Municipalities can`t ban people from owning handguns, court rules

[tlarkin]

Originally Posted by Reddbecca

It's for that reason that I'm about to do what I'm about to do.



Stop right there! This single sentence shows the ignorance of the liberal perspective on firearms, and why your side of the argument is constantly behind the blackball and resorts to absolute lies and trickery to get your way.

I am liberal about a lot of things, but not a liberal. I don't follow any political party and am a registered independent. I don't see any lies and trickery here at all. Just logic.

Not everyone can get a gun, and if you knew any of the questions on Form 4473 then you'd know that. Criminals and crazies are automatically excluded, leaving regular people with no criminal record or history of mental illness. To say that you don't think these people should have a blanket right to own a gun is declaring war on America, basically saying "I don't care if you've done nothing wrong, I still don't want you to just be able to buy a gun."

Yes I also know state departments do not communicate with each other very well and our government is very useless at sharing information. For example, I lived in Denver, CO many years ago. I knew I was moving back to KC in a month and had to school downtown, with all parking meters. That last month I got 3 speeding tickets and like 6 or 7 parking tickets (this was over 8 years ago) and never paid any of them. They also never showed on my record at all. I work for the government actually, and have had extensive background checks ran on me for my employment, had my fingerprints taken and ran. I have a clean slate, but I know plenty of people I have worked with in the past that didn't and got arrested in another state and nothing came up.

The privelage system doesn't work, at all. A privelage can be taken away at any time, for any reason. Under the privelage system a local government could automatically decide "local revenue has been lower this fiscal year than in others, so we're going to be confiscating all legally owned firearms and selling them to pick up the slack". Under the privelage system you could lose the ability to own a gun for absolutely no reason at all. If somebody didn't like your haircut and believed a bad haircut was evidence of an inability to manage your own affairs properly, they could take away your guns under the privelage system.

There is no way they could take away anyone's guns. Are you serious? How many guns are in the USA? How would the regulate it? Like I mentioned before banning anything in the USA or prohibiting the use does not even come close to stopping it. Our police and court systems are already flooded and banning firearms would just make it that much more of a cluster ----. You are stretching that argument pretty thin.

Yeah that's the usual liberal mentality, "It's alright for me to own a gun, but it's not alright for you."

When did I ever say it was not OK for anyone to own a gun?

And you think I bought an AR-15 thinking "I can cut down whole groups of people with this thing"? Get some common sense! Nobody buys a gun for self-defense and thinks "I really hope I get to use this" anymore than they buy a fire extinguisher and think "I really hope I get to break this thing out."

Nope, I would think more along the lines, if the zombie apocalypse happened I could kill me some zombies for survival. For the record, I shoot for sport at a range. I don't care if you hunt or do whatever, so i have no idea where you got this idea.

Are you complaining about that?

Nope, just stating how easy it was.

Are you trying to build a case to support the argument of "the easy available of guns"?

Building a case for what? I am pro people owning guns.

Federal laws dictate a criminal caught with a gun gets five years in prison just for that charge alone. It's never enforced though. Even gun traffickers never get the sentence they earn.

Yup and state laws differ from state to state and our system is so jacked up to begin with I could knock off liquor stores and do time in CA and then go to west virgina and get a job and go buy a gun and they may never know I was a felon.

Originally Posted by troy2000

There's a fundamental difference between a privilege and a right, larkin. You can reasonably regulate a right for public safety, but it cannot be arbitrarily denied. A privilege, on the other hand, is merely a gift from the government to the citizens, and can be taken back for capricious reasons, or for none at all.

Letting you shoot one of my guns would be a privilege which I can refuse to begin with, or revoke at will. Shooting your own gun is a right. The government can make reasonable rules as to when and where you shoot it, but it cannot deny you the right. The founders of our country thought that was important enough to make part of a remarkably short document that has no wasted words in it.

Good point. I guess we agree and were talking mostly semantics. However, the right to bare arms in our constitution does not really mean what it does today. They had those rights because everyone who lived back then was pretty much part of a militia or some sort of army. The minutemen so to speak. In today's world we have police forces and other law enforcement agencies that are suppose to serve and protect us. I am not against anyone owning a gun, I just think people that use them for the wrong reasons should not ever be allowed to own them.

Just this last couple of months someone has tried to break into my house twice while I was home. That was one of the reasons I bought a gun. I live in the city, where there are crack heads and criminals that come across town into where I live to rob and commit crime. My good friend was mugged at knife point in front of his house 3 blocks away. I have been mugged at knife point years ago outside a bar. I have had people try to break into my car while I was home. None of it ever bothered me to the point of fighting back until they tried to break into my house. I have taken martial arts off and on my entire life and I know and have learned hands on that giving someone a few dollars is better than dying for it. Fighting a fully resisting armed opponent is no walk in the park no matter how much training you have had. Unless, its what you do by profession like a recon marine or a navy seal or whatever.

So, no I don't have a problem with anyone owning a gun. I don't think it should be just a given right to everyone though either. Or maybe I should have worded it different, everyone shall get the right until the abuse it. Then it should be taken away.

[mym1a]

no power??? government has a lot of power?over gun purchases,look at the form you have to fill out to legaly purchase a firearm? back ground checks!why not enforce the laws thats on the books already,yes there are always some who would purchase guns and sell them in a state were there are heavy restrictions.But for the most part I think most gun dealers are squeeky clean, they have to be if they want to keep their business! and remain in the free world!

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by tlarkin

I guess we agree and were talking mostly semantics. However, the right to bare arms in our constitution does not really mean what it does today. They had those rights because everyone who lived back then was pretty much part of a militia or some sort of army. The minutemen so to speak. In today's world we have police forces and other law enforcement agencies that are suppose to serve and protect us.

It's not a semantic quibble, tlarkin. It's an essential, basic difference in legal status. The government cannot arbitrarily take your rights away. They must show a compelling reason, for example that as a violent felon or lunatic you're a danger to the public or yourself.

With a privilege, the government has no such burden. They can take it at will, for totally arbitrary reasons. The Constitution says "right;" it doesn't say privilege. And no, everyone back then wasn't part of an organized militia or army. Every able-bodied man then (and now) was, however, legally part of the unorganized militia; the pool of manpower from which organized militia and armies are drawn.

To claim a person only has the right to keep and bear arms when part of an organized militia or army is saying that he has no more rights to a weapon than a Hessian peasant, who was kept unarmed until he was drafted, issued a uniform and a gun, and rented out to the English to fight Americans.

Carrying a gun as part of an army or militia isn't a "right," it's a duty.

And the government can't simply decide the Constitution is outdated and no longer relevant. It's the legal basis of government in this country, and as such must be legally changed (amended), not just ignored.

[mym1a]

Originally Posted by troy2000

It's not a semantic quibble, tlarkin. It's an essential, basic difference in legal status. The government cannot arbitrarily take your rights away. They must show a compelling reason, for example that as a violent felon or lunatic you're a danger to the public or yourself.

With a privilege, the government has no such burden. They can take it at will, for totally arbitrary reasons. The Constitution says "right;" it doesn't say privilege. And no, everyone back then wasn't part of an organized militia or army. Every able-bodied man then (and now) was, however, legally part of the unorganized militia; the pool of manpower from which organized militia and armies are drawn.

To claim a person only has the right to keep and bear arms when part of an organized militia or army is saying that he has no more rights to a weapon than a Hessian peasant, who was kept unarmed until he was drafted, issued a uniform and a gun, and rented out to the English to fight Americans.

Carrying a gun as part of an army or militia isn't a "right," it's a duty.

And the government can't simply decide the Constitution is outdated and no longer relevant. It's the legal basis of government in this country, and as such must be legally changed (amended), not just ignored.

I have to agree again with you troy2000

[Reddbecca]

However, the right to bear arms in our constitution does not really mean what it does today. They had those rights because everyone who lived back then was pretty much part of a militia or some sort of army. The minutemen so to speak. In today's world we have police forces and other law enforcement agencies that are suppose to serve and protect us.

That is some of the most ignorant crap I have EVER heard at this board! What kind of propoganda have you been reading!?

The Second Amendment means exactly the same thing now that it did 230+ years ago when it was first drafted! The people have a right to bear arms, plain and simple. That right isn't dependant or contingent on militia service or anything of the such!

The Second Amendment wasn't about providing the government with an army, it was for providing protections against the government!

The police, the military and the National Guard are all enrolled, employed and paid by the government, they have absolutely nothing to do with the Second Amendment. They're the lapdogs and thugs of the government and have no obligation to protect you or anyone else, their only job is to protect against threats to the government and its various organizations.

And another thing, the police don't have to serve or protect. Read "Warren v. District of Columbia".

I am not against anyone owning a gun, I just think people that use them for the wrong reasons should not ever be allowed to own them.

The ones who use them to kill and commit other crimes don't have the right to own guns, they're not allowed to own guns, they do anyway; that the origin of the term "illegal guns". It's a crime for these people to even touch a gun, they don't care, they have them anyway and will continue to do so no matter what.

[mym1a]

Originally Posted by Reddbecca

That is some of the most ignorant crap I have EVER heard at this board! What kind of propoganda have you been reading!?

The Second Amendment means exactly the same thing now that it did 230+ years ago when it was first drafted! The people have a right to bear arms, plain and simple. That right isn't dependant or contingent on militia service or anything of the such!

The Second Amendment wasn't about providing the government with an army, it was for providing protections against the government!

The police, the military and the National Guard are all enrolled, employed and paid by the government, they have absolutely nothing to do with the Second Amendment. They're the lapdogs and thugs of the government and have no obligation to protect you or anyone else, their only job is to protect against threats to the government and its various organizations.

And another thing, the police don't have to serve or protect. Read "Warren v. District of Columbia".



The ones who use them to kill and commit other crimes don't have the right to own guns, they're not allowed to own guns, they do anyway; that the origin of the term "illegal guns". It's a crime for these people to even touch a gun, they don't care, they have them anyway and will continue to do so no matter what.

I wouldn't refer to vets as lap dogs and thugs for the government if I was you! it appears to me that many of the people in here have at one time or another served their country some during peace time some in a time of war! where were you ?

[tlarkin]

Originally Posted by Reddbecca

That is some of the most ignorant crap I have EVER heard at this board! What kind of propoganda have you been reading!?

First off, chill out. This is the internet and this is a forum. Isn't everyone allowed their opinion?

The Second Amendment means exactly the same thing now that it did 230+ years ago when it was first drafted! The people have a right to bear arms, plain and simple. That right isn't dependent or contingent on militia service or anything of the such!

Back then there was no law enforcement, no infrastructure to our country. Times have drastically changed. You can sit there and tell me its not but it has. I have never said once that I am against people owning guns.

The Second Amendment wasn't about providing the government with an army, it was for providing protections against the government!

Yes it was, we didn't have an army. Read a book.

The police, the military and the National Guard are all enrolled, employed and paid by the government, they have absolutely nothing to do with the Second Amendment. They're the lapdogs and thugs of the government and have no obligation to protect you or anyone else, their only job is to protect against threats to the government and its various organizations.

And another thing, the police don't have to serve or protect. Read "Warren v. District of Columbia".

OK, they are paid by our tax dollars and serve our country, ie it's citizens. I may not agree with what law enforcement or military do sometimes but I can't see how you can say they aren't here to serve and protect us. I think that excuse is used and abused in many different ways. That is another topic all together.

The ones who use them to kill and commit other crimes don't have the right to own guns, they're not allowed to own guns, they do anyway; that the origin of the term "illegal guns". It's a crime for these people to even touch a gun, they don't care, they have them anyway and will continue to do so no matter what.

Like I said earlier. I could have done time on the west coast and be a convicted felon, move to the east coast and go buy a gun and there is a good chance the background check wouldn't even pick it up. This is because the states do not communicate well and gun laws are a state level thing.

I have never once even really expressed a total opinion on the matter and you are already up in flame. I said I don't know the answers because it is a touchy subject. There should be some sort of gun control in my mind. People can conceal and carry in my state, which I don't have a huge problem with it, but I also don't see any evidence how that reduces violent crime or gun related crime. I also said that banning or prohibiting anything doesn't work in this country.

[mym1a]

Originally Posted by tlarkin

First off, chill out. This is the internet and this is a forum. Isn't everyone allowed their opinion?



Back then there was no law enforcement, no infrastructure to our country. Times have drastically changed. You can sit there and tell me its not but it has. I have never said once that I am against people owning guns.
[/i]


Yes it was, we didn't have an army. Read a book.



OK, they are paid by our tax dollars and serve our country, ie it's citizens. I may not agree with what law enforcement or military do sometimes but I can't see how you can say they aren't here to serve and protect us. I think that excuse is used and abused in many different ways. That is another topic all together.





Like I said earlier. I could have done time on the west coast and be a convicted felon, move to the east coast and go buy a gun and there is a good chance the background check wouldn't even pick it up. This is because the states do not communicate well and gun laws are a state level thing.

I have never once even really expressed a total opinion on the matter and you are already up in flame. I said I don't know the answers because it is a touchy subject. There should be some sort of gun control in my mind. People can conceal and carry in my state, which I don't have a huge problem with it, but I also don't see any evidence how that reduces violent crime or gun related crime. I also said that banning or prohibiting anything doesn't work in this country.

The mission or job that police are required to do is exactly what their title says LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER,enforce the law! nothing more nothing less!

[Reddbecca]

Originally Posted by mym1a

I wouldn't refer to vets as lap dogs and thugs for the government if I was you! it appears to me that many of the people in here have at one time or another served their country some during peace time some in a time of war! where were you ?

They're paid by the government, trained by the government, deployed by the government, armed by the government, disbanded by the government, and controlled by the government. What would you call them? If ordered to kill all Americans that didn't fully comply with the New World Order plan, the military would have no choice but to follow orders even if they were wrong. They're not trained to think, they're trained to obey.

First off, chill out. This is the internet and this is a forum. Isn't everyone allowed their opinion?

Yes, but if it's wrong I'm gonna point out the faults to it.

Back then there was no law enforcement, no infrastructure to our country. Times have drastically changed. You can sit there and tell me its not but it has. I have never said once that I am against people owning guns.

So because times have changed that means we have to readjust our view of the Constitution and adapt it to modern life, is that what you're saying?

Back in Colonial days there were no cellphones, landlines, computers, blackberries, or anything of the like, but they're still protected against unwarranted searches and seizures as provided by the Forth Amendment. Nobody can possess or own digital information, does that mean that the government can take it whenever they want without a warrant?

Back in Colonial days the only way to inform the masses was to hold public rallies. Today we have the Internet and can contact a million people with the touch of a key. Does that mean that the right to assemble is no longer necessary?

Yes it was, we didn't have an army. Read a book.

So you're telling me that the Second Amendment was introduced right near the beginning of a list of individual rights, to provide the government with the ability to form its own army? That's absolute BULL! That's saying that without the Second Amendment the government would've never been able to organize an army of its own for private use. And since when did any of the first ten Amendments give any power to the government?

OK, they are paid by our tax dollars and serve our country, ie it's citizens. I may not agree with what law enforcement or military do sometimes but I can't see how you can say they aren't here to serve and protect us. I think that excuse is used and abused in many different ways. That is another topic all together.

Taking On Gun Control - Do You Have a Right to Police Protection?

The three women sued the District of Columbia for failing to protect them, but D.C.'s highest court exonerated the District and its police, saying that it is a ``fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen.'' Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981).

I have never once even really expressed a total opinion on the matter and you are already up in flame.

That's because your opinions are infuriating.

There should be some sort of gun control in my mind.

Background checks are fine with me. Anymore than that, and forget it.

People can conceal and carry in my state, which I don't have a huge problem with it, but I also don't see any evidence how that reduces violent crime or gun related crime.

Criminals don't want to be killed by their targets, that's why they pick people they have reason to believe are weak. Concealed carry changes all that.

[troy2000]

Redbecca, I take exception to being called a government lapdog, and the cops I know aren't thugs. I think you've hit a new low, even for you.

[mym1a]

I'll be back time to get a beer !! maybe 2! okay now its time for black choppers and blue helmits behind the local wal-mart rebbeca??? yes I read the new world order and the conpirtory view of history by A.Ralph Epperson! I'm not ready to accept that quite yet!!!

comments like yours scare many people rebbeca and cast gun owners in a very negative light!!! but unless you have some evidence to support your claim your probably better off keeping those thoughts to your self??

Originally Posted by troy2000

Redbecca, I take exception to being called a government lapdog, and the cops I know aren't thugs. I think you've hit a new low, even for you.

well lets see, far left now far right I'm confused ?

[Reddbecca]

Originally Posted by mym1a

comments like yours scare many people rebbeca and cast gun owners in a very negative light!!! but unless you have some evidence to support your claim your probably better off keeping those thoughts to your self??

New Orleans, right after Katrina struck. The police and military were ordered to take all the guns, they took all guns by force. What more proof do you need to understand that the government cares absolutely nothing about you, they're only looking out for what's in the best interest of themselves?

[mym1a]

Originally Posted by Reddbecca

New Orleans, right after Katrina struck. The police and military were ordered to take all the guns, they took all guns by force. What more proof do you need to understand that the government cares absolutely nothing about you, they're only looking out for what's in the best interest of themselves?

what did was wrong but to the best of my knowledge that was carried out by the local PD not the us military

[Reddbecca]

Originally Posted by mym1a

what did was wrong but to the best of my knowledge that was carried out by the local PD not the us military

The National Guard was also confiscating guns, and the National Guard is the reserve army. Therefore both the military and police were committing unconstitutional acts on American soil against American citizens, simply because that's what they were told to do.

I'm not anti-military, or anti-police. However I refuse to tolerate for even one second the belief that citizens don't need to be armed since we have a real army and uniformed police officers. Those officers and soldiers are government issue and they will never, never, never be there to protect your or anyone else and keep you safe from harm, because it's not their job to do so. The job of the police is to enforce the laws, the job of the military is to protect the country from invasion, nothing else! Civilian protection is nowhere in any job description. You're on your own, accept it as fact!

[jashoffa]

All they do for background checks is call the local ATF and see if you have any felony convictions under your full name, you don't even have to give out your social (in some states).

I am a full time police dispatcher and a reserve police officer. I run NICS checks all the time. NICS would be the same system that has to be checked for all firearms purchases. Your dealer may have to call into NICS on the phone I get to use the NCIC computer system to do the same check. The NCIC system is the same thing we rely on for all warrants checks to make sure that officers stay safe and we know if the person they have stopped or are dealing with on a call is wanted. A person can be checked for warrants by Name and Date of Birth or Social Security number. Of the two the more reliable way to check a person for wanted is by name and date of birth. The reason for this is because a Social Security number has to be an exact match for the exact number. One wrong digit and you will not be checked for the correct person. This means that if a person alters just one number on their SSN they would not pop up as wanted. Checking by name and DOB is better because it checks by what is called sound-dexing on the name. Basicly it checks the name you enter and names that sound like the name you entered. So it will check Jones and Johns for example and it will also check the DOB + or - 1 year. So if my name is James Jones with a DOB of 1-24-1978 and I have a fake ID with the name Jim Johns and a DOB of 6-7-1977 it will still give a hit based hits with the same name and same sex. Race can also be used to narrow down a long list of hits. Checking for wanted and a NICS check is done in much the same way it is just the data base that is checked is different. Oh and by the way the wanted person data base is also checked when doing a NICS check. While it isn't a perfect system it is a pretty good system. I personally don't have anything agenst the system it self. I think it is nessisary to make sure that criminals can't just walk into a store and buy a gun.

[tlarkin]

So because times have changed that means we have to readjust our view of the Constitution and adapt it to modern life, is that what you're saying?

Back in Colonial days there were no cellphones, landlines, computers, blackberries, or anything of the like, but they're still protected against unwarranted searches and seizures as provided by the Forth Amendment. Nobody can possess or own digital information, does that mean that the government can take it whenever they want without a warrant?

Back in Colonial days the only way to inform the masses was to hold public rallies. Today we have the Internet and can contact a million people with the touch of a key. Does that mean that the right to assemble is no longer necessary?

The government has adapted to technology, ever heard of the FCC? Right now voice over IP is not regulated at all like other telecommunications by the FCC and its pretty much like the wild west. People are doing whatever they want and not abiding to any standards nor are they subjected to regulation by the government. That will most definitely change soon, once it becomes more of a standard technology we see all over the place.

I never said they should take away the right to bear arms or ban guns. I am saying our constitution is out of date and not up with the times. Of course we make amendments to it, but that doesn't always fix everything.

I am all for smaller government but at the same time I am all for someone to make sure everything and everyone plays nice. If we privatize everything we are going to end up getting screwed, and if we become one huge bureaucracy we will just end up in huge paper work trails and have to abide by ridiculous regulations. It is one giant catch 22.

I am a full time police dispatcher and a reserve police officer. I run NICS checks all the time. NICS would be the same system that has to be checked for all firearms purchases. Your dealer may have to call into NICS on the phone I get to use the NCIC computer system to do the same check. The NCIC system is the same thing we rely on for all warrants checks to make sure that officers stay safe and we know if the person they have stopped or are dealing with on a call is wanted. A person can be checked for warrants by Name and Date of Birth or Social Security number. Of the two the more reliable way to check a person for wanted is by name and date of birth. The reason for this is because a Social Security number has to be an exact match for the exact number. One wrong digit and you will not be checked for the correct person. This means that if a person alters just one number on their SSN they would not pop up as wanted. Checking by name and DOB is better because it checks by what is called sound-dexing on the name. Basicly it checks the name you enter and names that sound like the name you entered. So it will check Jones and Johns for example and it will also check the DOB + or - 1 year. So if my name is James Jones with a DOB of 1-24-1978 and I have a fake ID with the name Jim Johns and a DOB of 6-7-1977 it will still give a hit based hits with the same name and same sex. Race can also be used to narrow down a long list of hits. Checking for wanted and a NICS check is done in much the same way it is just the data base that is checked is different. Oh and by the way the wanted person data base is also checked when doing a NICS check. While it isn't a perfect system it is a pretty good system. I personally don't have anything agenst the system it self. I think it is nessisary to make sure that criminals can't just walk into a store and buy a gun.

That is nice to know but how effective is it really? Is this a federal thing, so everyone has access to the same database across all 50 states? Or, like how I mentioned earlier this is a state level thing and since most states do not communicate very well with each other and people very commonly slip through the cracks. It happens every day. There is no perfect system for any kind of gun control that I can think of. Stiffer laws may not be the answer either. In your experience how well does this system work. When I bought a gun they ran my full name and DOB just like you said. I am clean, zero arrests my whole life, so no flags were raised.

[Reddbecca]

I am saying our constitution is out of date and not up with the times.

Bull***t! The Constitution (at least the Bill of Rights portion) is hardly what could be considered out of date. That's just more liberal propoganda thrown out there by people who don't like the fact that something they oppose is a right and protected. If the right to bear arms is outdated, then so's the right to free speech since they were written at the same time, as well as the right to a speedy and public trial by impartial jury, or the protection against being tried twice for the same crime, or the right to an attorney.

[cma g21]

Originally Posted by tlarkin

Well it already is a privilege in many ways. You have to be a certain age, you have to meet the state requirements, so on and so forth. Not everyone just has the right to own a gun. I mean how does a non citizen get a gun? If they aren't citizens they don't have the same rights, or do they?
I am not saying I have the answers Troy, I am saying that is not a right because not everyone can just own a gun.

Then, by your reasoning, is voting also a privilege (since it is similarly restricted)?
Is there anything you’d consider a right, or is it all privliges?

Originally Posted by tlarkin

Yes it was, we didn't have an army. Read a book.

Just curious, to what book are you referring?

My own reading seems to indicate the Bill of Rights was written to enumerate certain individual rights, not governmental powers.

[tlarkin]

So because times have changed that means we have to readjust our view of the Constitution and adapt it to modern life, is that what you're saying?

Back in Colonial days there were no cellphones, landlines, computers, blackberries, or anything of the like, but they're still protected against unwarranted searches and seizures as provided by the Forth Amendment. Nobody can possess or own digital information, does that mean that the government can take it whenever they want without a warrant?

Back in Colonial days the only way to inform the masses was to hold public rallies. Today we have the Internet and can contact a million people with the touch of a key. Does that mean that the right to assemble is no longer necessary?

The government has adapted to technology, ever heard of the FCC? Right now voice over IP is not regulated at all like other telecommunications by the FCC and its pretty much like the wild west. People are doing whatever they want and not abiding to any standards nor are they subjected to regulation by the government. That will most definitely change soon, once it becomes more of a standard technology we see all over the place.

I never said they should take away the right to bear arms or ban guns. I am saying our constitution is out of date and not up with the times. Of course we make amendments to it, but that doesn't always fix everything.

I am all for smaller government but at the same time I am all for someone to make sure everything and everyone plays nice. If we privatize everything we are going to end up getting screwed, and if we become one huge bureaucracy we will just end up in huge paper work trails and have to abide by ridiculous regulations. It is one giant catch 22.

I am a full time police dispatcher and a reserve police officer. I run NICS checks all the time. NICS would be the same system that has to be checked for all firearms purchases. Your dealer may have to call into NICS on the phone I get to use the NCIC computer system to do the same check. The NCIC system is the same thing we rely on for all warrants checks to make sure that officers stay safe and we know if the person they have stopped or are dealing with on a call is wanted. A person can be checked for warrants by Name and Date of Birth or Social Security number. Of the two the more reliable way to check a person for wanted is by name and date of birth. The reason for this is because a Social Security number has to be an exact match for the exact number. One wrong digit and you will not be checked for the correct person. This means that if a person alters just one number on their SSN they would not pop up as wanted. Checking by name and DOB is better because it checks by what is called sound-dexing on the name. Basicly it checks the name you enter and names that sound like the name you entered. So it will check Jones and Johns for example and it will also check the DOB + or - 1 year. So if my name is James Jones with a DOB of 1-24-1978 and I have a fake ID with the name Jim Johns and a DOB of 6-7-1977 it will still give a hit based hits with the same name and same sex. Race can also be used to narrow down a long list of hits. Checking for wanted and a NICS check is done in much the same way it is just the data base that is checked is different. Oh and by the way the wanted person data base is also checked when doing a NICS check. While it isn't a perfect system it is a pretty good system. I personally don't have anything agenst the system it self. I think it is nessisary to make sure that criminals can't just walk into a store and buy a gun.

That is nice to know but how effective is it really? Is this a federal thing, so everyone has access to the same database across all 50 states? Or, like how I mentioned earlier this is a state level thing and since most states do not communicate very well with each other and people very commonly slip through the cracks. It happens every day. There is no perfect system for any kind of gun control that I can think of. Stiffer laws may not be the answer either. In your experience how well does this system work. When I bought a gun they ran my full name and DOB just like you said. I am clean, zero arrests my whole life, so no flags were raised.

[jashoffa]

That is nice to know but how effective is it really? Is this a federal thing, so everyone has access to the same database across all 50 states? Or, like how I mentioned earlier this is a state level thing and since most states do not communicate very well with each other and people very commonly slip through the cracks. It happens every day. There is no perfect system for any kind of gun control that I can think of. Stiffer laws may not be the answer either. In your experience how well does this system work. When I bought a gun they ran my full name and DOB just like you said. I am clean, zero arrests my whole life, so no flags were raised.

Well of course it is only as good as the info provided by the states but I am almost certian that it is linked to criminal history data and this is updated after every arrest. Finger prints are taken from the subject and they are sent to the FBI and the state. The agancy sends them directly to the FBI and includes arrest information such as the charge. The FBI uses the finger print to ID the person and then includes the information on that person criminal history. If the person used an AKA when arrested then that AKA is added to the persons criminal history and so would also be forwarded to NICS. When the Name and DOB is ran it would cross check all AKA's with like DOB's in the system. LIke I said not perfect but pretty good. The likely hood of a false ID would be very minimal due to IDing people by finger prints.

The real cracks in the system is more on the Mental health side. We all know there is some debate over that but at the criminal level it would be very difficult for a convicted criminal with feloney convictions to walk into a store and purchase a gun. Of course it doesn't fix private sales problems but then nothing will.