Isn't it obvious that the Federal background check system has so many problems, mainly with improper reporting, that the state check would identify some unfit and unqualified people who would otherwisg go undiscovered?A Colorado proposal to eliminate state background checks for firearm purchases has been tentatively approved by the Republican state House.
The bill would end checks done by the Colorado Bureau of Investigation. Republican Rep. Mark Waller, who sponsored the bill, said the state is spending unnecessarily on its background check program. Walker says the background checks duplicate ones already done federally.
A state review found that getting rid of the state background checks could save almost $2 million a year.
Many Democrats oppose the idea because they say Colorado's program is more thorough than the FBI's background check.
It makes you wonder what the Republican gun-rights champions are thinking? This would be a typical case in which the only benefit would be removing a small inconvenience for gun owners at the cost of certain dangerous people buying guns legally.
I don't even want to consider the savings as a true motivation. No state is so bad-off that 2 million dollars makes a difference.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
Oh, sure, spending money twice to get one result is always a good idea--to the government.
ReplyDeleteBut it's not one result. The State database has info that's lacking in the federal one, and vice versa.
DeleteWhy wouldn't you want the most thorough screening for something as important as this?
This is my objection: We live in an age in which government at all levels knows far too much about everyone. If you were paying attention during the Bush administration, you saw this. It's a rare event when government becomes less intrusive.
DeleteA database of correctly prohibited persons is something that we could agree on, but your side and my side cannot trust each other. If we could agree on a set of principles--good citizens get to carry everywhere, bad citizens get their records reported (with the possibility of expungement, if they straighten up), and so forth--we could work together on this, but you never show any willingness to budge. I've asked you before, why should we give up anything, when you refuse to do the same?
And before you claim that your gun laws would save lives, understand that I don't believe that. Reporting criminals to the database is a good idea, but it won't stop any enterprising bad guy from getting a gun.
Greg, They're not all "enterprising bad guys," many are retarded idiots who would shrug their shoulders and not bother getting a gun if it were that difficult. Do you really want to make it easier for people like that.
DeleteIt's very convenient for your argument that you don't believe any of this would save lives, but many people even on your side of the argument do.
Many people, Mikeb? What are you talking about? What's your evidence?
DeleteMikeb said, "sn't it obvious that the Federal background check system has so many problems..."
ReplyDeleteOh, c'mon. Everybody know that a centralized federal government is the ultimate answer to America's problems. From education to healthcare to gun control, the Feds are the answer. Infallable, really. Hell, without the Feds I'd probably still have a toilet that actually flushes, a car made out of steel, and be drinking raw milk.
State checks are no better than federal checks. Garbage in garbage out, so to speak. If a crime isnt reported to the state, there wont be any record there either. And the state reports the crimes to the feds. So if the state doesnt have the record of the crime, neither would the feds.
ReplyDeleteTexas does federal background checks for the CHL here, as well as state records and the county records of every county you have lived in. The reason it takes a while to get a CHL in Texas.
"State checks are no better than federal checks. Garbage in garbage out, so to speak. If a crime isnt reported to the state, there wont be any record there either. And the state reports the crimes to the feds. So if the state doesnt have the record of the crime, neither would the feds."
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure that I'm reading this right, because most of your comments are eminently sensible (not that I agree with a lot of them). What crime, committed in CO would not be in the states's criminal offense database? I know that no system is totally comprehensive and foolproof but if the an applicant has a felony criminal record in CO it's not likely that it hasn't been reported to the state. The federal database IS lacking in state crime data, because some states either don't want to report properly (for myriad reasons) or can't "afford" to do so.
The dollar amount in question, $2M represents .00025% of the state of Colorado's proposed FY 2012/2013 budget--a negligible fraction. Since all monies are "fungible", it would be quite simple to transfer $2M from the budget of say, Fish&Game, DEC or one of the other subsidized wildlife hunting groups to continue the state background checks. But, we all know that saving money is not what it's about. If the ratbastards who propose this stuff were honest and told the public, "We don't want to be inconvenienced and we don't really give a fuck who getz teh gunz.", well, we can see how that might be a PR disaster.
If Colorado is reporting all of this information to the Federal database then searching the federal record would be the same as searching the state records. If Colorado is finding records in their database which are not also in the federal database then they are failing to report all of their information and are creating a problem for other states that are counting on the federal database to alert them of crimes committed in Colorado that would disqualify someone from legally obtaining a gun. It seems to me that Colorado should focus on keeping the federal database as accurate as possible and dropping funding for the state level checks could increase funding for maintaining the federal database.
DeleteThat's a big "if" Jim.
Deletemike - why would Colorado be any better at maintaining a state database vs. providing information to the federal database?
DeleteBecause they're all screwed up. Isn't it conceivable to you that reporting the mental cases might work better within state than at the federal level?
Deletemike - then how are officials in Kansas or some other state going to know that a crazy but otherwise law abiding person from Colorado should not be sold a gun?
DeleteSee, thats the thing. No database is fully fool proof. If you have a person keying in data and they miss it by one number or letter, then you either have a different person, different crime, or none at all. I have seen this happen, to me! And more than just once.
ReplyDeleteI had a reposser track me down from an east Texas town that I have never heard of trying to collect property taxes on a house that I have never owned. Called from the state trying to collect school taxes in a district that I have never lived on a car that I have never owned or would own for that matter. Had a warrant issued for my arrest because they missed the spelling in my last name by one letter and this guy was half my age. In the end of the arrest warrant, they never figured out who this guy was supposed to be, where is was supposed to be or anything. They just lost him. But this guy was wanted for vehicle manslaughter (drunk driving in a stolen car). I am sure it would have been sent to the data bases of city, county, state and fedral IF that gotten the info right.
I bought a new car one year and drove it all that year. Went in to register it and they wanted to fine me for driving it all year with no registration. I had to walk them outside and let them look at the sticker number, the vin number and tag. Because I bought it in a different county than the one I live in and that county fell down on the job (didnt do it) of entering the info to the state database, they has to call the other county on the phone and have someone physically dig the file out of the paper files and comfirm that had actually been registered there. But as far as the state was concerned, that car didnt exist.
No system is perfect, never has been, never will be. Lazy people not doing their job entering info, mistakes by entering incorrect info or loosing it.
It may not be the norm, or wide spread, but it does happen.
I have to clarify the arrest warrant on the guy wanted for manslaughter, they thought all along they had the right guy, ME! Because they thought that they had all their 'T's crossed and 'I's dotted they let him bond out and he no showed to the court. Now they dont have any idea who he is and is long gone. Had they gotten the info right instead of missing it by one letter, there would have been a criminal record to report. He didnt have a previous record because his fingerprints are not on any file. Untill he screws up again and his fingerprints shows up with a proper ID and gets matched to his previous crime (hopefully) then they may have a two for one day in court.
DeleteThis was 25 or so years ago and I havent heard one way or another of his capture. But its not something I would look forward to happen to me again. First and last time I had a number LEOs level their weapons on me. As soon as the photos came out and it was obvious someone had screwed up, apologizing, and they shaking my hands did little to put my nerves back together.
I have never had a heart attack before but came close to it that day.
"If Colorado is reporting all of this information to the Federal database then searching the federal record would be the same as searching the state records. If Colorado is finding records in their database which are not also in the federal database then they are failing to report all of their information and are creating a problem for other states that are counting on the federal database to alert them of crimes committed in Colorado that would disqualify someone from legally obtaining a gun."
ReplyDeleteJim, this is EXACTLY the problem with the whole "background check" system. Some states comply, others do not. Someone from Colorado who commits a felony might not be able to buy a weapon based on information available to the Colorado LE--for that very reason--but, if they go next door to Nebraska or Kansas they can buy a truckload of teh gunz. The way to insure compliance is to make it painful for states that fail to comply.
"No system is perfect, never has been, never will be. Lazy people not doing their job entering info, mistakes by entering incorrect info or loosing it."
Texas Colt Carry, I absolutely agree. However, I don't think that most of us want to scrap the system of vehicle registration, driver licensing, tax assessments or any of the other things that were used to get you into (and back out of, it appears) trouble.
I'm not convinced that there are any foolproof systems for anything. I am convinced that not striving for accuracy in any system is foolhardy.
DC - I agree that the federal database must be as accurate as possible. That is why I suggested shifting funding from the state background check to maintaining the federal database. This would ensure that all checks for Colorado applications would be accurate as well as checks from other states that are counting on Colorado to provide accurate data to the federal system. I am glad that we agree Colorado is wasting money on a state background check system that could be better utilized on maintaining an accurate federal check system.
DeleteBut the Colorado resident who goes to Kansas or Nebraska to buy a truckload of guns will already be committing a crime, at least with handguns. I don't know what arrangements those states have on long guns, but buying handguns across state lines without an FFL in the middle is illegal. Now this hypothetical bad guy could buy from a private seller, but that person wasn't going to run a background check anyway.
DeleteDC, I am in NO WAY advocating for the dismissal of any of the back ground checks or car registration and so on. I am just saying mistakes are made but someone needs to learn from them and find ways to improve on the system. I have no problem in getting rid of double checks as long as ALL the info from every state gets entered into the national system. There has to be a better way than just on a voluntary bases.
ReplyDeleteI also dont agree with someone getting away with a crime on a technicality when the guilt is so completely obvious with evidence that was not obtained by the letter of the law. I am talking about irrefutable evidence guys, so dont flame me too hard.
I also agree that some people dont need to have access to guns and a way needs to be found to prevent that from happening but not to the expense of those that never break any laws. I have my own way, my family way thats worked for generations, that completely prevents my old guns getting into anyone elses hands. So I hope that everyone recognizes that I do my part.
This is a gun country and society. Always has been and will be. But I do belive to farthest depths of my heart that education from home and school is completely lacking about them. The things now being acceptable and learned on the street is expanding and is taking the course thats going down hill. Its the reason that people are taking self defense capability seriously and growing. Too much crap has been tolerated for too long and it began with parents, several generations ago, that dont care what their kids do, as long as those kids didnt bother the parents way of life,,,,,,,, what ever that would be. And now its the reason that the most current, most complete information needs to be fed into the back ground check system. And maybe, just maybe we can begin the process of weeding out the undesireables and replacing them with respectable citizens that understand self reliance and responsibility.
We will never be to the point of a gun free country as long as crime exsits. But why cant we get back to a time that it was so much less prevalent. I belive we can. It will take time, about as much time as it did to get here, we can get back.
Just my opinion,,,,,,,,,, and I dont speak my opinion very often.
I'm always glad to see your opinion, as yours is one that I consistently respect. You're often the voice of America as it should be.
Delete