유니버설 배경 조사는 총기를 구입하기 전에 범죄와 공공 안전 배경 검사를 통과하기 위해 개인이 필요합니다. 배경 조사는 구매자의 자격을 확인하기 위해 무료 전화 번호 또는 웹 사이트 (국가 즉시 범죄 경력 확인 시스템 또는 NIC)가 호출 총기 판매점으로 구성되어 있습니다. NICS 시스템은 국가 범죄 정보 센터 등의 여러 연방 수사 국 (FBI) 데이터베이스의 복합이며, 연방 및 주 범죄 기록을 통해 구매자의 이름을 실행합니다. 개인은 또한 정신병, 정신 건강 기관, 가족 구성원의 추천 NICS 시스템에 첨가 될 수있다. 현재 NICS 시스템에서, 구매자는 금지 대상이되고, 불명예 군대에서 배출 된, 같은 혐의로 기소 또는 규제 약물에 중독되기 인정, 중범 죄로 유죄 판결되는 등의 이유로 총기의 구매를 거부 될 수 있습니다 위해서뿐만 아니라 다른 규정. 현재, 총 배경 조사의 약 2 %가 거부됩니다.
@2TLG3SB4세4Y
The government will find a loophole to never give a gun to anyone. I think ex-cons shouldn't have guns. This will reduce law abiding citizens to freedom to protect their families. Look at Puerto Rico. They have loopholes to allowing anyone a gun. Most of the crimes are committed by criminals with guns.
@2TL4VF34세4Y
Aggressive gun restrictions will eventually educate citizens as to the dangers of guns in our society without running afoul of the Constitution. At this stage in our nation's development, the citizenry is still woefully ignorant of the true impact of accidental gun deaths...until it happens in their family or someone they know.
@2TH9P524세4Y
I believe there should be red flags for people with criminal records and serious mental problems or with links to terrorism. I realize also this can be misused so issuing authorities for gun permits would have to be involved and their power limited and monitored for abuse.
@TerryManning194세4Y
I believe in a 3 day cooling off period from purchase to receiving the gun, but any American not convicted of an offense involving a weapon or gun, murder of any type, should be allowed to own a gun. Extreme government oversight is Un-Constitutional and can lead to a police state.
@2J23FPY4세4Y
Only support non-family private transfer background checks if a fully functional and coherent system, one which is linked to all justice and mental health data systems, as the current incomplete system is not thorough enough to be truly effective.
@2HZ5VY84세4Y
No, because there is no requirement for this in the second amendment. The second amendment says we have the right to "keep and bear" arms. It does not say keep and bear arms if your background check meets some arbitrary standard set by someone in government. We should follow our Constitution and Bill of Rights.
@2HYQZ444세4Y
Background checks are a good move. But adding to that, harsher punishment for gun owners when laws are broken involving their weapons. I realize this also effects those who are responsible firearm owners. Owning a firearm has become too much of a casual luxury.
No, background checks are ineffective and a waste of government resources, and of our money, here in Oregon you have to do a background every time you buy a new gun, at 10.00 a pop, unless you buy 2 or 3 at a time at the same store, and FYI there have been several well known shootings done by people that bought them legally, but they were Mentally deficient. Once you have been cleared after a background you shouldn't have to go through it every time, they should have a fast track system, or a short form once you've done it once
@2HVWY9J4세4Y
Because of the issue of so many unknown illegals allowed in this country I would have to say what good will a background check do? We have hundreds of thousands of undocumented people and how many have stolen or false identification? Don't infringe on my Second Amendment Rights, but this POTUS has set the stage for serious concern about illegal aliens attaining firearms. Because of this, I'd have to say we need background checks to buy a firearm.
@2HTXQZR4세4Y
@2HSGC6Q4세4Y
Define public safety. Too subject to abuse. How often have we heard politicians, media, etc saying their opponents are a threat to public safety? How can you claim convicted felons are too dangerous to have a gun but are safe enough to be given back their franchise? Are we saying the vote is really irrelevant?
@2HRSLF24세4Y
no, this would increase the illegal gun trade for individuals that wouldn't pass in a background check. Thus this would essentially make ti more dangerous due to the a lot of individuals having illegal weapons anyway. This would also increase the crime rate because it makes it more difficult to purchase a gun for people such as store owners, construction workers, and bank employees.
No, I think background checks are largely inefective. However I do believe a firearms safety certification should be required for people owing or puchasing a gun. You need to pass a safety test to drive a car. All hunters take a hunters safety class. Why not require the same for everyone who buys a gun. (Hunters safety should count for firearm safety)
@2HNSMXK4세4Y
the most important thing is that these men and women pass a a fire arms safety class. A back-round check would be helpful, but many people have gone through treatment for addictions and various mental health issues. In some ways, denying a fire-arm to a person with a backround of addiction and mental health issues would be a threat to their own safety.
@2HMVH4V4세4Y
The government can check for criminal record or mental illness, nothing else. And all restrictions on honest Americans carrying concealed or unconcealed guns, knives, swords, flame throwers, assault weapons, ect... should be done away wit has a violation of the 2nd amendment.
@2HGBWPS4세4Y
Depends on what is meant by "pass." We require driver's licenses in order to operate a vehicle on public roads and fishing licenses to fish in public waters, these checks are no more intrusive. However, fishing and driving are not constitutionally protected as is the right to bear arms.
@2GT374W4세4Y
Gun control is not measured by a safety or background checks. Mental status should be tested often. Permits have a price tag. Both should be done yearly...continuing educational mandatory as well. Officers need to calm down, injur not to kill.