Gov Northam's agenda

[apdst]

It o the best of my knowledge this bill does not include any mental health screening

Not a screening, a background check that includes medical records.

 

[Rucker61]

Not a screening, a background check that includes medical records.

UBCs only access NICS. NICS only has the medical records submitted in accordance with current law, limited by HIPAA. Are you seeing something different?

 

[apdst]

You know? How do you know? Provide proof.

Am I wrong?

 

[apdst]

UBCs only access NICS. NICS only has the medical records submitted in accordance with current law, limited by HIPAA. Are you seeing something different?

They're more than that. The goal is to include mental health background checks and require that all gun sells get a background check, including private sells.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Am I wrong?

To the best of my knowledge, yes, you are wrong.

As far as I know "universal" background checks will look into private medical records to see if there is a history of mental illness.

Which is why I asked you to prove your assertion.

They're more than that. The goal is to include mental health background checks and require that all gun sells get a background check, including private sells.

Again, evidence/proof?

 

[Rucker61]

They're more than that. The goal is to include mental health background checks and require that all gun sells get a background check, including private sells.

While there may be a goal to include mental health background checks, HIPAA prevents such. Current FFL background checks only access NICS data; UBCs only require that private transfers take place at an FFL where the background check is exactly the same as the current new gun background check through the FFL.

Of more concern is that the uselessness/unenforceability of private transfer background checks without registration will drive GCAs to try to pass registration laws, which will then enable future confiscation of firearms that are banned.

Edit: I live in a state that recently enacted a "universal" background check law. It acts just as I have described, as do the recent versions in Washington and Oregon. Nevada's just doesn't work.

 

[apdst]

[bpTo the best of my knowledge, yes, you are wrong.[/b]

Which is why I asked you to prove your assertion.


Again, evidence/proof?

Then I stand corrected.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Then I stand corrected.

Not a problem. When you said that you know something, I had to ask.

 

[apdst]

Not a problem. When you said that you know something, I had to ask.

I said, "as far as I know". Don't take ny comments out of context and there won't be any confusion.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

I said, "as far as I know". Don't take ny comments out of context and there won't be any confusion.

Exactly. “as far as I know” means you know, not that you think, believe or even have heard. No misinterpretation on my part.

Next time, say what you mean and there won’t be any confusion. :thumbs:

 

[apdst]

Exactly. “as far as I know” means you know, not that you think, believe or even have heard. No misinterpretation on my part.

Next time, say what you mean and there won’t be any confusion. :thumbs:

Learn to speak English, cuz..

You can use far in expressions like 'as far as I know' and 'so far as I remember' to indicate that you are not absolutely sure of the statement you are about to make or have just made, and you may be wrong.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&sou...aw3H4JdBX3gNC4nagevddJJ-&ust=1546973131898017

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Learn to speak English, cuz..

What you said implied some knowledge that you subsequently admitted you don’t have. Saying “as far as I know” doesn’t allow for pulling nonsense out of your keister. Learn how to correctly express your thoughts, cuz.

 

[apdst]

What you said implied some knowledge that you subsequently admitted you don’t have. Saying “as far as I know” doesn’t allow for pulling nonsense out of your keister. Learn how to correctly express your thoughts, cuz.

Learn to speak English, then get back with us.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Learn to speak English, then get back with us.

Voices in your head?

 

[CLAX1911]

And informing law enforcement of possible danger should they have to serve warrants or respond to domestic violence calls at the address of the registered owner, or possible future taxing (VA taxes everything, including vehicles with no bank note), or crime statistic analysis, etc..

It wouldn't be useful for those things because there's always the chance law enforcement is walking into a situation where there's an unregistered firearm. So they should use the same level of caution in any case.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

It wouldn't be useful for those things because there's always the chance law enforcement is walking into a situation where there's an unregistered firearm. So they should use the same level of caution in any case.

Having the knowledge that firearms are present ahead of time would inarguably be of value to police. No logic in arguing otherwise.

 

[Rucker61]

Having the knowledge that firearms are present ahead of time would inarguably be of value to police. No logic in arguing otherwise.

The police will presume that firearms are present in all cases, knowing that most of the calls they get are to places where criminals are and that criminals won't register their guns to begin with.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

The police will presume that firearms are present in all cases, knowing that most of the calls they get are to places where criminals are and that criminals won't register their guns to begin with.

Speaking of presuming, are you a police officer? You sure do like to presume.

 

[Rucker61]

Speaking of presuming, are you a police officer? You sure do like to presume.

No, but I spent the entire weekend elk hunting with one of my best friends who is a 20 year veteran policeman, and we discussed lots of topics on police interaction with civilians. I stand by my point that the police will presume that a gun is present, especially when being called to a potential crime scene.

If the "gun in house" database doesn't show a gun registered to the resident at that address, will a cop responding to a call at that address be any less vigilant than he/she would if a gun was known to be there?

 

[RaleBulgarian]

No, but I spent the entire weekend elk hunting with one of my best friends who is a 20 year veteran policeman, and we discussed lots of topics on police interaction with civilians. I stand by my point that the police will presume that a gun is present, especially when being called to a potential crime scene.

If the "gun in house" database doesn't show a gun registered to the resident at that address, will a cop responding to a call at that address be any less vigilant than he/she would if a gun was known to be there?

No doubt police always want to be prepared for the worst case scenario. Having confirmation that firearms are present only adds to that preparedness. How can you argue against that?

It wouldn't be useful for those things because there's always the chance law enforcement is walking into a situation where there's an unregistered firearm.

 

[CLAX1911]

Having the knowledge that firearms are present ahead of time would inarguably be of value to police. No logic in arguing otherwise.

Yes but you wouldn't have that knowledge if they had guns there that were unregistered.

I'm not arguing that if knew the future before it happened that it would be an extreme advantage I'm arguing that just because there's a law that requires people to do something doesn't mean they're going to do it. Keep in mind there is already a law against domestic violence sense you're going to a situation where there's domestic violence you know these people don't obey the law.

the cop that runs in there and says oh there's no registered guns at this residence that's the cop that gets shot by an unregistered gun.

let's take for instance the state of New York that has gun registry. How many guns involved in crime are registered to the criminal using it? If you wanted to get away with a crime with a gun, and you owned a gun and you had it registered would you use that gun that's registered to you or would you find one that's registered to someone else or not registered at all?

Think about these two points and you'll see why a registry is worthless for anything other than confiscation.

 

[Rucker61]

No doubt police always want to be prepared for the worst case scenario. Having confirmation that firearms are present only adds to that preparedness. How can you argue against that?

Because that knowledge won't change their preparedness or actions one bit.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Yes but you wouldn't have that knowledge if they had guns there that were unregistered.

I'm not arguing that if knew the future before it happened that it would be an extreme advantage I'm arguing that just because there's a law that requires people to do something doesn't mean they're going to do it. Keep in mind there is already a law against domestic violence sense you're going to a situation where there's domestic violence you know these people don't obey the law.

the cop that runs in there and says oh there's no registered guns at this residence that's the cop that gets shot by an unregistered gun.

let's take for instance the state of New York that has gun registry. How many guns involved in crime are registered to the criminal using it? If you wanted to get away with a crime with a gun, and you owned a gun and you had it registered would you use that gun that's registered to you or would you find one that's registered to someone else or not registered at all?

Think about these two points and you'll see why a registry is worthless for anything other than confiscation.

I’m not sure of how much value there would be in a gun registry. I only posed possible benefits.

As for the cop in the field, any information is useful.

 

[Rucker61]

I’m not sure of how much value there would be in a gun registry. I only posed possible benefits.

As for the cop in the field, any information is useful.

It is not the responsibility of the citizenry to make the cops' jobs easier.

 

[CLAX1911]

No doubt police always want to be prepared for the worst case scenario. Having confirmation that firearms are present only adds to that preparedness. How can you argue against that?

Wait a minute I just noticed something in your argument that's really bizarre. So you believe guns should be registered to a residence not to a person?

Do you think people could be at the residence but don't live there? Do you think that there could be people that just simply didn't register their guns?

If so you should walk into every situation knowing that there's guns there. If you don't you are going to be killed.

So I don't think it's useful for that situation.