Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

No background check needed to fire gun on range (barf alert)
Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel ^ | 16 may 10 | John Diedrich

Posted on 05/16/2010 11:23:11 AM PDT by rellimpank

Juan Cardona-Marquez can't legally buy a gun. He can't shoot one. He can't even touch one without committing a crime.

So how was it that the 22-year-old Milwaukee man - who threatened his girlfriend and was later charged with armed robbery and a string of burglaries - was able to rent a .45-caliber Glock handgun from Badger Guns and practice his aim on the store's shooting range?

The answer lies in a little-known quirk of federal gun laws.

Gun stores must check the criminal background of anyone buying a gun. But no check is required if someone rents a gun to use on the store's shooting range. In fact, a background check is not even allowed for rentals.

Prosecutors say a felon or other person legally barred from having a gun is breaking the law by handling one and could be charged. But they need proof.

"They can go and play with a gun, handle it, fire it, even take pictures with it to intimidate other people and nobody is going to know about it," said Joseph J. Vince Jr., a retired supervisor from the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

"If they have the gun in the store or out of the store, it is a danger to the public."

(Excerpt) Read more at jsonline.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: banglist; guns; rkba
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-132 next last

1 posted on 05/16/2010 11:23:11 AM PDT by rellimpank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: rellimpank

Liberals are little kids and afraid of their own shadows.


2 posted on 05/16/2010 11:25:23 AM PDT by CodeToad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rellimpank
even take pictures with it to intimidate other people and nobody is going to know about it

They can also do that by carving a block of wood, and painting it to look like a gun. They can do that by having someone who's good at Photoshop superimpose their face on a photo of another person in a threatening pose.

These hand-wringing ninnies need to get a life. Why don't they worry about incoming asteroids.

3 posted on 05/16/2010 11:28:38 AM PDT by ElkGroveDan (Now can we forget about that old rum-runner Joe Kennedy and his progeny of philandering drunks?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rellimpank

Did these guys ever come across a problem, not related to sex or drugs, where they DIDN’T think the solution was for ME to give up some more freedom?


4 posted on 05/16/2010 11:28:53 AM PDT by Still Thinking (Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rellimpank

Personally, I think it would be a good idea to do a background check when they rent a gun. The problem is that there is no facility to do a background check on such short notice. We have a local gun range where a mother and her 20 year old son went to the range and rented a gun. The mother killed the son, then killed herself. Turns out that she had been Baker Acted, yet they rented her a gun. There was no way the gun shop could have known that she had been Baker Acted. They complained to the State that the State would not let them do an instant background check, but to no avail. A month later, some guy went to the same range, rented a gun, and committed suicide. I was just there a few days ago. They are still not doing background checks because there is simply no way to do them.


5 posted on 05/16/2010 11:31:19 AM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

Are you an ATF agent? You certainly have the mentality.


6 posted on 05/16/2010 11:34:13 AM PDT by ozzymandus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

I suspect they’re also not *allowed* to refuse to rent a gun to someone just because they have a bad feeling about him/her, because as an establishment open to the public, that would be “discrimination” and they’d find themselves on the losing end of legal action.

In many cases, the management’s hunch might be more effective than a federal or state background check.


7 posted on 05/16/2010 11:38:06 AM PDT by GovernmentShrinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ozzymandus

Give me a break. Are you going to stand up for the right of crazy people and felons to rent guns? Not me. And by the way, the NRA is also opposed to the idea of mental defects and felons being permitted to have guns. Law abiding gun owners do not benefit from letting crazies and felons have guns.


8 posted on 05/16/2010 11:38:24 AM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

You do know that they can’t leave the shooting range with the gun, don’t you?


9 posted on 05/16/2010 11:40:47 AM PDT by ozzymandus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: ElkGroveDan
Why don't they worry about incoming asteroids.

I've been hoping for one of those to hit DC.

10 posted on 05/16/2010 11:42:19 AM PDT by GingisK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant
Are you going to stand up for the right of crazy people and felons to rent guns?

No, I'm standing up for the right of sane law-abiding people to rent weapons without their employees (at the gun range OR the statehouse) knowing their business.

11 posted on 05/16/2010 11:44:12 AM PDT by Still Thinking (Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: rellimpank

If Juan Cardona-Marquez (Obviously an Amish name!) were indeed a “prohibited person” when he went to that gun range, then even touching a firearm there was already a crime. Thus there is no loophole in the law and the author should go and change his Depends.


12 posted on 05/16/2010 11:44:26 AM PDT by Redcloak (What's your zombie plan?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GingisK
Are you going to stand up for the right of crazy people and felons to rent guns?

No such luck. In reality, it would hit my town or yours, and the perfectly intact Mensa candidates in Congress would ban asteroids! :-(

13 posted on 05/16/2010 11:45:28 AM PDT by Still Thinking (Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

Please tell me how a background check is going to stop a suicide if some person wakes up one morning and decides to kill themself and their family members? Mom could have also rented a car and driven off a cliff. Are you going to do firearm background checks on car rentals?


14 posted on 05/16/2010 11:45:34 AM PDT by Kirkwood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Kirkwood
Are you going to do firearm background checks on car rentals?

Bigmouth! He hadn't thought of that one yet!

15 posted on 05/16/2010 11:46:48 AM PDT by Still Thinking (Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: rellimpank

“...Shall not be infringed...”
.


16 posted on 05/16/2010 11:47:42 AM PDT by editor-surveyor (Obamacare is America's kristallnacht !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentShrinker

The lady I wrote about had been Baker Acted. That is pretty crazy. The other guy, as far as I know, had not been Baker Acted, so the range probably would not have been able to stop him. But the range I go to has a big sign on the door, “We reserve the right to deny service to anyone for any reason.” They also make you fill out a form where they ask you if you’ve been declared incompetent or convicted of a felony. They also ask if you’re subject to a restraining order. Of course, anyone can lie about that stuff, and they’d never know. Personally, I would feel a bit safer in the range if I thought they had done a background check on everyone. And I don’t see what the civil liberties issue is, assuming that it could be done quickly.


17 posted on 05/16/2010 11:48:19 AM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Kirkwood

The fact that the guy killed himself doesn’t bother me. I just don’t want to be standing in the stall at the shooting range next to that guy when he does it.


18 posted on 05/16/2010 11:50:01 AM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Still Thinking

If they are law abiding sane people, then they won’t know their business. It’s the insane people and the felons who fail the check.


19 posted on 05/16/2010 11:51:44 AM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant
Personally, I would feel a bit safer in the range if I thought they had done a background check on everyone

That's a laugh. The idea of you even being 'in the range' is ludicrous.

20 posted on 05/16/2010 11:52:24 AM PDT by perfect_rovian_storm (The worst is behind us. Unfortunately it is really well endowed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

Did you wet your pants?

They should be required to keep spare pants too, for those like you.
.


21 posted on 05/16/2010 11:52:30 AM PDT by editor-surveyor (Obamacare is America's kristallnacht !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: rellimpank
Yep! Just looked outside and the sky is falling...Panic abounds!
22 posted on 05/16/2010 11:52:31 AM PDT by SuperLuminal (Where is another agitator for republicanism like Sam Adams when we need him?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SuperLuminal
"Yep! Just looked outside and the sky is falling...Panic abounds!"

Whoops! Correction: Turns out to be plain old rain...Whew! That was close...

23 posted on 05/16/2010 11:53:45 AM PDT by SuperLuminal (Where is another agitator for republicanism like Sam Adams when we need him?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: rellimpank

OK just band all Obama voters.


24 posted on 05/16/2010 11:54:29 AM PDT by bmwcyle (Thank You God for Freeing the Navy Seals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ozzymandus

I’ve been shooting for decades, so yes, I know they can’t legally leave the shooting range with the gun. But that leaves more opportunity for mischief than I think is necessary. What is the problem with telling a crazy person or felon you can’t rent a gun? Why are you so determined to vindicate the right of a crazy person or a felon to rent a gun?


25 posted on 05/16/2010 11:54:50 AM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

And how will the range be checking them without telling the federales their names? (Actually there is a way this could be done if we really need a NICS system, but they won’t do it)


26 posted on 05/16/2010 11:56:03 AM PDT by Still Thinking (Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

Why are you so determined to make it more difficult for sane people to rent a gun? Why are you trying to solve what amounts to a statistically non-existent problem by restricting all of our rights?

I can answer that for you. It’s because ‘moderates’ like you are really nothing more than the fascist wing of the Republican party. You want everyone to be ‘safe’, just like the Democrats. But your solutions are ‘less radical’ than the eeevil Democrat ones, while still looking out for our ‘safety’.

In actuality, a ‘less radical’ jack-booted thug is still a jack-booted thug.


27 posted on 05/16/2010 11:58:11 AM PDT by perfect_rovian_storm (The worst is behind us. Unfortunately it is really well endowed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: perfect_rovian_storm
In actuality, a ‘less radical’ jack-booted thug is still a jack-booted thug.

Well, more like a Jack Loafered Thug. Much less tyrannical.

28 posted on 05/16/2010 12:00:01 PM PDT by Still Thinking (Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Still Thinking; perfect_rovian_storm
Well, more like a Jack Loafered Thug. Much less tyrannical.

Jack Loafered Thuggery(tm)! Now with 28% less tyranny! Get yours today!

29 posted on 05/16/2010 12:01:06 PM PDT by Still Thinking (Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Still Thinking

ROFL!!!


30 posted on 05/16/2010 12:01:58 PM PDT by perfect_rovian_storm (The worst is behind us. Unfortunately it is really well endowed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: perfect_rovian_storm

< rimshot > Try the veal, it’s great! I’ll be here all week!


31 posted on 05/16/2010 12:02:51 PM PDT by Still Thinking (Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

$hit happens . Live with it !


32 posted on 05/16/2010 12:05:03 PM PDT by Renegade ("Bring it on while I still don't need glasses to shoot your eye out ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Still Thinking

They check my name every time I buy a gun. I have no objection to changing the way it’s done to make it less obtrusive. Like I’ve said in my earlier posts, if they were going to do a background check on people who rent guns, they WOULD have to change the way they do them, because you can’t get an instant check under the current system.

My point here is that the whole thread is premised upon the notion that a felon ought not be subject to a background check, and a lot of posters seem to be standing up for the right of a felon to rent a gun without being subjected to a background check. That is just plain crazy. And when they try to turn it around and say they are standing up for the right of law abiding sane people to rent a gun without a background check, they just look foolish. This can be done quickly, easily, with no violation of privacy. There is no legitimate reason that anyone has offered so far for why it should not be done.

Heck, as I stated before, the gun range itself was complaining that it could not do an instant background check. They don’t want to rent guns to nuts either.


33 posted on 05/16/2010 12:05:45 PM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: rellimpank

If I ran a gun shop and wanted to rent guns, I would make rentals contingent upon joining a “club” wherein they are checked using whatever means necessary to insure they are legally allowed to own a gun. After the check is complete, they are issued a card, and then they can rent a firearm for range use.

Renting firearms to anyone that walks in the door just seems like a recipe for trouble.


34 posted on 05/16/2010 12:05:52 PM PDT by spodefly (This is my tag line. There are many like it, but this one is mine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant; ForGod'sSake
My point here is that the whole thread is premised upon the notion that a felon ought not be subject to a background check, and a lot of posters seem to be standing up for the right of a felon to rent a gun without being subjected to a background check.

No, they're not. They're standing up the for the rights of the sane people, and if a few kooks slip through the cracks, better that than invading the privacy of the other 99.99%.

This can be done quickly, easily, with no violation of privacy. There is no legitimate reason that anyone has offered so far for why it should not be done.

It CAN, they choose no to revamp the system in such a way that the users' names are NEVER in the possession of the feral government, despite the fact that they're prohibited by law from keeping records of the names. If they won't do that, it makes them look like they're lying. Plus we have to trust them with information. What would you say the odds are of the government NEVER, NEVER misusing information once it's in their grubby statist little hands? And, yes I did state (quite clearly I thought) why this was a bad idea.

35 posted on 05/16/2010 12:11:47 PM PDT by Still Thinking (Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

“Law abiding gun owners do not benefit from letting crazies and felons have guns.”

I’m not defending the guy but who gets to say whether a person is a mental defect? According to the libs gun owners are mental defects. And I wouldn’t trust the NRA to defend your rights either.


36 posted on 05/16/2010 12:11:51 PM PDT by dljordan ("His father's sword he hath girded on, And his wild harp slung behind him")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: dljordan
who gets to say whether a person is a mental defect?

If they've been Baker Acted, that is a pretty good sign. Or if they've been convicted of a felony.

37 posted on 05/16/2010 12:13:48 PM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Still Thinking

I agree it would need revamping, but the whole idea of doing a background check for gun rentals would involve revamping because you can’t get an instant background check right now, period.


38 posted on 05/16/2010 12:17:12 PM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: perfect_rovian_storm

“Why are you so determined to make it more difficult for sane people to rent a gun?”

My philosophy is similar to the NRA’s. Do the simple things to reduce gun crime that don’t put a significant burden on law-abiding gun owners, and that will reduce the pressure from the leftists to take more draconian actions. Denying a felon or a court-declared insane person (Baker Act) the right to buy or rent a gun is a simple thing that does not imping upon my rights.


39 posted on 05/16/2010 12:32:44 PM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant
Personally, I would feel a bit safer in the range if I thought they had done a background check on everyone. .

If you are that worried about it, don't go to the range. Or the grocery store, movie theater, restaurant or bar. Prohibited persons are armed in all those places.

And I don’t see what the civil liberties issue is, assuming that it could be done quickly.

Shall not be infringed" is pretty easy to understand and it's a Constitutional right, not a "civil" anything.

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. BENJAMIN FRANKLIN, Pennsylvania Assembly: Reply to the Governor, November 11, 1755.—The Papers of Benjamin Franklin, ed. Leonard W. Labaree, vol. 6, p. 242 (1963).

A version is on a plaque on the Statute of Liberty. "“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

40 posted on 05/16/2010 12:40:30 PM PDT by El Gato ("The second amendment is the reset button of the US constitution"-Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

Yeah, ‘revamping’ is just a peachy idea. Let’s have the government that considers returning veterans, pro-lifers, and tea partiers to be potential terrorists ‘revamp’ the background check process. That’s one heck of a brilliant idea right there. I see where you get your user name.

You said in your nice little FreepMail to me that I don’t know you. Oh, but I do know you. You were a fervent Rudy Giulliani supporter who assured us all that his anti-gun past was behind him. And now, you’re here trying to ‘save us all’ from some non-existent problem of gun range suicides by doing background checks on everyone who wants to rent a gun. And to top it all off, you’re using the liberal tactic of telling everyone who questions your idea that they must be for guns in the hands of crazy people.

I know exactly who and what you are. It’s ‘common-sense regulation’, you’ll say. You’ll tell us you ‘have no problem’ with guns, yet you seem to want to make it more difficult for us to have or use them. On this particular thread, you even make the laughable assertion that you are a gun owner yourself who would ‘feel safer on the range’ if there was a background check.

I don’t know about any of the rest of my fellow FReepers, but I’ve never felt unsafe on a gun range in my life. In fact, I feel a hell of a lot safer there than I do in a ‘gun free school zone’.

What would make ME feel safer is if people like you would just mind your own damn business and leave our constitutional rights alone. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED is pretty clear language.


41 posted on 05/16/2010 12:41:58 PM PDT by perfect_rovian_storm (The worst is behind us. Unfortunately it is really well endowed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad

No. They are Domestic Enemies that are an active threat to the rest of us.


42 posted on 05/16/2010 12:45:09 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (III, Alarm and Muster)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant
Felons and crazies don't have guns around people like me as they tend to end up DEAD.

Pull your head out of your arse, right now.

Seriously.

43 posted on 05/16/2010 12:47:39 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (III, Alarm and Muster)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant
If they are law abiding sane people, then they won’t know their business. It’s the insane people and the felons who fail the check.

How do you propose to do the check without telling the government that the "law abiding sane people" are going to the gun range?"

44 posted on 05/16/2010 12:53:15 PM PDT by El Gato ("The second amendment is the reset button of the US constitution"-Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant
If they are law abiding sane people, then they won’t know their business. It’s the insane people and the felons who fail the check.

How do you propose to do the check without telling the government that the "law abiding sane people" are going to the gun range?"

45 posted on 05/16/2010 12:54:08 PM PDT by El Gato ("The second amendment is the reset button of the US constitution"-Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: spodefly
Renting firearms to anyone that walks in the door just seems like a recipe for trouble.

Hasn't been but since 1986 that they would *sell* a gun to anyone who walked in the door. I have a nice 1911A1 that was the last gun I bought from a dealer before the "background check" became manadatory for handguns, and a "serious social purposes" shotgun that I got before the check was required for long arms. Plus a nice WW-II carbine that I bought with no check, since it was from a private seller, not a dealer.

The receiver for my AR also did not require a background check, even though I bought it just over a year ago. Bought it from a dealer too.

46 posted on 05/16/2010 12:58:28 PM PDT by El Gato ("The second amendment is the reset button of the US constitution"-Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: spodefly
Hasn't been but since 1986 that they would *sell* a gun to anyone who walked in the door.

Brain fade. That was when you could last buy a newly made machine gun. 1994 was when the "Brady law" went into effect requiring all those useless background checks. So 16+ years ago. Out of the 219 years since the Bill of Rights was passed.

47 posted on 05/16/2010 1:03:36 PM PDT by El Gato ("The second amendment is the reset button of the US constitution"-Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant
Do the simple things to reduce gun crime that don’t put a significant burden on law-abiding gun owners, and that will reduce the pressure from the leftists to take more draconian actions.

But that pressure from the left will NEVER abate. Their goal is totalitarianism. Not saying that necessarily with reference to this issue, just an observation how the left works.

48 posted on 05/16/2010 1:05:20 PM PDT by Still Thinking (Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: rellimpank

Yeah. But this same Milwaukee Sun Sentinel would be slobbering all over this thug, working to keep him from being DEPORTED!!!


49 posted on 05/16/2010 1:06:39 PM PDT by Oldpuppymax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant
Or if they've been convicted of a felony.

You keep saying that as if it means something. After they've paid their debt to society, what other rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights (among others) do you wish to deny to these individuals?

50 posted on 05/16/2010 1:09:05 PM PDT by Dan Nunn (Some of us are wise, some of us are otherwise. -The Great One)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-132 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson