Say what you will

[The emperor has no clothes]

But there is no denying the NRA is the strongest political force of probably all time. Polling shows that 92% were in favor of the strengthened background checks. Yet they were able to defeat it easily.

[Rams]

Makes me question that 92% credibility.    But, as I understand it, the vote was along party lines.

But, my personal belief is, what was being offered was not just a "strengthen" back ground check but, the loss of Second Amendment Rights with out due process.   JMHO.

[Gavin_Sons]

Wasn't the NRA for the strengthened background checks?
Yep thought so too.
so whats your point?

[Gavin_Sons]

The NRA endorsed the strengthening of background checks. How does that make them the strongest political force of all time?  you are something else Meathead. Once again, post about something you have no idea about.  Polls? who's polls? Polls mean nothing to anyone except for the ones that want to believe them. Did they ask 10 people to get their 92%? Did they ask a million people to get that 92%? I wasn't asked, and no one i know was asked. Were you asked?

[Serk]

The NRA was backing one of those 4, and yet it was shot down too...

Of the "No Fly No Buy" bills, Feinstein's was the Democrat backed one, and basically just said "If you're on this secret government list with no due process and no way to get off of it, NO GUN FOR YOU!"

The Cornyn version, which had NRA backing, said "If you're on this secret government list a gun sale will be halted for 72 hours, during which you can have a hearing to see if the government can show why you should be denied your rights."

[Gavin_Sons]

A Republican proposal to delay gun sales to individuals included on a government terror watch list failed in a mostly party-line vote of 53-47. The measure was sponsored by Texas GOP Sen. John Cornyn. The bill would allow a judge to permanently block a purchase if the court determined probable cause that the individual is involved in terrorist activity.

This was the proposed bill the NRA endorsed.

[Robert]

92%    yea I'm sure of that stat do we have proof of this? You know the thing you never produce. 

As for the strongest political force I would have to say it was the gay agenda that made a nation accept the will of 2 percent of the population. The further changing of the definition of marriage for all regardless of majority desire. The NRA pales in comparison.

[The emperor has no clothes]

The NRA endorsed the strengthening of background checks. How does that make them the strongest political force of all time?  you are something else Meathead. Once again, post about something you have no idea about.  Polls? who's polls? Polls mean nothing to anyone except for the ones that want to believe them. Did they ask 10 people to get their 92%? Did they ask a million people to get that 92%? I wasn't asked, and no one i know was asked. Were you asked?

Uh.... I was giving props to your beloved NRA. Do you understand that ? 

[Gavin_Sons]

The NRA endorsed the strengthening of background checks. How does that make them the strongest political force of all time?  you are something else Meathead. Once again, post about something you have no idea about.  Polls? who's polls? Polls mean nothing to anyone except for the ones that want to believe them. Did they ask 10 people to get their 92%? Did they ask a million people to get that 92%? I wasn't asked, and no one i know was asked. Were you asked?

Uh.... I was giving props to your beloved NRA. Do you understand that ? 

no i didn't understand that, did not come off that way at all. How did the NRA defeat what they endorsed?

[The emperor has no clothes]

The NRA endorsed the strengthening of background checks. How does that make them the strongest political force of all time?  you are something else Meathead. Once again, post about something you have no idea about.  Polls? who's polls? Polls mean nothing to anyone except for the ones that want to believe them. Did they ask 10 people to get their 92%? Did they ask a million people to get that 92%? I wasn't asked, and no one i know was asked. Were you asked?

Uh.... I was giving props to your beloved NRA. Do you understand that ? 

no i didn't understand that, did not come off that way at all. How did the NRA defeat what they endorsed?

uh...never mind 

[MP]

The NRA endorsed the strengthening of background checks. How does that make them the strongest political force of all time?  you are something else Meathead. Once again, post about something you have no idea about.  Polls? who's polls? Polls mean nothing to anyone except for the ones that want to believe them. Did they ask 10 people to get their 92%? Did they ask a million people to get that 92%? I wasn't asked, and no one i know was asked. Were you asked?

Uh.... I was giving props to your beloved NRA. Do you understand that ? 

no i didn't understand that, did not come off that way at all. How did the NRA defeat what they endorsed?

uh...never mind 

Dodging the question......Again.

The NRA backed a proposal to strengthen the background checks.  BUT, The Democrats defeated it.  Why?  Because it DEMANDED that the government show  WHY  the gun sale was being denied.  WHY are the Democrats so hell bent on destroying the 4th Amendment, along with the 2nd?

What, pray tell, is so WRONG with getting a day in court, getting due process, and having your case adjudicated?  Instead of some political hack somewhere deciding on their on who can and cannot get a gun?

Humm?

[MP]

92% support?

Comes from Democrats lying all the time about actual gun laws now.  They talk about Assault weapons.  Not available.

They claim you can buy over Craigslist without background check.  Vast majority of the time not true.

They make it sound like there is almost no checking now, when in fact ALL new guns, and the vast majority of used guns DO have checks run.

I saw a poll, where they got about this 92%, by asking if background checks should be done.

Then, with followup questions, explained what is presently happening with the checks.  It dropped to about 40% support for Universal checks after that.

Ask the San Bernidino people how well Universal checks worked.  Ooops, did not.

Ask the Oregon people with the college shooter how well they worked.  Ooops, did not.

Both CA and OR HAVE Universal checks and those shooters passed.

The Orlando shooter not only passed a background check, the FBI cleared him twice before!

What law could POSSIBLY be passed that would have stopped the Orlando shooter?  He was NOT on the no fly list, as I understand it.  The FBI cleared him.

[MP]

The other Republican Bill the Democrats defeated would have put more money into better and more accurate criminal record keeping systems, and into the mental health area, to get better records available.

Why would ANYONE defeat those?  EVERYBODY has been decrying lack of funding in those areas.  But, the Democrats, to make political hay for themselves, defeated it.

[The emperor has no clothes]

The NRA endorsed the strengthening of background checks. How does that make them the strongest political force of all time?  you are something else Meathead. Once again, post about something you have no idea about.  Polls? who's polls? Polls mean nothing to anyone except for the ones that want to believe them. Did they ask 10 people to get their 92%? Did they ask a million people to get that 92%? I wasn't asked, and no one i know was asked. Were you asked?

Uh.... I was giving props to your beloved NRA. Do you understand that ? 

no i didn't understand that, did not come off that way at all. How did the NRA defeat what they endorsed?

uh...never mind 

Dodging the question......Again.

The NRA backed a proposal to strengthen the background checks.  BUT, The Democrats defeated it.  Why?  Because it DEMANDED that the government show  WHY  the gun sale was being denied.  WHY are the Democrats so hell bent on destroying the 4th Amendment, along with the 2nd?

What, pray tell, is so WRONG with getting a day in court, getting due process, and having your case adjudicated?  Instead of some political hack somewhere deciding on their on who can and cannot get a gun?

Humm?

MP, if Gavin isn't willing to find out what was voted on yesterday there is not much sense in explaining it to him. If you view that as a dodge Thats your perogative . 

[MP]

And, you dodged my question about "what is wrong with getting a day in court".

Please answer.  What is wrong with that?  Why do the Dems so want to avoid the Due Process clause?

[The emperor has no clothes]

And, you dodged my question about "what is wrong with getting a day in court".

Please answer.  What is wrong with that?  Why do the Dems so want to avoid the Due Process clause?

I don't think there is anything wrong with getting your day in court. But I also think to require it in 72 hours is unrealistic.

[Gavin_Sons]

i didn't find out what was voted for?
seems your the one that needs to wake up and find out what was voted for.
 

you started a whole thread about this. Now i'm expecting to learn something but instead i just read nonsense in your first post.

[The emperor has no clothes]

Now indulge me. What is wrong with requiring checks at gun shows ? Why do Republicans want to help criminals and terrorists ?

[Gavin_Sons]

Now indulge me. What is wrong with requiring checks at gun shows ? Why do Republicans want to help criminals and terrorists ?

i don't think there is anything wrong with checks at gun shows. but lets be realistic, that would take much longer and end up not being any gun shows. How about you get pre approved with a paper that is good for 30 days if you want to buy a gun at a gun show?

[Valk_Ridin_Soldier]

Been to a few gun shows that accommodated background checks.  had a couple done there.  Vendors don't seem to have a problem with it. 
Only real loophole is private sales...And if they close that, I don't really have a problem with that.  Can't sell a car without registering the sale with the DMV...why not guns?

[Jess from VA]

Now indulge me. What is wrong with requiring checks at gun shows ? Why do Republicans want to help criminals and terrorists ?

Rob, every FFL sale at a gun show (new or used) requires a background check (the requirements may be a little easier in your state if you already have a state CCW, meaning you are pre-cleared).  97% or more of all guns for sale at gun shows are by FFL holders.  The days of a private citizen with no FFL renting a table and selling other than Curio and Relic listed (old) firearms is long gone.  That leaves a relatively few private citizens who sling a used rifle or pistol over their shoulder and walk around trying to make a private sale  (and if the price is right, a lot of those may be purchased by an FFL holder at the show, which then requires the FFL holder put the gun through the background check anyway).  And in my experience, most private guys walking around with a rifle have a bolt hunting rifle or old Mauser or Marlin lever gun, though I have seen a few ARs for sale this way.

Criminals do not make private purchases at guns shows, or put another way, I have never read of any high profile crime ever being reported where it was discovered the criminal made a private purchase at a gun show.  It may have happened somewhere, but if so it is statistically insignificant.  

What we will never tolerate is any law requiring all private sales and transfers of firearms (at shows or otherwise) to require a background check (and federal paper and records).  The biggest problem with all previous proposed legislation in this area has been outlawing of gifts or even simple loans of firearms to family, relatives or friends, and inheritance issues (pure overkill).  

Those of us who do private sales and purchases use a high degree of due diligence to ensure we are not selling to a prohibited person or buying a stolen gun.  Most private sellers I know (and have purchased from) require you to show a CCW, or they will not sell to you.  My last few private purchases were from a CIA guy, an Arlington police officer, and a VA CCW holder, and I always ask them to give me (or see) the new bill of sale from the original FFL seller if he has one (just redact your personal info).

The number of criminals making private purchases at guns shows or on the street from good citizens is simply non-existent to insignificant.  

As far as the NRA goes......... God Bless Them, each and every one.  

[The emperor has no clothes]

Jess, if that is correct and I have no reason to doubt it. Why not make the other 3% get the checks. I don't doubt most criminals don't go into a show and purchase. But I do believe there is a fair amount of straw purchasing going on at them.

[Robert]

Now indulge me.  Why do Republicans want to help criminals and terrorists ?

Because they figured it would be better and safer than the Democrats and liberals pushing Hillary as president.

 

[Jess from VA]

Jess, if that is correct and I have no reason to doubt it. Why not make the other 3% get the checks. I don't doubt most criminals don't go into a show and purchase. But I do believe there is a fair amount of straw purchasing going on at them.

Straw purchases are already a Federal (and likely State) felony.  I once made the mistake of telling the Show FFL holder I was buying one gun for me, and another for my wife (with her standing next to me).  He nixed the sale, and she had to run her gun in her name (she had/has a TS/Q clearance and her own FFL).  This was just a money management issue with us, no criminal intent or other hanky panky.

I doubt the politicos would ever propose legislation requiring ONLY private sales at guns shows go through a background check, but nowhere else.  The libs would very likely vote that down every time (because even though it goes a step toward their agenda, it's not far enough).  If it's all or nothing, IT'S ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!!!!  We are rightfully suspicious of any more firearms law restrictions which will only affect the law abiding citizenry.  

And let me restate my estimate of purely private sales at guns shows to at or under 1% of all sales (at least in my neck of the woods, and there are a lot of gun shows around here).

[Serk]

Jess, if that is correct and I have no reason to doubt it. Why not make the other 3% get the checks. I don't doubt most criminals don't go into a show and purchase. But I do believe there is a fair amount of straw purchasing going on at them.

Simple cost/benefit analysis.

Forcing all firearm transfers to be okay'ed by a FFL doing a NICS check puts even more of a burden on an already overloaded system with no discernible benefit. We've already shown that this isn't how criminals acquire firearms, it's already illegal to perform a straw purchase, this would just add more government and more bureaucracy to an already incredibly encumbered system with no actual benefits.

[The emperor has no clothes]

Jess, if that is correct and I have no reason to doubt it. Why not make the other 3% get the checks. I don't doubt most criminals don't go into a show and purchase. But I do believe there is a fair amount of straw purchasing going on at them.

Simple cost/benefit analysis.

Forcing all firearm transfers to be okay'ed by a FFL doing a NICS check puts even more of a burden on an already overloaded system with no discernible benefit. We've already shown that this isn't how criminals acquire firearms, it's already illegal to perform a straw purchase, this would just add more government and more bureaucracy to an already incredibly encumbered system with no actual benefits.

If it was able to keep people from buying them at shows and then reselling them to criminals, nut jobs, terrorists, etc. wouldn't that be worth the burden of 15 minutes and $30 ?

[Jess from VA]

Speaking of the background check system; you know it was handed off to the FBI, one of the last trustworthy federal agencies responsible for domestic counterintelligence and top flight federal policing?  They are really too busy and have much more important things to do than run an administrative background check system.  And this is why appeals of the high percentage of wrongful/mistaken gun sale denials are all backed up and maybe not even being processed.

The responsibility for the background check system should logically have gone to BATFE (not the FBI), but BATFE's well known lengthy history of abuses, entrapment, fumbled balls, selling guns to Mexican cartels, Waco, kicking the wrong doors, etc, made giving them the responsibility of running the background check system ludicrous (so congress gave it to the FBI).

The next big question to ask in this line of discussion is this; how serious does our illustrious DOJ take cases where the background check system results in a felon (or other prohibited person) being caught trying to buy a gun?  The answer is, not very serious at all.  Prosecutions are way way down, as DOJ says this is small potatoes stuff, and they're too busy to mess with it.  So why expand background checks at all if DOJ will not prosecute violators anyway?  Because the left's pushing of broadened background checks is all about limiting firearms to the law abiding not to criminals, that's why.  So is there any wonder we push back with the righteousness of true 2d A patriots?  

Until the Fed uses the existing 1000 laws to consistently go after violent criminals and push for serious sentencing, why should we allow them any more laws.... esp laws aimed only at the law abiding?

PS, I have never had a background check take less than about 90 minutes, and sometimes it is all damn day.

And BTW, straw purchasing (already a felony) will never be stopped or limited or slowed by an expanded (or un-expanded) background check system.  If the buyer is clean, the sale will go through.  The way to cut down on straw purchases (and resales to criminals), is vigorous harsh prosecutions and sentencing.  The laws covering that have been in place for a long time.

[Pete]

Been to a few gun shows that accommodated background checks.  had a couple done there.  Vendors don't seem to have a problem with it. 
Only real loophole is private sales...And if they close that, I don't really have a problem with that.  Can't sell a car without registering the sale with the DMV...why not guns?

There is no law that says you have to title and tag a vehicle.
There is a law about driving an untitled and unlicensed on public roads. 

[The emperor has no clothes]

PS, I have never had a background check take less than about 90 minutes, and sometimes it is all damn day.  

Well everybody knows retired lawyers need extra scrutiny .  It has been only 15-30 minutes for me. But if Trump is elected I'm probably screwed. 

[Pete]

Background checks are largely a waste of time and resources.
Many failed background checks are in error and end up being approved. In my experience MOST or ALL.

And even when a criminal tries and fails a background check they are almost NEVER charged for the felony.

Background checks are a huge waste of money and resources. So yeah lets do more of them and waste more time and money that could be better used for other things.

Info and stats available on the web to validate my statements you do your own research. My doing so would not change you mind and I would not waste my time doing so.

[The emperor has no clothes]

Background checks are largely a waste of time and resources.
Many failed background checks are in error and end up being approved. In my experience MOST or ALL.

And even when a criminal tries and fails a background check they are almost NEVER charged for the felony.

Background checks are a huge waste of money and resources. So yeah lets do more of them and waste more time and money that could be better used for other things.

Info and stats available on the web to validate my statements you do your own research. My doing so would not change you mind and I would not waste my time doing so.

Any ideas on how to fix it ?

[Jess from VA]

Been to a few gun shows that accommodated background checks.  had a couple done there.  Vendors don't seem to have a problem with it.  
Only real loophole is private sales...And if they close that, I don't really have a problem with that.  Can't sell a car without registering the sale with the DMV...why not guns?

There is no law that says you have to title and tag a vehicle.
There is a law about driving an untitled and unlicensed on public roads.  

IN VA there is a law that requires you to pay their nasty annual personal property vehicle taxes, even if it is unlicensed and untitled, but physically present in your garage or backyard.  And assessed value for cars/trucks is based on KBB or NADA, not the actual value of the bucket of bolts you may be thinking about restoring.  (Interestingly, motorcycle property taxes are assessed on actual purchase price..... or the price you actually declare  )

[Jess from VA]

PS, I have never had a background check take less than about 90 minutes, and sometimes it is all damn day.  

Well everybody knows retired lawyers need extra scrutiny .  It has been only 15-30 minutes for me. But if Trump is elected I'm probably screwed. 

One can only hope.   

[The emperor has no clothes]

PS, I have never had a background check take less than about 90 minutes, and sometimes it is all damn day.  

Well everybody knows retired lawyers need extra scrutiny .  It has been only 15-30 minutes for me. But if Trump is elected I'm probably screwed. 

One can only hope.   

[Pete]

Background checks are largely a waste of time and resources.
Many failed background checks are in error and end up being approved. In my experience MOST or ALL.

And even when a criminal tries and fails a background check they are almost NEVER charged for the felony.

Background checks are a huge waste of money and resources. So yeah lets do more of them and waste more time and money that could be better used for other things.

Info and stats available on the web to validate my statements you do your own research. My doing so would not change you mind and I would not waste my time doing so.

Any ideas on how to fix it ?

In my humble opinion the background check and its enforcement is such a waste of time and resources it can only be improved by deleting it.

[Wizzard]

I can verify personally that background checks do not work. Mine is always wrong.

[The emperor has no clothes]

Background checks are largely a waste of time and resources.
Many failed background checks are in error and end up being approved. In my experience MOST or ALL.

And even when a criminal tries and fails a background check they are almost NEVER charged for the felony.

Background checks are a huge waste of money and resources. So yeah lets do more of them and waste more time and money that could be better used for other things.

Info and stats available on the web to validate my statements you do your own research. My doing so would not change you mind and I would not waste my time doing so.

Any ideas on how to fix it ?

In my humble opinion the background check and its enforcement is such a waste of time and resources it can only be improved by deleting it.

And nothing in its place ?

[Wizzard]

I can verify personally that background checks do not work. Mine is always wrong.

You mean you are being approved, in error?  

Over the years, my check has always taken an inordinately long time..... I've watched guys come and buy and be approved, multiple times, while mine remains on hold.  I strongly suspect that someone with my name is a felon (or whack job of some sort).  I have never been denied outright, but I have waited all day several times.  Of course the whole system is secret and no questions can be asked (or will be answered).  My FFL guys have told me more than once, that I am probably failing (being kicked out of) the initial computer-only check, and that my application then has to be taken in hand by a human for an individual check.  My CCW helps, but it has not made background checks any quicker.  I am pretty much determined to buy private, face to face, with no paper from here on out.  The Fed can KM fuzzy A.  

Unfortunately that is exactly what I mean. Made a bad mistake over 40 years ago.

[Pete]

Rant on::::::::::::::

If the public knew the actual total cost of the background check enforcement and then also knew the few real criminals stopped from actually purchasing a firearm and the even dramatically fewer actual times a criminal was charged and taken to court and convicted under the law.

99.9% of the true thinking Americans would want it repealed/deleted/removed as being the most ineffective costly waste of money and resources EVER placed on the American citizen.

Rant off:::::

[Jess from VA]

I can verify personally that background checks do not work. Mine is always wrong.

You mean you are being approved, in error?  

Over the years, my check has always taken an inordinately long time..... I've watched guys come and buy and be approved, multiple times, while mine remains on hold.  I strongly suspect that someone with my name is a felon (or whack job of some sort).  I have never been denied outright, but I have waited all day several times.  Of course the whole system is secret and no questions can be asked (or will be answered).  My FFL guys have told me more than once, that I am probably failing (being kicked out of) the initial computer-only check, and that my application then has to be taken in hand by a human for an individual check.  My CCW helps, but it has not made background checks any quicker.  I am pretty much determined to buy private, face to face, with no paper from here on out.  The Fed can KM fuzzy A.  

Unfortunately that is exactly what I mean. Made a bad mistake over 40 years ago.

I deleted mine.