cross post from GCRA

[friendly_iconoclast]

For some reason the OP there did not see fit to post it where it can be freely discussed:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/126213787

How background checks for guns should work.

I'd like to see some serious reform of the background check system. As it is a search of the FBI data base for felony crimes and a search for involuntary mental care is about all there is.

This is how I'd like to see the background checks be made more effective:

Include a 'permit to purchase' issued by the nearest local law enforcement department. These people are nearest to the purchaser and if there are concerns they will be the ones who know about them. Is this person a scofflaw, causes disturbances not rising to the level of felony, a repeat minor offender or someone who is often in the attention of law enforcement for disturbance of the peace? Shouldn't that be grounds for increased scrutiny and at least a temporary prohibition? Include interviews with relatives and others close to the person to see if there are concerns about maturity and stability in that 'permit to purchase' process.

Include a search of public social media. How many times have we heard of a 'Manifesto' or outright threats found on social media AFTER a tragedy? Shouldn't a threat to 'put a bullet' in the head of Nancy Pelosi be grounds to refuse sales and temporarily remove firearms from someone?

Expand mental health prohibitions to anyone treated for a condition that would indicate a possibility of harm to themselves or others even if not rising to the level of an involuntary committal for care.

Beyond that those who know me know I favor the prohibition of all semi automatic firearms that have interchangeable magazines of any size. I see that as the only way to reduce the volume of deaths and injuries--make it harder to shoot fast and reload fast. If we can't prevent people from killing other people shouldn't at least make it inconvenient to kill a lot of them?

Questions, questions...

What other things held to be an individual right should be subject to such non-judicial scrutiny by law enforcement
before being exercised?

[Hawker123]

1. Sad they are scared to post where actual dialogue could happen.

[Dial H For Hero]

2. On second thought, let's not go to Bansalot. It is a silly place.

[friendly_iconoclast]

3. I got booted for saying that strict licensing was permissable *if* impartially administered

Bzzt! Not restrictive enough...

[Hawker123]

5. Not surprised

All you have to do is compare banned numbers between the two groups

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

4. Who said this?

"Let us not seek the Republican answer or the Democratic answer, but the right answer. Let us not seek to fix the blame for the past. Let us accept our own responsibility for the future."

[melm00se]

6. Pick a harder one

JFK

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

7. Okay, who said this? Here's a favorite:

"You have to have been a Republican to know how good it is to be a Democrat."

[melm00se]

8. Kennedy on the brain today?

Jackie

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

9. Okay. Try this: "No one has ever become poor by giving."

[melm00se]

10. Anne Frank

[The Mouth]

11. It should be exactly as hard to get a gun as it is to vote

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

12. Well, voting is free.

[RotorHead]

13. I always ask those people...

...if they would be willing to apply such criteria to the First, Fourth, Thirteenth and Twenty-Sixth Amendments, and if not... why?

I have nevet yet received a coherent, rational, logical response.

[yagotme]

14. My guess is, (with prior experience), you won't.

The 2d seems to be the only amendment that seems to be fit for modification/elimination by some. The founders, when drafting the "Bill of RIGHTS", seemed to place a rather high importance on it. After all, it WAS arms confiscation by the Brits that started the whole shooting match off. The straw/camel's back thing, you know.