From my research, it looks like New York state has a background check law similar to ours here in CA.

[mrjurrs]

Is prohibiting criminals from having guns just a punishment?

Unclear on your point. Some criminals have legal access to guns right? (misdemeanors?)

 

[RF667799]

Unclear on your point. Some criminals have legal access to guns right? (misdemeanors?)

Not those convicted of serious misdemeanors. Serious being defined as potentially being punishable by a year in jail.

 

[mrjurrs]

Not those convicted of serious misdemeanors. Serious being defined as potentially being punishable by a year in jail.

Okay. Then it remains true that being a criminal does not necessarily mean you can't own guns.

 

[Rucker61]

If the check can't be completed in 3 days the transaction continues as I understand it.

It can legally continue. I've been a customer of my LGS for ten years. They treat me like an employee now, with employee pricing and invites to company events.

They won't let me have my gun until the background check is complete, and during an especially busy time the wait was ten days.

 

[Rucker61]

That's not what I said. Imo, crimes should be punished, not the possibility that a crime will take place.

Since the purpose of a firearm purchase background check is to prevent a criminal from getting a gun to help in committing future crimes, RF is proposing something similar to prevent a criminal from getting a car to restrict the ability of a criminal use of a car in future crimes.

 

[RF667799]

Okay. Then it remains true that being a criminal does not necessarily mean you can't own guns.

Right. Just those classified as prohibited persons. I listed the crimes that add one to that list.

 

[Rucker61]

Okay. Then it remains true that being a criminal does not necessarily mean you can't own guns.

We'll just restrict those guilty of misdemeanors and felonies from getting cars then. Just copy the list from 18 USC 922g.

 

[zsu2357]

Actual background checks that would effectively limit would, I would suggest that current BC's do very little to prevent criminals from obtaining guns.

? What kind of BC would you require to prevent criminals from obtaining firearms. As opposed to current ones.
Maybe current ones would be fine if they were done right. No reflection on the place of sale.

 

[mrjurrs]

Since the purpose of a firearm purchase background check is to prevent a criminal from getting a gun to help in committing future crimes, RF is proposing something similar to prevent a criminal from getting a car to restrict the ability of a criminal use of a car in future crimes.

A gun is designed to fire a projectile, originally solely for the purpose of killing something. A car was designed as transportation. Bad idea imo.

 

[mrjurrs]

? What kind of BC would you require to prevent criminals from obtaining firearms. As opposed to current ones.
Maybe current ones would be fine if they were done right. No reflection on the place of sale.

Get rid of the 3 day time limit to start. Allow for searchable databases of guns registered.

Effectively, UBC's should begin with the idea that you are not able to buy a gun legally, and go from there instead of the opposite starting point.

 

[Rucker61]

Get rid of the 3 day time limit to start. Allow for searchable databases of guns registered.

You know database searches take seconds. That's why most NICS searches are "instant".

If the 3 day rule was repealed, and the federal government shut down the NICS database, how many legal guns could be sold?

Effectively, UBC's should begin with the idea that you are not able to buy a gun legally, and go from there instead of the opposite starting point.

That's kind of flies in the face of American jurisprudence, doesn't it?

 

[RF667799]

A gun is designed to fire a projectile, originally solely for the purpose of killing something. A car was designed as transportation. Bad idea imo.

 

[Rucker61]

A gun is designed to fire a projectile, originally solely for the purpose of killing something. A car was designed as transportation. Bad idea imo.

But allowing felons and other prohibited persons to own cars enables their criminal behavior.

 

[RF667799]

A gun is designed to fire a projectile, originally solely for the purpose of killing something. A car was designed as transportation. Bad idea imo.

A gun is designed to fire a projectile.
A car is designed to be a projectile.

 

[TurtleDude]

But allowing felons and other prohibited persons to own cars enables their criminal behavior.

crime control is not the goal of the anti gun posters. so arguing crime control based on restricting vehicles is a non starter with them

 

[mrjurrs]

You know database searches take seconds. That's why most NICS searches are "instant".

If the 3 day rule was repealed, and the federal government shut down the NICS database, how many legal guns could be sold?

That's kind of flies in the face of American jurisprudence, doesn't it?

By repealing the 3 day rule, I mean that there would be no time limit. The sale takes place when the check is complete, no matter how long it takes.

Buying a gun is not a crime, and you are not on trial when you buy one. You get your passport when it is ready, not on a timeline.

 

[mrjurrs]

A gun is designed to fire a projectile.
A car is designed to be a projectile.

False

 

[Rucker61]

By repealing the 3 day rule, I mean that there would be no time limit. The sale takes place when the check is complete, no matter how long it takes.

That's the whole point of the 3 day rule. Without that the government could simply turn off the whole system to keep citizens from buying guns.

Buying a gun is not a crime, and you are not on trial when you buy one. You get your passport when it is ready, not on a timeline.

You wrote: " UBC's should begin with the idea that you are not able to buy a gun legally"

That's not what the Constitution, Bill of Rights and SCOTUS says.

 

[RF667799]

False

Yeah, in considering it, a car is much more akin to a guided missile.

 

[mrjurrs]

That's the whole point of the 3 day rule. Without that the government could simply turn off the whole system to keep citizens from buying guns.

You wrote: " UBC's should begin with the idea that you are not able to buy a gun legally"

That's not what the Constitution, Bill of Rights and SCOTUS says.

Don't introduce slippery slope arguments, they're ridiculous. The government could already do that. But they don't.

All of our constitutional rights are limited. It is already clear that the Constitution allows limitations for time, place, and manner of exercising those rights.

 

[TurtleDude]

That's the whole point of the 3 day rule. Without that the government could simply turn off the whole system to keep citizens from buying guns.

You wrote: " UBC's should begin with the idea that you are not able to buy a gun legally"

That's not what the Constitution, Bill of Rights and SCOTUS says.

he ultimately is hostile to the concept that the government should not have a monopoly on legal firepower

 

[mrjurrs]

Yeah, in considering it, a car is much more akin to a guided missile.

So you've got nothing...

 

[TurtleDude]

Don't introduce slippery slope arguments, they're ridiculous. The government could already do that. But they don't.

All of our constitutional rights are limited. It is already clear that the Constitution allows limitations for time, place, and manner of exercising those rights.

you constantly talk about limiting rights. why is that? is it because you think that will actually deter criminals? or is it that you have an animus against the politics of those who often own legal firearms?

 

[Rucker61]

Don't introduce slippery slope arguments, they're ridiculous. The government could already do that. But they don't.

Slippery slope in regards to gun control stopped being a fallacy when Nancy Pelosi stated it was part of the strategy.


During an exchange with CBS News' Nancy Cordes, Pelosi suggested that Republicans might feel such a ban would be a "slippery slope" for other gun bills. "So what?" she said, adding, "I certainly hope so."

Nancy Pelosi calls on Ryan bring bump stock ban to floor

"The impatience of the American people is right on, and we have to do something about it," said Pelosi on Thursday

www.cbsnews.com

With a three day limit, they can't stop the sale. With an infinite limit they can.

All of our constitutional rights are limited. It is already clear that the Constitution allows limitations for time, place, and manner of exercising those rights.

Rights are limited in various ways, true, but the American jurisprudence system doesn't start with the assumption that you're guilty or that you don't have the right.

 

[RF667799]

So you've got nothing...

You've got your claim that criminals should be prohibited from possessing projectile launchers, but guided missiles are fine.