GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-29-2013, 19:53   #151
whoflungdo
Senior Member
 
whoflungdo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: MS
Posts: 6,055
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarCry View Post
Every one of those systems is already in place.

NICS have to be done through FFL transactions (and that is the leading idea that looks like it has a REALLY good chance to pass in Congress). This idea would be counter to that.

Changing a DL CAN be free, but if there's a fee, you add that to the costs of the person required by law to get it.

What information do you expect would have to be added for the DL agency? A note from a judge that says "Add this restriction" and the DMV rep punches one button. There is no further info that the DMV rep would need to have. NO PHI would be involved. NO DoC records would be involved.

The only sharing of criminal and mental health information that would be going on is the sort that is supposed to be going on right now (and isn't).

So, again, where do you see any cost to taxpayers that's not already there?
First of all you obviously have no knowledge of how government, IT systems, and Health records work. HIPPA makes it very difficult and cumbersome to share health data and keep it secure and protected. I've pointed out several ways how this is gonna cost more. You really think that all the DMV would have to do is punch a button and poof it's there? Where do you think that button comes from?
__________________

GTDS Certified Member #9
whoflungdo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-2013, 22:09   #152
jlbeasley1976
Southern BTGOG
 
jlbeasley1976's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: South Georgia
Posts: 367
[QUOTE=mgs;19905521]That's what I do! Our local indoor range will not let you shoot unless you have a carry permit. It keeps the Gangbangers, felons and scum out where they belong....not on a gun range.

Dear MGS, are you freakin serious? You'd rather them be out on the streets shooting innocent people and doing drive-bys than standing beside you shooting holes in paper for a little while. You're a bigoted moron.

Last edited by jlbeasley1976; 01-29-2013 at 22:12..
jlbeasley1976 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2013, 02:00   #153
mad.gunsmith
Silver Membership
Life NRA member
 
mad.gunsmith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Certified Glock Armorer
Posts: 2,391
wife and i ware talking the same and the best was CHL (Carry permit)
here in Texas if you have CHL the FFL doesn't do a NICS check so the idea is either you have a CHL or a gun buying card similar to the FOID with it that you are a person that can buy fire arms for a fee of $20 for 2 years and useful if you are buying P to P not really a big issue if buying from FFL unless you some time get delay
__________________
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lone_Wolfe View Post
You, Sir, are already a hero in my eyes.
mad.gunsmith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2013, 04:34   #154
pillboxhat5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Missouri
Posts: 138
[QUOTE=WarCry;19927510]No one says you HAVE to check. But if you get caught selling to a felon, guess who's taking the fall? And that's the way it is RIGHT NOW.



Keeping people in jail indefinitely is impractical and completely ludicrous. Some sentences are shorter than others, and people aren't a danger, so they finish their sentence and get released. They are STILL felons, and STILL can't vote or have guns. That is the way the law works in this country today, right now.

One of the aspects of this idea would also change that: Once you're no longer considered a threat - say, if you've served your sentence and your probation - then you would automatically get ALL of your rights back, including the right to vote and to own guns, barring any unusual circumstances (for instance, if your felony conviction was armed robbery, you probably don't really need a gun).

The simple answer of "keep them in jail" is never going to work. You see the comments around here? People are throwing a damn fit over the thought that it might cost $5, $10 to issue a new drivers license (which I still say apply to the person getting the license anyway). You think the MASSIVE tax-payer expense of keeping people in prison forever is going to fly?UOTE]

Well im just a crazy libertarian but I think maybe if we started locking up the violent offenders for extended periods of time instead of going after the non violent offenders we could have less people in jail and safe streets. I don't believe that a felon who has done there time and paid the price for their sin should not have a god given right the defend themselves!! You are still not seeing the point here that guns are not the problem!! freedom is not the problem!!!
pillboxhat5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2013, 04:40   #155
pillboxhat5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Missouri
Posts: 138
"Keeping people in jail indefinitely is impractical and completely ludicrous. Some sentences are shorter than others, and people aren't a danger, so they finish their sentence and get released."

plus if they are not a danger then why when you look at gun violence in this country do you see that 75-78 out of 80 murders a day are done by repeat offenders???
pillboxhat5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2013, 08:24   #156
somebodybuymeaglock
Senior Member
 
somebodybuymeaglock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Mississippi Gulf Coast
Posts: 359
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarCry View Post


As to the privacy, there would be no detail listed. It would actually be LESS information than a check that an NICS check would run. Basically, it's a "Yes" or "No" system, with no explanation needed for a "no".

I do understand that not all felons are dangerous, and I understand that not all crimes have victims. However, regardless of the REASON for the felony, the restrictions against firearms still stands.

And, as I've addressed, there would have to be a path in place in ALL states to petition to restore the rights - and that path should be in a "shall-issue" style. Meaning that the restoration of rights should be near-automatic unless there's something specific that would bar that restoration.
If there is a 'no' on my dl, then someone can put 2+2 together and figure that im either a felon (which even here people seem to equate that with child molester, murderer, etc) or adjudicated mentally deficient.

Heaven forbid you break some obscure law and become a felon. I think the issue here is that everyone things being a felon is something that can never happen to them when in fact, all you have to do is break some obscure,senseless law.

I'm sure that path with include exorbitant fines. Even for victimless crimes in some places have gone up 10 fold.
somebodybuymeaglock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2013, 08:53   #157
WarCry
Senior Member
 
WarCry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: IL, on the banks of the Muddy River
Posts: 7,217
Quote:
Originally Posted by somebodybuymeaglock View Post
If there is a 'no' on my dl, then someone can put 2+2 together and figure that im either a felon (which even here people seem to equate that with child molester, murderer, etc) or adjudicated mentally deficient.

Heaven forbid you break some obscure law and become a felon. I think the issue here is that everyone things being a felon is something that can never happen to them when in fact, all you have to do is break some obscure,senseless law.

I'm sure that path with include exorbitant fines. Even for victimless crimes in some places have gone up 10 fold.
But that complaint isn't about the idea I put forward. That's a complaint about the legal and judicial system in this country. That's an entirely different subject.

Whether you agree with WHY a person is a felon or not doesn't matter. A felon cannot buy or own firearms. That's the way it is now, and this idea I put out there isn't trying to change that. That would be something you'd need to talk with your congress-critters about.


BTW, for those who don't understand what I or Skorper have said, turn on CSPAN right now. With everyone who's addressed the hearing so far, stronger background checks is the one thing they all agree on. And so far, only one person has spoken AGAINST universal background checks.

Don't like the idea I've put forward? That's fine! But ya might wanna think of something else quick, because it sure looks like universal checks are not as far away as you might think.
__________________
"If you have something to say, now would be a perfect time to keep it to yourself." --Col. Chester Phillips
"If you believe everything you read, better not read." --Japanese proverb
WarCry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2013, 08:58   #158
whoflungdo
Senior Member
 
whoflungdo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: MS
Posts: 6,055
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarCry View Post
But that complaint isn't about the idea I put forward. That's a complaint about the legal and judicial system in this country. That's an entirely different subject.

Whether you agree with WHY a person is a felon or not doesn't matter. A felon cannot buy or own firearms. That's the way it is now, and this idea I put out there isn't trying to change that. That would be something you'd need to talk with your congress-critters about.


BTW, for those who don't understand what I or Skorper have said, turn on CSPAN right now. With everyone who's addressed the hearing so far, stronger background checks is the one thing they all agree on. And so far, only one person has spoken AGAINST universal background checks.

Don't like the idea I've put forward? That's fine! But ya might wanna think of something else quick, because it sure looks like universal checks are not as far away as you might think.

Here's some more fly in your ointment. What makes you think your idea and universal background checks are mutually exclusive? Why wouldn't it be "reasonable" to do both? Doubling down on growing government and making it more intrusive. Because neither will work to keep guns out of the hands of felons..
__________________

GTDS Certified Member #9
whoflungdo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2013, 13:24   #159
pillboxhat5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Missouri
Posts: 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by whoflungdo View Post
Here's some more fly in your ointment. What makes you think your idea and universal background checks are mutually exclusive? Why wouldn't it be "reasonable" to do both? Doubling down on growing government and making it more intrusive. Because neither will work to keep guns out of the hands of felons..
you are exactly right! these things wont work there are much deeper problems and it has nothing to do with guns!!! for some reason we hear this narrative over and over again and our side starts believing these things!!!
pillboxhat5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2013, 22:22   #160
Stock Perfection
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 87
self edit- too wordy

Last edited by Stock Perfection; 01-31-2013 at 17:54..
Stock Perfection is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2013, 05:57   #161
platform
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by skorper View Post
Very few felons are getting guns from sales via individuals? Are you sure about that? Aside from stealing them that is exactly how they are getting them. I have dealt with several cases involving felons being in possession of guns under disability and in less than fifty percent of these cases did the guy actually steal the gun. He just went out and bought it.
Unintentionally making a private sell to a person who otherwise would have a failed a background check -- is a problem. I agree with the above post.

This is only possible in some states (not all -- for example it is not possible in NC for handguns at least, but possible in FL)

Yes, I know that in recent mass shootings the perpetrators did not obtain a firearm from a private sale without a background check.
And yes, I realize that liberal media is using this specific issue as a preamble for the lie about '40% of guns are sold without background checks'.

nevertheless, my view is that the specific issue needs to be closed.

Methods to close it vary from issuing a separate from carry, a purchase license, to FFL only sales (which I would not support), to a hot line accessible to individual sellers.
platform is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 00:52.



Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 797
238 Members
559 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 11:42