Are revolvers the most reviled of firearms available?

You really are quite naive about law enforcement aren’t you ? Just throwing ideas out there like local enforcement is an endless reserve of manhours you can just use at any task is pretty uninformed.

 

As long as you double your taxes to pay for it

 

Then ultimately what is being stated on the part of yourself, is that law enforcement should not be notified when a potential crime is being committed? With the justification for such a stance being that investigating the matter to determine whether or not a crime was actually committed is prohibitively expensive?

Or is the matter being objected to out of fear of the public learning the majority of firearms denials are nothing more than false positives that never should be been denied in the first place?

 

This information is available on request under certain circumstances to law inforcement agencies.....why do you persist on being so unaware and devoid of knowledge. Read the article.

 

Dagosa,
I want to apologize. In an earlier post I had compared these two posts of yours. In my post I had suggested that you might be confused. Seems the moderators had an issue with me suggesting that. I apologize for my use of confused. I will rephrase my comment.

I think you are wrong.

Rich

 

I’m not wrong. I’m 100% correct.
To clarify. The NRA main single agenda , is a profit driven agenda on behalf of the gun industry. It always has been.
In accomplishing that goal, they one, direct funds from any source they can to the pockets of cooperative politians. They are also in the business of presenting false narratives, distorting facts from ligitimate sources and using the worse elements in human behavior, including fear, to get to that that end.

So, the nra has one main goal with a multi prong attack to that end. You can say that every profit driven business operates in a similar fashion. It’s just that in our society, the NRA has no legal, ethical or even moral boundaries.

 

No it isn’t another argument. This is what gun rights people would want it to be. But it isn’t. . It’s the same argument. What kind of firearms does the state regulate and to whom, and how. This argument is still on the fence. Regulation is regulation. You either have it or you don’t. It’s either effective or it isn’t. It’s either enforced or it isn’t. It’s either Federal or local.

 

Then ultimately what is the reason for opposing law enforcement being alerted to when a potential crime is being committed? That is ultimately what this is.

 

So, if you failed a background check for being a bus driver in your town, and you felt it was a clerical mistake, would you want every law enforcement agency in your town notified and further the chances it became public knowleged ? If you were already being investigated for child abuse, then yes, local law enforcement should then search your records for failed back ground checks. There is a big difference between data mining for offenses and due process.

There is also the obligation to research and investigate every crime without discretion with limited budgets that local law enforcement agencies DONOT want to be notified of. Investigations are the most expensive part of law enforcement and most agencies just don’t have the budget for them. If you were in law enforcemt , you’d know it. There are only 35k FBI agents in the entire US and they don’t want to investigate all of them, only the most aggressions individuals. If a suspected terrorist pops up on a failed back ground check, yes. If JOe Blow misspells his name, no. Law enforcement agencies still under have that option under the right circumstances ....maybe you don’t understand that ?

Are you that unwilling to read the articles ? Or is this a continued trolling exercise ?

 

You treat all law inforcement as one entity. Gun cultists do this all the time. You need get a handle on the difference between federal, state and local laws and enforcement and how they are alike and different.

 

Regulation is not just regulation. The federal government has different roles, such as protecting interstate and international commerce, in that regard they have a role in the sale and transport of firearms across state or international borders. That certainly doesn't mean they can prohibit our rights that are clearly written in the Constitution...

 

In in the united states it is not a criminal offense to fail a background check.

It is, however, a criminal offense, specifically a felony-level offense, for a prohibited individual to even attempt to possess a firearm regardless of the means involved. And as prohibited individuals are the only individuals who would have a legitimate reason for not passing a background check performed by a federally licensed firearms dealer, a potential crime has been committed in each one of these denials. If prohibited individuals are not going to be investigated and prosecuted for their efforts at committing numerous felony offenses, then it undermines both the purpose and the legitimacy of the law even existing in the first place.

Or is it being stated by yourself that the monetary value of an investigation into a potential felony offense, simply greatly exceeds the market value of a human life, and therefore is not cost effective?

 

Such has no relevancy to the current discussion at hand.

 

It has everything to do with it because each has a different level of resources . You’re making an issue about something that even the aclu would be up in arms about.....the distribution of everyone who failed a background check. You’ve got all the reasons.....it’s use bliviating.

 

Why don’t you read the article ? You never once referenced it. Are you afraid to do a little research on your own ?

 

Are there any states who serve as a point of contact for background checks who do not use the Form 4473 submitted to NICS in addition to other state-managed background checks for purchases from FFLs?

 

Actually many more are secured by states. It all, depends upon the resources the states are willing to put into the effort.
https://www.politifact.com/new-hamp...eople-trying-buy-gun-illegally-us-senator-ke/

 

The article presented on the part of yourself has indeed been read. In fact it has been read quite thoroughly. But none of the information found within the article changes the facts of the matter. If a potential crime is being committed, then it should be investigated. Determine who has been denied due to a false positive, and who has been denied due to being a prohibited individual who is committing at least one felony offense in their effort to acquire a firearm.

If prosecutors have no interest in prosecuting prohibited individuals who made a deliberate attempt at acquiring firearms, which is a felony offense, then there is no legitimacy in the background check system even existing to begin with, as there is simply no incentive to abide by the rules that are in place. What is the point of convicted felons being legally prohibited from firearms possession, when their efforts at acquiring firearms will simply not be taken seriously by those who are actually in a position of authority?

The entire position on the part of yourself serves to undermine the entire point of the background check system even existing. If it is easily subverted without any effort, it serves no point in existing. If its violations will not be prosecuted, it serves no point in existing. If there is no incentive to abide by it since incidents will not be investigated, it serves no point in existing.

 

Investigated ? . It’s up to the discretion of state and locals already.




https://www.politifact.com/new-hamp...eople-trying-buy-gun-illegally-us-senator-ke/

 

They should violate no one no ones rights when they obey the regulations. None of your rights....NONE are absolute. Do you know what that means ?

 

https://www.politifact.com/new-hamp...eople-trying-buy-gun-illegally-us-senator-ke/

 

Sure, whatever you say.

 

"Under the federal Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993, gun shop owners and other licensed authorities in many states -- 21 to be exact, including New Hampshire -- conduct at least a portion of the background checks themselves through the FBI’s background check system.

Agencies in these states conducted about 4.37 million checks in 2010, leading to the 80,191 denials, according to Frandsen’s report.

But, those 29 states that do not conduct the checks themselves defer instead to the FBI to do so. In 2010, the FBI conducted about 6.04 million checks, 72,659 of which were denied, Frandsen noted in the study."

So all states use the NICS background check system in one way or the other, which means that a Form 4473 is filled out, and lying on that form is a federal felony.

 

States are not requested to enforce federal laws unless they are duplicated on their own statutes or a warrent is issued by the federal govt. Lying on any federal firearms form goes to intent . It’s not an automatic felony. Therefore it must be investigated, a warrent served and indicted made along with putting a trial on a docket.


But, if you prosecute every one of them, you would literally double the case load of every court system in the United States. Eliminating 140, 000 ( dealer plus private sales) potential felony purchases by gun buyers while saving special prosecution for some seems reasonable.

But, if you want to really rid the. US of most gun violence ., I agree, we should require background checks for private sales as well as dealer sales, double the FBI agents from 35000 to 70000, double the courts and prosecutors and prosecute every fn one of them. You get no disagreement there.




https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/usao/legacy/2011/09/01/10statrpt.pdf

 

Of course it has no relevancy to you. It’s beyound comprehension.