Would you be comfortable if...

[Cholla]

...We eliminated waiting periods, background checks, and FFLs, and we could ship handguns using the USPS. Or have we been so programmed to think they are part of the process that we think we should keep them? Waiting periods started with the Brady bill in 1994. Background checks were a fast way around the waiting periods. (1994). FFLs became a thing in 1968. The USPS prohibition on handguns began in 1927. A relative said he felt the background check was a good thing, except for him...

[Sgt. C.J. Sabre, SASS #46770]

I'd say that it would be a fine thing. However, some sort of background would have to remain. My suggestion would be to reference the buyers National Concealed Carry Permit.

[Rye Miles #13621]

If background checks worked criminals would never get guns. 

[Creeker, SASS #43022]

15 minutes ago, Sgt. C.J. Sabre, SASS #46770 said:

I'd say that it would be a fine thing. However, some sort of background would have to remain. My suggestion would be to reference the buyers National Concealed Carry Permit.

The last thing in the world you want is a National Concealed Carry Permit.

 

What you want is nationwide recognition and reciprocity for your state issued permit.

 

Why?  What's the difference?

 

The 10th amendment basically states anything not specific to Federal oversight is a state issue. 

This means (as currently) carry permits are issued on a state by state basis.

And denial of carry permit privileges are a state by state items.

 

"If" carry permits became a Federal oversight item - it becomes a one signature item to remove/ revoke those privileges - elect an anti to President; the wrong party sweeps into the House or Senate and suddenly the permit you carry is at risk yet again.

 

Trying to remove the same item from 50 different states with varying philosophy and degrees of ideology is a MUCH harder thing to accomplish.

 

So instead of a Nationwide permit - you want each state to honor your current permit (just like they do your state issued driver's license, marriage license, etc.).

 

Consolidated control of carry permits at the Federal level is a recipe for disaster.

[Rye Miles #13621]

Just now, Creeker, SASS #43022 said:

The last thing in the world you want is a National Concealed Carry Permit.

 

What you want is nationwide recognition and reciprocity for your state issued permit.

 

Why?  What's the difference?

 

The 10th amendment basically states anything not specific to Federal oversight is a state issue. 

This means (as currently) carry permits are issued on a state by state basis.

And denial of carry permit privileges are a state by state items.

 

"If" carry permits became a Federal oversight item - it becomes a one signature item to remove/ revoke those privileges - elect an anti to President; the wrong party sweeps into the House or Senate and suddenly the permit you carry is at risk yet again.

 

Trying to remove the same item from 50 different states with varying philosophy and degrees of ideology is a MUCH harder thing to accomplish.

 

So instead of a Nationwide permit - you want each state to honor your current permit (just like they do your state issued driver's license, marriage license, etc.).

 

Consolidated control of carry permits at the Federal level is a recipe for disaster.

I prefer a Constitutional carry in all states, recognized by all states. We have a CC here in Ohio that was voted in and signed by the Governor. If all states recognized CC that would be great!

[John Kloehr]

Right out of the gate I am OK with waiting periods and mailing restrictions going away.

 

FFLs/background checks... After fixing a bunch of laws which currently do not focus on criminal acts, yes. The bad guys get guns anyway, only they should pay when they get caught.

 

I'll also second @Creeker, SASS #43022's comments above. What the legislature giveth, the legislature can taketh away. And the legislature would use the fact they gaveth as a basis for taketh away. Any national reciprocity administered by the fed should be challenged as unconstitutional. Since slightly off topic to the specific question, i will also add a couple thoughts on long prison terms and deterrence.

 

Long prison terms do not deter criminals, long prison terms do eliminate recidivism which does reduce crime. It is just not a deterrent.

 

The only proven deterrence is the risk of getting caught. The more certain getting caught becomes, the more it actually does deter criminals from committing crimes. Shorter sentences would save state money if getting caught was more certain. Both measures reduce crime, either by removing the opportunity to commit them (at least in the second place) or the certainty of any punishment at all.

 

[El Sobrante Kid]

31 minutes ago, Rye Miles #13621 said:

If background checks worked criminals would never get guns. 

 

Theft, black market purchases, illegal sales by dealers, etc., etc., etc. Criminals will always have guns.

[Rye Miles #13621]

12 minutes ago, El Sobrante Kid said:

 

Theft, black market purchases, illegal sales by dealers, etc., etc., etc. Criminals will always have guns.

That’s exactly my point! Background checks do nothing!

[Subdeacon Joe]

I would be perfectly fine with it.

 

I'm completely against any sort federal registry of any sort connected to personal arms (at the very least that's anything that a normal infantry Battalion).

 

Same for requiring l licenses, testing, or fees to exercise civil rights. 

[El Sobrante Kid]

7 minutes ago, Rye Miles #13621 said:

That’s exactly my point! Background checks do nothing!

 

Excluding criminals, who do not obey the laws anyway, what about people who try to purchase a gun through normal means but are legally prohibited from owning a firearm, or people who have been adjudicated to be mentally incompetent, etc. Are you saying that the background checks do nothing in those circumstances?

[Sgt. C.J. Sabre, SASS #46770]

52 minutes ago, Creeker, SASS #43022 said:

The last thing in the world you want is a National Concealed Carry Permit.

 

What you want is nationwide recognition and reciprocity for your state issued permit.

I guess that I worded that poorly. 

[Forty Rod SASS 3935]

50 minutes ago, El Sobrante Kid said:

 

Excluding criminals, who do not obey the laws anyway, what about people who try to purchase a gun through normal means but are legally prohibited from owning a firearm, or people who have been adjudicated to be mentally incompetent, etc. Are you saying that the background checks do nothing in those circumstances?

They haven't done much to curb these people so far.

[Rip Snorter]

Senator Sheehy has an interesting idea for a start https://www.breitbart.com/2nd-amendment/2026/08/03/exclusive-sen-sheehy-bill-would-give-elite-special-operations-veterans-nationwide-concealed-carry-privileges/ 

[Creeker, SASS #43022]

1 hour ago, Sgt. C.J. Sabre, SASS #46770 said:

I guess that I worded that poorly. 

No. 

I should have not "told" you what you want - that was presumptuous.

 

It's just a National Carry Permit sounds so right - but when you look at it deeper; it could possibly lead to loss of the carry permit altogether.

[Cholla]

1 minute ago, Creeker, SASS #43022 said:

No. 

I should have not "told" you what you want - that was presumptuous.

 

It's just a National Carry Permit sounds so right - but when you look at it deeper; it could possibly lead to loss of the carry permit altogether.

Are you running for any public office? I would donate to your campaign.

[Alpo]

1 hour ago, El Sobrante Kid said:

 

Excluding criminals, who do not obey the laws anyway, what about people who try to purchase a gun through normal means but are legally prohibited from owning a firearm, or people who have been adjudicated to be mentally incompetent, etc. Are you saying that the background checks do nothing in those circumstances?

If you are forbidden by law - legally prohibited is the term you used - from owning a gun, then it is a federal felony to attempt to buy one.

 

The anti-gunners get up there just so damn proud --- BACKGROUND CHECKS WORK! WE PREVENTED 1,8000 GUNS FROM GOING OUT TO PEOPLE THAT WERE NOT ALLOWED TO HAVE THEM LAST YEAR!!!!

 

How many of them 18,000 people were arrested? Because all of those people that tried to buy a gun and the background check said no you can't have it because you're a criminal or because you smoke dope or because you slapped your girlfriend 30 years ago - attempting to buy the gun is a felony. It is a crime. So how many of those 18,000 criminals were arrested?

 

Very. Damn. Few.

 

Background checks are a feel-good. It makes the anti-gunners look like they're doing something to prevent crime.

[El Sobrante Kid]

1 hour ago, Forty Rod SASS 3935 said:

They haven't done much to curb these people so far.

 

I will take your word for it if you tell me that you have hundreds or thousands of pages of legitimate official documents in front of you that have tracked how many people who fall into the category of legally prohibited, adjudicated as mentally incompetent, etc., that should NOT have been allowed to purchase firearms through normal means, were in fact allowed to purchase firearms, starting from the beginning of the  background check program.

 

If you do not have those documents then I will assume that you are basing your comment on news reports, public statements, and maybe even personal experience, about people that slipped through the cracks, not actual numbers showing the total number of those persons that were denied, vs. the number that were allowed to complete the purchase. Without those studies, none of us has any idea how the background check system has worked, or what percentage of people who legitimately should have been denied, were denied.

[El Chapo]

2 hours ago, El Sobrante Kid said:

 

Excluding criminals, who do not obey the laws anyway, what about people who try to purchase a gun through normal means but are legally prohibited from owning a firearm, or people who have been adjudicated to be mentally incompetent, etc. Are you saying that the background checks do nothing in those circumstances?

 

What I find interesting about that situation is while they will not be transferred a gun if the FBI issues a denial, they are historically not investigated and there are something like 20 prosecutions a year for prohibited possessors who try to buy firearms.

If Congress really cared, they'd issue some sort of policy directive that encouraged prosecution, created grant funded positions for enforcement and prosecution, etc.

 

They don't because it isn't about guns or prohibited possessors.  It's about controlling the rest of us and feel good measures like "background checks" that probably trap dozens or hundreds of times more innocent people in the net than actual prohibited possessors.

[El Sobrante Kid]

2 minutes ago, Alpo said:

If you are forbidden by law - legally prohibited is the term you used - from owning a gun, then it is a federal felony to attempt to buy one.

 

The anti-gunners get up there just so damn proud --- BACKGROUND CHECKS WORK! WE PREVENTED 1,8000 GUNS FROM GOING OUT TO PEOPLE THAT WERE NOT ALLOWED TO HAVE THEM LAST YEAR!!!!

 

How many of them 18,000 people were arrested? Because all of those people that tried to buy a gun and the background check said no you can't have it because you're a criminal or because you smoke dope or because you slapped your girlfriend 30 years ago - attempting to buy the gun is a felony. It is a crime. So how many of those 18,000 criminals were arrested?

 

Very. Damn. Few.

 

Background checks are a feel-good. It makes the anti-gunners look like they're doing something to prevent crime.

 

See my previous post. You don't know what the total numbers are. You have no idea how efficient or inefficient the background checks are and what percentage of people who should be denied, are denied. And you are also conflating two different issues. As I stated earlier, "Excluding criminals, who do not obey the laws anyway", so we should not even be discussing a felon going into buy a gun, knowing that he cannot legally own one. Those criminals who want a gun will find a way to own a gun. You cannot include them in this discussion, period. Asking how many of those people were arrested is a non-sequitur for this issue, but an excellent issue in its own right.

 

I have not said that the BC's are a good thing, or that they are not in need of serious overhauls and/or follow-up investigations, etc. But this whole throw-the-baby-out-with-the-bathwater because BC's don't work approach, is mentally lazy.

[El Sobrante Kid]

9 minutes ago, El Chapo said:

 

What I find interesting about that situation is while they will not be transferred a gun if the FBI issues a denial, they are historically not investigated and there are something like 20 prosecutions a year for prohibited possessors who try to buy firearms.

If Congress really cared, they'd issue some sort of policy directive that encouraged prosecution, created grant funded positions for enforcement and prosecution, etc.

 

They don't because it isn't about guns or prohibited possessors.  It's about controlling the rest of us and feel good measures like "background checks" that probably trap dozens or hundreds of times more innocent people in the net than actual prohibited possessors.

 

I agree with everything you wrote except your last paragraph. I don't know why they don't investigate and prosecute anyone who is denied, and neither do you. Your comment is speculation and is more likely to fan the flames of anger and frustration than it is to rationally move the issue under discussion forward.

[Subdeacon Joe]

2 hours ago, El Sobrante Kid said:

 

Excluding criminals, who do not obey the laws anyway, what about people who try to purchase a gun through normal means but are legally prohibited from owning a firearm, or people who have been adjudicated to be mentally incompetent, etc. Are you saying that the background checks do nothing in those circumstances?

 

Hardly a day goes by here in Sonoma County,  California,  that the Santa Rosa Police Department,  the Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office,  or both, don't have a press release about a prohibited person being arrested and charged with,  usually,  felon in possession.  Often they are on pre-trial release on other firearms charges. Frequently the firearms are of types banned for possession or transfer in California. 

 

E.g. today 

On Sunday August 3rd at approximately 0049 hours, Officers from the Santa Rosa Police Department were dispatched to the 500 Block of Barham Ave for a shooting that had just occurred. Officer arrived in the area and located a victim running on Santa Rosa Av. The victim had one gunshot wound to the arm. Officers quickly applied a tourniquet to the victim’s arm and summoned medical aid. The victim was taken to the hospital by ambulance. Upon arriving on scene officers learned that several suspects had been drinking in the bar. The victim had been outside the bar in the parking lot. The suspects walked outside of the bar and a verbal altercation took place. One suspect produced a handgun and began shooting at the victim striking him once.

 

Detectives from the Santa Rosa Police Gang Crimes Team were summoned to the scene as this shooting was believed to be gang related. Detectives obtained video surveillance of the shooting and quickly identified Edward Joseph Sciutto, a 39-year-old Rohnert Park resident, as the suspect who had shot the victim. Sciutto has gang ties and had served time in prison for a gang related stabbing in 2010. Detectives began following leads and located a vehicle being driven by Sciutto driving on Southbound Highway 101. A high-risk traffic stop was conducted, and Sciutto was taken into custody without incident. A search warrant was later served on a residence related to Sciutto where a half pound of cocaine and a loaded 9mm firearm were recovered.

 

Sciutto was arrested for 664/187 PC – Attempted Murder, 186.22 (A) PC - Participate in a Criminal Street Gang, 186.22 (B) PC - Gang Enhancement, 29800 PC - Felon in Possession of a Firearm, and 11350(a) HS - Possession of a Controlled Substance.

 

The Santa Rosa Police Department is committed to reducing gang and gun violence in our community. The enforcement of gang related crimes and firearms-related offenses continues to be a priority for Chief John Cregan, and our officers.

[Rye Miles #13621]

2 hours ago, El Sobrante Kid said:

 

Excluding criminals, who do not obey the laws anyway, what about people who try to purchase a gun through normal means but are legally prohibited from owning a firearm, or people who have been adjudicated to be mentally incompetent, etc. Are you saying that the background checks do nothing in those circumstances?

Those are few are far between and besides they’ll  get a gun anyway. All the mass shooters have been mentally incompetent and they still got guns. 

[Sgt. C.J. Sabre, SASS #46770]

1 hour ago, Creeker, SASS #43022 said:

No. 

I should have not "told" you what you want - that was presumptuous.

Don't give it another thought. We've all got our hot buttons. And you were correct, as others have pointed out. National reciprocity for a CCW, like a Driver's License is, I believe, what we all would prefer. 

[watab kid]

4 hours ago, El Sobrante Kid said:

 

Theft, black market purchases, illegal sales by dealers, etc., etc., etc. Criminals will always have guns.

i agree - the criminals should not have guns but they do ....even when law abiding have to wait or get delayed in checks - time to address crimes and criminals - no tolerance , eliminayte criminals and gun crimes go away  

[Creeker, SASS #43022]

4 hours ago, Cholla said:

Are you running for any public office? I would donate to your campaign.

A few too many skeletons in my closet - but I would be happy to be an advisor to anyone who wanted to listen.

 

But to the original question; since I have a gun shop and FFL - I am kind of against anything that bypasses my business.

 

And for anyone curious - we do send in the 4473 form on denied background checks to the BATFE for review and potential criminal prosecution.

We don't usually find out what occurs afterward; but I do know of some that have been prosecuted - and two that we were instructed to delay the individual in store (if possible and safe) that were then arrested in our parking lot.

 

So background checks are NOT just a dog and pony show meaning nothing.

[Texas Joker]

OP you are asking if I would be OK with the same kind of freedoms my grandfather and great grandfather had. Post WWII you walked in to a hardware store and bought what you wanted, post WWI you ordered it from Sears or Montgomery Wards catalog.

 

Depending on the timeline of When the Supreme Court restores our civil rights to pre infringement of NFA '34, GCA '68 and Brady '93 I look forward to having the same freedoms as my elders.

 

As to a nationwide CC permit issued by the Feds I find the idea repugnant. The Bill of Rights is a restriction on the Fed therefore they cannot extend a license privilege I already possess. We have become excited that a government "allows" us to exercise a right through license.

[El Chapo]

9 hours ago, El Sobrante Kid said:

 

I agree with everything you wrote except your last paragraph. I don't know why they don't investigate and prosecute anyone who is denied, and neither do you. Your comment is speculation and is more likely to fan the flames of anger and frustration than it is to rationally move the issue under discussion forward.

 

You have no idea what the source of my information is.  In any event, the data point speaks for itself.

[El Sobrante Kid]

5 hours ago, El Chapo said:

 

You have no idea what the source of my information is.  In any event, the data point speaks for itself.

 

You are correct, my apologies, so please advise us as to the source of your information so that we can all be better informed on this subject. And your "data point" is actually only an unsupported comment, a statement. A data POINT is a part of a larger data SET. Something like, "You can see in this chart spanning a twenty year study period, that in 2014 xx% of denials were investigated but were/were not prosecuted." So I will ask again, what is your official source of information regarding the investigation and/or prosecution of firearm purchase denials?

Edited August 4 by El Sobrante Kid
Spelling error

[PowderRiverCowboy]

None of the above,  You are letting and trusting someone to Hold that and use it against You. The Government already admitted the Checks you have done where kept on record, and they admit it 

 Even more today how many data breeches have we had you trust that not to make into into dark web and use it to target you?

 

Better yet the ATF has proven time and again that while not being a law making body they can change a rule on you and make you illegal without you knowing.

In todays world screw appeasing group with ohh its good just a background check I am clean. How many Bought legally and commit a crime later? 

 

Maybe we could just make it a crime to use a firearm in a crime ?  You coddle with ohh this don't affect me right into Being California and not being able to buy a Glock . We have sat back and laughed your rights away because you aren't affected  wait until you are.

 

The Dems are pushing Socialism left and right and it being voted for, Stand up now or fight in the streets later your choice 

 

[Forty Rod SASS 3935]

19 hours ago, El Sobrante Kid said:

 

I will take your word for it if you tell me that you have hundreds or thousands of pages of legitimate official documents in front of you that have tracked how many people who fall into the category of legally prohibited, adjudicated as mentally incompetent, etc., that should NOT have been allowed to purchase firearms through normal means, were in fact allowed to purchase firearms, starting from the beginning of the  background check program.

 

If you do not have those documents then I will assume that you are basing your comment on news reports, public statements, and maybe even personal experience, about people that slipped through the cracks, not actual numbers showing the total number of those persons that were denied, vs. the number that were allowed to complete the purchase. Without those studies, none of us has any idea how the background check system has worked, or what percentage of people who legitimately should have been denied, were denied.

I don't know you and frankly don't care to.  I expressed my opinion, you expressed yours.

 

Done and done.

[El Chapo]

4 hours ago, El Sobrante Kid said:

 

You are correct, my apologies, so please advise us as to the source of your information so that we can all be better informed on this subject. And your "data point" is actually only an unsupported comment, a statement. A data POINT is a part of a larger data SET. Something like, "You can see in this chart spanning a twenty year study period, that in 2014 xx% of denials were investigated but were/were not prosecuted." So I will ask again, what is your official source of information regarding the investigation and/or prosecution of firearm purchase denials?

 

The data point is the number of prosecutions per year.  You need no support to know there are more than 20 prohibited possessors that walk into stores and attempt to receive firearms while (insert prohibited reason here).  I'm not even sure if there are data on that, but it is certainly hundreds of times that number.

 

The last time I got a call from the FBI about one of mine who was under indictment, the response I got when I asked if a field investigator was going to investigate the case was pretty astonishing.  There they were with a 4473 in the guy's own handwriting, probably with a lie on the form that he wasn't under indictment for a felony (another crime for lying on the form) trying to buy a gun.  A few months later I got a call from the ATF TFO about it, apparently because I said something, they did investigate.  Not sure what ever came of it, but I'd be willing to bet it went nowhere, because like I said, it isn't about guns or prohibited possessors, it's about control.  The field investigator wasn't too excited because it was only an attempt, and acted like he didn't know that lying on the form is a felony on its own.  Let that sink in for a while.

 

Edit:

 

Just for you, I asked chatgpt for the answers to these data and its sources and I got the following answers:

 

In 2025, there were 98,898 NICS denials according to the FBI out of 31 million background checks.  44,139 of those were felons or otherwise convicted of crimes that carry more than one year of imprisonment.  Another 7,273 were people convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence offenses.

 

The most comprehensive data it had was from 2017, when there were 112,090 denials, 12,710 referred for ATF investigation (11%) and 12 prosecutions (.01%).

 

Like I said, speaks for itself.

Edited August 4 by El Chapo

[El Sobrante Kid]

3 hours ago, El Chapo said:

 

The data point is the number of prosecutions per year.  You need no support to know there are more than 20 prohibited possessors that walk into stores and attempt to receive firearms while (insert prohibited reason here).  I'm not even sure if there are data on that, but it is certainly hundreds of times that number.

 

The last time I got a call from the FBI about one of mine who was under indictment, the response I got when I asked if a field investigator was going to investigate the case was pretty astonishing.  There they were with a 4473 in the guy's own handwriting, probably with a lie on the form that he wasn't under indictment for a felony (another crime for lying on the form) trying to buy a gun.  A few months later I got a call from the ATF TFO about it, apparently because I said something, they did investigate.  Not sure what ever came of it, but I'd be willing to bet it went nowhere, because like I said, it isn't about guns or prohibited possessors, it's about control.  The field investigator wasn't too excited because it was only an attempt, and acted like he didn't know that lying on the form is a felony on its own.  Let that sink in for a while.

 

Edit:

 

Just for you, I asked chatgpt for the answers to these data and its sources and I got the following answers:

 

In 2025, there were 98,898 NICS denials according to the FBI out of 31 million background checks.  44,139 of those were felons or otherwise convicted of crimes that carry more than one year of imprisonment.  Another 7,273 were people convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence offenses.

 

The most comprehensive data it had was from 2017, when there were 112,090 denials, 12,710 referred for ATF investigation (11%) and 12 prosecutions (.01%).

 

Like I said, speaks for itself.

 

Thank you for providing real information that backs up your statement, much appreciated.

[Forty Rod SASS 3935]

If all these useless laws, background checks, licensed and permits, etdamncetera work why do we have more crime than we did when I was growing up?

 

Follow the Second Amendment and punish criminals to the full extent of the law.  Stop telling the world who they were and making "bad guy heroes" out of them.  Just ignore them and make them disappear.

 

And stop making prisons into such pleasant places to be. 

[Capt. R. Hugh Kidnme]

On 8/3/2026 at 11:42 PM, Subdeacon Joe said:

 

Hardly a day goes by here in Sonoma County,  California,  that the Santa Rosa Police Department,  the Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office,  or both, don't have a press release about a prohibited person being arrested and charged with,  usually,  felon in possession.  Often they are on pre-trial release on other firearms charges. Frequently the firearms are of types banned for possession or transfer in California. 

 

E.g. today 

On Sunday August 3rd at approximately 0049 hours, Officers from the Santa Rosa Police Department were dispatched to the 500 Block of Barham Ave for a shooting that had just occurred. Officer arrived in the area and located a victim running on Santa Rosa Av. The victim had one gunshot wound to the arm. Officers quickly applied a tourniquet to the victim’s arm and summoned medical aid. The victim was taken to the hospital by ambulance. Upon arriving on scene officers learned that several suspects had been drinking in the bar. The victim had been outside the bar in the parking lot. The suspects walked outside of the bar and a verbal altercation took place. One suspect produced a handgun and began shooting at the victim striking him once.

 

Detectives from the Santa Rosa Police Gang Crimes Team were summoned to the scene as this shooting was believed to be gang related. Detectives obtained video surveillance of the shooting and quickly identified Edward Joseph Sciutto, a 39-year-old Rohnert Park resident, as the suspect who had shot the victim. Sciutto has gang ties and had served time in prison for a gang related stabbing in 2010. Detectives began following leads and located a vehicle being driven by Sciutto driving on Southbound Highway 101. A high-risk traffic stop was conducted, and Sciutto was taken into custody without incident. A search warrant was later served on a residence related to Sciutto where a half pound of cocaine and a loaded 9mm firearm were recovered.

 

Sciutto was arrested for 664/187 PC – Attempted Murder, 186.22 (A) PC - Participate in a Criminal Street Gang, 186.22 (B) PC - Gang Enhancement, 29800 PC - Felon in Possession of a Firearm, and 11350(a) HS - Possession of a Controlled Substance.

 

The Santa Rosa Police Department is committed to reducing gang and gun violence in our community. The enforcement of gang related crimes and firearms-related offenses continues to be a priority for Chief John Cregan, and our officers.

AND, he'll be out on the street again in.............?????

[Black Angus McPherson]

Quick and simple answer to the original question.  I'd keep the Background checks and FFL's.

 

I believe the Background checks do have a positive effect.  I'll leave it to the rest of you to debate just how effective they are.   

 

Angus

Edited Thursday at 01:13 AM by Black Angus McPherson