So how long should a background check take? You get pulled over and a cop runs your license in 30 secs (probably exaggerated) and they know everything on your record. Or or how extensive do you want it? Blood drawn? Lie detector? I mean I'm all for background checks but a simple criminal background check and mental health check should be about it. At one time I had a top secret clearance from the goverment that took about 5-8 weeks, but that's a little much to exercise a right guaranteed to every US citizen. Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
I often wonder how well or thorough the mental background checks are I guess. Also tbh, it just kinda pisses me off that I have paid fees for over twenty years in order to carry and now it's just a free for all.
I get what you are saying, but think its a bit unfounded. Here in IL when the Appeals court ruled IL's complete ban on carry of loaded weapons outwide of the home was unconstitutional and was forced to implement it, we heard much of the same. "There will be blood in the streets" "It's gonna be the wild wild west all over again" It was and still is nonsense. Plenty of states, including AZ have had constitutional carry and nothing of the likes has occured. You'll never be able to weed them all out, ie. The Zimmerman's of the world, but tye ones that do break the law likely would have snapped if behind the wheel, road rage, or had a knife in their pocket. Concealed/open carry actually helps deter these situatuons due to the ever guessing unknowns.
The Supreme Court has already ruled that a vote tax puts an undue burden on citizens' right to vote. Some states (including IL) have ridiculous fees associated with FOIDs and especially carry permitting. Is it fair for poor people to have to pay a tax to protect themselves? In fact, I would argue by the very fact that they more frequently live in rural remote areas with little law enforcement protection; or conversely in high-crime areas; poor people are most egregiously and unduly burdened by such fees. By a&b I'm assuming assault and battery? Must have plead them down to misdemeanors. disqualifying records pertaining to NICS checks (from fbi.gov) _____________________ A federal prohibition would exist for any person who: Has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year Is a fugitive from justice Is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution Is an alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States or who has been admitted to the United States under a non-immigrant visa Has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions Having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced U.S. citizenship Is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner Has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence Is under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year In addition to federally prohibitive criteria, the NICS must delay or deny firearm transfers based on applicable state law. _______________ so it would appear your friends do not meet any of those criteria. Also, maybe you need better friends I would think it reasonable for any state to legislate something along the lines of more than one conviction of an offense involving violence against a person disqualify that person from firearm ownership.
And that's what I am wondering. I know I can go read an article about how it's working in other states but the tone of it all depends on how the author feels about it. I believe in concealed carry, I think it puts the thought in a criminals mind that the easy mark they may target might just be packing. I just think you should have to go through a class advising you of the law, ect..
hey man...just be happy you and your family were safe; and that now more people will be allowed to protect themselves. Small price to pay. Don't be envious of peoples' freedom just because you had to pay a higher price tag. "An armed society is a polite society." Robert A. Heinlein
I understand and agree to an extent. Most responsible firearm carriers will and do take regular training sessions and keep up with the laws as they cand and do change. It would be nice to see tax dollars fund some of these courses, not new taxes I already pay enough. Here in IL we have hunter safety courses that are free of charge, there is not an age limit but law states anyone that wants to go hunting born after 1990 I think(don't quote me) must have taken it. They could very easily do something similar on a monthly basis in every county to explain laws and do's and don'ts. I'm probably a little bit more passionate about it due to the fact I live in IL. Here we have to worry about the spring and fall legislative sessions the veto seassion late year and the lame duck sessions at the end of terms. It is a never ending occurrence and some of the absurd things they want and feel they need is scarey. Yet most here don't realize, while our rights were being denied and they were trying to tighten the restraints even further, they had already exempted themselves, like the sleazeballs always do, and were and still are legally allowed to conceal and carry. Bunch of hypocrites is what they are. Mandate me to pay exhorbitant fees and renewals, no thanks. There are other ways of legally being able to protect myself, and if such circumstances ever present theirselves, well I would rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6.
Make it through the polar vortex with 0 issues to anything farm related. Go out this morning and both the stock tank and chickens water are frozen complete solid. Breaker blew sometime after yesterday morning. Trying to chip the ice from the stock tank and break the tank. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I get the mental health thing, but honestly there's a long list that bout needs to get fixed beforehand. I have no doubt reporting those issues gets extremely overlooked but also you have to look at the treatment itself. Say they scrap the entire system and come up with something that works. Where's the cut off for what treatment justifies taking that right. Would one need to be committed? Would anyone taking medication for any number of conditions, depression, anxiety, whatever. I just feel until they define and come up with treatment it'd be hard to narrow down. I think we all know someone who's a few bricks short of having a full load but i guess what I'm trying to say is unless that person displays behavior to warrant not owning a firearm, well idk what the answer is. If qe just broad stroke mental illness as something that prevents ownership, imo, its too vague. Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Not really a big point but the hunters safety class is 1980. Just in case someone else is curious ha. Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
I was going to say 1980, but I took mine back in the late 80's and it was not mandatory. Figured since it was passed after that it may have been 1990 and later.
Yea I was born in 84 and had to take it. Idk when the law was passed ha. But they must have pushed it back instead of making it take effect on that date. Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
I may have had a blonde moment as well. I was born in 74 so would have been exempt anyway, could have been in effect back then as well lol.
Ha yea I'm may be also. I'm just goin off ppl i know. My buddy needs one and was born 82 I think but his wife was born in like 77 or 78 and doesn't. Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Well ****. I think we should start a movement to pool a load of $ together, buy a crateload of cheapass handguns with ammo, a few more crates of cheap booze and airdrop the whole load in downtown Chicago.
