Concealed Carry Permits Should be Treated Like Driver's Licenses

[danielpalos]

I don't want to make law abiding citizens into criminals because they don't keep up with the complex legal requirements created to trap them by anti gunners......if criminals are caught with a gun...lock them up...it really is that simple....that guy who shot the cop in the face....he had already been arrested twice for gun possesion and attempted murder......if they had just done what I suggest, and kept him locked up on the gun charge...the police officer, and whoever else he had victimized would be safe today.....

How about .....
Any caught illegally possessing a gun 5 years in prison, no exceptions.
IF they use that illegal gun for the commission of a crime (armed robbery, etc), 10 years in prison, no exceptions.
IF the discharge that illegal gun during the commission of a crime, 20 years in prison, no exceptions.

And that is actual gun control....controlling criminals using guns to commit crimes...anything else is just trying to stop law abiding people from owning guns because of an irrational fear of guns......

I agree with your point except the left also want the supremacy of the State

Wrong as usual, person on the Right; gun lovers on the Right already "harassed a Judge" for their Incorporation Cause.

OMG, "person on the Right." You work hard on your insults, don't you? It shows

yes, it shows i have a clue and a Cause.

silly Person on the Right

 

[M14 Shooter]

I am of the belief that a CCW should be treated like a vehicle driver's license. If you are visiting a state, your CCW issued in your state should be legal and valid, just like your driver's license. If you move to a new state, you should have a set amount of time in which to get a new CCW issued by your new state.

CCW permits, in my opinion, should not be treated like a marriage licenses.

Opinions?

That's idiotic.
Gun regs that work in Wyoming won't work in NYC.
Any reasonable person would understand that.

That being the case, you should have no problem proving that your statement is true.
Please begin.

 

[M14 Shooter]

No one is trying to stop you from OWNING anything.
You just don't like filling out paperwork and waiting a few days.

(snicker)
tell us how you feeel about voter IDs.

Gun owners like you are selfish pricks.

Anti-gun loons are mindless bigots.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Licensed Drivers are the Worlds best Drivers. I see it everyday on the the streets and highways. They rarely ever get into accidents.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Licensed Drivers are the Worlds best Drivers. I see it everyday on the the streets and highways. They rarely ever get into accidents.

They never speed, they never run red lights, they never drive drunk.

 

[The Rabbi]

By "universal background checks", you really mean that you want the federal government to be the one in charge?
For all intent, there already ID "universal background checks", but the states are in control of the "checking".

I'd like to have the check cross State so if you're convicted in Tennessee it turns up if you by in Texas. However, who is in charge I don't really have a position on.

I view this more as a chance to toss criminals back in jail than a chance to prevent them from getting guns. You can't do the latter, but criminals are stupid. Cross State checks may be the most important for that.

Why do you think that isnt done already?

I find your post a bit confusing since I don't believe I said it's not done, but my issue with the current law is the wait period. I support a background check, but I want:

1) It is instant
2) There is no record kept of the check
3) If a convicted felon tries to buy a gun, an arrest warrant is automatically issued immediately

If they do not do all three, then I oppose them. The only reason to me for background checks are to violate felons and send them to prison. I also think they should require ID just like for alcohol so minors cannot buy guns in gun shops and they can verify they are searching for the right person in the background check

You understand that except for the automatic arrest warrant all of those are currently being done, right? There is no Federal wait period either.

Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play? To me, that's the whole point, it's the only reason I agree with background checks. To have a reason to throw their sorry asses back in jail

OK. Largely it isnt possible. As I mentioned about 80% of my Denieds were subsequently overturned. The records are never 100%. I doubt they;re 80%. If you charged every person who flunked a BG check you'd chew up a bunch of resources.

 

[kaz]

I'd like to have the check cross State so if you're convicted in Tennessee it turns up if you by in Texas. However, who is in charge I don't really have a position on.

I view this more as a chance to toss criminals back in jail than a chance to prevent them from getting guns. You can't do the latter, but criminals are stupid. Cross State checks may be the most important for that.

Why do you think that isnt done already?

I find your post a bit confusing since I don't believe I said it's not done, but my issue with the current law is the wait period. I support a background check, but I want:

1) It is instant
2) There is no record kept of the check
3) If a convicted felon tries to buy a gun, an arrest warrant is automatically issued immediately

If they do not do all three, then I oppose them. The only reason to me for background checks are to violate felons and send them to prison. I also think they should require ID just like for alcohol so minors cannot buy guns in gun shops and they can verify they are searching for the right person in the background check

You understand that except for the automatic arrest warrant all of those are currently being done, right? There is no Federal wait period either.

Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play? To me, that's the whole point, it's the only reason I agree with background checks. To have a reason to throw their sorry asses back in jail

OK. Largely it isnt possible. As I mentioned about 80% of my Denieds were subsequently overturned. The records are never 100%. I doubt they;re 80%. If you charged every person who flunked a BG check you'd chew up a bunch of resources.

I don't know what you mean by "flunked." What I mean is people who committed a felony by trying to buy a gun when they are prohibited from doing it. I hope you don't mean you think trying people for committing felonies is just chewing "up a bunch of resources." I think it's a great way to keep criminals in jail

 

[The Rabbi]

Why do you think that isnt done already?

I find your post a bit confusing since I don't believe I said it's not done, but my issue with the current law is the wait period. I support a background check, but I want:

1) It is instant
2) There is no record kept of the check
3) If a convicted felon tries to buy a gun, an arrest warrant is automatically issued immediately

If they do not do all three, then I oppose them. The only reason to me for background checks are to violate felons and send them to prison. I also think they should require ID just like for alcohol so minors cannot buy guns in gun shops and they can verify they are searching for the right person in the background check

You understand that except for the automatic arrest warrant all of those are currently being done, right? There is no Federal wait period either.

Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play? To me, that's the whole point, it's the only reason I agree with background checks. To have a reason to throw their sorry asses back in jail

OK. Largely it isnt possible. As I mentioned about 80% of my Denieds were subsequently overturned. The records are never 100%. I doubt they;re 80%. If you charged every person who flunked a BG check you'd chew up a bunch of resources.

I don't know what you mean by "flunked." What I mean is people who committed a felony by trying to buy a gun when they are prohibited from doing it. I hope you don't mean you think trying people for committing felonies is just chewing "up a bunch of resources." I think it's a great way to keep criminals in jail

Fluked means they failed the background check and the transfer was denied
Unfortunately that doesnt necessarily mean the person is actually a felon or prohibited. It can mean the record wasnt clearned up, the person's name was similar to someone else's, a clerk made a mistake somewhere, etc. People who are really felons know they cant buy guns at gun shops.

 

[kaz]

I find your post a bit confusing since I don't believe I said it's not done, but my issue with the current law is the wait period. I support a background check, but I want:

1) It is instant
2) There is no record kept of the check
3) If a convicted felon tries to buy a gun, an arrest warrant is automatically issued immediately

If they do not do all three, then I oppose them. The only reason to me for background checks are to violate felons and send them to prison. I also think they should require ID just like for alcohol so minors cannot buy guns in gun shops and they can verify they are searching for the right person in the background check

You understand that except for the automatic arrest warrant all of those are currently being done, right? There is no Federal wait period either.

Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play? To me, that's the whole point, it's the only reason I agree with background checks. To have a reason to throw their sorry asses back in jail

OK. Largely it isnt possible. As I mentioned about 80% of my Denieds were subsequently overturned. The records are never 100%. I doubt they;re 80%. If you charged every person who flunked a BG check you'd chew up a bunch of resources.

I don't know what you mean by "flunked." What I mean is people who committed a felony by trying to buy a gun when they are prohibited from doing it. I hope you don't mean you think trying people for committing felonies is just chewing "up a bunch of resources." I think it's a great way to keep criminals in jail

Fluked means they failed the background check and the transfer was denied
Unfortunately that doesnt necessarily mean the person is actually a felon or prohibited. It can mean the record wasnt clearned up, the person's name was similar to someone else's, a clerk made a mistake somewhere, etc. People who are really felons know they cant buy guns at gun shops.

I'm not sure what point you think you're making to me

 

[The Rabbi]

You understand that except for the automatic arrest warrant all of those are currently being done, right? There is no Federal wait period either.

Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play? To me, that's the whole point, it's the only reason I agree with background checks. To have a reason to throw their sorry asses back in jail

OK. Largely it isnt possible. As I mentioned about 80% of my Denieds were subsequently overturned. The records are never 100%. I doubt they;re 80%. If you charged every person who flunked a BG check you'd chew up a bunch of resources.

I don't know what you mean by "flunked." What I mean is people who committed a felony by trying to buy a gun when they are prohibited from doing it. I hope you don't mean you think trying people for committing felonies is just chewing "up a bunch of resources." I think it's a great way to keep criminals in jail

Fluked means they failed the background check and the transfer was denied
Unfortunately that doesnt necessarily mean the person is actually a felon or prohibited. It can mean the record wasnt clearned up, the person's name was similar to someone else's, a clerk made a mistake somewhere, etc. People who are really felons know they cant buy guns at gun shops.

I'm not sure what point you think you're making to me

That if you prosecute every person who failed the BG check you will be wasting a bunch of time as most of them are not actually criminals.
Was that succinct enough?
I have no issue prosecuting people who are actually doing something illegal. I do have an issue wasting time prosecuting innocent people.

 

[bgr39]

Why do you think that isnt done already?

I find your post a bit confusing since I don't believe I said it's not done, but my issue with the current law is the wait period. I support a background check, but I want:

1) It is instant
2) There is no record kept of the check
3) If a convicted felon tries to buy a gun, an arrest warrant is automatically issued immediately

If they do not do all three, then I oppose them. The only reason to me for background checks are to violate felons and send them to prison. I also think they should require ID just like for alcohol so minors cannot buy guns in gun shops and they can verify they are searching for the right person in the background check

You understand that except for the automatic arrest warrant all of those are currently being done, right? There is no Federal wait period either.

Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play? To me, that's the whole point, it's the only reason I agree with background checks. To have a reason to throw their sorry asses back in jail

OK. Largely it isnt possible. As I mentioned about 80% of my Denieds were subsequently overturned. The records are never 100%. I doubt they;re 80%. If you charged every person who flunked a BG check you'd chew up a bunch of resources.

I don't know what you mean by "flunked." What I mean is people who committed a felony by trying to buy a gun when they are prohibited from doing it. I hope you don't mean you think trying people for committing felonies is just chewing "up a bunch of resources." I think it's a great way to keep criminals in jail

Very few criminals that try to buy a gun, and get caught through NICS, are ever prosecuted.
Why don't they prosecute every felon who tries to buy a gun?
There appears to be no penalty for illegally trying to buy a gun.

 

[kaz]

Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play? To me, that's the whole point, it's the only reason I agree with background checks. To have a reason to throw their sorry asses back in jail

OK. Largely it isnt possible. As I mentioned about 80% of my Denieds were subsequently overturned. The records are never 100%. I doubt they;re 80%. If you charged every person who flunked a BG check you'd chew up a bunch of resources.

I don't know what you mean by "flunked." What I mean is people who committed a felony by trying to buy a gun when they are prohibited from doing it. I hope you don't mean you think trying people for committing felonies is just chewing "up a bunch of resources." I think it's a great way to keep criminals in jail

Fluked means they failed the background check and the transfer was denied
Unfortunately that doesnt necessarily mean the person is actually a felon or prohibited. It can mean the record wasnt clearned up, the person's name was similar to someone else's, a clerk made a mistake somewhere, etc. People who are really felons know they cant buy guns at gun shops.

I'm not sure what point you think you're making to me

That if you prosecute every person who failed the BG check you will be wasting a bunch of time as most of them are not actually criminals.
Was that succinct enough?
I have no issue prosecuting people who are actually doing something illegal. I do have an issue wasting time prosecuting innocent people.

I said "arrest" not "prosecute." They need to investigate before they file charges.

I think you're taking me overly literally. I'm not aware anyone can try to buy a gun where it's legal to try but they are just told no. If you're saying that's the case then fine, don't arrest them.

As for data cleanup, yeah, they need to do that. I didn't say "day 1." They can't even do 10 minutes checks now. There needs to be an implementation plan. They can start with reliable data and move from there. Also, they are showing their ID, it's not just a name match for convicted felons.

I'm not sure how we got to the implementation plan. I usually discuss what I think we should do. Once we have agreement on that, then we discuss how to get there

 

[zeke]

You all need to move to Ohio. We have legislation pending that would do away with all permit processes.
People (if this passes) would be able to buy and carry a gun almost anywhere. No permit, no training, no nothing except be able to buy a gun.

 

[kaz]

I find your post a bit confusing since I don't believe I said it's not done, but my issue with the current law is the wait period. I support a background check, but I want:

1) It is instant
2) There is no record kept of the check
3) If a convicted felon tries to buy a gun, an arrest warrant is automatically issued immediately

If they do not do all three, then I oppose them. The only reason to me for background checks are to violate felons and send them to prison. I also think they should require ID just like for alcohol so minors cannot buy guns in gun shops and they can verify they are searching for the right person in the background check

You understand that except for the automatic arrest warrant all of those are currently being done, right? There is no Federal wait period either.

Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play? To me, that's the whole point, it's the only reason I agree with background checks. To have a reason to throw their sorry asses back in jail

OK. Largely it isnt possible. As I mentioned about 80% of my Denieds were subsequently overturned. The records are never 100%. I doubt they;re 80%. If you charged every person who flunked a BG check you'd chew up a bunch of resources.

I don't know what you mean by "flunked." What I mean is people who committed a felony by trying to buy a gun when they are prohibited from doing it. I hope you don't mean you think trying people for committing felonies is just chewing "up a bunch of resources." I think it's a great way to keep criminals in jail

Very few criminals that try to buy a gun, and get caught through NICS, are ever prosecuted.
Why don't they prosecute every felon who tries to buy a gun?
There appears to be no penalty for illegally trying to buy a gun.

Yes, and without prosecuting felons, background checks are pointless, aren't they?

 

[The Rabbi]

OK. Largely it isnt possible. As I mentioned about 80% of my Denieds were subsequently overturned. The records are never 100%. I doubt they;re 80%. If you charged every person who flunked a BG check you'd chew up a bunch of resources.

I don't know what you mean by "flunked." What I mean is people who committed a felony by trying to buy a gun when they are prohibited from doing it. I hope you don't mean you think trying people for committing felonies is just chewing "up a bunch of resources." I think it's a great way to keep criminals in jail

Fluked means they failed the background check and the transfer was denied
Unfortunately that doesnt necessarily mean the person is actually a felon or prohibited. It can mean the record wasnt clearned up, the person's name was similar to someone else's, a clerk made a mistake somewhere, etc. People who are really felons know they cant buy guns at gun shops.

I'm not sure what point you think you're making to me

That if you prosecute every person who failed the BG check you will be wasting a bunch of time as most of them are not actually criminals.
Was that succinct enough?
I have no issue prosecuting people who are actually doing something illegal. I do have an issue wasting time prosecuting innocent people.

I said "arrest" not "prosecute." They need to investigate before they file charges.

I think you're taking me overly literally. I'm not aware anyone can try to buy a gun where it's legal to try but they are just told no. If you're saying that's the case then fine, don't arrest them.

As for data cleanup, yeah, they need to do that. I didn't say "day 1." They can't even do 10 minutes checks now. There needs to be an implementation plan. They can start with reliable data and move from there. Also, they are showing their ID, it's not just a name match for convicted felons.

I'm not sure how we got to the implementation plan. I usually discuss what I think we should do. Once we have agreement on that, then we discuss how to get there

OK the crime involved is lying on a federal form by checking the box that says No to the question have you ever had a felony conviction.
"Data cleanup" is virtually impossible as there are so many errors, and every day more occur. And most of them arent known until something like this comes up.
Sure you could arrest people. You could even drug test them and if they fail then you could prosecute them for lying on a federal form. That doesnt sound like a gov't program I could get behind.

 

[kaz]

I don't know what you mean by "flunked." What I mean is people who committed a felony by trying to buy a gun when they are prohibited from doing it. I hope you don't mean you think trying people for committing felonies is just chewing "up a bunch of resources." I think it's a great way to keep criminals in jail

Fluked means they failed the background check and the transfer was denied
Unfortunately that doesnt necessarily mean the person is actually a felon or prohibited. It can mean the record wasnt clearned up, the person's name was similar to someone else's, a clerk made a mistake somewhere, etc. People who are really felons know they cant buy guns at gun shops.

I'm not sure what point you think you're making to me

That if you prosecute every person who failed the BG check you will be wasting a bunch of time as most of them are not actually criminals.
Was that succinct enough?
I have no issue prosecuting people who are actually doing something illegal. I do have an issue wasting time prosecuting innocent people.

I said "arrest" not "prosecute." They need to investigate before they file charges.

I think you're taking me overly literally. I'm not aware anyone can try to buy a gun where it's legal to try but they are just told no. If you're saying that's the case then fine, don't arrest them.

As for data cleanup, yeah, they need to do that. I didn't say "day 1." They can't even do 10 minutes checks now. There needs to be an implementation plan. They can start with reliable data and move from there. Also, they are showing their ID, it's not just a name match for convicted felons.

I'm not sure how we got to the implementation plan. I usually discuss what I think we should do. Once we have agreement on that, then we discuss how to get there

OK the crime involved is lying on a federal form by checking the box that says No to the question have you ever had a felony conviction.
"Data cleanup" is virtually impossible as there are so many errors, and every day more occur. And most of them arent known until something like this comes up.
Sure you could arrest people. You could even drug test them and if they fail then you could prosecute them for lying on a federal form. That doesnt sound like a gov't program I could get behind.

This is a chance to throw people back in jail who should already be there and you'd prefer to wait until they commit another crime and investigate and solve that? And that's a better use of manpower? Again, I didn't say to charge everyone who fails, just arrest them. At that point you make a quick determination of where to go from there.

 

[jon_berzerk]

You understand that except for the automatic arrest warrant all of those are currently being done, right? There is no Federal wait period either.

Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play? To me, that's the whole point, it's the only reason I agree with background checks. To have a reason to throw their sorry asses back in jail

OK. Largely it isnt possible. As I mentioned about 80% of my Denieds were subsequently overturned. The records are never 100%. I doubt they;re 80%. If you charged every person who flunked a BG check you'd chew up a bunch of resources.

I don't know what you mean by "flunked." What I mean is people who committed a felony by trying to buy a gun when they are prohibited from doing it. I hope you don't mean you think trying people for committing felonies is just chewing "up a bunch of resources." I think it's a great way to keep criminals in jail

Very few criminals that try to buy a gun, and get caught through NICS, are ever prosecuted.
Why don't they prosecute every felon who tries to buy a gun?
There appears to be no penalty for illegally trying to buy a gun.

Yes, and without prosecuting felons, background checks are pointless, aren't they?

background checks are pointless, aren't they?

lets stop the practice then

 

[M14 Shooter]

You all need to move to Ohio. We have legislation pending that would do away with all permit processes.
People (if this passes) would be able to buy and carry a gun almost anywhere. No permit, no training, no nothing except be able to buy a gun.

We already do that with open carry, so there's no sound argument to require a permit for concealed carry.

 

[kaz]

Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play? To me, that's the whole point, it's the only reason I agree with background checks. To have a reason to throw their sorry asses back in jail

OK. Largely it isnt possible. As I mentioned about 80% of my Denieds were subsequently overturned. The records are never 100%. I doubt they;re 80%. If you charged every person who flunked a BG check you'd chew up a bunch of resources.

I don't know what you mean by "flunked." What I mean is people who committed a felony by trying to buy a gun when they are prohibited from doing it. I hope you don't mean you think trying people for committing felonies is just chewing "up a bunch of resources." I think it's a great way to keep criminals in jail

Very few criminals that try to buy a gun, and get caught through NICS, are ever prosecuted.
Why don't they prosecute every felon who tries to buy a gun?
There appears to be no penalty for illegally trying to buy a gun.

Yes, and without prosecuting felons, background checks are pointless, aren't they?

background checks are pointless, aren't they?

lets stop the practice then

As they are now, yes, I agree

 

[The Rabbi]

Fluked means they failed the background check and the transfer was denied
Unfortunately that doesnt necessarily mean the person is actually a felon or prohibited. It can mean the record wasnt clearned up, the person's name was similar to someone else's, a clerk made a mistake somewhere, etc. People who are really felons know they cant buy guns at gun shops.

I'm not sure what point you think you're making to me

That if you prosecute every person who failed the BG check you will be wasting a bunch of time as most of them are not actually criminals.
Was that succinct enough?
I have no issue prosecuting people who are actually doing something illegal. I do have an issue wasting time prosecuting innocent people.

I said "arrest" not "prosecute." They need to investigate before they file charges.

I think you're taking me overly literally. I'm not aware anyone can try to buy a gun where it's legal to try but they are just told no. If you're saying that's the case then fine, don't arrest them.

As for data cleanup, yeah, they need to do that. I didn't say "day 1." They can't even do 10 minutes checks now. There needs to be an implementation plan. They can start with reliable data and move from there. Also, they are showing their ID, it's not just a name match for convicted felons.

I'm not sure how we got to the implementation plan. I usually discuss what I think we should do. Once we have agreement on that, then we discuss how to get there

OK the crime involved is lying on a federal form by checking the box that says No to the question have you ever had a felony conviction.
"Data cleanup" is virtually impossible as there are so many errors, and every day more occur. And most of them arent known until something like this comes up.
Sure you could arrest people. You could even drug test them and if they fail then you could prosecute them for lying on a federal form. That doesnt sound like a gov't program I could get behind.

This is a chance to throw people back in jail who should already be there and you'd prefer to wait until they commit another crime and investigate and solve that? And that's a better use of manpower? Again, I didn't say to charge everyone who fails, just arrest them. At that point you make a quick determination of where to go from there.

That is somehow at total odds with reality.
Why should people already be there? Someone had a felony arrest at 19 and is now 50. He doesnt remember whether it was a felony at the time, a misdemeanor, whether there was a plea bargain or whether it was expunged. So now he deserves to go to jail?
It takes days to go through the file to figure out why the system generated a denial. Are you going to hold people for days?
I realize that the image here is of some gang banger/violent felon going to buy a gun and getting denied and then we can catch him right there. But that isnt what happens.
Seems a poor use of resources to send police to arrest people who are most likely guilty of nothing.