Thought experiment RE: private sales of firearms

RetiredUSNChief said:

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...

Click to expand...

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

I am just trying to have a discussion about the feasibility of such a system.

Click to expand...

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?

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.

If gun owners don't put forth a workable solution, then we have no right to bitch about the consequences.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

I guess I don't view that as a bad alternative to what Obama and his cronies ahve in mind for us.

Click to expand...

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?

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

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.

soonerfan85 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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!

Lupinus said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

ngnrd said:

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).

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

Mine, your's, everyone's.

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

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

As has been posted by many, such a system is not at all feasible, is ripe for abuse and will not accomplish anything meaningful.

Clean97GTI said:

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.

Click to expand...

NICS has proven an effective way to stop disqualified individuals from buying guns from FFL dealers.

Click to expand...

Care to post some data to back that up?

brboyer said:

Care to post some data to back that up?

Click to expand...

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.

Clean97GTI said:

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.

Click to expand...

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 constitution

Click to expand...

Does not comport with

Shall not be infringed.

Click to expand...

brboyer said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

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.

You know there are kids who obtain alcohol though are prohibited from owning, buying or ingesting. So what you advocate is worthless.

Click to expand...

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.