Don't get mad, just a question,

[mljdeckard]

Would it be acceptable, (and is it even possible,) to have a 100% background check in place, as long as the language of the law states in black and white, that the information gathered is legally useable ONLY for the purpose of the check, not for the tracking of individual guns, and that it is inadmissable in any court for any reason?

We know that this is the INTENT of the current 4473 system, but the retention of the record leaves open back doors and gives us the willies. If the language protecting the buyer was made more solid, would we be able to accept this? Even to include, say, a 90-day destruction timeframe?

I do not accept any new gun laws, nor do I think we are in a position where we will have to compromise, but if we WERE, is there a way to write this so that it is ONLY used for the background check?

I'm mostly looking for people to tell me why this wouldn't work.

 

[mljdeckard]

(I thought I posted this in general, oops.)

 

[allaroundhunter]

Would it work? Probably up until the next murder by firearm at which time they will want more... Give an inch, and they'll take a mile....

We don't have a mile to give.

We don't need to compromise... The phrase "Shall not be infringed..." was inserted for good reason.

The only compromise I would make is to buy some politicians a dictionary.

Sent from my HTC One X

 

[alsaqr]

We don't need to compromise... The phrase "Shall not be infringed..." was inserted for good reason.

Why should a law abiding citizen give up the right to sell a legally owned product without gov't interference? This is especially relevant because the present administration refuses to enforce existing gun laws.

 

[Walkalong]

No. I do not want to have to go to an FFL to give my son a gun. I am tired of them chipping away the stone. This is only a precursor to total registration.

 

[radiotom]

Just another law for the criminals to break.

 

[rdhood]

Would it be acceptable, (and is it even possible,) to have a 100% background check in place, as long as the language of the law states in black and white, that the information gathered is legally useable ONLY for the purpose of the check, not for the tracking of individual guns, and that it is inadmissable in any court for any reason?

If all I had to do was to go to a computer, logon to NICS, run someones name/address/phone/birthdate and get back a yes or no, I'd probably do it.

If I had to fill out a 4473... Heck NO. If I had to go to an FFL to have this done... Heck NO. All I personally would want to know is : is this guy allowed to have a gun. I want to check it anonymously. I want to check it in my own home. I want to check for FREE. I want to be able to check someone without putting in his/her life history.

That is not what they want. They want a long form filled out and retained by an FFL at my expense ($fee). Screw that.

 

[mljdeckard]

THat's kind of the test that I'm trying to put it to. Would THEY accept any form of check which is effective, but WON'T retain any information that would lead to registration?

Of course I don't want it. None of us wants it. But is it even possible?

 

[Bubba613]

What would be the purpose of such a thing? "Keep guns out of the hands of criminals"? Criminals will not participate in it. They will trade guns for dope or whatever like they always do. It will do more harm infringing on people's freedom than do good protecting people.

 

[gossamer]

Why should a law abiding citizen give up the right to sell a legally owned product without gov't interference?

The answer: ever sell a car? A boat (in my state)? A trailer (in my state)? A motorcycle (in my state)?

Not to argue with the underlying premise, but I just don't think this is a particularly compelling argument. Nor do I find the "slipper slope" arguments all too compelling either. As a famous Conservative once said "Life is a slippery slope."

The nuisance argument has merit. "Why should I have to go to an FFL to give a gun to my son/daughter?"



What I see as the argument agains this is:

There is evidence that private citizens (and yes, I count FFLs among these) should not be custodians of records of firearms sales.

If you want to know what it looks like when individuals do this kind of record keeping, case in point from my home town:

A physician threw hundreds of files documenting abortions he performed in a trash dumpster. Want to know how we all found out? Because someone found them. Hundreds if not thousands of women whose private lives were left in public for anyone to find. Set aside the possible nefarious of intentions one might seek to exact against someone who had an abortion and now has their name, address and medical history. Just the idea that these records were floating around for years and were dumped in the public.

Now, imagine if those were 4473s . . .

 

[NaturalDefensiveRights]

Why should I trust a government, that set up fast and furious and has already passed illegal laws that violate the second amendment? And that's just firearms. The government is so corrupt, anarchy would be an improvement.

 

[silicosys4]

Gossamer,
I can buy a car in your state, without registering. I can buy a boat in your state without registering, I can buy a motorcycle without registering, etc.

You can too. You can buy the most polluting, ugly, broke down, dangerous to pedestrian, nonfunctional brakes, motor ready to blow up and kill bystanders with shrapnel, etc... all without registering it.
You can even drive the hell out of it, put 100k miles on it too

If you own the private property to keep it on,
own land to drive it,
and posess the money to fuel it.

Ownership of a vehicle requires NO such thing as registration.
However, operating it on public roadways does require licensing.
Ownership of vehicles is not a direct analogy for ownership of firearms, as they are still available for unrestricted use on private property, whereupon a regulated firearm does not allow for use even on your own private land.

 

[JustinJ]

If private sells of firearms are to require no check then having the same requirement of FFL's makes no sense. It is contradictory for us to say we believe the current laws just need to be enforced because we all know there is an extremely easy and perfectly legal avenue readily available for any person to get a gun without a background check.

 

[RCArms.com]

Based on some of the testimony that I've heard our Senators and Representatives give lately, I think that it's time to consider full background checks to include a mental health/wellness assessment for our elected officials when elected or re-elected before beginning their new term.

I'm convinced that more that an few of them would fail the mental wellness assessment.

 

[armedaccountant]

What I find interesting is the politicians who are always talking about helping the poor, etc are the ones who are pushing this. A $25-40 transfer fee on a $2,000 custom rifle isn't that noticeable. Now add that same $25-40 fee onto a budget used gun that sells for $250 and it is a big deal. I have some reliable firearms that I bought for around $250 when I wasn't as financially stable as I am now. They are older, used, but highly functional and safe. As I upgrade my collection I plan on selling them for about what I paid for them, because I know there is someone else out there who could use such a firearm.

I also agree with the other posters. We can't give on anything. Just look at history, rights are usually not taken away on a grand scale. The are slowly chipped away at. The other side is asking for compromise, but their compromise is for us to give something up and them to get something. That isn't how compromise works.

 

[SoCalNoMore]

I ask this about background checks- Where do criminals buy their guns? Not from dealers that's for sure. They buy them from other criminals that have stolen them. A criminal does not want a gun that is traceable for a reason.

How would a private party NICS/registration prevent a criminal from buying a gun on the street, that was stolen from a law abiding citizen? It won't.

Scenario- I buy the weapon legally, register it etc. Its stolen 10 years later. I report it. Gun is used in a homicide a year later and gun is left at the scene. Bad guy gets away. How does tracing that gun back to me solve the crime? It doesn't, unless there were finger prints at my house and they match up with someone in the bad guy files (most of which are still not tied to each other nation wide across local, state and federal agencies). The only thing that happens is I am harassed until I provide an alibi.

 

[BaltimoreBoy]

"...as long as the language of the law states in black and white, that the information gathered is legally useable ONLY for the purpose of the check..."

And how would you know if this was followed? How would you compel enforcement?

The federal government has:
Incarcerated individuals without charges.
Executed individuals without any judicial procedure.
Performed extensive wire tapping and searches without warrant.
Sold firearms to dangerous criminals deliberately as a false flag operation to incite the citizenry against those who own firearms.

What, pray tell, would keep them from retaining the data?

 

[MErl]

No. I do not want to have to go to an FFL to give my son a gun. I am tired of them chipping away the stone. This is only a precursor to total registration.

how it will go for the truly law abiding:
happy birthday son, here is your first .22 Now for your next birthday present lets go have a lesson in government bureaucracy and transfer the gun to you. This lesson will be further reinforced by the denial of your owning your gun since you aren't 18.

How it will go for most:
happy birthday son, here is your first .22

How it will go for criminals
Hey, want to buy a gun? (exactly the same as it is now, they don't use official channels)

 

[XD 45acp]

No. I am even not in favor of the ones we have now. Sears does not require a check when I buy a Claw Hammer that I can use to bash somebody's skull apart. Proof in point, Ricky Gray murdered the Entire Harvey family here in Richmond with a claw hammer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Richmond_spree_murders

 

[Skribs]

The idea of regulating one type of weapon in attempt to keep it out of the hands of undesirables is absurd. If we had a better prison system and mental health care system, then prohibited persons would be behind bars or in treatment instead of walking the streets. I would rather focus on this than try to bandaid the problem.

If prohibited persons are out of the public, then there would be no need for background checks, and it would make things easier on licensed dealers.

 

[tomrkba]

Would it be acceptable, (and is it even possible,) to have a 100% background check in place, as long as the language of the law states in black and white, that the information gathered is legally useable ONLY for the purpose of the check, not for the tracking of individual guns, and that it is inadmissable in any court for any reason?

No, it is not acceptable.

EVERY government that did full registration engaged in confiscation. It has happened at least once here. I think Californians registered their SKS rifles, only to have them confiscated a few years later (need to check that).

Additionally, is the government purging the background check data according to the law? In my mind, it is very, very easy to keep that data around with no accountability.

 

[Utryme]

At one time your SSN was only supposed to be to track your earnings and for SS business. It was strictly NOT to be used for identification. How did that work out?
At one time, seat belt laws were introduced as only being secondary laws (you were never supposed to be stopped and ticketed just for not wearing the belt), now, they are all primary laws. How did that work out?
Don't give these liberals an inch. We abide by the laws. Enforce the 20,000 on the books and stop giving drug lords weapons, then we can talk. Till then, HELL NO!

 

[mljdeckard]

Tom, you are ignoring what I am asking. I am not asking whether registration leads to confiscation. I am asking if background checks without registration is possible?

 

[Skribs]

The problem, mljdeckard, is that in order to prevent registration (or similar government use), the checks would have to be destroyed. Otherwise the government could collect and compile the data. However, if the checks are destroyed, there is no way to verify that background checks are being done, which means there would be no legitimate enforcement.

So if the checks are held, they can be used as a pseudo-registration until the official registry is up. If checks are not held, law abiding citizens will still go through with them, but criminals will know there is no enforcement and ignore the law completely (instead of finding ways around it or choosing to ignore it).

I do not see either method as being superior to locking violent criminals away.

 

[larryh1108]

And how would you know if this was followed? How would you compel enforcement?

The federal government has:
Incarcerated individuals without charges.
Executed individuals without any judicial procedure.
Performed extensive wire tapping and searches without warrant.
Sold firearms to dangerous criminals deliberately as a false flag operation to incite the citizenry against those who own firearms.

What, pray tell, would keep them from retaining the data?

This^^

J Edgar Hoover proved decades ago that nothing is free from somebody collecting and using it when the need arises. All it would take is one rogue agent with extraordinary computer skills on direct orders from the man himself to store whatever he deemed fit for future use. The technology is already there. I'd be willing to bet that there are master databases with a lot more information in it than we know or are comfortable about.