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. 2ifbyC

    2ifbyC Well-Known Member

    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.
  2. ngnrd

    ngnrd Well-Known Member

    Maybe this is the confusion... There would have to be some court order already in place that restricts them from firearm ownership, not some arbitrary metrics. The courts don't just grab random people off the streets and say "poof! you can no longer own a gun. Have a nice day." There are mechanisms in place that already serve this function. I am discussing a way to get that information to the seller in a private firearm transaction. I'm not trying to somehow get people on some no fly list. I'm talking about "publishing" the lists that everybody is already on. The prohibited person is already on a list of "bad guys" and everybody else makes up the list of "good guys". There is no new information that would be used.

    For instance, I can go to a government website and look to see if there are sexual deviants living in my area. I wouldn't ever condone hassling those individuals. But I sure would want to know if my child walked past their house every day to get to the bus stop. And, you already pay for this database to be maintained. I never hear anybody, except an occasional sex offender, calling to dismantle the sex offender registries. Seriously... what's the difference?
  3. soonerfan85

    soonerfan85 Well-Known Member

    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.
  4. ngnrd

    ngnrd Well-Known Member

    Honestly, I don't know. What everybody always seems to be preaching is that gun crime is so high in Chicago because the the citizens are prohibited from carrying guns, not anything to do with background checks. So, I guess I can't answer your question.
  5. 45_auto

    45_auto Well-Known Member

    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?
  6. ngnrd

    ngnrd Well-Known Member

    The only one of the options you have listed that would provide any assurance is the federal background check. I am trying to find an alternative to that.

    Thank you for your input.
  7. ngnrd

    ngnrd Well-Known Member

    What laws do you think I am proposing?

    Again, I'm not looking to get some new silver bullet law enacted. I'm just discussing a tool that could be used by sellers that would provide some assurance that the person they are handing their firearm to isn't prohibited from owning a firearm.
  8. browneu

    browneu Well-Known Member

    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
  9. 1911 guy

    1911 guy Well-Known Member

    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.
  10. RetiredUSNChief

    RetiredUSNChief Well-Known Member

    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!

  11. Clean97GTI

    Clean97GTI Well-Known Member

    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.
  12. brboyer

    brboyer Well-Known Member

    Mine, your's, everyone's.

    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.

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

    brboyer Well-Known Member

    Care to post some data to back that up?
  14. Clean97GTI

    Clean97GTI Well-Known Member


    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.
    Last edited: Jan 17, 2013
  15. brboyer

    brboyer Well-Known Member

    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
  16. ngnrd

    ngnrd Well-Known Member

    I'll admit, I just don't see it. Can you explain how, or in what way, everybody's rights would be infringed?
  17. Clean97GTI

    Clean97GTI Well-Known Member

    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.
  18. ngnrd

    ngnrd Well-Known Member

    1911 guy, maybe you didn't see it, but could you please reply to the questions I asked you in post #67?

  19. steveracer

    steveracer Well-Known Member

    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.
    Those of you who endorse ANY method of restricting a RIGHT are officially my enemy.
  20. kalel33

    kalel33 Active Member

    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.

Share This Page