if they are denied once. If you're reported stalking someone.. maybe your records need to be reviewed a bit.. maybe the incidents need another look to see if you truly are a possible threat to someone.

Im pretty certain a restraining order is not on a criminal background check. I wouldn't have a problem with it if it was if thats the state law. But the reason its called a criminal background check is that it is a list of the criminal offenses you have been convicted of on it.

If you allow the gov to start putting stuff you have never been convicted of on a list and denying you your rights then they wont stop with just arson or threats or stalking. Sooner or later they will put you down for having evil thoughts of hurting someone and told someone about it or telling them how much you hate them.

Yes i beleive people that do stalk people shouldn't have a gun or people that are known as mentally unstable that make threats on someones life shouldn't be able to buy a gun. But that person could be convicted because of those threats and the mentall unstable part would have come up in the investigation. Now arson i rather not sell them anything flammible such as fuel and lighters compared to a gun.

[beardman2]

I'll go with the constitution on this one.

I'm all for Instant background checks. No information kept on file from those checks.

Only felons or people ruled to be crazy should be barred the use of arms.

Who defines crazy? Thats a tough one. I'd guess I'd have to go with a jury of your peers and while we're at it it should probably be treated the same as a felony case. All appeals etc.

[rghice]

I am a firm believer in the right to bear arms, but I also know that guns don't kill people, people do. It is hard to regulate the transfer of weapons. I bought an AR-15 FTF yesterday, no check. I could have been a pissed of person with the intent for a mass shooting. Gun control laws ONLY affect the law abiding person, like myself. What we need is more public education on firearm saftey. It needs to be in public schools, churches, everywhere. People need to see what happens when a bullet hits flesh. When I was teaching my x to shoot, I bought a ham and shot it, she got an understanding that guns are not toys and it is not a video game. But in the hands of the law abiding citizen you can have a lot of fun shooting.
On the topic of mental health, which I have worked in for the past five years, In the state of Ga, all mental health records are seperate from other records. If you can find a mental health record on a person, you are lucky. For my carry permit I filed papers and paid some money and I have it. No demonstation of ablity to use my firearm. I think that is crazy. I have been shooting for 10 years and the person who has never shot a gun can get a carry permit and carry in pubic. In the event that the person "feels" they need to use their weapon, what kind of damage are they going to cause?
I CC everywhere I can, I hunt, I enjoy shooting. Many of my friends are the "uppty-city folk" who believe that the police and military should only have guns, yet when we are in a bad part of town they like to know that I am carrying. It is a two faced argument that will never go away.

[jednp]

Originally Posted by menecer24

Im pretty certain a restraining order is not on a criminal background check. I wouldn't have a problem with it if it was if thats the state law. But the reason its called a criminal background check is that it is a list of the criminal offenses you have been convicted of on it.

If you allow the gov to start putting stuff you have never been convicted of on a list and denying you your rights then they wont stop with just arson or threats or stalking. Sooner or later they will put you down for having evil thoughts of hurting someone and told someone about it or telling them how much you hate them.

I know where you're coming from. I don't want the govt listing all things you've been accused of.. that's not realy what I'm getting at.

And when you get a criminal background check done for a purchase permit here.. it will show whether you've got a restraining order against you I believe.. I'm almost positive it does.

but as far as the stalking.. lets say that 2 weeks ago you had the cops called on you for stalking someone.. then last week you got them called once again for stalking... maybe yesterday it happened again.. maybe it was with different people each time. Shouldn't that at least require a deeper look into whether or not you should be allowed to purchase a gun right now? See if the stalking incidents had any credible evidence that you really were stalking?

Again.. let me state my opinion once more.. I'm not sure how I feel about any of this. The arguments I'm making are pure speculation.. what if's. I don't know what's the right or wrong way to go about keeping guns out of the hands of people like this, without affecting the good people.

Certainly I'd be mad as a hornet if someone accused me of something I didn't do, and it kept me from purchasing a gun. So I don't really want someone being denied simply because someone said something neccessarily.. but if there's credible evidence that you are stalking someone.. several reports of it and they are all backed up by facts that you really are doing it.. I don't see the problem in denying that person from purchasing.

But the problem you mention still remains.. how do we go about this without someone being denied just because of accusations? Lets say you got the cops called on you a year ago for arguing with your wife, your brother, your friend.. that's no reason to deny purchase. But I just think that if there's real evidence that you are stalking.. maybe there needs to be a deeper look into whether or not you should be allowed to purchases right now.

If you have any drug convictions on your record, even if it's 20 years ago.. you can't get a CCW permit here. if you assaulted someone 30 years ago.. you can't get a CCW permit here. I think that's a little overboard. Mind you, that's if you got convictions. But I'd much rather keep a gun out of the hands of a recently reported stalker of several women.. a recently reported arsonist... than someone who maybe got convicted of assault 30 years ago and nothing else since then.

[jednp]

Originally Posted by beardman2

I'll go with the constitution on this one.

I'm all for Instant background checks. No information kept on file from those checks.

Only felons or people ruled to be crazy should be barred the use of arms.

Who defines crazy? Thats a tough one. I'd guess I'd have to go with a jury of your peers and while we're at it it should probably be treated the same as a felony case. All appeals etc.

You explained that better than I have lol.. that's what I'm having problems with.. who defines these things? who defines crazy? is reported stalking of several incidents... crazy? maybe at least crazy enough to temporarily deny a purchase? not permanently deny.. but have a fair amount of time.. a few months.. before you can purchase.. see if you continue your stalking behavior.

[jednp]

Originally Posted by rghice

I am a firm believer in the right to bear arms, but I also know that guns don't kill people, people do. It is hard to regulate the transfer of weapons. I bought an AR-15 FTF yesterday, no check. I could have been a pissed of person with the intent for a mass shooting. Gun control laws ONLY affect the law abiding person, like myself. What we need is more public education on firearm saftey. It needs to be in public schools, churches, everywhere. People need to see what happens when a bullet hits flesh. When I was teaching my x to shoot, I bought a ham and shot it, she got an understanding that guns are not toys and it is not a video game. But in the hands of the law abiding citizen you can have a lot of fun shooting.
On the topic of mental health, which I have worked in for the past five years, In the state of Ga, all mental health records are seperate from other records. If you can find a mental health record on a person, you are lucky. For my carry permit I filed papers and paid some money and I have it. No demonstation of ablity to use my firearm. I think that is crazy. I have been shooting for 10 years and the person who has never shot a gun can get a carry permit and carry in pubic. In the event that the person "feels" they need to use their weapon, what kind of damage are they going to cause?
I CC everywhere I can, I hunt, I enjoy shooting. Many of my friends are the "uppty-city folk" who believe that the police and military should only have guns, yet when we are in a bad part of town they like to know that I am carrying. It is a two faced argument that will never go away.

We have to demonstrate we can handle our weapon to get our CCW permit here. Mental health records are checked for certain things.

I'm not against FTF transfers... I trust honest gun owners to make the right decision when making a sale. in Nebraska.. the vast majority of private sellers still tell you to go get the purchase permit, just so they know for sure that you can own the gun.. they don't have to.. but they still do that.

Bad people will always sell to bad people.. they don't care. It's just nice for a good person, to be able to know they are selling to someone legally allowed to own the weapon.

[Gator]

jednp,

A persons record at the time of purchase doesn't necessarily reflect their mind set, i.e. a 30 year pastor who buys a gun for protection walks in on his wife and the pool boy and go's nuts. We can only prepare for the worst scenario and hope for the best.

[bherbert28]

All these things don't matter much because most of the time criminals aren't buying guns from dealers because they can get them cheaper and with fewer questions asked on the street. If you aren't an American citizen, you shouldn't be able to purchase. There is no way of knowing what you have done in your birth country before you came here.

[jednp]

Originally Posted by XD Springer

Some tough issues here:

I get VA disability, Social Security for depression, anxiety, PTSD. I've been prescribed anti-depressants for decades.

But, I'm a "model citizen" in all respects. Sit on the Board of Directors along with the Co. Sheriff and Commander of the local Army Base for the area firearms safety program and gun range development non-profit organization.

Volunteer firefighter, First Responder for medical.

I possess a CCW, fly past background checks on the BATF 4473 without issue.

What's his face: Cho Seung Hui seems a time bomb waiting to explode. All sorts of flags waving on this one.

I'll get flamed on this one, but I favor FFL transfer protocol for ANY firearm sale. It should be free. If a private owner wants to sell to a private party, the gun needs to go through an FFL, be recorded, and a background check performed. Transfer goes into the "Bound Book" and recorded.

That said . . .

Transfer of a handgun to a resident of another state is prohibited without FFL checks. But, I have handguns I've owned for years, decades. I could give one to my nephew in another state and claim that the transfer was effected when he was a resident of the state I'm in -- which he was before I purchased the firearm.

Back to "square one" . . .

Law abiding citizens need to exercise: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Had universities and schools generally not been deemed "firearm free zones" then maybe crazies would not view them as defenseless targets.

I don't have problems with background checks.

But Cho Seung Hui -- passed the FFL 4473 easily.

What is emerging is that Cho Seung Hui was a whack job waiting to happen, and no one quite acted on the flags he was putting up.

By the same token -- I'm a disabled vet, PTSD, all the "symptoms" of being a reclusive whack-job out in the woods with a major arsenal. But I'm not dangerous and would seriously resent having my RKBA constrained because I don't quite fit into the stereotypical mold that defines middle America.

I'm glad you posted that.. because you showed exactly what I'm trying to make sense of.. where do you draw the line? There are good people who pose no threat to anyone.. but may have problems.. but are perfectly fine to allow to own a firearm.

There's a difference between someone in anti-depressants.. and someone on anti-depressants, seeking counseling, and telling how they'd like to kill everyone they meet.

I think with me.. more so than any mental problem.. the biggest issue here is the stalking one. Is several reports of stalking.. no convictions.. a reason to deny purchase at least for the time being?

Consider this... your daughter has a stalker.. he follows her home from school, from work.. he's been turned in several times.. but never caught in the act by authorities and never convicted.. maybe he's shouted a threat to her that nobody else heard.. if police know about all these stalking reports.. should that be good enough reason to say no.. you can't purchase a gun right now? wouldn't you be a bit surprised if the next day he was able to go buy a gun.. right after you just turned him in for the 4th time of stalking the day before.. and he then killed your daughter?

Again, lets point out some things.. there needs to be a clear definition of what is, and what isn't a reason to deny purchase.. just because you got in an argument with someone doesn't mean you are dangerous.. but.. I think stalking in particular.. is a dangerous thing.. if there is clear proof that you have been stalking.. shouldn't that be used against you for the short term when it comes to purchasing a weapon?

If you got ordered into counseling because of violent writings like this guy had.. obviously that should throw up some red flags. This guy had several things that should have thrown up red flags.

I'm just having a hard time finding where the line is crossed.. when it comes to authorities finding out about red flags.. and using them against you... and when does it affect good people?

I don't recall the town.. but I saw it on tv.. an officer pulled over a guy for speeding.. he asked why he's in such a hurry.. the guy went on rambling about how he just got fired.. how he's going to lose everything.. i believe he mentioned something about guns.. saying he ought to just shoot himself.. but he was rambling a lot about how mad he was at the people at his work.. he told the officer.. he's just going to have to do, what he has to do.. which was implying going back to the work with a gun.

They used a law they have on the books to go to his house, confiscate his weapons for 1 year.

Clearly there's a difference between saying "i'm so mad I could just shoot someone"... and literally meaning.. I'm so mad.. I'm GOING to shoot someone. I believe if you do make a serious threat on someone's life.. and it's reported to the cops and there is proof of the threat.. it should be a reason to deny purchase at the least.

I don't enjoy people who truly are a known threat, a proven threat.. having guns.. there's got to be a certain point we reach that doesn't affect law abiding gun owners... but keeps guns out of the hands of people who truly are a threat.. without being abused... but that's the problem.. i see a system like that being abused.. so I don't think it'd work.

At the very least, the instant background checks are a good thing in the end.. maybe that's where it needs to end. I don't support listing your whole life history to be sorted through to decide if you can purchase a gun. I'm just wondering waht can be done to stop people like this from purchasing. If stalking reports can't be used as a reason.. and he had no criminal convictions on his record which would prohibit him from owning a gun.. then he's free to purchase.. I have a hard time with that. but I have a hard time of people falsley accused of things being affected as well.

[jednp]

Originally Posted by Gator

jednp,

A persons record at the time of purchase doesn't necessarily reflect their mind set, i.e. a 30 year pastor who buys a gun for protection walks in on his wife and the pool boy and go's nuts. We can only prepare for the worst scenario and hope for the best.

I know this... you cannot control the free will of a person. I've passed about 6 background checks in the last year.. I could walk outside and kill someone right now if I was so inclined to do so.

What I'm talking about is when you KNOW someone is doing something.. ie: stalking.. but not convicted of it.. if you have proof that it's going on.. it's been documented by police.. should that be a reason? at least a reason to look into the case a little deeper and put a temporary halt on the gun purchase until they check into things more?

If you were accused of stalking 3 years ago.. I don't want it used against you.. but if you were accused last month.. and there's proof of it.. could it be a good idea to use it against the person?

I'm just tossing out ideas here.. again, I don't know what is right or wrong.. we don't need more gun control.. but we do need something to throw up red flags for certain behaviors that are dangerous.. don't you think?

I mean seriously.. if I walk into a gun store tomorrow.. talk to the guy at the desk about how I enjoy following women around and spying on them.. following them home from work, trying to watch them through their windows.. then I tell him I want to purchase a gun.. I guarantee you that nearly every dealer will tell you to get lost.

Shouldn't there be a way for dealers to know about recent stalking or other dangerous reports which have proof to them.. about you?