Exclusive: Feds issue 4,000 orders to seize guns from people who failed NICS

[Sgt.K]

Personally, the idea that if the check isn't done in 3 days you get the gun is stupid. In this day and age with the technology available, there should be no reason it can't be done in a timely fashion. But to say that we need a background check, and then to say if it isn't done soon enough go ahead with the purchase, that's just idiotic. Either you need to have a check or not.

When .gov decides the folks who do NICS checks are more critically needed to help individual taxpayers get thru the new tax laws for the next 4½ months, how long are we supposed to wait for the check to get done? Then, after April 15, when they're still needed to help the small businesses with their quarterly taxes for another 3 months? There needs to be *some* number of days to force .gov to fulfill their part of the agreement, or they can say "We're working on it, there's just a backlog because we just don't have enough people right now - we'll get to yours eventually..."

A line needs to be drawn. Is 3 days the right line? That's a whole 'nuther discussion, and I could easily argue either side, but there *needs* to be a line.

My 2¢

[Sandcut]

This is a fine line. Are you against a federal check, or any check at all? We tend to believe anyone should be able to purchase, but we might think the only ones buying are responsible owners like us. I know several people who should NEVER own a firearm because of issues that label them currently prohibited.

Actually, I don't have a problem with the requirement of a background check under the following provisions:

1. The requirement is tied to the issuance by the holder of a Federal Firearms License. Those who do not hold an FFL, as in long arm sales by individuals in PA, should not be subject to the requirements as we aren't subject to licensure requirements.

2. The issuance of the check by the FFL is set up on a "Shall Issue" system where issuance is the default unless a prohibiting offense is present. To answer the question above about "why three days"? Because a bureaucratic failure to process a request should never amount to a tacit denial. In the absence of a "drop dead" date for processing, under the right (or wrong in this case) administration, an executive order could be given to indefinitely delay ALL requests for background checks. Three days is may be a long time, but it realistically allows for checking on conflicting information to be vetted. Most folks that I know that have clean backgrounds take less than 30 minutes. I've been out in under 10.

Those same people can buy long guns face to face, or handguns at the flea market in Rogers Ohio. They can buy gasoline, pressure cookers, diesel fuel, fertilizer. They can buy knives, machetes and flamethrowers off the internet. They can buy cars, busses and trucks.
Glad they can't legally get hold of firearms.

Pretty sure that last part of the 2A says shall not be infringed. I'm sure there were nutjobs back when the Constitution was written.

Again, there are ways to get firearms, legally and without a check. The check goes along with the requirements of the FFL, not necessarily with the sale of a firearm. There is no legal licensure required to sell a knife or a pressure cooker.

[Jason O]

This is a fine line. Are you against a federal check, or any check at all? We tend to believe anyone should be able to purchase, but we might think the only ones buying are responsible owners like us. I know several people who should NEVER own a firearm because of issues that label them currently prohibited.

I am against ANY background check.

Sure, people we don't like or consider dangerous will have access to firearms, but thats a consequence of a free society

Those same people can buy long guns face to face, or handguns at the flea market in Rogers Ohio. They can buy gasoline, pressure cookers, diesel fuel, fertilizer. They can buy knives, machetes and flamethrowers off the internet. They can buy cars, busses and trucks.
Glad they can't legally get hold of firearms.

Pretty sure that last part of the 2A says shall not be infringed. I'm sure there were nutjobs back when the Constitution was written.

Amen, Brother.

Actually, I don't have a problem with the requirement of a background check under the following provisions:

1. The requirement is tied to the issuance by the holder of a Federal Firearms License. Those who do not hold an FFL, as in long arm sales by individuals in PA, should not be subject to the requirements as we aren't subject to licensure requirements.

2. The issuance of the check by the FFL is set up on a "Shall Issue" system where issuance is the default unless a prohibiting offense is present. To answer the question above about "why three days"? Because a bureaucratic failure to process a request should never amount to a tacit denial. In the absence of a "drop dead" date for processing, under the right (or wrong in this case) administration, an executive order could be given to indefinitely delay ALL requests for background checks. Three days is may be a long time, but it realistically allows for checking on conflicting information to be vetted. Most folks that I know that have clean backgrounds take less than 30 minutes. I've been out in under 10.




Again, there are ways to get firearms, legally and without a check. The check goes along with the requirements of the FFL, not necessarily with the sale of a firearm. There is no legal licensure required to sell a knife or a pressure cooker.

I do.

Why not simply do away with FFL's, and all of the associated gov't involvement.

[Sandcut]

I am against ANY background check.

Sure, people we don't like or consider dangerous will have access to firearms, but thats a consequence of a free society






Amen, Brother.





I do.

Why not simply do away with FFL's, and all of the associated gov't involvement.

I wouldn't object to that either, but that isn't the system that we have.