< Back to the Main Site

Author Topic: Can i check the status of an NICS bg check myself?  (Read 20215 times)

Offline y0diggity

  • Powder Benefactor
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2011
  • Location: Scottsbluff
  • Posts: 106
Can i check the status of an NICS bg check myself?
« on: February 21, 2012, 01:24:16 PM »
I went to Cheyenne, Wyoming last week and found an AK that I bought. We did all the paperwork and I paid, but then they came to me and said that my bg check is pending and I have to wait. They said they'd let me know when it came back. Is there a way I can càll the NICS people and get a status? I dont have my money or my gun and when it does come back I have to drive 2 hours to pick it up.  >:D
The most frustrating part is that I have purchase permit and CCW here but that means nothing there. If its federal, why wouldn't they see that? They already did a federal check just few months ago.
That which does not kill us was not trained properly.

Offline AAllen

  • NFOA Co-Founder
  • *****
  • Join Date: Dec 2008
  • Posts: 4275
Re: Can i check the status of an NICS bg check myself?
« Reply #1 on: February 21, 2012, 02:55:16 PM »
If it's over 3 business days since you did the purchase they either have heard back or it is supposed to go through automatically.  So if you did the purchase Wednesday or possibly Thursday they should have heard by now.

Offline y0diggity

  • Powder Benefactor
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2011
  • Location: Scottsbluff
  • Posts: 106
Re: Can i check the status of an NICS bg check myself?
« Reply #2 on: February 21, 2012, 10:20:25 PM »
I called the store and they said that Friday is my "pick up" day. So if they don't happen to call sooner and tell me I'm good to go, then I can go back on Friday or later and pick it up. It just pisses me off because I honestly hadn't even CONSIDERED that this might happen. I actually had the box under my arm ready to carry out when she came to tell me I had to wait. I was stunned. It's been suggested that it might be my last name that triggered the wait. This could be true as I always end up getting the extra searches at the airport and my last 5 trips (seriously) have resulted in a little tag inside my checked luggage from the TSA telling me they've searched it. Interesting.
Is "Moon" a commie name? lol!!!
I dono. I just want my gun. I've been looking for one like this for a few months now and now that I've found it and paid for it, I don't get to have it.
That which does not kill us was not trained properly.

Offline Dan W

  • NFOA Co-Founder
  • *****
  • Join Date: Oct 2007
  • Location: Lincoln NE
  • Posts: 8143
Re: Can i check the status of an NICS bg check myself?
« Reply #3 on: February 21, 2012, 10:26:13 PM »
Take note ...those that think the Nebraska purchase permit is a hassle, and compare it to this NICS fiasco
Dan W    NFOA Co Founder
Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom.   J. F. K.

Offline y0diggity

  • Powder Benefactor
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2011
  • Location: Scottsbluff
  • Posts: 106
Re: Can i check the status of an NICS bg check myself?
« Reply #4 on: February 21, 2012, 10:33:05 PM »
One thing I've learned with this is that I won't be buying any more guns out of state.
For even more frustration, read this part -
I had also taken a Glock 21 to trade in towards this rifle. It's a good pistol, but it's seen better days. I thought it'd be a good time to trade.
So when it turned out that I couldn't leave with my rifle, I first thought about just saying "forget it" and taking my toys and going home. It turns out that since the transfer paperwork had already been done on the G21, if I wanted to get my money back, they would have to actually ship MY pistol to a local FFL.
So I actually left without my pistol, without my rifle and without my money. :(

If anyone here complains about the purchase process in Nebraska, you're kidding yourself. I'm used to walking into a shop, buying a gun, walking out with said gun. This is ridiculous.
That which does not kill us was not trained properly.

Offline 66bigblock

  • Lead Benefactor
  • **
  • Join Date: Feb 2011
  • Location: Lincoln
  • Posts: 235
  • When SHTF, which side of the Fan will you be on?
Re: Can i check the status of an NICS bg check myself?
« Reply #5 on: February 21, 2012, 11:04:36 PM »
the NICS check is just a cover story.

They are really sending out your AK for a sweet pink graphics package! :D :D


66bigblock


I carry a gun because a cop is too heavy.  I carry a lot of ammo because I cant run very fast.

Offline y0diggity

  • Powder Benefactor
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2011
  • Location: Scottsbluff
  • Posts: 106
Re: Can i check the status of an NICS bg check myself?
« Reply #6 on: February 22, 2012, 09:29:24 AM »
the NICS check is just a cover story.

They are really sending out your AK for a sweet pink graphics package! :D :D


66bigblock

If it would get the gun in my hands sooner, I'd take it. It'll match the Glock. ;)
That which does not kill us was not trained properly.

Offline David Hineline

  • NFOA Full Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Dec 2007
  • Location: South Sioux City
  • Posts: 562
Re: Can i check the status of an NICS bg check myself?
« Reply #7 on: February 22, 2012, 09:17:13 PM »
You can get a NICS special ID number assigned to you so that when a NICS check is done it will identify you, so that similar criminal names are no doubt.

Or you could have had them ship the rifle to a local shop or had a local shop order one for you.

The dealer held your glock hostage to keep from losing the deal, they do not have to log in guns they returned within one business day. Store policy not law.
Machinegun owners blow thier load with one pull of the trigger

Offline Tulkas

  • NFOA Full Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Jan 2012
  • Posts: 18
Re: Can i check the status of an NICS bg check myself?
« Reply #8 on: February 29, 2012, 03:36:49 PM »
Take note ...those that think the Nebraska purchase permit is a hassle, and compare it to this NICS fiasco
It isn't a particular hassle, just unconstitutional.

T.

Offline JTH

  • NFOA Full Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Jan 2009
  • Posts: 2300
  • Shooter
    • Precision Response Training
Re: Can i check the status of an NICS bg check myself?
« Reply #9 on: March 02, 2012, 10:06:32 AM »
It isn't a particular hassle, just unconstitutional.

I hear this sort of thing a lot with people, and it interests me...

Question:  Should convicted felons and mentally incompetent people be able to own/possess/carry firearms?

If your answer is "No" then you are saying that the "shall not be infringed" part of the 2nd amendment actually says "shall not be infringed except in special circumstances."

If you said "No" then by definition, there needs to be a way to check to make sure that said categories of people don't obtain firearms.  There are several methods to that---one is a government check, and the other (in Nebraska) is to obtain a permit (which is a fairly offensive term, really) to purchase firearms. 

They both do the same job.  For many people, the permit system in NE is less annoying than the gov phone call check. 

Either way, if you said that felons and mentally incompetent people shouldn't have guns, you are stuck with SOME method for said check.

Now, if you said "Yes" to the initial question, then all of the above has nothing to do with you.  That being said, however, that isn't the situation in which we currently live, nor will you be able to obtain support from ANY governing body attempting to make it so.  Feel free to try, but it won't work.

So---if you did say "No" to the original:  What about it is particularly unconstitutional?

(If you said "yes" then there isn't much to talk about.)
Precision Response Training
http://precisionresponsetraining.com

Offline JimP

  • Steel Benefactor
  • *
  • Join Date: Oct 2007
  • Posts: 1310
Re: Can i check the status of an NICS bg check myself?
« Reply #10 on: March 02, 2012, 05:07:52 PM »
Quote
Question:  Should convicted felons and mentally incompetent people be able to own/possess/carry firearms?

If they are so dangerous that they can't have a gun, why are they not locked up?

It makes no difference to me whether some nutter shoots me or bashes my head in with a chair:  If they have murder on their mind, they will do it, regardless of the tool used.

If someone is so bad that they can't behave themselves with a firearm, then they are so bad that they need to be kept away from me and mine, not have firearms kept away from them: heaven knows that they can hurt you with a stick, bottle, phonecord, a ball point pen, or even no weapon at all. 

We let felons vote, for pete's sake .......
The Right to Keep and BEAR Arms is enshrined explicitly in both our State and Federal Constitutions, yet most of us are afraid to actually excercise that Right, for very good reason: there is a good chance of being arrested........ and  THAT is a damned shame.  III.

Offline Tulkas

  • NFOA Full Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Jan 2012
  • Posts: 18
Re: Can i check the status of an NICS bg check myself?
« Reply #11 on: March 03, 2012, 02:20:01 PM »
I hear this sort of thing a lot with people, and it interests me...

Question:  Should convicted felons and mentally incompetent people be able to own/possess/carry firearms?

If your answer is "No" then you are saying that the "shall not be infringed" part of the 2nd amendment actually says "shall not be infringed except in special circumstances."
I'm not saying that at all. 

If a person is convicted of a felony he loses most of his civil rights, including the right to possess firearms.  He is no longer numbered among "the people" whose right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

If a person is mentally incompetent, and I include people who have been ordered to a mental evaluation or had a protection order filed against them, then that person should be in the NICS data base if the law, changed as a result of the Virginia Tech shootings, is obeyed.
Quote
If you said "No" then by definition, there needs to be a way to check to make sure that said categories of people don't obtain firearms.  There are several methods to that---one is a government check, and the other (in Nebraska) is to obtain a permit (which is a fairly offensive term, really) to purchase firearms. 
I didn't say "No" and I agree that "said categories of people" should be prohibited access to firearms.  That's the purpose of the NICS background check, I have no problem with that.

In Nebraska the law, 69-2404, states that "Any person desiring to purchase, rent, ... shall apply ..." for a certificate.  I view this as requiring a citizen to beg permission to exercise a right. 

This law violates the US Constitution, Amendment II by placing a precondition on exercising the right guaranteed by the Amendment.  This is clearly infringement.
Quote
They both do the same job.  For many people, the permit system in NE is less annoying than the gov phone call check. 
Let's see if they do the same job:

The background check you pay $5.00 for is apparently the same NICS check that a firearms dealer gets from the ATF.  There may be an additional check from a state data base but no one has said so.  In any case the ATF is a national data base, not local.

The certificate is good for three years.  Suppose that I bought a certificate 18 months ago, have since threatened my wife and she has gotten a protection order against me.  A firearms dealer wouldn't know about the protection order if he depended on the certificate only, even if the protection order were filed, without a current background check.

The law can't be enforced.  If I trust a person not to blab I could sell him anything in my arsenal without seeing a certificate.  Also think gun show parking lot, cash deal between strangers.
Quote
Either way, if you said that felons and mentally incompetent people shouldn't have guns, you are stuck with SOME method for said check.
I have no problem with a background check as is done by the ATF on the NICS.
Quote
<snip>
That being said, however, that isn't the situation in which we currently live, nor will you be able to obtain support from ANY governing body attempting to make it so.  Feel free to try, but it won't work.
I'm not sure of your meaning above so I won't guess.  I am doing my best to get 69-2404 and subsequent sections repealed, or at least changed to become optional. 
Quote
So---if you did say "No" to the original:  What about it is particularly unconstitutional?
I dislike repeating myself but...

"This law violates the US Constitution, Amendment II by placing a precondition on exercising the right guaranteed by the Amendment."

BTW this topic is hashed out in http://nebraskafirearms.org/forum/index.php/topic,4956.0.html so I suggest that we move any further discussion over there.

T.

Offline JimP

  • Steel Benefactor
  • *
  • Join Date: Oct 2007
  • Posts: 1310
Re: Can i check the status of an NICS bg check myself?
« Reply #12 on: March 03, 2012, 10:34:13 PM »
Quote
If a person is convicted of a felony he loses most of his civil rights, including the right to possess firearms. 

Not so.  Felons who have served their sentence/finished parole can vote in this state.

They can do just darn near everything EXCEPT have a gun........
The Right to Keep and BEAR Arms is enshrined explicitly in both our State and Federal Constitutions, yet most of us are afraid to actually excercise that Right, for very good reason: there is a good chance of being arrested........ and  THAT is a damned shame.  III.

Offline Dan W

  • NFOA Co-Founder
  • *****
  • Join Date: Oct 2007
  • Location: Lincoln NE
  • Posts: 8143
Re: Can i check the status of an NICS bg check myself?
« Reply #13 on: March 03, 2012, 11:04:56 PM »
Not so.  Felons who have served their sentence/finished parole can vote in this state.

They can do just darn near everything EXCEPT have a gun........

Can you cite the terms of that restoration of civil rights?  I was under the impression that only the Pardons Board can restore those rights
Dan W    NFOA Co Founder
Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom.   J. F. K.

Offline JTH

  • NFOA Full Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Jan 2009
  • Posts: 2300
  • Shooter
    • Precision Response Training
Re: Can i check the status of an NICS bg check myself?
« Reply #14 on: March 07, 2012, 04:07:22 PM »
I originally said:
Quote
Question:  Should convicted felons and mentally incompetent people be able to own/possess/carry firearms?

If your answer is "No" then you are saying that the "shall not be infringed" part of the 2nd amendment actually says "shall not be infringed except in special circumstances."

To which Tulkas replied:
I'm not saying that at all. 

If a person is convicted of a felony he loses most of his civil rights, including the right to possess firearms.  He is no longer numbered among "the people" whose right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Which is interesting---because then they aren't "rights" now are they?    If we can give them and take them away, then they are privileges.  (No matter what else we want to call them.)   

The original writers made mention of the fact that these "rights" were not granted or given by the government---that they existed prior to that, and were the rights of all people.    As such, you can't take them away---if they are a _right_.

So what you are saying is that they are a privilege, they can be taken away by the government, and therefore can be (obviously) infringed as long as so do it in a way that people won't argue?

I find this similar to Mr. Holder's contention that it is okay for us to completely ignore the laws of our nation just because we are acting in someone else's country.  Isn't that interesting?  For all of our commentaries about "rights" that belong to "all people," we can just ignore them based on geography.  (For example, it is okay to go murder an American citizen in another country without due process of law---which means a court case.  But hey, he wasn't here, so we can just ignore the laws which we are supposed to uphold that pertain to all people.)

Note:  this is different from saying other countries should use our laws.  What I'm saying is that our country says that all people have certain rights.  So why is it that if people aren't in our country, they no longer count or have rights?

Back to the original point:  The right says "the people" and "shall not be infringed."  You say that some people aren't people anymore, and don't have these rights that "the people" have.

So---obviously, "infringed" isn't a problem.

You then bring up:  "The law can't be enforced.  If I trust a person not to blab I could sell him anything in my arsenal without seeing a certificate.  Also think gun show parking lot, cash deal between strangers." ---as an argument.  However, this is nonsense, as it really wouldn't be covered by the standard NICS phone check either, now would it?  Let's stay on topic here.

Interesting enough, you say that the NE permit (which again, I don't particularly like) is a "precondition" and thus an infringement. But you also say:  "I have no problem with a background check as is done by the ATF on the NICS."  ----which is ALSO a precondition on buying a firearm, and this is exactly the same.  (I agree that requiring a fee for the permit is different---but the precondition point is still the same.)

So again, we are back to "it isn't a right, infringements are fine as long as they are the ones I don't mind."

You ended with: 
Quote
BTW this topic is hashed out in http://nebraskafirearms.org/forum/index.php/topic,4956.0.html so I suggest that we move any further discussion over there.

Yes, and your arguments were similar there when you ignored what other people were saying.  As such, they had similar logical errors.

I note for the record here that I haven't actually said my own opinion here regarding felons and rights, nor about whether or not "rights" can or should be "infringed" or to what level. 

My point is merely that if you say certain people don't have rights, then they aren't rights.  If they aren't rights, then "shall not be infringed" is meaningless, except in your opinion of whether or not a particular infringement is annoying.

Either it is a right that shall not be infringed, or it isn't.  In one case, the government cannot give, change, alter, or remove it.  In the other, the government can (and will) do whatever we allow it to do.
Precision Response Training
http://precisionresponsetraining.com

Offline Tulkas

  • NFOA Full Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Jan 2012
  • Posts: 18
Re: Can i check the status of an NICS bg check myself?
« Reply #15 on: March 08, 2012, 01:12:37 PM »
I originally said:

    Question:  Should convicted felons and mentally incompetent people be able to own/possess/carry firearms?

    If your answer is "No" then you are saying that the "shall not be infringed" part of the 2nd amendment actually says "shall not be infringed except in special circumstances."

To which Tulkas replied:
Quote from: Tulkas on March 03, 2012, 02:20:01 PM
Quote
    I'm not saying that at all.

    If a person is convicted of a felony he loses most of his civil rights, including the right to possess firearms.  He is no longer numbered among "the people" whose right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Quote
Which is interesting---because then they aren't "rights" now are they?    If we can give them and take them away, then they are privileges.  (No matter what else we want to call them.)   
I see we're having fun with semantics this morning. ;)  Questions you might ponder:

Is the Constitution the basic law of the land?  What are the first ten Amendments called?  Check http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html if you wish.

We are referring to inborn rights codified and protected in the United States by the Constitution, Amendments one through ten.  Society, in the case of a convicted felon may prevent exercise of those rights.  A felon usually loses the right to dwell where he pleases while he's in the slammer.  He also loses rights to privacy and security in his possessions while inside and the right to possess firearms for a greater or lesser period of time after he is released.

Governments, usually wrongly, also prevent exercise of these inborn rights.  That is my problem with http://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=69-2404.  I feel that, as an adult citizen who isn't a felon, I have an inborn right to purchase anything I can afford without begging permission from anyone, least of all a government employee.
Quote

The original writers made mention of the fact that these "rights" were not granted or given by the government---that they existed prior to that, and were the rights of all people.    As such, you can't take them away---if they are a _right_.
But "society" may restrict the exercise of these rights, as discussed above.
Quote
So what you are saying is that they are a privilege, they can be taken away by the government, and therefore can be (obviously) infringed as long as so do it in a way that people won't argue?
I'm glad you posed that as a question since I am definitely not saying anything like that. 

The object of this exercise, and communication with the hired help in Lincoln,  is to argue and to point out the obvious so that a remedy may be found.
<snip irrelevant comments about Eric Holder>
Quote
Back to the original point:  The right says "the people" and "shall not be infringed."  You say that some people aren't people anymore, and don't have these rights that "the people" have.

So---obviously, "infringed" isn't a problem.
I think this point has been adequately covered.
Quote
You then bring up:  "The law can't be enforced.  If I trust a person not to blab I could sell him anything in my arsenal without seeing a certificate.  Also think gun show parking lot, cash deal between strangers." ---as an argument.  However, this is nonsense, as it really wouldn't be covered by the standard NICS phone check either, now would it?  Let's stay on topic here.
As written, "Any person desiring to purchase, lease, rent, or receive transfer of a handgun shall apply with the chief of police or sheriff of the applicant's place of residence for a certificate." the law cannot be enforced, and it has nothing to do with a NICS background check.
Quote
Interesting enough, you say that the NE permit (which again, I don't particularly like) is a "precondition" and thus an infringement. But you also say:  "I have no problem with a background check as is done by the ATF on the NICS."  ----which is ALSO a precondition on buying a firearm, and this is exactly the same.  (I agree that requiring a fee for the permit is different---but the precondition point is still the same.)
Nope, a background check isn't a precondition at all but a demonstration of a qualification.  It's much the same as taking a DMV employee for a ride when renewing a driver's license or taking a FAA designated examiner for a flight when upgrading a pilot's license.
Quote
So again, we are back to "it isn't a right, infringements are fine as long as they are the ones I don't mind."
I've never said anything like that.  I wish you wouldn't try to attribute the products of your misunderstanding to me.
Quote

You ended with:

    BTW this topic is hashed out in http://nebraskafirearms.org/forum/index.php/topic,4956.0.html so I suggest that we move any further discussion over there.

Yes, and your arguments were similar there when you ignored what other people were saying.  As such, they had similar logical errors.
You're entitled to your opinion.  I happen to disagree.
Quote
I note for the record here that I haven't actually said my own opinion here regarding felons and rights, nor about whether or not "rights" can or should be "infringed" or to what level. 
Do you have an opinion?
Quote
My point is merely that if you say certain people don't have rights, then they aren't rights.  If they aren't rights, then "shall not be infringed" is meaningless, except in your opinion of whether or not a particular infringement is annoying.
You're wrong, I've discussed the subject above. 
Quote
Either it is a right that shall not be infringed, or it isn't.  In one case, the government cannot give, change, alter, or remove it.  In the other, the government can (and will) do whatever we allow it to do.
Governments, like any other hired help, will get by with as much as they can get away with.  We see that every day, it's human nature.  Our responsibility as citizens is to keep government on a tight leash, if we can pry ourselves away from the TV long enough to pay attention to what is happening.

T.

Offline JTH

  • NFOA Full Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Jan 2009
  • Posts: 2300
  • Shooter
    • Precision Response Training
Re: Can i check the status of an NICS bg check myself?
« Reply #16 on: March 10, 2012, 12:05:04 PM »
To which Tulkas replied:
Quote from: Tulkas on March 03, 2012, 02:20:01 PMI see we're having fun with semantics this morning. ;) 

No.  It is the main point, and one that people argue.  Matter of fact, you use it when it suits you.  (And you ignore it when it doesn't fit your opinions.)

Either it is a fundamental right, or it isn't.

Quote
Questions you might ponder:

Is the Constitution the basic law of the land?  What are the first ten Amendments called?  Check http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html if you wish.

We are referring to inborn rights codified and protected in the United States by the Constitution, Amendments one through ten. 

Thank you for the condescension, which unfortunately, helps me make my point.  "Inborn rights."

Using the specific phrasing "Shall not be infringed."

So, again I ask---can convicted felons and such have rights taken away?  If so, then they aren't inborn rights, they are privileges given (and taken away) by a government.

Quote
Society, in the case of a convicted felon may prevent exercise of those rights.  A felon usually loses the right to dwell where he pleases while he's in the slammer.  He also loses rights to privacy and security in his possessions while inside and the right to possess firearms for a greater or lesser period of time after he is released.

So, they aren't rights.  Got it.

Quote
Governments, usually wrongly, also prevent exercise of these inborn rights. 
 

You are aware that the "government" is the one who also takes away the privileges of criminals?  And that the logic used to take away the privileges of criminals is exactly the same as that used to limit your privileges?

You've now said "inborn rights"---and yet say that people can lose these rights (by being criminals).  You can't have it both ways. 

I realize your followup is probably going to be some commentary on how you "only said that the exercise of that right was being prevented."  However, if you can't exercise a right, then you don't have that right.

Whereupon, it isn't a right under our laws.  It is a privilege given to you by those who make laws.

slight snip, then:
Quote
I feel that, as an adult citizen who isn't a felon, I have an inborn right to purchase anything I can afford without begging permission from anyone, least of all a government employee.But "society" may restrict the exercise of these rights, as discussed above.I'm glad you posed that as a question since I am definitely not saying anything like that. 

You do realize that doesn't make sense, right?  First you say it is an inborn right.  Then you say that exercise of that right can be prevented.  Then you say that right means you don't need to beg permission.  Then you say that the exercise of those rights may be restricted.

Sorry, you only get to pick one side.  Because either it is a right, or it isn't.  If it IS a right of all people, then when the people discuss the problem with their government, they have one type of argument.  If it ISN'T a right of all people (in other words, it is something that the government can restrict) then it is another type of argument, because it is an argument about "how much" and "for what reason" which is a completely different sort of thing.

Quote
The object of this exercise, and communication with the hired help in Lincoln,  is to argue and to point out the obvious so that a remedy may be found.

The problem, of course, is that "the obvious" isn't.  You have yet to clearly articulate your logic regarding this situation, as you have contradicted yourself multiple times regarding rights.  As such, it is unlikely that such an argument to the "hired help" will do anything useful---more likely, it will cause annoyance and bad feelings, which means that when we DO try to get something useful done, it will be more difficult.

As people have said (and you have ignored) the NE permit system is annoying, but occasionally useful.  It currently is not onerous to deal with, and simplifies certain things.  While it indeed is something we'd like to get rid of (or at the very least make free), it is not a priority.

And there are only so many things that people have time, resources, and leverage to deal with considering the large number of NE state senators who are NOT gun-friendly.  As such, we pick our battles carefully, and we work on winning the important ones first.

People have said this multiple times.  You have ignored it, and belittled people who have worked for years to get Nebraska where it is (which is considerably better than it was previously) when they said they didn't consider this a priority just because you think so.

I going to simply ignore the rest of what you wrote, and unless you actually start attempting to realize what people ARE trying to change, plus start to use actual logic in your discussion, I'm done with you and this topic.

I will say this, though:

People around here make a difference to gun laws in Nebraska.  We've gotten a lot of things changed, and we aren't done yet. 

We fight the important things first, because we can't fight for everything simultaneously.  Our opinion of "the important things" apparently doesn't match yours, which is fine, you go ahead and work on what you want---but don't expect a whole lot of help from people who already have collectively decided what is the most important.   (If you haven't noticed because you didn't actually read any of the background before diving into these forums with your own opinions, the NFOA actively pays attention to the laws and legislation, posts information and updates, discusses bills, and votes on how we will present ourselves and deal with the legislature.) 

We found that unsurprisingly, one lone voice means nothing to politicians.  Several thousand people united with facts and statistics on their side?  Is something different.  And so WE actually pay attention, make sure we know what we are doing, and we make a difference.

If you get the permit system changed all by yourself, kudos to you.  If you instead get nowhere other than annoying a lot of people who we are trying to work with to get things done (which is much more likely, as any professional lobbyist will tell you), thanks a lot for making things worse and getting in the way.
Precision Response Training
http://precisionresponsetraining.com

Offline Tulkas

  • NFOA Full Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Jan 2012
  • Posts: 18
Re: Can i check the status of an NICS bg check myself?
« Reply #17 on: March 11, 2012, 12:31:08 AM »
Quote from: Tulkas on March 08, 2012, 01:12:37 PM

    To which Tulkas replied:
Tulkas on March 03, 2012, 02:20:01 PMI see we're having fun with semantics this morning. ;)

No.  It is the main point, and one that people argue.  Matter of fact, you use it when it suits you.  (And you ignore it when it doesn't fit your opinions.)

Either it is a fundamental right, or it isn't.
This business of trying to carry on a conversation in HTML is troublesome and awkward.  I probably won't do it very much any more but making my thoughts clear to anyone who may be reading over our shoulders is important to me.  You have apparently made up your mind to disagree with anything I post.  So be it, I'm not trying to convince you of anything.

On with the show...

I suppose that "it" is the question of whether we're talking about rights or privileges.  Amendment II protects a fundamental right: to keep and bear arms.  The Amendment clearly says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  I contend that the law under discussion infringes on that right.  BTW the right is not of recent vintage but is rooted in the discovery that use of a stick could deal with that pesky wolf, or neighbor, better than bare hands could do.
Quote
Questions you might ponder:

Is the Constitution the basic law of the land?  What are the first ten Amendments called?  Check http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html if you wish.

Thank you for the condescension, which unfortunately, helps me make my point.  "Inborn rights."

Using the specific phrasing "Shall not be infringed."
No condescension was intended.  It's surprising how many times the Constitution is referred to.  When asked where the point may be found, there is either no response or it turns out that the person was mistaken.  The link above was posted for your convenience.

I maintain that every person has an inborn right to protect himself and those he cares about.  The right to one way of doing this is protected by Amendment II.  Other inborn rights are listed in other Amendments, as well in other documents, the Declaration of Independence for instance.
Quote
So, again I ask---can convicted felons and such have rights taken away?  If so, then they aren't inborn rights, they are privileges given (and taken away) by a government.
<sigh>  We've been over this before and it's starting to get boring.  Yes, convicted felons may be prevented from exercising certain rights. 
Quote
Society, in the case of a convicted felon may prevent exercise of those rights.  A felon usually loses the right to dwell where he pleases while he's in the slammer.  He also loses rights to privacy and security in his possessions while inside and the right to possess firearms for a greater or lesser period of time after he is released.

So, they aren't rights.  Got it.
 
No, you ain't got it but that's okay.
Quote
Governments, usually wrongly, also prevent exercise of these inborn rights. 

You are aware that the "government" is the one who also takes away the privileges of criminals?  And that the logic used to take away the privileges of criminals is exactly the same as that used to limit your privileges?
But I'm not a criminal, unless questioning "authority" is a crime.
Quote
You've now said "inborn rights"---and yet say that people can lose these rights (by being criminals).  You can't have it both ways. 
Sure I can.  You seem to have difficulty seeing the obvious, which is a shame.
Quote
I realize your followup is probably going to be some commentary on how you "only said that the exercise of that right was being prevented."  However, if you can't exercise a right, then you don't have that right.

Whereupon, it isn't a right under our laws.  It is a privilege given to you by those who make laws.
Okay, just for discussion, do you agree that a person has the right to reside wherever he chooses if he can afford the rent?  What, then, of the criminal who resides in the slammer?  Did he choose to live there?  Can he change his residence if he wishes to?  Think about it.
Quote
slight snip, then:
I feel that, as an adult citizen who isn't a felon, I have an inborn right to purchase anything I can afford without begging permission from anyone, least of all a government employee.But "society" may restrict the exercise of these rights, as discussed above.I'm glad you posed that as a question since I am definitely not saying anything like that. 

You do realize that doesn't make sense, right?  First you say it is an inborn right.  Then you say that exercise of that right can be prevented.  Then you say that right means you don't need to beg permission.  Then you say that the exercise of those rights may be restricted.
You sure managed to butcher that!  I'll try to straighten it out for you:
1.) Any person has an inborn right to own anything he chooses to own, as long as owning it doesn't harm others.
2.) A person can lose rights by being convicted of a crime.
3.) I decline to beg permission to exercise a right.  The law under discussion says that if I want to purchase a handgun in Nebraska I must apply for a certificate.  I won't do that since I'm convinced that the law infringes on Amendment II. 
4.) Governments often wrongly restrict rights, especially regarding firearms: Germany in the late 1920s; England and Australia from the 1950s until the present day; California, Chicago, Washington D.C., New York City today are examples.
Quote
Sorry, you only get to pick one side.  Because either it is a right, or it isn't.  If it IS a right of all people, then when the people discuss the problem with their government, they have one type of argument.  If it ISN'T a right of all people (in other words, it is something that the government can restrict) then it is another type of argument, because it is an argument about "how much" and "for what reason" which is a completely different sort of thing.
I don't know how to explain it more clearly than to say that in the USA certain rights are listed in and protected by the Bill of Rights, Amendments one through ten of the Constitution.  Those rights can be lost by being convicted of certain crimes.  Unfortunately there are no absolutes.
Quote
The problem, of course, is that "the obvious" isn't.  You have yet to clearly articulate your logic regarding this situation, as you have contradicted yourself multiple times regarding rights. 
I suppose that you see what you want to see. 
Quote
As such, it is unlikely that such an argument to the "hired help" will do anything useful---more likely, it will cause annoyance and bad feelings, which means that when we DO try to get something useful done, it will be more difficult.
I refer to government employees as "hired help" to remind myself that they work for the citizens of the state/country.  This is something that they, and the citizens at large, sometimes forget.

Don't worry, I won't mention NFOA in any of my correspondence with legislators or others.  In the other thread I asked for opinion on if the law, 69-2404, violates Amendment II of the Constitution.  A few people agree that it does but other things, like uniform signage and victim protection are more important.  Okay, so be it.  I'll do what I can.
Quote
As people have said (and you have ignored) the NE permit system is annoying, but occasionally useful.  It currently is not onerous to deal with, and simplifies certain things.  While it indeed is something we'd like to get rid of (or at the very least make free), it is not a priority.
I read that and reviewed both threads.  I've responded to everything that was on topic, but let's review:

"KY57" asked a question about Nebraska recognizing an out-of-state CCW license which was answered by "sfg".  I didn't ignore him, I'm just not qualified to answer the question.

"DanClrk51" made some comments agreeing that the law in question is unconstitutional.  I agree; should I post a "Me too" response?

There were several posts by "sparky" with clarification by "AAllen" about important things that are being worked on.  I responded to these posts.

"David Hineline" posted that the BATF could issue a unique ID to expedite a NICS check.  No reason for me to respond.

I responded to a post from "Dan W", who completely missed the point of my tweaking "AAllen" about "LB920 I hope is dead.  I can not support a bill that would take away a persons rights without even a hearing."

If you find others I've "ignored", please post chapter and verse.

Lessee...  If the NE permit system is only annoying, why would you want to get rid of it?  Could it be that you resent paying for permission to do something that people in other states do as a matter of course? 
Quote
And there are only so many things that people have time, resources, and leverage to deal with considering the large number of NE state senators who are NOT gun-friendly.  As such, we pick our battles carefully, and we work on winning the important ones first.
I understand that.  We have different ideas of what is important.  BTW are you speaking for yourself only or for the NFOA?
Quote
People have said this multiple times.  You have ignored it, and belittled people who have worked for years to get Nebraska where it is (which is considerably better than it was previously) when they said they didn't consider this a priority just because you think so.
You're wrong you know.  I don't intentionally belittle people but I spend a lot of time trying to explain to those who won't see.  That will come to a halt with this post.  I will answer questions but I won't argue any more points.
Quote
I going to simply ignore the rest of what you wrote, and unless you actually start attempting to realize what people ARE trying to change, plus start to use actual logic in your discussion, I'm done with you and this topic.
So am I.  Go in peace.

T.
« Last Edit: March 11, 2012, 01:05:36 AM by Tulkas »

Offline JimP

  • Steel Benefactor
  • *
  • Join Date: Oct 2007
  • Posts: 1310
Re: Can i check the status of an NICS bg check myself?
« Reply #18 on: March 14, 2012, 04:42:58 PM »


Can you cite the terms of that restoration of civil rights?  I was under the impression that only the Pardons Board can restore those rights

Here ya go, Dan.....

I remember it was summer of 2008 that this changed.....

Quote
Nebraska - Persons convicted of a felony are automatically permitted to vote two years after completion of their sentence for all convictions except treason.
A Guide to Ex Felon Voting Rights in Nebraska (72KB) (as of July 31, 2008)


http://felonvoting.procon.org/sourcefiles/ne_brochure.pdf
The Right to Keep and BEAR Arms is enshrined explicitly in both our State and Federal Constitutions, yet most of us are afraid to actually excercise that Right, for very good reason: there is a good chance of being arrested........ and  THAT is a damned shame.  III.

Offline Dan W

  • NFOA Co-Founder
  • *****
  • Join Date: Oct 2007
  • Location: Lincoln NE
  • Posts: 8143
Re: Can i check the status of an NICS bg check myself?
« Reply #19 on: March 14, 2012, 07:00:36 PM »
Thanks Jim, I did not know that.
Dan W    NFOA Co Founder
Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom.   J. F. K.