Fox News conducted a poll in recent days that indicates some interesting trends among the American people. According to their poll, while 71% of people believe that new gun laws wouldn’t stop events like Sandy Hook, there is still some pretty strong support for increased gun control measures. According to the poll . . .
- Require background check for all gun sales: 91%
- Improve enforcement of existing laws: 86%
- Require mental health check for gun purchases: 83%
- Background check for ammo and components: 80%
- High cap mag ban: 56%
- Assault weapons ban: 54%
- Restrict access to violent video games: 52%
So in other words, it looks like the vast and overwhelming majority of people favor some increased scrutiny prior to purchasing a gun. But not necessarily any restrictions on what kinds of guns you can buy. And those who want to restrict the kinds of guns you can buy also don’t seem to recognize the whole First Amendment protection for video games.
I know, it sounds pretty bad for gun owners at first blush. But that first bullet point (background checks on all sales) is pretty hard to do on a federal level, so it will be up to the states to try and implement something on their own. Enforcement of existing laws is pretty much what we’d expect — no real surprises there. And the third one, about mental health checks, might be satisfied by simply expanding the NICS system to include some mental health records that haven’t, until now, been submitted by the states.
Still concerning and infringing on the second amendment a bit, but it looks like the masses can indeed be mostly appeased by some minor changes without going for the nuclear option.
The background checks on ammunition sales is the only bit that actually concerns me. No one seems to remember that the United States had such a system in place before, and it did exactly squat to stop “gun violence” or have any impact on crime. It just cost a lot of money for both the government and private citizens and wasted people’s time.
Such lovely, smiling androids. The smile (more like a rictus, if you ask me) might be painted on.
Meyn Kelly is so damn hot. . . .
Dirk, I’m starting to see a pattern here. Are you typing with one hand?
TMI, TMI, TMI, TMI……
I was gonna say high- five but you’re busy…..
Stepford news casters. Perfect for relaying information to your Stepford wife. (LOL)
A Dept. of Justice report concluded that neither a mag-cap ban nor an AWB would have a noticeable effect on crime. All it is is a knee-jerk reaction for feel-good legislation.
But hey, that’s OK. The only people it hurts are those stupid, gun-owning hicks, amirite? [/sarc]
Got a source for that study?
Executive Summary: http://www.sas.upenn.edu/jerrylee/research/aw_exec2004.pdf
Research Report: http://www.sas.upenn.edu/jerrylee/research/aw_final2004.pdf
Yes, the divider in chief Obama agrees with you. Having successfully divided the country on income, we will divide on city folk vs country folk because the political math says he only needs middle to upper income city dwellers and inner city poor uniformed but rabid robotic voters to win elections and everyone else simply to pay taxes so he can redistribute wealth and liberty to the chosen ones.
It goes further than that. He’s managed to divide up gun owners. I don’t even know how many sportsmen/hunters have been deluded into thinking their guns are safe and only “assault weapons” and “high-cap magazines” will be banned.
No one is safe.
Absolutely correct. All the Elmer Fudds I know have told me that “there aint no reason for dem big clips and automatic rifles.” These are life long hunters, mind you. And dumb as a bunch of rocks.
Of course it helps when the past two Republican candidates basically told blue collar working class whites to go urinate up a rope, so the BCWs stayed at home. But big war, blindly supporting alien nations on the other side of the world, importing hordes of 3rd world savages, and outsourcing our jobs were all more important to McCain and Romney than putting America and Americans first.
“A Dept. of Justice report concluded that neither a mag-cap ban nor an AWB would have a noticeable effect on crime. All it is is a knee-jerk reaction for feel-good legislation.”
It does strike me as odd that 71% seem to understand this but 90% want more of this and 80% want more of that, etc. Maybe it’s time to pull on that most critical of influencers, the pocketbook. We need to get data and projections on the cost of doing some of these things that will have no discernable effect. We need some surveys with questions like, “Would you still support ineffective program A if it caused your taxes to increase by $500/yr and divert government resources from other law enforcement activities?” We need to start getting it into people’s heads that we cannot afford the cost of having the government take care of our every need and that the world can indeed be an uncertain place.
“simply expanding the NICS system to include some mental health records that haven’t, until now, been submitted by the states” – may not be enough…..
– just sayin’….
Require mental health check for gun purchases: 83%
Maybe I’m wrong, but could this be construed (by the gun haters) to physically require you get a mental health check before a gun purchase!
You have to pass a vision test to get a driver’s license. It does not check for aptitude or any inclination to interpret what you read one way or another. It simply makes sure you are not blind.
A check I would be comfortable with (say, every several years) would simply rule out that I am not mentally impaired.
Here is why:
In my professional work, I see cases that come before courts of law where someone (for one psychiatric or medical reason or another) was not in full control of their capacities. I am not talking about floridly psychotic people. I am talking about 50-60 year old man with a neurodegenerative disorder like Pick’s, Alzheimer’s or similar who is not firing all 8 cylinders anymore shooting someone because they misjudged some situation. Or, the 60-some year-old man who, after a post-concussive bleed developed a subarachnoid cyst that grew and put pressure on his temporal lobe and so he shot his neighbor over the way a tree was being pruned.
I LIKE my guns very much. I take care of my guns and keep them safe. I want to keep enjoying my collection of AK variants for as long as possible. I want to be able to pass these on to my kids.
I also know how utterly devastating degenerative brain disease (or chronic psychiatric illness) can be on a family. Hell, think for a minute what the families of Loughner, Cho, Holmes or Lanza went through before these guys went on their shooting sprees and then after they did what they did.
Statistically speaking, I have a decent chance of developing some dementia. Maybe a stroke, or even brain cancer.
THE LAST THING I WANT FOR MY FAMILY is for them to grapple with me misusing my guns and killing or harming someone ON TOP OF me slipping away mentally and neurologically.
How would you suggest the following work?
1) Cost? How many hundreds of dollars would this exam cost? $400, $500, $600? because far as I know doctors will not be cheap and will probably need additoina liability insurance given how our tort system is today.
2) How do prevent activist doctors from simply calling everyone crazy so they cannot get guns? So, now I need to appeal or need a lawyer? See #1
3) What is every few years? See question #1, #2
4) How would a second opinion work given # 2, then refer to #3?
5) Reference for me a test that is 100% accurate such that it can be administered such that we can conclude that a person is incapable of keeping a firearm. What if it is simply stress? What if the person is simply eclectic? If we are now at the mercy of a single person opinion we are all screwed! It is bad enough that Obama wants doctors to ask me about my guns, I do not trust that medical profession will be fair in adminstrating these exams. Then we will need a firearms board, maybe a second opinion then maybe a judge — how far do we take it for you to allay your own fears about your own mental health so that you are ok about my mental health?
How about we research ways to prevent mental health illness because we do not know enough. How about we actually create a mental health system and network and make it less of a stygma so people voluntarily get help.
And who do you trust to provide this ? Many in the medical field, especially psychiatrist and psychologist have already demonstrated their attitude towards the subject to be “if you want a gun, your mentally ill and shouldn’t have one”
DrVino, not to kick a dead horse, but driving is a privilege, owning a firearm is a right! Pascal and MacBeth51 have very good arguments against what you deem acceptable!
How is that different from being presumed guilty and having to prove innocence?
I may have the perfect all purpose mental health cheak that we could all live with….. Anyone that ACTUALLY has aluminum foil (or any other metal foil) inside their hat would be disqualified, all others are good to go.
Okay, so anyone with metal in his hat has no need to protect himself. Got it.
I appreciate your sarcasm but this ain’t helping.
What do you expect from the media where the majority of their news anchors reside in gun grabbing cities like Los Angeles, New York City, and Washington, DC?
We cannot expect FOX News or even the NRA to stand up for our rights. We have to do this ourselves!
Private party firearms sales are already regulated at the state level, and various states already have laws requiring background checks on private gun sales at gun shows. Why do we need federal regulation of intrastate private party firearm sales?
I believe there are a few states like Georgia where nothing is required for private sales. There are some states where nothing is required for long gun sales.
The anti-gun crowd wants checks for the transfer of all firearms.
My only issue with anything we pass is there must be a ten year long study with agreed upon criteria. After ten years, if there is no proof that the law works, it must be repealed. Chicago will help us prove that nothing works.
I would bet good money that most states do not regulate private party sales.
It’s one thing to survive with relatively little damage, but the main problem is the Gun Free Zone and heavy restrictions to concealed carry. The next major school shooting is only a couple of months away, by my guess. You can expect more dumba$$ speeches by BHO, more idiotic legislation, and further loss of freedom. I would be happy to be wrong on this point, but I don’t see these things changing.
Another reason the GFSZA needs to go is that it is one of the worst examples of commerce clause overreach: Essentially claiming the authority to regulate firearms in perpetuity because once moved through interstate commerce or their very existence could effect interstate commerce.
Mental health checks? WTF!!!
Who is crazy enough to let government doctors determine whether it not they are competent to exercise their civil rights? Next thing you know they’ll be declaring that conservative principles, patriotism, morals are mental illnesses and use that to further deprive us of our rights.
Are we free citizens or subjects?
I think the reason why so many folks support “mental health” checks is because they assume that means that the regular background check.
Because Crazy people should be getting reported already right.
Or it could swing the other way once the other guys are in charge again.
Authoritarians have cousins on both sides of the fence.
While I can see clearly that the problem lies with persons of questionable sanity, I have a serious problem with enacting any legislation that allows a government bureaucrat to decide whether or not I am sane.
The 2A is a right, not a privilage and should not be subject to licensing criteria established by the very government it was intended to keep in check!
Keep in mind also that once Congress passes a law and the President signs it he is then authorized to create all those Executive Orders that determine how and when and how much it will be enforced or regulated.
Congress also has a penchent for passing laws, handing them over to the un-elected bureaucrats, and letting them create all the regulations involved in administering that law.
If mental health is the issue, and I firmly believe it is, then any law addressing it MUST be absolutely crystal clear as to what constitutes a disqualifying event and MUST prevent arbitrary classifications or enforcement, not leave it to the judgment of a panel of psychiatrists, most of whom ar themselves crazy on the notion of gun control.
As a mental health professional (Physician Assistant see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physician_assistant), I can see the rational and need to make sure someone is mentally fit to own a firearm, but I also have no idea how they are going to enforce this. Sure is someone has a history of threats against him/herself or others that could preclude them from purchasing a weapon, but there isn’t even a system in place for this, let alone a screening program for EVERY person who wants to purchase a weapon.
First of all how is this going to be implemented? Am I going to start seeing appointments on my schedule with the chief complaint of “need permission to buy a gun”? I don’t know where you draw the line if that becomes the case…Will it be required to have permission to buy a Compound Bow, vehicle (in my state a signed form from a Physician is already required to have a drivers license over 70 years old), knives, blunt objects?
I just don’t see any reasonable way to make it happen, without further burdening the health care system that is already broken, and headed in the wrong direction with Obamacare as it is.
I would propose a nominal elimination/ruling out of psychotic symptoms, we ca debate bipolar subtypes or maybe history or temporal lobe-related symtpoms (+/- executive deficits): rages and violent anger issues.
You either pass (by virtue of not being psychotic or schizophrenic) or fail (by virtue of having these symptoms or being on (any) med for those specific symptoms. Meds alone should not be a criteria as so many are used off-label with success.
Agreed that medications shouldn’t be the determining factor, and agreed that psychotic symptoms should preclude someone from owning firearms. Again, i just don’t know how they are going to make it work unless a national database is made similar to one that criminals are placed on so that when a felon tries to buy a gun they don’t pass the check, and I don’t know how the broke government is going to put another program they can’t enforce in place.
Please remember the law of unintended consequences. No matter how much you try to figure out ways to make this work there will be some odd long-term trend in society that very few would even suspect to be a remotely possible outcome. Let’s keep this as simple as possible, NO MENTAL HEALTH EVALUATION FOR GUN OWNERSHIP. Now if someone has a serious enough mental problem to make you think they cannot be trusted with a gun then they cannot be trusted out in society since there are multitudes of “things” that can be used to cause great harm. But do not tie this to GUNS! This is a false argument used only to further strengthen the positions taken to justify civilian disarmament.
I would think a nominal “flag” to NICS would be sufficient.
Nobody needs to know what the reason is other than “medical”.
An appeals process would be requisite, in my view.
Mentally Ill people apparently are unwanted, they are not expected to survive a violent encounter much less have a fighting chance.
Why not simply bite the bullet (pardon the pun) and give the Mentally Ill lethal injections and be done with this caring facade for once and for all.
how about instead of spending millions on keeping people in jail for minor offenses like marijuana charges, some of that tax money goes to helping the mentally ill…
Lets not make this a matter revolving around money.
Blood and soil are priorities before symptoms of false values of wealth & the conservation of.
As a possible P.T.S.D sufferer myself brought about by violence, I am begging the question be answered rather than mitigated. Why people today will go out of their way to further the opportunity and possibility of victimizing a previously abused person. Why not simply put the person to rest like an abused Dog would have be done with?
I will happily support that including removing non-violent mentally ill persons wrongly sent to jail and put them in hospitals and assisted out patient treatment with weekly check ins.
There is a difference in a person with mental illness (depression, anxiety, PTSD), and a person with mental illness and the desire/compulsion to harm him/herself and or others…
110% behind that.
IF you and I want to keep our guns (bolt, lever or semi) and be able to pass them on to our kids, we need to decide what is preferable:
A. a school shooting every 12 to 24 months (which bring with them all the same shrill hysteria, bloody shirt waving, discord and polarization of our fellow citizens, misguided laws and $1500 Saigas and $3000+ ARs and $50 10-round mags…)
B. agreeing that people like:
(very likely) Roberts
and a few others: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data
REALLY do not need to have their 2A rights preserved.
If you do not want to forcibly institutionalize people and force them to take medications or accept other treatment (which they currently have the right to refuse), then you have to make a choice between A and B above.
My concern is that the longer we say choice A is acceptable without looking at B, the more marginalized (and stigmatized) our views become and the closer we come to somebody in government deciding to be the “parent” and saying: “EVERYBODY out of the pool”….
+1 Good points
This is a problem. A mental health requirement would be ripe for abuse. They (the technocrats put in charge of such a system) could claim any number of “mental health” issues preclude anyone from owning a firearm. Real or not, some shrink sitting in his ivory tower who is vehemently anti – freedom could easily deny anyone and everyone who passes through his office the “privilege” of getting “permission” to purchase a gun.
Maniacs belong in hospitals or prisons. Or prison hospitals. They should not be walking free among decent people. The problem is identifying them before they do harm to others. When all is said and done, I expect that all the crazy [email protected] like Holmes, Cho, Loughner, Lanza and others left a long paper trail of violent or suicidal ideation, but none of that information could be used — because of “privacy” concerns. So we had to wait until they committed mass murder in order to do something.
Lanza’s right to privacy trumped the right to live of 26 people. This country is insane.
Ralph, I think you get where I’m coming from and what I’m proposing. But I’m not sure.
You certainly have the root issue right:
We have to decide if the rights of to self determination and privacy of a few outweigh the rights to life and liberty of others.
I make no issue of the fact that this is a weighty consideration.
Consider, however, my prediction: The wife (?) of one of Holmes’ victims is suing his psychiatrists (and possibly others) because they knew (she alleges, and I’m inclined to think she is spot-on) that these people knew that Holmes was disturbed but did nothing. My prediction: she will lose because there is not enough precedent for her to stand on. The only circumstance where a mental health provider can alert the authorities is when the patient explicitly states an intent to harm another individual (or themselves). To be honest, I do not recall how this law applies to situations when a person makes more vague, nonspecific claims (like a certain high-profile person with a concealed carry permit recently did).
Whether this opens the door to our country’s re-evaluation about limits of privacy in these cases is up in the air, as far as I’m concerned.
Apparently the privacy of dead people is more important than the self defense procurement and possession interests of the Public. I am talking of the alleged victims of the alleged murderer.(providing you still abide the standard that innocent until proven guilty is untouchable)
Before a tragedy how do we determine who is a “maniac”? Violent or suicidal ideations are extremely common for the mentally ill. We are trying to deal with feelings and emotions any person would have a hell of a time dealing with. We deal with the hand we were dealt and 99.9% of us never hurt a soul.
I have Major Depression. Have had for 25 years, over half my life. I have those years experience, including numerous voluntary hospitalizations to get right, seeing the side of ill folks that no doctor, counselor or anyone else sees. You want the truest picture of those with mental illness? Be one in a hospital and socialize when no doctors or counselors are around. In like company the conversation is more relaxed and centered than anyone would guess. The problem is saying stupid shit that gets misconstrued out of sheer frustration from getting an underpaid doctor that barely looks at you then writes out an almost arbitrary script for a medication that takes at least four weeks to reach a therapeutic level and may or may not work. If it doesn’t work we get to look forward to a different doctor (cause the other one inevitably left) rolling the dice with another month of our life. I haven’t seen the same doctor more than twice in ten years. If any illness needs the same doctor time after time that knows YOU and your history it’s this.
After every shooting I see so many calls for blanket restrictions against the mentally ill all over the net – even on TTAG. If any group of folks could distinguish between the sins of the few and the good of the many I’d think it would be here.
If these numbers are correct, all I can say is WOW!
91 % believe that the government should be controlling all private gun sales and exchanges between individuals.
It is incomprehensible to me that any American could be so blindly trusting to give government that much power and control over what is supposed to be a right that shall not be infringed.
That is supposed to be the last line of defense against a tyrannical government; it’s giving the keys to the sheep pen to the wolf.
We are so screwed.
Looks like Sugarmann’s plan worked….
Rememer that this is just one poll, I’ve seen others that aren’t this much in favor of new regulation. Not saying that we shouldn’t take this seriously, but let’s not get too tied up over one poll.
Americans look at Greece collapsing under it’s own weight and decide that we want to have an economy just like that. We inherited a great country and turned it into a pile of sh!t. The average college graduate can’t write in cursive handwriting, so they print everything in block letters like six year olds. Americans are the stupidest people on Earth.
Oregon, at least after the 68 GCA , required ID and signing for all handgun ammo.
this included .22 rf,
Somewhere along the line the State decided it wasnt worth keeping the records.
How would it be different this time?
It was the same in NJ and PA back in the day. For all I know, they still record every purchase in NJ, because I haven’t bought ammo there in MANY years, but PA is cash and carry.
If these numbers are correct, all I can say is WOW! 91 % believe that the government should be controlling all private gun sales and exchanges between individuals.
-Thomas R, you have to consider the world we live in. Today if you want legal employment , you’ll be consenting to a full criminal background check.
People today undergo obtrusive scrutiny so many times that they consider it just par for the course of modern life today. You can take it to the bank that the reason there’s so much support for background checks for every gun sale is because the average sheeple thinks if you need a full BG check to flip burgers, you damn well should undergo that scrutiny before taking home a deadly weapon.
Rupert Murdoch has previously announced his anti-gun proclivities, so Fox News getting on the bandwagon is no surprise. Rupert only wanted the tax and corporation rules of the US, not the whole Constitution thing. No billionaire wants anyone else to have guns, except their bodyguards. No surprise there.
While certain Fox personalities at Fox are pro-gun, but the Aussie Big Boss Murdoch is very anti-gun, so you have to figure this poll was pushed. Someone who is good at that sort of thing should take apart the internals.
In my opinion, much of this could be solved by requiring that you are background checked in order to receive a license or permit. Think of it like a driver’s license. It could be good for 5 years or 1 year or whatever your State deems appropriate. In order to purchase a firearm, whether from a dealer or a private party, you should be required to show your license and the seller should be required to verify that you are, indeed, the holder of that license and that the license is valid. Sure, this could be extended to ammo purchases if people really cared. I think that’s silly, but whatever. Online ammo retailers could have your license on file or something.
I’m OKAY with this because I do not see it being the same as or leading to any sort of registration. Showing a license to prove that you have been background checked does not mean the gun’s serial number must go into a system, and it does not mean paperwork would become necessary for a private party sale. I actually think it would be convenient not to have to wait for a NICS check every time I purchase a gun. It would be easier to just flash a license that proves I have passed a background check. I think most private party sellers want some reassurance that they are definitely NOT selling to somebody who may not be legally able to own a firearm — having a “background checked” license would be nice.
As-is, I live in a state that does not require any paperwork or background checks for private party sales. I still always state that I will only do a FTF cash sale to somebody who can show me a valid driver’s license and concealed pistol license (because there’s no photo on the CPL so I can’t verify it’s actually theirs without their DL). If they don’t have a CPL or are not willing to show me these things, I offer to pay half of the FFL transfer fees ($10). I don’t keep paperwork or write their info down, I just want to see it because I am not willing to risk selling a gun to a criminal.
Would certainly be easy if there was a photo ID that proves you passed a background check, and the State simply passed a law requiring all sellers to verify this ID before selling a gun. Done. Easier than the current system, IMHO! Might even save money processing 60,000 NICS checks a month.
We can fight in the courts, and tolerate some nonsense while we do. We can bide our time for a bit if we think we can roll back bad laws. But we cannot ultimately let them require a license to exercise a consitutionally protected civil right. If we do, we might as well just get out of the way and let them get on with destroying the United States.
Attempting to avoid transfer to a criminal by merely viewing and not recording the buyer’s info is useless. When that buyer gets back into his pickup and hands your gun over to his meth-head parolee friend, that gun with your name associated with it is in the hand of a felon. It is better to merely sell it and not ask questions. After all, the law says you are not to knowingly transfer a gun to an unqualified person. In this case, what you don’t know won’t hurt you.
Actually this is one of the best suggestions I have heard, People who already have a Concealed Weapons Permit could be allowed to use this as identification, and those without one could either go that route or apply for a “weapons purchasing permit” or whatever you wanna call it.
Old Ben — a background check is already required nationally to purchase a gun from a dealer. I see a “background checked ID” as being an even easier system. Do it one time — annually or less often or whatever. If you think anybody should just be able to get a gun any time without “permission,” because it’s a right, then we have already lost that battle a long, long time ago and having an ID like I mentioned won’t make it worse.
Carl — you’re certainly partially correct. I can’t control what the next person does with the gun. However, I CAN verify that they have passed a background check by verifying their CPL. For me, that’s very meaningful. If you feel otherwise I don’t have a problem with that at all. My state does, indeed, say that it’s illegal to knowingly transfer to somebody who can’t own a firearm. However, I think that leads to a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy EXACTLY like what you implied (what you don’t know won’t hurt you). I think that’s irresponsible and passive, when citizens can easily, actively verify that other citizens have passed a background check by looking at an ID that demonstrates precisely that. BTW — there’s still no reason to assume that your name is associated with a gun that you sell if a system like I suggested was in place. Maybe you bought it from a private party who checked your ID to know you’re legit, then you sold it the same way. No paper trail, but still a better way to prevent a sale to a criminal. Not perfect, but a definite improvement.
At gun shows, etc, it would take 10 seconds to just look at somebody’s ID and be done with it. No paperwork either. But, it would satisfy the requirement of a “background check” by showing proof that you have passed one somewhat recently. Easy easy.
What you are proposing is already the LAW here in Illinois and, I believe, New Jersey. We have to get what they call a FOID (Firearm Owner Identification Card) from our State Police. This amounts to getting the form, a passport photo and sending it all into Springfield for processing. Although State law is very clear that the application must be processed in six weeks or less, it invariably takes twice that long. No consequences for the government though.
Once you possess a valid FOID, you can go to a gun store and look at guns and even buy one and some ammunition. You still have to pass the NICS and wait 72 hours to pick a handgun and 24 hours to pick a rifle or shotgun.
This is just another hoop to jump though and does absolutely nothing to prevent criminals from getting guns. Just look at the homicide rate in Chicago. What it DOES do is make you jump though more government hoops, pay more money and wait to take your new gun home. It is also being used to confiscate firearms from people who have done nothing wrong other than let their FOID expire. So, BAD IDEA!
In CT, the state-issued pistol permit has sort of become a de facto firearms acquisition permit – a lot of FFLs won’t sell you anything without it, even with an NICS check. On the upside, if you have one you get to skip the waiting period.
And as we learned from Newtown, the who thing breaks down when you simply kill the permit holder and take her guns.
Gallup shows that the majority of the public opposes a new assault weapons ban, so that makes me suspicious of news from a network where the owner wants guns banned, Charles Krauthammer the “conservative” wanted all guns banned in the 90s, Bill Kristol is fine with an AWB, etc.
Gallup is the gold standard for this type of polling, and they have shown that the public has made a dramatic shift into being pro gun since the 90s.
Background checks on ALL sales would actually mean that private sales would need to go through a dealer or that sale would be felonious (ala Kalifornia). This is akin to universal registration of every gun that changes hands.
What do you think of my comments from a few minutes ago RE exactly what you said?
It DOES NOT have to be that way. No FFL is required for private sale. What do you today? You fill out some paper work with info and they call it in. In CT you must get a sales authorization # and send it the paper work to the local PD of the person purchasing the gun.
It can be done without an FFL.
How will universal background checks affect temporary transfers? For ex. I am currently storing an old shotgun for my brother. Would that be considered a transfer under the law? Can anyone who has more legal understanding than me flesh this out a little?
As Slick Willie pointed out for most of the pro-gun control crowd it is just one of many issues, where as the anti-gun control crowd will vote on this single issue. I suspect many of those polled hadn’t put much thought into it, supporting whatever seemed “reasonable”.
Personally I wouldn’t mind a universal background check. The seller and buyer could go down to the LGS and have them do the paperwork for the NICS (or NCIS, whatever it is) for a small fee. It wouldn’t be any different than buying on the internet, but I could see a couple of problems. One, if you live in a remote area the LGS might jack up the fee thinking they buyer would have to pay or forget it and buy something from him. Two, there needs to be precautions to insure that the feds don’t have access to a list of who owns what. Also it would devalue your used gun by $20 since that factors into the cost, but I could live with that.
The background checks for ammo bother me more because I think it’s aimed at eliminating internet sales. Walmart is fine if you’re buying .22lr or 9mm WWB. Some of us need internet sales to find what we shoot. That and like the universal background check I think they want to know that you’ve got 1200 rounds of 9mm stocked up and therefor you might be on the verge of going berserk.
My current ammo needs are simple; 357, 38 Special and +P, and 22LR. Yet, I frequently can’t find exactly what I want from all the choices available within those calibers at my local retailers.
I have an issue with universal checks for one reason:
It is no one’s damn business to know what I own. I am a law abiding citizen, but I do not think it is anyone’s (read government) business to know what I do and don’t have.
ALL registries to me equate to a shopping list for future confiscation.
They will just keep changing the laws until they get to whatever tool of defense you have.
As long as we accept that convicted felons cannot possess firearms then it is reasonable that precautions be taken to keep them from possessing them. The current background checks are so porous you could drive a truckload of guns through them. They don’t cover used guns, which, the last I checked were just as lethal as new ones (excepting 1911s which need a 500 round break in period before they’re reliable).
I would agree that the government has no business with any information about what you own. The dealer can keep that information and if they find a gun you sold was involved in a crime they can get a court order to inspect the records.
Don’t confuse acceptance with support. Universal background checks would be limited in their effectiveness. It would incentivize criminals to steal their weapons or buy stolen weapons (though most of them do this already). A much more effective solution would be to lock up felons for a very, very long time. It’s much more difficult to acquire a firearm in prison.
Mentally ill people aren’t any more violent. People on SSRI drugs are.
66 School Shootings/Incidents Involving SSRIs
All that’s needed on the mental health front is for privacy regulations to be amended to require reporting to a database anyone who is diagnosed/being treated for bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, clinical depression or any one of the mental disorders that could reasonably be expected to cause someone to “go postal.” There has to be some common sense applied to how we treat the whole notion of privacy when someone’s mental health issues are an actual threat to others. A background check that picks up on this would and should disqualify the applicant from purchasing any type of firearm. This is not an infringement on anyone’s 2nd amendment rights any more than not allowing you to yell fire in a crowded theater is an infringement on free speech, it’s common sense. There is no single answer to all the possible ways a Newtown incident can be prevented, but we can take reasonable steps to protect reduce the chances of this happening again. Of course, this wouldn’t have prevented Newtown and laws pertaining to how people secure their weapons have to be reviewed and loopholes closed. Had Lanza’s mother not been murdered by him she should have been held liable for leaving her guns accessible to someone she knew to be unstable. Regarding my original point, I have an aquaintance, a member of my temple, who is clearly and obviously nuts, and who I know is being treated for bipolar disorder. However, because his condition doesn’t appear in any database accessible to a background check, and since he has no record of commitment or convictions, he was able to walk into a local gun shop here in Sarasota and purchase a Ruger LC-9, and has aquired a Florida CCW license. This is a very unstable person who is known to go nuts at the slightest perceived insult, yet the current system does not prevent him from carrying around a loaded gun. Who, reading this, feels it would be an infringement of anyone’s rights to deny to such a person the right to own and carry a firearm? Would you like to have this guy around your family, armed and one perceived slight away from opening fire? Think about it.
The ACLU has fought this in CT and if you read their website that plan to fight it everywhere else as well. They believe the privacy of the mentally ill is more important than the safety of the public.
I don’t want to go through a background check to buy ammo let alone wait two hours. Based on what I’ve heard, the federal government already collects 10-11% in taxes for all the ammo and guns sold. It just happens quietly behind the scenes at some level in the distribution chain.
Anytime I see AWB ban in a poll I get suspicious because you don’t know what definition the pollsters presented to the respondents and you don’t know what the respondents thought they were in support of banning. Half the time it seems they’re thinking of machine guns.
And I’d rather have a straight up AWB ban than a mental health requirement that is open to manipulation. The USSR gave us the model of using ‘mental defective’ labels to strip dissidents of their rights. The very phrase ‘gun nuts’ tell you that gun owners are viewed as mentally unstable to begin with and the law already allows for pedophiles to be imprisoned indefinitely if they might re-offend so once gun nuts are declared a threat to children, it’s only a matter of time.
i’ve been working hard trying to get people i know to understand what an AR15 really is and isn’t and once they kind of figured out it’s more or less a bigger semiautomatic weapon much like a pistol in behavior they kind of did away with targeting specific models.
bringing them over for a live demo of the operations of one kind of helps (with snap caps being used of course).
I don’t think any poll should be believed until the questions are exposed and who they targeted and how. Polls results are extremely easy to manipulate.
Did you know that the Sect of Treasure has the power to unilaterally ban the importation of firearms as he deems so.It could be selectve on which ones or all.What has been policy till this time is that the BATFE has been delegated that power but that process can be deemed not so by the Sect of Treasure.And guess who is up for that gig,a guy by the name of Jack Lew,O’s Chief of Staff.This Act never was put thru legeslative wise.Google it.
Polls don’t matter when it comes to the Bill of Rights. If even a VAST majority wanted to infringe upon ANY of the enumerated protected rights, they CAN’T. That’s why we HAVE the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
“If, by the mere force of numbers, a majority should ever deprive a minority of any clearly written constitutional right, it might, in a moral point of view, justify revolution—certainly would, if such a right were a vital one.” – Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address, March, 1861
Those who would see fit to infringe upon the 2nd Amendment are free to AMEND the Constitution, but they may NOT subvert or usurp it!
One probable consequence of a background-check requirement for ammunition purchases: I would be buying in massive quantities each time to avoid the hassle for just a few boxes.
Doesn’t matter. Rights aren’t up to popular opinion. They can all FOAD.
“Rights aren’t up to popular opinion”
Sounds like a gay marriage argument.
I don’t buy this poll for a second!
Fox News is just as corrupt and bias as the rest of the media. Just because they do it under the guise of the Republican Party, it’s all colluded elitist crap.
Plus, it the system can’t handle the amount of background checks they are getting now, how would they handle the 1,000 fold increase should they require background checks for ammo.
People need to remember that polling can produce whatever results you would like. Here’s a very humorous little clip from a wonderful Brit TV series called “Yes, Prime Minister” about politics in the UK – but just as applicable here:
Thanks, Dyspeptic. Very funny way to educate. They should try teaching algebra next. When the polls reveal their ‘margin of error,’ quite true, they’re speaking about sample selection, not the chance that one question frames or anchors another.
NCIS checks for all ammunition sales means a de facto waiting period for all ammo sales. Once NCIS is required for ammunition, the federal government can unilaterally shut down the private ownership of firearms by simply stalling the NCIS check process. A 9, 15, or 45 day minimum wait for NCIS could easily be created.
Do NOT support this.
It doesn’t matter who supports what in polls or in media. Most if not all new gun legislation will not pass in congress.
Require background check for all gun sales: 91%-This would end private sales, ain’t gonna happen federally and the only states that will push this are ones already known to want these types of laws(CA, MI, NY, NJ, FL, IL, FL, HI, ect.)
Improve enforcement of existing laws: 86%-Great idea! I believe us pro-gun folks have been saying this since the 94 ban.
Require mental health check for gun purchases: 83%-To vague. Sounds impossible and expensive. The current background check can be updated to include certain “sealed” medical info that would help with this at a cost of ZERO tax dollars.
Background check for ammo and components: 80%-Absolutely not. Will never pass.
High cap mag ban: 56%-The most meaningless yet ironically the most possible ban to pass.
Assault weapons ban: 54%-Once debated and true stats come out, only about 50 gun deaths a year are committed with assault rifles, this will die a long awaited death.
Restrict access to violent video games: 52%-LOL What, a parental warning sticker? Ya, that did wonders for music sales, I believe in the year after the PMRC got this silly legislation passed in congress music with warnings on them had their sales skyrocket and it helped give birth to the rap genre which is more alive to day then ever. Thanks PMRC!
Where do these silly polls come from? I have to wonder if they are even real and aren’t meant just to entice us pro-folks.
71% of 1008 registered voters polled is 715 people.
715 people represent roughly 0.0002% of the population of the US.
we don’t know where their polling group was located (all in NJ? All in NYC, only in big cities, just at the Brady Campaign headquarters?)
Nothing i’m going to get my tailfeathers fluffed for.
There is no correlation between mental illness and murder. Let’s try some forming opinions based on actual stats. What percentage of “mentally ill” people have committed murder? Do you think it’s any higher than the murder rate of non-mentally-ill people?
Any of you hypocrites who think it’s okay to take away someone’s right to defend themselves based on a completely subjective opinion such a a “mental health” issue, and at the same time believe that an “assault weapon” is only defined by cosmetic features, you need to FOAD!
Mental health and guns have absolutely nothing to do with each other and they certainly have nothing to do with my right to protect mylself. If you think otherwise, then you’re just as “mentally ill” as these media goons. Pathetic.
“The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun”.
Bravo, sir, bravo.
Well that kind of sucks when Sheeple are willing to go along for the “politically correct” ride.
First off, what does the last one have to do with gun control.
Secondly, the video-game industry has the single best, and self enforced I might add, ratings system of any consumable media. http://www.esrb.org/ratings/ratings_guide.jsp
If children are being exposed to violent video-games (which has not been shown to increase violent behavior), it is because their parents are buying it for them, and cannot be bothered to give a sh!t.
#1 doesn’t surprise me. California has been this way since 1991 (all private sales have to go through an FFL), that’s 12% of the entire population of the country in just one state that has had to deal with this for over 20 years. I’m certain several east coast states are this way as well.
Of all the anti-gun proposals I think this one is the most likely to be crammed down our throats. It’s easy to spin it to sound “reasonable” to folks who have no concept of what private property means. You know, folks like politicians.
I wonder if the conversation went something like this:-
FoxNews: We need you to do a survey on current feelings about gun control. And here, is a list of the results we would like …
YouGov: Hmm, this could be tricky…
FoxNews: .. And here is 50,000 dollars.
YouGov: Well, OK. We have 4000 people on the books who could mirror these stats, +/- 5%. We’ll top-and-tail the results to give you 3000 responses by Friday.