Thought experiment RE: private sales of firearms


PDA






ngnrd
January 16, 2013, 08:01 PM
Right or wrong, good or bad, we currently have laws prohibiting the possession of firearms by certain individuals. And, I believe that most people would concede that, at least in the case of violent criminals, or the mentally disturbed that pose an imminent threat to themselves or others, such prohibitions are warranted. Indeed, such is the impetus of the NICS system already in place for commercial sales of firearms. So, in an effort to keep the guns out of the hands of ne'er-do-well's that would attempt to circumvent the NICS check through private purchases of legal firearms from otherwise law abiding citizens (which I think is a good goal), I would like to discuss the registration and control of those prohibited individuals in regard to private sales of firearms; specifically, some type of marking of State issued ID cards (driver's license, etc.) that would clearly indicate that the card carrier was prohibited to possess firearms.

As the system is imagined, any person lawfully excluded from the right to possess firearms (i.e., convicted of a violent felony or determined to be of such mental state as to be a threat to society at large) would have their State issued ID marked "NO FIREARMS". This would allow those seeking to transfer their firearms through private sale the ability to make a reasonable determination of the legality of such a sale, without putting the burden on the seller, and without infringing on the rights of either party involved in the sale. If you want to sell a firearm, all you would need to do is check an ID. As a buyer, all you would need to do is provide ID that does not indicate that you are prohibited. I don’t see this as any more of an infringement, and certainly no more an inconvenience, than showing ID to write a check at the grocery store, or to rent a car. The burden of proof that the transaction is valid is placed on the buyer, and the seller has a quick method to determine such.

Of course, I am realistic enough to realize that there would be no guaranty that every seller would check the ID of every buyer. And, as far as I know, there is no universal requirement that individuals posses a State issued ID. But, for those that wish to be reasonably assured that they are not transferring their firearms directly to a prohibited person, a quick ID check would be sufficient. And if a buyer either can't, or won’t show ID, any seller of good character would simply cancel the transaction. Sure, an unscrupulous seller could (and by definition, would) ignore this process and transfer a firearm to an unverified person anyway. In fact, there would still be many ways that a prohibited person could come to illegally possess a firearm. This could simply be a tool that could be used to provide a convenient method to provide some level of assurance that private transfers do not circumvent the intent of background checks for commercial sales; a group of honest gun owners policing themselves, per say.

Obviously, this would take some time to fully implement, and I am certainly not advocating that the States recall all ID's to do thorough background checks on everybody. However, whenever any ID's are issued or renewed, they could be easily checked against a list of prohibited persons, and then marked accordingly for any such persons found. So within one renewal cycle, all prohibited persons would have ID's marked as such. And there could be no list created that would provide any indication that any particular individual possesses, or is intending to possess a firearm, and no tracking of the number or types of firearms bought or sold, since essentially everybody would be checked against the “May Not Possess” list. Of course, there would need to be a legitimate system in place to address and correct any false positives.

Truthfully, although I have gone through the NICS check, I’ll freely admit that I don’t know what all that particular background check involves on the other side of the phone. And, maybe under more through scrutiny than I have given it, this would essentially equate to a universal background check, which I would not be in favor of because of the possibility of abuse of the collected data. But, I think it’s a unique enough idea that it’s worth a discussion. I do know that I, as a legal and honorable gun owner, wouldn’t want any of my (formerly owned) firearms to be used in crime simply because I unknowingly sold one to a prohibited person. A system like I have described may provide some reasonable assurance that I am not an unwitting part of the problem, without including me in some database of gun owners (which I’m sure I’m already on at this point).

What say the HighRoader’s? Good? Bad? Not necessary? Not effective? Reasonable? Overbearing? Negative effects I haven't thought of? Let's talk about it.



footnote: This idea spawned from the system in place in Alaska that places "ALCOHOL RESTRICTED" on the driver's licenses of individuals prohibited by the court to purchase alcohol.

If you enjoyed reading about "Thought experiment RE: private sales of firearms" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Isaac-1
January 16, 2013, 08:10 PM
Wow, good luck here, I just suggested allowing voluntary hotline access for NICS checks for private sellers and got chewed out for it accused of selling out to the anti's etc.

TurtlePhish
January 16, 2013, 08:23 PM
Other than cost and time to implement, I really don't see any problems with it. I'd support it.

chipcom
January 16, 2013, 08:24 PM
Compare the levels of gun violence we had prior to 1968 to the levels we have today when we have so many new laws, restrictions and background checks. Obviously all the new laws, restrictions and checks haven't been very effective, have they.

Background checks are feel-good BS at best...a vehicle that a government can use to deny you your rights at worst. How about we try to address root causes, rather than constantly attempting to treat symptoms both real and imagined.

wagon.driver
January 16, 2013, 08:26 PM
Driver's licenses last like six years. So...some dude gets on the bad list and the state mails him his new NO FIREARMS card. He keeps the old one...flashes to unsuspecting seller. Crime committed. No good, sorry.

ngnrd
January 16, 2013, 08:31 PM
Cost is certainly a valid issue. I wonder how system for the "Alcohol Prohibited" label is funded...?

ngnrd
January 16, 2013, 08:42 PM
Driver's licenses last like six years. So...some dude gets on the bad list and the state mails him his new NO FIREARMS card. He keeps the old one...flashes to unsuspecting seller. Crime committed. No good, sorry.

I already stated that this would take time to fully implement, so the "6 years" statement has already been addressed.

But, the issue of flashing an old ID is certainly valid. So how about this...If "dude" gets flagged, he has to go to a DMV to either turn in his expired card, or contest the findings, before another will be issued.

But, I suppose that wouldn't keep "dude" from claiming his ID was lost. So, how 'bout this... An honorable seller could simply take two seconds to check the expiration date of the buyer's ID while he was looking for the Prohibited tag.

NavyLCDR
January 16, 2013, 08:43 PM
How about this....if a person is too violent to own a gun, then don't let them walk freely among law abiding citizens in society?

theautobahn
January 16, 2013, 08:43 PM
Do the opposite. Pass a NICS check (one time, or possibly annual renewal), get an "ok to buy guns" license (like a CCW) saying you're good to go. Show license to person, sale.

Or if you wanted to go one further, give a PIN with the license, the seller would call in to NICS to verify the license and PIN - sale! (this would prevent the arguments that the gun buyer licenses could be stolen [although I would recommend picture ID's]).

theautobahn
January 16, 2013, 08:45 PM
LCDR- if I ever make it out to WA, I'll have to look you up and buy you a drink. :)

Lupinus
January 16, 2013, 08:46 PM
No.

We need to be working BACK from NICS, why on Earth should we be embracing that the government has the right to grant or deny our rights.

And on drivers licenses no less. Of all the government organizations to get involved, you want to involve the DMV? Have you been to the DMV in some states? I don't trust these idiots to be in in charge of licenses to use roller blades, the hell I want them near my right to bear arms?

Avenger29
January 16, 2013, 08:50 PM
Jesus christ yall are worse than the French what with falling all over yourselves to surrender to the enemy

Ohio Gun Guy
January 16, 2013, 08:51 PM
The leap of faith in all laws is that people follow them. The assumption here is that criminals would be found out and simply go away.....

I believe, this or any scheme will only make the black market for guns grow. Would it be a little harder, maybe. If there become enough people willing to break the law, and thus enter the illegal / black market it could actually make it easier. (Drugs)

ngnrd
January 16, 2013, 08:58 PM
Background checks are feel-good BS at best...

I don't necessarily disagree. Although I suppose it could be argued that background checks aren't effective because they are only done when purchasing firearms through commercial channels, and therefore, prohibited persons simply don't use commercial channels to acquire firearms.

Lupinus
January 16, 2013, 09:02 PM
Right.

Because the guy that stole his stock and is selling out out of the trunk is checking ID's....

Cosmoline
January 16, 2013, 09:03 PM
There's a much simpler solution. Never let any felon out of prison, and never let any dangerous madman out of they asylum. That used to be the way of the world. In fact they used to just kill every felon or banish him. And pretty much did likewise with dangerous madmen.

Realistically, though, it is far more difficult to argue against expansion of NICS than it is to argue against the absurdities of the AWB or an Australian style ban. And I'm just glad they haven't focused on it very effectively. We could certainly see an end to lawful private sales in our lifetimes.

chipcom
January 16, 2013, 09:04 PM
I don't necessarily disagree. Although I suppose it could be argued that background checks aren't effective because they are only done when purchasing firearms through commercial channels, and therefore, prohibited persons simply don't use commercial channels to acquire firearms.
Background checks will get you the low hanging fruit...but that's about it.

I felt sorry for all the poor schmucks who got the "further investigation required" response to their "instant" checks this past weekend at a gun show as the sales volume started ramping up...they simply don't have the resources to handle panic-level volumes.

chipcom
January 16, 2013, 09:06 PM
There's a much simpler solution. Never let any felon out of prison, and never let any dangerous madman out of they asylum. That used to be the way of the world. In fact they used to just kill every felon or banish him. And pretty much did likewise with dangerous madmen.

Realistically, though, it is far more difficult to argue against expansion of NICS than it is to argue against the absurdities of the AWB or an Australian style ban. And I'm just glad they haven't focused on it very effectively. We could certainly see an end to lawful private sales in our lifetimes.
and we'd end up with millions of people doing 100 year sentences for smoking a joint while murderers and banksters skate.

Cosmoline
January 16, 2013, 09:07 PM
Of course pot smoking, or any drug use, should have never been a crime to begin with let alone a felony. But that's another topic. The point is the list of felonies used to be very short and simple as were the punishments--hanging or beheading.

lloveless
January 16, 2013, 09:10 PM
We have 20,000 + gun laws. We don't need anymore. No gun law is going to keep some creep from killing. Look at Chicago, Britain etc.
ll

ngnrd
January 16, 2013, 09:12 PM
How about this....if a person is too violent to own a gun, then don't let them walk freely among law abiding citizens in society?
Fair enough. Although, I think you would admit that we would need either significantly more prisons, or a substantial shift in the way the country implements the death penalty if we won't let them walk among us. But, this discussion is really more about being responsible gun owners without having our rights infringed, than it is about what should be done about violent criminals.

Lupinus
January 16, 2013, 09:14 PM
Discussion on how to further ingrain an infringement IS an infringement

mjw930
January 16, 2013, 09:15 PM
I have a simple rule when making a face 2 face sale, you either have a valid concealed carry permit plus a matching DL or you are a member of my gun club which requires a background check to join plus DL. If doing my best to prevent a criminal or mentally defective person from getting a deadly weapon is giving in to the enemy then so be it.

I have no problem with universal background checks as long as they retain the same standards meaning the weapon is not listed on the form, recorded in the DB and the record of the check is purged within 24 hrs, just like it is today.

ngnrd
January 16, 2013, 09:21 PM
Discussion on how to further ingrain an infringement IS an infringement

I'm confused... How is this a discussion about ingraining an infringement? As I see it, this is a discussion about how to keep some number of firearms out of the hands of a portion of the population that been stripped of their rights by their own illegal actions. What's being infringed here?

Or are you advocating that everybody, even those who have been convicted of using firearms to commit heinous acts, should have the right to own firearms?

Lupinus
January 16, 2013, 09:26 PM
If they are safe enough to walk the street? Sure. If they aren't they shouldn't be walking the streets.

Of do you live in a dream where NICS keeps firearms out of the hands of criminals?

JVaughn
January 16, 2013, 09:31 PM
No, sorry, we can't keep the guns out of the criminals' hands no matter what we do.

Bad guy breaks into house, steals good guy's gun - bad guy has a gun outside the background check process.

Bad guy buys gun from other bad guy - bad guy has a gun outside the background check process.

Good guy sells gun without checking buyer's ID - bad guy has a gun outside background check process.

No gun laws, no restrictions, no checks, no registration - bad guy robs armed good guy, good guy shoots back - bad guy, now dead, no longer armed.

No gun laws, no restrictions, no checks, no registration - bad guy goes to school / work / theater and starts shooting, armed good guy shoots back - bad guy, now dead, no longer armed.

No gun laws, no restrictions, no checks, no registration - bad guy realizes good guys are everywhere, and unpredictably armed at any given time due to the lack of gun free zones in the country, bad guy thinks twice and no crime occurs.

you see where I am going with this...

ngnrd
January 16, 2013, 09:34 PM
I have a simple rule when making a face 2 face sale, you either have a valid concealed carry permit plus a matching DL or you are a member of my gun club which requires a background check to join plus DL.

I think that your personal policy is commendable. But alas, I neither have a CCW permit, nor am a member of any gun club. So, even though I am in no way prohibited from owning firearms, you have chosen to exclude me as a buyer. I agree with your reasons. But it certainly limits your market, doesn't it?

TennJed
January 16, 2013, 09:34 PM
We have people that are prohibited from drinking alcohol. Do we have background checks on everyone that purchases alcohol? (which BTW causes a lot more problems in society than guns ever will, but that is another story)

ngnrd
January 16, 2013, 09:39 PM
... do you live in a dream where NICS keeps firearms out of the hands of criminals?
Certainly not. But I don't think it's unreasonable to think that responsible gun owners should also be responsible gun sellers. Do you?

Lupinus
January 16, 2013, 09:42 PM
If it doesn't work to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals why on Earth should we expand it?

Hokkmike
January 16, 2013, 09:44 PM
Just code everybody's DL and eliminate point of sale checks....

tomrkba
January 16, 2013, 09:44 PM
I do not agree with background checks at all. They serve only the government for the purposes of confiscation and/or persecution at some level (healthcare provisoins are the next threat).

Prior to 1968, you could purchase a gun through the mail and they would send it to your home. They advertised in comic books and just about everywhere else.

We know for a fact that criminals acquire their guns through theft and other means. Background checks will stop a few purchases, but those people will go to friends, spouses, random people, or turn to crime, to get the guns they want.

It's a complete farce, just like the TSA garbage that goes on in the airports. Do not fall for the lies and propaganda. You are not supporting anything that does one bit of good.

armarsh
January 16, 2013, 09:48 PM
This idea would do nothing to stop mass murderers. It would create one more impediment to lawful gun owners. How is this a good thing?

I can think of several ways around what is proposed, so long as I don't care if I break the law.

ngnrd
January 16, 2013, 09:52 PM
We have people that are prohibited from drinking alcohol. Do we have background checks on everyone that purchases alcohol?
No. But, like I stated at the bottom of the OP, Alaska does provide a tool that is easily used to identify those who may not purchase alcohol by court order; a mark on their ID card.

My question is... if we can identify those that are prohibited from buying alcohol with a simple note on a State issued ID, why wouldn't that type of system work for those persons prohibited from purchasing firearms?

Maybe it wouldn't. That's why I wanted to have the discussion. But nothing in this thread so far, except for the comment about the cost to implement the program, has provided any indication that a similar system wouldn't work. Most of the comments against the system have been related to one of two things. Either - laws don't work, so we shouldn't have any laws, or - the notion that identifying prohibited persons somehow infringes on 2nd Amendment rights, which it doesn't, because by definition, prohibited persons don't have those rights.

Lupinus
January 16, 2013, 09:58 PM
Refresh my memory.

Which amendment guarantees the right to buy alcohol again?

BP44
January 16, 2013, 10:01 PM
It just might work......... More laws, rules, and regulations that is. Any unlawful person is sure to tremble :banghead: more laws will not solve anything and the unlawful will still do as they do.


when will folks understand this!!! when it's too late I suppose.

ngnrd
January 16, 2013, 10:12 PM
This idea would do nothing to stop mass murderers. It would create one more impediment to lawful gun owners. How is this a good thing?

I can think of several ways around what is proposed, so long as I don't care if I break the law.
First, I never said that this would stop mass murders.

Second, how is having the ability to check whether or not a buyer is a prohibited person an impediment to lawful gun owners?

Third, this is less about keeping criminals from breaking the law, than it is about providing a means for responsible gun owners to keep from being an unwitting part of criminal activity.

As an analogy, I understand that there are car thieves out there. And I also understand that if they really want my old pickup, they are going to take it. That doesn't stop me from rolling up my windows and locking my doors when I walk away from it. I even paid to have an alarm installed. I know that won't stop a real car thief. But, it might keep the punk kid down the street from starting his life of crime by rifling through my stuff. So I guess the question I'm trying to answer is... is the cost of the alarm worth the hassle, and will it actually be a deterrent?

mjw930
January 16, 2013, 10:13 PM
The DL flag is a good idea but the BATF doesn't even recognize my states CWP for whatever reason where they accept other states permits. It's unlikely we could get them to universally honor a DMV based check.

Old Fuff
January 16, 2013, 10:15 PM
I don't think that many members really understand how NICS works.

First of all, only FFL dealers can make NICS background checks, and then only when selling or otherwise transferring a firearm to an unlicensed person (read that to usually mean a retail buyer).

The dealer cannot make a check until they have first made out a #4473 form with personal details about the buyer and specifics about the firearm(s).

The dealer then calls NICS, and reading off the form tells the party on the other end some of the buyer's personal information, as it is entered on the #4473 form. This information is keyboarded and checked against a database, after which the buyer will pass, be denied, or put on hold for up to 3 working days. No specific information is transmitted about the firearm. However the dealer is given a number that he has to enter on the form, and since NICS retains that number tracking back to the #4473 form is relatively easy.

Many private sellers believe that they would be personally able to make background checks without the information being retained. This isn't true, and it isn't the game plan. What's intended is to force ALL firearm transfers go through an FFL, and in the process create the basis for a database containing information about guns and they’re owners, which in time could lead to registration and then outlawing or confiscation of certain classes of firearms.

Be careful for what you wish for, because you might get it.

ngnrd
January 16, 2013, 10:23 PM
Refresh my memory.

Which amendment guarantees the right to buy alcohol again?
None explicitly. Although one could argue that the 21st Amendment, which repealed its prohibition, does.

Are those of you that are holding to the position that there should be no gun laws actually advocating that those whom use guns to commit violent and heinous crimes, preserve their right to keep and bear arms?

ngnrd
January 16, 2013, 10:26 PM
...more laws will not solve anything and the unlawful will still do as they do.

I don't believe I said anything about creating more laws. I am simply asking if identifying prohibited persons would be a benefit to responsible gun owners wishing to sell a firearm.

ngnrd
January 16, 2013, 10:38 PM
Many private sellers believe that they would be personally able to make background checks without the information being retained. This isn't true, and it isn't the game plan. What's intended is to force ALL firearm transfers go through an FFL, and in the process create the basis for a database containing information about guns and they’re owners, which in time could lead to registration and then outlawing or confiscation of certain classes of firearms.

Fuff... I am not talking about having either individuals or the DMV conduct NICS checks. And, I am definitely not a proponent of NICS checks for all firearm transfers. I would like to find a way to keep a database like you are describing from ever happening. This is precisely why I think my proposed system could be a better path. Everybody gets a cursory check when their ID is issued/renewed. Those who are prohibited are marked as such. There would be no way to compile a database because virtually everybody would be in it. If you want to talk about NICS checks for commercial/retail transfers, that's a different discussion. This would simply be a way for a private seller to identify prohibited buyers without infringing on the rights of either the seller, or the buyer.

mjw930
January 16, 2013, 10:43 PM
Many private sellers believe that they would be personally able to make background checks without the information being retained. This isn't true, and it isn't the game plan. What's intended is to force ALL firearm transfers go through an FFL, and in the process create the basis for a database containing information about guns and they’re owners, which in time could lead to registration and then outlawing or confiscation of certain classes of firearms.

Wrong!

According to the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004 (or ‘‘Omnibus’’), requires the NICS to destroy ‘‘any identifying information submitted by or on behalf of any person who has been determined not to be prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/federal-register-july-23-2004-on-nics

Even though the FFL retains the paper copy there is no linkage to any federal data base and nothing we know indicates they plan on overturning these provisions. Until we have details it's all speculation.

Old Fuff
January 16, 2013, 11:13 PM
According to the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004 (or ‘‘Omnibus’’), requires the NICS to destroy ‘‘any identifying information submitted by or on behalf of any person who has been determined not to be prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm.

Sure... So why do they give the dealer a number that must be entered on the #4473 form?

Even though the FFL retains the paper copy there is no linkage to any federal data base and nothing we know indicates they plan on overturning these provisions. Until we have details it's all speculation.
Today 03:38 AM

And of course they would never go out and collect those #4473 forms which the dealer is supposed to retain for 20 years...

Obviously those who want registration and bans cannot accomplish their goal if (as they claim) 40% of gun sales do not go through a formal background check. They must find some way to establish a paper trail on that 40%. Forcing private sales to go through an FFL dealer's bound book and #4473 forms could give them what they want.

What the president is trying to accomplish is no longer speculation.

brboyer
January 16, 2013, 11:15 PM
Fuff... I am not talking about having either individuals or the DMV conduct NICS checks. And, I am definitely not a proponent of NICS checks for all firearm transfers. I would like to find a way to keep a database like you are describing from ever happening. This is precisely why I think my proposed system could be a better path. Everybody gets a cursory check when their ID is issued/renewed. Those who are prohibited are marked as such. There would be no way to compile a database because virtually everybody would be in it. If you want to talk about NICS checks for commercial/retail transfers, that's a different discussion. This would simply be a way for a private seller to identify prohibited buyers without infringing on the rights of either the seller, or the buyer.

So you are suggesting everyone in the US must go through a NICS check and those prohibited are somehow so indicated on their DL? Well, you just infringed on my rights, by forcing me to go through a check even though you have no reasonable belief I have ever committed a crime, nor ever intend to even purchase a firearm?

And your plan would create a database of everyone. Or do you suggest that there be some magical computer program that prints "Felon" on the DL, then magically just forgets it just did that, then erases the memory of the DMV clerk?

So, that's your proposal, we want to be fair, so we infringe on everyone's rights and not just gun buyer's? Great Idea!

And this 'mark' on the DL, it would be something secret right, something that only a private gun seller would know to look for? Not that it would ever be used by an employer, or an apartment manager, or the police, right? Oh, that's right, they would not be issued the secret decoder ring would they? :banghead:

Where do people come up with this stuff? :cuss:

armarsh
January 16, 2013, 11:17 PM
First, I never said that this would stop mass murders.

Second, how is having the ability to check whether or not a buyer is a prohibited person an impediment to lawful gun owners?

Third, this is less about keeping criminals from breaking the law, than it is about providing a means for responsible gun owners to keep from being an unwitting part of criminal activity.

As an analogy, I understand that there are car thieves out there. And I also understand that if they really want my old pickup, they are going to take it. That doesn't stop me from rolling up my windows and locking my doors when I walk away from it. I even paid to have an alarm installed. I know that won't stop a real car thief. But, it might keep the punk kid down the street from starting his life of crime by rifling through my stuff. So I guess the question I'm trying to answer is... is the cost of the alarm worth the hassle, and will it actually be a deterrent?

To further your analogy - I support your decision to buy a car alarm. That does not give you the right to force me to buy one even if it makes no sense for my situation.

Your idea causes time and money to be expended for no gain. That is an impediment. How large of an impediment depends on the implementation. When some bureaucrat marks you as "not allowed " by mistake or fiat and you have to fight it in court, that would be an impediment that some would not be able to overcome.

I mentioned this would be easy to get around if you were a criminal. Have you never heard of fake ID's? Criminals use them. How is this an improvement if you sell to a criminal with a fake ID?

brboyer
January 16, 2013, 11:18 PM
I don't believe I said anything about creating more laws. I am simply asking if identifying prohibited persons would be a benefit to responsible gun owners wishing to sell a firearm.
No, they will just get their baby-momma to buy it for them, just like they can do today!

ngnrd
January 16, 2013, 11:39 PM
After going back and reading all of the replies again, I think I should clarify something.

I'm not describing a national background check, run by the Federal government. That program already exists, and is limited to commercial/retail sales of firearms. What I'm describing is a State run program wherein each State uses its own existing database of felons, or violent offenders, or whatever other criteria is allowed by their individual Constitutions, to provide a means to identify prohibited individuals during a private sale.

I don't know if that makes it better or worse. But, I still think it's worth discussing.

ngnrd
January 16, 2013, 11:47 PM
No, they will just get their baby-momma to buy it for them, just like they can do today!
Are you saying that there would be no benefit to such a program?

And again, I understand that criminals are very adept at finding ways of circumventing the law. But is it your position that because of this we should have no law at all?

BP44
January 16, 2013, 11:52 PM
I'm sorry I jumped to conclusions and stated the lawless will always be lawless and more laws won't solve anything. You might be right and this will go into effect with hopes and fairy dust. My guess is it would take higher action tho:rolleyes:

Remember, a compromise is just the start and if you can't see that your a foolish individual.

hogshead
January 16, 2013, 11:56 PM
To many laws now. Unless I am mistaken this law you are proposing would have done absolutly no good on any of the mass shootings of late.If your so concerned about selling to a prohibited person require a CCP or go through a ffl.

ngnrd
January 17, 2013, 12:00 AM
To further your analogy - I support your decision to buy a car alarm. That does not give you the right to force me to buy one even if it makes no sense for my situation.

Your idea causes time and money to be expended for no gain. That is an impediment. How large of an impediment depends on the implementation. When some bureaucrat marks you as "not allowed " by mistake or fiat and you have to fight it in court, that would be an impediment that some would not be able to overcome.

I mentioned this would be easy to get around if you were a criminal. Have you never heard of fake ID's? Criminals use them. How is this an improvement if you sell to a criminal with a fake ID?

All valid points.

As I mentioned earlier, the cost of such a program is an issue for which I have not seen any good solution. And, false positives could certainly prove to be a serious problem. Fake ID's? Yes, that could reduce the program's effectiveness. But, again... I know that a real car thief will steal my truck if he wants it. Isn't it my duty as a responsible car owner to remove the keys and lock the doors anyway? Or is it better to just leave everything open because I know that criminals don't respect locks?

beatledog7
January 17, 2013, 12:07 AM
We've been looking at this backwards for decades.

At the zoo, they keep the potentially dangerous animals in cages; visitors can view them, but there's no direct interaction. If the animals were allowed to interact with the public, many injuries and deaths to innocent people could and probably would occur, so the animals remain caged. We don't declaw and defang them then let them go on their merry way.

Yet we allow people who are known to be dangerous out of their cages to walk freely among us. We think we can instead cage all the firearms, in effect declawing and defanging the bad actors, and then expect that they will not harm anyone. We don't want to seem uncaring about these people, so we let them out but prohibit them from growing new claws and fangs. The trouble is, the ones who really miss their claws and fangs always find a way to grow new ones.

The way to keep dangerous animals from their using claws and fangs on the public is to prevent their interaction with the public, and we do that. The only way to keep violent criminals and the insane from using firearms on the public is to prevent their interaction with the public, but we don't do that.

ngnrd
January 17, 2013, 12:22 AM
To many laws now. Unless I am mistaken this law you are proposing would have done absolutly no good on any of the mass shootings of late.If your so concerned about selling to a prohibited person require a CCP or go through a ffl.
I haven't proposed any law. Nor am I advocating for any new laws to be put in place. And I never claimed that any mass shootings would have been prevented. Please do not try to make this into more than what it is. And, what it is, is a discussion about a possible method to easily identify prohibited persons relative to a private transfer of a firearm.

Good point about currently having the ability to make a private transfer through an FFL. But, that would definitely be inconvenient, and would certainly add to the cost of the sale. Say a coworker wants to buy a pistol from me. Instead of a quick look at an ID card in the parking lot, we have to find an FFL that will do private transfers and meet there after work, but during his business hours, wait for him to finish helping other customers, and then pay him to call it in. Sure, it could be done that way. But, why does it need to be so inconvenient?

And, the suggestion to see a buyers CCP wouldn't work here, as there is no law requiring one. So, that would reduce possible buyers to virtually zero.

ngnrd
January 17, 2013, 12:29 AM
The only way to keep violent criminals and the insane from using firearms on the public is to prevent their interaction with the public, but we don't do that.
I don't disagree. But, this discussion is not about spending money we don't have to build and operate new prisons. Nor is it about fundamentally changing the way the country views and implements the death penalty.

So, accepting the fact that such people walk among us, wouldn't you rather know who they are so you don't unknowingly sell them a firearm?

VA27
January 17, 2013, 12:37 AM
Simply have a toll-free number for NICS. Seller asks for ID, whips out cell phone and calls it in, getting a yes or no in minutes. Purely voluntary of course, but a wise seller will do it.

The fact that a criminal might just conk a seller on the head while he's on the phone and steal his gun (and his phone, shoes, etc.) is merely a bump in the road, or on the noggin, as the case may be.

Inconviencing the law abiding citizen while NOT doing anything to deter an actual criminal from obtaining a gun is an idea that is just so...liberal, that it's bound to garner support.

ngnrd
January 17, 2013, 12:52 AM
Inconviencing the law abiding citizen while NOT doing anything to deter an actual criminal from obtaining a gun is an idea that is just so...liberal, that it's bound to garner support.

What is so inconvenient about showing an ID? People do it every day for a multitude of reasons.

And, wow... Do you actually think that the threat of violence (getting conked on the head) is really a valid justification to not check if a buyer might be prohibited from purchasing a firearm? Really?

2ifbyC
January 17, 2013, 01:04 AM
You are concentrating on the tool as the reason for violence, not the criminal who is the real cause. If someone wants to commit violence, they have a lot of options to fulfill their mission.

Obama stated in effect that if we can save but one child’s life, the government has an obligation to try. Not so; safety and freedom are not good bed fellows. It is impossible for the government to accomplish this goal.

We as gun owners have no obligation as well. You have a right to choose to whom you will sell a gun. Set your own rules but don’t make it a national duty.

I am receptive to mandatory sentences and increased jail time to keep violent criminals out of society. Punishment should be harsh for the criminals, not law abiding gun owners.

BP44
January 17, 2013, 01:28 AM
So....... No

ngnrd
January 17, 2013, 01:43 AM
You are concentrating on the tool as the reason for violence, not the criminal who is the real cause.
Actually, I am simply looking at the feasibility of a common tool with which private sellers could identify prohibited buyers, in an effort to help keep such buyers from illegally obtaining firearms from unwary sellers. And, I haven't ever mentioned trying to make participation in such a program mandatory, national or otherwise. On the contrary, I specifically made a clarification that this discussion is about individual programs administered by each State individually. Please don't try to twist this into something that it's not.

Yet, although there has been a lot of irrelevant rhetoric about not needing laws because criminals don't follow them, and not infringing on rights, there has been very little input on why or how such a program wouldn't work, or any specifics regarding why it would be a bad idea.

1911 guy
January 17, 2013, 01:50 AM
Let's assume your plan is implemented and I have an I.D. that prevents me from owning a firearm.

So I'll just steal one.

BP44
January 17, 2013, 02:11 AM
1911 GUY
Now that's just cheating. Everyone knows that more rules, laws and regulations are sure to solve this.

ngnrd
January 17, 2013, 02:28 AM
Let's assume your plan is implemented and I have an I.D. that prevents me from owning a firearm.

So I'll just steal one.
Well, I suppose you could. So, I guess we should just give you a gun then, so that society won't be accused of forcing you to commit yet another crime when you do steal one. "Boo Hoo! Nobody would illegally sell me a gun, so I had to go and steal one... It's all your fault that I'm a criminal."

Seriously. Can anybody provide any legitimate input on the concept? Or can you only make lame excuses for not wanting to try to keep prohibited persons from buying firearms, and complain that any discussion about it is an infringement of your rights. C'mon guys. You're better than this.

1911 guy
January 17, 2013, 07:37 AM
You do realize that your argument is ignoring reality, then complaining about lack of "legitimate input"?

I consider any hypothesis that ignores reality to be seriously flawed and illigitimate. In other words, your idea sucks because it places a burden on the law abiding while ignoring the reality that criminals, by definition, do not obey laws that do not suit them.

So pretty much, my input is more legitimate than your concept. It includes reality.

wolfe
January 17, 2013, 07:49 AM
....

beatledog7
January 17, 2013, 07:50 AM
Seriously. Can anybody provide any legitimate input on the concept? Or can you only make lame excuses for not wanting to try to keep prohibited persons from buying firearms, and complain that any discussion about it is an infringement of your rights. C'mon guys. You're better than this.

I already gave you the answer, but you aren't listening. The only way to keep guns out of the hands of the "no gun for you" people is to keep them under 24-7 control in a place where they really cannot get a gun. No rule you can make will deter a determined rule breaker.

Now, I'll add that it is certainly conceivable that an insider could allow a prohibited person to acquire a gun--could even abet. So what you do is establish a chain of accountability to go with every prohibited person. For example, if Adam Lanza is a prohibited person due to a mental condition, make his primary guardian accountable to ensure he does not have access to any guns. Next, after her, perhaps another relative. If Lanza ever has a gun, that accountability chain is held liable. Do this, guarantee that the accountable chain of people will be in deep doo-doo if the person they're watching ever gets a gun, and that person won't get one.

If you can't get anyone to take that responsibility and accountability then the prohibited person gets removed from society, as in my first paragraph.

Also, extend personal accountability to the person who signs the release order for a person who's incarcerated for a violent crime or who is committed for insanity. That released person is either safe for release or not. If he or she then commits a crime, the person who signed the release is liable.

The point here is that we need to reestablish personal accountability. We need to blame these crimes on the people who commit them and/or the people who abet them by knowingly unleashing at-risk persons on society where they will eventually work their evil. People commit crimes; implements do not.

ngnrd
January 17, 2013, 09:39 AM
1911 and Beatledog, since we seem to be at an impasse, can you please answer the following two questions with a simple yes or no.


First: Do you understand that a court has the power to strip certain rights of criminals, as a condition of either incarceration, or parole? Note that I didn't ask if you agreed with it, just that you understand it.

And second: Would you willingly sell a firearm to a person if you knew that individual was barred by the courts from possessing firearms?

lloveless
January 17, 2013, 10:11 AM
ngnrd, you need to know the individual you are dealing with. You know there are kids who obtain alcohol though are prohibited from owning, buying or ingesting. So what you advocate is worthless. Yes, I spent the last 4 months in Barrow, Ak. 2 years ago I spent 3 months in Kotzebue and then 9 months in Anchorage. There is still plenty of alcohol abuse in your state regardless of what is on the ID.
ll

RetiredUSNChief
January 17, 2013, 10:22 AM
I've got a much better idea.

It's cheap to impliment and has relatively little maintenance.

Put a backstop behind the witness stand for violent criminal trials. Upon conviction for a violent crime, such as those committed using firearms and such, the criminal gets a choice:

Life imprisonment without parole, ooooorrr...

:evil:

brboyer
January 17, 2013, 10:27 AM
After going back and reading all of the replies again, I think I should clarify something.

I'm not describing a national background check, run by the Federal government. That program already exists, and is limited to commercial/retail sales of firearms. What I'm describing is a State run program wherein each State uses its own existing database of felons, or violent offenders, or whatever other criteria is allowed by their individual Constitutions, to provide a means to identify prohibited individuals during a private sale.

I don't know if that makes it better or worse. But, I still think it's worth discussing.

and is limited to commercial/retail sales of firearms. No it is not. You are free to go to an FFL and ask him to facilitate the transfer for you. Many will gladly do this and collect $50 for their troubles.

So let's duplicate the already ineffective system to a State run equally ineffective system. Brilliant!

brboyer
January 17, 2013, 10:29 AM
Are you saying that there would be no benefit to such a program?

And again, I understand that criminals are very adept at finding ways of circumventing the law. But is it your position that because of this we should have no law at all?
None whatsoever, unless you count as a benefit infringing on EVERYONE'S rights to accomplish absolutely nothing tangible while increasing taxes on everyone to pay for such a program.

chipcom
January 17, 2013, 10:31 AM
I think that your personal policy is commendable. But alas, I neither have a CCW permit, nor am a member of any gun club. So, even though I am in no way prohibited from owning firearms, you have chosen to exclude me as a buyer. I agree with your reasons. But it certainly limits your market, doesn't it?
Well to be fair...if he's in the business of regularly selling firearms, he should probably be a licensed dealer. I got no problem with people defining their own criteria for private transactions...it's his gun, he has every right to set the conditions of sale.

brboyer
January 17, 2013, 10:32 AM
All valid points.

As I mentioned earlier, the cost of such a program is an issue for which I have not seen any good solution. And, false positives could certainly prove to be a serious problem. Fake ID's? Yes, that could reduce the program's effectiveness. But, again... I know that a real car thief will steal my truck if he wants it. Isn't it my duty as a responsible car owner to remove the keys and lock the doors anyway? Or is it better to just leave everything open because I know that criminals don't respect locks?
So you think it is incumbent on the general population to prevent criminals from being criminals?

chipcom
January 17, 2013, 10:36 AM
I do not agree with background checks at all. They serve only the government for the purposes of confiscation and/or persecution at some level (healthcare provisoins are the next threat).

Prior to 1968, you could purchase a gun through the mail and they would send it to your home. They advertised in comic books and just about everywhere else.

We know for a fact that criminals acquire their guns through theft and other means. Background checks will stop a few purchases, but those people will go to friends, spouses, random people, or turn to crime, to get the guns they want.

It's a complete farce, just like the TSA garbage that goes on in the airports. Do not fall for the lies and propaganda. You are not supporting anything that does one bit of good.
This goes to the point that I keep trying to make to people on both sides of this debate - have things gotten better or worse, from a gun crime standpoint, since we started creating all these new laws and background check requirements since 68? If things have gotten worse, how can one logically assume that more of the same will garner a different result?

chipcom
January 17, 2013, 10:43 AM
So you think it is incumbent on the general population to prevent criminals from being criminals?
I believe that citizens have a responsibility to do their due diligence when selling or giving away items that have a reasonable risk of being used for illegal activities or harm to others. I'm not going to sell you a gun if I have a suspicion that you are a criminal or a moron any more than I would sell you a puppy or let you date my daughter.

That doesn't mean that I am willing to submit all potential buyers to some government background check that can easily be rigged to deny people based on some arbitrary metrics that may or may not have any relevance to their character or law abiding nature (no-fly and kill lists anyone?) and I darned sure am not going to pay for the "privilege" of doing so.

chipcom
January 17, 2013, 11:02 AM
I've got a much better idea.

It's cheap to impliment and has relatively little maintenance.

Put a backstop behind the witness stand for violent criminal trials. Upon conviction for a violent crime, such as those committed using firearms and such, the criminal gets a choice:

Life imprisonment without parole, ooooorrr...

:evil:
A bullet is much cheaper on the taxpayer than life imprisonment...even at today's prices! :D

ngnrd
January 17, 2013, 11:16 AM
So you think it is incumbent on the general population to prevent criminals from being criminals?
I think parents have a responsibility to monitor their children, so they don't become hoodlums.

I think neighbors have a responsibility to be aware of peeping toms, and to keep meth labs from cropping up in their neighborhood.

And yes, I think the population at large has a responsibility to be aware of and try to prevent specific criminal activity that is detrimental to society.

I do not, however, think that I have a responsibility to raise your children.

Nor do I feel the need to form a posse and confront the meth cookers.

And, I certainly don't think the population at large is responsible for preventing all crime. But, I also don't see the harm in asking for an ID to buy alcohol, or tobacco. Neither do I think it's unreasonable to ask that those those who are legally prohibited from purchasing a firearm to identify themselves as such before I finalize the transaction.

But, again... I am not advocating for such a system to be put in place. I am just trying to have a discussion about the feasibility of such a system. And the responses all seem to be focused on infringing on somebodies rights (I still haven't figured out who's rights), or the fact that criminals don't follow laws (which I am fully aware of, thank you).

45_auto
January 17, 2013, 11:20 AM
I am just trying to have a discussion about the feasibility of such a system.

Your system is already in place. It's used in California (ALL transfers MUST go through an FFL) and Illinois (gun buyers must have a Firearms Owner ID (FOID) card).

You believe that the number of illegal guns in Los Angeles and Chicago is lower and that people are safer because of it?

soonerfan85
January 17, 2013, 11:21 AM
I applaud ngnrd and others for at least presenting alternatives to what the state of NY has done. Granted I as others do not believe these changes or anything else I've seen proposed here or in DC or NY would have prevented the tragedies at places like Newtown, Columbine or Jonesboro; however, to offer no workable alternative to what the talking heads in DC are planning is no better than just throwing your hands up and surrendering. This issue is not going away quietly, and all the posturing and bravado on this and other gun related boards against such ideas do nothing to solve the problem. How about instead of bitching about how this idea won't work, we come up with one that will. Solutions don't have to come from DC politicians. Hell, this country wasn't founded by politicians. It was founded by ordinary people like you and me, and ngnrd. And building more prisons is really not the answer unless you know where the nation's money tree is located. Think of it from the left's position, banning firearms is the most economical way to address the problem. It doesn't cost the average taxpayer much too simply make it illegal for others to buy certain weapons or accessories. Granted it won't prevent future tragedies, but that's not really their agenda is it. Like I've said before, if Obama was sincerely interested in protecting children, he'd push for the repeal of leagalized abortion that has killed 50 million babies since Roe v Wade. If gun owners are not willing to present the nation with a workable solution, then we have no right to bitch about the consequences of what happens next. Just my 2 cents.

45_auto
January 17, 2013, 11:26 AM
If gun owners don't put forth a workable solution, then we have no right to bitch about the consequences.

Slowly giving up my rights, my kids rights, and my grandkids rights is not a workable solution for me. The Constitution was made to be amended. If the US society has changed such that bearing arms is no longer seen as a right, then the second amendment needs to be repealed and we go from there.

2ifbyC
January 17, 2013, 11:31 AM
And, I certainly don't think the population at large is responsible for preventing all crime. But, I also don't see the harm in asking for an ID to buy alcohol, or tobacco. Neither do I think it's unreasonable to ask that those those who are legally prohibited from purchasing a firearm to identify themselves as such before I finalize the transaction.

As stated by myself and others, you already have that option. Ask for and ID, create a bill of sale, ask if they are a felon, have them sign for the transaction, and a number of other options you can create. If you are not comfortable with those, have the buyer go to an FFL dealer with you to have them facilitate the transaction.

Beyond that, I see no value in your proposal.

ngnrd
January 17, 2013, 11:32 AM
That doesn't mean that I am willing to submit all potential buyers to some government background check that can easily be rigged to deny people based on some arbitrary metrics that may or may not have any relevance to their character or law abiding nature (no-fly and kill lists anyone?) and I darned sure am not going to pay for the "privilege" of doing so.
Maybe this is the confusion... There would have to be some court order already in place that restricts them from firearm ownership, not some arbitrary metrics. The courts don't just grab random people off the streets and say "poof! you can no longer own a gun. Have a nice day." There are mechanisms in place that already serve this function. I am discussing a way to get that information to the seller in a private firearm transaction. I'm not trying to somehow get people on some no fly list. I'm talking about "publishing" the lists that everybody is already on. The prohibited person is already on a list of "bad guys" and everybody else makes up the list of "good guys". There is no new information that would be used.

For instance, I can go to a government website and look to see if there are sexual deviants living in my area. I wouldn't ever condone hassling those individuals. But I sure would want to know if my child walked past their house every day to get to the bus stop. And, you already pay for this database to be maintained. I never hear anybody, except an occasional sex offender, calling to dismantle the sex offender registries. Seriously... what's the difference?

soonerfan85
January 17, 2013, 11:34 AM
45: unfortunately I'm afraid that's where this is eventually headed. After this round of new restrictions doesn't prevent the next tragedy, we'll see more restrictions, and so forth.

What ngnrd has proposed wouldn't take away anyone's right to transfer a firearm to a legal purchaser, although it might make it inconvenient. I guess I don't view that as a bad alternative to what Obama and his cronies have in mind for us. Remember, in politics it's less about results and all about appearances.

ngnrd
January 17, 2013, 11:39 AM
Your system is already in place. It's used in California (ALL transfers MUST go through an FFL) and Illinois (gun buyers must have a Firearms Owner ID (FOID) card).

You believe that the number of illegal guns in Los Angeles and Chicago is lower and that people are safer because of it?
Honestly, I don't know. What everybody always seems to be preaching is that gun crime is so high in Chicago because the the citizens are prohibited from carrying guns, not anything to do with background checks. So, I guess I can't answer your question.

45_auto
January 17, 2013, 11:41 AM
I guess I don't view that as a bad alternative to what Obama and his cronies ahve in mind for us.

You really believe that they'll stop and be happy with your alternative?

It will change nothing. The next time some lunatic breaks all the previous laws and your new additional laws (might be 6 months, might be a year, but it WILL happen) what will you give up next?

ngnrd
January 17, 2013, 11:43 AM
As stated by myself and others, you already have that option. Ask for and ID, create a bill of sale, ask if they are a felon, have them sign for the transaction, and a number of other options you can create. If you are not comfortable with those, have the buyer go to an FFL dealer with you to have them facilitate the transaction.

Beyond that, I see no value in your proposal.
The only one of the options you have listed that would provide any assurance is the federal background check. I am trying to find an alternative to that.

Thank you for your input.

ngnrd
January 17, 2013, 11:48 AM
The next time some lunatic breaks... your new additional laws (might be 6 months, might be a year, but it WILL happen) what will you give up next?
What laws do you think I am proposing?

Again, I'm not looking to get some new silver bullet law enacted. I'm just discussing a tool that could be used by sellers that would provide some assurance that the person they are handing their firearm to isn't prohibited from owning a firearm.

browneu
January 17, 2013, 11:51 AM
I scanned most of the replies and don't see this mentioned.

How would this system prevent straw purchases? This system assumes the purchaser is also the owner. So what happens when the purchaser isn't going to be an owner.

I see the as nothing but another hindrance.

Like others have said we should address how the criminal not the tool.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2

1911 guy
January 17, 2013, 11:53 AM
In regard to your idea of how this should work in post number 82, this system is already in place. I can go to any FFL I want and do a transfer. Many are happy to make a couple bucks, some grumble but take the couple dollars and do it anyway.

Or I can sign up for an internet application that lets me look up arrest records. I imagine that if I were to contact my local PD or maybe even the county sheriff, I could probably get a yes or no answer to the question of prohibited or not.

I guess the bottom line is that the only "problem" a system like you're proposing would solve is that of a private seller verifying someone is not prohibited from owning a firearm. This is a non-issue because you have options available to you as the private seller. Don't sell or avail yourself of any number of the things I mentioned and probably some I hadn't thought about.

The other thing that hasn't been discussed is the ACLU would never go for it. Having an arrest record (disqualifying event) puts your personal information in a protected class. Having your personal information bandied about available to the public has been deemed "inconsiderate" and "rude", as well as "detrimental to the well being" of the offending party. Of course if they really cared about it, they wouldn't have knocked over that liquor store.

RetiredUSNChief
January 17, 2013, 12:21 PM
Like I've said before, if Obama was sincerely interested in protecting children, he'd push for the repeal of leagalized abortion that has killed 50 million babies since Roe v Wade. If gun owners are not willing to present the nation with a workable solution, then we have no right to bitch about the consequences of what happens next. Just my 2 cents.

Bugger repealing legal abortion. I say we amend it to include retroactive abortion.

Then we can go about the business of retroactively aborting violent criminals for all the same reasons people support legal abortion as it is today.

Breakout the coat hangers and scizzors!

:rolleyes:

Clean97GTI
January 17, 2013, 12:28 PM
No.

We need to be working BACK from NICS, why on Earth should we be embracing that the government has the right to grant or deny our rights.

And on drivers licenses no less. Of all the government organizations to get involved, you want to involve the DMV? Have you been to the DMV in some states? I don't trust these idiots to be in in charge of licenses to use roller blades, the hell I want them near my right to bear arms?

Having been to the DMV in the last year to handle a number of tasks including turning the old title and receiving a new title along with new registration and plate on my motorcycle. Since the bike had an out-of-state title, I also needed a VIN inspection. I can tell you with all honesty that I was in and out of the DMV on Decatur Blvd here in Las Vegas in roughly one hour. Not bad at all.

Now compare that to the amount of time it takes to be seen in an emergency room in a private hospital or deal with private health insurance companies to try and get reimbursed.

The marked state ID. is an absolutely valid suggestion and NICS has proven an effective way to stop disqualified individuals from buying guns from FFL dealers.

brboyer
January 17, 2013, 12:40 PM
I think parents have a responsibility to monitor their children, so they don't become hoodlums.

I think neighbors have a responsibility to be aware of peeping toms, and to keep meth labs from cropping up in their neighborhood.

And yes, I think the population at large has a responsibility to be aware of and try to prevent specific criminal activity that is detrimental to society.

I do not, however, think that I have a responsibility to raise your children.

Nor do I feel the need to form a posse and confront the meth cookers.

And, I certainly don't think the population at large is responsible for preventing all crime. But, I also don't see the harm in asking for an ID to buy alcohol, or tobacco. Neither do I think it's unreasonable to ask that those those who are legally prohibited from purchasing a firearm to identify themselves as such before I finalize the transaction.

But, again... I am not advocating for such a system to be put in place. I am just trying to have a discussion about the feasibility of such a system. And the responses all seem to be focused on infringing on somebodies rights (I still haven't figured out who's rights), or the fact that criminals don't follow laws (which I am fully aware of, thank you).

And the responses all seem to be focused on infringing on somebodies rights (I still haven't figured out who's rights)Mine, your's, everyone's.

or the fact that criminals don't follow laws (which I am fully aware of, thank you).Most of your posts belie that statement.

If you are uncomfortable selling a firearm to anyone, then either don't or take it to an FFL, simple. That way you are not infringing on my rights (or anyone else's) and if the buyer does not like it, he can go pound sand.

I am just trying to have a discussion about the feasibility of such a system.As has been posted by many, such a system is not at all feasible, is ripe for abuse and will not accomplish anything meaningful.

brboyer
January 17, 2013, 12:46 PM
Having been to the DMV in the last year to handle a number of tasks including turning the old title and receiving a new title along with new registration and plate on my motorcycle. Since the bike had an out-of-state title, I also needed a VIN inspection. I can tell you with all honesty that I was in and out of the DMV on Decatur Blvd here in Las Vegas in roughly one hour. Not bad at all.

Now compare that to the amount of time it takes to be seen in an emergency room in a private hospital or deal with private health insurance companies to try and get reimbursed.

The marked state ID. is an absolutely valid suggestion and NICS has proven an effective way to stop disqualified individuals from buying guns from FFL dealers.

NICS has proven an effective way to stop disqualified individuals from buying guns from FFL dealers.
Care to post some data to back that up?

Clean97GTI
January 17, 2013, 12:54 PM
Care to post some data to back that up?

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics

The National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS, is all about saving lives and protecting people from harm—by not letting guns and explosives fall into the wrong hands. It also ensures the timely transfer of firearms to eligible gun buyers.

Mandated by the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 and launched by the FBI on November 30, 1998, NICS is used by Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) to instantly determine whether a prospective buyer is eligible to buy firearms or explosives. Before ringing up the sale, cashiers call in a check to the FBI or to other designated agencies to ensure that each customer does not have a criminal record or isn’t otherwise ineligible to make a purchase. More than 100 million such checks have been made in the last decade, leading to more than 700,000 denials.

NICS is located at the FBI’s Criminal Justice Information Services Division in Clarksburg, West Virginia. It provides full service to FFLs in 30 states, five U.S. territories, and the District of Columbia. Upon completion of the required Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) Form 4473, FFLs contact the NICS Section via a toll-free telephone number or electronically on the Internet through the NICS E-Check System to request a background check with the descriptive information provided on the ATF Form 4473. NICS is customarily available 17 hours a day, seven days a week, including holidays (except for Christmas).

700k guns kept out of criminal hands all within the confines of the constitution and with the blessing of the NRA.
and right on the website I cited is information about appealing an incorrect denial.

brboyer
January 17, 2013, 01:19 PM
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics

The National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS, is all about saving lives and protecting people from harm—by not letting guns and explosives fall into the wrong hands. It also ensures the timely transfer of firearms to eligible gun buyers.

Mandated by the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 and launched by the FBI on November 30, 1998, NICS is used by Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) to instantly determine whether a prospective buyer is eligible to buy firearms or explosives. Before ringing up the sale, cashiers call in a check to the FBI or to other designated agencies to ensure that each customer does not have a criminal record or isn’t otherwise ineligible to make a purchase. More than 100 million such checks have been made in the last decade, leading to more than 700,000 denials.

NICS is located at the FBI’s Criminal Justice Information Services Division in Clarksburg, West Virginia. It provides full service to FFLs in 30 states, five U.S. territories, and the District of Columbia. Upon completion of the required Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) Form 4473, FFLs contact the NICS Section via a toll-free telephone number or electronically on the Internet through the NICS E-Check System to request a background check with the descriptive information provided on the ATF Form 4473. NICS is customarily available 17 hours a day, seven days a week, including holidays (except for Christmas).

700k guns kept out of criminal hands all within the confines of the constitution and with the blessing of the NRA.
and right on the website I cited is information about appealing an incorrect denial.
I asked for data, not a marketing statement.

But I understand that you define 'effective' as 7/10's of one percent? That's not quite how I would define it when it involves infringing on the rights of the other 99,300,000 folks wishing to purchase firearms from an FFL.

You really need to get in there and actually look at the data. It will open your eyes.

Also the 700,000 figure is not criminals, simply denials.

all within the confines of the constitutionDoes not comport with Shall not be infringed.

ngnrd
January 17, 2013, 01:36 PM
And the responses all seem to be focused on infringing on somebodies rights (I still haven't figured out who's rights)

Mine, your's, everyone's.

I'll admit, I just don't see it. Can you explain how, or in what way, everybody's rights would be infringed?

Clean97GTI
January 17, 2013, 01:38 PM
I asked for data, not a marketing statement.

But I understand that you define 'effective' as 7/10's of one percent? That's not quite how I would define it when it involves infringing on the rights of the other 99,300,000 folks wishing to purchase firearms from an FFL.

You really need to get in there and actually look at the data. It will open your eyes.

Also the 700,000 figure is not criminals, simply denials.

Does not comport with

The purpose of a background check is to verify that the person in question is able to purchase a gun. I question how you can call nearly 100,000,000 million purchases of guns by legal owners in ten years an infringement. How does that logic work? The NICS check stopped 70,000 people a year from buying guns from FFLs all while enabling many more owners to purchase guns.

By all means, post this data. I've even looked at the ATF breakdown of what investigations they did stemming from NICS denials. http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/html/bcft/2009/tables/bcft09st08.pdf


You may feel a background check is an infringement but the simple fact is that if you aren't wrongly denied, your right has not been infringed.
that and the background checks have been held to be constitutional as long as local law enforcement was not required to conduct them.

ngnrd
January 17, 2013, 01:40 PM
1911 guy, maybe you didn't see it, but could you please reply to the questions I asked you in post #67?

Thanks.

steveracer
January 17, 2013, 01:44 PM
Let's talk about the background checks to buy paper. And bibles. And a laptop. And a bus ticket. And a horse. And a car. And a home.
RIGHTS.
Those of you who endorse ANY method of restricting a RIGHT are officially my enemy.

kalel33
January 17, 2013, 02:02 PM
You know there are kids who obtain alcohol though are prohibited from owning, buying or ingesting. So what you advocate is worthless.

This is true but what you're saying is that there should be no laws prohibiting minors from buying alcohol, because they're already getting it. Might as well make prostitution, crack, LSD, and heroine legal because people can get it.

brboyer
January 17, 2013, 02:03 PM
I'll admit, I just don't see it. Can you explain how, or in what way, everybody's rights would be infringed?
Your proposal would force everyone to go through a background check.....everyone! Not to mention the fact that the background check itself is repugnant to the Constitution.

brboyer
January 17, 2013, 02:05 PM
This is true but what you're saying is that there should be no laws prohibiting minors from buying alcohol, because they're already getting it. Might as well make prostitution, crack, LSD, and heroine legal because people can get it.
Why is the government even involved in the personal choices people make? Until those choices infringing on someone else's rights, the .gov should keep their noses out it!

brboyer
January 17, 2013, 02:15 PM
The purpose of a background check is to verify that the person in question is able to purchase a gun. I question how you can call nearly 100,000,000 million purchases of guns by legal owners in ten years an infringement. How does that logic work? The NICS check stopped 70,000 people a year from buying guns from FFLs all while enabling many more owners to purchase guns.

By all means, post this data. I've even looked at the ATF breakdown of what investigations they did stemming from NICS denials. http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/html/bcft/2009/tables/bcft09st08.pdf


You may feel a background check is an infringement but the simple fact is that if you aren't wrongly denied, your right has not been infringed.
that and the background checks have been held to be constitutional as long as local law enforcement was not required to conduct them.
So because of a minute number of people do something the government does not want them to do, it's OK to force everyone to submit to some form of test and proved they are a 'good guy'

Expand your suggestion to any other Constitutionally protected right. Maybe the government should force us to take some test before voting, just in case we are in the less than 1% of people that have tyrannical leanings. Or how about a personality profile before you can go to the church of your choice or post on THR to make sure you have never been convicted of libel or slander before?

Clean97GTI
January 17, 2013, 02:16 PM
Your proposal would force everyone to go through a background check.....everyone! Not to mention the fact that the background check itself is repugnant to the Constitution.

Hate to break it to you, but the supreme court disagrees.
You have to give a little in your interpretation. If you want the government to have the ability to remove rights via due process, you need to allow government the ability to determine who is and is not disqualified.

chipcom
January 17, 2013, 02:19 PM
I applaud ngnrd and others for at least presenting alternatives to what the state of NY has done. Granted I as others do not believe these changes or anything else I've seen proposed here or in DC or NY would have prevented the tragedies at places like Newtown, Columbine or Jonesboro; however, to offer no workable alternative to what the talking heads in DC are planning is no better than just throwing your hands up and surrendering. This issue is not going away quietly, and all the posturing and bravado on this and other gun related boards against such ideas do nothing to solve the problem. How about instead of bitching about how this idea won't work, we come up with one that will. Solutions don't have to come from DC politicians. Hell, this country wasn't founded by politicians. It was founded by ordinary people like you and me, and ngnrd. And building more prisons is really not the answer unless you know where the nation's money tree is located. Think of it from the left's position, banning firearms is the most economical way to address the problem. It doesn't cost the average taxpayer much too simply make it illegal for others to buy certain weapons or accessories. Granted it won't prevent future tragedies, but that's not really their agenda is it. Like I've said before, if Obama was sincerely interested in protecting children, he'd push for the repeal of leagalized abortion that has killed 50 million babies since Roe v Wade. If gun owners are not willing to present the nation with a workable solution, then we have no right to bitch about the consequences of what happens next. Just my 2 cents.
A workable solution to what? Gun violence? How about we cure the common cold while we are at it too. You cure things by attacking root causes, not making our symptoms feel a little better while allowing the disease to keep eating away.

chipcom
January 17, 2013, 02:25 PM
Maybe this is the confusion... There would have to be some court order already in place that restricts them from firearm ownership, not some arbitrary metrics. The courts don't just grab random people off the streets and say "poof! you can no longer own a gun. Have a nice day." There are mechanisms in place that already serve this function. I am discussing a way to get that information to the seller in a private firearm transaction. I'm not trying to somehow get people on some no fly list. I'm talking about "publishing" the lists that everybody is already on. The prohibited person is already on a list of "bad guys" and everybody else makes up the list of "good guys". There is no new information that would be used.

For instance, I can go to a government website and look to see if there are sexual deviants living in my area. I wouldn't ever condone hassling those individuals. But I sure would want to know if my child walked past their house every day to get to the bus stop. And, you already pay for this database to be maintained. I never hear anybody, except an occasional sex offender, calling to dismantle the sex offender registries. Seriously... what's the difference?
The problem is the process that gets you tagged as not legally able to purchase.

If you walk into a gun store and they turn you down because your DL, for example, has you flagged as not legal, you're not going to be very happy, are you. You'll be even unhappier when you find that nobody can tell you WHY you were flagged, cuz it's a secret. Again, no-fly lists are one great example. Ask anyone who discovered they were on one if they ever got an answer as to why, if they could even figure out who to ask.

Clean97GTI
January 17, 2013, 02:25 PM
So because of a minute number of people do something the government does not want them to do, it's OK to force everyone to submit to some form of test and proved they are a 'good guy'

Expand your suggestion to any other Constitutionally protected right. Maybe the government should force us to take some test before voting, just in case we are in the less than 1% of people that have tyrannical leanings. Or how about a personality profile before you can go to the church of your choice or post on THR to make sure you have never been convicted of libel or slander before?

Lets do that. Lets explore your idea of a background check before exercising rights.
A test for voting is not the same as a background check. Would you support the idea of a background check to ensure that someone who has been stripped of the right to vote does not go in and cheapen the right for the rest of us? Oh wait, you mean they can't even get registered? Do you believe voter registration infringes on your right to vote? Or is the minor inconvenience of having to give information to a poll worker (or write it down and drop the form off at your local DMV) acceptable in order to guard against unqualified people voting in our country?

Freedom of speech does not kill people as the word is spoken or written and there are methods of redress should someone lie about you. The word is not a physical weapon capable of great bodily injury.
In other words, you are talking apples and oranges. Yes, speech, voting and gun ownership are rights but the responsibilities that go with those rights are different.


Still waiting on that data you talked about earlier.

chipcom
January 17, 2013, 02:28 PM
What laws do you think I am proposing?

Again, I'm not looking to get some new silver bullet law enacted. I'm just discussing a tool that could be used by sellers that would provide some assurance that the person they are handing their firearm to isn't prohibited from owning a firearm.
tagging people with the equivalent of the mark of the devil with no oversight of the process involved and no ability to challenge or even ask why they were tagged is isn't a tool, it's needless oppression.

chipcom
January 17, 2013, 02:31 PM
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics

The National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS, is all about saving lives and protecting people from harm—by not letting guns and explosives fall into the wrong hands. It also ensures the timely transfer of firearms to eligible gun buyers.

Mandated by the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 and launched by the FBI on November 30, 1998, NICS is used by Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) to instantly determine whether a prospective buyer is eligible to buy firearms or explosives. Before ringing up the sale, cashiers call in a check to the FBI or to other designated agencies to ensure that each customer does not have a criminal record or isn’t otherwise ineligible to make a purchase. More than 100 million such checks have been made in the last decade, leading to more than 700,000 denials.

NICS is located at the FBI’s Criminal Justice Information Services Division in Clarksburg, West Virginia. It provides full service to FFLs in 30 states, five U.S. territories, and the District of Columbia. Upon completion of the required Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) Form 4473, FFLs contact the NICS Section via a toll-free telephone number or electronically on the Internet through the NICS E-Check System to request a background check with the descriptive information provided on the ATF Form 4473. NICS is customarily available 17 hours a day, seven days a week, including holidays (except for Christmas).

700k guns kept out of criminal hands all within the confines of the constitution and with the blessing of the NRA.
and right on the website I cited is information about appealing an incorrect denial.
how many of those 700k were wrongfully denied? What is the process of appeal, if any? The devil is in the details...based on history, I don't trust any government agency not to abuse their power to advance political ends. If you do, I have some swamp land that I'm sure you'll jump at the chance to buy.

Clean97GTI
January 17, 2013, 02:32 PM
A workable solution to what? Gun violence? How about we cure the common cold while we are at it too. You cure things by attacking root causes, not making our symptoms feel a little better while allowing the disease to keep eating away.
I absolutely agree with attacking the root causes.

Start by voting against republicans who do everything they can to keep drugs from being legalized and further the culture of gang violence that plagues our cities and keeps those gun murder rates high.

Clean97GTI
January 17, 2013, 02:34 PM
how many of those 700k were wrongfully denied? What is the process of appeal, if any? The devil is in the details...based on history, I don't trust any government agency not to abuse their power to advance political ends. If you do, I have some swamp land that I'm sure you'll jump at the chance to buy.Click the link I posted in the post you quoted if you're not too busy in your swampland. You'll find information on appealing a wrongful denial.

ngnrd
January 17, 2013, 02:39 PM
tagging people with the equivalent of the mark of the devil with no oversight of the process involved and no ability to challenge or even ask why they were tagged is isn't a tool, it's needless oppression.
Apparently, you have not read the whole thread. Please, don't make baseless comments just to try to derail the discussion.

1- The "tags" would only be given to those that have been stripped of their right to own firearms via lawful court order

2- There would have to be an appeal/investigation process in place to address false positives

3- There is no oppression. Just a check of an already existing State database that included information regarding criminals that have ALREADY had their rights lawfully revoked.

There's no conspiracy here. There's no method to deny lawful purchase. There's no infringement.

brboyer
January 17, 2013, 02:41 PM
Lets do that. Lets explore your idea of a background check before exercising rights.
A test for voting is not the same as a background check. Would you support the idea of a background check to ensure that someone who has been stripped of the right to vote does not go in and cheapen the right for the rest of us? Oh wait, you mean they can't even get registered? Do you believe voter registration infringes on your right to vote? Or is the minor inconvenience of having to give information to a poll worker (or write it down and drop the form off at your local DMV) acceptable in order to guard against unqualified people voting in our country?

Freedom of speech does not kill people as the word is spoken or written and there are methods of redress should someone lie about you. The word is not a physical weapon capable of great bodily injury.
In other words, you are talking apples and oranges. Yes, speech, voting and gun ownership are rights but the responsibilities that go with those rights are different.


Still waiting on that data you talked about earlier.
You should have to prove you live where you are supposed to vote, you know to make sure you vote only once and only in your district.

You cannot vote if you are locked up for a crime that includes civil rights being plased on hold while in prision.

Also, it's hard to commit a crime on innocent people if you are locked up.

How about we just punish people for doing bad stuff, instead of what we think they might do?

If you are too untrustworthy to vote or live among others, than you should remain locked up, simple.

ngnrd
January 17, 2013, 02:44 PM
The problem is the process that gets you tagged as not legally able to purchase.

If you walk into a gun store and they turn you down because your DL, for example, has you flagged as not legal, you're not going to be very happy, are you. You'll be even unhappier when you find that nobody can tell you WHY you were flagged, cuz it's a secret. Again, no-fly lists are one great example. Ask anyone who discovered they were on one if they ever got an answer as to why, if they could even figure out who to ask.
If you are too lazy to look at your ID card and see that it is stamped "NO FIREARMS" before you walk into a gun store and get turned down for a firearms purchase, I don't really think you are justified in "not being happy" about it. That's just silly.

ngnrd
January 17, 2013, 02:46 PM
If you are too untrustworthy to vote or live among others, than you should remain locked up, simple.
And people were accusing me of living in a fairy tale world... sheesh. Let's at least try to keep the conversation based in reality, shall we?

soonerfan85
January 17, 2013, 02:54 PM
Let's talk about the background checks to buy paper. And bibles. And a laptop. And a bus ticket. And a horse. And a car. And a home.
RIGHTS.
Those of you who endorse ANY method of restricting a RIGHT are officially my enemy.
Divide and conquer.

We have met the enemy, and he is us.

We're acting just like the gun grabbers would have us act.

brboyer
January 17, 2013, 02:55 PM
And people were accusing me of living in a fairy tale world... sheesh. Let's at least try to keep the conversation based in reality, shall we?
That is the problem. My solution is simple and efficient and does not require us to violate the Constitutional rights of the huge, overwhelming majority of law abiding folks in order to ineffectively try to prevent possible future crime by criminals (folks that don't follow the law anyway.)

ngnrd
January 17, 2013, 02:57 PM
The other thing that hasn't been discussed is the ACLU would never go for it. Having an arrest record (disqualifying event) puts your personal information in a protected class.
First, the ACLU does not make the law of the land.

Second, maybe you didn't read my first post. It clearly said that this would be modeled on an existing system being used in Alaska that tags ID's with "NO ALCOHOL". It doesn't keep repeat offenders from stealing booze out of their mother's liquor cabinet. But, it does keep a significant portion of them from loading up at the liquor store or bar. It's not perfect, but it is a tool that servers and cashiers can use to try to keep booze away from those that have standing court orders prohibiting their possession of alcohol.

That being said, I will no longer respond to your posts until you answer the questions I posed to you in post #67.

Clean97GTI
January 17, 2013, 03:09 PM
You should have to prove you live where you are supposed to vote, you know to make sure you vote only once and only in your district.

You cannot vote if you are locked up for a crime that includes civil rights being plased on hold while in prision.

Also, it's hard to commit a crime on innocent people if you are locked up.

How about we just punish people for doing bad stuff, instead of what we think they might do?

If you are too untrustworthy to vote or live among others, than you should remain locked up, simple.

They HAVE been punished for actually doing bad stuff. Thats why they lost the right to keep and bear arms.

ngnrd
January 17, 2013, 03:09 PM
... does not require us to violate the Constitutional rights of the huge, overwhelming majority of law abiding folks
That's the sticking point on this entire discussion. You (and others) believe that any kind of check to ensure that you are not a prohibited person is a violation of your rights. But, that is just not the case in the country we live in. The courts have confirmed, and re-confirmed the need for checks. And these confirmations are just as valid as the Heller decision that everybody here (myself included) supports.

So, are you now going to throw out the baby with the bathwater? Because you need to realize that you can't have it both ways. You may not like it, but you need to make a decision: respect the decisions of the courts, or don't. Just don't think for a minute that you get to pick and choose which court rulings you will accept, and which ones you will ignore. It doesn't work like that.

Now, when you're done snarling and gnashing your teeth, just ask, and I will gladly help you down off of your high horse. That way maybe we can find a way to see eye to eye.

Clean97GTI
January 17, 2013, 03:10 PM
That is the problem. My solution is simple and efficient and does not require us to violate the Constitutional rights of the huge, overwhelming majority of law abiding folks in order to ineffectively try to prevent possible future crime by criminals (folks that don't follow the law anyway.)Background checks do not violate the constitution either and the supreme court has said so.

JohnBT
January 17, 2013, 03:51 PM
"Freedom of speech does not kill people"

Then why are there laws against inciting riots [18 USCS § 2102] and yelling fire in a theater? Hmm?

brboyer
January 17, 2013, 05:07 PM
That's the sticking point on this entire discussion. You (and others) believe that any kind of check to ensure that you are not a prohibited person is a violation of your rights. But, that is just not the case in the country we live in. The courts have confirmed, and re-confirmed the need for checks. And these confirmations are just as valid as the Heller decision that everybody here (myself included) supports.

So, are you now going to throw out the baby with the bathwater? Because you need to realize that you can't have it both ways. You may not like it, but you need to make a decision: respect the decisions of the courts, or don't. Just don't think for a minute that you get to pick and choose which court rulings you will accept, and which ones you will ignore. It doesn't work like that.

Now, when you're done snarling and gnashing your teeth, just ask, and I will gladly help you down off of your high horse. That way maybe we can find a way to see eye to eye.
Please provide me with these court rulings.

brboyer
January 17, 2013, 05:08 PM
Background checks do not violate the constitution either and the supreme court has said so.
Please provide a cite to this decision.

beatledog7
January 17, 2013, 05:24 PM
First: Do you understand that a court has the power to strip certain rights of criminals, as a condition of either incarceration, or parole? Note that I didn't ask if you agreed with it, just that you understand it.

Yes. But that criminal knew the law when he chose to commit his crime, thereby voluntarily surrendering those rights should he be caught and convicted.

And second: Would you willingly sell a firearm to a person if you knew that individual was barred by the courts from possessing firearms?

No. But I don't have to know that because I'm not obligated to conduct such a check. However, assuming that guy wants a gun really bad, he will simply steal a gun if he can't buy one. So your background check law won't solve anything.

ngnrd, you seem intelligent. How can you keep missing that point?

kalel33
January 17, 2013, 06:13 PM
Why is the government even involved in the personal choices people make? Until those choices infringing on someone else's rights, the .gov should keep their noses out it!

Glad to know there are people out there wanting drunk 12 year olds running around or think that heroine being legal is OK. Just glad you're in the very small minority.

Clean97GTI
January 17, 2013, 06:18 PM
Glad to know there are people out there wanting drunk 12 year olds running around or think that heroine being legal is OK. Just glad you're in the very small minority.

I'll bet you'd watch gun violence take a significant drop if you were to legalize and regulate drugs. Much less incentive for gang bangers to shoot each other over territory when anyone can go buy their smack from the local "drug" store.

Clean97GTI
January 17, 2013, 06:24 PM
Please provide a cite to this decision.

Printz v. United states which held that the interim provision requiring local law enforcement to perform background checks was unconstitutional.

What this meant was that between the passage of the Brady Bill in 93 and the go live date of NICS in 98, local law enforcement could not be compelled to do the checks. The law required the federal government to perform these checks and in 1998, NICS began and has been upheld since.

by the way, I'm still waiting for the "data" on NICS that you said I should examine. Please provide this so we can all get the straight dope.

brboyer
January 17, 2013, 07:48 PM
Printz v. United states which held that the interim provision requiring local law enforcement to perform background checks was unconstitutional.

What this meant was that between the passage of the Brady Bill in 93 and the go live date of NICS in 98, local law enforcement could not be compelled to do the checks. The law required the federal government to perform these checks and in 1998, NICS began and has been upheld since.

by the way, I'm still waiting for the "data" on NICS that you said I should examine. Please provide this so we can all get the straight dope.
Which had nothing at all to do with the background check itself.

chipcom
January 17, 2013, 08:12 PM
I absolutely agree with attacking the root causes.

Start by voting against republicans who do everything they can to keep drugs from being legalized and further the culture of gang violence that plagues our cities and keeps those gun murder rates high.
Way ahead of you on that...I dumped the GOP after they went bat-shiite freakin crazy after 9/11. Party affiliations mean squat, they're all big government toadies when comes right down to it.

chipcom
January 17, 2013, 08:15 PM
Apparently, you have not read the whole thread. Please, don't make baseless comments just to try to derail the discussion.

1- The "tags" would only be given to those that have been stripped of their right to own firearms via lawful court order

2- There would have to be an appeal/investigation process in place to address false positives

3- There is no oppression. Just a check of an already existing State database that included information regarding criminals that have ALREADY had their rights lawfully revoked.

There's no conspiracy here. There's no method to deny lawful purchase. There's no infringement.
I did my time in elected office and have seen what good intentions turn into once they become codified - bad laws.

But I wouldn't want to derail your fast train to doing the same thing over and over again but expecting a different result "this time". Idealism is great, had a little of it myself once...but idealism doesn't conquer hard realities...and the hard, sad reality is that our government can no longer be trusted to administer the important aspects of our lives...our means of self defense being one of them. You want to give your plan a shot in hell at credibility? Wave your wand to somehow restore trust in their governments to the American people. A good start would be to get them to function in a manner that breeds trust, rather than destroys it. Till that happens, you're just trying to put lipstick on a pig.

chipcom
January 17, 2013, 08:30 PM
If you are too lazy to look at your ID card and see that it is stamped "NO FIREARMS" before you walk into a gun store and get turned down for a firearms purchase, I don't really think you are justified in "not being happy" about it. That's just silly.
and of course nobody would EVAR change the rules in secret...for national security sake of course...and embed information in a mag stripe or rfid, would they? They'd never make an appeals process an exercise in hair-pulling futility, would they?

Serious question, have you been paying attention over the last decade?

ngnrd
January 17, 2013, 10:37 PM
Well, I think I've spent just a bit too much time wrestling with the pigs here. You guys seem to like it, and I feel just a little dirty for the effort. Before I adjourn, I would like to thank you for having this discussion with me. It was enlightening.

To summarize:

Citizens should be afraid of a corrupt government, so it's better to do nothing than to include them in the process. Criminal activity can't be curbed, so we shouldn't waste money trying. Either allow violent criminals and the clinically insane full access to guns, or lock them away forever, otherwise there's a risk that individual's rights could be infringed. And, a person doesn't have any responsibility, or duty to society, in regard to preventing gun violence, if doing so could infringe on individual rights. And, I'm sure I've missed another couple of big points. I'll have to go back and read this all again when I get a chance.

In this thread, I've heard all of these statements presented as reasons to oppose those who would try to force any more gun restrictions on the American People. A few of these arguments were well presented and logical, but lacked much substance; many were seething with as much emotion as the arguments of the anti-gun advocates. And several were either just simple and pure ad hominem attacks on the the messenger, or entirely off topic.

The point is that very few were actually effective in presenting the poster's positions, and fewer still were able to provide a reasonable expectation that somebody's mind could be changed. It's disappointing, really. I was hoping to see a more cohesive and united front, one that could actually make a strong voice heard, instead of a cacophony of voices all trying to be the loudest. In that regard, I think the pro-rights, pro-gun community needs to rethink its strategy, and pick a couple of really strong positions to build on. Because, the other side of this argument has already done just that. And the stakes for losing are so very, very high.

Think about it. Go back and read your posts. Dissect what happened, and pull the best parts of your arguments out from the rest. Then use these bits of truth to forge a stronger, more fluid attack strategy. This battle is far from over. We're going to need all the strength we can muster.

For the record, I am a staunch supporter of the 2nd Amendment. My grandfather (rest his soul) was a decorated War Veteran. I own multiple revolvers, semi-auto pistols, bolt rifles, semi-auto rifles, single shot rifles, pump shotguns, semi-auto shotguns, single shot shotguns, and some other stuff I probably shouldn't admit. I am also a Professional Engineer that likes to pick things apart just to see how they work. And, I absolutely believe that the Federal Government has overstepped its authority on many fronts, not the least of which is its relentless battle on the 2nd Amendment; the only means by which the remainder of the Constitution can continue to stand.

Soldier on fellas.

And, thanks again for participating in the discussion.

Clean97GTI
January 17, 2013, 11:25 PM
Which had nothing at all to do with the background check itself.
it had everything to do with a background check. The background checks themselves were valid provided the federal gov didn't force state or local law enforcement to perform them.
You are going to have to accept that your legal opinion runs counter to that of the guys whose job it is to interpret the law.
put simply, you're wrong.

VA27
January 18, 2013, 12:20 AM
...And, wow... Do you actually think that the threat of violence (getting conked on the head) is really a valid justification to not check if a buyer might be prohibited from purchasing a firearm? Really?

I see by this post that you have no sense of humor. Had I known that, I would have left that part out of my post. My ex-wife had only a partial sense of humor, so I know how difficult it must be for you sometimes. Perhaps a tag in your sig line could have alerted me to this fact, and so have prevented me from intruding. I go in peace and wish you well in your quest.

ngnrd
January 18, 2013, 12:30 AM
Oh, I have a sense of humor. It may be a little twisted, and sometimes overpowered by an odd blend of sarcasm and cynicism, but it's definitely there.

Heck, I'm smiling just reading your post again. Seriously. There's even a faint chuckle to go with it.

VA27
January 18, 2013, 02:16 PM
The funny thing is, my idea was serious. A toll free number that anyone can call to run a check.

IIRC, when an FFL calls in a check, the buyers information is entered, the transaction type (purchase, picking up a pawn, etc.), firearm type ( handgun, long gun or other, i.e., AR lower) and that's it. I personally wouldn't have a problem doing that.

I WOULD have a problem with being required to go to an FFL and fill out a form and pay for the 'privilege' of making that transaction. Anyone who's ever bought or sold a house can understand this. I know, I know, real estate is different from a firearm, but you get the idea.

(And I did pick up on the sarcasm in that last line.:D)

brboyer
January 18, 2013, 02:44 PM
I see by this post that you have no sense of humor. Had I known that, I would have left that part out of my post. My ex-wife had only a partial sense of humor, so I know how difficult it must be for you sometimes. Perhaps a tag in your sig line could have alerted me to this fact, and so have prevented me from intruding. I go in peace and wish you well in your quest.
Sorry, quoted wrong post......

Zoogster
January 18, 2013, 02:45 PM
First off being able to prohibit people means the 2nd for its original intent is in essence destroyed. It may or may not be outdated, but it is still the reason for the existence of the 2nd Amendment.
Anyone taking any hard stands against the government can become a prohibited person whether legitimately, or even if pursued for frivolous charges.
The GCA of 1968 creating prohibited persons essentially allowed just that, being able to disarm those in the civil rights movement, labor movement, various militant groups, etc And being able to arrest or charge them in the future just for having a gun after thier initial confict with authority that gave them a felony. (While it was some high profile assassinations that gave the public support.)
Even assaulting a police officer is typically a felony, which means even unarmed protestors clashing with police in a demonstration could then be disarmed for life.
The unarmed protestor then couldn't legally even have a firearm in thier home anymore. Making it even easier for government to bully them.
It is an authoritarian tool.
And one which we have seen is relatively ineffective against common criminals anyways.



So while there is certainly people I would like to see be prohibited and remain unarmed, I think it is unConstituional. It essentially gives government the tool to disarm the very people the 2nd was supposed to insure could remain armed. Having a law that disarms those who have ever had conflict with government diminishes the very check against tyranny the 2nd was meant to provide.




As for NICs being available to more people it would be abused.
If it is free then everyone will use NICs to screen even for unrelated things.
Not just firearm transfers, but everything. It would become the defacto way to check and see if anyone is a felon.
The resulting amount of callers would require many new employees to handle the calls. Millions of calls would be a common occurance. From parents trying to check on thier daughter's latest boyfriend, to employers using it as the initial background check. The level of traffic would be large and endless.

brboyer
January 18, 2013, 02:48 PM
Well, I think I've spent just a bit too much time wrestling with the pigs here. You guys seem to like it, and I feel just a little dirty for the effort. Before I adjourn, I would like to thank you for having this discussion with me. It was enlightening.

To summarize:

Citizens should be afraid of a corrupt government, so it's better to do nothing than to include them in the process. Criminal activity can't be curbed, so we shouldn't waste money trying. Either allow violent criminals and the clinically insane full access to guns, or lock them away forever, otherwise there's a risk that individual's rights could be infringed. And, a person doesn't have any responsibility, or duty to society, in regard to preventing gun violence, if doing so could infringe on individual rights. And, I'm sure I've missed another couple of big points. I'll have to go back and read this all again when I get a chance.

In this thread, I've heard all of these statements presented as reasons to oppose those who would try to force any more gun restrictions on the American People. A few of these arguments were well presented and logical, but lacked much substance; many were seething with as much emotion as the arguments of the anti-gun advocates. And several were either just simple and pure ad hominem attacks on the the messenger, or entirely off topic.

The point is that very few were actually effective in presenting the poster's positions, and fewer still were able to provide a reasonable expectation that somebody's mind could be changed. It's disappointing, really. I was hoping to see a more cohesive and united front, one that could actually make a strong voice heard, instead of a cacophony of voices all trying to be the loudest. In that regard, I think the pro-rights, pro-gun community needs to rethink its strategy, and pick a couple of really strong positions to build on. Because, the other side of this argument has already done just that. And the stakes for losing are so very, very high.

Think about it. Go back and read your posts. Dissect what happened, and pull the best parts of your arguments out from the rest. Then use these bits of truth to forge a stronger, more fluid attack strategy. This battle is far from over. We're going to need all the strength we can muster.

For the record, I am a staunch supporter of the 2nd Amendment. My grandfather (rest his soul) was a decorated War Veteran. I own multiple revolvers, semi-auto pistols, bolt rifles, semi-auto rifles, single shot rifles, pump shotguns, semi-auto shotguns, single shot shotguns, and some other stuff I probably shouldn't admit. I am also a Professional Engineer that likes to pick things apart just to see how they work. And, I absolutely believe that the Federal Government has overstepped its authority on many fronts, not the least of which is its relentless battle on the 2nd Amendment; the only means by which the remainder of the Constitution can continue to stand.

Soldier on fellas.

And, thanks again for participating in the discussion.
I think many of us stated our positions quite clearly but perhaps you failed to comprehend.

I'll summarize it for you: No Compromise, No Concession, period!

Hope that's clear enough.

brboyer
January 18, 2013, 02:52 PM
it had everything to do with a background check. The background checks themselves were valid provided the federal gov didn't force state or local law enforcement to perform them.
You are going to have to accept that your legal opinion runs counter to that of the guys whose job it is to interpret the law.
put simply, you're wrong.
The only legal challenges in that case came from two CLEOs objecting to being forced to perform duties at the demand of the Federal Government, period. No other legal challenges were raised or addressed by the court.

You may need to go back and re-read it. :scrutiny:

Clean97GTI
January 18, 2013, 03:04 PM
The only legal challenges in that case came from two CLEOs objecting to being forced to perform duties at the demand of the Federal Government, period. No other legal challenges were raised or addressed by the court.

You may need to go back and re-read it. :scrutiny:That is exactly the point. The background check itself went unchallenged because it does not infringe the rights of law abiding citizens. Nobody, including the plaintiffs had an issue with the checks. Merely who was telling them to perform these checks.
Even in DC v. Heller, the court stated "assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home."

The fact that a person can be disqualified via due process would assume that the government has the right (Necessary and Proper clause) to conduct these checks to ensure that a DQ'd person can't buy a gun.

Clean97GTI
January 18, 2013, 03:08 PM
I think many of us stated our positions quite clearly but perhaps you failed to comprehend.

I'll summarize it for you: No Compromise, No Concession, period!

Hope that's clear enough.If you don't compromise, you will find your position unrepresented by anyone. They will ignore you because you refuse to involve yourself in the political system.
Good luck with that.

brboyer
January 18, 2013, 03:26 PM
That is exactly the point. The background check itself went unchallenged because it does not infringe the rights of law abiding citizens. Nobody, including the plaintiffs had an issue with the checks. Merely who was telling them to perform these checks.
Even in DC v. Heller, the court stated "assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home."

The fact that a person can be disqualified via due process would assume that the government has the right (Necessary and Proper clause) to conduct these checks to ensure that a DQ'd person can't buy a gun.
The background check went unchallenged simply because no one with standing challenged it. :banghead:

I feel you lack the basic knowledge necessary to understand the legal process.

we are not amused
January 18, 2013, 05:54 PM
I have a great idea! Let us brand felons and mentally dangerous people, or maybe just tattoo them. That would solve the problem!

HankR
January 18, 2013, 06:13 PM
I have a great idea! Let us brand felons and mentally dangerous people, or maybe just tattoo them. That would solve the problem!

If the "felon" is not to be trusted w/ a gun, I don't want to trust him/her with gasoline, matches, fertilizer, a dump truck full of gravel (especially in a school zone), etc. Howzabout we just get some big building's with bars on the windows and keep these people inside. If the "felon" is guilty of cable theft, or filling in a pothole in a wet driveway, then we don't lock him/her in the building with bars. When I want to sell my personal property (gun, dumptruck, chainsaw, etc), I just limit my potential buyers to those outside of the building with bars.

Hey, that would work!

If you don't compromise, you will find your position unrepresented by anyone. They will ignore you because you refuse to involve yourself in the political system.

Hate to disagree w/ the above, but I'm with brboyer on this one. "Compromise" means something different to the anti gunners. They give nothing, we give half. Next time we give half of what's left. Before you know it we're down to seven round mags and bans on certain shapes of plastic handles pointy sticks. Therefore, I (and many others) will represent brboyer's position and the quote above is demonstrably false.

Clean97GTI
January 18, 2013, 07:08 PM
The background check went unchallenged simply because no one with standing challenged it. :banghead:

I feel you lack the basic knowledge necessary to understand the legal process.
The guys with standing didn't even bother to challenge it. In this case, the legal process tells us that the background checks are constitutional just not when the federal government tries to compel the states to perform them.

I would also suggest that the Necessary and Proper clause makes legislation requiring background checks constitutionally sound.

Clean97GTI
January 18, 2013, 07:16 PM
Hate to disagree w/ the above, but I'm with brboyer on this one. "Compromise" means something different to the anti gunners. They give nothing, we give half. Next time we give half of what's left. Before you know it we're down to seven round mags and bans on certain shapes of plastic handles pointy sticks. Therefore, I (and many others) will represent brboyer's position and the quote above is demonstrably false.

Perhaps if you asked for something better, you might find yourself in a better spot.

as far as not compromising, you need only look at the American Civil War and what a refusal to compromise got the southern states. A long bloody war, their slaves taken from them forcibly and reconstruction policies that hammered the South for years and years.

If you don't try and work with the other side, you will always lose. History must progress and those who refuse to progress with it, are forgotten by it.

brboyer
January 18, 2013, 09:11 PM
The guys with standing didn't even bother to challenge it. In this case, the legal process tells us that the background checks are constitutional just not when the federal government tries to compel the states to perform them.

I would also suggest that the Necessary and Proper clause makes legislation requiring background checks constitutionally sound.

In this case, the legal process tells us that the background checks are constitutional
No, the legal process tells us no one with standing challenged the law so there it's constitutionality was not challenged, that's all.

hogshead
January 18, 2013, 09:24 PM
When I hear the word comprimise i always think of the tale of the hunter and the bear."A hunter raised his rifle and took careful aim at a large bear. When he was about to pull the trigger, the bear spoke in a soft soothing voice, “Isn’t it better to talk than to shoot? What do you want? Let’s negotiate the matter.” Lowering his rifle, the hunter replied, “I want a fur coat.”

“Good,” said the bear, “that is a negotiable question. I only want a full stomach, so let us negotiate a compromise.” They sat down to negotiate and after a time the bear walked away alone. The negotiations had been successful. The bear had a full stomach, and the hunter had his fur coat!

we are not amused
January 19, 2013, 01:44 PM
By the way I was joking about branding or tattooing felons.

I thought considering some of the arguments I had read, it might point out the absurdity of some of what has been said. I was thinking a bar code across the forehead would suffice.

First, in my opinion, only violent felons should be permanently disbarred from from having firearms.

Secondly, they should never be let out of prison, while they remain a threat.

Thirdly, the idea of tattooing a bar code on the fore head of a convicted violent felon is starting to sound good.

Certainly, I would consider that before I give up any more rights.

I am shocked, shocked I tell you, to find so many people falling over backwards to make owning a gun harder and more expensive.

If you enjoyed reading about "Thought experiment RE: private sales of firearms" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!