1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Thought experiment RE: private sales of firearms

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by ngnrd, Jan 16, 2013.

  1. ngnrd

    ngnrd Well-Known Member

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

    ngnrd Well-Known Member

    Fuff... I am not talking about having either individuals or the DMV conduct NICS checks. And, I am definitely not a proponent of NICS checks for all firearm transfers. I would like to find a way to keep a database like you are describing from ever happening. This is precisely why I think my proposed system could be a better path. Everybody gets a cursory check when their ID is issued/renewed. Those who are prohibited are marked as such. There would be no way to compile a database because virtually everybody would be in it. If you want to talk about NICS checks for commercial/retail transfers, that's a different discussion. This would simply be a way for a private seller to identify prohibited buyers without infringing on the rights of either the seller, or the buyer.
  3. mjw930

    mjw930 Well-Known Member


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


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

    Old Fuff Well-Known Member

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

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

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

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

    brboyer Well-Known Member

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

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

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

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

    Where do people come up with this stuff? :cuss:
  6. armarsh

    armarsh Well-Known Member

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

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

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

    brboyer Well-Known Member

    No, they will just get their baby-momma to buy it for them, just like they can do today!
  8. ngnrd

    ngnrd Well-Known Member

    After going back and reading all of the replies again, I think I should clarify something.

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

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

    ngnrd Well-Known Member

    Are you saying that there would be no benefit to such a program?

    And again, I understand that criminals are very adept at finding ways of circumventing the law. But is it your position that because of this we should have no law at all?
  10. BP44

    BP44 Well-Known Member

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

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

    hogshead Well-Known Member

    To many laws now. Unless I am mistaken this law you are proposing would have done absolutly no good on any of the mass shootings of late.If your so concerned about selling to a prohibited person require a CCP or go through a ffl.
  12. ngnrd

    ngnrd Well-Known Member

    All valid points.

    As I mentioned earlier, the cost of such a program is an issue for which I have not seen any good solution. And, false positives could certainly prove to be a serious problem. Fake ID's? Yes, that could reduce the program's effectiveness. But, again... I know that a real car thief will steal my truck if he wants it. Isn't it my duty as a responsible car owner to remove the keys and lock the doors anyway? Or is it better to just leave everything open because I know that criminals don't respect locks?
  13. beatledog7

    beatledog7 Well-Known Member

    We've been looking at this backwards for decades.

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

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

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

    ngnrd Well-Known Member

    I haven't proposed any law. Nor am I advocating for any new laws to be put in place. And I never claimed that any mass shootings would have been prevented. Please do not try to make this into more than what it is. And, what it is, is a discussion about a possible method to easily identify prohibited persons relative to a private transfer of a firearm.

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

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

    ngnrd Well-Known Member

    I don't disagree. But, this discussion is not about spending money we don't have to build and operate new prisons. Nor is it about fundamentally changing the way the country views and implements the death penalty.

    So, accepting the fact that such people walk among us, wouldn't you rather know who they are so you don't unknowingly sell them a firearm?
  16. VA27

    VA27 Well-Known Member

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

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

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

    ngnrd Well-Known Member

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

    And, wow... Do you actually think that the threat of violence (getting conked on the head) is really a valid justification to not check if a buyer might be prohibited from purchasing a firearm? Really?
  18. 2ifbyC

    2ifbyC Well-Known Member

    You are concentrating on the tool as the reason for violence, not the criminal who is the real cause. If someone wants to commit violence, they have a lot of options to fulfill their mission.

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

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

    I am receptive to mandatory sentences and increased jail time to keep violent criminals out of society. Punishment should be harsh for the criminals, not law abiding gun owners.
  19. BP44

    BP44 Well-Known Member

    So....... No
  20. ngnrd

    ngnrd Well-Known Member

    Actually, I am simply looking at the feasibility of a common tool with which private sellers could identify prohibited buyers, in an effort to help keep such buyers from illegally obtaining firearms from unwary sellers. And, I haven't ever mentioned trying to make participation in such a program mandatory, national or otherwise. On the contrary, I specifically made a clarification that this discussion is about individual programs administered by each State individually. Please don't try to twist this into something that it's not.

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

Share This Page