Gun Control Idea I just heard...

[FoxtArt]

I wont comment on the solution / problem of this situation, but something to consider when it comes to BGC and priors:

BGC only consider the disposition of crimes. Being that 94-96% of cases are pled down - often to lesser charges, the disposition rarely reflects the actual crime committed. This is one reason why repeat sex offenders/rapists can easily reoffend - rapist takes a plea bargain in County A, it gets pled down to misdemeanor assault. He goes to county B, rapes someone, DA checks his background, he's got a prior for misdemeanor assault. Ok, so it's his first sex offense. DA offers a plea bargain offering to reduce it to misdemeanor assault. (this example ignores the sex offender registry). He pays fine, serves two weeks, moved on to county C. (county-to-county records are often independent of one another as well)

Rarely do officers/DA actually dig deep into arrest history or original charges. And firearm BCG only look at the disposition of things. So, it creates a highly unfair system as far as background checks are concerned - some counties might dispose the original charge (you punched someone, they disposed it felony assault and you served 30 days) while other counties might take absolutely-crazy-serious issues - you came to school with a loaded gun and threatened to kill everybody - and they might plea it down and dispose it at misdemeanor harassment; there's no clear record that you shouldn't be a firearms possessor.

[KAPA]

I wont comment on the solution / problem of this situation, but something to consider when it comes to BGC and priors:

BGC only consider the disposition of crimes. Being that 94-96% of cases are pled down - often to lesser charges, the disposition rarely reflects the actual crime committed. This is one reason why repeat sex offenders/rapists can easily reoffend - rapist takes a plea bargain in County A, it gets pled down to misdemeanor assault. He goes to county B, rapes someone, DA checks his background, he's got a prior for misdemeanor assault. Ok, so it's his first sex offense. DA offers a plea bargain offering to reduce it to misdemeanor assault. (this example ignores the sex offender registry). He pays fine, serves two weeks, moved on to county C. (county-to-county records are often independent of one another as well)

Rarely do officers/DA actually dig deep into arrest history or original charges. And firearm BCG only look at the disposition of things. So, it creates a highly unfair system as far as background checks are concerned - some counties might dispose the original charge (you punched someone, they disposed it felony assault and you served 30 days) while other counties might take absolutely-crazy-serious issues - you came to school with a loaded gun and threatened to kill everybody - and they might plea it down and dispose it at misdemeanor harassment; there's no clear record that you shouldn't be a firearms possessor.

Wow... So you are saying this isn't an easy answer and due to the problem not being able to fit into a tweet, nothing will be done except on the state level where we will get even more wacky and confusing laws where only lawyers and politicians make a bunch of money from but it does not actually prevent anything from occurring. Then a few months later this happens again and well, rinse and repeat.

[FoxtArt]

Wow... So you are saying this isn't an easy answer and due to the problem not being able to fit into a tweet, nothing will be done except on the state level where we will get even more wacky and confusing laws where only lawyers and politicians make a bunch of money from but it does not actually prevent anything from occurring. Then a few months later this happens again and well, rinse and repeat.

No, I'd say there are fundamental flaws in the operation of our judicial system that are but one broken cog in a complicated timepiece that underlays this problem. Anyone that thinks a BCG is going to fix it isn't viewing the macroeconomics of the underlying problem. Anything that says a BCG will never help is also not understanding the "big picture". It's sort of like calling it a mental health issue and saying the fix is to screen mental health without first fixing the underlying mental health system that would enable you to screen it or deny their possession in the first place. Our government operates on a bureaucratic system of piling more laws on top of more laws though - we're missing the necessary forth branch of government (janitorial) which would've made some of things.... possible.