Denham Springs Walmart policy?

If all transfers and sales were conducted in a federal detention center where a person could be held in a cell till the background check is complete this would solve getting local assets tied up in the process. This would help the *take the guns first approach*. And remember it’s for the safety of the children.

RaleighReloader said:

If someone gets denied because of an administrative mistake, then there's absolutely no reason to get "pissy." Most of us learned in grade school that throwing a tantrum doesn't solve any problems (it usually creates more of them). A calm and cool head will be the best way to get through that situation (or any encounter with law enforcement, for that matter).

Mike

Click to expand...

No doubt but it’s not a crime to be a dick, a-hole, whatever you want to call it. Getting denied, and an officer ‘magically’ showing up might send some of these folks who are already very skeptical of our government into a tail spin. I’m not trying to make fun of anyone, but we all know there’s a bunch of folks who aren’t criminals who struggle to keep the tinfoil off their craniums. I’m not talking scary delusional unhinged folks who shoot into the air at the traffic-copter. But the folks who watch info-wars and go down the rabbit-holes late at night. Again it would probably take a series of unfortunate circumstances to prove dangerous, but again sometimes bad things happen.

IDK I just think maybe it should be optional. Of course I’m sure its optional for the LEO to make an immediate call.

Bangswitch said:

No doubt but it’s not a crime to be a dick, a-hole, whatever you want to call it. Getting denied, and an officer ‘magically’ showing up might send some of these folks who are already very skeptical of our government into a tail spin. I’m not trying to make fun of anyone, but we all know there’s a bunch of folks who aren’t criminals who struggle to keep the tinfoil off their craniums. I’m not talking scary delusional unhinged folks who shoot into the air at the traffic-copter. But the folks who watch info-wars and go down the rabbit-holes late at night. Again it would probably take a series of unfortunate circumstances to prove dangerous, but again sometimes bad things happen.

IDK I just think maybe it should be optional. Of course I’m sure its optional for the LEO to make an immediate call.

Click to expand...

If you get denied after attempting to buy a gun you know you can’t own then you should be jailed. If you get denied because you are crazy then you probably should be receiving medical attention. If people caught owning guns who should not have them were jailed, then our society would be a lot better off and you would see less nightly shootings on tv.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

MOTOR51 said:

If you get denied after attempting to buy a gun you know you can’t own then you should be jailed. If you get denied because you are crazy then you probably should be receiving medical attention. If people caught owning guns who should not have them were jailed, then our society would be a lot better off and you would see less nightly shootings on tv.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Click to expand...

I get what you are saying and yeah if a convicted felon is trying to buy a gun he has committed a crime, and mental patients should get treatment. And I’m not a gun dealer and I’ve never been denied so I have no experience on how many denials due to keyboard monkeys poking an incorrect key, but I have a lot of experience with keyboard monkeys poking the wrong keys, and I can imagine a fair amount of resources are wasted nationwide on ‘false denials.’

It is federal law, and in most instances the locals never come to the place of business. In Ascension there is an officer that we email the information from the 4473 to, as well as the Louisiana Domestic Violence people. They have an email set up to receive the denial info as well.

As far as convicted felons buying guns, there are ways to buy near guns, without ever having to do a background check, but the first instance of anyone saying anything about regulating 80% stuff people lose their minds. While I do think background checks are a very effective way of deterring criminal sales of firearms. I am also of the opinion "Where there is a will there is a way." As long as there are guns, good and bad people will have them. There is no way to stop that.

Troedoff said:

It is federal law, and in most instances the locals never come to the place of business. In Ascension there is an officer that we email the information from the 4473 to, as well as the Louisiana Domestic Violence people. They have an email set up to receive the denial info as well.

As far as convicted felons buying guns, there are ways to buy near guns, without ever having to do a background check, but the first instance of anyone saying anything about regulating 80% stuff people lose their minds. While I do think background checks are a very effective way of deterring criminal sales of firearms. I am also of the opinion "Where there is a will there is a way." As long as there are guns, good and bad people will have them. There is no way to stop that.

Click to expand...

It's state law as well. LA R.S. 14:95.1.3.

thperez1972 said:

It's state law as well. LA R.S. 14:95.1.3.

Click to expand...

Thanks for reminding me. That just passed pretty recently, and by recent I mean within the past couple years. The older I get the more 3 years ago seems like yesterday.

Bangswitch said:

Correct me if I’m wrong (never had this problem), but someone who is not a prohibited person may be denied due to similar name, typo, etc. So wouldn’t calling the police and reporting on someone who may have the misfortune of having the wrong name, be overly punitive?

Click to expand...

Thanks Bangswitch. I tried to make that point but maybe I was too ironically subtle. Just like the no fly list, too many people to count on the no buy list for no real reason. Or simply just denied because the weather was off or they didn’t hold their mouth right... gonna call the cops on all of them, check them out real good...

machinedrummer said:

If all transfers and sales were conducted in a federal detention center where a person could be held in a cell till the background check is complete this would solve getting local assets tied up in the process. This would help the *take the guns first approach*. And remember it’s for the safety of the children.

Click to expand...

haha! They’ll outlaw the sale of guns before that ever happens, but I’ll bet there’s a fed reading this somewhere who just creamed his panties at your sarcasm.

Magdump said:

Thanks Bangswitch. I tried to make that point but maybe I was too ironically subtle. Just like the no fly list, too many people to count on the no buy list for no real reason. Or simply just denied because the weather was off or they didn’t hold their mouth right... gonna call the cops on all of them, check them out real good...

Click to expand...

Y'all are both right. They shouldn't call the cops for the mistakes. They should only call the cops when a bad guy gets denied. Remind us again how the dealer and the cops are supposed to know the difference between a mistaken denial and a legitimate denial...

A incarcerated stay till the check comes back would fix all this. It’s like a in-house waiting period.

thperez1972 said:

Y'all are both right. They shouldn't call the cops for the mistakes. They should only call the cops when a bad guy gets denied. Remind us again how the dealer and the cops are supposed to know the difference between a mistaken denial and a legitimate denial...

Click to expand...

You can’t that’s why the option to call the police and filing a log of every denial would be sufficient. An FFL has a moral (and if memory serves me legal) obligation to refuse a sale that doesn’t feel right I trust that they would call the cops when necessary.

Since no one has mentioned Hitler recently:
The road to gas chambers was one sensible law followed by another follow by another, then another once the sheep were corralled it was easy to line them up for slaughter.

My point is it’s sensible to require background checks and it’s no unreasonable to have local LEO question someone who got a denial, but the more sensible we get the less autonomous we become.

Bangswitch said:

You can’t that’s why the option to call the police and filing a log of every denial would be sufficient. An FFL has a moral (and if memory serves me legal) obligation to refuse a sale that doesn’t feel right I trust that they would call the cops when necessary.

Since no one has mentioned Hitler recently:
The road to gas chambers was one sensible law followed by another follow by another, then another once the sheep were corralled it was easy to line them up for slaughter.

My point is it’s sensible to require background checks and it’s no unreasonable to have local LEO question someone who got a denial, but the more sensible we get the less autonomous we become.

Click to expand...

Based on past comments, I was under the impression you didn't agree with calling the police for an erroneous denial with having called it overly punitive.

Bangswitch said:

Correct me if I’m wrong (never had this problem), but someone who is not a prohibited person may be denied due to similar name, typo, etc. So wouldn’t calling the police and reporting on someone who may have the misfortune of having the wrong name, be overly punitive?

Click to expand...

thperez1972 said:

Based on past comments, I was under the impression you didn't agree with calling the police for an erroneous denial with having called it overly punitive.

Click to expand...

Yes that was my initial thought. I also understand the cringeworthy idea that we would just let a felon to walk away from attempting to buy a gun. However not all denials are because someone is potentially dangerous sometimes the it’s a keyboard monkeys fault. That is definitely overly punitive. Is it overly punitive for someone rightfully denied? This where my resolve begins to waiver. Like you said how is one to know if they are a good guy or a bad guy. Don’t get me wrong having a conversation with a police officer isn’t exactly punishment most of you guys are pretty good at carrying a conversation.

The problem comes in because police represent a semi-combative arm of a government that is infringing on a God given Right. So if I were denied by a government I didn’t trust and this government that I didn't trust sends an ‘enforcer’ to figure out just why the hell I had the nerve to exercise a God given Right, it might feel punitive.

Bangswitch said:

Yes that was my initial thought. I also understand the cringeworthy idea that we would just let a felon to walk away from attempting to buy a gun. However not all denials are because someone is potentially dangerous sometimes the it’s a keyboard monkeys fault. That is definitely overly punitive. Is it overly punitive for someone rightfully denied? This where my resolve begins to waiver. Like you said how is one to know if they are a good guy or a bad guy. Don’t get me wrong having a conversation with a police officer isn’t exactly punishment most of you guys are pretty good at carrying a conversation.

The problem comes in because police represent a semi-combative arm of a government that is infringing on a God given Right. So if I were denied by a government I didn’t trust and this government that I didn't trust sends an ‘enforcer’ to figure out just why the hell I had the nerve to exercise a God given Right, it might feel punitive.

Click to expand...

I understand your concern. But I would suggest the denial itself, whether correct or mistaken, is probable cause to believe a crime could have been committed and further investigation is warranted. The investigation could be as simple as running a name and seeing if a felony conviction shows up on the rap sheet. A CHP also shows up on a rap sheet. If there is probable cause, is it overly punitive to be the subject of an investigation? And I don't believe the law requires you to stay there to talk to the police.

thperez1972 said:

Y'all are both right. They shouldn't call the cops for the mistakes. They should only call the cops when a bad guy gets denied. Remind us again how the dealer and the cops are supposed to know the difference between a mistaken denial and a legitimate denial...

Click to expand...

Right after you remind us all of why law abiding citizens should suffer even the slightest inconvenience for criminals...

thperez1972 said:

I understand your concern. But I would suggest the denial itself, whether correct or mistaken, is probable cause to believe a crime could have been committed and further investigation is warranted. The investigation could be as simple as running a name and seeing if a felony conviction shows up on the rap sheet. A CHP also shows up on a rap sheet. If there is probable cause, is it overly punitive to be the subject of an investigation? And I don't believe the law requires you to stay there to talk to the police.

Click to expand...

Sure you would have PC. But if my F150 notified the local LEO every time I exceeded the speed limit or violated a traffic law you would have PC for a stop as well. And driving an automobile isn’t a fundamental right protected by the bill of rights, but I would imagine most would find that level of spying for the ‘government’ unpalatable.

Magdump said:

Right after you remind us all of why law abiding citizens should suffer even the slightest inconvenience for criminals...

Click to expand...

I already did but I'll try to simplify it. Before the investigation, the only evidence available suggests you are the criminal rather than the law abiding citizen.

Bangswitch said:

Sure you would have PC. But if my F150 notified the local LEO every time I exceeded the speed limit or violated a traffic law you would have PC for a stop as well. And driving an automobile isn’t a fundamental right protected by the bill of rights, but I would imagine most would find that level of spying for the ‘government’ unpalatable.

Click to expand...

Yet some people voluntarily do a version of this already. They plug a snitch into their vehicle in exchange for a lower insurance rate and provide the insurance company the information to justify denying an insurance claim. For example, the insurance company will now know the driver was speeding at the time of the wreck so the insurance company can now justify lowering the payout after the wreck because they assign some of the blame for the wreck to the driver.

thperez1972 said:

I already did but I'll try to simplify it. Before the investigation, the only evidence available suggests you are the criminal rather than the law abiding citizen.



Yet some people voluntarily do a version of this already. They plug a snitch into their vehicle in exchange for a lower insurance rate and provide the insurance company the information to justify denying an insurance claim. For example, the insurance company will now know the driver was speeding at the time of the wreck so the insurance company can now justify lowering the payout after the wreck because they assign some of the blame for the wreck to the driver.

Click to expand...

Those devices aren’t reported to LEO to the best of my knowledge and most of them are temporary to pattern your driving habits. And supposedly, If you are better behaved than average, you see some discounts. If you are worse, then your premium doesn’t change (so they claim). I guess anyone can imagine I wouldn’t have it in one of my vehicles. Additionally I don’t think they could deny a claim based off of the crash data, but they could sure double or triple the premium or drop you after they paid out, but that is free legal-ish advice and we know what that’s worth.

But to further our conversation about the spying; if they started getting tickets in the mail or getting pulled over constantly because of the spying they would quickly hate it.

I think for the most part there are people like me who are deeply concerned with individual autonomy and those who are only concerned when it effects them adversely. The problem is by the time loss of freedom effects most people adversely it’s too late.

Thats why these sorts of thing bother me. I’ve never been denied accidentally or otherwise and I don’t mind talking with LEO, but being questioned as a person of interest in a potential crime might make me uncomfortable even more so under a scenario where I went to exercise a fundamental right and I was viewed as a potential criminal. But I’m also greatly bothered by being escorted out of places like Academy and Wal-Mart when I make the mistake of buying a gun from those guys. Maybe it’s just me but being escorted out the door when you buy a gun is unwanted attention and worse it advertises to anyone in the lot watching that I just bought a gun. But that’s just a little off topic.

Bangswitch said:

Those devices aren’t reported to LEO to the best of my knowledge and most of them are temporary to pattern your driving habits. And supposedly, If you are better behaved than average, you see some discounts. If you are worse, then your premium doesn’t change (so they claim). I guess anyone can imagine I wouldn’t have it in one of my vehicles. Additionally I don’t think they could deny a claim based off of the crash data, but they could sure double or triple the premium or drop you after they paid out, but that is free legal-ish advice and we know what that’s worth.

But to further our conversation about the spying; if they started getting tickets in the mail or getting pulled over constantly because of the spying they would quickly hate it.

I think for the most part there are people like me who are deeply concerned with individual autonomy and those who are only concerned when it effects them adversely. The problem is by the time loss of freedom effects most people adversely it’s too late.

Thats why these sorts of thing bother me. I’ve never been denied accidentally or otherwise and I don’t mind talking with LEO, but being questioned as a person of interest in a potential crime might make me uncomfortable even more so under a scenario where I went to exercise a fundamental right and I was viewed as a potential criminal. But I’m also greatly bothered by being escorted out of places like Academy and Wal-Mart when I make the mistake of buying a gun from those guys. Maybe it’s just me but being escorted out the door when you buy a gun is unwanted attention and worse it advertises to anyone in the lot watching that I just bought a gun. But that’s just a little off topic.

Click to expand...

If you were speeding for the mile before a wreck, the insurance company could say you are partially at fault because you shouldn't have been in the intersection when the other guy ran the stop sign. Whether they reduce your payout or raise your rates, that little device is there to help out the insurance company, not you. You may benefit from it but that's not why they advertise it. And like you, I would never put one in my vehicle.

Back to the denial. I believe you are inflating the issue to support your claim. The law says the dealer must report a possible crime to the police. I would suggest it is reasonable to say that before it is investigated, there's no way to know if the denial were a mistake or legitimate so it can be viewed as a possible crime. So the dealer notifies the police. Let's pretend I'm the police. I know the denial is either a mistake or legitimate. I'm not dropping everything and rushing out with blue lights and sirens to escort you out of the establishment. That's too much work. I'm going to run your name and look at your state rap sheet. If there's nothing to suggest you were a prohibited person, I may run a triple I to see if anything shows up in another state. If I see a CHP on your rap sheet, I have to assume there's nothing in your record up to the date the CHP was issued. All of this points to a mistake rather than a legitimate denial. I'm logging it with the explanation as to why no further investigation is needed.

If the rap sheet indicates you are a prohibited person, I may head over to the dealer. If you're there, I'll talk to you. While I know a crime may have been committed and information suggests they have, I may not be able to rely solely on the rap sheet for various reasons I won't fully explain. The short version is the information on the rap sheet is pretty accurate but nothing can be inferred by information not on the rap sheet. I may have to visit the courthouse to get minutes to show you were convicted of a felony. If I show up and you are still there and you confess you are a prohibited person, you'll be escorted out, likely in handcuffs.

Although many people get escorted out of stores for many reasons, being denied in and of itself would likely not be one of them. And because many people get escorted out of stores for many reasons, that would not alert people to the fact you just bought a gun. One big reason for that is you can't buy a gun if you were denied.