Background Checks

[tarkus]

Since background checks are so beneficial to those who decide to exercise their RKBA, and since the infringement of having to subject oneself to the whims of the state and fed to exercise one's rights is good for me as a person, I propose that anyone applying for a drivers license and state issued ID card should have the background check performed on them.

voters and journalists too

[pt145ss]

Since background checks are so beneficial to those who decide to exercise their RKBA, and since the infringement of having to subject oneself to the whims of the state and fed to exercise one's rights is good for me as a person, I propose that anyone applying for a drivers license and state issued ID card should have the background check performed on them.

voters and journalists too

Again...at what cost?...to what extent?...and for what purpose? Justify to me why we should make big brother stronger. You guys complain about the feds taking away your rights now...this would be a platform from which they will take away even more rights.

[boomerang]

Since background checks are so beneficial to those who decide to exercise their RKBA, and since the infringement of having to subject oneself to the whims of the state and fed to exercise one's rights is good for me as a person, I propose that anyone applying for a drivers license and state issued ID card should have the background check performed on them.

voters and journalists too

Again...at what cost?

Make it revenue neutral like CHL.

...to what extent?...and for what purpose?

I think there's a big benefit to preventing illegal aliens and other criminals from voting.

[pt145ss]

Make it revenue neutral like CHL.

So...with the economy the way it is...gas prices where they are... you want to add more burden to the middle income families? You know indegents will not be able to pay for it...and the upper ten percent will find away around it...leaving the burden on the middle. What other costs are involved...like how long will take to get a DL? What other rights are they going to take away?

I think there's a big benefit to preventing illegal aliens and other criminals from voting.

Illegal Aliens and felons can not vote now...why do we need to do a background checks for this purpose when those rights have already been taken away? This is not much more than a poll tax and an attempt to defranchise people, which I believe is not legal.

[aardwolf]

Welcome to the world of "reasonable restrictions".

[anygunanywhere]

Just look at the current back log of CHL applicants waiting on a background check now…we are a small number compared to the overall population in Texas…imagine if we had to do a background check on everyone in Texas.

Open or concealed carry without a permit.

Just like the Second Amendment states.

Works in Alaska and Vermont.

It would work here too.

Or are there no criminals in those two states?

Anygun

In your OP, you proposed that everyone have a background check. And later in the course of this thread you state that felons should not have the RKBA.

Have you changed your stance on both?

My original post proposed something that I hoped would stir some decent discussions regarding background checks with respect to RKBA.

I do not believe that the background checks do all that much.

I would like the government to get out of my life. I do not need anymore intrusion into my rights by the government’s fighting global wars on the next make believe threat.

I have not changed my opinion on the background checks.

I have not changed my mind on felon possession of firearms either.

Open or concealed carry without a permit.

Just like the Second Amendment states.

Works in Alaska and Vermont.

It would work here too.

I'm skeptical. TX is a lot different than AK or VT.

Well, it is nice to know that we Texicans are different from others. I have always suspected that this is true, but I never figured we were so different that we could not be trusted with all of our constitutional rights like Vermont yankees. I suppose you have proof that your observations are fact since you always rely on logic and fact in your arguments, Frankie.

Anygun

[frankie_the_yankee]

Well, it is nice to know that we Texicans are different from others. I have always suspected that this is true, but I never figured we were so different that we could not be trusted with all of our constitutional rights like Vermont yankees. I suppose you have proof that your observations are fact since you always rely on logic and fact in your arguments, Frankie.

Anygun

I have plenty of proof that Texas is different than VT. It's about 100 times larger. It has around 40 times as many people. Its largest cities have between 50 and 100 times as many people as the largest cities in VT do. Its demographic/ethnic makeup is vastly different. Its rates of illegitimacy are vastly different. It also has a violent crime rate that is several times higher than that of VT.

And don't make the simplistic assumption that the reason the violent crime rate is higher is because we don't have easy enough access to guns here. If anything, carrying guns is more common here than in VT.

[anygunanywhere]

Well, it is nice to know that we Texicans are different from others. I have always suspected that this is true, but I never figured we were so different that we could not be trusted with all of our constitutional rights like Vermont yankees. I suppose you have proof that your observations are fact since you always rely on logic and fact in your arguments, Frankie.

Anygun

I have plenty of proof that Texas is different than VT. It's about 100 times larger. It has around 40 times as many people. Its largest cities have between 50 and 100 times as many people as the largest cities in VT do. Its demographic/ethnic makeup is vastly different. Its rates of illegitimacy are vastly different. It also has a violent crime rate that is several times higher than that of VT.

And don't make the simplistic assumption that the reason the violent crime rate is higher is because we don't have easy enough access to guns here. If anything, carrying guns is more common here than in VT.

Texas is bigger, has more people, larger cities, different ethnicities, higher violent crime, but I fail to see how that makes us different to the point where carry without a permit would not work in Texas.

That makes no sense.

What does illegitimacy have to do with the RKBA?

Your proof does indeed prove that Texas is different from Vermont. It is much warmer here too. Good job.

Where is the proof that the differences between us and Vermont mandates permit only carry in Texas. Using this logic we must conclude that you can p[rove that based on the demographics of each state you can determine what mode of restrictions to the RKBA will work. I suppose your argument goes against the state preemption laws so that each city can do the same thing based on it's demographics. I guess the mayor of Philadelphia has it right too.

I know why our crime rate is higher. Topic for another thread.

The RKBA needs a more simplistic view. The current view is not working, and the conventional wisdom used to take our rights away is that fewer guns and more restrictions makes us safe, which is now and always has been your argument.

Anygun

[frankie_the_yankee]

Texas is bigger, has more people, larger cities, different ethnicities, higher violent crime, but I fail to see how that makes us different to the point where carry without a permit would not work in Texas.

You're correct. You do fail to see it.

[anygunanywhere]

Texas is bigger, has more people, larger cities, different ethnicities, higher violent crime, but I fail to see how that makes us different to the point where carry without a permit would not work in Texas.

You're correct. You do fail to see it.

Explain it to me. I am sure there are others who would like to know as well.

Anygun

[KBCraig]

Texas is bigger, has more people, larger cities, different ethnicities, higher violent crime, but I fail to see how that makes us different to the point where carry without a permit would not work in Texas.

You're correct. You do fail to see it.

I sure do miss TXi's calm, reasoned discourse. Anyone have his number?

[frankie_the_yankee]

Explain it to me. I am sure there are others who would like to know as well.

Anygun

Without belaboring the point, TX is so different from VT in so many ways that one cannot automatically assume that what works there would work as well here.

IOW, you don't know for sure that it would work, just like I don't know for sure that it wouldn't work.

And there isn't any handy way to do the experiment, given the possible downside if it turned out to be a bad idea.

In the meantime, shall issue CHL seems to work just fine. There's a saying in the engineering profession that goes like this, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

[aardwolf]

Like I said two weeks ago.

I don't know if it helps you. But I think it helps society as a whole by raising the "cost" to criminals for illegally carrying and making it easier for LE to identify those who are.

At the same time, it doesn't bother me a bit. The inconvenience and cost involved are miniscule.

That's good enough for me.

An easier solution is to have a green border on someone's DL or ID if they have a clean background. That means they can buy and carry guns with no additional hassle in all 50 states and DC. People with a criminal record get a red border on their DL or ID and they're not allowed to carry or vote. The inconvenience and cost to the law abiding would be even less than your solution and the benefits to society are much greater. Everybody wins... except the bad guys.

That's good enough for me.

[shaggydog]

An easier solution is to have a green border on someone's DL or ID if they have a clean background. That means they can buy and carry guns with no additional hassle in all 50 states and DC. People with a criminal record get a red border on their DL or ID and they're not allowed to carry or vote. The inconvenience and cost to the law abiding would be even less than your solution and the benefits to society are much greater. Everybody wins... except the bad guys.
That's good enough for me.

Your superciliousness aside, you have offered us your solution. Now can you tell us how you intend to implement it?

Not the “if I were King� type of procedure but the real world as it is today procedure. How do you go about promoting this idea into a concrete reality?

[aardwolf]

An easier solution is to have a green border on someone's DL or ID if they have a clean background. That means they can buy and carry guns with no additional hassle in all 50 states and DC. People with a criminal record get a red border on their DL or ID and they're not allowed to carry or vote. The inconvenience and cost to the law abiding would be even less than your solution and the benefits to society are much greater. Everybody wins... except the bad guys.
That's good enough for me.

Your superciliousness aside, you have offered us your solution. Now can you tell us how you intend to implement it?

Not the “if I were King� type of procedure but the real world as it is today procedure. How do you go about promoting this idea into a concrete reality?

Step 1. Bundle the required background checks and red/green borders with Real ID.

I'll have Step 2 ready by the time all 50 states implement Step 1.

Or... Texas could implement the background checks (something like NICS, for example) and red/green borders. It could phase in with renewals and address changes. Green border would show a background check within the past 5 years and meet the Federal standards. Green border would also allow open or concealed carry in Texas, but might not be accepted for reciprocity so we could keep the expensive CHL for frequent out of state travelers.

Now, it's your turn.