Gun Control - A Political Thread

[Askerike]

Because sometimes you commit a felony and get out before your permit expires. If they took it at face value, Uh-Oh.

Ummm...the felony itself revokes the carry permit, does it not?

Yes, that's why "Uh-oh". That doesn't always mean they confiscate the physical permit... You're supposed to turn it in, but you know how that could go.

[Big Jim P]

Ummm...the felony itself revokes the carry permit, does it not?

Yes, that's why "Uh-oh". That doesn't always mean they confiscate the physical permit... You're supposed to turn it in, but you know how that could go.

Then they should and this is an example of the governments failure to enforce existing law, not a good way to support additional laws.

[Spoder]

Ummm...the felony itself revokes the carry permit, does it not?

Yes, that's why "Uh-oh". That doesn't always mean they confiscate the physical permit... You're supposed to turn it in, but you know how that could go.

We live in the digital age my friend.

[Big Jim P]

Yes, that's why "Uh-oh". That doesn't always mean they confiscate the physical permit... You're supposed to turn it in, but you know how that could go.

We live in the digital age my friend.

Indeed. A simple online database of revoked permits would suffice.

[Spoder]

We live in the digital age my friend.

Indeed. A simple online database of revoked permits would suffice.

Or just a smartcard that the employee scans.

Oh, the computer says your license was revoked. Sorry.

[Askerike]

We live in the digital age my friend.

Indeed. A simple online database of revoked permits would suffice.

The point is the old law allowed for simply taking them at face value no check at all, Oh permit good to go. I'd never trust the state to be up to date on something like that, as an FFL better safe than sell to a felon and become a felon yourself. Either this way our your way a law change was required or they would simply continue to be taken at face value.

You do know that simply filling out the background check doesn't put you + your gun in a database right? If the gun is used in a crime they have to look up the serial, go to the mfg, see which distributor sold the weapon to what retailer, then they call the retailer to pull the paperwork and see who bought it.

[Imperializt Russia]

That's an odd way of saying "you've destroyed my argument so I'm going to ignore you". This is a debate forum, counter his points.

Nothing is going to sway him I could post anything systematically proving how wrong he is and he would still be pro-gun

"Wrong" here is so subjective it would be hilarious.

Then post things proving he's wrong, if you have the sources show them. Jim's a pretty reasonable Satanist, I'm sure he'll listen.

Because it's the satanist part that makes him crazy?

That's just discriminatory.

Uh, Licenses are different here for underage people... under 21 is a portrait printed license 21+ is a landscape printed license... Guess Mississippi isn't so hick and backwards after all? Also state firearm carry permits are no longer a means to skip filling out the NCIS background check paperwork... and for a good reason.

I have a State Carry Permit and an FFL. FFLs are the only exemption to the NCIS backround check on firearms purchased from a a licensed ffl dealer.

Why would a firearms carry permit NOT be a means to skip the background check?

I imagine for a kind of double-redundancy. So there can be no loopholes, no gaps in coverage, and no blame to level.

Besides, it looks very good to gun-control supporters when you can say "100% of all firearm sales are NCIS background checked".
Consider it a formality.

[Spreewerke]

Let me know when we get back around to the collection circle-jerking. I have some new photography.

[Occupied Deutschland]

I imagine for a kind of double-redundancy. So there can be no loopholes, no gaps in coverage, and no blame to level.

Besides, it looks very good to gun-control supporters when you can say "100% of all firearm sales are NCIS background checked".
Consider it a formality.

And thus Special Agents Gibbs, DiNozzo, David and McGee would be removed from their work solving crimes to fill out paperwork, query databases, and answer the telephone.

The CBS Network would then immediately go bankrupt.

:p

[Big Jim P]

Let me know when we get back around to the collection circle-jerking. I have some new photography.

Cool.

[Imperializt Russia]

I imagine for a kind of double-redundancy. So there can be no loopholes, no gaps in coverage, and no blame to level.

Besides, it looks very good to gun-control supporters when you can say "100% of all firearm sales are NCIS background checked".
Consider it a formality.

And thus Special Agents Gibbs, DiNozzo, David and McGee would be removed from their work solving crimes to fill out paperwork, query databases, and answer the telephone.

The CBS Network would then immediately go bankrupt.

:p

Well, they're better-funded than BATFE.

[Pope Joan]

I certainly don't want the police to be the only ones with guns. Just look at their actions in Ferguson, Mo.

Even my conservative friends are saying the police are out of control.

[Big Jim P]

I certainly don't want the police to be the only ones with guns. Just look at their actions in Ferguson, Mo.

Even my conservative friends are saying the police are out of control.

Notice how the businesses that were defended by armed citizens were not looted.

[Gun Manufacturers]

Ban guns. There is no reason you need to own a gun. They are not for defence or sport they are for murder.

That's funny, I'm pretty sure there are shooting sports in the Olympics. I'm also pretty sure there are shooting competitions in a vast array of styles all around the US. And remind me, why do police officers have firearms?

[Gun Manufacturers]

I like this I might include that in my plan.


actually no employees only have to disclose those under certain circumstances. its actually an amazingly intricate portion of the law.

Every single time I have been employed I have been asked if I have ever been convicted of a felony. Then again most of my jobs have me dealing with children so that might be why I have a slight misunderstanding.

Really though what I am proposing already exists in the form of the NICBCS the FBI claims most checks are done in minutes, though they reserve the right to take up to three days.

Several of my jobs not only asked me that question, the employer required an FBI background check (both tribal casinos, and the USPS).

[Imperializt Russia]

Every single time I have been employed I have been asked if I have ever been convicted of a felony. Then again most of my jobs have me dealing with children so that might be why I have a slight misunderstanding.

Really though what I am proposing already exists in the form of the NICBCS the FBI claims most checks are done in minutes, though they reserve the right to take up to three days.

Several of my jobs not only asked me that question, the employer required an FBI background check (both tribal casinos, and the USPS).

It is standard if not universal in the UK to be asked by prospective employers if one has what's known as an "unspent" criminal conviction in the last ~40 years.
No idea what "unspent" means.

Apparently, it's basically "recent" convictions - "recent" defined by how long it's considered until a criminal committing a crime has been "rehabilitated".
http://www.criminalrecordchecks.co.uk/c ... onvictions

[Gun Manufacturers]

The whole background check debate could be solved by making it part of the drivers license/state ID process and marking the resulting cards of those not eligible for gun-ownership (like we mark the license of underage drivers. I suggest a bright red background to the cards myself. Very easy to spot). No unmarked ID, no sale.

My problem with that is then anyone can ask to see your ID and start discriminating based on what they see. It is an elegant solution, it is just an elegant solution that I find overreaches a little and oversteps my right to privacy. Additionally such a system could be gotten around with the use of fake IDs, sure a retailer might not be fooled, but your average citizen just trying to sell of granddaddies old revolver? He will be fooled.

Then if you don't want to go with Big Jim P's proposal, give non FFLs free access to NICS. Gun control advocates would have universal background checks, and we (meaning gun rights advocates) can finally stop hearing them whine about it. Of course, maybe to be fair, they can give us something back in return (we're sick of always being the ones to give something up), like re-opening the full auto/select fire registry.

[Spirit of Hope]

My problem with that is then anyone can ask to see your ID and start discriminating based on what they see. It is an elegant solution, it is just an elegant solution that I find overreaches a little and oversteps my right to privacy. Additionally such a system could be gotten around with the use of fake IDs, sure a retailer might not be fooled, but your average citizen just trying to sell of granddaddies old revolver? He will be fooled.

Then if you don't want to go with Big Jim P's proposal, give non FFLs free access to NICS. Gun control advocates would have universal background checks, and we (meaning gun rights advocates) can finally stop hearing them whine about it. Of course, maybe to be fair, they can give us something back in return (we're sick of always being the ones to give something up), like re-opening the full auto/select fire registry.

I would love for full autos and select fires to be opened up.

My problem is that opening up the NICS has the sam problems for potential discrimination. If access to it remains relatively restricted then it is much harder to abuse, by opening it up it becomes much easier to abuse. Thus why my proposal is simply the requirement that all gun ownership transactions go through a FFL, which should't be to massive a burden on any individual.

[Spreewerke]

To be perfectly honest, NICS-to-everyone's biggest flaw would be the price and taxes.

During the 2012 panic, NICS checks were being delayed by hours, and, in some instances, days, if I remember right. These aren't denied sales I'm talking about, but delayed background checks simply because they were being flooded with requests. Open up NICS to private sales, and you could easily be doubling or tripling the current situation (obviously we're not mid-panic anymore, but opening to private sales could replicate that).

Basically, we'll need to hire more people to do more of the checks on time.

I also doubt they'll open the FA registry, but perhaps we can make a baby step and let suppressors be unregulated like almost every single other country that allows citizen ownership of firearms. Seriously: I am okay with my guns not being select-fire, but you cannot deny the usefulness of a suppressor in many situations/environments. Their prices would probably drop substantially, as well.

After that we can look at removing the barrel length and OAL restrictions (several countries don't have these, either), then go after AOWs, then talk full-auto/select-fire.

[Gun Manufacturers]

Then if you don't want to go with Big Jim P's proposal, give non FFLs free access to NICS. Gun control advocates would have universal background checks, and we (meaning gun rights advocates) can finally stop hearing them whine about it. Of course, maybe to be fair, they can give us something back in return (we're sick of always being the ones to give something up), like re-opening the full auto/select fire registry.

I would love for full autos and select fires to be opened up.

My problem is that opening up the NICS has the sam problems for potential discrimination. If access to it remains relatively restricted then it is much harder to abuse, by opening it up it becomes much easier to abuse. Thus why my proposal is simply the requirement that all gun ownership transactions go through a FFL, which should't be to massive a burden on any individual.

All the NICS does is say yes, no, or delayed. It doesn't tell WHY a person is denied. Therefore, it would be useless for anything other than selling firearms.

[Spirit of Hope]

I would love for full autos and select fires to be opened up.

My problem is that opening up the NICS has the sam problems for potential discrimination. If access to it remains relatively restricted then it is much harder to abuse, by opening it up it becomes much easier to abuse. Thus why my proposal is simply the requirement that all gun ownership transactions go through a FFL, which should't be to massive a burden on any individual.

All the NICS does is say yes, no, or delayed. It doesn't tell WHY a person is denied. Therefore, it would be useless for anything other than selling firearms.

If I am hiring people I check them through NICS. Those that come back "No" or "Delayed" I don't hire, if they can't be trusted with a gun, they can't be trusted to work for me. Illegal? Probably. Easy to figure out it is happening and or stop people from doing it? Nope.

When I preposed simply a list that said yes or no (exactly as the NICS does) people pointed out it was a violation of privacy.

[Big Jim P]

My problem with that is then anyone can ask to see your ID and start discriminating based on what they see. It is an elegant solution, it is just an elegant solution that I find overreaches a little and oversteps my right to privacy. Additionally such a system could be gotten around with the use of fake IDs, sure a retailer might not be fooled, but your average citizen just trying to sell of granddaddies old revolver? He will be fooled.

Then if you don't want to go with Big Jim P's proposal, give non FFLs free access to NICS. Gun control advocates would have universal background checks, and we (meaning gun rights advocates) can finally stop hearing them whine about it. Of course, maybe to be fair, they can give us something back in return (we're sick of always being the ones to give something up), like re-opening the full auto/select fire registry.

Nationaly mandated reciprocity of CCWs and national Constitutional open carry would be nice too.

[Gun Manufacturers]

Then if you don't want to go with Big Jim P's proposal, give non FFLs free access to NICS. Gun control advocates would have universal background checks, and we (meaning gun rights advocates) can finally stop hearing them whine about it. Of course, maybe to be fair, they can give us something back in return (we're sick of always being the ones to give something up), like re-opening the full auto/select fire registry.

Nationaly mandated reciprocity of CCWs and national Constitutional open carry would be nice too.

Of course, that would be good, too. The issue would be forcing states like NY, NJ, and MA to follow it (they don't like to follow the transportation portion of FOPA).

[Spreewerke]

Then if you don't want to go with Big Jim P's proposal, give non FFLs free access to NICS. Gun control advocates would have universal background checks, and we (meaning gun rights advocates) can finally stop hearing them whine about it. Of course, maybe to be fair, they can give us something back in return (we're sick of always being the ones to give something up), like re-opening the full auto/select fire registry.

Nationaly mandated reciprocity of CCWs and national Constitutional open carry would be nice too.

That would also require states with magazine capacity restrictions/other AWB-y laws to suddenly drop those laws, as well, however. With California closing its single-shot exemption soon, good luck with that.

Don't get me wrong: national carry would be awesome, but I have a feeling they'd still find a way to screw it up because of individual state laws. If they made a law saying one state's CCW license is good in all states, that'd be best. Then you can carry in all states, but they can keep their stupid laws if they want. If I plan on going through California, I'll just stock 10-round magazines for my, say, Glock 19 instead of the usual 15-round magazines. Way better than "in order for all carry guns to be legal in all states, capacity is limited to ten rounds because California and New York are the dumb."

[Big Jim P]

Nationaly mandated reciprocity of CCWs and national Constitutional open carry would be nice too.

That would also require states with magazine capacity restrictions/other AWB-y laws to suddenly drop those laws, as well, however. With California closing its single-shot exemption soon, good luck with that.

Don't get me wrong: national carry would be awesome, but I have a feeling they'd still find a way to screw it up because of individual state laws. If they made a law saying one state's CCW license is good in all states, that'd be best. Then you can carry in all states, but they can keep their stupid laws if they want. If I plan on going through California, I'll just stock 10-round magazines for my, say, Glock 19 instead of the usual 15-round magazines. Way better than "in order for all carry guns to be legal in all states, capacity is limited to ten rounds because California and New York are the dumb."

Fine. do what various states are doing with their local gun laws, make CCWs and constitutional carry national, and pre-empt state gun laws.