Guns.

mace1229

If they made it simpler, fewer people would complain. To pay $50+ (probably a lot more by now) in California for a background check when someone already owns a gun, or is in law enforcement, is kinda dumb when all they do is type in their driver's license info and the data bass either approves or not. And if you buy multiple guns at once, you have to do it for each one. Those are the kinds of dumb things people complain about. A cop who is carrying a firearm on him, will have to pay about $150 to do 3 separate background checks when he buys 3 guns at a gun show in California that are collectors items. Simplify it and make it make sense, and fewer people will complain about it.

mace1229

When I left CA, it was about $25 for the federal fee, and most gun stores would charge the same. I just googled it, it is now $39, so I would assume most gun dealers probably charge close to that too. So you're going to pay about $80 for a private party transfer.
Compare that to Colorado, where the fee was $12.50 until this year, they raised it up to $15. And you can find dealers who run the check for $10 because its all online and pretty basic. So you can do a private transfer there for $25. You're going to get much less resistance when the fees are $25 vs $80 if you're trying to regulate the transfer for a firearm. 

brianlux

mace1229 said:

brianlux said:

mace1229 said:

brianlux said:

dudeman said:

josevolution said:

dudeman said:

josevolution said:

Don’t worry you can be a raging alcoholic and still get any weapon you might desire! Do they test for alcohol when purchasing a gun? 

Alcohol use isn't a federal crime like marijuna use currently is.

brianlux said:

It would be interesting to see who shoots other people more often: drunk people, or stoned people?

dudeman said:

brianlux said:

It would be interesting to see who shoots other people more often: drunk people, or stoned people?

I'm sure it's drunk people by a landslide.

The irony isn't lost on me, or probably most people. It doesn't make sense but that's the law and it has been for decades. No one, dems or reps have done much to change it at the federal level, either.

Good point.

And it's very confusing to me that more people, even gun owners, aren't OK with increasing backgrounds checks, etc.  I'm mostly against guns (though willingly admit I know some gun owners who I trust and believe are very safe with their firearms), and as much as I would love to live in a country where guns are more restricted, like several countries in the east, the U.K., Australia, Norway, and somewhat in Canada I know that in the U.S. that's not likely to happen.  We're is nearly polar opposite of those other places, so at this point in history, it's not practical to expect a widespread ban on guns.  But some sensible tightening of access only makes sense.  I guess it's one of those "if wishes were horses" things.

By increasing background checks do you mean closing the loopholes, like the gun show?
I know a lot of gun owners who are okay with that.  The problem is when a lack of common sense is applied and high fees are attached to it. 

Odd that I hadn't actually though about gun shows because every November there is a gun show in town.  It always bugs me when that come around and I see signs posted all over the place announcing it because its a reminder to me of how many people in my area are gun crazy.  I was thinking more of things like universal background checks, ban on assault weapons, increased requirements for gun owner keeping their fire arms secured, increased waiting periods- things that are very reasonable.

Do you want California to have stricter laws, or just across the nation?
I lived in California until I was 30, and they have some of the strictest gun laws. As far as I know, there are no exceptions to the background checks, you need to pass a (pretty basic) test to buy a firearm, and the waiting period was 10 days I believe. I'm asking because I know you live there, and California already has all that you are asking for except the assault rifle ban. So I'm curious if you think more states need to follow CA, or if they aren't strict enough.

And universal background checks is what I meant by closing the loophole. I believe (not 100% on this though) that all states require a background check when purchasing from a dealer. I was surprised when I moved out of CA and learned some states don't require background checks for private party sales. Thats the loophole I was referring to; gun shows, private party, etc. 

Yes, I believe all states would do well to follow California's example, and I believe all states should ban assault weapons.  And yes, I think private party sales/ guns shows are a bad idea.  Of course, realistically, that would be very difficult to control.  For example, from Google I found this:

"Based on studies of gun ownership in California, the average gun-owning household in the state possesses approximately five firearms. While there are no specific statistics for El Dorado County, research indicates that firearm ownership is higher in more rural areas of California compared to urban centers."

So in areas like where I live, I can only imagine how many people could buy and sell guns without permission.  I'm guessing it happens a lot.  Let's put it this way: this is not a place where you want to confront the wrong person, engage in road rage wars, and go door to door proselytizing. I guess there are some perks that way here anyway.    

Get_Right

Background checks, gun shows, blah blah blah. Make it a serious crime and focus on getting them off the streets.