Guns: Universal background checks

I think the licenses should expire just like driver's licenses do. And if you want to renew your license, you must complete a training course.

 

That's already done with a concealed carry licenses. Whenever I buy through a private seller I show my CCL and the seller can transact with confidence. I have no problem with a law that requires you to show a CCL for a private sale. Otherwise it should be handled through an FFL. With the grandson example, wait till he's 21 and gets his CCL. Otherwise go through a background check with an FFL when he's 18. The difference is only three years. I think that is a fair compromise to the background check issue.

 

I would be OK if the law was that everyone who bought or owned a gun was required to have a CCL and go through training that need to be renewed.

 

Using this example (and assuming the new expanded background check was law), how then can a father or grandfather legally take their child hunting? I went deer hunting with my dad when I was 13. How could he have legally allowed me to use a gun?

 

In the hunting example your dad wasn't transferring possession of the gun. You aren't allowed to possess a firearm in Texas until you are 18 and that applies only to shotguns.

 

So, to answer you original question, here are some issues that folks may have with expanded background checks - on a personal note, I have no problem with expanded backgorund checks becuase I do not currently own a gun, nor do I plan to.

1. If you are going to insist on expanded background checks, make sure you enforce them AND enforce the penalties with failing to go through the background process for all parties involved.

2. It can't be so restrictive as to disallow a parent and child to go hunting together or shoot for sport (e.g. skeet/trap shooting). In other words, a legal gun owner should be allowed to 'loan' a gun to a person he is with.

3. It can't be a one time thing. If I pass a background check at 15 years of age I should eventually have to pass another background check. In most cases a 15 year old would pass a background check. However, would that same 15 year old pass one at 21?

 

I was referring to the article in which it said that one could not 'loan' a gun to another. How is 'loan' defined?

 

I know for NFA weapons you are not allowed to lose "control" or possession of the weapon...meaning you cannot let your buddy borrow your gun and bring it back tomorrow. It's fine if you let someone shoot your gun while it is still in your control (you're with them). I would think the same applies for title I weapons. That is my understanding but I am not a lawyer.

 

Those are the types of questions that need answers. To take it a bit further, if one's 15 year old son wants to go hunting with his uncle. How can you then allow him to use your gun based on the way the proposed law reads since you will not be with him? Obviously, these are end case scenarios, but they are issues that are commonplace and not unusual. If these types of things are too restrictive, there will be a lot of resistance.

 

I haven't gone hunting in a long time but my understanding is that all states require people to have a hunting license so if you are going to take your kid hunting you need a license for your kid. I don't see then the problem with having your kid get a gun license and also having your gun registered. To make it even easier could have something like a learners permit for parents that want to take their kid's hunting or target shooting which says they can only shoot when they are with an adult also licensed.

 

The problem is you all are trying to come up with solutions to fix every possible scenario. The only way you can do that is to require every gun owner to register their guns.
Sorry, but that isn't going to happen. The NRA and everyone else will make sure this legislation doesn't pass, regardless of my or your opinions on the subject. Any attempts will either lead to a waste of time or a watered down ineffective legislation.

Yes, you leave the requirements loose. (no, its not a loophole) But if a gun owner understands that if he sells to a person who would not pass a back ground check, he could be held responsible. Sure, if a gun is used in a crime, it may not always be able to be traced back to the previous owner. Along the lines of ownership, that gun has been registered somewhere and quite often it can be tracked.
Right now, I can't be held responsible for a private sale transfer as long as I knowingly didn't sell it to a criminal. If legislation is passed stating I could be held responsible, you can guarantee that I will pay the $25.00 to ensure the buyer passes a background check.

 

So, how do you protect your home and your family? What would you do if a bad guy broke into your house at 2am while you and your family are sleeping? Wait 30 minutes for the cops to get there?

 

True. Background checks are done each and every time you buy a gun in a retail setting.

 

I call the police and I have a damn good alarm system. I feel MUCH safer in a home without a gun. Much, much safer.

 

First of all that's probably not going to happen. Secondly there's an alarm, and it won't take 30 minutes for the cops to get there. If someone breaks in and hears the alarm they are going to run. If they don't run, they get caught.

 

This is essentially the argument that is put forward by the NRA et al that significant change can't be made so we really shouldn't try. If that was the attitude then things would never change.

You either see this as a problem or you don't. Those of us who do will work to change the laws.

Those are the same thing. Loose requirements mean that there are loopholes in the law.

Except how can the gun be tracked if registry is completely voluntary? Your enforcement of potentially holding someone who sells a gun irresponsibly is dependent on the ability to track the gun. If there is no impetus to register the weapon there likely will be very few who do.

 

If you have a CCL, the background check is waived in CO/TX. Maybe other places as well.