Would you use NICS for FTF sales?


PDA






zminer
November 15, 2008, 08:53 PM
If your state offered a way for private citizens to do a NICS check - or something similar, covering criminal background and mental health - for face-to-face private sales, would you use it?

[For the purposes of this scenario, we'll assume that use of the system would be completely voluntary, free of charge, and simple to use - let's say that you could call it in via telephone.]

* * * * *

I am conflicted about this. On the one hand, I understand the appeal of having the selling process unencumbered by legal restrictions. "It's a sale like any other," etc.

On the other hand, though, I don't want to be unknowingly selling my guns to spousal abusers, or rapists, or other assorted deadbeats. Also, in NY State I don't really have the option to ask for a firearms license as a proxy either, because the licenses are sometimes hard to get - and are required only for those purchasing handguns - so not everybody has one.

What do you think?

If you enjoyed reading about "Would you use NICS for FTF sales?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
biggiesmalls
November 15, 2008, 09:11 PM
i like the idea. some criminals can be intelligent, well-manner, but otherwise a crook. doing a ftf deal and just looking at someone's driver's license is hardly enough peace of mind. i'd hate to sell a gun to a cleancut gentlemen who's a psycho in disguise and bear responsibility later for his slayings. i might be covered legally but i'll still feel the guilt. writing up a bill of sale wouldn't mitigate this either because it doesn't keep it out of his hands. of course first time criminals wouldn't be in the system and NICS wouldn't be 100% effective for this anyway, but it's more. and if it's free, accessible via phone or internet, then heck, what's an extra 2 minutes? i chat more than that with people i do ftf deals with anyway...

scythefwd
November 15, 2008, 09:23 PM
I would use it if it was available even if it cost a nominal fee (say 25 or less). I see it as cya if you do sell to a felon or so. You can prove you did your due dillagence before the sell. The only people I wouldn't do it for is immediate family (and there are some who I will not sell to that I am related to).

misANTHrope
November 15, 2008, 09:23 PM
Principally speaking, if it was voluntary, I wouldn't do it. I don't want to sell a gun to someone who's not supposed to have it, but I think I'd be inclined to stop short of a NICS check.

But a potential issue that occurs to me is this- in your hypothetical world, I sell a firearm without performing the NICS check which is available to me. The buyer turns out to be a wacko and kills a bunch of folk. I could easily see a lawyer turning my decision not to run the check into negligence. We've already seen them go after shops that sold guns to folks that later went wacko, even if the buyers in those cases passed the NICS check.

In a way, I guess it comes down to a classical question: How do I balance my desire to not supply a gun to a criminal with my belief that the transaction should be as unencumbered as possible?

Bozo
November 15, 2008, 09:25 PM
No, I would not use it. Probably because I grew up in the time period of if you wanted to sell something, even a gun, you did it. You owned it, it was yours to do with as you pleased.

I do realize the world is different today but still, I would not call to check on someone, I would use my own instincts.

This does nothing for the RKBA.

22-rimfire
November 15, 2008, 09:46 PM
I have mixed emotions about this question. I would know when the sale was ongoing if I wanted to do a NICs check if it were available and could be used with a cell phone. But generally, I doubt I would use it unless I was forced to.

tkaction
November 15, 2008, 09:47 PM
In my state It is illegal to FTF with a handgun so its a no brainer. Of course. Rifles and shotguns FTF without nics is OK and perfered.

ZombieHunter
November 15, 2008, 09:57 PM
i understand the "principle" about it being property. but i also understand the "principle" behind doing my part. lots of things require someone to pass a certain standard to own or operate...a firearm (as many like to point out) is nothing more than a tool. several tools have limits as to who can own/buy them...giving a citizen the ability to keep a firearm out of the hands of a felon is the same as giving a citizen the ability to defend themself against said felon.

i would 100% agree with giving the citizen the ability to check, provided it was free and easy to do i would go as far as making it mandatory, provided there was protection for liability.

Scanr
November 15, 2008, 10:24 PM
No, a firearm is personal property. The government need to keep their bloody meat hooks off of them.

22-rimfire
November 15, 2008, 10:27 PM
In my former state of residence, handgun transfers must be through a FFL dealer except for direct family. When I objected to the law being passed, the standard reaction was "Do you want to sell a firearm to a felon?" There is no answer to that question other than of course not. So, if such a requirement was passed nationally in order to close the "gunshow loophole" I would have to comply. This is something that is likely coming legislatively. Prepare yourself.

There seems to be a lot of these kinds of questions being posed in threads since the Obama election. What better place to get feedback than posting on a gun forum from the Obama administration.

browningguy
November 15, 2008, 10:29 PM
I would certainly use it. I can't imagine how bad I would feel if I sold a gun to a certified nutcase or criminal when I could have easily prevented it.

wally
November 15, 2008, 10:39 PM
I'd use it, I's also lie and say I was selling a gun to Joe Blow before I rented him an apartment, offered a job, etc.

--wally.

22-rimfire
November 15, 2008, 10:41 PM
Lie huh? What about renting motel rooms? Buying ammunition? Would you like that? All to save $25 for a criminal background check.

zminer
November 15, 2008, 11:31 PM
There seems to be a lot of these kinds of questions being posed in threads since the Obama election. What better place to get feedback than posting on a gun forum from the Obama administration.

Tinfoil hat much? ;) Somehow I think the Obama administration has better things to do than make policy decisions based on a non-representative sample of people on a single forum. (You also make the assumption that they intend to listen to firearms owners when making firearms policy decisions. I hope you ARE right about that.)

I posted because I was curious, because of a thread on another forum (http://www.thehighroad.us/showthread.php?t=401847) (that shall remain nameless ... but has a very similar name to this forum :D) about using a state ID as a proxy for deciding whether someone is a good guy or a bad guy. People were coming up with various reasons why it wouldn't work - mostly due to state IDs not being required where they live - but a fair number of people seemed interested in the background of their buyers. And why shouldn't they be?

I voted "Yes" above, because it feels weird to me that official sources of firearms (gun stores, FFLs, etc.) have to do a NICS check, but private citizens don't. What's the difference? Why is it safe for me to sell a gun to anyone who has a telephone and a copy of the want ads, but Joe's Guns down the street has to do a check to make sure the the guy isn't a creep? Is it just an institutional CYA arrangement, or is there something else going on here?

TeamPrecisionIT
November 15, 2008, 11:37 PM
It's a firearm, which is nothing more then a tool or a piece of property. The GUN does not do the crime, the CRIMINAL does the crime.

Damian

Kind of Blued
November 15, 2008, 11:39 PM
I'd save the number in my cell phone and use it if I thought necessary. I trust my judgement, but if my impression of the individual isn't good, I could make sure my impression was substantiated before refusing. Of course, I still have the right not to sell a gun to anyone for any reason, but that's called freedom.

rbernie
November 15, 2008, 11:43 PM
Not until the Lautenberg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_Violence_Offender_Gun_Ban) amendment is repealed, and NICS is overhauled to provide an expediated appeals process.

SMMAssociates
November 15, 2008, 11:58 PM
Wanting an NICS check for private sales, IMHO, is one of those slipperly slope things. Next thing you know it's mandatory, and then it'll become difficult, impossible, or expensivce....

Remember that the criminal and terrorist friendly aim for a total ban in all handguns - a ban on sales, transfers, ownership, etc. After all, the new protected minority class (that elected them) might get hurt....

Why help them?

If you're concerned about an FTF sale, don't make it....

Meantime, work to elect people that will protect us from liability. Even passing an NICS check won't guarantee anything, and while a "due dilligence" mark on the record might be nice, that there be any record at all is not something we want....

Regards,

Deus Machina
November 16, 2008, 12:04 AM
I might, but I would fight against it being mandatory.

For now, I think I'll be fine keeping a copy of ID.

22-rimfire
November 16, 2008, 12:14 AM
I would only if I could and it was not required.... extended family member or co-worker who I had little knowledge of their background or they made comments that bothered me legally. Otherwise, I would just not sell at all. I would rather throw the thing in the trash than sell to someone I was uncomfortable with owning the gun.

TAB
November 16, 2008, 12:18 AM
I would... there is a good chance my finger prints are on that gun... I've been finger printed dozens of times for diffrent private and goverment agencys... they have my prints on file.

22-rimfire
November 16, 2008, 12:20 AM
I guess when you discuss a FTF transaction and you or they handle the gun wearing surgical gloves, it might be a hint. :)

Fleetwood_Captain
November 16, 2008, 12:24 AM
Crooks arn't going to want to give you ANY personal information when buying a gun for illegal use. Most of your gangbangers are getting their "straps" from the same guys that peddle dope around their hoods.

All those NICS checks are going to do is create more revenue for the government.

hso
November 16, 2008, 12:40 AM
If it were free and not mandatory? If I didn't know the person I probably would, but I'd also use it for sales of any significant asset or rental of property to anyone I didn't know. Just for firearms? Why, just for firearms since criminals don't usually purchase firearms from your average gunowner.

7.62X25mm
November 16, 2008, 02:59 AM
NICS requires an FFL dealer number. NICS makes an note of the dealer FFL, and the FFL makes a record of the transfer number.

That'd be a hard system to set up for private owners. First thing NICS would need to do is confirm that the seller lawfully possesses the firearm. That's basically "registration."

The state could always set up a "license" application protocol. Just like the transfer on an motor vehicle.

We need more red tape and license fees for our Second Amendment.

DoubleTapDrew
November 16, 2008, 03:58 AM
Possibly. I'd rather have the ability to run a serial number through to make sure what I'm buying has never been reported stolen.

Rimmer
November 16, 2008, 06:17 AM
I don't like this kind of question and YES I have my tinfoil firmly in place.

Every gun related site over the past year has had an influx of new people. Many are a bit to articulate, to politically correct and are asking questions that are conceived to bring about disagreement, often strong disagreement between long established members. Stirring the Pot, as it were.
They are successful in creating dissention from within a community. And doing a good job of accumulating stats/fuel for an agenda for some (unmentioned) entity.
There is a distinct difference between the aforementioned poster and the guy or gal that joined within the same timeframe, probably due to the political climate and how that relates to gun ownership.

<Adjusts hat>
This may not be the case here. However, threads and comments made by many of the pre/post Nov 4 folks are just too informed and too opinionated. A real stretch from what has historically been your "typical" new member comments.
Maybe just some strange coincidence.

Treo
November 16, 2008, 09:40 AM
I only read the first page but when I saw that the majority of respondants felt that NCIS checks on a private sale was a legitimate "reasonable restriction" on gun sales, I became convinced the antis have won the culture war. I give it 20 years ( if that) and our gun rights will be gone.

GET A CLUE GUYS,

Criminals don't get background checks they buy their guns from some crack head ( who stole it from you) who needs 50 bucks for some rocks!

The only people who are going to be affected by your " common sense " gun law are law abiding citizens.

2 Thesselonians 2:11
Becuase they loved not the truth God will send them a strong delusion that they might believe the lie.

Lone_Gunman
November 16, 2008, 09:46 AM
How would you know the person is who they said they were? Can you spot a fake ID? I can't.

So, NO, I do not want to accept the liability of having to run a background check on someone.

TeamPrecisionIT
November 16, 2008, 09:54 AM
Wow, I never thought I would say it, but Treo is right, we have lost. People, why are you turning against each other???? Do you run a background check on a private sale of a car? Knife? Paper? Ink? Oh, but why not? There could liabilty involved. A car can be used as a getaway car. Knife to cut someone. Paper to write the plan of a terrorist attack. Ink to print out the plans of a building intended to be bombed. Are you ****ting me? So you truly believe YOU are liable for another's actions because you sold them a tool? I say again, WE have lost.

Damian

almostfree
November 16, 2008, 09:56 AM
Emphatic NO. The NICS check is a key part of what is a de facto national gun registry. At this point it is voluntary because they can't track FTF sales, but if we used them for private sales then it would be complete. Some of you may try and argue that there is no national gun registry, but I have seen it first hand. They know which gun shops you buy from by the NICS hits. They then go to those gun shops and procure the 4473s. Now they have a list of everything you have ever bought through an FFL.

22-rimfire
November 16, 2008, 10:06 AM
I personally feel no responsiblity for the future use of a product I may have sold legally to another person. I do the best I can with the limited resources I have. How a product is used is no reflection on me unless I had fore-knowledge.

My impression of weapons checks are just too efficient for there not to be a registry based on the NICs checks. The 4473 forms mean nothing.

bdickens
November 16, 2008, 10:08 AM
NO.

I wouldn't sell to someone I didn't know anyway.

1911 guy
November 16, 2008, 04:06 PM
There's no good reason to. Crooks either steal guns or get them from the trunk of a peddlers car. They are not cruising the shows and looking through the want ads, contrary to what some politicians would have you believe.

Ask for an I.D., write down info such as name and address, then trade money for said gun. File away paper so if it is stolen from the buyer later you have proof of sale, this gets you off the legal hook.

TAB
November 16, 2008, 04:36 PM
your assuming that only crimals buy guns... what about people with mental probs?

TeamPrecisionIT
November 16, 2008, 04:39 PM
Than those with mental problems are the ones breaking the law, not ME! This is pretty easy to figure out. The person committing the crime is the criminal and that's it. Not that too difficult to understand, or is it?

Damian

SMMAssociates
November 16, 2008, 05:29 PM
Guns have managed to get sufficiently demonized that we needed the "Lawful Commerce" law to keep some of the manufacturers in the business. (Naturally, Obama didn't support that.)

Nonsense....

But the sheeple believe it....

Regards,

scythefwd
November 16, 2008, 05:30 PM
Teamprecision - I don't sell knives. Cars, while used in crimes, generally have a less devistation affect than a gun. Cars a usually used to get away after the crime, not directly in the commission of it. Paper, ink, etc. again aren't usually directly involved in the crime, but planning.

Now to explain myself a little, I would rather that a different system be in place. A database of who can't own guns. If you are in the database, you can't buy, simple as that. I don't what what I purchased tracked. I would want an appeals process that isn't cumbersome or designed to be expensive to correct errors as well.

TAB
November 16, 2008, 05:57 PM
here is another question... would you sell a very high powered car to a young man? What about a dangerous car to a 16 year old girl?


I can't do either of those things... I would feel horride if I found out they killed themselfs or others.

Me being able to sleep at night is the most important thing...

rbernie
November 16, 2008, 07:12 PM
I can't do either of those things... I would feel horride if I found out they killed themselfs or othersUsing discretion when selling potentially dangerous objects is not a sin. It's common sense.

But sadly, NICS is not in a position to tell me what I need to know to make that determination. More to the point, in at least ten thousand instances EACH YEAR it flags someone as ineligible when in fact they are demonstrably not disqualified from firearms ownership and the .gov is forced to update their records accordingly.

TEN THOUSAND successful appeals to a NICS denial each year.

That's appalling.

Ten thousand people that were told that they could NOT exercise their constitutional right to own a firearm, and could not avail themselves of an effective form of self-defense.

Ten thousand people who were told that they were essentially second class citizens.

It has to get better before we call it a success, and/or extend its use.

TeamPrecisionIT
November 16, 2008, 07:48 PM
So what you're (the people who voted yes) trying to say is we need to spend more money and effort on a failed system, wow that sounds familiar. I will say again and maybe it will hit home, A CRIMINAL COMMITS CRIMES NO MATTER THE TOOLS INVOLVED. And if you are going to tell me that a crime has never been committed by a car, a pen, or ink (think reckless driving, running off the road, false checks, poisoning, etc), then you really have to pull your head out of the sand and wake up from the garbage you are seeing in movies and TV. A gun is nothing more then a tool, its as simple as that. A tool should not require a background check at all because it implies that the person buying it is a criminal (think guilty before proven innocent) and goes against our fundamental ways. I wonder how interesting things would get if we need to conduct background checks on every purchase of a baseball bat, hammer, staple gun, nail gun, chainsaw, etc. Under the philosophy I am hearing here, all that seems reasonable. What about having to pass a background check at the bar or supermarket to make sure you are not a DUI risk? Sounds reasonable right? And I am really wondering if you are going to respond after this. Do you mean to tell me that a gun is more devastating than the amount of car accidents that take place constantly in this country? Funny though, we do have a licensing system in place already as well as many government agencies designated to 'keep the peace' on the roads.

Damian

Treo
November 16, 2008, 07:52 PM
I am positive that most of the respondants to this poll have the best intentions and I agree that keeping guns out of the hands of criminal is an admirable (albeit impossible) goal.

My fear is that you are going to follow your good intentions straight into a unilateral gun ban.

I would rather live in a free society W/ armed criminals than exist in a slave state W/armed criminals (please note that the criminals are armed either way) .

Freedom isn't safe guys if you haven't caught that by now you won't get it from me.

M203Sniper
November 16, 2008, 07:58 PM
here is another question... would you sell a very high powered car to a young man? What about a dangerous car to a 16 year old girl?


I can't do either of those things... I would feel horride if I found out they killed themselfs or others.

Me being able to sleep at night is the most important thing...

Then you shouldn't be driving an automobile.


:cool:

Geno
November 16, 2008, 08:03 PM
No, I would not. I sell to fellow MCPL-holders, so in doing so, I know they are not criminals.

The Deer Hunter
November 16, 2008, 08:10 PM
No. I would never sell a firearm to anybody I don't know, or anybody that I do know that I think would use it for the wrong purposes. If I had to get rid of a gun, I would sell it to a gun shop before selling it to Joe somebody.


So what you're (the people who voted yes) trying to say is we need to spend more money and effort on a failed system, wow that sounds familiar. I will say again and maybe it will hit home, A CRIMINAL COMMITS CRIMES NO MATTER THE TOOLS INVOLVED. And if you are going to tell me that a crime has never been committed by a car, a pen, or ink (think reckless driving, running off the road, false checks, poisoning, etc), then you really have to pull your head out of the sand and wake up from the garbage you are seeing in movies and TV. A gun is nothing more then a tool, its as simple as that. A tool should not require a background check at all because it implies that the person buying it is a criminal (think guilty before proven innocent) and goes against our fundamental ways. I wonder how interesting things would get if we need to conduct background checks on every purchase of a baseball bat, hammer, staple gun, nail gun, chainsaw, etc. Under the philosophy I am hearing here, all that seems reasonable. What about having to pass a background check at the bar or supermarket to make sure you are not a DUI risk? Sounds reasonable right? And I am really wondering if you are going to respond after this. Do you mean to tell me that a gun is more devastating than the amount of car accidents that take place constantly in this country? Funny though, we do have a licensing system in place already as well as many government agencies designated to 'keep the peace' on the roads.

Damian

Well Damian you have several very solid points but I think there is always going to be some sort of middel ground here. While I agree criminals are going to commit crimes no matter what, I think citizens should do the best they can to prevent them from obtaining firearms. I'm not saying that we should use NICS, but by selling to people you are familiar with.

And also, guns are tools, yes. So are hammers. In both cases the person behind the tool is consciously using the tool, yes. But there is a big difference between a .45 auto and a piece of Ash. Sure I wouldn't want to get hit by either but you cannot put them both in the same category.

TAB
November 16, 2008, 08:25 PM
Then you shouldn't be driving an automobile

so would you sell a car to some one that does not have a DL? same thing as selling a gun to some one that has not passed a background check...

Prince Yamato
November 16, 2008, 08:27 PM
I wouldn't mind NCIS being open to civilian sales (of anything), but obviously not mandatory. The positive side to opening it for sales of any product is that if someone argued it as unconstitutional for selling something like jeans, it would likewise be unconstitutional for something like firearms.

scythefwd
November 16, 2008, 08:46 PM
Teamprecision,
Your examples of dui's and cars killing someone. DUI's exist because someone legally bought alcohol and drank it and then drove. There are laws on the books that allow bars and restaurants to stop serving alcohol to people who are drunk. Reason for that is to not contribute to the problem. Cars killing people is usually an accident (I know better than most as my mother was killed in a car accident, as well as my uncle in a different one, and my aunt, two cousins and my grandfather were hit by two semis on halloween). I have buried too many people because of accidents, but thats all they were. The drivers didn't start out with the idea to commit a crime. For those to dui's to happen, the driver has to get alcohol. There is nothing legally stopping the driver from drinking, nor should there be since it can be done responsibly. I don't mean he can't get pissed. I mean he doesn't drive when he does which is against the law. In the case of a ncis check, there might be a reason to turn down the buyer, be it he is mental (but at the meeting in control and medicated), an ex felon, or say wanted on a warrent of some sort (I'll let the legal system sort it out before I arm him thank you). If you can show me a common place use of paper and pens (or any form of ink) that causes people to die, please show me. I don't think bounced checks kill people very often, nor does identity theft. Car use is regulated, and people do have their cars taken away, as well as the privilege to drive for misusing them. If I loan my car to someone that I know has a suspended license because of dui and he goes out an kills someone, then I am at least as responsible as he was because I gave him the tool. I don't loan my car to people who don't have licenses anyways. I do photo copy the license and give the copy back when I get my car back. Same as if I sell a gun to a felon who goes out and commits murder with it. IF I can limit the chances of a gun of mine getting into the wrong hands by my own actions, I will. This said, I do not support bans for people who can legally own a firearm (non felon). I will not sell to someone convicted of domestic violence. When your name is cleared of any DV, then feel free to come by and pick up your new gun.

22-rimfire
November 16, 2008, 09:23 PM
Assuming this is true...
TEN THOUSAND successful appeals to a NICS denial each year.

That's appalling.

I would be willing to bet that every one of those 10,000 are included and used as examples of how the NICs check works by the Brady group and it's supporters. They just don't go on to explain that the system mis-identifies people who are eligible to purchase and own a firearm. And politicians wonder why we distrust them with our freedoms?

so would you sell a car to some one that does not have a DL? same thing as selling a gun to some one that has not passed a background check...

Not the same thing at all really. It is a poor example and I would sell a high powered car that I own to a 16 year old with a DL who's parents gave their permission.

3pairs12
November 16, 2008, 09:36 PM
I voted no. If you tink for 1 second a felon were going to continue the ftf process after the mention nics you would be wrong. Would it be handy yes in some cases. I just wouldn't/won't sell a gun to somebody that I think I need to do a nics check on. I know hind sight is 20/20 and may possibly regret some transaction, but just because they passed nics doesn't mean that they can't turn crook/crazy later. Then you would be feeling the I should have known he seemed weird still going through all the what ifs.

Firethorn
November 16, 2008, 09:57 PM
I don't mind making it voluntary, assuming that it's such that it simply returns 'this guy is/is not qualified to own a gun', and doesn't store the query/results.

No need to ID the weapon being sold, no need for a transaction number. That's to make sure the ffl did the required for him check.

Kevin108
November 16, 2008, 10:13 PM
We don't need any additional government involvement on the sale of private property between adults.

CajunBass
November 16, 2008, 10:15 PM
No

Ok. The system won't take just plain "no," so I'll say it again.

No.

shotgunjoel
November 17, 2008, 01:22 AM
I think I would like the option. I would prefer to only sell guns to people I know, but if I sold to a stranger I would probably use the check.

1911 guy
November 17, 2008, 08:09 AM
I fear for our Republic. Those of you who are unfamiliar with the late Colonel Jeff Cooper, please hit the THR archives and acquaint yourselves with the concept of the "Nanny State". Then re-think the question. And maybe your answer.

In short, it is not the job, or the right, of government to dictate who can and cannot do anything. If you willingly abdicate your rights and responsibilities, don't act surprised when more are forcefully taken from you.

So some of you are in favor of more government involvement. That will change to blustering and stuttering when the next target, theoretical or real, is your particular firearm or type of weapon. Everyone wants to abandon a sinking ship. Stop betraying your fellow citizens and help man the bilges.

alsaqr
November 17, 2008, 08:29 AM
NICS requires an FFL dealer number. NICS makes an note of the dealer FFL, and the FFL makes a record of the transfer number.

That'd be a hard system to set up for private owners. First thing NICS would need to do is confirm that the seller lawfully possesses the firearm. That's basically "registration."

The state could always set up a "license" application protocol. Just like the transfer on an motor vehicle.

We need more red tape and license fees for our Second Amendment.


Best post on this thread.

We do not need the federal and state governments getting their snoopy long noses into private gun sales.

leadcounsel
November 17, 2008, 08:39 AM
Would you sell a car to someone with a suspended drivers license?

Would you sell a set of steakknives or a baseball bat to a stranger?

I think NICS is an invasion of privacy in general. To extend it to private sales is one step closer to outlawing private sales entirely.

TStorm
November 17, 2008, 07:49 PM
Would it be a good idea for the NICS to be accessible by the general public?

I think not. All you need is the required ID information and you are in like Flynn. You wouldn't need to confirm a gun purchase, just start checking people for kicks.

Its about as bad as being able to look up anyone's property purchase price and their taxes online.

Too much information.

SMMAssociates
November 17, 2008, 09:29 PM
Paranoid-R-Us, but my bet that the Feds counter to TStorm's ideas would be to keep a record of who asked, and the serial number of the gun in question....

:(

Regards,

ZombieHunter
November 17, 2008, 11:13 PM
I'm concerned that so many people on here say no. The OP's scenario has it as being: free, easy and voluntary.

I understand a gun is private property and a tool. But then again so are super computers and I don't want Iran having those.

It's not a slippery slope thing, it's a common sense thing. If the tools to prevent someone with a history of violence from purchasing a gun exist and you have the ability to use them you have the responsibility to use them.

American_Pit_Bull
November 17, 2008, 11:38 PM
Another serving of gun control, for me?

No, thank you.

mp510
November 17, 2008, 11:44 PM
In Connecticut, it's already required for ftf handgun tansfers. It's optional for ftf private long gun transfers. It is accessible to non-FFL's.

shiftyer1
November 18, 2008, 12:31 AM
Just out of curiosity, does anyone know the stats on how gun laws actually REDUCE crime? I've been around the block once or twice and I know that guns on the street are cheaper then on the legal market. Soooo, how does a law restricting gun sales stop a criminal from his crime? If someone is going to commit murder or other crimes how do these laws help? I understand strict laws on full auto and such as gun control but if ya really want or need a pistol u can find one, with or with out a mandatory backround check.

sorry i went out on a tangent for a minute but I really got to thinkin about that lately.

rbernie
November 18, 2008, 12:34 AM
Just out of curiosity, does anyone know the stats on how gun laws actually REDUCE crime?There are none.

The FBI keeps stats on many folk are disallowed from buying firearms each year via NICS. The FBI's stats show that at least 8% of these rejections each year are successfully appealed.

There is no knowing how many rejections are inappropriate but never appealed.

There is no data to correlate NICS rejection rates to violent crime rates.

There is ample data to illustrate that even complete gun prohibitions (a la the UK) do not reduce violent crime.

In my opinion, NICS is a sham. It pretends to make you safer and yet cannot deliver on that promise (because nobody can).

zminer
November 18, 2008, 12:34 AM
In Connecticut, it's already required for ftf handgun tansfers. It's optional for ftf private long gun transfers. It is accessible to non-FFL's.

How does this work? And is it free? I'm really surprised to hear that this is actually being used somewhere. It seemed like a lot of the criticisms that people have brought up are pretty valid.

shiftyer1
November 18, 2008, 01:44 AM
I would assume if all these laws were sucessful they would proudly flaunt them. Of course I also believe that if ya take away all then firearms and edged tools folks will use use sticks and rocks. Silly me. I would assume that increased firearm ownership would equal lower crime rates????? I watched an episode of cops las nite and there was a burglery and the homeowner shot the bad guy. The homeowner also played dumb after shooting the bad guy. Because he was scared of the consequences of protecting hisself in his own home. HOW IS THIS ACTION WRONG? What should he be afraid of? Is your life not a god given RIGHT?

HarleyFixer
November 18, 2008, 10:40 AM
I would not use it for several reasons.

A. I do not sell guns. I quit in 1975. I ONLY buy guns.
B. I would not sell a gun to someone I don't know. (one of my buds would buy it)
C. The Gov needs to leave us alone and let us go about our lives WITHOUT watching everything we do.

RKBABob
November 18, 2008, 11:16 AM
Other.

I'd love to use it when selling a firearm... i don't want any of mine to fall into a criminal's hands, after all.

I'd prefer not to use it while buying in a face-to-face transaction... I don't want the government knowing that I'm buying.

Treo
November 18, 2008, 01:00 PM
Your weapons are your private property it is your right to disposition them as you wish and I respect that. My opinion is that no one should have to prove their eligibility to purchase, own or posses a firearm. Because as soon as the restriction is in place the government (Just to be clear I view all government beyond municipal as evil) will find a way to apply it to everybody. Once they find a way to apply the restriction to everybody (be advised we’re heading into black helicopter territory) they will disarm everybody then they will decide how you raise your kids, what you teach them, where you live (If you live) and what you do for a living.

Do you somehow think that the same country that produced David Duke or Charles Manson couldn’t produce a Pol Pot or Josef Stalin? For that matter ask any Deaf person about Alexander Graham Bell’s plan to sterilize all deaf people so they couldn’t pass on the genetic defect, yup that happened right here in American and a lot of people bought it that’s why Deaf schools were started.

The purpose of this rant is to express my fears for the short-term future (I don’t think we have a long-term future) of this country. I believe that there is a plan in place to disarm us and give away our sovereignty to some concept of a world socialist government. And I believe that the current police state tactics, is just a way to get people used to being herded, hence my “virulent anti police” stance. I also believe that every single piece of gun control legislation introduced from NFA to Brady two was aimed at doing just that.
And that is the reason that I am so vehement against even the slightest infringement of my sovereign rights by the police or any restriction placed on the free transfer of firearms between consenting adults.

mgregg85
November 18, 2008, 01:19 PM
I'm conflicted on it but it sounds like such a voluntary system would play merry hell with tort lawyers.

If you sold a gun to a nut without doing the NICS check and then he went and shot some people, you could count on being sued in a week.

mp510
November 18, 2008, 01:24 PM
How does this work? And is it free? I'm really surprised to hear that this is actually being used somewhere. It seemed like a lot of the criticisms that people have brought up are pretty valid.

It is free (for both dealers and private persons). All transactions from dealers and ALL transactions at gunshows go through NICS and require DPS paperwork. Private long gun sales are NICS-opptional, and most people don't do them (since many transfers are between friends/ people who know or trust eachother).

http://www.ct.gov/dps/cwp/view.asp?a=2158&Q=294488&dpsNav=|

TeamPrecisionIT
November 18, 2008, 01:26 PM
Teamprecision,
Your examples of dui's and cars killing someone. DUI's exist because someone legally bought alcohol and drank it and then drove. There are laws on the books that allow bars and restaurants to stop serving alcohol to people who are drunk. Reason for that is to not contribute to the problem. Cars killing people is usually an accident (I know better than most as my mother was killed in a car accident, as well as my uncle in a different one, and my aunt, two cousins and my grandfather were hit by two semis on halloween). I have buried too many people because of accidents, but thats all they were. The drivers didn't start out with the idea to commit a crime. For those to dui's to happen, the driver has to get alcohol. There is nothing legally stopping the driver from drinking, nor should there be since it can be done responsibly. I don't mean he can't get pissed. I mean he doesn't drive when he does which is against the law. In the case of a ncis check, there might be a reason to turn down the buyer, be it he is mental (but at the meeting in control and medicated), an ex felon, or say wanted on a warrent of some sort (I'll let the legal system sort it out before I arm him thank you). If you can show me a common place use of paper and pens (or any form of ink) that causes people to die, please show me. I don't think bounced checks kill people very often, nor does identity theft. Car use is regulated, and people do have their cars taken away, as well as the privilege to drive for misusing them. If I loan my car to someone that I know has a suspended license because of dui and he goes out an kills someone, then I am at least as responsible as he was because I gave him the tool. I don't loan my car to people who don't have licenses anyways. I do photo copy the license and give the copy back when I get my car back. Same as if I sell a gun to a felon who goes out and commits murder with it. IF I can limit the chances of a gun of mine getting into the wrong hands by my own actions, I will. This said, I do not support bans for people who can legally own a firearm (non felon). I will not sell to someone convicted of domestic violence. When your name is cleared of any DV, then feel free to come by and pick up your new gun.

So what you're saying is that in your life you have made your own changes and the government had nothing to do with it? I am sorry for your loss(es) (just to interject that). So, can I ask you question, in regards to the rest of the post. If a guy goes to a bar and drinks and then gets a DUI, is the bar legally responsible for his actions?

I voted no. If you tink for 1 second a felon were going to continue the ftf process after the mention nics you would be wrong. Would it be handy yes in some cases. I just wouldn't/won't sell a gun to somebody that I think I need to do a nics check on. I know hind sight is 20/20 and may possibly regret some transaction, but just because they passed nics doesn't mean that they can't turn crook/crazy later. Then you would be feeling the I should have known he seemed weird still going through all the what ifs.

So YOU are not responsible for said clowns action, right? So a background check is irrelevant to preventing a crime from happening, correct? So, like I have said prior, it is the criminals action that needs to be dealt with. What happens prior to that is irrelevant. Are we going to go all 'Minority Report' and have people getting arrested on the thought of committing a crime? Does that sound anything like freedom?

Damian

BlacklabelOP
November 18, 2008, 01:35 PM
heck no!

scythefwd
November 18, 2008, 02:46 PM
So what you're saying is that in your life you have made your own changes and the government had nothing to do with it? I am sorry for your loss(es) (just to interject that). So, can I ask you question, in regards to the rest of the post. If a guy goes to a bar and drinks and then gets a DUI, is the bar legally responsible for his actions?


Actually yes, the bar can be held liable. They are all called dram shop laws.

qwert65
November 18, 2008, 04:50 PM
IF it's voluntary couldnt criminals just do a "straw purchase" on ftuf sales like they do now? if it's mandaotory couldn't they do the same thing and report it stolen?

Couldn't criminals just use a fake ID?

Fact is if you want to be sure no one will commit crimes with a gun you sell the only way is not to sell it.

As for mental health if tey're clever enough to use a ftf transfer they prob are not on a list yet. If it's a high school shooting they're under 18 I belive those records are kept private.

Nics prevents zero crimes extending it might make you sleep better at night but you'd just be lying to yourself

expvideo
November 18, 2008, 04:54 PM
If it was free and purely optional, absolutely.

goon
November 18, 2008, 04:59 PM
I'd use it.
If it is voluntary and there are no records kept, what's the problem.

Treo
November 18, 2008, 05:02 PM
If it is voluntary and there are no records kept, what's the problem.
If ya gotta ask you'll never know
__________________

CoRoMo
November 18, 2008, 05:07 PM
I think the government has infringed more than enough.
I do NOT want to add to that infringement.

rr2241tx
November 18, 2008, 05:26 PM
No! I would not use NCIS for a ftf sale, not if it was free, not if the **&&^&*& government PAID me to use it. What part of "... shall not be infringed." do you not understand? The Constitution does not categorize eligibility to keep and bear arms. Every psychopath and drug-dealing thug in the country has at least one gat in his pocket all the time, so why shouldn't everyone else? It sounds like foil-hat material, but registration is the first step to confiscation and NCIS checks create an archived record that sooner or later somebody is going to use. They're supposed to destroy the record 24 hours after approval, but the Government never deletes anything, they back it up and refuse to look it up until the right Congressman asks for it to be looked up.

Government of the people, for the people, by the people. We're down to one of three.

30 cal slob
November 18, 2008, 05:34 PM
i would like to have the choice to use it, for peace of mind and some civil liability cover.

in my state, ftf handgun sales have to be approved by the state police (similar to running nics) over the phone. i actually like that.

i have the choice of doing same with a ftf long gun transfer, and frequently do use that option, unless the transferee is somebody i know well.

goon
November 18, 2008, 07:08 PM
If ya gotta ask you'll never know

Apparently not.

You want to sell a rifle. You place an advertisement and some guy replies that he wants to buy it. Where is the problem with being able to run a check to make sure that the guy is legal to own your gun?
How is that in infringement on anyone's rights?
How does that prevent a "good guy" from being able to own a firearm?

Explain this to me and I'll admit the error of my ways.

rbernie
November 19, 2008, 12:30 AM
How does that prevent a "good guy" from being able to own a firearm?
What if this guy turns out to be one of the over ten thousand buyers that NIC erroneously identifies as a prohibited person EACH YEAR?

More to the point - if the check comes back clean - how do you know any more about whether the gun will be used for bad purposes than you did before you did the check?

You don't.

The NICS check provides the ASSUMPTION of validity for the prospective buyer without any way to know actual validity.

By the DoJ statistics - the majority of guns used in a crime are bought by folks who were legal to buy it when they acquired it.

So how did NICS help, again?

NICS is a prime example or prior restraint - keeping someone from doing something or having something because it MIGHT be used for bad purposes until the person is 'proven' OK. I always thought that our value straucture presumed innocence until proven guilty - not the other way around.

Hoplophile
November 19, 2008, 12:41 AM
I would if I felt like it. For example, if I was selling to a friend and wanted to pester him about that speeding ticket he got :-)

In all seriousness, would I use it? Rarely. Would I APPRECIATE it and enjoy the OPTION? Probably, so long as it wasn't mandatory.

Treo
November 19, 2008, 02:40 AM
Listen and understand, that Gungrabber is out there. It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop until you are ...disarmed

Do you guys really think that the left is so stupid that they actually think gun control lowers crime? Hello, they live in D.C. they know it doesn't but they will hide behind that reasoning to take your guns away.

Every inch you give them is an inch they will never ever give back They don't care about crime statistics, they don't care how many crimes are stopped every year because somebody had a firearm. They want your guns and when (note I didn't say if) they get them they will set out to prove to the world that the only reason Socialism hasn't worked ever, anywhere it's ever been tried is because it hasn't been tried by Americans.

What does this have to do with the topic at hand?

Every restriction you put on the sale or the ownership or the possession of a firearm is one that they don't have to.

Do you not realize that you're all parroting their logic?

You're imposing "common sense, reasonable restrictions" on the sale of your firearms to make sure that they don't get into the hands of criminals and people that shouldn't have them.

And I bet you I can find an Obama quote that says the same thing.

Bottom line, I'd rather give away a gun to someone I knew was a criminal than give one inch to Sarah Brady.

distra
November 19, 2008, 07:09 AM
CT does for handgun FTF sales. The seller calls the state with the permitees number and they do the NICS. The seller gets an authorization number and must send the paper work to the state. The seller is also required to keep the paper work for 5 years. Long guns and the state does not get involved.

Caeser2001
November 19, 2008, 06:06 PM
I would only sell to my friends w/o out it that I know have clear background and that it's legal.

larry starling
November 19, 2008, 06:09 PM
NO! If the buyer has a CCW I would sell to him. If no I wouldn't!

TAB
November 19, 2008, 06:13 PM
question for you larry, how do you know thier CCW card is real or not?

The reason why I ask is I've seen fake contracting cards( issued by the state)that were fake, invalid or someone elses.

Treo
November 19, 2008, 06:16 PM
NO! If the buyer has a CCW I would sell to him. If no I wouldn't!

The difference being ...what?

Mannlicher
November 19, 2008, 07:11 PM
none of the governments business. period.

some of you guys are making this WAY too difficult.

DSAPT9
November 20, 2008, 06:07 AM
I under stand both sides but I would say no, I would not. It would be no different than selling a car and doing a police check to see if the person has had a DUI. He might get drunk and kill some body on his way home. Or doing a police check on someone before selling a TV or computer because they might be a sex offender and look at kiddy porn on it. Where do they draw the line?

I work in a sporting goods store behind the gun counter part time and do the checks all day and donít agree with them now. Like someone all ready said you have to provide a FFL number to Identify the dealer/store so I figure you would have to identify your self say with a SSN, then provide the vitals on the new buyer before the transfer takes place. Is this not registration? Then what, a title so we have to go to the DGT office (Department of Gun Transfer) to transfer our gun to the new owner.

I guess in my old age I am getting tired of having to give up what I consider rights because the government feels it is for my safety. When I was in the Army they were more than happy to send me out to die for American freedoms that as a civilian they want to take away. If you volunteer to do something then over time it becomes the norm and should be mandatory. So the answer is no.

If you enjoyed reading about "Would you use NICS for FTF sales?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!