Criminal Background Check Request Form - Texas A&M University: Fill & Download for Free

The fact that he was able to pass background checks and buy guns, not once, but twice, in spite of his escaping from a mental hospital, having a history of violently assaulting people, threatening superiors, and being less than honorably discharged from the military shows that this country doesn’t take the laws it already has seriously. Look at the high gun violence rate in Chicago in site of their severely restrictive gun laws. Look at how rarely they enforce those laws on the street and how they don’t severely punish criminals (instead of innocent people) who break those laws. Once again you’ll see the pattern. Talk is cheap. Laws are useless unless you rigorously enforce them against the people that need to be controlled.Because of his background, it was illegal for this guy to buy, own, or to even fill out a background check request form. Did those laws stop him? No. Did the negligent ineffective background check stop him? No.Let’s start there before we enact more, even less effective laws. Instead of trying to restrict access to those who will actually obey the law, how about we enforce the laws we have which could have stopped this guy. We could be doing a lot better job of controlling the people who would harm us with whatever tools they choose (trucks, knives, bombs, and yes, even guns), than arbitrarily restricting those who are allowed to access the tools.

So to buy from any FFL in any state any gun type no matter where that FFL is you have to do a Federal Form 4473 https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/4473-part-1-firearms-transaction-record-over-counter-atf-form-53009/download . Notice question 11f, now remember to lie on this form is a felony. Then along with that is the FBI NICS background check National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). Reasons you can fail that and the FFL wont sell to you are.Convicted of a felonyConvicted in any court of a crime which is punishable by a term of more than one year or a misdemeanor punishable by more than two years. This is the number one reason why requests for firearm transfers are denied.Indicted for a crime punishable by more than one yearA fugitive from justiceA user of illegal drugs or an addictInvoluntarily committed to a mental institutionAn illegal alienDishonorably discharged from the armed forcesRenounced your U.S. citizenshipSubject to a restraining order for threatening a family memberConvicted of domestic violenceUnder an indictment, but not convicted, of a crime carrying a possible year-long prison sentenceNew is always an FFL.Of course in any state online can only go to an FFL, in 9 states private sales have to go through an FFL. In the other states the seller could still decide to go through an FFL these are the private seller gun laws Private Gun Sale Laws by State - FindLawNow most gun owners have more then one gun and they went through an FFL on at least one of them.But the NICS is only as good as the information put in it. We all saw when the Airforce did not put in the information for the Texas Church Shooter which would of made him fail, the Military added like 4000 to correct that. Now some states have more, like the Thousand Oak Shooter that legally bought his gun in California had to go through the above plus the dealer did a dealer record of sale which he signed and put his right thumbprint on which went to the DOJ for approval well he waited his 10 days.The number one thing that needs to improve on the NICS system is on the ones that fail the officials need to investigate more then the 1–3% they do now. Even of that small number the ones that are found guilty generally plea bargain it away, that plea bargain option needs to go away.All anti gun people are doing with their ban, limit and confiscate stuff is have people get guns illegally, face it the blackmarket shall always be there. Removing any possibility the NICS check shall find anything.

Austin Conlon wants to know:“What do people with pro-gun views think of The Economist's support of gun control on classical liberal grounds?”A link to the article was provided upon request:Newtown’s horrorFortunately the sign-up is free, but I’m limited to five articles per month so I should make them count.I checked the source and they are considered “centrist” with “factual” reporting…The Economist - Media Bias/Fact CheckThen I started reading… and yeah…. fat lot of rubbish that is, and this article is clearly not from someone who is an American… so, that is another brick in the fat lot of rubbish.Now, after reading the article I’m going to go back and dissect it like I do most articles of this ilk.Paragraph 1:ON DECEMBER 14th maniacs in America and China unleashed the horror in their heads on the most innocent of targets. In China’s Henan province, Min Yongjun burst into a classroom and hacked away at 23 children, severing ears and fingers. But in Newtown, Connecticut, the little ones suffered even worse. After a ten-minute rampage 20 of them were dead, as were six teachers and the killer himself. The American was armed with a semi-automatic rifle with an extended magazine and two semi-automatic handguns. Every country has its madmen, but Min was armed only with a knife, so none of his victims died.The Newton tragedy is one that could have EASILY HAVE BEEN AVOIDED if the State of Connecticut had not made it nigh unto impossible to have someone who is viewed as a “clear and present danger” to a mental health treatment facility.At her wits' end: Mum tried to get her Sandy Hook school killer son locked up before his rampageThat the hate-filled man-child killed his own mother to be able to carry out his heinous act is overlooked completely by this non-American author.Paragraph 2:If America is ever to confront its obsession with guns, that time is now. America’s murder rate is four times higher than Britain’s and six times higher than Germany’s. Only an idiot, or an anti-American bigot prepared to maintain that Americans are four times more murderous than Britons, could possibly pretend that no connection exists between those figures and the fact that 300m guns are “out there” in the United States, more than one for every adult.[emphasis added]What a sodding wanker the non-American author is…When one looks at violence in the United States there are several hot-spots typically concentrated in dense urban centers. Removing these 10 to 12 hot-spots brings the United States down on average with all the rest of the world. What these hot-spots typically have in common is a discussion for a different answer as I could write thirty to forty paragraphs on that alone. Suffice it to say that this non-American author has some sort of ax to grind and they don’t care about facts.Paragraph 3:Barack Obama does appear to be seizing the moment to push for tougher gun regulation; but America has heard such promises before, not least from the current president on the campaign trail in 2008. Nothing came of that; Mr Obama never even attempted to follow through, and no gun-control bill ever made even the floor of Congress during his first term, although the Democrats held bulletproof majorities there.Yep, Former President Obama took the bullet-proof majority he had in Congress and rammed through the [UN]Affordable Care Act. Yet again, a different answer for a different question. It is important to realize that by expending the entirety of his political capital with the ACA President Obama brought about the changing of hands of over one thousand elected positions “down-ticket.” That kind of “winning” hasn’t been seen since Charlie Sheen found a pound of coke and did it all…What some folks don’t remember is the fall out in 1994… and we will cover that now in…Paragraph 4:This time may—just—prove different. The crime in Newtown was so horrible that even the National Rifle Association is talking about change. Some form of new regulation does seem possible: perhaps a reinstatement of the assault-weapons ban which, between 1994 and 2004, prohibited the sale of a list of the most militaristic weapons, or an end to the “gun-show exemption” that allows people to buy weapons without the usual background checks that supposedly prevent the sale of weapons to criminals and the insane.No, it fucking did NOT ban the sale of the most militaristic weapons. Those weapons were made GOD DAMNED FUCKING EXPENSIVE by a back-door (innuendo intended) pummeling in 1986.What the law did was make combinations of cosmetic features illegal and was written so poorly that only a month or two after the ban was put in place firearms were right back on shelves.Here is a fine example:And I discussed this here:Eric Dillon's answer to Do you agree with Biden when he says, on gun legislation, "I think there's no compromise. This is one we have to just push, push, push, push, and push, and push. …the fact of the matter is I think it's gonna result in seeing some of them defeated"?Further, any time a daft wanker trots out the “gun show loophole” I know they are freaking illiterate on gun laws. No, really.THEREISNOGUNSHOWLOOPHOLEThe phrase makes the law, WRITTEN BY THE DEMOCRATS, seem to have a gaping maw through which people can buy guns without any restrictions….The reality of the law is that any time a dealer is involved, IRRESPECTIVE OF WHERE SAID TRANSACTION OCCURS, a background check is performed, the transfer log is updated and an ATF4473 is filled out.Now the law, as written BY THE DEMOCRATS, prohibits private citizens from using the NICS to perform their own background checks so private transfers, IRRESPECTIVE OF LOCATION, were exempted from the background check provisions ON PURPOSE so the law would pass. This is NOT a loophole but rather a “common sense compromise” that was passed in the mid 1990’s.And now on to Paragraph 5:If you want to be safer, change the constitutionThese measures will all help, though they cannot be anything like the panacea that the would-be regulators dream of. The great bulk of America’s murders are committed with “ordinary” handguns, not the sort that would be covered by any remotely likely ban; and the evidence that the 1994-2004 ban altered homicide rates is sketchy at best. The list of banned weapons was filled with loopholes, and was easy for gun-buyers to evade. It also referred only to the sale of new weapons, and made no attempt to tackle the mountain of killing equipment already in the public’s hands.Yeah… that pesky AMERICAN Constitution…. Based on word choices and spelling I’m led to believe the author is a Briton… perhaps he, or she, needs to look back to 1775 and see how things went the last time a Briton tried to confiscate firearms.And to refer to the firearms in private American hands as “a mountain of killing equipment” is contemptible at best.The fact, FACT, is that there are an ABSOLUTE BARE MINIMUM of 65,000 to 115,000 defensive firearms uses every year, with the number likely higher; and by some estimates (including by the CDC) being at least an order of magnitude higher.Defensive Gun Use (Part I) - The CDC Report on Gun ViolenceAnd lest you think that link is from a “right wing” site, it is fromDaily Kos - Media Bias/Fact CheckThey don’t refute the 65,000 to 115,000 number.So, are those people now just supposed to be “quiet little victims” that take their “government mandated” victim status lying down (perhaps in a pool of their own blood, or filled with the semen of their rapists)?And on to Paragraphs 6&7:If Americans want a society where schools do not, as the one in Newtown did, have to drill their children in emergency lock-down procedures, more drastic measures should be contemplated. Handgun bans, such as those that operated in Chicago and Washington, DC, before the Supreme Court struck them down, would be needed on a national scale. Gun licences, obtainable only after extensive police and medical review as in most other civilised countries, would be needed for hunting and sporting weapons. Tough police action, coupled with an extensive “buy-back” programme, would be needed to mop up the hundreds of millions of guns that are already held. If, as seems probable, this is held to conflict with the constitution, then the constitution needs to be amended.None of this is likely to happen soon. America can take some solace from the fact that, slowly, as a result of better policing and better treatment for gunshot victims, the number of murders committed each year is declining. But not much.There goes that pesky AMERICAN constitution again…. getting in the way of disarming the VICTIMS of violent criminals and would be tyrants.In the United States there is a strong understanding of “natural rights” that human beings have simply by being human beings. These rights include the right to defend ones life against would be thugs irrespective of the source of thuggery, and in some cases from those who wear a uniform (in Texas you can LEGALLY use lethal force against a police officer if the situation meets certain criteria).Further, our Supreme Court, that the Briton so despises for their pro-Constitution rulings, has on several occasions ruled that the police are under zero legal obligation to come to y our aid. This includes if you are a student in a school with an active shooter (here’s looking at you Broward County, Florida and your FOUR deputies who did squat to protect kids).That incident too could have been prevented if any of the several law enforcement agencies who interacted with the deranged should-have-been-a-scum-bag in over FORTY FOUR incidents/reports. The reports include animal abuse, domestic violence, expulsion from school for weapons (knife) violations, and a whole host of other issues. The county sheriff’s office had 42 of these run-ins with the wanna-be-thug and the FBI had NOT ONE BUT TWO actionable reports against the in-duh-vidual that were basically ignored…. but yeah… guns bad… and yeah, trust law enforcement to protect you….Bite me you daft sodding wanker (the original author of the hit piece).Now, back to the premise of the question:There is LITERALLY nothing in this article to suggest classic liberalism.Classical liberalismClassical liberalism is a political philosophy and ideology belonging to liberalism in which primary emphasis is placed on securing the freedom of the individual by limiting the power of the government.In fact, by supporting government intervention into the freedoms and rights of law abiding citizens the article supports illiberal policies.So, the cited article is from a Briton who hates America and the premise of the question is flawed because the position of the article is NOT classical liberalism.If the Briton doesn’t like my country they can stay on their side of the pond.No, go be a good subject and grind the tips off of your pointy knives….Knives are too sharp and filing them down is solution to soaring violent crime, judge saysOr turn them in…And yet again, the gloves had to come off…