Actually, no, there are not. There may be laws that punish certain acts, but you still retain the right to say it. As to background checks, they are a complete and utter waste of time, resources and money. As we read in the news all the time of criminals using firearms in their criminal acts, proving they do not get background checks when illegally obtaining their firearms. The only people that get background checks are those that can pass background checks. How many more times do I need to get my background checked? Yet again will not make you, me, nor anyone else safer.
Here is some data from the GAO on background checks, which I had also recently sent to one of my reps in relation to proposed “gun control” legislation:
Since November 1998, when NICS began, to February 28, 2021, there have been 380,459,962 NICS background checks, according to FBI data. In a report by the GAO, dated September 2018, that document is titled “LAW ENFORCEMENT Few Individuals Denied Firearms Purchases Are Prosecuted and ATF Should Assess Use of Warning Notices in Lieu of Prosecutions”. The data in it very clearly shows the ineffectiveness of the background check system. This also shows that this system only checks backgrounds on those that are able to pass background checks. These abysmal results came at what cost?
Fiscal Year 2017
Federal National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS)
I guess I look at getting punished for saying something like what that teacher said about Kamala recently being a restriction. If punishment is possible for making a statement, then that’s a restriction. That’s like saying there’s no restriction on killing somebody because you can physically do it. You might get punished but you can physically do it.
I am shocked that few people ever get investigated and arrested for it. I guess that’s one of many arguments for FUNDING our law enforcement and not defunding it. While 112K is not huge, it’s a little over 1%. The imprisoned population is just under 1%, so that statistic is about in-line with people that shouldn’t have guns in our country.
One of the reasons why the 112,000 is so high is due to many factors, one major one is that if your name matches a prohibited person, it can be denied. Other factors are decades old offenses that were inconsequential, such as an arrest for possession of a joint decades ago. The details are available, I gave you the source, easy to research, if you are interested. It does not change my point, that background checks do not prevent “prohibited” persons from obtaining firearms.
Possession should not be a crime, only the criminal act, whether or not a firearm was used in its commission. One of the main reasons felons cite for obtaining a firearm shortly after release from prison is for self-defense, which is an inalienable right. The fact that they ignore laws and commit crimes, with or without firearms, does not preclude their right to self-defense. I am not suggesting that we want violent felons to be armed, but the law denying their RKBA clearly is not preventing them from illegally obtaining (the only way they can obtain them) firearms.
I’ve read the name matching before but how often does that happen? If multiple of the same name pop-up, your social would be the unique identifier. This must be on the very rare side of events. Smoking pot is still against the law in many states. Inconsequential as it may be, the law is the law. I’m curious how somebody that’s prohibited and would be flagged is still able to legally buy a gun. I got know my FFL and she told me about how many people get told they have a longer wait or some of the denials. If it’s happening it must be on the rare side.
BlockquotePossession should not be a crime, only the criminal act, whether or not a firearm was used in its commission.
Blockquote
Curious what you mean by that statement. Felons give up certain rights when they choose to commit a felony rather than follow the law. Ones decisions have consequences.
Well, if the feds are not prosecuting, but 12 out of 112,000, either they are letting a large number of “prohibited” persons go free or the bulk of the denials are not actually due to those people being “prohibited” persons. The data GOA analyzed suggests the latter, not the former. The data is available for you to research and not wonder about the reasons.
What I am stating is, no one should be disbarred their inalienable rights. Only since the 1938 FFA did felons get punished beyond their sentences served by having their RKBA and voting right denied to them. Possession of anything should not warrant a prison sentence, unless it is stolen property that either you stole or were aware of it being stolen property. Therefore, unless you are committing a crime, there should be no criminal offense just for possessing a firearm. The only caveat to that is when it is prohibited by law to carry, such as in a post office or its property.
It would be nice if violent felons were not such and did not use weapons to commit their criminal acts, but in the real world, these people illegally acquire firearms and they do not pass background checks to obtain them. As the data I presented shows, and in 2020, there were over 20 million background checks, the time, money and effort to process all of these background checks is not justified, as the data shows it does not prevent nor even hinder “prohibited” persons from obtaining firearms.