No. Do you think the NICS has FBI agents doing administration? The people who work on that would be FBI employees, but not agents. An FBI agent actually goes out into the field, but the FBI has many non-agent positions.
Advertisement

by Geilinor » Sun Apr 21, 2013 7:58 pm

by Llamalandia » Sun Apr 21, 2013 8:00 pm
Geilinor wrote:Llamalandia wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong but the current background check system works by seeing if you are a criminal. If you make up a fake name address and dob (and assuming you don't get very unlucky and choose the name of an actual criminal) you won't be flagged as a prohibited person and would be approved for a firearm would you not?
Hello, fingerprints?

by Galloism » Sun Apr 21, 2013 8:02 pm
Llamalandia wrote:Geilinor wrote:Hello, fingerprints?
Fingerprints aren't currently required to buy a gun (at least federally states may for handguns i believe) so unless your suggesting fingerprinting people when they buy a gun in the future (which costs more money) I don't see how the background check ever catches anyone except people stupid enough to use their real name.

by Sociobiology » Sun Apr 21, 2013 8:03 pm
Llamalandia wrote:Sociobiology wrote:
who is proposing having the states do it?
This would be a federal proposal, paid for by a fee when you get the licence.
how do you think background checks work?
Also what does the FBI have to do with it?
Correct me if I'm wrong but the current background check system works by seeing if you are a criminal. If you make up a fake name address and dob (and assuming you don't get very unlucky and choose the name of an actual criminal) you won't be flagged as a prohibited person and would be approved for a firearm would you not?

by Galloism » Sun Apr 21, 2013 8:06 pm
Sociobiology wrote:greed and death wrote:Driving a car on public roads is different from owning a gun in your home.
A license to carry in public is a reasonable compromise that treats gun ownership like car ownership, and look the states already have that.
no I compare it to owning dynamite, and should have similar licencing.

by Geilinor » Sun Apr 21, 2013 8:06 pm
Sociobiology wrote:Llamalandia wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong but the current background check system works by seeing if you are a criminal. If you make up a fake name address and dob (and assuming you don't get very unlucky and choose the name of an actual criminal) you won't be flagged as a prohibited person and would be approved for a firearm would you not?
I will correct you, for one thing you would need a fake social security number that matches that information as well as a drivers licence and thus a complete fake identity.
many states include a blind fingerprint check (one that checks for matches in databases but does not add to them) or medical records.

by Greed and Death » Sun Apr 21, 2013 8:07 pm

by Geilinor » Sun Apr 21, 2013 8:08 pm

by Galloism » Sun Apr 21, 2013 8:10 pm

by Greed and Death » Sun Apr 21, 2013 8:11 pm

by Galloism » Sun Apr 21, 2013 8:14 pm
greed and death wrote:Galloism wrote:I think the first problem is that you find a handheld ranged weapon that hits one target at a time similar in nature to explosives that can take out a whole city block at once.
Also dynamite can spontaneously explode if stored incorrectly, guns tend to just rust to a non functioning status if improperly stored.

by Llamalandia » Sun Apr 21, 2013 8:15 pm
Sociobiology wrote:Llamalandia wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong but the current background check system works by seeing if you are a criminal. If you make up a fake name address and dob (and assuming you don't get very unlucky and choose the name of an actual criminal) you won't be flagged as a prohibited person and would be approved for a firearm would you not?
I will correct you, for one thing you would need a fake social security number that matches that information as well as a drivers licence and thus a complete fake identity.
many states include a blind fingerprint check (one that checks for matches in databases but does not add to them) or medical records.


by Greed and Death » Sun Apr 21, 2013 8:16 pm
Galloism wrote:greed and death wrote:A very nitpicky distinction especially since the administrative posts in the FBI often require prior law enforcement experience.
And, given there are only 56 FBI field offices, would create an immense administrative burden on those seeking to exercise their constitutional rights.
Unless the whole permit can be done via mail order, which would destroy the purpose entirely.

by Greed and Death » Sun Apr 21, 2013 8:16 pm
Galloism wrote:greed and death wrote:Also dynamite can spontaneously explode if stored incorrectly, guns tend to just rust to a non functioning status if improperly stored.
Well... if maintained improperly, it could theoretically explode in a person's hand when attempted to be used.
Of course, the only hurts the weilder, not everyone on his/her block.

by Llamalandia » Sun Apr 21, 2013 8:17 pm
Galloism wrote:Llamalandia wrote:
Fingerprints aren't currently required to buy a gun (at least federally states may for handguns i believe) so unless your suggesting fingerprinting people when they buy a gun in the future (which costs more money) I don't see how the background check ever catches anyone except people stupid enough to use their real name.
I cannot speak as to whether its the law in every state, but in those which I've purchased firearms I've always been required to present ID.


by Geilinor » Sun Apr 21, 2013 8:19 pm

by Galloism » Sun Apr 21, 2013 8:19 pm

by Galloism » Sun Apr 21, 2013 8:20 pm

by Gun Manufacturers » Sun Apr 21, 2013 8:21 pm
Lemanrussland wrote:It seems reasonable to me, I would be perfectly fine with that, along with a requirement to conceal firearms if you want to carry them in a public place (open carry, in an inappropriate situation/place, is extremely disruptive and causes more trouble than it's worth, in my opinion), and restrictions on so-called "destructive devices". I would also support forensically fingerprinting guns so that bullets from crime scenes can be traced back to the gun which fired them.
The great danger of registration, at least among more extreme gun rights advocates, is that it's an avenue for future seizure. I recognize that concern. In an ideal world, where we could leave gun control limited to that, I would definitely support this sort of set up.
Natapoc wrote:...You should post more in here so I don't seem like the extremist...
Auraelius wrote:If you take the the TITANIC, and remove the letters T, T, and one of the I's, and add the letters C,O,S,P,R, and Y you get CONSPIRACY. oOooOooooOOOooooOOOOOOoooooooo
Maineiacs wrote:Give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach a man to fish and he'll sit in a boat and get drunk all day.
Luw wrote:Politics is like having two handfuls of shit - one that smells bad and one that looks bad - and having to decide which one to put in your mouth.

by Llamalandia » Sun Apr 21, 2013 8:22 pm

by Galloism » Sun Apr 21, 2013 8:23 pm
Llamalandia wrote:Galloism wrote:Sure, if the shop owner doesnt spot it, but unless it links to a real person, the background check would come back "never heard of him".
Right but the only way to that is to either call the dmv which issue license or check a social security number which would require interfacing with the SSA which I don't believe th NICS system is allowed to do but again correct me if I'm wrong on needing a SSN to buy a gun.

by Llamalandia » Sun Apr 21, 2013 8:23 pm

by Occupied Deutschland » Sun Apr 21, 2013 8:24 pm
Galloism wrote:Llamalandia wrote:
Right but the only way to that is to either call the dmv which issue license or check a social security number which would require interfacing with the SSA which I don't believe th NICS system is allowed to do but again correct me if I'm wrong on needing a SSN to buy a gun.
It's been so long since I bought a new one, I flat out don't remember.

by Llamalandia » Sun Apr 21, 2013 8:26 pm

by Conceptina » Sun Apr 21, 2013 8:27 pm
)Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Des-Bal, Fartsniffage, Likhinia
Advertisement