Do you view background checks for firearms as gun control? Do you see them as needed or as too much control?

LCpl Mark Lefler — Thu, 26 May 2016 13:46:03 -0400

So I ask this question because I was reading an article that was talking about members of the NRA being interviewed at their annual convention and random members interviewed seemed to feel background checks are not really gun control or at least not unreasonable. I found this interesting and surprising and wanted to see if such an opinion was wider spread.

Response by Alan K. made May 26 at 2016 1:49 PM

Alan K. — Thu, 26 May 2016 13:49:47 -0400

I have no problem with background checks.......The should prosecute those who lie on them, that's half the problem

Response by SGT David D Williams made May 26 at 2016 1:56 PM

SGT David D Williams — Thu, 26 May 2016 13:56:56 -0400

At this point I don't think background checks qualify as gun control, as long as it doesn't turn to a registration of weapons. There are people in society that should not have firearms, and that is as far as the intrusion should go.

Response by CPT Jack Durish made May 26 at 2016 2:01 PM

CPT Jack Durish — Thu, 26 May 2016 14:01:23 -0400

I'm just an American. I own a gun. I never had a background check before purchasing it. I never committed any crime with or without a gun. Still, I have no problem with background checks. Seems reasonable to me. I would, however, like to believe that they destroy the record after satisfying themselves that I'm okay to purchase one. I see no reason for anyone keeping a record of my ownership. In fact, I may not hit respond and broadcast my gun ownership. Oh, what the hell. I'll probably be long gone before they get around to taking mine. I'm old...

Response by CMSgt Donald Felch made May 26 at 2016 2:04 PM

CMSgt Donald Felch — Thu, 26 May 2016 14:04:02 -0400

Criminal background checks are not unreasonable; nor is a permit requiring a predetermined level of safety awareness and competency as we require for automobile operations.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with ensuring those with access to deadly weapons are law abiding, have been properly trained, and are aware of reasonable limitations on their use. Such responsible precautions do not infringe upon a citizen's right to keep and bear arms.

Response by TSgt Ralph Hetzel made May 26 at 2016 2:11 PM

TSgt Ralph Hetzel — Thu, 26 May 2016 14:11:26 -0400

Naaa. We all know how well background checks work. Could not possibly be gun control. Not when I have to do a "background Check" to buy that M-16 out the back of my home-boy's van.

Response by SGM Erik Marquez made May 26 at 2016 2:24 PM

SGM Erik Marquez — Thu, 26 May 2016 14:24:03 -0400

Look up the term criminal, , then go meet a few.. ask yourself ..do Is not microchipped.submit to criminal background checks? Do criminals abide by laws?
Assuming you are a reasonable intelligent and honest person, you will have your answer as to if background checks and other forms of gun control are really for the purpose of controlling criminals from having guns? or honest citizens..
Gun control, it's not about guns, just about control.

Response by Col Rebecca Lorraine made May 26 at 2016 2:24 PM

Col Rebecca Lorraine — Thu, 26 May 2016 14:24:07 -0400

I actually am fine with background checks for national security. I think this makes sense in this day and age. It doesn't stop illegal gun purchase, but I would be okay with the owner palm safety to control theft etc. I think it may be invauable for the government to offer tax discounts for those who opt for this feature to be installed.

Response by SFC Everett Oliver made May 26 at 2016 2:25 PM

SFC Everett Oliver — Thu, 26 May 2016 14:25:54 -0400

I can go out into the nearby city and purchase just about any weapon I want, if I have the money. And that's without any possible background check. Weapons control laws do little but keep honest Americans from being armed.

Response by Cpl Justin Goolsby made May 26 at 2016 2:30 PM

Cpl Justin Goolsby — Thu, 26 May 2016 14:30:16 -0400

I don't believe background checks are a form of gun control. I see it as a necessary measure to ensure that firearms are handled responsibly. Yes I do believe in the 2nd Amendment as a Right, but it would be irresponsible to sell a firearm to a person with multiple felony robberies with a deadly weapon. So no, I do not think it is too much control. I think it's just the right amount.

Response by MSG Pat Colby made May 26 at 2016 2:30 PM

MSG Pat Colby — Thu, 26 May 2016 14:30:44 -0400

Any time the Government takes away a Right and sells it back to the Citizens in the form of a License or test, we have lost a Freedom.

Response by SSgt Christopher Brose made May 26 at 2016 2:31 PM

SSgt Christopher Brose — Thu, 26 May 2016 14:31:01 -0400

I want to see gun ownership treated as a Constitutional right the same way voting is treated. Require ID and background checks for gun purchases? I'm OK with that, but let's do it with voters too.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made May 26 at 2016 2:32 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 26 May 2016 14:32:39 -0400

LCpl Mark Lefler Here are the disqualifies according to the ATF, the purpose for the background check.

1. Currently under formal charges for a felony or convicted of a felony that can receive more than a one-year sentence or convicted of a misdemeanor that could receive more than a two-year sentence.
2.A fugitive from justice or subject of an active criminal warrant. This includes misdemeanor warrants.
3.Illegal drug possession, current use, or a conviction of controlled substance within the past year.
4. In a court proceeding, formally determined to be a mental defective, involuntarily committed to a mental institution or deemed incompetent to handle your own affairs. This includes final dispositions to criminal charges of “found not guilty by reason of insanity” or “found in-competent to stand trial.”
5.An alien illegally/unlawfully in the United States or a non immigrant who does not qualify for the exceptions under Title 18, United States Code, Section 922(y) (i.e., not having a valid hunting license).
6.Dishonorable discharge from United States Armed Forces.
7.Renounced citizenship of the United States.
8.The subject of a protection order issued after a hearing of which the accused had the opportunity to participate. The protection order restrains the subject from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such partner.
9.Persons convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence including offenses that contain the
element of use or attempted use of physical force or threatened use of a deadly weapon in which the victim was a spouse, former spouse, parent, guardian, a person with whom the victim shares a child in common, a person who is cohabitating with or has cohabitated with the victim.

I don't have a problem with any of this. I don't think most law abiding citizens have an objection to this. A background check is not going to end violence where guns are used.

Response by PO3 Mack McLendon made May 26 at 2016 2:49 PM

PO3 Mack McLendon — Thu, 26 May 2016 14:49:06 -0400

According to the Second Amendment, anyone can go anywhere in the United States he chooses; with any weapon he chooses from a howitzer on down; single-shot, semi-automatic, or fully-automatic; openly or concealed; unloaded or loaded with as many rounds as the manufacturer makes it to hold and the individual chooses to load; and the Federal government has nothing to say about it. If an individual chooses to purchase a weapon, he purchases it the same as he purchases a book, a loaf of bread, or a shirt. Any Federal law to the contrary is unconstitutional.

Having said that:

Those who use weapons to attack law-abiding citizens do not deserve to have weapons.

The Bill of Rights is not a buffet from which government can pick and choose which rights to violate for certain individuals or groups.

The correct thing to do is to pass a Constitutional amendment somewhat as follows:

1. No person who has been convicted of a felony by any State or Federal court shall enjoy any rights whatsoever under this Constitution until his sentence has been served in full.

2. A convicted felon may, after his sentence is served in full, apply to the President for a restoration of his rights under the United States Constitution, and to the Governor of the State for a restoration of his rights under the State Constitution. Each request shall be considered separately, and the granting or denial of one set of rights shall neither guarantee nor preclude the granting or denial of the other set of rights.

3. If a convicted felon is paroled, receives “good time” or other reductions to his sentence, or is otherwise released before his sentence has been served calendar-day-for-calendar-day, his sentence has not been served in full, and he is not entitled to petition for a restoration of his rights.

4. If a convicted felon’s request for restoration of his rights is granted, his rights shall be restored in full as if he had never lost them.

Until that day, the only background check to be had is one to determine whether or not a purchaser is a convicted felon.

Response by Capt Seid Waddell made May 26 at 2016 2:57 PM

Capt Seid Waddell — Thu, 26 May 2016 14:57:02 -0400

It depends. Background checks with a waiting period attached are often used as a back door method of closing down gun shows. However, a computer instant check system at point of purchase is not a problem.

I am very much against having to go through a background check to sell or gift a gun to family members though, or to borrow or loan guns between hunting buddies - that is simply harassment by gun control advocates and does nothing to advance public safety IMHO.

In many states a concealed carry permit can be used instead of the computer background check since the holder has already been checked prior to having the permit issued, and is checked monthly thereafter against the police records to see if the holder is still eligible.

It is kind of like the TSA-Pre system. It is quicker, more convenient, and just as effective as the computer background check.

I don't have a problem with that, and I am an NRA Endowment Life Member. I have been an NRA member for going on 55 years now.

If we spent more time on criminal control we wouldn't need to worry about gun control. My family has owned guns for generations without background checks and none of us has ever committed a crime. The vast majority of gun owners can say the same thing.

It is the criminal that is the problem - regardless of what weapon falls into his hand.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made May 26 at 2016 3:11 PM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Thu, 26 May 2016 15:11:38 -0400

Define "Background Check."

How deep do we want to go down this rabbit hole.

Should you be able to give a gun as a gift to a family member? Someone you have known all your life? Someone you KNOW if not a felon? Should you be able to LEND a gun to someone during a sporting event?

Regulation gets in the way of common sense.

I was a former gun dealer and dealt with a lot of these issues. I can count the number of "denials" I had on 1 hand. Background checks are not going to stop illegal transactions. They are not going to stop criminals from getting guns. There are more guns in America than there are people.

It is AMAZINGLY EASY to make a gun. You can make one out of a shovel. LEGALLY. You can make a potato gun with stuff from home depot.

But when it really boils down to it, guns aren't what kills people. Heart disease kills people. Cars kill people. Cancer kills people. Guns aren't even in the top 10. If we could get our #&^$&$% prescription medicine problem under control, "guns" would drop even further (over half of gun deaths are Suicide).

Response by CW4 Anthoney Lowry made May 26 at 2016 3:23 PM

CW4 Anthoney Lowry — Thu, 26 May 2016 15:23:32 -0400

i lived in California for a few years. Bought a few guns there, all done legally. had to pay for a background check and wait 10 days before pickup. wasn't that much of a hassle. But then again, I am a law abiding citizen. no one needs to be afraid of what I might do with what I have unless you get between me and my family.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made May 26 at 2016 3:33 PM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 26 May 2016 15:33:54 -0400

Name one other constitutional right that requires a background check to exercise it? Should we require a background check to vote? I find it odd that some of the same people that are against voter ID laws want to restrict another constitutional right. As for your original question of course they are both gun control. They both are used to CONTROL who has access to guns. Why should the law abiding citizen be treated like they are a suspect when the criminal who has attained his gun illegally is not? If you don't believe the government will not use a registration database to seize your guns you probably paid no attention to the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made May 26 at 2016 3:34 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 26 May 2016 15:34:10 -0400

I don't view Background checks as a form of "Gun Control" It is simply checking to see if the person is ineligible to obtain a firearm due to a criminal past. Where I have the problem is "Registration" of firearms. As a US Citizen with no criminal history it is no government entities "right" to know how may firearms I may or may not have. If information it is susceptible to hack, release and most of all Government Abuse.

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made May 26 at 2016 3:55 PM

LCDR Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 26 May 2016 15:55:23 -0400

No, as long as it is instant and the records are not held as a database. Current practices with the 4473 are just fine.

However, with the change in the way they are conducted, Military are now being delayed and have to go to further review. Holding a Security Clearance is now a red flag in the system.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made May 26 at 2016 4:32 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 26 May 2016 16:32:19 -0400

I'm ok with background checks, its all part of checks and balances in the system.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made May 26 at 2016 5:47 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 26 May 2016 17:47:30 -0400

I do see it as a form of gun control, but certain necessary evils may be needed.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made May 26 at 2016 5:51 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 26 May 2016 17:51:10 -0400

No. A firearm is a deadly weapon and owning one comes with great responsibility.

There should be background checks and yes, restrictions on type. I do not want people running around with a fully automatic Uzi or a grenade launcher in downtown Los Angeles.

The real question is how can we have reliable background checks without undue delays? The answer is funding for law enforcement and court databases so that when I buy a gun th background check can be completed in a few minutes while I started looking at what I might want for my next gun.

Right now I'm very excited about the Kimber revolver or one of Smith & Wesson's "classic" revolvers. I've always wanted a model 29 or 629.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made May 26 at 2016 5:53 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 26 May 2016 17:53:34 -0400

The NRA itself used to advocate for background checks. They should do so again (and fire Ted Nugent) and maybe Amercians who aren't extreme right in their politics will support them again. I haven't been a member in 20 years, and won't return until they do those two things.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made May 26 at 2016 6:56 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 26 May 2016 18:56:52 -0400

Background checks are ok to me however I believe there should be exemptions. For example a felony can disqualify you from owning a firearm. Some felons reform their lives and change completely should they be allowed to own a firearm yes they should. They changed and are now law abiding citizens.

Response by CPL Private RallyPoint Member made May 26 at 2016 7:02 PM

CPL Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 26 May 2016 19:02:27 -0400

I feel that at a Federal level, it contradicts the second amendment. The word infringe means limit or undermine.
But from what I read and see in the news. It actually violates the second amendment.
I haven't purchased a firearm since joining the Army. But before it took less than 10min to make a purchase. And they were cheaper to.
But I won't have a actually first hand opinion till I go through the background check. Not crazy about having a spotlight on your background saying that you own a firearm though. Which is the other thing I am hearing about lol.

Response by SPC Dawn Appelberg (Johnson) made May 26 at 2016 7:06 PM

SPC Dawn Appelberg (Johnson) — Thu, 26 May 2016 19:06:00 -0400

Background checks are a violation as they are tracked and recorded by the government. Want to know a simple way to deal with this? A valid driver's license should be all that is needed. I have seen where background checks have been used to target veterans now. Until our government is back under control yes they are a violation as they are being used incorrectly.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made May 26 at 2016 7:26 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 26 May 2016 19:26:04 -0400

Background checks are gun control and an infringement on our rights.

They also fail any kind of cost benifit analysis

Response by CPO Richard Goldthwaite made May 26 at 2016 9:18 PM

CPO Richard Goldthwaite — Thu, 26 May 2016 21:18:48 -0400

Gun control. Wow. What's missing? First, bad guys aren't worried about a BC or any law, order, regulation. So, the only people affected by BC and GC laws are those that are legally trying to obtain a weapon. Secondly, bad people will do bad things. Understand this concept fully. You cannot anticipate, forecast, or prophesied what that individual will do or when. Intelligence is a misnomer. This is luck of the draw. Thirdly and probably more importantly is weapons management and control. If I buy a gun, it should be registered at the city and state level. Everyone should have the right to open carry. Period. Screw all this concealed BS and super spook, high speed, low drag crap. Nothing is a greater deterrent than becoming aware that another person close by has a weapon. Victims are victims because of weakness and vulnerability. Lions are not sheep because they have teeth and claws...which when shown properly will intimidate all others....peace....

Response by Cpl Mark McMiller made May 26 at 2016 9:29 PM

Cpl Mark McMiller — Thu, 26 May 2016 21:29:08 -0400

The only problem I have with background checks is, how are they any good? Most criminals will not submit to a background check and will just get their firearms by other means. Our government refuses to prosecute those criminals that do submit and get caught. And the law-abiding people who are stopped from purchasing a firearm because they share the same name and/or other data with a criminal outnumber the criminals who are caught tenfold.

Response by Sgt Christopher Wenzel made May 26 at 2016 9:56 PM

Sgt Christopher Wenzel — Thu, 26 May 2016 21:56:17 -0400

Yes, they are gun control because you now have an outside entity act as a deciding factor in the sale of the firearm. I think it would be a good idea on one hand as you will make it difficult for firearms to end up on the streets. On the other hand, with PTSD and TBI now being factors to keep you from owning a firearm, it's being poorly regulated.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made May 27 at 2016 9:15 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 27 May 2016 21:15:33 -0400

As a NG soldier and a police officer in the civilian world, I believe backroad checks are needed. Here in VA there is no registration of the firearm. I think it's a fair system, they check to make sure your clear to buy the gun and that's it. There is no record of what gun, what kind of gun or anything else. The shop keeper keeps a log only to show the ATF the background check number with the gun sold. The issue with gun control is there is no gun control. It's an idea that is as useless as the paper the law is written on. As police officers we enforce firearm violations as much as possible however they never go anywhere in court. Before new laws are made we should enforce the current laws and punish offenders to the limits of the law. Then in a few years revisit the need for new laws. There wouldn't be a need cause what we have on the books now is plenty of the courts would stop allowing attorneys to plea down violations. If a convicted felon has a gun put him in jail for 5 years. The reduction in crime will come naturally cause all the people who use them to commit crimes would still be in jail.

Response by SPC Joe McGovern made May 31 at 2016 9:53 PM

SPC Joe McGovern — Tue, 31 May 2016 21:53:59 -0400

Well I must say,as a Life Time NRA member I agree with the fact that background checks for the purchase of a firearm are not unreasonable. I live in NJ where it is MANDATORY to have a background check done prior to you buying a firearm. A handgun is a whole other level of crap to deal with. You have the State Police do a background check first for you to get the Permit to Purchase a Handgun. Then at the dealer another POINT OF SALE NCIS check is done, THEN you buy your handgun. Even though it has it's drawbacks, and Criminals never go this route, it DOES keep guns out of the hands of SOME folks who have no business owning one. IMHO.

Response by Sgt Jared Calabrese made Jun 2 at 2016 12:07 AM

Sgt Jared Calabrese — Thu, 02 Jun 2016 00:07:47 -0400

Background checks are an infringement on the 2nd amendment. A document that all of YOU swore to support and defend.

A criminal will find a way to illegally acquire a firearm.