12-26-2014, 12:04 PM
(12-25-2014, 05:58 PM)F.U. Dont ask again Wrote: The hoops are different for different states HotD.
Those are a few of my thoughts HotD. I am sure there is more but in my "foggy" state of mind it is all I can think of right now.
I hear ya -- was a bit foggy myself yesterday. Hope your Christmas celebrations were great, F.U.Thanks very much to you and Six for the replies. I really wanted to understand what you saw as onerous hoops to get a clearer understanding of your perspectives.
This isn't meant to be personal, just "no bullshit" direct communication between mature friends. One of the primary factors that's pushed me more towards actively supporting additional gun control over the last 18 months -- as much as increased coverage and awareness of gun-related crimes, laws and politics --is the mindsets/rationales/arguments of most gun enthusiasts here at Mock, in government, and in crime-related discussions. I've listened and read closely, with an open-mind.
What a sizable portion of the gun-owning population (in my experience) will position as "onerous" or "jumping through hoops" in order to resist supporting rational new gun control laws equates to nothing more than petty or minor personal inconvenience. Many of those same enthusiasts claim to support the common sense changes in theory, but then object to making such changes on the basis of execution/process.
So, getting away from rhetoric or agendas, here are my thoughts on your responses regarding "hoops":
The form 4473 that you mentioned is a page of questions for the buyer -- easily filled out within minutes. It's less comprehensive than a department store credit app, an appliance extended warranty form, a job application, etc... The dealer/seller portion of the form is also short and efficient. It is in no way taxing or burdensome, though I understand why a lot of people wish it were more of a hoop-jumping exercise. If you support background checks, which you've confirmed that you do upthread, there's no reasonable objection to the form 4473. Not onerous, not a hoop.
REF: FORM 4473 https://www.atf.gov/files/forms/download...4473-1.pdf
You mentioned that a call to NICS is required by the dealer or, in some case, the buyer. That is also a process step that takes only minutes in the vast majority of cases, based on the stats and feedback that I've examined. If you support background checks, which you've confirmed that you do upthread, there's no reasonable objection to calling in the application information so that a determination can be made as to whether the applicant is qualified for gun-ownership under existing laws. Not onerous, not a hoop.
The FOIS card that you mentioned applies only to gun-owning residents of Illinois. I actually wish something of that nature was required in all states and centrally tracked nationally. It's a state firemarms' license that is obtained after filling out an application and waiting 30 days for it to be checked and approved. If approved, it is valid for 10 years. It's of benefit to law enforcement in helping to enforce existing laws and, IMO, not onerous and not a large hoop for the gun-owner.
REF: FOIS Info http://www.isp.state.il.us/foid/firearmsfaq.cfm
In regards to the universal background check proposal that failed last year: When I read the 2013 bill pushing for universal background checks, I was surprised at how lax it was, honestly. It would simply have subjected private sells and transfers of firearms (except between family members, which it exempts) to the same background checking procedure as dealer sells and transactions. It's a no-brainer; that loophole should be closed for public safety and 90% of the population agrees, including the majority of gun owners. It also limited ammo clips to 10 rounds per cartridge, but the amended bill removed that ammo restriction altogether. It also expressly prohibits the creation of a national gun registry. Yes, it would have generated some additional work for dealers running the background checks for private sellers/buyers, for which a processing fee would be charged -- that's it. Perfectly reasonable, IMO.
REFS: Original bill: http://www.docstoc.com/docs/152165893/Pu...ection-Act
Amended: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonk...Toomey.pdf
When I consider the arguments of gun enthusiasts here -- arguments against the post-Newtown legislation -- they are hollow and self-serving to me, no matter how hard I try to find reasonableness and open-mindedness in them.
I do agree with you completely, however, that a national system for gun control would be awesome. The laws in different states vary drastically and that means traffickers will go to softer states to procure and then those guns wind up in states with strict gun laws anyway. Also, I can see how state-to-state variances might be a pain when a CCW-holder has a legitimate reason to wanna carry in other states, but cannot do so without a separate CCW permit for each state; the states, however, don't want it any other way.
And, just like that second amendment right to bear arms, state-sovereignty is secured by explicit intent in the US Constitution. I think username and blueberry are right about needing to evaluate the intent and interpretation of some portions of the Constitution for viability in present day American society. It's sometimes frustrating that laws and policies associated with gun control, same sex marriage, medicinal marijuana (national issues, IMO) are so inconsistent between states. However, usurping state authority and completely handing the keys to the federal government on those matters concerns me and many others. So, here we are.