They support some form of universal back ground checks (for dealers and maybe gun shows) but the support for all private back ground checks is not a majority.
Background checks, keeping guns from mentaly ill, young people(illegal to buy a gun under 18 in most places), and violent offenders is an infringment on the second ammendment as it has no provisions for these things. These however are perfectly reasonable infringments. Just like I have freedom of speech until I start slandering others. Or freedom of religon until I decide on raping children in my cult or some other such dispicable behaivor.
PA- Background check done beforehand buy the buyer seems like a great idea to me.
On convenient background checks. In the mid 90's, in Illinois, I worked the sporting goods department. To sell a gun we called a number to the state police and gave the buyers info. A short time later (within min) a call back was recieved with an authorisation #, or a rejection. I thought this was very reasonable and minimaly intrusive. I can't see why every state could not do this. It would be ideal (I think) for private sales .
About backgroundcheck fees- The problem I have with this is our gov. has a history of instating reasonable fees, only to later increase them to unreasonable rates to effectivly bypass the legislative system. I am specificaly thinking of FFL deals who had their rates increased in an effort to shut down all but high volume dealers.
Yeah...it was a sort of throw-away thought but seems a good way to go to me.
If "you" want a gun then "you" have to do the leg-work to get one.
Heh...or that. Use the telephone. That seems obvious. You could even use a mobile phone and then the seller could drive to old shadows house to give him a gun to stop him from having to leave the house.
My background check to get my Browning BPS at Sportsman's Warehouse took 20 minutes (counting the time spent filling out paperwork) and cost $10.
I am fully in support of universal background checks. We have laws saying who is not allowed to own guns (i.e., felons and domestic abusers) and this is how we enforce it. People say "enforce the laws we have" and this is one such enforcement mechanism.
That sounds utterly reasonable to me. If you're going to have civilian gun ownership then that would seem to be the very least that should happen before you get to take one home.
Why does a person need to present himself physically at a gun dealership?
If the DVA don't need to physically see me to assess my security clearance application, then why would a gun dealer? Surely a form that you send away would work fine in such a situation.
The finger printing is excessive. If the UK government doesn't think they need to fingerprint me when they are giving me access to state secrets, I hardly think the US government needs to fingerprint you to give you access to a firearm.
All gun owners should have to have a signed character reference from a respected member of the community in good standing and reputation.
I have to say I went through more background checks to become a volunteer dog walker at the RSPCA than some Americans go through to get a gun.
Now...does that seem right to anyone at all?
Probably fine I think. The EDL and extreme Muslim groups do "let's see who can be most hateful" marches and rallys all the time.
What's strange to me is that someone would complain about having to drive for an hour and jump through some legal hoops, as if convenience itself was a human right, if it potentially prevented even just one child from being gunned down by setting up tighter gun control and enforcement.
It's not strange that people do things differently in other countries.
But it's strange that fairly simple background checks for owning deadly weapons (cue someone mentioning swords, cars and/or swimming pools?) aren't routine, widespread and country wide.
In 2013 it should be effectively impossible to fake an ID well enough to fiddle such a background check. All they'd have to do is check the ID number and confirm the photo on the record is the photo on the ID.