Would hate to see universal checks but would like to see more accessible checks


PDA






ID-shooting
January 21, 2013, 10:08 AM
No way I would support mandatory universal checks but voluntary ones sure. I have no problems swapping guns back and forth with my friends, been doing that for years. But every once in a while I post one up for sale or buy one I see listed in classifieds.

Would be nice to whip out the smart phone, ask the guy I am selling to for some identifying information and get a go/no-go result.

In the inverse, if I am buying it would be nice to know if the guy has several breaking and entering convictions or has been to jail for theft.

Maybe even a make/model/serial search to know if the prospective gun is hot or not.

If you enjoyed reading about "Would hate to see universal checks but would like to see more accessible checks" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Screamin'Eagle
January 21, 2013, 10:32 AM
There is already a way to do what you want to do. It's called an FFL transfer. You can use it for a FTF transaction. I'd rather have a guy behind a counter dealing with a denied person than finding out on my phone and then figuring out what to do next. As a purchaser, I would not want to be denied because the smartphone app did not properly identify me, and there is no way I am giving my SSN or some other info that is on a 4473 to just anyone.

evolve23
January 21, 2013, 10:37 AM
Beware posts like this.

Alot of the newer members with lower post count are hired by gov't think tanks to try to influence opinion. The government and liberal think tanks are very adept at using online tactics to shape the public's dialog on an issue.

They start with a somewhat safe position, trying to identify with you by claiming their participation in a favored activity within the targeted social group.

With their veracity and "bona fides" established, they move in with a moderate, non-extreme position statement such as this to make you think "hey, maybe it's not so bad". The idea is that you will be influenced by thinking "likeminded people agree this is a sensible option.

Pointshoot
January 21, 2013, 10:42 AM
Gun crimes have gone down by half over the last 20 years with the way things are currently.

ID-shooting
January 21, 2013, 10:47 AM
Beware posts like this.

Alot of the newer members with lower post count are hired by gov't think tanks to try to influence opinion. The government and liberal think tanks are very adept at using online tactics to shape the public's dialog on an issue.

They start with a somewhat safe position, trying to identify with you by claiming their participation in a favored activity within the targeted social group.

With their veracity and "bona fides" established, they move in with a moderate, non-extreme position statement such as this to make you think "hey, maybe it's not so bad". The idea is that you will be influenced by thinking "likeminded people agree this is a sensible option.
Hahahahahahahaha! Says the guy with 15 posts.

I am a return member that was here when the last ban was around ~1500 posts.

Better than that, I truly am a Federal Employee, now chew on that a while.

Anyway, to the second poster, those are becoming harder to do. They all want fees, some upwards of $50 dollars and the buys do want that taken out of your sales price. Finding one that is open on Sunday, not too mention that doesn't me when I am the buyer.

May not be ssn, at least a DL. Not perfect, but if keeping guns out of criminal's hands is the goal as well as protecting us from buying guns of dubious history it seems like a mom-violating way to do it.

Kubrick
January 21, 2013, 10:53 AM
If they really wanted to implement "universal" background checks, the only convenient way would be to have a section on the state issued ID that either says the person can buy or cannot buy firearms. Like that Organ Donor section.

That way all you would need to do is look at their ID (which you would probably be doing anyway). That is all the due dilligence that should be taken on the seller's part.

19-3Ben
January 21, 2013, 11:00 AM
Beware posts like this.

Alot of the newer members with lower post count are hired by gov't think tanks to try to influence opinion. The government and liberal think tanks are very adept at using online tactics to shape the public's dialog on an issue.

They start with a somewhat safe position, trying to identify with you by claiming their participation in a favored activity within the targeted social group.

With their veracity and "bona fides" established, they move in with a moderate, non-extreme position statement such as this to make you think "hey, maybe it's not so bad". The idea is that you will be influenced by thinking "likeminded people agree this is a sensible option.

So as guy with only 15 posts, how do I know you are not part of a conservative think tank here to manipulate me into believing the liberals are doing exactly what you are really doing? It would be the perfect smoke screen!:D

I don't care who is here from which agency. I'll stick to the truth and just tell it like it is. If someone thinks that I'm going to change my opinions to match the opinion of a stranger on the internet, he doesn't know me very well.

M-Cameron
January 21, 2013, 11:07 AM
I have no problem with NICS being made available for public use for those that want it. Perhaps having it available through the local police? I don't know how much IDE agree with a phone app though....

MErl
January 21, 2013, 11:18 AM
would it also be updated to actually be Instant?

Beware the privacy implications of opening this database to the public. It too easy to search (name & address only) it will get used for everything from employment to first dates.

Maybe even a make/model/serial search to know if the prospective gun is hot or not.
unlike there is a valid database here to search even if we wanted to. Gun stolen, reported, recovered & returned. is it off any such list?

cooltouch
January 21, 2013, 11:19 AM
Gun crimes have gone down by half over the last 20 years with the way things are currently.

You're not really suggesting that gun control is responsible for this, are you?

BTW, I may only have a couple of posts, but that's just because I'm new here. I find the OP's positions troubling. No way would I be giving out my personal info to a stranger. And having an endorsement area on a DL won't work. In my state we update ours every ten years. A person could get in a helluva lot of trouble in ten years and not have it show up on their license.

ID-shooting
January 21, 2013, 11:23 AM
Thought about the privacy aspect of it. Sadly being prior service and a Fed has me conditioned to not having privacy but I get your point.

I just have had a few instances where something felt odd about a transaction. Ended up at the county where the gun was ran and came back clean after the fact. Talk about a sigh of relief. Still would have been nice to know that day.

ApacheCoTodd
January 21, 2013, 11:25 AM
I know I'd like to run a simple non-data-based check for private sales.

Though in one case, all it took was googlizing a fella to send him packing - came up RSO with ugly add-ons.

twsnnva
January 21, 2013, 11:29 AM
One problem I see with this is the length of time the "purchase permit" is good for. A lot can happen in 6 months to a year.

I was thinking about this recently and believe the best solution would be a system where the buyer goes to an FFL (all are required to participate in this program) and pays a fee to have a check run. After the check comes back OK, the FFL provides the person with a printout with their name, a PIN and perhaps a scan of the person's photo from their ID (no other personal info). The info is then stored in a database for a certain amount of time (I'd suggest 14 or 30 days). The buyer can then provide the printout to the seller, who could validate the info over the phone or online. The entire system should be optional, though I suspect the majority of sellers would use it when selling to someone they don't know.

Since the majority of the infrastructure is already in place, cost should be minimal. It also places the burden on the buyer, so the seller really doesn't have much to do but validate the info. It would also give the buyer a small window to shop in without having to go back for more checks should the sale fall through. Finally, it allows me to sell to trusted persons without the check.

I would support legislation that makes a system like this available. My only fear is that use of the system would be made compulsory in the future.

Would y'all support a system like this? Would you use it?

Solo
January 21, 2013, 11:34 AM
Beware posts like this.

Alot of the newer members with lower post count are hired by gov't think tanks to try to influence opinion. The government and liberal think tanks are very adept at using online tactics to shape the public's dialog on an issue.

They start with a somewhat safe position, trying to identify with you by claiming their participation in a favored activity within the targeted social group.

With their veracity and "bona fides" established, they move in with a moderate, non-extreme position statement such as this to make you think "hey, maybe it's not so bad". The idea is that you will be influenced by thinking "likeminded people agree this is a sensible option.

evolve23
Member


Join Date: March 19, 2009
Posts: 15

MErl
January 21, 2013, 11:39 AM
One problem I see with this is the length of time the "purchase permit" is good for. A lot can happen in 6 months to a year.

I was thinking about this recently and believe the best solution would be a system where the buyer goes to an FFL (all are required to participate in this program) and pays a fee to have a check run. After the check comes back OK, the FFL provides the person with a printout with their name, a PIN and perhaps a scan of the person's photo from their ID (no other personal info). The info is then stored in a database for a certain amount of time (I'd suggest 14 or 30 days). The buyer can then provide the printout to the seller, who could validate the info over the phone or online. The entire system should be optional, though I suspect the majority of sellers would use it when selling to someone they don't know.

Since the majority of the infrastructure is already in place, cost should be minimal. It also places the burden on the buyer, so the seller really doesn't have much to do but validate the info. It would also give the buyer a small window to shop in without having to go back for more checks should the sale fall through. Finally, it allows me to sell to trusted persons without the check.

I would support legislation that makes a system like this available. My only fear is that use of the system would be made compulsory in the future.

Would y'all support a system like this? Would you use it?

not with a 2week to a month duration on it, no. Absolutely not if it was required. Lastly it is very close to a license. As an optional system with multi-year validity I would not be strongly against it. To enforce it being optional I would want it be totally useless for a FFL transfer, separate systems.

If a state can revoke a 5 year duration CC permit, it can do better than 1 month on any such system.

AlexanderA
January 21, 2013, 12:31 PM
This discussion is almost academic, that is, moot. The way things are going in Congress, if a "universal check" bill is passed (and chances are very good that it will be, considering that this is the "low hanging fruit" for the antigunners), the checks are going to be done through existing FFL's. They don't want to bother setting up an alternative system. More importantly, collecting fees for calls to NICS will be a financial boon for FFL's. This is a way of turning potential opponents (FFL's) into supporters. It's called a "stakeholder buy-in." The same thing was done in the runup to Obamacare.

Personally, I would like to see a quasi-voluntary system in which sellers could have direct access to NICS, free, through a toll-free number or Web site. The incentive for using this system would be immunity from civil/criminal liability if the gun is later misused. It may be too late for such ideas, though.

Dean Weingarten
January 21, 2013, 12:47 PM
It all comes down to how the actual bills are written. I guarantee that any bill that is supported by this administration will have "registration system" all over it. A bill that would allow immediate access to a database of all prohibited persons, along with a clear and simple appeals process to get off of it, guarantees that the data will not be stored so as to put the seller at legal risk later, no requirement for firearms information, and an excemption of all CCW holders will never see the light of day.

The bills that may come forward will allow for eternal keeping of the data, either digitally or on paper, likely will have no exception for CCW holders, and will require serial numbers of the firearms sold.

razorback2003
January 21, 2013, 12:50 PM
I figure a bill of sale works well enough. I prefer people who have handgun carry permits, members of my gun club, or friends/relatives.

FFL transferring all firearms will get expensive.


Unfortunately, I would not be shocked if some sort of background check law was passed. If it was passed, I think those of use with handgun carry permits should be exempt from it.

pintler
January 21, 2013, 01:47 PM
"Beware the privacy implications of opening this database to the public. It too easy to search (name & address only) it will get used for everything from employment to first dates."

On one hand I have the interests of 100 million plus law abiding gun owners. On the other hand I have the privacy interests of people with felony/DV records. I think I would balance those competing interests towards the side of the law abiding.

As with NICS, you could make it illegal to make a query for reasons other than a firearm purchase. I would think that a couple of widely reported prosecutions for abusing that would stop a lot of looking up prospective dates and so on.

I do sympathize with people with mental issues - their condition isn't their fault. But if an occasional person looking to hire a nanny abuses the system to find out that the applicant *has been adjudicated a danger to others* and hires someone else, that's a price I would be willing to pay. Other mental conditions shouldn't be disqualifying.

Lastly, the privacy issues could be ameliorated by allowing people who think guns are a bad idea to opt in to being put on the list; then if you were abusing the system to check a job applicant you wouldn't know whether they had a record or were just someone who decided to opt out of gun ownership.

"Personally, I would like to see a quasi-voluntary system in which sellers could have direct access to NICS, free, through a toll-free number or Web site. The incentive for using this system would be immunity from civil/criminal liability if the gun is later misused. "

+1

Screamin'Eagle
January 21, 2013, 02:02 PM
As with NICS, you could make it illegal to make a query for reasons other than a firearm purchase. I would think that a couple of widely reported prosecutions for abusing that would stop a lot of looking up prospective dates and so on.

HAHA, tell that to the people who had their DLs looked up illegally by LEO here in MN. Some of the victims were LEOs themselves! The criminals may get in trouble but the damage is not just simply reversed with a conviction!

I support the current system because it allows people the freedom to conduct the transaction how they see fit. If they want the buyer to pass a background check, they have that option. If they are passing it on to a child or relative and don't believe it is necessary, then they have that option as well. Each option has pros and cons and giving people the option to choose is the best way.

SSN Vet
January 21, 2013, 02:05 PM
I personally have never sold a firearm to anyone that wasn't an FFL holder. Though I would consider selling to someone I knew very, very well (i.e. I knew that they did not have a prior felony conviction and that they were not a mental case).

The primary reason for this is that I carefully research any purchase that I make and am very confident that what I'm buying is exactly what I want. And my "wants" are very well refined b4 I'm ready to plunk down $$.

But, I also don't want to be the guy who sold the next school shooter a weapon.

If there was a resource available through which I could check the status of a buyer for a private party transaction, I would gladly use it.... provided it was...

1. voluntary
2. free (or very low cost)
3. easy to use
4. did not incur a delay
5. confidential
6. gave me some kind of receipt or cert. that the buyer was cleared on the date of the sale.

MErl
January 21, 2013, 02:18 PM
On one hand I have the interests of 100 million plus law abiding gun owners. On the other hand I have the privacy interests of people with felony/DV records. I think I would balance those competing interests towards the side of the law abiding.

As with NICS, you could make it illegal to make a query for reasons other than a firearm purchase. I would think that a couple of widely reported prosecutions for abusing that would stop a lot of looking up prospective dates and so on.


I guess we see things differently there. Trampling all over anyone's rights should not be done without damn good reasons and this does not qualify.
A) Joe did hard time for selling drugs. Got out 4 years ago and is now just a normal guy. Goes to get a new apartment and landlord does a check. sorry.
B) Mary had a psychotic break 15 years ago and ended up in a hospital for a month. Is now properly treated and having no problems. Interviews for a new job. sorry.
Can come up with plenty of examples where it is serious breach of privacy. It is bad enough we brand felons, don't make it worse.

As for making it illegal to check other than for a gun. There would be no way to enforce that.

AlexanderA
January 21, 2013, 03:41 PM
Dean Weingarten wrote:

A bill that would allow immediate access to a database of all prohibited persons, along with a clear and simple appeals process to get off of it, guarantees that the data will not be stored so as to put the seller at legal risk later, no requirement for firearms information, and an exemption of all CCW holders will never see the light of day.

I agree that such a bill will probably never see the light of day, but that's because the pro-gun lobby has decided to stonewall the issue, rather than throw such ideas into the mix. Stonewalling is a smart strategy if you have the political strength to get 100% of your maximal demands; if not, you get nothing. The NRA is pursuing an all-or-nothing strategy. The days when it could have been assured of winning with such a strategy appear to be over.

Dean Weingarten
January 21, 2013, 04:31 PM
The reason they are pursueing an all or nothing strategy is because it is all or nothing. Anything less than the guarantees I suggested leads inevitably to registration and gradual confiscation until gun owners are politically insignificant. Just look at New York. Just look at England. This does not end well.

It is designed to destroy the gun culture in this country over generations.

This administration will not accept the guarantees that I suggested.

AlexanderA
January 21, 2013, 05:37 PM
Then why not put forward a plan with the guarantees that you suggested? If the administration will not accept those conditions, then, fine, the onus will be on them. We will have lost nothing. We will have gained the public perception of being the cooperative ones. These things matter in the political/legislative process. What's becoming increasingly evident is that the NRA cannot simply strongarm its will any more.

gbran
January 21, 2013, 05:39 PM
Most of the people screaming for background checks really want registration.

12131
January 21, 2013, 05:41 PM
evolve23
Member


Join Date: March 19, 2009
Posts: 15
Yeah, but at least, he's a long time member, compared to the OP (joined December 15, 2012).:p

sig228
January 21, 2013, 05:47 PM
Don't worry, OP, I believe you are not a government spy or some other sort of rat.

Back to your original request though, you might just be in luck. After all, it was #6 on Obama's 23 hit list:

6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.

meanmrmustard
January 21, 2013, 06:10 PM
Hahahahahahahaha! Says the guy with 15 posts.

I am a return member that was here when the last ban was around ~1500 posts.

Better than that, I truly am a Federal Employee, now chew on that a while.

Anyway, to the second poster, those are becoming harder to do. They all want fees, some upwards of $50 dollars and the buys do want that taken out of your sales price. Finding one that is open on Sunday, not too mention that doesn't me when I am the buyer.

May not be ssn, at least a DL. Not perfect, but if keeping guns out of criminal's hands is the goal as well as protecting us from buying guns of dubious history it seems like a mom-violating way to do it.
You have to give a social to have a valid license, so your SSN is still accessible.

Solo
January 21, 2013, 06:14 PM
Yeah, but at least, he's a long time member, compared to the OP (joined December 15, 2012).
That just means he's been infiltrating us for years!

If you enjoyed reading about "Would hate to see universal checks but would like to see more accessible checks" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!