HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Just got a part time job ...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 02:54 PM

Just got a part time job and underwent a background check. And if I buy a gun?

As some of you know, we recently got my wife's daughter over here to the USA and as such, we now (obviously) have some additional expenses. So I decided to get a part time job for some extra money. I am driving a fork truck on a loading dock unloading semi trailers. And in order to get this part time job, I had to submit to a background check. No big deal, I have a clean record, etc.
But my point is, if I had to undergo a background check to work part time on a loading dock, why don't some gun owners have to undergo one to own a firearm? Seems to me that if a person is clean, they won't have much to worry about, and if one is violent and/or mentally ill, they shouldn't have a gun anyway. Just my two cents worth.

56 replies, 3264 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 56 replies Author Time Post
Reply Just got a part time job and underwent a background check. And if I buy a gun? (Original post)
Bluzmann57 Jan 2013 OP
rbixby Jan 2013 #1
former9thward Jan 2013 #2
rustydog Jan 2013 #3
former9thward Jan 2013 #7
oneshooter Jan 2013 #36
former9thward Jan 2013 #38
ManiacJoe Jan 2013 #20
uponit7771 Jan 2013 #34
aptal Jan 2013 #4
ProgressiveProfessor Jan 2013 #12
aptal Jan 2013 #19
Squinch Jan 2013 #24
former9thward Jan 2013 #40
Squinch Jan 2013 #43
former9thward Jan 2013 #45
Squinch Jan 2013 #47
former9thward Jan 2013 #48
Squinch Jan 2013 #49
aptal Jan 2013 #50
uponit7771 Jan 2013 #35
former9thward Jan 2013 #39
Squinch Jan 2013 #44
former9thward Jan 2013 #46
pkdu Jan 2013 #51
former9thward Feb 2013 #54
pkdu Feb 2013 #55
former9thward Feb 2013 #56
SpartanDem Jan 2013 #5
cthulu2016 Jan 2013 #6
Drale Jan 2013 #8
freshwest Jan 2013 #9
Jack Hinson Jan 2013 #10
ProgressiveProfessor Jan 2013 #13
guardian Jan 2013 #11
ProgressiveProfessor Jan 2013 #15
IrreverentOne Jan 2013 #16
Renew Deal Jan 2013 #17
metalbot Jan 2013 #41
SpartanDem Jan 2013 #18
Squinch Jan 2013 #25
guardian Jan 2013 #28
Squinch Jan 2013 #30
ProgressiveProfessor Jan 2013 #14
Deep13 Jan 2013 #27
Jack Hinson Jan 2013 #37
surrealAmerican Jan 2013 #21
Bluzmann57 Jan 2013 #22
surrealAmerican Jan 2013 #23
Mojorabbit Jan 2013 #52
Deep13 Jan 2013 #26
guardian Jan 2013 #29
Deep13 Jan 2013 #31
customerserviceguy Jan 2013 #32
raidert05 Jan 2013 #33
maryland native Jan 2013 #42
OneTenthofOnePercent Jan 2013 #53

Response to Bluzmann57 (Original post)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 02:58 PM

1. Because, gun owners are scared of anything

that might potentially come between them and their guns

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluzmann57 (Original post)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 03:01 PM

2. You do.

If you buy a gun you go through a FBI background check. It is part of the cost of a gun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #2)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 03:03 PM

3. No you don't. I have a 9mm glock 19

private sale, no background check.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rustydog (Reply #3)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 03:06 PM

7. Most guns are bought through FFL dealers.

Whether at a gun store or a gun show. All of those require background checks. The poster I was replying to was trying to make it seem there were no background checks at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #7)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 08:37 PM

36. I don't have to have a background check

even when I buy from a FFl.
All I have to do is show my Texas CHL.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oneshooter (Reply #36)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 11:34 AM

38. Stop evading the issue.

You had to have a background check to get the TX CHL. The FFL dealer is probably doing an electronic instant check whether he tells you or not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rustydog (Reply #3)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 05:29 PM

20. NICS background checks are prohibited for private sales.

For the sellers not comfortable playing the odds, they need to use other methods of verification.
However, playing the odds works out most of the time since the vast majority of the adult population are eligible buyers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rustydog (Reply #3)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 08:03 PM

34. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #2)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 03:03 PM

4. Yes, you are required to get a background check to buy a gun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aptal (Reply #4)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 03:20 PM

12. Not always, depending on the state

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #12)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 05:10 PM

19. All states require background checks to purchase a gun from a retailer.

This was a result of the Brady Act passed in 1994.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aptal (Reply #19)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 05:53 PM

24. From a retailer. 40% of guns are not bought through retailers and require no check.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squinch (Reply #24)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 11:36 AM

40. Where is your link for that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #40)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 05:30 PM

43. Flex your google muscles dear. Type in "40% of guns sold without background check."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squinch (Reply #43)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 05:40 PM

45. I did.

I came up with all sorts of sites that had that number. But guess what? NONE of them gave any link or information where that number came from. So where does it come from or is it an internet creation?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #45)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 05:59 PM

47. Well, how about this.

This politifact explains that the best information we have comes from that survey that found 40%.

There are sources that dispute that figure because it is old. However, as this article explains, that is because there have been lots of lobby groups, including the NRA, who have prevented any more recent tracking of gun sales.

However, experts on both sides of the issue who were asked by the writers of this piece agree that the 40% number is still probably right because the gun market is fairly stable.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jul/25/michael-bloomberg/mayor-michael-bloomberg-says-40-percent-guns-are-s/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squinch (Reply #47)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 06:53 PM

48. Actually I looked at that study.

And your link gives the claim of 40% "half true". The study said only about 10% of people gave any information about the origin of their guns. I am surprised that many did. I would never give information of any sort about my guns to a stranger on the phone. No one knows who they are or what they are using the information for. So the study got the 40% figure from 250 people nationwide who gave information about their guns. Who knows if they were telling the truth or not. The true figure may b e 40% or it may be figure far different than that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #48)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 06:57 PM

49. And yet, due to the work of the NRA and organizations like them, it is the best information we have.

And the experts from both sides of the argument who were consulted confirmed that it was probably still a good estimate, given that the gun market is pretty stable.

So as information goes, it's what we have to go on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #48)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 10:37 PM

50. I agree with you.

I doubt it is 40%. As I am from the south and around a lot of gun owners. Myself included. Nearly everyone I know buys from a gun show through a retail seller or from a retail store.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aptal (Reply #19)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 08:04 PM

35. nope

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uponit7771 (Reply #35)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 11:36 AM

39. Yes.

What state does not require a background check from a retailer?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #39)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 05:33 PM

44. What state DOES require a background check when buying a gun from someone other than

a retailer?

You seem not to be getting the fact that huge amounts of gun sales do not go through retailers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squinch (Reply #44)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 05:42 PM

46. The poster I replied to said retailer.

He/said you did not have to have a background check to buy from a retailer. That is false. Do you have better info?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #2)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 10:43 PM

51. Care to retract that 100% declarative and incorrect statement yet ? Nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pkdu (Reply #51)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 11:39 AM

54. No.

If you have read the other posts it is explained to you. Perhaps you need other help.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #54)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 05:14 PM

55. I see , we have to read ALL your word-salad/spaghettios to pick out a correct statement. No thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pkdu (Reply #55)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 06:36 PM

56. I don't know the "we" you are speaking for.

But you are not compelled to read any of my posts or anybody else's either. Ignore can be your friend.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluzmann57 (Original post)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 03:04 PM

5. Common sense isn't common among the NRA type of gun owners

only 15% of gun owner oppose universal background check. But to hear NRA you'd think it's the end of the world

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluzmann57 (Original post)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 03:06 PM

6. apples and oranges

I think universal background checks for guns are a good thing, but not because some private industry uses background checks for employment.

A citizen's interactions with government are not comparable to an employee's relationship with an employer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluzmann57 (Original post)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 03:11 PM

8. My girlfriend got a job at Target

and she had to have a background check and take a drug test, why are both not mandated to buy a gun or for that matter run for public office?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluzmann57 (Original post)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 03:11 PM

9. I wonder if the difference is that your job is protecting valuable workers from you, just in case.

Whereas gun owners purchase guns to go after people they don't consider valuable.

The belief system being that gun owners will never shoot someone who doesn't 'have it coming.' So they are shooting people who are not valuable, honest, etc.

I'm not saying I speak for that view, but that's just my attempt to answer what I have considered to be the core argument of self-defensive and guns.

I believe in checks, also annual renewals of licenses, because 'valuable' people are killed by guns everyday. One person's worthless is another person's world.

I'm also including people that are upset and use guns to kill themselves without thinking that they are valuable - but that may not work. People are cunning and get around checks.

I'm ONLY speaking to what society sees as valuable. Your employer and fellow employees are worth having you checked out to make sure you don't harm them. Or it may be about property?

Which is a great deal of the gun debate. That's all I got.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluzmann57 (Original post)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 03:17 PM

10. U do have to have a back ground check

Unless they r given as gifts, in which case a simple hand receipt of transfer will due, such as in a grandfather passing his guns on to his grandson and such. A last will and testament or even something as simple as a verbal communications of their wishes. Unless u buy a gun from some geek on the street, one must obtain that gun legally. Obviously the so-called background checks r not working...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jack Hinson (Reply #10)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 03:21 PM

13. Actually that is not true

Some states require background checks for all transfers. Other allow private party transactions without background checks.

Anything bought via a dealer must have background checks

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluzmann57 (Original post)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 03:19 PM

11. Which of the recent mass shootings

 

would have been prevented by a background check?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guardian (Reply #11)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 03:25 PM

15. None, best I can tell

If there were better reporting mandates at least one

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guardian (Reply #11)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 03:27 PM

16. Not a single one

 

If anyone believes that background checks would have prevented any mass shooting that I have ever read or heard about they are delusional at best and utterly stupid at worst.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IrreverentOne (Reply #16)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 03:49 PM

17. How would you know if a mass shooting was prevented by a background check...

if a mass shooting didn't happen?

We do know that over 700,000 people that shouldn't own guns were prevented from getting them from gun sellers because of background checks.

"Mandated by the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 and launched by the FBI on November 30, 1998, NICS is used by Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) to instantly determine whether a prospective buyer is eligible to buy firearms or explosives. Before ringing up the sale, cashiers call in a check to the FBI or to other designated agencies to ensure that each customer does not have a criminal record or isnít otherwise ineligible to make a purchase. More than 100 million such checks have been made in the last decade, leading to more than 700,000 denials."

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Renew Deal (Reply #17)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 11:47 AM

41. Question, then...

It's a felony to lie on the form that one fills out in order to purchase a firearm. If one is being honest on that form (and you are not restricted from owning firearms), then you will not be rejected. Why is it that only 17 of those 700,000 people have been successfully prosecuted? Wouldn't you think that jailing convicted felons who are willing to commit another felony to buy a gun would be a good thing? Shouldn't enforcement of the EXISTING LAW be a much higher priority than creating new laws?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guardian (Reply #11)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 04:25 PM

18. Our goal shouldn't be just to stop mass shooting

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guardian (Reply #11)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 06:00 PM

25. It seems to me that requiring a background check on every sold gun would,

either sooner or later, enable some kind of record on who has bought which gun.

If we have that record, we can enact or enforce laws that mandate stiff penalties for the owner of a gun used in a criminal act. Once we have that, I think many of the mass shootings would be prevented.

For example, Mrs. Lanza seemed like she followed the rules. If the rules included that she would have been liable for anything that happened with her gun, I imagine she would have been a lot more careful about her son's access to her guns. However she was storing them, it was not sufficient to keep him away from them. If she thought she would be punished if he used the guns, it is perfectly feasable that she would have secured them better, and he would not have had access to them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squinch (Reply #25)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 06:16 PM

28. So your actual answer

 

to my question about which of the shooting would have been prevented by background checks is 'none of them would have been prevented.'

Then you sidestepped the question and shifted the discussion to changing laws making gun owners liable for "anything that happened with her gun." Which is an entirely different thing than a background check.

Thirdly, you conflated background checks of buyers with a gun registration database. Again these a different things.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guardian (Reply #28)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 06:22 PM

30. Yes. These are different things. But I do think these are the things that are necessary

to make responsible gun owners responsible for what happens with their guns. And the road to getting these things has to begin with some kind of contact between the gun buyer and law enforcement at the point of purchase. There are incremental steps that need to be taken, and this is the first. I see that as a major value of a law requiring background checks.

Of course, the other would be to quickly weed out anyone who is clearly and eggregiously not suited to own a gun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluzmann57 (Original post)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 03:24 PM

14. Not all gun transactions require a background check. It depends on the state

Most state do not require checks on private party transactions. Which means you can give a gun to someone or sell it to someone without going through an FFL. The law as it stands today prevents private sellers from getting background checks.

Anyone buying through an FFL holder must get a background check

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #14)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 06:05 PM

27. Well that's the point. We should require them for all gun transactions. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #14)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 08:52 PM

37. I understand

But what about if one wants to sell off a firearm for profit? It is often ones crutch in a hard time or just really of no use to the owner. If you inherited your grandfathers gun collection and u sold those guns to friends and various dealers? One of those people go and do something horrible with that gun, unknowingly of you. Someone must be at fault. Who?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluzmann57 (Original post)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 05:37 PM

21. Why should your job require a background check?

I know it's common, but that doesn't mean it's right. Employers are given far too much power over their workers. You should be allowed to have privacy, even when you have a job.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to surrealAmerican (Reply #21)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 05:40 PM

22. Well in this particular job, there are some valuable things lying around

Large screen tvs, stereo equipment, and so on. It would be fairly easy to take a fork truck and load it into the back of the ol' pickup or trunk of the car.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluzmann57 (Reply #22)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 05:45 PM

23. That is undoubtedly their reason ...

... and yet, it's still disturbing that they treat you like a potential criminal right off the bat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to surrealAmerican (Reply #21)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 10:45 PM

52. That was my first thought also.nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluzmann57 (Original post)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 06:04 PM

26. Agree with universal background checks for guns...

...but I only agree with employee background checks insofar as they search publicly available records only and are verifiablely accurate.

Also, employers are theoretically private citizens and do not hold any position of societal power--theoretically--so that makes me object generally to them snooping around in their workers' private business.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Deep13 (Reply #26)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 06:19 PM

29. "that makes me object generally to them snooping around in their workers' private business"

 

Would that include an employer checking a gun registration database to see if an employment candidate owns a gun?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guardian (Reply #29)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 07:16 PM

31. Honestly, yeah, that should not be publicly available information.

Neither should his or her auto registration, life insurance, educational record without a release, health records, or the chemical content of his or her body.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluzmann57 (Original post)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 07:37 PM

32. You go through that background check

because the firm you want to work for requires it. You don't have a Constitutional right to a job there.

I went through a background check for my present job, and you know what they uncovered? A fifteen year old traffic violation for driving on an expired license. I had to go back to Washington state (happened to be going anyway, thank goodness) to fax in a copy of the court transcript to show that it was only a violation and not a misdemeanor, which would have been somewhat more serious. All that to protect the public from me while they talk to me on the phone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluzmann57 (Original post)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 07:43 PM

33. I had...

 

To go through a background check today to pick up a completely stripped AR-15 lower receiver...didn't hurt my feelings any

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluzmann57 (Original post)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 12:44 PM

42. What does the forklift look like?

Does it have a bayonet lug, flash suppressor, folding something or another?

We do not have a Constitutional right to drive a forklift.

Ok, did I hit all the talking points?

End sarcasm......

Good for you for getting a part time job to help your family!!

Gosh, I get so sick of the canned responses from the gun people. Perhaps they can tell me how they would REALLY help their community.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluzmann57 (Original post)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 11:41 PM

53. Buy a gun new or used from a dealer, yes. Buy used from another random person, no.

 

Background checks should be made universal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread