Checking the buyer without the gun. I could buy that.


PDA






gdcpony
February 3, 2013, 08:25 PM
Finally, an idea I could jump on board with. So long as this would replace the broken system we have now. The idea could use some tweaking as the thread posts say, but a variation of this could be used rather effectively I think.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=689033

One of the main problems with background checks is they tend to turn into de-facto registration. Registration in turn increases government temptation to confiscation. If it looks like Congress is going to pass universal background check legislation, maybe we can derail it by holding out for a compromise that prevents de-facto registration.

It could work like this. When you want to buy a gun you go to the government website yourself on your own computer at home or wherever you want. You request a background check certificate in your name. When the check has completed, you are given a certificate that is cryptographically signed by the government, declaring you passed the check. You can print out this certificate on your own printer and take it with you to buy one or more guns from one or more sellers. Since no gun serial numbers are entered and there is no further contact with the government in the transfer process to find out who you bought a gun from or how many, there is no de-facto registration.

Because the background check certificate is cryptographically signed by the government, anyone with a computer can easily verify that the certificate is genuinely issued by the government and can not have been altered in the slightest way, not so much as a comma added or a space inserted. This is possible because cryptographic signatures do a mathematical operation on every single character, space, and period in the document, where the result of the math operation will change if there is the slightest change in the document. If you doubt this, I don't blame you, but with further explanation I won't go into yet, I am confident I can convince practically everybody that this is reliably true for practical purposes.

If you enjoyed reading about "Checking the buyer without the gun. I could buy that." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
firesky101
February 3, 2013, 08:31 PM
Perhaps rolling it in with other things that required background checks. I would not want a registry of gun owners any more than guns.

JonnyGringo
February 3, 2013, 08:42 PM
More of the same: "Your papers please." No thanks.

Ragnar Danneskjold
February 3, 2013, 08:44 PM
That doesn't solve the inherent problem of background checks. There's still a "can buy guns" group and a "can't buy guns" group, and the government is still in charge of who fits into what group. That's tyrannical.

Texan Scott
February 3, 2013, 08:59 PM
So instead of leading to a registry of who owns which guns, it just leads to a registry of who owns guns?

No. I refuse.

gc70
February 3, 2013, 09:02 PM
Finally, an idea I could jump on board with.

22 states already issue documents (permits or licenses to purchase, possess, or carry firearms) that qualify as alternatives to NICS checks. The states issue the documents for terms up to 5 years.

blkbrd666
February 3, 2013, 09:07 PM
I would prefer that if you have been issued a drivers license, you must own at least one gun...or if you own property...or if you are a citizen. What I would REALLY like is for all the antis to be forced to own a gun. They want to push their crap on me, so I would like to cram a little down their throat for a change.

I feel better now.

gdcpony
February 3, 2013, 09:42 PM
22 states already issue documents (permits or licenses to purchase, possess, or carry firearms) that qualify as alternatives to NICS checks. The states issue the documents for terms up to 5 years.
My CCW does in OH. I like it. I wish it worked nation wide as I am stationed in NC right now.

I know this is no perfect solution, but we will never get rid of background checks. It just won't happen. Sorry. However, if I can be cleared for a period, say even a year, to buy whatever firearms (or not buy), then it actually works more to my benefit than the current system. It would track those "eligible to purchase" not actually purchasers. It is a true compromise as they would be giving up the forms currently maintained that have a purchaser linked to a firearm at an FFL.

Isaac-1
February 3, 2013, 09:46 PM
If were going to have universal background checks, why not put a flag on drivers licesnses that says this person has passed a background check.

gdcpony
February 3, 2013, 09:49 PM
If were going to have universal background checks, why not put a flag on drivers licesnses that says this person has passed a background check.
I think that was listed in that thread as an option. Wouldn't take much.

gdcpony
February 3, 2013, 09:53 PM
Why not just a national id card with a common access card chip similar to my military ID. You could use it for multiple things. Whoever just checks the ID to make sure it is the owner, pops it into a card reader and goes to a national database site, the person who owns the ID enters their pin and then the info pops up with something like:

Vote: Eligible
Firearm: Eligible
Social Security # XXX-XX-XXXX

Then you do your business or vote or whatever.

Better yet just do that with your current form of ID. They could ad a little program to do that and match it with the card's strip and bar code. No chip required

I was just thinking the chip since you can put other info on it as well. Things like health insurance eligibility, car insurance stuff, plus you need a pin to activate it so not only would it be a picture ID but you would have another layer of security unlike with regular ID's.

Here it is.

Ragnar Danneskjold
February 3, 2013, 10:03 PM
Why not just a national id card with a common access card chip similar to my military ID. You could use it for multiple things. Whoever just checks the ID to make sure it is the owner, pops it into a card reader and goes to a national database site, the person who owns the ID enters their pin and then the info pops up with something like:

Vote: Eligible
Firearm: Eligible
Social Security # XXX-XX-XXXX

Then you do your business or vote or whatever.
Quote:
Better yet just do that with your current form of ID. They could ad a little program to do that and match it with the card's strip and bar code. No chip required
Quote:
I was just thinking the chip since you can put other info on it as well. Things like health insurance eligibility, car insurance stuff, plus you need a pin to activate it so not only would it be a picture ID but you would have another layer of security unlike with regular ID's.


Well those all sound like really fantastic ways to streamline oppression and turn rights into privileges efficiently. I'm sure our benevolent leaders will eat it up.

MErl
February 3, 2013, 10:06 PM
find a way to make criminals follow any such system and I'd consider it.

locnload
February 3, 2013, 10:15 PM
Please remember that the people dreaming up this stuff, the people you want to "compromise" with are not at all concerned with our convienience, privacy, or desire to make the process as fast and inexpnsive as possible. They hate the fact that you want to buy a gun at all and any pretense of giving a dam about how it affects us is only syrup to make the poison go down easier. :fire:

avalys
February 3, 2013, 10:17 PM
I would not mind such a system. I would like a way to sell a gun privately without worrying about whether the guy just got out of prison for armed robbery.

I don't see a problem with a gun "buyer's license". It doesn't prove you own any guns, just that you considered it at one point.

Ragnar Danneskjold
February 3, 2013, 10:18 PM
I would not mind such a system. I would like a way to sell a gun privately without worrying about whether the guy just got out of prison for armed robbery.

So if you're worried, don't sell.

gdcpony
February 3, 2013, 10:19 PM
I see that, but I am thinking of a way that allows us to stick it to them in a way as well. They want all guns registered. That is the real meaning behind private party checks. They think it would force the registration. This way they don't get anything. They get at most a list of people who "may" have bought a gun, but who knows which type.

Of course this is dependent on getting it through that way. That I think is the problem. But if we see the registration (my worst fear) going through, this may alter the game.

tgzzzz
February 3, 2013, 10:35 PM
find a way to make criminals follow any such system and I'd consider it.

Me too. There's just no reason for govt to know who has what other than confiscation.

rd_zzyzx
February 3, 2013, 10:39 PM
Make the database of felons public. Someone tries to buy a gun from me, I log in, look them up. I can do it. Government doesn't need to be involved. Just provide the data. Simple.

guitarguy314
February 3, 2013, 10:40 PM
Why does anyone need to check anything? I'm insulted every time a gun shop has to call NICS when I buy a gun. I'm not a criminal, and until/unless I do something that makes me a criminal it shouldn't be anyone's business what, how many, or how much I buy.

Glennx39
February 3, 2013, 10:48 PM
little changes and add ons have been happening to gun rights for decades, before you know it we will have nothing left, NO COMPROMISE

Give a dictator an "inch" and he makes a "ruler"

MErl
February 3, 2013, 10:53 PM
Make the database of felons public. Someone tries to buy a gun from me, I log in, look them up. I can do it. Government doesn't need to be involved. Just provide the data. Simple.

We should not further brand felons, especially when not everyone on that list is a felon. open this database it will be abused for everything from employment to first dates.

Yes it would be nice to be able to know the person you are selling to is ok but I'm still waiting for the solution that is not worse than the problem. Criminals will ignore any requirement and continue to trade in stolen firearms. There are plenty of people out there that will conduct a straw purchase for $50. ban them completely and you make a black market, how is prohibition errr the drug war going again?

mrvco
February 3, 2013, 10:56 PM
I already have to get a background check to buy a gun from an LGS. Decoupling the background check from the actual purchase would be a step in the right direction, especially if the background check wasn't gun purchase specific.

I do wish that my CCW permit would suffice here in Colorado though, especially with the current de facto 14-day waiting period.

Isaac-1
February 3, 2013, 11:27 PM
Of course we could always go back to the old way and brand felons

p.s. with todays tech we could probably do it one better with a color shifted ink that indicates how many years they have been out of prison for those that want a felons rights to buy guns restored after X years.

CapnMac
February 3, 2013, 11:30 PM
why not put a flag on drivers licenses that says this person has passed a background check.

Rather than turning a presumption of innocence upon its head--which is what background checks do--why not just label or flag the ID of those who are prohibited?

Rather than making a tenth of the US population leap through hoops to prove their innocence beyond all reasonable doubt for very transaction, it would be far more economical to merely track that much smaller population we know, and have already proven, guilty?

Any objections about fake ID, or the "burden" upon the indigent or impoverished are canards, as using false or stolen identification is already illegal everywhere. "Straw man" purchases are equally illegal, as well.

Given how many States already have magnetic strips on the ID in use, having a "Denied" field in the data would not be much additional burden. For those concerned about mental health issues, or TRO, or the like, that could be part of the electronic information, too.

Note that doing it this way defaults to "shall issue."
Note that doing it this way means the bearer is not surprised by a "deny"--in fact, a strong(er) case exists to hold such a person for authorities (something an NICS "deny" cannot).

But, perhaps I'm a tad cranky over having to constantly prove I am innocent of being a monster, an unstable person, a criminal or abetter of criminals, too.

Old Fuff
February 3, 2013, 11:34 PM
I see here all kinds of proposals - but in Washington there is only one on the table, which is:

Make all private sales or transfers go through an FFL.

Period!

They don't care what you think, or what you might find to be acceptable. To them your counter-proposals are meaningless. They look at the polls and say, "Yes! The time has come." Not one among them has even whispered the word "compromise."

As Ben Franklin said, "If we don't hang together we'll end up being hung separately."

Some folks need to wake up and smell the coffee.

Solo
February 3, 2013, 11:42 PM
Of course we could always go back to the old way and brand felons
That was a terrible idea for many reasons, practiced by harsh regimes that were not pleasant to live under.

rugerdude
February 4, 2013, 12:02 AM
In my state (Oklahoma) the NICS check does not involve the firearm's serial number, only whether it's a long gun or hand gun. I was recently at a shop and did my NICS check for a handgun and pistol. After that was done I found another pistol that I liked and bought it too, the owner simply added the information to the 4473 that he's required to keep for x amount of time. Nothing is going to the govt. saying that I own this that and the other.

I don't have a problem with NICS. I think it's a good thing. Sure, criminals will still get guns but at least this way you limit their selection/ease of access. We have to have some kind of measure in place like this. I am also for measures to increase communication between mental health professionals and NICS. A free 5 minute phone call while I'm browsing the gun store is no skin off my back.

National registration and records of firearms owned by individuals? Absolutely not, it serves no legitimate purpose. Checking the buyer with minimal delay and intrusion? Yeah, makes easy sense to me.

Now, should the government or anyone else be involved when I'm selling my personal property? I don't think so.

mljdeckard
February 4, 2013, 12:06 AM
I started a similar thread about a week ago, asking if it was possible to set up a system where you just check the buyer. I didn't think it was, and the responses confirmed it.

The bottom line is, if a system doesn't retain the name of the buyer and the information about the gun somewhere, it is useless.

hogshead
February 4, 2013, 12:17 AM
In the last 2 mass shootings the nics sytem failed. Holmes passed the nics check, Lanza shot his mother and took her guns.Bypassing it.So why do people on this forum keep trying to come up with ubcs that will work. If you want to use the nics check to sell a firearm go to your lgs and pay the transfer fee.Geez so tired of these post.We are our own worst enemy. COMPRMISE, give a little.Open your eyes these people dont want to fix anything they want to take all your guns. DUH

Twiki357
February 4, 2013, 01:18 AM
CapnMac: "Rather than turning a presumption of innocence upon its head--which is what background checks do--why not just label or flag the ID of those who are prohibited?"

Sounds like a good idea. But it would last only until the ACLU found out about it because it would discriminate against criminals.

mrvco
February 4, 2013, 02:17 AM
Folks use DL's for a lot more things than buying guns. A negative flag (visible on a DL) would inevitably have consequences unrelated to whether or not you were permitted to own a gun or not. Not to mention modifying it or forging a fake.

tgzzzz
February 4, 2013, 08:22 AM
How in the world are we going to get the power back from the pols?:confused:

longspurr
February 4, 2013, 10:39 AM
There is a way to check the buyer ONLY and do it with a one year permit. The state of Iowa has been using this so it is well vetted. This could be a model for the rest of the states / feds.

http://www.dps.state.ia.us/asd/weapon_permits.shtml

I like it knowing if I sell a firearm to someone I don't know, or know well that the person is Legally eligible to own a firearm (not a felon). Some may call this a comprimise. I think it is an improvement IF the state SHALL issue unless the background check says no.

MikeJackmin
February 4, 2013, 10:47 AM
Channeling all gun sales through a single choke point is an exceedingly bad idea. Then we are just one executive decision away from a one-gun-a-month rule, or whatever other restrictions they care to impose.

JustinJ
February 4, 2013, 10:54 AM
How would this method be enforced? The problem with universal background checks, short of all going through an FFL, is that enforcement is extremely difficult. Aside from sting operations there is no way to enforce this idea.

gossamer
February 4, 2013, 11:16 AM
find a way to make criminals follow any such system and I'd consider it.
If the "criminals won't follow it" argument was worth a dime we never would have passed laws against treason, sedition, murder, rape, burglary, robbery, embezzlement, child endangerment, insert your crime of choice here.

I suppose we should rescind all those laws because it's been proven that criminals don't follow them either.

To the OPs point: combined with post #2. I can see merit in this.

Realistically speaking: "we" are not going to be rid of background checks any more than "they" are ever going to be rid of guns. It's not going to happen.

Why does a background certification have to be specifically tied to weapons purchases only? Better yet, why does it have to be an affirmative system at all?

"__JOHN DOE ___ is not declined in the NICS database" is merely an answer to a binary question of "Is this person adjudicated mentally defective, a felon or, or, or?"

The question the transferor/seller is seeking to answer is not "Is s/he permitted to own a weapon?" Instead the question is "Is s/he on a list of felons/mentally ill/etc.?" And in this way the transferor is no different than thousands of other people in this country who may want an answer to this question.

The answer to this question should not be specific to buying guns: because it applies to many things in our society: to baby sitting, driving a school bus, working in a school, being a security guard, getting a job at my company, etc.. I get that not all of these are rights so much as they are privileges. And many of them apply to at-will situations. Which brings us back to the point earlier: we are never going to be rid of background checks. Period.

So what is a better way of conducting them overall? Personally, I see that the 4473 form containing information on guns is tracking. It should be done away with. This will not happen unless some other method of checking is in it's place. For that reason I agree with the posters who say that a better system is one in which the answer to "yes or no" is one not specific to guns but specific to an overall system used in other places besides weapons.

gossamer
February 4, 2013, 11:22 AM
In the last 2 mass shootings the nics sytem failed. Holmes passed the nics check, Lanza shot his mother and took her guns.Bypassing it.So why do people on this forum keep trying to come up with ubcs that will work. If you want to use the nics check to sell a firearm go to your lgs and pay the transfer fee.Geez so tired of these post.We are our own worst enemy. COMPRMISE, give a little.Open your eyes these people dont want to fix anything they want to take all your guns. DUH
Wait? Wayne LaPierre wanted to take my guns back in the 90s when he testified before Congress that background checks were okay and the NRA supported them?

cluck
February 4, 2013, 11:25 AM
Why not just a national id card with a common access card chip similar to my military ID. You could use it for multiple things. Whoever just checks the ID to make sure it is the owner, pops it into a card reader and goes to a national database site, the person who owns the ID enters their pin and then the info pops up with something like:

Vote: Eligible
Firearm: Eligible
Social Security # XXX-XX-XXXX

Then you do your business or vote or whatever.Great! I can tie my own noose?!?? the upside is I can make sure it fits properly around my neck and I can use something soft yet strong. (tic)

medalguy
February 4, 2013, 11:27 AM
After reading all of these replies, two things come to mind:

1. "shall not be infringed" doesn't fit very well with any system that requires government involvement and approval in the buying or selling of a legal piece of merchandise.

2. "innocent until proven guilty" somehow gets lost in the approval process to buy or sell a legal piece of merchandise.

I fully agree, until we find a way to keep any criminal from violating existing laws, no approval system is going to do the least bit in the way of keeping firearms out of the hands of those inclined to do violence to others, or deprive others of their property.

Come to think of it, a system that allows me to check on any potential buyer's legal/medical history might be good. I have this neighbor I'm not too sure about, and I'd like to know about his mental health history..............see where this can go?

cluck
February 4, 2013, 11:35 AM
For those that pose the argument, "Why a background check? Criminals will never use it?" Based on FBI data, in 2008 NICS denied over 60,000 ineligible purchases! I'd say that is working pretty good.

MErl
February 4, 2013, 12:04 PM
If the "criminals won't follow it" argument was worth a dime we never would have passed laws against treason, sedition, murder, rape, burglary, robbery, embezzlement, child endangerment, insert your crime of choice here.

I suppose we should rescind all those laws because it's been proven that criminals don't follow them either.

The laws don't seem to be stopping be acts. We still have all of the above. The laws stay because there is little drawback to having a law against burglary. Of your list there are drawbacks to a couple of them, sedition vs free speech for example.

There are drawbacks to universal checks for firearm transfers. Large ones for some of the proposals, smaller ones for the OP. Considering checks cannot actually stop prohibited persons from getting firearms, the drawbacks aren't worth it.

wtr100
February 4, 2013, 12:07 PM
no

since two character is too shot - hell no

WNC Seabee
February 4, 2013, 12:08 PM
That doesn't solve the inherent problem of background checks. There's still a "can buy guns" group and a "can't buy guns" group, and the government is still in charge of who fits into what group. That's tyrannical.

It also does nothing about the "will follow the law" and "criminal" groups. Doesn't matter how many background checks you put in place, how onerous or farcical they may be, a criminal is a criminal is a criminal...they won't follow any of the rules.

mrvco
February 4, 2013, 12:09 PM
Great! I can tie my own noose?!?? the upside is I can make sure it fits properly around my neck and I can use something soft yet strong. (tic)
Yep, I remember when my DL had my SS# on it... that turned out to be a seriously dumb idea and even after realizing how dumb of an idea that alone was, it took quite a few years for the practice to cease.

I certainly don't look forward to the day when we are all required to carry our federally issued "national ID card" at all times :uhoh:

NavyLCDR
February 4, 2013, 12:10 PM
More people die every year from vehicle crimes than gun crimes, so why is there no universal background check required for vehicle purchases? Why single out guns?

camar
February 4, 2013, 12:18 PM
GDCPony,
You could probably buy into anything that does not invade your comfort zone. The 2d Amendment,as written, makes me feel all worm and fuzzy and ready to stand up for it as written.

gc70
February 4, 2013, 12:21 PM
Based on FBI data, in 2008 NICS denied over 60,000 ineligible purchases! I'd say that is working pretty good.

A detailed Justice Department report (https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/231052.pdf#page=7) on 2008 NICS denials suggests a different conclusion. The ATF actually reviewed 7% (5,573) of the denials referred (78,906) by the FBI.

Of the denials referred by the FBI, the ATF conducted 2,154 "unlawful possession" investigations, two-fifths of which were "delayed denials" in which guns had already been sold. In 57% of those cases firearms were retrieved from prohibited persons, but in 30% of the cases the people were found to not be prohibited.

In the small number of cases that the ATF was most confident of investigating and finding real problems, 30% were false denials. How many false denials were in the larger general population?

You can read further in the report about the 39 people (out of more than 70,000 denials) who were prosecuted and pleaded guilty or were convicted of 43 charges.

Working pretty good? In any area other than government, results like those above would be considered a total and abject failure of the system.

AlexanderA
February 4, 2013, 12:41 PM
The proposal in the OP is interesting, but the check would have to be seller-initiated and not buyer-initiated.

Old Fuff wrote:

I see here all kinds of proposals - but in Washington there is only one on the table, which is:

Make all private sales or transfers go through an FFL.

You are right, but that's because no serious alternatives were proposed early on by the pro-gun side. By "stonewalling," we're going to be left with the worst possible plan. I think it's too late to make any positive proposals now -- this thing has taken on an almost unstoppable momentum. 2013 is going to take its place alongside 1986 as a year in which the NRA made a serious strategic blunder. (This shouldn't really be surprising, since by maintaining an unreachable "purity," the NRA maximizes its contributions -- the real interests of gun owners be damned.)

gossamer
February 4, 2013, 05:02 PM
The laws don't seem to be stopping be acts. We still have all of the above. The laws stay because there is little drawback to having a law against burglary. Of your list there are drawbacks to a couple of them, sedition vs free speech for example.

There are drawbacks to universal checks for firearm transfers.

yet somehow I don't see those drawbacks as being nearly as bad as Sedition or Treason.

Considering checks cannot actually stop prohibited persons from getting firearms, the drawbacks aren't worth it.

The fact is, and the data supports that, the checks DO prohibit the wrong persons from getting firearms. Discounting for "adjudicated mentally deficient", in 2008 alone almost 4,200 people were denied strictly because they were convicted felons, subject to a protective domestic violence order, or convicted of domestic violence. This is in one year.

Assuming the widely accepted (even by the NRA) 60/40% statistical distribution (60% of purchases subject to NICS, 40% not) and permitting for extrapolation that any logical and honest actuarial analysis permits, this means that roughly 1,700 prohibited persons may have acquired their firearm through a non-NICS-subjected transfer. Granted, absent a specific survey we have no way of verifying that these guns did in fact reach the hands of prohibited persons, but we are allowed to interpret data in this way.

In terms of percentages these are a small portion of the overall firearm transfers/purchases; nonetheless, this data shows that the current system does in fact keep guns out of the hands of prohibited persons. And for honest people committed to an honest discussion of facts in this debate, it is an argument that supports the existence of a NICS check on a purchase. (the question of whether or not these 4200 denials are "worth" the other 5.89million checks is purely subjective.

Needless to say, we can point to law abiding firearms purchasers inconvenienced by the NICS check or an outright denial. Likewise the Antis can point to a family who's daughter was killed by an estranged husband who got his gun through a secondary market and killed her. (eg, my very pro-RKBA family. Our niece was killed in the very way.)

The OPs post, and the second post about making it an "affirmative answer" bearing no connection to a firearm purchase allow the current NICS/4473 system to be amended to remove the "gun trace" condition and allow transferors to help prevent their gun from getting into the hands of one of these other 1,700 prohibited persons.

I personally find this a more acceptable, less intrusive method of conducting checks.

JayBird
February 4, 2013, 05:14 PM
Ill tell ya what. Ill be okay with this 'compromise' when we get something in return.

How about, a repeal of the Hughes Amendment. It aint making 'machine guns' anymore legal than they already are, it just opens BATFE's book again.

Now that....is what I call a compromise.

As the proposal to make UBC's 'better', is just spraying air freshener on a turd.

racenutz
February 4, 2013, 05:18 PM
Assuming the widely accepted (even by the NRA) 60/40% statistical distribution (60% of purchases subject to NICS, 40% not) and permitting for extrapolation that any logical and honest actuarial analysis permits, this means that roughly 1,700 prohibited persons may have acquired their firearm through a non-NICS-subjected transfer. Granted, absent a specific survey we have no way of verifying that these guns did in fact reach the hands of prohibited persons, but we are allowed to interpret data in this way.

That 40% figure is nothing but myth http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/338735/40-percent-myth-john-lott#

MErl
February 4, 2013, 05:47 PM
I had to check that we still had Sedition laws, being a direct limit on #1
These proposals are direct limits on #2, I hope they would undergo as much scrutiny.

Checks on private transfers might block casual buyers. People that decide they want a gun to protect themselves but cannot due to their past (which they find out when they try).
They wont stop your violent felon or someone that wants to protest their drug stash. It blocks one avenue leaving others wide open.

Review my posts over the last month or so, I initially supported ideas like OP. I've since come the the conclusion that the small amount of extra denials is not worth carrying a "I am not a felon" card. The people that know they will be denied have other ways of getting firearms. The people that didn't know they would be denied, those are the ones in that list of 4,200.

side note:
decoupling the SN tracking from the BG check makes it completely impossible to trace a straw purchase, opening an existing hole a bit larger.

mikechandler
February 4, 2013, 06:01 PM
I have a CCW permit, so they already know who I am - but I like the idea of registering and easily identifying the felons, and no more background check needed. Tatoo everybody ever convicted of a violent crime, &stamps/indicators on their licenses, and let the rest of us go on with life.

Oh BTW - having a CCW permit, I never go through a background check when I buy a gun. I just give them my CCW permit and license, when I fill out the paperwork, and they file away the 4473. There is no call in of the information needed. But like I said, if you have a permit, they KNOW you have guns.

pintler
February 4, 2013, 06:46 PM
If were going to have universal background checks, why not put a flag on drivers licesnses that says this person has passed a background check.

Almost, but I agree with CapnMac - you turn 18, you get the 'G' endorsement automatically. When you commit a violent crime or are adjudicated a danger to others, you lose the endorsement. Or, if you just don't like the idea of being able to possess a gun, you can opt out and ask for the endorsement to be removed.

That last part addresses the concern that, God forbid, an employer or whoever be able to look at your license and know you are a violent criminal. You could just explain that you don't like guns and asked to have it removed.

runes
February 4, 2013, 07:06 PM
I second Capnmac's idea
Simply mark the drivers license with a yes or no for gun ownership.
Might take a couple of years to cycle through the lifespan of a license.
If you lose your right the card is void and called in.

JonnyGringo
February 4, 2013, 07:16 PM
Why are felons denied their Constitutional rights to gun ownership to begin with? Didn't they receive their just punishment for their crime according to the law? For someone to do their time, often for a victimless "crime" such as smoking pot, yet often be disenfranchised and denied the right to keep and bear arms is unreasonable. Keep in mind here, before you respond with the standard "obey the law and you have nothing to worry about" that each and every one of you might potentially become a felon overnight by the mere stroke of a pen, or congressional vote and it will carry the full support of a good 40-50% of the American population.

PowderMonkey
February 4, 2013, 07:36 PM
My CCW does in OH. I like it. I wish it worked nation wide as I am stationed in NC right now. </snip>

Your Ohio CCW does what exactly? Are you implying it replaces a NICS check for a firearm purchase in Ohio?

tgzzzz
February 4, 2013, 07:37 PM
That last part addresses the concern that, God forbid, an employer or whoever be able to look at your license and know you are a violent criminal. You could just explain that you don't like guns and asked to have it removed.

I think this is a natural course for this action to follow. Good luck with that explanation.

ngnrd
February 4, 2013, 08:09 PM
Why are felons denied their Constitutional rights to gun ownership to begin with? Didn't they receive their just punishment for their crime according to the law?
Because that is what we - society at large - have agreed to.

Incarceration is expensive. Capital punishment is distasteful to many people. Early release is common. And recidivism rates (http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=17) are high. Thus, because felons have shown that they are both willing and capable of violating the rights of others, and regularly choose to continue to commit crimes after their first arrest/incarceration, we - society at large - have, as part of their punishment for the crimes they have committed, stripped them of their right to keep and bear arms in an attempt to provide some means of protecting the rights of the non-criminal population.

JonnyGringo
February 4, 2013, 08:42 PM
Because that is what we - society at large - have agreed to.


........the right of the people to keep and bare arms shall occasionally be infringed according to the whims of the majority of society at large......

It's amazing what you can get society at large to agree to. Lots of new potential felons in NY now, and soon to be other areas as well. I don't want to hijack the thread, I only brought this up, in part, because of someone above thinking that branding felons would be a good idea......

ngnrd
February 4, 2013, 08:51 PM
Knowing the penalties, the criminal made a conscious decision to violate the rights of others. Thus, by no leap of logic, they deprived themselves of their rights.

It seems disingenuous to argue that repeat violent offenders should have no restriction on their right to bear arms, don'tchya think?

EDIT: Or, how 'bout when they are still in prison? Would you argue that inmates should have free access to firearms?

JonnyGringo
February 4, 2013, 08:53 PM
It seems disingenuous to argue that repeat violent offenders should have the same right to bear arms, don'tchya think?

It does, which is why I have not argued that, lol.

ngnrd
February 4, 2013, 09:23 PM
It does, which is why I have not argued that, lol.

Actually, yes you did... the group "felons" includes "repeat violent offenders".

Why are felons denied their Constitutional rights to gun ownership to begin with? Didn't they receive their just punishment for their crime according to the law?

JonnyGringo
February 4, 2013, 09:36 PM
You have made it clear that you are in favor of allowing society to permanently take away Constitutionally guaranteed rights for certain individuals with majority approval. I respect your views, however on this matter we will have to agree to disagree.

ngnrd
February 4, 2013, 09:47 PM
I will say that if you are advocating that there should be a distinction made between violent felons and non-violent felons, that's certainly a valid position. However, simply separating the criminals into different groups does nothing regarding the problem of keeping firearms out of the hands of the violent ones.

So, if we can agree that there is some high-risk group of individuals that should not be allowed to possess firearms, the question remains... Is there a way to keep those people from having free access to firearms without infringing on the rights of the rest of the population? And, I'm not sure there's a feasible way to do that without instituting broad based capital punishment, or life imprisonment without parole. And, up to now, society has been unwilling to do either.

ngnrd
February 4, 2013, 09:51 PM
You have made it clear that you are in favor of allowing society to permanently take away Constitutionally guaranteed rights for certain individuals with majority approval.
I'm not sure how you came to this conclusion, but it is most definitely incorrect.

hso
February 4, 2013, 09:55 PM
You're looking for a solution to a nonexistent problem because you've been made to be afraid of what might happen if you don't "do something". The problem is that there's nothing you can concede that is going to sacrifice to these wolves that will satisfy them. They don't want a solution to violent crime. They simply want to do away with firearms in the hands of private citizens. Who will you throw to the wolves next time?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/29/Russian_woman_throwing_her_baby_to_wolves_%28Geoffroy%2C_1845%29.JPG

gc70
February 4, 2013, 10:18 PM
I will say that if you are advocating that there should be a distinction made between violent felons and non-violent felons, that's certainly a valid position.
Done! Some white-collar felons are already excluded from the definition of prohibited persons.

18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(20) (http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/44/921): The term "crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year" does not include -
(A) any Federal or State offenses pertaining to antitrust violations, unfair trade practices, restraints of trade, or other similar offenses relating to the regulation of business practices,

gossamer
February 4, 2013, 10:29 PM
That 40% figure is nothing but myth http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/338735/40-percent-myth-john-lott#

First, on the 40% stat: it is not myth. It is merely dated and, based on current methodology and available resources not perfect data. It is, however, not disputed by the nra, nor do they dispute the method or findings of the study. It remains our only data in the matter.

On the other hand, John Lott, who you cite has been proven a demonstrable fraud. Read “Jon Weiner, Historians in Trouble: Plagiarism, Fraud, and Politics in the Ivory Tower (2005), 136–48; Mark V. Tushnet, Out of Range: Why the Constitution Can’t End the Battle over Guns (2007), 95–97.” for evidence of Lott's fraud. Besides creating data out of whole cloth, and no way to prove it was ever actually collected, Lott has been shown to pose as Mary Roth, a fictional student of his, to support his own research and post glowing reviews of his own book.

ngnrd
February 4, 2013, 10:35 PM
Denying the existence of a problem does not make the problem nonexistent.

In my view, a very real problem exists in that bad guys currently have relatively free access to tools which allow them to easily, and often violently, violate the rights of others - acts which the bad guys are all too willing to commit.

Eliminating those tools is certainly not a viable solution; nor is limiting access to those tools to the remainder of the population. History has proven that doing so has extremely horrific consequences. And, eliminating the bad guys has proven to be ... problematic ... throughout history.

So, where does that leave us? Given the need for a free society to defend itself from oppressive governments, should individuals then also be forced to defend themselves against similarly armed and oppressive individuals? Or should we at least try to find a solution to the latter that doesn't diminish our ability to do the former, should the need ever arise?

gossamer
February 4, 2013, 10:37 PM
You have made it clear that you are in favor of allowing society to permanently take away Constitutionally guaranteed rights for certain individuals with majority approval. I respect your views, however on this matter we will have to agree to disagree.

So you're against the death penalty? Because thats the ultimate revocation the ones constitutional rights. And against one's right to shoot and kill someone who aims to kill their family I assume.

ngnrd
February 4, 2013, 11:34 PM
You're looking for a solution ... because you've been made to be afraid of what might happen if you don't "do something".
That is a hasty generalization, and has nothing to do with what I said. I never said that we should "do something", and I'm certainly not afraid of what may happen if we don't. I simply responded to a question posed by JonnyGringo regarding why felons are no longer afforded the right to keep and bear arms. His implication that felons should necessarily maintain their Constitutionally protected natural rights is a patently false premise; incarceration in and of itself is a revocation of the Blessings of Liberty secured by our Constitution. (Natural rights are neither unlimited, nor are they irrevocable. i.e., Your right to swing your clenched fist in the air ends abruptly at my nose. And your right to liberty can be, and often is, revoked when you ignore that limitation.)

I have neither advocated for, nor in any other fashion even suggested that, society should give up any gun rights. Nor have I suggested that we should "throw something to the wolves" in an effort to appease them.

I merely posed a different premise - that there are certain individuals that should have their rights lawfully revoked - and then asked a question regarding how such a revocation could be implemented without infringing on the rights of the remainder of the population.

Please don't put words in my mouth, or try to redefine the words that I say. I can speak for myself just fine, thank you.

Isaac-1
February 4, 2013, 11:57 PM
I just want to point out that not all people that are felons and have lost their right to own guns did anything that many of us would consider as grounds to remove their gun ownership rights. I know a guy fairly well that was convicted of a felony when he was about 20 years old (is now in the process of trying to have his rights restored now), his conviction was related to a non violent domestic issue / break in trying to retreive his property from ex girl friend / mother of his child. Studpid yes, but I already said he was 20 years old when it happened, he is a person I would trust with a gun as much as anyone I know, and while what he did was probably wrong, I think the punishment far exceeded the crime. There are many more like him out there.

ngnrd
February 5, 2013, 12:05 AM
That's certainly a fair critique of the obvious flaws in our current system.

But, your anecdote doesn't address the premise that there are individuals who's revocation of rights may be justified, and if it's possible to keep those individuals from possessing firearms without infringing on the rights of everybody else.

mikechandler
February 5, 2013, 12:51 AM
Yes, and child molestors should be given nanny licenses too. After all, they served their time, and they've paid their debt right?

:fire:

Maybe one-sized fits all felons is not so great, but let's not lie to ourselves - a good many of the people who travel the prison system's revolving door are truly bad eggs and arming them would be foolhardy.

gbw
February 5, 2013, 12:59 AM
Felons made their choices and the rules were available and clear beforehand.

Re: the OP

Checking the buyer only is a nice idea but unenforceable and so pointless. Think it through.

Universal background check in any form would require registration of everything, including all existing guns. By Scalia's own opinion, Courts are very unlikely to prevent it.

So what? Registration is nothing to fear. It's not infringement and it doesn't make confiscation more likely. If the gov't does get the power to confiscate they'll have the people and courts behind them - and it won't matter what is or isn't registered. At that point the game's over and lost.

I cannot see a compelling objection to registration, or to a national non-expiring FOID that includes a background check and training first.

And then a required check that the FOID is still valid, and registration, for every transfer - a simple phone call would do it.

All of this would be a one time minor inconvenience, but it's not infringement.

I do see that such a scheme, over time, can reduce the number of guns in the wrong hands, in untrained hands, or in impulse driven hands.

Guns are by far the most dangerous, lethal objects commonly available to the general public, and among the most easily and commonly misused, too often with tragic results.

Exercising our right to own them should a considered decision, and preceeded by some minimal show of responsibility.

[I posted a version of this in Legal but Ettin shut it down before I could respond to the expected vituperative answers.

Be polite, make your points and I'll try to answer them.]

ngnrd
February 5, 2013, 01:42 AM
Registration is nothing to fear. It's not infringement and it doesn't make confiscation more likely.
Please clarify... registration of what, exactly?

Registration of legally restricted persons? I might agree with the infringement part of the above statement. Although the confiscation part would have no merit in that case, because confiscation of illegally possessed firearms would kind of be the point, wouldn't it?

Registration of legal owners? In my opinion, that is an infringement because "the list" could easily become "the watch list", and lead to confiscation "on suspicion of cause" without due process.

Registration of firearms? I can think of no reason to maintain such a list, if not for use as a tool with which to assist in confiscation.

gossamer
February 5, 2013, 10:34 AM
It is the liberal opinion of posters like gbw that will be the death of all firearm ownership in the USA

It never ceases to amaze me that there is always the one guy urging the others to hurry up and get in the ovens before they upset the Nazis.


But hand wringing and allusions to Genocide in Nazi Germany doesn't hurt the RKBA cause at all...:banghead:

mikechandler
February 6, 2013, 09:28 AM
I do see that such a scheme, over time, can reduce the number of guns in the wrong hands, in untrained hands, or in impulse driven hands.

Guns are by far the most dangerous, lethal objects commonly available to the general public, and among the most easily and commonly misused, too often with tragic results.


I disagree. Cars are by far the most dangerous , lethal objects, commonly available to the general public. Death by Auto > Death by all violent crime combined, both firearm and otherwise.

Nevertheless, you are still more likely to die of colon cancer than by car or gunshot wound. Should we therefore register food?

Here's something to get through your head: Life is a Mortal Condition. The only real question is the quality of life while you have it.

On the Quality of Life scale, Liberty > Tyranny.

You want to end slaughters like Newtown? Let's do away with Gun Free Zones (AKA Kill Zones). Or at least ones that depend upon the honor system.

tgzzzz
February 6, 2013, 09:43 AM
Hahahaha: the honor system. Good one!

Trung Si
February 6, 2013, 09:48 AM
No,No and NO!:cuss:

jcwit
February 6, 2013, 10:23 AM
So the slobbering idiot who's unable to walk a straight line with nothing more than milk in his system still deserves the "right" to own firearms. I question that for some reason.

We all get checked for various reasons, I had a full background check to hold the clearances when I was in the service, I've been bonded for various reasons, I have a a LTC here in Indiana, FBI background check and state background required.

A right is one thing, being able to exercise that right whether mentally or physically is an entire different matter.

Now then the problem arises as to who does the deciding, and under what guidelines.

gossamer
February 6, 2013, 10:40 AM
Nevertheless, you are still more likely to die of colon cancer than by car or gunshot wound. Should we therefore register food?

And food already comes with a Universal Background Check; it's called the ingredients list. Yet too few people actually use it to save their own lives. Soooo, we get to expend all this time and legislative energy on something that insures so little benefit our society; meanwhile people spend a lifetime ignoring the things far more likely to kill them early or ruin their quality of life staring them right in the face.

/rant

wickedsprint
February 6, 2013, 10:47 AM
Remove violent felons from getting drivers license and merge the two. If you qualify for a DL you're allowed to buy guns.

Trung Si
February 6, 2013, 11:02 AM
jcwit! I question it also,BUT Today's Government is not the same as it was in our time, It is far more Intrusive and Overreaching and I don't Trust them anymore I was also in the Army, 1962-1969 have two Tours in Country and held a Security Clearance of "Secret" and they know enough about me already as far as I am concerned, but every Day they want more and more.
They have NO Business of what own or want to own as long as I am not breaking existing Laws, Leave Me Alone!

Sistema1927
February 6, 2013, 02:08 PM
One more time, repeat after me: Criminals don't obey laws.

So, why are you willing to accept any infringement?

jcwit
February 6, 2013, 03:02 PM
Remove violent felons from getting drivers license and merge the two. If you qualify for a DL you're allowed to buy guns.

Now that won't work well with the Amish, as they don't drive, by their own choice.

jcwit! I question it also,BUT Today's Government is not the same as it was in our time, It is far more Intrusive and Overreaching and I don't Trust them anymore I was also in the Army, 1962-1969 have two Tours in Country and held a Security Clearance of "Secret" and they know enough about me already as far as I am concerned, but every Day they want more and more.


I know, I know, and therein lies the conundrum.

tgzzzz
February 6, 2013, 04:40 PM
Remove violent felons ...

This works for me. How about one strike and you're out for these crimes? One appeal max. And make'm all Federal and capital crimes so we're not housing and feeding these lowlife for the rest of their lives.

Recidivism? What recidivism?
Wonder how much $ this would save?
Why do we treat violent felons better than stray dogs?
And not spend a fortune putting them down either. Just a couple of reloaded .38s= 50 cents a felon.:what:
No offense intended to those of gentle sensibilities.

Jay Kominek
February 6, 2013, 06:33 PM
Felons made their choices and the rules were available and clear beforehand.

If you think the "rules" were clear beforehand, I don't think you have an appreciation for how long the list of rules is.

http://www.threefeloniesaday.com/Youtoo/tabid/86/Default.aspx

Being a "felon" means much less than it used to.

tgzzzz
February 6, 2013, 06:55 PM
Yes sir. My goofup.

Jay Kominek
February 6, 2013, 07:00 PM
Sure Jay, but none of those are violent felons which are the felons in question.

While certainly you were discussing divvy up felonious behavior into smaller categories, gbw (who I was responding to), does not seem to have said anything which would lead me to believe he was making a subtle or nuanced statement.

firesky101
February 7, 2013, 01:49 AM
Now that won't work well with the Amish, as they don't drive, by their own choice.


I read things like this and think... I wonder if he is joking. You sir need some smilies:neener:

justice06rr
February 8, 2013, 03:10 AM
I really do not support any type of background check system for private face-to-face sales.

The government just has to do a better job of catching the criminals, locking them up, and giving them more severe punishment/sentence.

Guns are by far the most dangerous, lethal objects commonly available to the general public, and among the most easily and commonly misused, too often with tragic results.

Not really.

how about cars, cigarettes, or knives? I would bet more people die from car accidents, cancer, and suicides than from guns.

gdcpony
April 8, 2013, 12:41 PM
Since I posted this, I have done some thinking (dangerous for Marines). I still would be in favor of this in some form. I am not the guy with the brains to figure it all out. However, my position has always been that we get something in return. Get rid of the current system. We all KNOW it will soon be used to register. We also KNOW whether we admit it or not that BC's will always be here. So why not do it in such a way that we can swallow? It is really not a give to the gov't so much as a trade. We do this, but we do our way.

X-Rap
April 8, 2013, 01:05 PM
We have given plenty and every "compromise" so far has been a loss for us. I say enforce the laws that we have like they promised when enacted and see how that goes.

GambJoe
April 8, 2013, 01:39 PM
I could go along with back ground checks but with a compromise that the national record be destroyed. But there is always a hidden agenda. I saw Senators McCain and Schumer on the news last Sunday. Schumer want to retain those records for further investigation. To me this would cause a registry. Sooner or later this will lead to confiscation. By law don't sellers have to keep permanent record of their sales? That should be enough.

AlexanderA
April 8, 2013, 01:59 PM
The "bipartisan plan" that appears to be under consideration by Manchin, Toomey, et al., is said to involve a check of the buyer but no record of the gun. If they go that route for non-FFL's, why not have it apply to purchases from FFL's as well? In other words, remove the gun information from the Form 4473 and simply have the buyer information on the form. That would be a "compromise," in that each side would give up something, in relation to the status quo. Oh, and BTW, repeal the Hughes Amendment.

pockets
April 8, 2013, 02:01 PM
22 states already issue documents (permits or licenses to purchase, possess, or carry firearms) that qualify as alternatives to NICS checks
My CCW does in OH. I like it. I wish it worked nation wide as I am stationed in NC right now.
Your Ohio CCW does what?

The Ohio CHL (Concealed Handgun License) does not take the place of a background check, it never has. . . . Mine sure hasn't.
Every Ohioan who has an Ohio CHL must still fill out a 4473 and pass a background check when purchasing a firearm.
The only exception I am aware of is for face-to-face sales.

That said....I don't like the federal government's current checks, I certainly don't want to be named on a list in some new system.
.

gdcpony
April 8, 2013, 02:10 PM
Your Ohio CCW does what?

The Ohio CHL (Concealed Handgun License) does not take the place of a background check, it never has. . . . Mine sure hasn't.
Every Ohioan who has an Ohio CHL must still fill out a 4473 and pass a background check when purchasing a firearm.
The only exception I am aware of is for face-to-face sales.

That said....I don't like the federal government's current checks, I certainly don't want to be named on a list in some new system.
.
Haven't bought a firearm in OH since I got it. Thought it did. My bad. Either way I still wish it worked. It would simplify things for me instead of every time they have to call in.

Spdracr39
April 8, 2013, 02:42 PM
find a way to make criminals follow any such system and I'd consider it.
I believe they can. Just arrest anyone that can't produce their papers on demand and send them to a labor camp. The communists did it all the time.

joeschmoe
April 8, 2013, 03:03 PM
I would not mind such a system. I would like a way to sell a gun privately without worrying about whether the guy just got out of prison for armed robbery.
What part of private did you not understand?
I don't see a problem with a gun "buyer's license". It doesn't prove you own any guns, just that you considered it at one point.


http://www.tattoostime.com/images/236/forehead-barcode-tattoo-2.jpg

gc70
April 8, 2013, 03:27 PM
The Ohio CHL (Concealed Handgun License) does not take the place of a background check, it never has. . . . Mine sure hasn't.

Correct; Ohio has no permits that qualify as an alternative to NICS. As of 8-26-2011, this ATF list (http://www.atf.gov/firearms/brady-law/permit-chart.html) shows all of the NICS alternatives by state.

The more discussion I see of checking the buyer rather than the gun transaction, the more I am in favor of checking everyone when they get a drivers license and putting a limitation (text or logo) on the licenses of prohibited persons. I could 'compromise' on such a system IF:

Everyone had a NICS check when they got a drivers license; there would be no record that would identify a person as a gun owner.
NICS checks would be one-time; if a person subsequently became prohibited, the court imposing the disability would not only submit information to NICS, but also seize the person's drivers license and have it invalidated by the state of issue.
4473 forms would be eliminated; even now, with only 3-4 dozen prosecutions a year, they do not 'prevent' sales to prohibited persons, and only serve as records of dubious value in trying to trace guns after a crime has occurred.
Limitations on interstate sales of firearms would be eliminated; this is a throwback to the era of paper records and checking with localized law enforcement - the national NICS database is just as applicable to the most distant state to which a person might travel as it is to their state of residence.

Agsalaska
April 8, 2013, 03:53 PM
So instead of leading to a registry of who owns which guns, it just leads to a registry of who owns guns?

No. I refuse.
There is no registry of who owns which guns. They do not request that information when doing a Background check and no background check is completed for CCW holder. So this would really be no different.

AIM
April 8, 2013, 03:58 PM
NRA does not appear to support 40% check NRA-ILA home page '40% myth'.

Here in Texas a CHL does avoid call to NICS for purchase.

denton
April 8, 2013, 04:30 PM
Realistically, we are probably not going to see the end of Form 4473. However, a couple of thoughts....

What we are doing now with background checks is the functional equivalent of rounding up everyone in town to question them when there is a mugging. Would we tolerate that? No.

Under Heller and McDonald, the present system is probably unconstitutional. Why? There is a fundamental, protected right to have firearms. All things essential to a right are as protected as the right. Being able to buy firearms is therefore a protected right. And government regulation of a protected right must be at least somewhat narrowly tailored. What we have is about as broad as I can imagine.

In order to be constitutional, whatever we get shouldn't just arbitrarily sweep up everyone and then grant permission in those cases where the government chooses to grant it.

Newcatwalt
April 8, 2013, 04:35 PM
No thank you. I'm tired of jumping through "hoops" every time I want to purchase a gun.

gdcpony
April 8, 2013, 11:13 PM
Correct; Ohio has no permits that qualify as an alternative to NICS. As of 8-26-2011, this ATF list (http://www.atf.gov/firearms/brady-law/permit-chart.html) shows all of the NICS alternatives by state.

The more discussion I see of checking the buyer rather than the gun transaction, the more I am in favor of checking everyone when they get a drivers license and putting a limitation (text or logo) on the licenses of prohibited persons. I could 'compromise' on such a system IF:

Everyone had a NICS check when they got a drivers license; there would be no record that would identify a person as a gun owner.
NICS checks would be one-time; if a person subsequently became prohibited, the court imposing the disability would not only submit information to NICS, but also seize the person's drivers license and have it invalidated by the state of issue.
4473 forms would be eliminated; even now, with only 3-4 dozen prosecutions a year, they do not 'prevent' sales to prohibited persons, and only serve as records of dubious value in trying to trace guns after a crime has occurred.
Limitations on interstate sales of firearms would be eliminated; this is a throwback to the era of paper records and checking with localized law enforcement - the national NICS database is just as applicable to the most distant state to which a person might travel as it is to their state of residence.

There is a way it could work. But the basic principle is that a person is cleared to purchase unless the right is forfeited (there is the murky area). Nothing would say they did or did not purchase anything. That would replace the current system. Might not be a perfect solution, but for once it is a compromise where they give more than us.

I corrected myself as far as the OH permit. I thought I would be good if I purchased there which I haven't done yet being stationed in NC since a couple months after I got it. Guess not. No biggie, just another phone call next time I am on leave and find a 1911 I like.

vont01
April 9, 2013, 12:29 AM
Buy and sell only with CCW. it eliminates any concerns you or they may ahve about the legallity of the buy or sell. It also eliminates the 4473. May not sell as quick but it will sell.

ngnrd
April 9, 2013, 04:52 AM
Except that free States don't require a CCW.

Soooo... there's that.

rd_zzyzx
April 9, 2013, 01:47 PM
We can not identify a felon as a felon because it is branding them? We are willing to prove ourselves innocent because we don't want to brand a felon as a felon? I might use a list of felons to see if my daughter is dating one?

Sorry, but I am not worried about the consequences one has to deal with as a felon IN RELATION to the 2nd Amendment which shall not be infringed and background checks.

I do not trust the government not to make a background check into a registration list. Trying to justify registrations, fees, and licenses by comparing this to a driver's license doesn't hold water because driving is not guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

The U.S. Constitution doesn't say you have the right to keep and bear arms once you have shown proficiency in shooting, shown you have no tendency to get angry, shown no tendency to believe in armed revolt, shown no tendency to reject regulation, etc...

If it is illegal to sell to a felon then provide me a system where I can identify a felon.

The idea that committing felonies should have no lingering consequences, no scarlet letter, no brand, seems to imply some other problem, such as there are two many crimes that are labeled felonies, or there is a disproportionate amount of falsely convicted felons, OR we all just want to have a soft warm fuzzy feeling that we have forgiven the felon even though the legal system has placed restrictions on the felon, restrictions that are part of their restitution to society.

The legal system already dumps dangerous child molesters and pedophiles into our communities and makes us have to look up the list and figure out if any have moved in, what level of crime the committed, and watch out for our "lambs" because they let out the "wolf".

Give me a system where I can look them up. That is all that is needed.

If you enjoyed reading about "Checking the buyer without the gun. I could buy that." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!