3 ms·

> finger printing Why? > background checks These are being done, what else? > psych evals Ah, a subjective means to deny rights. Also, who is paying for th

by 15155 2y ago

> finger printing Why? > background checks These are being done, what else? > psych evals Ah, a subjective means to deny rights. Also, who is paying for this? Maybe you should have to have a psych eval to cast a vote. > gun convention loopholes Yesterday's compromise to pass the Brady bill is now being referred to as a "loophole." Do you see why that might make folks concerned about a restrictive agenda?

oooyay 2y ago
Most of what I'm following here is existing state based CHL checks. Those are reasonable, provide benefits (expedited sales), and are effective in that CHL holders are not typically the people that those people are trying to prevent sale to. Brady I don't have much of an opinion on. I do know, as a value, that I buy all of my firearms through a licensed FFL. It's at most $50 + shipping. I don't think that's too restrictive.
- 15155 2y ago
  Okay, can we expand these restrictions to voting? If not, why?
  - oooyay 2y ago
    I updated my comment before you commented and added: > Brady I don't have much of an opinion on. I do know, as a value, that I buy all of my firearms through a licensed FFL. It's at most $50 + shipping. I don't think that's too restrictive. I think we, as gun owners, do need to acknowledge there are people who go to gun shows to illegally acquire weapons or perform strawman sales with relative ease. Maybe my solution isn't the best, but it does need addressing. If you really want to tread into analoging ownership to voting I think you'll be very disappointed. We require a lot of hurdles to vote. You have to go to an authorized voting location (akin to going to an FFL), you have to present ID that is known to the state so they can correlate that you are, in fact, in the right place (all those checks I mentioned), and afterwards they determine whether everyone who voted was eligible to vote. If they weren't, they're charged with a serious crime.
    - 15155 2y ago
      > you have to present ID that is known to the state Not in most states. --- There are people that go to the polling booth and commit voter fraud with relative ease, therefore it needs addressed. The Brady bill was allowed to proceed because of the guarantee that people wouldn't need to involve the government to conduct a private sale between two individuals or gift firearms between father and son, for instance. Calling it a loophole that "does need addressing" is reneging on a compromise. Also, have you ever been to a gun show? Recently? Do you know the actual, real percentage of FFLs present vs private individuals? Today, these shows are composed of 95% FFLs anyway, all of whom perform background checks - and the available deals are shitty.
      - gruez 2y ago
        >There are people that go to the polling booth and commit voter fraud with relative ease, therefore it needs addressed. While I'm sure there's a non-zero amount of fraud going on, by all official accounts the actual rate is negligible.
        15155 2y ago
        Is it more or less negligible than the number of intentional rifle homicides occurring in this country?
      - oooyay 2y ago
        Voter fraud is exceedingly rare in the US: https://www.npr.org/2024/10/11/nx-s1-5147732/voter-fraud-explainer https://www.npr.org/2024/10/11/nx-s1-5147732/voter-fraud-exp... I understand it was used as a talking point by a certain person in this last election, but it was only a talking point - not truth. > Today, these shows are composed of 95% FFLs anyway, all of whom perform background checks I have been to a gun show recently. We can, and should, close that 5% gap. An FFL is an intermediary and the ATF doesn't retain records about transactions they do by law. FFLs will maintain their own records, but they're no some widely searchable database (which is what people fear in an Orwellian sense).
Spivak 2y ago
I think you're imagining mental health evaluations as more subjective than they actually are. You're really just looking to sus out sociopaths, the extremity mentally unfit, obvious signs of suicidal ideation, and people with severe uncontrolled anger issues. I don't really get why you're so defensive on this point? Like yeah, psych evals are probably a bit too onerous for every gun owner to go through just because of the time commitment alone but you seem to take issue with them on principle. On principle I don't take issue with adding requirements to vote, you're more than welcome to push for them but additional restrictions do go counter the goal of increasing turnout which is already embarrassingly low. Also I'm not taking a stance one way or another on the gun show thing, I personally don't care about them that much but by any definition they are a loophole. Even more so it's a near full escape hatch from the law. Instant background checks could be as easy as one of those Square payment terminals if we let it, the burden is really low.
- 15155 2y ago
  Who is paying for these "psych evals?" Where in the Constitution does a "psych eval" constitute due process? Why can I not be required to pay to exercise my right to vote?
  - oooyay 2y ago
    You do pay to exercise your right to vote. There's a certain party that loves the color red that requires an ID to vote. They also require you to have up to date residency information in order to vote. Changes like that require money at the DMV and enable your right to vote. When I got my CHL in Texas I was required to get a psych eval because I'm a veteran. Here's the form: https://www.dshs.texas.gov/sites/default/files/medical-advisory-board/pdf/HandgunPhysicianForm.pdf https://www.dshs.texas.gov/sites/default/files/medical-advis... You pay for it, but any old doctor can affirm the things on that form.

by 15155 2y ago

oooyay 2y ago

Most of what I'm following here is existing state based CHL checks. Those are reasonable, provide benefits (expedited sales), and are effective in that CHL holders are not typically the people that those people are trying to prevent sale to. Brady I don't have much of an opinion on. I do know, as a value, that I buy all of my firearms through a licensed FFL. It's at most $50 + shipping. I don't think that's too restrictive.

15155 2y ago
Okay, can we expand these restrictions to voting? If not, why?
- oooyay 2y ago
  I updated my comment before you commented and added: > Brady I don't have much of an opinion on. I do know, as a value, that I buy all of my firearms through a licensed FFL. It's at most $50 + shipping. I don't think that's too restrictive. I think we, as gun owners, do need to acknowledge there are people who go to gun shows to illegally acquire weapons or perform strawman sales with relative ease. Maybe my solution isn't the best, but it does need addressing. If you really want to tread into analoging ownership to voting I think you'll be very disappointed. We require a lot of hurdles to vote. You have to go to an authorized voting location (akin to going to an FFL), you have to present ID that is known to the state so they can correlate that you are, in fact, in the right place (all those checks I mentioned), and afterwards they determine whether everyone who voted was eligible to vote. If they weren't, they're charged with a serious crime.
  - 15155 2y ago
    > you have to present ID that is known to the state Not in most states. --- There are people that go to the polling booth and commit voter fraud with relative ease, therefore it needs addressed. The Brady bill was allowed to proceed because of the guarantee that people wouldn't need to involve the government to conduct a private sale between two individuals or gift firearms between father and son, for instance. Calling it a loophole that "does need addressing" is reneging on a compromise. Also, have you ever been to a gun show? Recently? Do you know the actual, real percentage of FFLs present vs private individuals? Today, these shows are composed of 95% FFLs anyway, all of whom perform background checks - and the available deals are shitty.
    - gruez 2y ago
      >There are people that go to the polling booth and commit voter fraud with relative ease, therefore it needs addressed. While I'm sure there's a non-zero amount of fraud going on, by all official accounts the actual rate is negligible.
      - 15155 2y ago
        Is it more or less negligible than the number of intentional rifle homicides occurring in this country?
    - oooyay 2y ago
      Voter fraud is exceedingly rare in the US: https://www.npr.org/2024/10/11/nx-s1-5147732/voter-fraud-explainer https://www.npr.org/2024/10/11/nx-s1-5147732/voter-fraud-exp... I understand it was used as a talking point by a certain person in this last election, but it was only a talking point - not truth. > Today, these shows are composed of 95% FFLs anyway, all of whom perform background checks I have been to a gun show recently. We can, and should, close that 5% gap. An FFL is an intermediary and the ATF doesn't retain records about transactions they do by law. FFLs will maintain their own records, but they're no some widely searchable database (which is what people fear in an Orwellian sense).

Spivak 2y ago

I think you're imagining mental health evaluations as more subjective than they actually are. You're really just looking to sus out sociopaths, the extremity mentally unfit, obvious signs of suicidal ideation, and people with severe uncontrolled anger issues. I don't really get why you're so defensive on this point? Like yeah, psych evals are probably a bit too onerous for every gun owner to go through just because of the time commitment alone but you seem to take issue with them on principle. On principle I don't take issue with adding requirements to vote, you're more than welcome to push for them but additional restrictions do go counter the goal of increasing turnout which is already embarrassingly low. Also I'm not taking a stance one way or another on the gun show thing, I personally don't care about them that much but by any definition they are a loophole. Even more so it's a near full escape hatch from the law. Instant background checks could be as easy as one of those Square payment terminals if we let it, the burden is really low.

15155 2y ago
Who is paying for these "psych evals?" Where in the Constitution does a "psych eval" constitute due process? Why can I not be required to pay to exercise my right to vote?
- oooyay 2y ago
  You do pay to exercise your right to vote. There's a certain party that loves the color red that requires an ID to vote. They also require you to have up to date residency information in order to vote. Changes like that require money at the DMV and enable your right to vote. When I got my CHL in Texas I was required to get a psych eval because I'm a veteran. Here's the form: https://www.dshs.texas.gov/sites/default/files/medical-advisory-board/pdf/HandgunPhysicianForm.pdf https://www.dshs.texas.gov/sites/default/files/medical-advis... You pay for it, but any old doctor can affirm the things on that form.