INGO'ers REQUIRE background checks??

[foszoe]

So... if it becomes required and you have to pay $50 for that service?

A valid question but cost wasn't included in the poll questions.

An assumption of cost is left to interpretation.

 

[Mark 1911]

I don't think background checks are the solution to the current problem with gun violence. So in light of current events, I do not support them, I do not agree with giving in one inch to the current administration.

It's not that I have a problem with background checks. In essence they are a good thing, but as stated above, they won't stop guns from falling into the hands of someone who can't pass a background check.

Given the dishonesty of the current administration, I don't think concessions and compromises are the right answer. In light of the current political agendas and attitudes of the day, I think we have to say no to background checks, as "unreasonable" as they may think we come across in doing so. It's not that its unreasonable, its just that it simply IS NOT THE ANSWER. I think its more important to defeat ANY gun control legislation. Why? Because we want the focus of politicians to be on measures that can be taken that will actually enhance the safety of our children and teachers in the schools. Background checks are not the answer. Let's shift the focus away from politics as usual, away from punishing law-abiding citizens. Let's take the United States Constitution as sacrosanct, and with that as a given, work to protect our precious children and the teachers who devote their lives to them.

 

[Meister]

Common sense dictates that I will make sure the person I'm dealing with isn't a scumbag. Since not everyone has common sense, the government is attempting to legislate it into existence. That's about as simple as it gets boys and girls. If you expect the government to keep you safe, go right ahead. One of the safest places on earth is in solitary confinement at Leavenworth.

 

[LEaSH]

I voted yes, and the reason that I have is because to get a background check to purchase a firearm will stop some of the criminals that are able to get weapons right now. Now I will be told that this is nothing more that firearms registrations, I say no, you get a NCIC check to purchase a firearm from a private individual, no 4472, no registering, no nothing, only a clear NCIC check to get the weapon.

Gunner

You haven't read all of the counter points in this thread. Or you don't read very thoroughly.

What you propose will not stop criminals from getting firearms. It WILL lead to MORE legislation to patch the useless UBC.

It is a crime to attempt to buy a firearm from a dealer if the person is knowingly prohibited. They go in, fill out the 4473, get denied, and then what? Are they charged for the attempted purchase? It isn't happening.

 

[Meister]

I know it might be kind of a pita but would actually make me feel more comfortable about making sure I'm selling to a proper person

Go to a gun shop and do the transfer there. It's 20-25 bucks. Unless your piece of mind isn't worth that.

 

[seadoodr.]

Voted No, but only because there wasn't a "HELL NO" option.

^^^^AGREE 100 PERCENT^^^^

 

[kawasakiridrzx6r]

vote no

I voted no people should have common sense and a good judge of person on who they are selling to

 

[davedolli]

Shall Not Be Infringed. Those words say it all.

Dave

 

[Enkrypter]

What is a "proper person"? If they're not in jail, they should be allowed to own a firearm. It's a Right guaranteed by the Constitution. If they're too dangerous to own a firearm, why'd you let them out of prison? Either they've paid their debt or they haven't.

Ironically, sen. fienstien is the worst offender.

I could get on-board with a universal BG check so long as they did not record transactions between people or the items being transferred. I would get on-board with an anonymous BG check and would welcome it. As gun owners we all should have enough moral fiber to ensure that we are not knowingly giving guns to someone with a record.

Our current system does not allow for that. I do however see an opportunity for those who wish to do ill will to take advantage of such a system to further infringe on our rights. This, I will not get on board with.

"No free man shall be barred"... IMHO this includes anyone who has received a commuted sentence. This is a world where we have such principals as, "sellers discretion". We all have a right to sell or not to sell. I do, however, believe that we all have a moral obligation to ensure that the awesome responsibility of owning a firearm is not placed, knowingly, into the hands of those who have been deemed by society as unfit to possess such objects. Times are different. We used to actually hang our criminals instead of wasting billions of tax payer dollars to keep them in prison, only to let them back out not rehabilitated. There are varying degrees of crimes as well. Someone who is in jail for securities fraud vs. someone who is in jail for multiple gun crimes and murders. Sadly, they both receive equal treatment when it comes to commutation hearings.

The problem with a universal BG check is that it opens the door for potential infringement if not done properly. Since all of our legislators are clearly idiots when they create laws, we can all rest assured that this would likely be the case.

So, even though I'd like to believe that a fair privacy protecting universal BG check system could be put in place, I am a realist and know it could never happen. Thus I maintain the status quo is better than nothing.

In short, no I do not want a BG check because I am almost 100% certain it would be implemented poorly and operated by individuals with ulterior motives. I value our freedoms and liberties. Although, I'd sleep better at night knowing the guns I just sold made their way into the hands of someone who shares my principals of responsibility. I also agree, that if you are this concerned with transfers you can use an FFL anyway. Due diligence is on you.

 

[jbombelli]

If and when I next decide to purchase or sell a firearm on INGO, I'm going to refuse to do business with anyone who voted "yes" in this poll and commented in this thread supporting same.

"...shall not be infringed" doesn't mean "...shall be infringed in whatever way the government or majority thinks is reasonable."

 

[Enkrypter]

All of this is discussion is useless and only further inflames this situation and divides us.

Criminals DO NOT FOLLOW LAWS! Any and all talk of gun laws will never address the criminal element in our society.

We are all on this site for one reason. We like guns and the right to own them. Simple. Lets keep it that way and hope our retard legislators can find common sense in realizing that "We" are not the problem or source of gun violence.

What we need are laws to limit the supply of criminals, and not 30 round magazines. I know, lest make this a topic on immigration reform instead.

 

[LuckyOne]

My 'ol buddy Ben Franklin said it best ..."They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." That being said, my answer is HELL NO!

 

[CarmelHP]

My 'ol buddy Ben Franklin said it best ..."They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

And, in truth, they obtain neither.

 

[finity]

Sorry guys. I voted yes. Just my opinion, and I respect everyone who said no (and understand why you feel the way you do).
I feel that should I sell a gun to an individual, I can make a good attempt at making sure they should own a firearm (asking for pink & dl). But I am no expert, and fake documentation or something else could slip by. If an ffl is required, then I know I made the best effort I could to sell to someone legally.
As for felons paying their dues... well, yeah I agree to an extent. But after 15 yrs they can petition to expunge, and own firearms again. Sorry, but they should thought about consequences beforehand.
I'm not trying to convince anyone to think my way here.. just saying how I feel about it.

You bring up a good point not addressed here yet.

If you are uncomfortable with the possibility of unknowingly selling to a prohibited person (even though THAT is not illegal - you have to KNOWINGLY sell to them) then there is absolutely nothing preventing you or any of the others here who voted yes from going to a FFL to do the transfer. If you do that then the FFL will do the paperwork & do the NICS check for a fee. If you aren't already doing that then the only real reasons could be laziness or not wanting to pay the fee. If you aren't already doing it then obviously your moral compunction to not sell to a prohibited person must not be all that strong.

Why require the rest of us do something you're likely not even doing in the first place?

I honestly believe that the vast majority of gun owners are responsible enough to not sell a gun to someone who they believe is planning on doing something illegal with it. Most gun owners don't TYPICALLY sell to people that they have no idea about. Most FTF sales are between people who know each other at least on a social basis. The ones that don't care who they sell to aren't going to be dissuaded by a required background check.

Again, only the law-abiding follow laws.

 

[Rocket]

I voted no, because it will only affect us, the law abiding citizen. I voted no because there is no way I would waste money doing a background check when I want to give my kid a firearm. I voted no because I ask for Id and a LTCH. I voted no because I am smart enough to have backed out of a deal when it did not feel right. I voted no because it is none of their business what I buy or sell. I voted no because they have overextend their reach already. I voted no because this WILL most defiantly leed to registration, confiscation, and further subjugation.

I hope I never sell to an improper person, but we will pay the price. It will be just like when I needed a decongestant and my wife couldn't buy it cause she didn't have her DL on her. I got to sit at home sick as a dog in misery because some criminals discovered that the medicine I needed COULD be used to make something bad. So I was denied access for trying to follow the rules. It WILL BE EXACTLY THE SAME IF THIS UNIVERSAL REGISTRATION GETS PASSED.

 

[arthrimus]

It's important to keep in mind that no background check will ever prevent a sale to a would be first offender, and no background check will ever allow a sale to a good intentioned and fully reformed felon. Background checks can't tell us anything about the future, and are therefore completely useless for prevention of future acts. If you support background checks then you support discrimination against people who have made mistakes in their pasts, regardless of their current situation, and their future goals.

 

[Bunnykid68]

I voted yes, but they have to do it right. First, if a state does a complete background check to issue a LTCH and requires a gun safety course (current LTCH's grandfathered and military/police exempt), then that LTCH is good anywhere in the US and is all that is needed with picture ID to purchase a gun. Second, LTCH numbers are put into a national database with expiration dates. Lifetimes would have a date of 99/99/9999. Third, any seller of a gun would have to have a LTCH and use their number to access the database to verify the LTCH of the purchaser and that they also checked valid picture ID. Fourth, FFL's would still need to keep records of sales. Fifth, anyone deem incompetant or convcted of a felon would be required to surrender their LTCH and it would be removed from the database. Sixth, the database should be accessible from any computer, tablet, smartphone.

In effect, you purchase a lifetime LTCH, keep your nose clean, you only need one background check.

I'm sure that there is a hold or two here, but it would only take a few of us to iron them out in a short time.

Now you are saying that if one does not have an LTCH they have to continue to be checked each time they buy. I do not want to even show ID when I purchase a firearm, I am a free man, treat me as such.

 

[Classic]

What is a "proper person"? If they're not in jail, they should be allowed to own a firearm. It's a Right guaranteed by the Constitution. If they're too dangerous to own a firearm, why'd you let them out of prison? Either they've paid their debt or they haven't.

Exactly! Keep the dangerous ones in prison. Protect society for a change. Once someone has "paid their debt" they should have their rights restored. (Just not on probation or early out for good behavior in prison)

 

[Bunnykid68]

I voted yes. I have nothing to hide. Any information about me possibly owning a gun is already out there with my LTCH application. If "they" are going to come get me "they' already have a reason. Allegedly we all want to keep guns out of the hands of miscreants yet many on here don't want to be bothered or tracked. Sounds hypocritical to me.

I have nothing the hide is what some people say about the 4th Amendment too. So, you are OK with the LAW coming to your house and digging thru your underwear drawer because you have nothing to hide.

 

[tom1025]

NO!!!!!