Post by: obm on September 19, 2024, 09:21:31 AM
Post by: zippz on September 19, 2024, 10:51:30 AM
Filling out forms is a PITA and could be more efficient.
Post by: obm on September 19, 2024, 11:25:59 AM
I thought about this before. Issue with the FOID is instead of registering the firearm, you're now registering the person. And you can't have firearms without the FOID. So if a person just has one gun for their lifetime, they have to continue to get FOIDs while they own their gun.
Ahhh, that explains why their cards are good for 10 years.
Quote
Filling out forms is a PITA and could be more efficient.
Simple solution is to adopt the long gun process for handguns. Both long gun and pistol registration process gives you the same paper permit. The only difference is more paperwork for pistols. Maybe this is what we should ask for from pro-gun legislators to introduce.
Post by: eyeeatingfish on September 19, 2024, 11:49:29 AM
I haven't done a lot beyond my discussions with the representative unfortunately. If we could get a firearms group to jump on the idea and statistics from HPD on how many man hours are spent maybe we could make some sort of case for not only streamlining it for us but also saving the city money.
Post by: changemyoil66 on September 19, 2024, 12:59:31 PM
I contacted my representative a few years ago about such an idea, having the permit to purchase be an ID card good for something like 5 years. He didn't sound interested but he said he would be willing to write up a bill and propose it but he also wanted more than just a suggestion. He said that he would want things supporting statistics and information or the police department supporting the idea. Basically stuff that would show that the bill would address a problem and do it effectively.
I haven't done a lot beyond my discussions with the representative unfortunately. If we could get a firearms group to jump on the idea and statistics from HPD on how many man hours are spent maybe we could make some sort of case for not only streamlining it for us but also saving the city money.
Maybe someone other than HIFICO could do a UIPA for the info. Cause they're the ones doing meaningful stuff in HI. Let others help out.
At least your rep was open to drafting a bill. My rep told me to make the bill and email it to him and he will present it about CCW in 2016 or so. I copied and pasted the NV law, but changed the words like Nevada to Hawaii.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on September 19, 2024, 03:06:28 PM
I thought about this before. Issue with the FOID is instead of registering the firearm, you're now registering the person. And you can't have firearms without the FOID. So if a person just has one gun for their lifetime, they have to continue to get FOIDs while they own their gun.
Filling out forms is a PITA and could be more efficient.
The obvious breakdown in the current system is a person could have already purchased a number of guns under individual pistol and long gun permits. Then suppose they become addicted to meth, have an untreated mental health problem, etc.
That person has no need to go out and buy another gun should they be planning on creating havoc. They are already in possession of firearms.
Without a mechanism to update their status with regards to being a safe, responsible gun owner, they will fly beneath the radar until they get caught doing something illegal. At that point, you're locking the barn door after the cows have gotten out.
If they "register the person," as you said, then there would be a background check and review of medical records periodically assuming the person wants to continue owning guns. As it stands, that doesn't happen in HI without the submission of another permit application.
RAPBACK was supposed to fill this void, as sort of a running background check system. Anything that's reported to the system regardless of the state it happened in is updated in RAPBACK, and HPD is notified. HPD can then decide if a review of the individual's fitness to own guns needs to take place.
Of course, RAPBACK has never been implemented for gun owners as far as I have seen, but it does focus on a potential solution for the permit problem -- identify adverse changes more often than "whenever they buy another gun -- if ever."
I think an FOID would be a good compromise between total 2A freedom and what we have now. Walk into a gun shop with a current FOID, and leave with whatever you want to buy -- no wait period required.
That's the other stupid thing. Why enforce a 2 week waiting period for someone who already owns firearms? Is that newly acquired gun the one we ought to care about as opposed the 30 he already has at home?
Post by: obm on September 19, 2024, 03:13:49 PM
(https://kotonk.com/pics/savings4.jpg)
Assumptions:
- you apply for a annual permit like the long gun process once, but it applies to all guns and good for year
- registration application includes only your permit number and gun information (make/model, s/n, barrel length, action type)
- HPD uses your identification information on file and the information from your application(above) to print out your firearm permit
So you apply for your annual gun permit once. Every time you go to register a gun, you just submit your gun info and dealer name. HPD prints out your gun permit with your personal information they have on file and the gun information you provide. The time saved is the gun owner no longer needs to fill out the application and supporting documents every time he/she registers a gun. The officer saves time because he does not have to review your personal information, handgun safety course affidavit, health/doctor information, etc. every time you register a gun. Those are already on file and info has be checked for accuracy. More time can be saved for the gun owner if we don't even have to supply the permit number and gun info, I believe the dealer sends this info to HPD after purchase. Only private party transfers would have a requirement that the new owner supply the gun information to HPD.
But in addition to the time/money saved by going to new system, the other supporting argument to the legislator is that the PTA process provides no additional protections to the public...currently, both handgun and long gun permit processes require the same background check and waiting period.
And if we can get a legislator to draft a bill we should also amend the 2 week waiting period and make that requirement apply only for first time buyers. People with registered firearms would be exempt from this requirement.
Another change badly needed is to have this procedure completely online, but that would cost a lot and the likelihood of it being funded in small. But this is about moving government into the 21st century, everything is going online.
Post by: eyeeatingfish on September 25, 2024, 12:15:04 PM
Here's a first stab at coming up with a justification.
(https://kotonk.com/pics/savings4.jpg)
Assumptions:
- you apply for a annual permit like the long gun process once, but it applies to all guns and good for year
- registration application includes only your permit number and gun information (make/model, s/n, barrel length, action type)
- HPD uses your identification information on file and the information from your application(above) to print out your firearm permit
So you apply for your annual gun permit once. Every time you go to register a gun, you just submit your gun info and dealer name. HPD prints out your gun permit with your personal information they have on file and the gun information you provide. The time saved is the gun owner no longer needs to fill out the application and supporting documents every time he/she registers a gun. The officer saves time because he does not have to review your personal information, handgun safety course affidavit, health/doctor information, etc. every time you register a gun. Those are already on file and info has be checked for accuracy. More time can be saved for the gun owner if we don't even have to supply the permit number and gun info, I believe the dealer sends this info to HPD after purchase. Only private party transfers would have a requirement that the new owner supply the gun information to HPD.
But in addition to the time/money saved by going to new system, the other supporting argument to the legislator is that the PTA process provides no additional protections to the public...currently, both handgun and long gun permit processes require the same background check and waiting period.
And if we can get a legislator to draft a bill we should also amend the 2 week waiting period and make that requirement apply only for first time buyers. People with registered firearms would be exempt from this requirement.
Another change badly needed is to have this procedure completely online, but that would cost a lot and the likelihood of it being funded in small. But this is about moving government into the 21st century, everything is going online.
Good breakdown on the possible dollar cost. If we could actually get someone at HPD to cooperate in giving us some sort of official estimate that would really help.
My idea was that the firearm purchase permit would be a card with a photo and name on it along with a unique identification number. One concern with a 5 year permit on paper was that if HPD had revoked a permit or the person had been convicted of something they had no way of getting the paper permit back and stopping the person from buying a firearm. A card with a photo and ID number would allow the seller to contact HPD and ask if the permit is still valid. It would also provide protection for the seller.
If you are interested in working more on this maybe we could team up and try to get more support on this. At least we know my rep would be willing to write up and submit the bill for review but we would need to get a bit more supporting information.
Post by: changemyoil66 on September 25, 2024, 03:46:16 PM
Here's a first stab at coming up with a justification.
(https://kotonk.com/pics/savings4.jpg)
Assumptions:
- you apply for a annual permit like the long gun process once, but it applies to all guns and good for year
- registration application includes only your permit number and gun information (make/model, s/n, barrel length, action type)
- HPD uses your identification information on file and the information from your application(above) to print out your firearm permit
So you apply for your annual gun permit once. Every time you go to register a gun, you just submit your gun info and dealer name. HPD prints out your gun permit with your personal information they have on file and the gun information you provide. The time saved is the gun owner no longer needs to fill out the application and supporting documents every time he/she registers a gun. The officer saves time because he does not have to review your personal information, handgun safety course affidavit, health/doctor information, etc. every time you register a gun. Those are already on file and info has be checked for accuracy. More time can be saved for the gun owner if we don't even have to supply the permit number and gun info, I believe the dealer sends this info to HPD after purchase. Only private party transfers would have a requirement that the new owner supply the gun information to HPD.
But in addition to the time/money saved by going to new system, the other supporting argument to the legislator is that the PTA process provides no additional protections to the public...currently, both handgun and long gun permit processes require the same background check and waiting period.
And if we can get a legislator to draft a bill we should also amend the 2 week waiting period and make that requirement apply only for first time buyers. People with registered firearms would be exempt from this requirement.
Another change badly needed is to have this procedure completely online, but that would cost a lot and the likelihood of it being funded in small. But this is about moving government into the 21st century, everything is going online.
HIFICO has a lawsuit pending about the 2 week wait period.
Post by: changemyoil66 on September 25, 2024, 03:48:27 PM
Good breakdown on the possible dollar cost. If we could actually get someone at HPD to cooperate in giving us some sort of official estimate that would really help.
My idea was that the firearm purchase permit would be a card with a photo and name on it along with a unique identification number. One concern with a 5 year permit on paper was that if HPD had revoked a permit or the person had been convicted of something they had no way of getting the paper permit back and stopping the person from buying a firearm. A card with a photo and ID number would allow the seller to contact HPD and ask if the permit is still valid. It would also provide protection for the seller.
If you are interested in working more on this maybe we could team up and try to get more support on this. At least we know my rep would be willing to write up and submit the bill for review but we would need to get a bit more supporting information.
Or, the gun store can do what the many mainland stores do. Check NICS. This could be anywhere from 5 minutes, up to an hour. I was at a Vegas gun store and the clerk was on the phone for an hour.
If only anti gun groups put their money to an online or more reliable/faster system, it could be done. this is how you know they're full of shit when they say they want "stricter background checks". Becasue after a certain amount of time on a NICS check, a no reply is an automatic approval.
Post by: changemyoil66 on September 25, 2024, 03:50:04 PM
Here's a first stab at coming up with a justification.
(https://kotonk.com/pics/savings4.jpg)
Assumptions:
- you apply for a annual permit like the long gun process once, but it applies to all guns and good for year
- registration application includes only your permit number and gun information (make/model, s/n, barrel length, action type)
- HPD uses your identification information on file and the information from your application(above) to print out your firearm permit
So you apply for your annual gun permit once. Every time you go to register a gun, you just submit your gun info and dealer name. HPD prints out your gun permit with your personal information they have on file and the gun information you provide. The time saved is the gun owner no longer needs to fill out the application and supporting documents every time he/she registers a gun. The officer saves time because he does not have to review your personal information, handgun safety course affidavit, health/doctor information, etc. every time you register a gun. Those are already on file and info has be checked for accuracy. More time can be saved for the gun owner if we don't even have to supply the permit number and gun info, I believe the dealer sends this info to HPD after purchase. Only private party transfers would have a requirement that the new owner supply the gun information to HPD.
But in addition to the time/money saved by going to new system, the other supporting argument to the legislator is that the PTA process provides no additional protections to the public...currently, both handgun and long gun permit processes require the same background check and waiting period.
And if we can get a legislator to draft a bill we should also amend the 2 week waiting period and make that requirement apply only for first time buyers. People with registered firearms would be exempt from this requirement.
Another change badly needed is to have this procedure completely online, but that would cost a lot and the likelihood of it being funded in small. But this is about moving government into the 21st century, everything is going online.
Someone posted some years ago that the average firearm division cost is $1,000,000 a year.
Post by: eyeeatingfish on September 26, 2024, 11:52:00 AM
Or, the gun store can do what the many mainland stores do. Check NICS. This could be anywhere from 5 minutes, up to an hour. I was at a Vegas gun store and the clerk was on the phone for an hour.
If only anti gun groups put their money to an online or more reliable/faster system, it could be done. this is how you know they're full of shit when they say they want "stricter background checks". Becasue after a certain amount of time on a NICS check, a no reply is an automatic approval.
If I understand correctly there are problems with the NICS system. Many agencies do not report to the NICS like they are supposed to which means the system is not always a reliable check.
I think it would be better to go for small changes to the existing system rather than trying to get one big change such as having the gun store do the checks.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on September 26, 2024, 12:08:44 PM
If I understand correctly there are problems with the NICS system. Many agencies do not report to the NICS like they are supposed to which means the system is not always a reliable check.
And yet, they are still being funded with our money.
Quote
The U.S. faces many criminal threats, including financial and health care fraud, transnationalhttps://www.fbi.gov/news/testimony/federal-bureau-of-investigation-budget-request-for-fiscal-year-2024
and regional organized criminal enterprises, crimes against children and human trafficking,
and public corruption. Criminal organizations — domestic and international — and individual
criminal activity represent a significant threat to security and safety in communities across the
nation.
A critical tool in protecting the Nation from those who wish to do us harm is the National Instant
Criminal Background Check System, or NICS. The goal of NICS is to ensure that guns don’t
fall into the wrong hands, and ensure the timely transfer of firearms to eligible gun buyers.
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 determine whether
a prospective buyer is eligible to buy firearms. NICS receives information from tens of thousands
of FFLs and checks to ensure that applicants do not have a criminal record and aren’t otherwise
prohibited and therefore ineligible to purchase a firearm. In the first complete month of operation
in 1998, a total of 892,840 firearm background checks were processed; in 2022, approximately
2.6 million checks were processed per month, for a total of 31.6 million processed in 2022.
While most checks are completed within minutes by electronic searches of the NICS database,
a small number of checks require examiners to review records and resolve missing or incomplete
information before an application can be approved or rejected. Ensuring the timely processing of
these inquiries is important to ensure law abiding citizens can exercise their right to purchase a
firearm and to protect communities from prohibited and therefore ineligible individuals attempting
to acquire a firearm. To ensure the FBI maintains this capability, the FY 2024 Request includes an
additional 27 positions (including 1 Special Agent and 26 Professional Staff) and $8.4 million.
In 2022, Congress demonstrated its united faith in the role NICS plays in our country’s public
safety and a desire to make it even stronger with passage of the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act.
This legislation added dating relationships as a disqualifying consideration for misdemeanor crimes
of domestic violence prohibitions; enhanced checks on persons under the age of 21 by requiring
additional outreach to state and local agencies where the person resides to inquire about the
existence of any possibly disqualifying juvenile records; allows certain FFLs to receive information
from the NCIC gun file necessary to verify if a firearm had been reported stolen before buying it
second hand; and allows FFLs to access NICS for the purposes of voluntary background checks on
current and prospective employees to help combat illegal firearms trafficking. The FBI has implemented
all aspects of the BSCA with the exception of the two latter parts as they require the promulgation of
regulations. Those proposed regulatory changes are in process and are a priority to complete. Since
the passage of the BSCA, the FBI has conducted over 86,400 expanded background checks on
persons under the age of 21. The vast majority are proceeded quickly. However, a total of 750 checks
have been denied under the new process. As a result of the expanded outreach enabling NICS to issue
denials based solely on information it obtains, NICS issued 151 denials.
We are also funding the Fix NICS Act, a separate DOJ effort to fix the deficiencies in the NICS background check system.
https://www.justice.gov/usdoj-media/dag/media/1247581/dl?inline
We sure are spending a ton of money on something you believe is so broken we need yet another background check system funded by tax payers yet again at the state level.
is it common for the government to keep dumping money into a broken system without fixing it?
Is it common that the solution for all broken federal systems is to create a second system to "fix" it?
Is it common that the solution for all broken federal systems is to create a redundant system at the state level?
Did you read how NICS is a "CRITICAL TOOL IN PROTECTING THE NATION?" How can a broken system be called critical?
Do you see the real problem now? if a government program isn't working, it's almost impossible to defund it. Instead, we keep shoveling money into the furnace.
But, hey, as long as we have extra money for Ukraine to fight Russia, I guess we can afford a few billion for broken DOJ systems that don't do what they promised to -- as well as another program to fix it, and a third state program to do the same exact thing.
Post by: changemyoil66 on September 26, 2024, 01:15:17 PM
If I understand correctly there are problems with the NICS system. Many agencies do not report to the NICS like they are supposed to which means the system is not always a reliable check.
I think it would be better to go for small changes to the existing system rather than trying to get one big change such as having the gun store do the checks.
U think HPD"s system is any better? I know a bunch of guys who bought guns and only later (often years later) got a letter saying they need a medical waiver or turn their guns in.
How about Ballards time as Chief and the pakalolo letters, only to be rescinded 3 weeks later. So anyone who already turned their guns due to the 30 day timeline, oh well.
Or the failed RAPBACK that the FBI stated cannot be used by HPD for what they wanted to use it for. Yet we all paid for it and it passed as law. This was only discovered due to a UIPA request, which was 99% redacted. But enough was visible to prove this. Why didn't HPD testify against this, why don't our lawmakers delete this law? Where is all of our money since the RAPBACK system was never implemented?
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on September 26, 2024, 01:25:38 PM
U think HPD"s system is any better? I know a bunch of guys who bought guns and only later (often years later) got a letter saying they need a medical waiver or turn their guns in.
How about Ballards time as Chief and the pakalolo letters, only to be rescinded 3 weeks later. So anyone who already turned their guns due to the 30 day timeline, oh well.
Or the failed RAPBACK that the FBI stated cannot be used by HPD for what they wanted to use it for. Yet we all paid for it and it passed as law. This was only discovered due to a UIPA request, which was 99% redacted. But enough was visible to prove this. Why didn't HPD testify against this, why don't our lawmakers delete this law? Where is all of our money since the RAPBACK system was never implemented?
Fees like that fall into a black hole called "The General Fund." Once it's in that vacuum, it gets spent on whatever the legislature needs (or wants) to spend it on.
There's no separate fund earmarked for RAPBACK. Just another money grab by the state government that benefits the state's budget, not the public.
Post by: eyeeatingfish on October 01, 2024, 02:02:46 PM
And yet, they are still being funded with our money.
https://www.fbi.gov/news/testimony/federal-bureau-of-investigation-budget-request-for-fiscal-year-2024
We are also funding the Fix NICS Act, a separate DOJ effort to fix the deficiencies in the NICS background check system.
https://www.justice.gov/usdoj-media/dag/media/1247581/dl?inline
We sure are spending a ton of money on something you believe is so broken we need yet another background check system funded by tax payers yet again at the state level.
is it common for the government to keep dumping money into a broken system without fixing it?
Is it common that the solution for all broken federal systems is to create a second system to "fix" it?
Is it common that the solution for all broken federal systems is to create a redundant system at the state level?
Did you read how NICS is a "CRITICAL TOOL IN PROTECTING THE NATION?" How can a broken system be called critical?
Do you see the real problem now? if a government program isn't working, it's almost impossible to defund it. Instead, we keep shoveling money into the furnace.
But, hey, as long as we have extra money for Ukraine to fight Russia, I guess we can afford a few billion for broken DOJ systems that don't do what they promised to -- as well as another program to fix it, and a third state program to do the same exact thing.
#1. I didn't advocate for an additional background system to be created. I advocated only for a photo ID style permit that was good for 5 years to be created using the existing background checks our police departments already perform. I just pointed out that because the NICS system has a bunch of holes in it that it is hard to suggest that is sufficient.
#2. Are you arguing against the NICS system, that it should be abandoned entirely?
Post by: eyeeatingfish on October 01, 2024, 02:06:49 PM
U think HPD"s system is any better? I know a bunch of guys who bought guns and only later (often years later) got a letter saying they need a medical waiver or turn their guns in.
How about Ballards time as Chief and the pakalolo letters, only to be rescinded 3 weeks later. So anyone who already turned their guns due to the 30 day timeline, oh well.
Or the failed RAPBACK that the FBI stated cannot be used by HPD for what they wanted to use it for. Yet we all paid for it and it passed as law. This was only discovered due to a UIPA request, which was 99% redacted. But enough was visible to prove this. Why didn't HPD testify against this, why don't our lawmakers delete this law? Where is all of our money since the RAPBACK system was never implemented?
HPD would be able to perform additional checks beyond what an FFL could do so I do think it is more comprehensive.
I don't doubt HPD has made mistakes though.
Rapback was never implemented nationally but it could still theoretically operate on a state level if I understand it. I don't know whether HPD currently uses it to get notified if someone gets arrested on a neighbor island or not but it is supposed to be able to accomplish that.
Post by: changemyoil66 on October 01, 2024, 03:19:56 PM
HPD would be able to perform additional checks beyond what an FFL could do so I do think it is more comprehensive.
I don't doubt HPD has made mistakes though.
Rapback was never implemented nationally but it could still theoretically operate on a state level if I understand it. I don't know whether HPD currently uses it to get notified if someone gets arrested on a neighbor island or not but it is supposed to be able to accomplish that.
No, RAPBACK cannot work at the state level with regard to firearms. The FBI told HPD/AG that's not what it's for. HPD doesn't use it for firearm owners as no one is enrolled in it, even though we all paid and any gun bought after 2016, it's required by law.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on October 01, 2024, 05:42:08 PM
#1. I didn't advocate for an additional background system to be created. I advocated only for a photo ID style permit that was good for 5 years to be created using the existing background checks our police departments already perform. I just pointed out that because the NICS system has a bunch of holes in it that it is hard to suggest that is sufficient.
#2. Are you arguing against the NICS system, that it should be abandoned entirely?
NICS only gets 'some' data from states that would reject certain gun buyers.
NICS is not required for a private sale.
How much money do you think we should continue wasting on a background check system that routinely has more false positive denials than legit denials each year, and which we already saw was ineffective in at least 2 mass shootings?
At this point, it's a massive data collection nightmare. States are not reporting the data needed to properly classify gun buyers because it's not mandatory and the feds are not picking up the cost. Seems like there are laws on the books that requires new laws that include resource requirements from the states have to also include funding to the states.
As usual, NICS was a program that promised great things but wasn't fully thought out or funded to make it happen.
In short, I'd support scrapping NICS. Then ALL the states that want to keep guns out of the wrong hands would do what HI and other gun control states have done -- create a more effective system instead of dumping money and our hopes of increased safety into a very broken program.
As long as NICS exists, most states will not bother to add their own background check system on top of it. It's redundant and wasteful.
Post by: eyeeatingfish on October 24, 2024, 02:32:39 PM
No, RAPBACK cannot work at the state level with regard to firearms. The FBI told HPD/AG that's not what it's for. HPD doesn't use it for firearm owners as no one is enrolled in it, even though we all paid and any gun bought after 2016, it's required by law.
Where did you find this out? Was reading about this but couldn't find a mention of the current status of the program
Post by: eyeeatingfish on October 24, 2024, 02:37:18 PM
NICS only gets 'some' data from states that would reject certain gun buyers.
NICS is not required for a private sale.
How much money do you think we should continue wasting on a background check system that routinely has more false positive denials than legit denials each year, and which we already saw was ineffective in at least 2 mass shootings?
At this point, it's a massive data collection nightmare. States are not reporting the data needed to properly classify gun buyers because it's not mandatory and the feds are not picking up the cost. Seems like there are laws on the books that requires new laws that include resource requirements from the states have to also include funding to the states.
As usual, NICS was a program that promised great things but wasn't fully thought out or funded to make it happen.
In short, I'd support scrapping NICS. Then ALL the states that want to keep guns out of the wrong hands would do what HI and other gun control states have done -- create a more effective system instead of dumping money and our hopes of increased safety into a very broken program.
As long as NICS exists, most states will not bother to add their own background check system on top of it. It's redundant and wasteful.
You point to problems with the NICS system as a reason to stop funding it but why not just take measures to ensure reporting and fixing the problems?
What is the alternative, just never do any background checks on anyone at all? Statewide systems come with their own problems since they are only going to access crimes and incidents within their own state and that is assuming the states don't screw them up either. Hawaii gets so many people moving here from out of state it would seem a system that only works statewide would have a potential to miss lots of people.
Post by: changemyoil66 on October 24, 2024, 03:02:03 PM
You point to problems with the NICS system as a reason to stop funding it but why not just take measures to ensure reporting and fixing the problems?
What is the alternative, just never do any background checks on anyone at all? Statewide systems come with their own problems since they are only going to access crimes and incidents within their own state and that is assuming the states don't screw them up either. Hawaii gets so many people moving here from out of state it would seem a system that only works statewide would have a potential to miss lots of people.
He answered all your questions in the post you quoted.
For out of state, why not enroll everyone in RAPBACK like how HI passed law to do and many paid for...oh wait....................
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on October 24, 2024, 03:08:24 PM
You point to problems with the NICS system as a reason to stop funding it but why not just take measures to ensure reporting and fixing the problems?
What is the alternative, just never do any background checks on anyone at all? Statewide systems come with their own problems since they are only going to access crimes and incidents within their own state and that is assuming the states don't screw them up either. Hawaii gets so many people moving here from out of state it would seem a system that only works statewide would have a potential to miss lots of people.
The system has existed since 1998. That's 26 years (quarter of a century) that hasn't fixed these problems yet.
How much longer is it going to take before we stop flushing good money after bad?
Is it your opinion and belief that people moving between states or countries makes it impossible for a proper background check to be conducted?
You better let the federal government know that. All those security clearance background investigations need to be redone, especially for military members who were stationed in foreign countries and/or moved every 3 years.
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Post by: eyeeatingfish on October 30, 2024, 05:28:04 PM
The system has existed since 1998. That's 26 years (quarter of a century) that hasn't fixed these problems yet.
How much longer is it going to take before we stop flushing good money after bad?
Is it your opinion and belief that people moving between states or countries makes it impossible for a proper background check to be conducted?
You better let the federal government know that. All those security clearance background investigations need to be redone, especially for military members who were stationed in foreign countries and/or moved every 3 years.
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
A national database has the ability to connect crime records from across the country that can be accessed by every law enforcement agency. Do you know how cops check out of state driver's license? Through a national database that connects the license records of every state.
FFLs can make their own checks of the NICS system. If you take that ability away from then then that would put the job onto law enforcement agencies to make the background checks through law enforcement databases. Are you saying you want this job to be transferred from gun store owners to state and local governments like how Hawaii does it?
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on October 30, 2024, 09:06:04 PM
A national database has the ability to connect crime records from across the country that can be accessed by every law enforcement agency. Do you know how cops check out of state driver's license? Through a national database that connects the license records of every state.
FFLs can make their own checks of the NICS system. If you take that ability away from then then that would put the job onto law enforcement agencies to make the background checks through law enforcement databases. Are you saying you want this job to be transferred from gun store owners to state and local governments like how Hawaii does it?
You're arguing points that have nothing to do with the accuracy of the data in the system.WHO CARES if the NICS check comes back in 3 minutes or 3 days if the information being used in the check is wrong or missing? Where is the utility in that kind of system? Why keep paying for a broken background check system?
Try again. I won't hold my breath until you get around to gracing us with your presence again.
BTW, driver license databases are easy to share. There's no constitutional prohibition against a national license database.
Post by: zippz on October 31, 2024, 06:21:22 AM
Wanted to bring my guns to Guam to teach a class but found out their process is worse than Hawaii. You cannot possess a gun unless you are licensed and the guns are registerered. To get licensed, you have to apply in person and pay $81 then it takes 2 weeks for approval. Then each gun costs $49 to be registered.
So I'd have to make a special trip there with normal roundtrip airfare costing $2,600 or I have to stay in Guam for 2 weeks longer to get my guns unconfiscated.
Post by: eyeeatingfish on October 31, 2024, 06:05:43 PM
You're arguing points that have nothing to do with the accuracy of the data in the system.WHO CARES if the NICS check comes back in 3 minutes or 3 days if the information being used in the check is wrong or missing? Where is the utility in that kind of system? Why keep paying for a broken background check system?
Try again. I won't hold my breath until you get around to gracing us with your presence again.
BTW, driver license databases are easy to share. There's no constitutional prohibition against a national license database.
You keep complaining that it is broken without providing any sort of suggestion on how else an FFL can perform a background check. Medical tests can have errors, do you throw out medical tests if they aren't always perfect?
There is no constitutional prohibition against a national criminal background check either. The NICS isn't a firearm ownership database, your comment is irrelevant.
Post by: eyeeatingfish on October 31, 2024, 06:09:05 PM
Guam
Wanted to bring my guns to Guam to teach a class but found out their process is worse than Hawaii. You cannot possess a gun unless you are licensed and the guns are registerered. To get licensed, you have to apply in person and pay $81 then it takes 2 weeks for approval. Then each gun costs $49 to be registered.
So I'd have to make a special trip there with normal roundtrip airfare costing $2,600 or I have to stay in Guam for 2 weeks longer to get my guns unconfiscated.
Maybe Guam needs their own HIFICO
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on October 31, 2024, 08:32:09 PM
You keep complaining that it is broken without providing any sort of suggestion on how else an FFL can perform a background check. Medical tests can have errors, do you throw out medical tests if they aren't always perfect?
There is no constitutional prohibition against a national criminal background check either. The NICS isn't a firearm ownership database, your comment is irrelevant.
You're too stupid to read, are you?
i told you it should be SCRAPPED. When a house is no longer repairable, it's demolished so someone can start again from the foundation.
Same thing need to happen here.
You assume i believe an FFL has to do a backgound check for all sales. I never agreed to that.
I think background checks should be run the way other states do it: at the state level. States are able to share that information with other states, so why have a federal bureaucracy layer? It's unnecessary. Just one more thing the feds screwed up claiming public safety needs.
Post by: changemyoil66 on November 01, 2024, 08:48:27 AM
You keep complaining that it is broken without providing any sort of suggestion on how else an FFL can perform a background check. Medical tests can have errors, do you throw out medical tests if they aren't always perfect?
There is no constitutional prohibition against a national criminal background check either. The NICS isn't a firearm ownership database, your comment is irrelevant.
He already addresssed this and I also think this is the 2nd time you're asking and I stated Flapp already addressed this. When you revive old threads with nothing new to add, it gets confusing and cumbersome to re-read from post 1.
Post by: eyeeatingfish on November 04, 2024, 12:52:12 AM
You're too stupid to read, are you?
i told you it should be SCRAPPED. When a house is no longer repairable, it's demolished so someone can start again from the foundation.
Same thing need to happen here.
You assume i believe an FFL has to do a backgound check for all sales. I never agreed to that.
I think background checks should be run the way other states do it: at the state level. States are able to share that information with other states, so why have a federal bureaucracy layer? It's unnecessary. Just one more thing the feds screwed up claiming public safety needs.
Comparing a database to a physical structure is such a stupid analogy. It is not the fault of the NICS database that some agencies don't report information they are supposed to report.
If you believe FFLs should not have to do background checks just admit it and say so instead of beating around the bush. So you prefer a system like Hawaii's where the state performs the background check? That's fine but then you are going to have the types of issues we have with HPD all the time.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on November 04, 2024, 01:57:15 AM
Comparing a database to a physical structure is such a stupid analogy.
Show me where I said a database was like a house. I said NICS needs to be scraped, meaning the whole system. Try reading it again. Your comment is what's stupid.
It is not the fault of the NICS database that some agencies don't report information they are supposed to report.
Who says any agencies are supposed to report any data to NICS at all? Are there federal laws that mandates states must report certain data to NICS? i already know the answer, but you should be able to locate this answer online. And why does it matter whose fault it is? If it's not accurate, it's useless. Outcomes are only as reliable as the information available in the system. If that can't be improved to eliminate invalid approvals and denials to a reasonable degree of confidence, then we're pinning our hopes that guns aren't sold to the wrong people on a broken system.
If you believe FFLs should not have to do background checks just admit it and say so instead of beating around the bush.
I never said that. You're just confused because you think a broken NICS is better than nothing. If an FFL runs a check, and the sale was approved when it should have been denied, where was the benefit of an FFL's background check? You're better off running a search on local court records to see if any felony or domestic abuse charges pop up.
So you prefer a system like Hawaii's where the state performs the background check? That's fine but then you are going to have the types of issues we have with HPD all the time.
i never said i prefer a system like Hawaii. That's a huge leap beyond what i said. Other states have their own background system in place, and it's nothing like Hawaii's, because they use it to assist people when buying guns -- not looking for any excuse to deny it.
And before you start lecturing me about how a database works, you need to know i've been a database administrator, operator and designer for over 35 years.
i know i've mentioned this before, but you seem to have a tough time remembering things when you're all emotional.
Post by: changemyoil66 on November 04, 2024, 08:49:30 AM
Comparing a database to a physical structure is such a stupid analogy. It is not the fault of the NICS database that some agencies don't report information they are supposed to report.
If you believe FFLs should not have to do background checks just admit it and say so instead of beating around the bush. So you prefer a system like Hawaii's where the state performs the background check? That's fine but then you are going to have the types of issues we have with HPD all the time.
Seems like you want the last word again. A combo of wrong statements and questions already answered.
Post by: eyeeatingfish on November 05, 2024, 12:22:44 AM
And before you start lecturing me about how a database works, you need to know i've been a database administrator, operator and designer for over 35 years.
i know i've mentioned this before, but you seem to have a tough time remembering things when you're all emotional.
I know you worked in the tech center which makes the comparison even worse.
My point was that it is hard to blame a system for being ineffective based on lack of data because agencies aren't reporting that data. If you created a database for workers at your company to track spending but employees failed to enter in data in a timely manner or a complete manner is that the fault of your database?
Yes, I do think an imperfect NICS system is better than no system because it has a wider reach. The NICS check also checks for other things that a criminal background check isn't looking for. So for example, HPD could check national databases of convictions and arrests all around the country but that is primarily criminal in nature. If someone is found to have a mental disorder in another state that isn't going to pop up.
How do other states perform checks in ways substantially different than the way Hawaii does it?
Post by: changemyoil66 on November 05, 2024, 08:28:02 AM
. So for example, HPD could check national databases of convictions and arrests all around the country but that is primarily criminal in nature. If someone is found to have a mental disorder in another state that isn't going to pop up.
How do other states perform checks in ways substantially different than the way Hawaii does it?
HPD was told to do this with RAPBACK per the law. But guess why other states can't do it...the FBI said this is not what RAPBACK is used for. So NO ONE is enrolled in it, yet we all paid for it and it's in the law.
In NV, all private party sales must go thru a FFL and NICS checked. Exclusion is firearm sales/transfers to immediate family. When one buys a gun from a FFL, they use NICS. no permit to acquire is need or trips to a police station. YOu can leave in 30 mins with a rifle/shotgun if NICS is fast. But this can vary. For handgun, they also check NICS, but there's the federal 3 day wait. IDK if you have a NV CCW, they allow you to leave same day with a handgun like how GA does.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on November 05, 2024, 10:35:56 AM
I know you worked in the tech center which makes the comparison even worse.
My point was that it is hard to blame a system for being ineffective based on lack of data because agencies aren't reporting that data. If you created a database for workers at your company to track spending but employees failed to enter in data in a timely manner or a complete manner is that the fault of your database?
Yes, I do think an imperfect NICS system is better than no system because it has a wider reach. The NICS check also checks for other things that a criminal background check isn't looking for. So for example, HPD could check national databases of convictions and arrests all around the country but that is primarily criminal in nature. If someone is found to have a mental disorder in another state that isn't going to pop up.
How do other states perform checks in ways substantially different than the way Hawaii does it?
"Tech center?" LOL!
You know nothing about me,
Stupid example. Employees aren't following rules and policies, you fire them. For NICS, it's all at the federal level. They don't have the authority to mandate the states input data. So, unless they fund the resources needed to do that, states are not going to fund it themselves.
There never should have been a NICS system to start with. Just like almost every other waste of money, it's going to take a crowbar to pry it from existence.
Post by: eyeeatingfish on November 10, 2024, 12:43:54 AM
"Tech center?" LOL!
You know nothing about me,
Stupid example. Employees aren't following rules and policies, you fire them. For NICS, it's all at the federal level. They don't have the authority to mandate the states input data. So, unless they fund the resources needed to do that, states are not going to fund it themselves.
There never should have been a NICS system to start with. Just like almost every other waste of money, it's going to take a crowbar to pry it from existence.
Sorry, I meant to say tech sector, my bad.
So you point out one of the problems and a solution but then say you don't want to fund it. Its a bit of circular reasoning.
If you think there never should have been an NICS system to start with then how would you propose doing background checks?
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on November 10, 2024, 01:30:05 AM
Sorry, I meant to say tech sector, my bad.
So you point out one of the problems and a solution but then say you don't want to fund it. Its a bit of circular reasoning.
If you think there never should have been an NICS system to start with then how would you propose doing background checks?
How is my reasoning circular. Funding a broken system to try and fix a few issues is not going to make it unbroken. Defunding it is the best solution. Nothing circular about that reasoning.
I already explained how background checks should work.
The federal government does not need to be the arbiter of who is qualified to own a firearm and who isn't.
The fact is the Constitution, and the Second Amendment in particular, limits what the federal government may do re: arms. It's a constitutional conflict for the federal government to make laws and do background checks that keep anyone from owning guns. I wish I had the authority to make rules limiting what other people can own and reserve the right to own it all for myself. Nobody can have an SUV or other vehicle of similar size except me -- you know, for my safety.
Government will always choose what makes themselves feel safe personally and to ensure the safety of law enforcement.
NICS was a compromise in lieu of a gun ban. Look it up.
Quote
The National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) is a background check
system in the United States created by the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993
to prevent firearm sales to people prohibited under the Act.
The list of "people prohibited under the Act" has been expanded several times, yet rarely have prohibited groups been removed. The argument from the beginning has always been, "What keeps the government from adding anyone to the list they want to take guns from?"
Post by: macsak on November 10, 2024, 06:04:09 AM
Sorry, I meant to say tech sector, my bad.
So you point out one of the problems and a solution but then say you don't want to fund it. Its a bit of circular reasoning.
If you think there never should have been an NICS system to start with then how would you propose doing background checks?
Post by: eyeeatingfish on November 17, 2024, 01:01:29 AM
How is my reasoning circular. Funding a broken system to try and fix a few issues is not going to make it unbroken. Defunding it is the best solution. Nothing circular about that reasoning.
I don't believe in throwing the bath out with the bathwater.
Quote
I already explained how background checks should work.
I am not against that but good luck selling that. I think many gun buyers will not be happy to go from an FFL doing the background check quickly to the time and hassle of having a police department do all the checks.
Quote
The federal government does not need to be the arbiter of who is qualified to own a firearm and who isn't.
Well there are federal laws on who can own firearms but setting that aside, the NICS doesn't set the standards if I understand correctly, they just serve as a way to share information among agencies.
The fact is the Constitution, and the Second Amendment in particular, limits what the federal government may do re: arms. It's a constitutional conflict for the federal government to make laws and do background checks that keep anyone from owning guns. I wish I had the authority to make rules limiting what other people can own and reserve the right to own it all for myself. Nobody can have an SUV or other vehicle of similar size except me -- you know, for my safety.
Quote
The list of "people prohibited under the Act" has been expanded several times, yet rarely have prohibited groups been removed. The argument from the beginning has always been, "What keeps the government from adding anyone to the list they want to take guns from?"
What prohibited groups should be removed?
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on November 17, 2024, 02:20:20 AM
I don't believe in throwing the bath out with the bathwater.
I am not against that but good luck selling that. I think many gun buyers will not be happy to go from an FFL doing the background check quickly to the time and hassle of having a police department do all the checks.
Well there are federal laws on who can own firearms but setting that aside, the NICS doesn't set the standards if I understand correctly, they just serve as a way to share information among agencies.
The fact is the Constitution, and the Second Amendment in particular, limits what the federal government may do re: arms. It's a constitutional conflict for the federal government to make laws and do background checks that keep anyone from owning guns. I wish I had the authority to make rules limiting what other people can own and reserve the right to own it all for myself. Nobody can have an SUV or other vehicle of similar size except me -- you know, for my safety.
What prohibited groups should be removed?
Why would you not throw out the bath with the bathwater. It's unavoidable! :rofl: :geekdanc: (I know what you meant)
The FBI operates NICS. The rules of who can own firearms are supposed to be set in statutes by congress. The FBI makes the determination on whether or not a transfer request is approved regardless of the information on NICS. Many times information in NICS is contradictory. The FBI has the job of reconciling it. Like one data source reported you have a medical marijuana card, and another says the card was never renewed after its expiration. If the discrepancy can't be adjudicated in 3 days, the request must be summarily approved. So, no, it's not the way you "understand" it.
i guess you've never had any courses in systems analysis and design, Quantitative Analysis, or product R&D. There's a concept called "The Sunk Cost Fallacy." In layman's terms, "Don't throw good money after bad." There is a cost in keeping a bad NICS system in operation if it's too broken to fix. There's also another concept called "Opportunity Cost." For every million dollars spent on maintaining, updating and using a bad NICS system, you've prevented that million from benefitting a different project -- perhaps a better, more effective system to replace NICS. Perhaps it could have gone toward better background checks at the state level. Federal dollars are used to fund state's needs a lot!
The Sunk Cost Fallacy was demonstrated quite well in wargaming we did in the Air Force officer's training. Say you spent 3 years and $300M developing a new defense system. During testing, you find that the prototype does not meet requirements. So you are faced with pouring more money into the project to get it working because most people hate canceling a 3-year/$300M effort with nothing to show for it. But, instead of trying to fix a bad program, you can redirect that time and money into a new project that has a good chance of actually satisfying the requirements.
Sometimes starting from scratch is the only way to abandon a poorly designed or implemented project. NICS might have been good enough when first implemented, but with more and more government focus on background checks for ALL sales, not just FFL-involved, and with more states trying to increase the amount of information they now enter into it, trying to make NICS keep up with it has proven futile. This is a major reason the feds have already planned to abandon NICS someday. RAPBACK is part of that. The system is called Next Generation Identification (NGI).
https://le.fbi.gov/science-and-lab/biometrics-and-fingerprints/biometrics/next-generation-identification-ngi
Imagine if all the money dumped into keeping NICS running had been used to complete the NGI project sooner. Then this discussion would already be moot.
Post by: eyeeatingfish on November 19, 2024, 01:31:03 AM
Why would you not throw out the bath with the bathwater. It's unavoidable! :rofl: :geekdanc: (I know what you meant)
Touche!
Quote
The FBI operates NICS. The rules of who can own firearms are supposed to be set in statutes by congress. The FBI makes the determination on whether or not a transfer request is approved regardless of the information on NICS. Many times information in NICS is contradictory. The FBI has the job of reconciling it. Like one data source reported you have a medical marijuana card, and another says the card was never renewed after its expiration. If the discrepancy can't be adjudicated in 3 days, the request must be summarily approved. So, no, it's not the way you "understand" it.
What you said does not contradict what I said here, the NICS does not set a standard. The law sets the standard and the FBI applies it.
Quote
i guess you've never had any courses in systems analysis and design, Quantitative Analysis, or product R&D. There's a concept called "The Sunk Cost Fallacy." In layman's terms, "Don't throw good money after bad." There is a cost in keeping a bad NICS system in operation if it's too broken to fix. There's also another concept called "Opportunity Cost." For every million dollars spent on maintaining, updating and using a bad NICS system, you've prevented that million from benefitting a different project -- perhaps a better, more effective system to replace NICS. Perhaps it could have gone toward better background checks at the state level. Federal dollars are used to fund state's needs a lot!
The reason I would argue that this angle doesn't apply is that unless it is going to be abandoned entirely then all it does is move the burden to other agencies who may have to start from scratch. It wouldn't be hard for us here in Hawaii but for other states and agencies it is a pretty big change they have to adapt to. I would wager that if it was scrapped and sent out to state agencies you would have a less reliable system. At a state level I think maybe they could improve it but in terms of sharing across state lines I think it would suffer. I think a system could be designed from scratch and replace the NICS but I think it would still need to be at a federal level to function as necessary.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on November 19, 2024, 01:12:17 PM
Touche!
What you said does not contradict what I said here, the NICS does not set a standard. The law sets the standard and the FBI applies it.
The reason I would argue that this angle doesn't apply is that unless it is going to be abandoned entirely then all it does is move the burden to other agencies who may have to start from scratch. It wouldn't be hard for us here in Hawaii but for other states and agencies it is a pretty big change they have to adapt to. I would wager that if it was scrapped and sent out to state agencies you would have a less reliable system. At a state level I think maybe they could improve it but in terms of sharing across state lines I think it would suffer. I think a system could be designed from scratch and replace the NICS but I think it would still need to be at a federal level to function as necessary.
As a career systems engineer and systems analyst, all I have to say is you just don't get it.
Systems designed in the 1990s are archaic by today's technological standards. What has gone before, Kamala, is to be considered a prototype -- a fielded prototype, but that's even better. I worked on projects employing a method once called rapid prototyping. About 80% of requirements were implemented before deployment. During use, that "80% solution" performed the job as well as it was able. Work-arounds, high priority patches and procedural changes kept the system functional enough, but resources were already focused on the next iteration. Better hardware, better software choices, and the most important thing: better defined requirements. That method shortened the time from start to fielding to about 30% of previous development projects. if you want to make it perfect before fielding, you're spending time on testing and corrections. in the meantime, the users are stuck with whatever they had before and are probably trying to find their own solutions with off-the-shelf products. That represents a redundancy that also creates a cost.
Nobody will be "starting from scratch". There is a working prototype called NICS which will be the starting point for developing a better solution.
Anyone who decides to ignore the current system's capabilities and shortcomings by "starting from scratch' is an idiot.
Post by: eyeeatingfish on November 29, 2024, 12:58:32 AM
As a career systems engineer and systems analyst, all I have to say is you just don't get it.
Systems designed in the 1990s are archaic by today's technological standards. What has gone before, Kamala, is to be considered a prototype -- a fielded prototype, but that's even better. I worked on projects employing a method once called rapid prototyping. About 80% of requirements were implemented before deployment. During use, that "80% solution" performed the job as well as it was able. Work-arounds, high priority patches and procedural changes kept the system functional enough, but resources were already focused on the next iteration. Better hardware, better software choices, and the most important thing: better defined requirements. That method shortened the time from start to fielding to about 30% of previous development projects. if you want to make it perfect before fielding, you're spending time on testing and corrections. in the meantime, the users are stuck with whatever they had before and are probably trying to find their own solutions with off-the-shelf products. That represents a redundancy that also creates a cost.
Nobody will be "starting from scratch". There is a working prototype called NICS which will be the starting point for developing a better solution.
Anyone who decides to ignore the current system's capabilities and shortcomings by "starting from scratch' is an idiot.
That sounds a lot like what I was suggesting, to fix the problems of NICS, not toss it out completely. :thumbsup:
Post by: changemyoil66 on November 29, 2024, 07:18:54 AM
That sounds a lot like what I was suggesting, to fix the problems of NICS, not toss it out completely.Have u ever thought that sometimes its easier to redo something than keep trying to fix it?
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on November 29, 2024, 11:25:11 AM
That sounds a lot like what I was suggesting, to fix the problems of NICS, not toss it out completely. :thumbsup:
Show me where i said, "fix the problems of NICS, not toss it out completely".
"There is a working prototype called NICS which will be the starting point for developing a better solution," doesn't mean keep NICS. Try reading it again.
"A better solution" would not be NICS, but a NICS replacement at the state level.