Who should own guns? should there be background checks?

[jednp]

I guess this is somewhat of a 2 part question. What people should be able to own guns... and.. should there be mandatory background checks? Not psychological tests... just criminal background checks done at the local and state level.

This student reportedly had been stalking people.. had set fire to a room or something like that.. was taking anti-depressants.

If you've been reported of stalking people.. should that be a reason to deny you purchase of a gun? If you've done something like try to set fire to a dorm room.. or whatever he apparently did.. should that be a reason to deny you purchase of a gun? If you're on anti-depressants because of a Dr's order.. should that be a reason to deny you purchase of a gun?

I certainly don't want a stalker, an arsonist, or someone with mental problems being able to go buy a gun... but.. is it legal to deny those people the purchase of a firearm if those behaviors are documented and known to the police?

Now, to background checks.. in Nebraska ,to purchase a handgun we have to have a handgun purchase permit.. it is good for 3 years. You have to pass a background check to get it. Then you can purchase over the counter anywhere in the state. No permit is required for a long gun. But, IF you have a handgun permit, all the dealers around here will tell you they want to add that to the purchase paperwork.

Should background checks be required? I don't like having to go through it.. but.. at the same time.. I don't have a problem with it because I know I'll pass the check. If we don't want people with known criminal behavior to be able to legally purchase a gun.. is a background check the right step to take to restrict them from purchasing?

Again, all this hinges on whether certain things are legal reasons to deny purchase.. is denying someone accused of stalking, lighting fire to a room, someone on anti-depressants, constitutional?

Lets hear your opinions.. I'm not quite sure how I feel on this. I'm just pointing out some things for us to discuss. Background checks can go both ways... there are people falsley accused of things.. people wrongly convicted of assault when they fought back in self defense, people wrongly convicted of domestic abuse simply because they defended theirself.

As I said, I find it annoying having to get my permit.. but on the other hand.. it does allow gun dealers to feel more comfortable with the sale of a weapon to me.. it shows I don't have any restraining order on me, etc. It doesn't stop me from using a gun in a bad way even if I legally aquire it.. but.. it would be a nice thing if we could stop legal sales of weapons to people with known criminal behaviors or convictions on them. If someone has several reports of stalking.. I think we can all agree we'd rather them not be sold a gun.

I just don't know what to make of it though... there's got to be a way for a check to only deny teh right people from purchase for this to work.

[robinsre]

All legal U.S Citizens who are non-felons and not ajudicated mentally insane should be able to own firearms of their choice.

Yes, I don't believe felons should be permitted to purchase firearms so I support the criminal background check system.

In short, I'm happy with the current way the laws for obtaining firearms are structured. Now laws about carrying...I could make a few changes to. I feel they are too restrictive.

Edit : setting fire to a dorm room is Arson....if this is true he should have been conviced of a felony after that incident, he should have done prison time, and this tragedy WOULD have been avoided.

[sloopy70]

+100 robinsre... My thoughts exactly...

[Hutch4KSU]

In that case it wouldn't have mattered. If he wanted guns bad enough, he would get them, legal or not.

[menecer24]

Criminal background checks can only identify convictions not complaints. IF your name came up on criminal background check for a complaint of stalking but never found guilty you would now be guilty to anyone that say you background. This is against the whole idea of presumed innocent untill found guilty in the court of law.

[jednp]

Citing unidentified sources, the Tribune also said Cho had recently set a fire in a dorm room and had stalked some women.

A student who attended Virginia Tech last fall provided obscenity- and violence-laced screenplays that he said Cho wrote as part of a playwriting class they both took. One was about a fight between a stepson and his stepfather, and involved throwing of hammers and attacks with a chainsaw. Another was about students fantasizing about stalking and killing a teacher who sexually molested them.
"When we read Cho's plays, it was like something out of a nightmare. The plays had really twisted, macabre violence that used weapons I wouldn't have even thought of," former classmate Ian McFarlane, now an AOL employee, wrote in a blog posted on an AOL Web site. He said he and other students "were talking to each other with serious worry about whether he could be a school shooter."
"We always joked we were just waiting for him to do something, waiting to hear about something he did," said another classmate, Stephanie Derry. "But when I got the call it was Cho who had done this, I started crying, bawling."

Stalking, arson... Given a background check.. if stalking was reported to police.. even if not convicted.. I think that for a reasonable amount of time following that report.. it would be OK to deny someone like that from purchasing a firearm. And arson.. that should definitely be a reason to deny him.

I'm not for holding something against someone that they did 20 years ago.. like if you got into a fight when you were 19, and are now 40 with no other charges on you since then.. I don't agree with background checks that keep someone from getting a gun then. But if you got convicted of assault yesterday, I think it's reasonable to say that maybe you shouldn't be able to buy a gun right now.

I know none of this stops someone from doing something bad with a gun.. but.. I don't think any of us really want some person who comitted arson, has been stalking people.. to be able to get a gun legally. I'm not advocating denying them the rest of their life because of these incidents.. aside from the arson charge turning into a conviction with a felony.. but.. how else are you suppose to keep guns from people like this? Again.. i don't support psychological tests.. but there's got to be some way to go about things that only target these types of people.. and not affect law abiding good gun owners.

people will fall through the cracks.. nothing can stop a person with no criminal record.. from doing something bad.. they may be a bad person who just hasn't ever been caught. When we know someone has comitted arson, someone is stalking.. maybe we really do need to have a way to know about this and deny them purchase... the only way is a background check.

I know in Nebraska if you have a restraining order at the time you file for your purchase permit, you will be denied. I also believe they will do so if you have any stalking reports on you. Once again.. this permit is good for 3 years.. to my knowledge, they don't come and confiscate your permit if you're convicted of certain things.. or get a restraining order against you. They might possibly terminate the permit.. but.. I'm not sure if that will show to the dealer who sells you the gun.. I don't know if they have to call something in to see if the permit is still valid or terminated.. or do they just see the permit, and say ok you can get the gun.

All I know, is if we want to protect our 2nd amendment rights.. I really think in the end we may have to settle for background checks.. in order to keep as many known bad people from purchasing a gun legally.

Maybe I'm wrong.. I certainly don't advocate gun control.. but gun control to me has more to do with telling me I can't own certain weapons, or saying that I can't own any weapons for no reason at all. If I've done something that law enforcement knows about that poses a danger to people.. maybe I don't deserve the right to purchase a firearm. If I'm stalking people, threatening people.. then want to go buy a firearm.. if I were someone else.. I'd want dealers to have a way to know about the incidents with me so they know not to sell me the gun.

it won't stop all incidents from happening.. but as long as we had a system that didn't make it a pain in the butt for good gun owners to purchase a gun... then at least we could say hey... you can't tell us we don't try to keep guns out of the wrong hands... obviously prohibiting them from buying legally doesn't stop them from comitting the crimes. You truly do need to go after the criminals who sell the guns to them.. not the good gun dealers and gun owners.

[jednp]

Originally Posted by menecer24

Criminal background checks can only identify convictions not complaints. IF your name came up on criminal background check for a complaint of stalking but never found guilty you would now be guilty to anyone that say you background. This is against the whole idea of presumed innocent untill found guilty in the court of law.

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.

[Timmy44221]

unless convicted of a felony, you should be able to own a gun. Even if you are not a citizen (As in his case, he was a resident alien). Yes, I think people in our country legaly should have the same rights as us.

My only problem wiht not allowinf fellons to have guns, is, as is happening now, back door gun controll. Has anyone noticed that many moere offence are felonious offences. I have read of instanced where (I belice it is on the gunzone webpage) a person got a felony for mooning someone while he was in collage.

While I agree with some restriction on the sale of guns, and I an not aposed to a background check (instant that is) I can see what other "gun laws" are nessisary. That means the repeal of the National firearms act, and what not. And agian, as long as you are here legaly you should have all of the rights that are gurenteed in this country. Remember its the right of the people, not of the citizens.

[jednp]

also in my state, to get your CCW permit... for the past 10 years, if you've been ruled incompetent by a Dr.. ruled that you are mentally unstable and unable to take care of yourself.. and I'm not sure what other mental reasons.. but there are certain mental problems that will keep you from getting a permit.

If you are ordered into counseling, and ordered onto anti-depressants.. wouldn't that fit the definition of being under the care of a Dr for mental unstability?

I think at the very least.. you should be denied purchase until a Dr releases you from their care in a situation like that. I don't like the whole 10 year thing with our state.. if you've been released from care.. obviously you must not be much of a threat to yourself or others anymore.. or you'd still be on the med's from the Dr's order.

[jednp]

Originally Posted by Timmy44221

unless convicted of a felony, you should be able to own a gun. Even if you are not a citizen (As in his case, he was a resident alien). Yes, I think people in our country legaly should have the same rights as us.

My only problem wiht not allowinf fellons to have guns, is, as is happening now, back door gun controll. Has anyone noticed that many moere offence are felonious offences. I have read of instanced where (I belice it is on the gunzone webpage) a person got a felony for mooning someone while he was in collage.

While I agree with some restriction on the sale of guns, and I an not aposed to a background check (instant that is) I can see what other "gun laws" are nessisary. That means the repeal of the National firearms act, and what not. And agian, as long as you are here legaly you should have all of the rights that are gurenteed in this country. Remember its the right of the people, not of the citizens.

I agree.. felons should not be able to own guns.. and I also agree that many stupid things are turning into felonies now. In Lincoln, Nebraska they recently passed laws that anyone convicted of indecent exposure could not own a gun in the city. That means someone who moons, some girl who flashes her chest. I don't agree with that.

There needs to be a way to have a system which identifies real problem people.. not just a system that prohibits anyone who has ever comitted any sort of crime.. the crimes need to be types of crime that show someone is a danger to others physically.