Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
1/25/2018 7:38:29 AM
Posted: 8/11/2002 7:03:14 PM EST
When I got my AR-15, I got a background check before the transaction was completed. But you don't need a background check if you buy just an upper or just a lower. What's the deal here? If a criminal wanted to get a gun, couldn't he just buy an upper and lower seperately?
Link Posted: 8/11/2002 7:08:23 PM EST

Originally Posted By Greenhorn:
When I got my AR-15, I got a background check before the transaction was completed. But you don't need a background check if you buy just an upper or just a lower. What's the deal here? If a criminal wanted to get a gun, couldn't he just buy an upper and lower seperately?


Wrong!!!Lowers are considered firearms and treated as such when purchasing. You must complete a 4473 and pass a NICS check prior to purchase.

Jake
Link Posted: 8/11/2002 7:11:49 PM EST
Oh. OK, I didn't check on that before I posted. I knew you could get uppers including the bolt, so I assumed that it was the same for lowers.

That seems stupid. I would think it would make more sense to have to get a background check for uppers, not lowers.
Link Posted: 8/11/2002 8:01:03 PM EST
BATF generally requires the feeding system to be the registered component. In ARs that is the lower reciever. I still haven't figured out how the Shrike is gonna work. I may call Jeff today and ask him.

Jake
Link Posted: 8/11/2002 8:56:17 PM EST
What is stupid is that background checks exist.

Are you concerned that evil and unstable people will purchace guns?

If the purchaser is indeed a known violent felon or insane, why is he out and about? THAT is the question that must be addressed.

Background checks are de facto registration.
Link Posted: 8/12/2002 9:18:01 AM EST
I would have to disagree. I am a strong believer in our rights as Americans but I strongly support background checks. Psychos and insane people are out there because our justice system has failed. In order to reinforce that failure a background check should always be required. By the way I love guns I own four and counting.
Link Posted: 8/12/2002 9:24:55 AM EST
Link Posted: 8/12/2002 9:28:55 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/12/2002 9:29:38 AM EST by Yankee1911]

Originally Posted By 00_buckshot:
I would have to disagree. I am a strong believer in our rights as Americans but I strongly support background checks. Psychos and insane people are out there because our justice system has failed. In order to reinforce that failure a background check should always be required. By the way I love guns I own four and counting.



Yep, the justice system needs fixing, but instead of dealing with the problem, let's just implement background checks. After all, the government should be involved in every aspect of your life (for your own protection, of course).

Nothing like a little prior restraint to solve all problems, eh double ought?

Link Posted: 8/12/2002 10:54:26 AM EST
I'm sorry if you misunderstood what I was trying to say. Believe me I wish the world was a place where everything just worked like it does in theory, but it's not nor will it ever be. There will always be some asshole out there who will ruin it for everyone. I don't hate my government nor do I think it should be involved with every aspect of my life. All I was saying is that, and this may only go for me, because I'm a law abiding citizen I have no problem with a background check. I am comfortable with this because I know my background is clean and I will be able to obtain the firearm. Wouldn't it be great if all gun owners used there firearms in a lawful manner. Just another dream that will never happen. The background check doesn't infringe on our right to own guns it just helps to protect law abiding people from crazy people who have no right to own a gun. Even if you can't see the fine print it is there. Just think if there wasn't any background checks. The easiest an cheapest way for a convicted felon to obtain a firearm would be at a gun shop. Can you imagine the amount and type of bans that the gun haters would try to impose on us if this was true. If you think your rights are infringed now just imagine what it would be like without some kind of system to check for convicted felons and mentally unstable people. Just remember a convicted felon no longer has the right to bear arms and this is one way to make sure he/she doesn't. I'm not saying it's perfect but if it's the only thing I have to go thru to obtain a firearm then I'm not complaining. That's just my opinion and maybe I'm wrong.
Link Posted: 8/12/2002 10:58:04 AM EST

Originally Posted By TheRicker:
Wow! 4 whole guns?

Background checks are an infringement. They presume guilt over innocence. It's the government telling us that we may, or may not, exercise our so-called "rights".

Well, I disagree. Background checks can be used to infringe, but are not per se infringement. There is not a "presumption of guilt."

Do you believe that violent felons should be allowed to possess firearms after being released? If so, we disagree. And I'm a pretty stout defender of the right to arms. I agree with John Adams - peaceable citizens should not be disarmed. Keeping them out of the hands of the mentally ill and convicted criminals and wifebeaters is a pretty reasonable idea.

I think there should be a better way to accomplish it, though.
Link Posted: 8/12/2002 11:20:19 AM EST
in WI, if you buy a handgun you get charged $8 for the background check..er, the 2nd of the 2 background checks you must pass. i am not comfortable with them because i have seen law abidding(?) people denied(delayed,system down,etc)) because the system sucks. you're happy now but wait until you have to register your weapons like the folks in CA had to. when that day comes, i no longer own any guns, and i will be made a felon of sorts. is that right?
is that justice?
Link Posted: 8/12/2002 11:43:09 AM EST
I don't agree with charging citizens for background checks. I feel this is a way for the government to profit from the law. As far as California goes, well, CA is a fucked up place I'm glad I don't live. We all need to learn a valuable lesson from this state. This is the prime example where the government failed and now good law abiding citizens have to be punished because of the actions of assholes. Let's not let this happen everywhere. Get involved!
Link Posted: 8/12/2002 12:11:11 PM EST

Originally Posted By 00_buckshot:
I'm sorry if you misunderstood what I was trying to say. Believe me I wish the world was a place where everything just worked like it does in theory, but it's not nor will it ever be. There will always be some asshole out there who will ruin it for everyone.



Sorry, but it's wrong to punish good people along with the asshole simply because the government can't effectively deal with the individual.



I don't hate my government nor do I think it should be involved with every aspect of my life. All I was saying is that, and this may only go for me, because I'm a law abiding citizen I have no problem with a background check. I am comfortable with this because I know my background is clean and I will be able to obtain the firearm.



Are you suggesting that everybody who is delayed or declined during a NICS check is a criminal? Stick around, you'll see stories of people who thought their records were clean, yet they have to jump through a bunch of B.S. everytime they go to buy a gun because NICS says otherwise. Maybe they share the same name as some slimebag, or they were told that a minor transgression from their younger days was expunged from the record. Whatever the case, people with "clean records" are delayed or declined every day.



Wouldn't it be great if all gun owners used there firearms in a lawful manner.



The majority do. Again, why punish the majority for the actions of a few? Do you feel safer knowing that a convicted felon may be declined at the gunstore, yet probably won't be prosecuted for attempting to purchase a firearm?



Just another dream that will never happen. The background check doesn't infringe on our right to own guns it just helps to protect law abiding people from crazy people who have no right to own a gun.



It sure does infringe on our rights. What do you call it when the government records are mistaken and an innocent person has to PROVE their innocence in order to buy a gun? And how exactly does a background check protect you when the vast majority of those who are declined for valid reasons are never prosecuted? Particularly considering that such a person would be able to buy a stolen gun from the gang-banger on the corner in short order, after being declined by NICS.



Even if you can't see the fine print it is there. Just think if there wasn't any background checks. The easiest an cheapest way for a convicted felon to obtain a firearm would be at a gun shop.



Actually, I'm old enough to remember what it was like before background checks. It really wasn't that long ago. And I'm not that old (34). Surprisingly, blood wasn't flowing in the street from all the felons buying guns in gun shops. As for gunshops being the easiest and cheapest way to obtain a gun; where do you shop? I haven't found any bargains in gunshops in quite awhile.

Stealing or buying stolen weapons is probably still the preferred method of obtaining a gun. Do you also believe that gun shows are the easiest and cheapest way for terrorists to obtain weapons?



Can you imagine the amount and type of bans that the gun haters would try to impose on us if this was true. If you think your rights are infringed now just imagine what it would be like without some kind of system to check for convicted felons and mentally unstable people.



I don't have to imagine, double ought, it's happening as we speak, even with the infallible background check in place. It doesn't matter one bit how many checks are in place, how many "compromises" we make with the antis. Their agenda is to take away everybody's right to own firearms. And they will keep pushing their reasonable restrictions. And some people will keep buying into the lie. But at least we'll "feel" safer, right?



Just remember a convicted felon no longer has the right to bear arms and this is one way to make sure he/she doesn't. I'm not saying it's perfect but if it's the only thing I have to go thru to obtain a firearm then I'm not complaining. That's just my opinion and maybe I'm wrong.



Yes, the 1968 GCA makes it illegal for a convicted felon to possess a firearm. And yet there doesn't really seem to be a correlation between that law and a drastic drop in violent crime. I personally think that a non-violent felon should have all rights restored once they serve their sentence. But that's a discussion for another time.

The NICS check is not only not perfect, it's ineffective. What infringement will you support next when the antis finally admit that the Brady bill is a failure?

Link Posted: 8/12/2002 12:22:36 PM EST
If you live in a state that allows personal sales
then no background check is required when
buying from an individual.
I have only two guns that I have had to do paperwork
on. The rest are history!
Link Posted: 8/12/2002 12:53:30 PM EST
I agree with all that you say Yankee 1911. Let me ask one final question. Do not take this the wrong way but what do you do to protect your rights as a gun owner.............?
Link Posted: 8/12/2002 1:45:59 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/12/2002 1:54:00 PM EST by PoliticalScience]

Originally Posted By KBaker:

Do you believe that violent felons should be allowed to possess firearms after being released?


Violent felons shouldn't be released if they're still violent. Background checks (or, de facto gun registration) for law-abiding citizens is not the solution to a failed criminal justice system. Besides, I expect most felons either buy guns through private sales, or steal them. The guy that stole $10,000 worth of pre-ban ARs, AKs, and Glocks from me certainly didn't go through any background check.


I think there should be a better way to accomplish it, though.

Agreed.

Link Posted: 8/12/2002 3:04:37 PM EST

Originally Posted By 00_buckshot:
I agree with all that you say Yankee 1911. Let me ask one final question. Do not take this the wrong way but what do you do to protect your rights as a gun owner.............?



Most of the usual things...

Write and call my elected representative regularly, not just when there's a crucial vote coming up. I'm probably on some sort of list for that alone.

I've also taken the local state shooting association to task because of their support of a very bad concealed carry bill instead of supporting a bill that was far and away better. I don't think the president and vice president of the CSSA like me very much anymore.

I write letters to the editors of the local papers when their reporters get the facts wrong regarding guns (or when they seek to deliberately mislead the public with their "reporting"). I also write in when some idiot has a letter published about guns and is way off base.

I haven't done any volunteer work for a political campaign (too busy), but I'm going to make time to do it in 2004.

I contact the NRA when they are supporting something that I disagree with. Probably doesn't make any difference to them, but it's worth a try.

And despite my disdain for some things the current NRA leadership has done, I'm a member of the NRA, GOA, and the CSSA (Colorado State Shooting Association). Once I get some bills paid off, I'll join more pro-2a groups.

I've taken people to the range to introduce them to the shooting sports. I've yet to convince any rabid anti-gunners to go with me, but I have converted a few "fence-sitters".

I'd love to get some firearms safety programs introduced into the local public schools, but I have no idea where to begin. And neither do the conservative teachers I've talked to about the idea. Something along the lines of the DARE program. It'd be great to counter all the B.S. these kids hear about guns from their teachers and show them the truth. I'm sure it's just a pipedream, though.

Also when I get the time, I'd like to become an NRA certified instructor. I was surprised at how few there actually are in my state.

Anyway, that's about all I can think of off the top of my head. If you have any other ideas, I'm listening. I'm always open to new ideas to introduce people to the positive aspects of shooting and defending the 2nd amendment.

Cheers

Link Posted: 8/12/2002 8:42:13 PM EST
I have a problem with background checks because they are completely useless for stopping crime or criminals from getting guns. The only thing they do is impose unecessaryily upon you and I. No background check, no regulation, no law or practice period will stop a criminal who wants a gun from getting one. This is what we call the black market. Don't believe me?

Is cocaine illegal? Yes.
Does every single person who wants it get it? Yes.
What makes you think that guns are any different than cocaine?

If people want it, they will get it. This is why the criminals in our society need to be dealt with, rather than faint attempts at trying to take away the tools of their trade, which much more commonly are tools used to protect us from them.

One day people will wake up and realize that you cannot keep things from people, you can only keep bad people from being a problem. This, of course, requires logic, which is why it will never be followed by our government.

Mike
Link Posted: 8/12/2002 9:40:48 PM EST
Part of what I meant to say was that evil and insane people shouild be locked up. If someone has been released from prison or hospital, shouldn't I, on principle as a lover of liberty, assume that said person is cured/has paid their debt to society?

As a Christian and an Anarchist, I am compelled to give people the benefit of the doubt. It's called grace and this country needs more of it.

Government writ is for one purpose: to control you, not to protect your freedoms or rights. Ethical people do not need government law because they have self control and a respect for others.

I don't murder, rape, or steal not because an armed heavy with an official brass pin tells me not to; but because to do any of the above is morally reprihensible.

Furthermore, (and on a somewhat seperate track) there is something inherently contemptable in those who say they do not object to invasions of privacy because they have "nothing to hide".

The Great Experiment was a great idea, but it has failed because the lab techs couldn't keep from tinkering with the apparatus. I just hope I con't get caught when the labratory burns down.
Link Posted: 8/13/2002 3:27:03 AM EST
Link Posted: 8/13/2002 5:47:54 AM EST
Link Posted: 8/13/2002 2:39:09 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/13/2002 2:42:44 PM EST by LARRYG]
I buy guns all the time at the gun store and haven't had a background check since 1998. That's when I got my Georgia carry license. No background check required.

As for violent felons being allowed to own guns, I say fuck'em. Maybe they should have thought about the loss of rights before they did what they did. The rest of us have managed to stay out of jail. I feel absolutely no sympathy nor compassion for them. Maybe we should do away with the background checks, but when someone is merely caught who is not supposed to own a gun, minimun 10 years, no parole.

The only drawback to no background checks is that it opens up legitimate gunstores to lawsuits by victims of violent crime committed by someone who bought a gun at a store since the check is not required.

Most violent crime is committed by repeat offenders. Unfortunately, the law doesn't allow for life imprisonment for violent felons who didn't kill someone, and sometimes not even when they do kill someone. I can't believe so many people want their right restored. These are the ASSHOLES who just feed ammo to the antis every time they do their stupid shit. They are a major part of OUR problem.
Top Top