H.B. 320: Up to 30 days hold during background check

[rickt]

H. B. No. 320 - Representative West (D).
Cosponsors: Representatives Kelly (D), Galonski (D), Boggs (D), Smith, K. (D), Sheehy (D), Weinstein (D), Skindell (D), Crawley (D), Crossman (D).

To amend section 2923.25 of the Revised Code to prohibit a federally licensed firearms dealer from transferring a firearm while a background check is pending unless 30 days have elapsed.

https://www.legislature.ohio.gov/legisl ... 133-HB-320

[Javelin Man]

So what if the background check is instant? Good to go?

If nothing is found within a few days or even a week, what makes them think 30 days will turn up something?

[SMMAssociates]

A solution for which there is no problem....

Well, not really - but I've wanted to use that line for a while....

However, the legislators that came up with this missed the target. If the folks who supply the negative materials can do that in two or three days, and if it's accurate, or has a real appeal process, there's little problem here. (Presuming the appeal process is quick, and can be handled by phone or other very simple method.) When we talk about things like the "No-Fly" list, it goes to the "impossible", because the process for clearing that is nearly impossible....

The basic background check, should it require a shrink to sign off on it, is just plain impossible. The shrinks that the government might use aren't going to sign off on about anybody. If they have any liability, they're gone....

I was on disability from the folks at Social Security for quite a while. After a few years, they had me come in for a re-evaluation. Somewhere along the line, they lost my file, and then dropped me. Major PITA to fix that, but the fun part was when they had me go to their shrink. The folks in the waiting room were a good excuse for me carrying, btw. The guy started asking questions, down a list. He go to "do you have any guns?", and then about lost it when I said "yes". "How many?" I stopped to count 'em up, and the shrink asked me "how does it take you so long to think of a count?" That's when I reminded him of my Law Enforcement background. "You collect these things", is what I told him.... He was very glad when I left ....

My point is that "my" shrink, if I had one, would likely never have signed off on this - too much liability.

Regards,

[djthomas]

All the more reason to get your CHL folks.

[WhyNot]

If nothing is found within a few days or even a week, what makes them think 30 days will turn up something?

Them think not anything about that.

Never crossed their minds

It's all about RESTRICTING, boaCONSTRICTING, ELIMINATING gun purchases

The NEXT thing WILL be, well! 30 days wasn't good enough, we be needing us a 60 day

90 day

ALL day


BUTT alas, these R the kind of bills the (R) legispotators will flunk , ''see, we fought 4U'' , ''we went against the governors office on this,''along with the obligatory ''vote for us, donate lot$a ca$h, U don't want them winning, do you?''

[bignflnut]

All the more reason to get your CHL folks.

Yes, circumventing the need for a background check is certainly one carrot in the current CHL structure.
There are other carrots, to be certain.
If UBC legislation moves forward, one can envision the CHL circumvention to be targeted for destruction.

My larger concern is that the CHL database is the first place cross referenced against medical prescription records (thank you RobertsCare) for immediate impact in the ERPO war.

Who would put it past DeWhine to come out and make a statement along the lines of..."We've cross referenced our records and understand that there are X hundred people living in the State of Ohio who are on potentially suicidal and have access to firearms. We MUST pass this legislation to help our communities stay safe from this danger!"