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.

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....................

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.

 

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.

 

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

. 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.

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.

"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?

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.

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?"

says the guy that just blurts out his thought bubbles all the time...

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 don't believe in throwing the bath out with the bathwater.

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.

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.

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?