Don't get mad, just a question,

NO COMPROMISE

Sorry, but people who want to chip away at the Constitution will have to go home with hands empty.

Why limit the background check to guns?!? That's the real question. More people die every year from criminal acts committed with vehicles than by firearms - so why single out firearms for all these "reasonable regulations"?

silicosys4 said:

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.

Click to expand...

Who said anything about registration? It's called a title. Selling one without it in my state is illegal. Period.

Rather than constructing impractical fictions where we all drive untitled cars around our yards, smoke cigarettes without a tax stamp on them, and live in houses without titles affixed to them to bolster the argument that gun transactions should be "just as devoid of government involvement," maybe we need a reality check. How about just acknowledge that "but the government has no right to be involved in my transactions" has already been deemed to be such a week argument under the law of the land that there is ample case law where we not only permit but require the government to be involved in transactions.

Again. One is free to live under the delusion that this argument will win the day. But realistically speaking, there are others that are more consistent with the real world, compelling, and formidable.

larryh1108 said:

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.

Click to expand...

Even worse, some private person who had been in possession of 4473s could very easily "destroy them" by dumping them in a dumpster for any joker to come by and find. (See my example further up-thread.)

You're looking for feasibility

What you really want is a test of your "theory" right? Under current conditions, 4473's are all held for at least 20 years in a commercial dealers book, right? And then the ATF issues a # attached to that form that gives them the "back door" to trace should a firearm be recovered in a crime. So if everyone who makes a private sale has to keep a 4473 for 20 years in a protected condition such that if a trace ever came back, you could show a transfer?

I suppose you could keep those forms with all of your other important documents, mortgage, will, etc. but how many people are going to go out and buy a $1500 safe (you should do it for your firearms anyway) let alone even simply getting a safety deposit box. On top of that, now I'm responsible for someone else's identity AND, more importantly, MY information is now out there is someone else's hands.

So, no forms but a digital/online solution?

ANY information submitted online cannot be guaranteed to be erased. And now you're doing the legwork for a database.

As far as checking someones identity in the private sector?

I know there are websites that do background checks for a fee. This would essentially be the same kind of fee the dealers charge for a check. I don't know if they have some type of photo identification element to them but that would be the flaw. How can you be sure the person in front of you is the same as the web browser?

If a reactive legislator HAS to "do something!" Make it a law for people to be accountable.

I would happily perform a background check before I conduct a private sale to someone unknown to me... just as long as they let me call NICS myself and don't force me to go through an FFL.

What do you think the chances are of that?

cluck said:

What you really want is a test of your "theory" right? Under current conditions, 4473's are all held for at least 20 years in a commercial dealers book, right?

I suppose you could keep those forms with all of your other important documents, mortgage, will, etc. but how many people are going to go out and buy a $1500 safe (you should do it for your firearms anyway) let alone even simply getting a safety deposit box. On top of that, now I'm responsible for someone else's identity AND, more importantly, MY information is now out there is someone else's hands.

Click to expand...

^^^THIS^^^ is what I was talking about earlier.

See also: http://www.stjosephpost.com/2012/03/27/private-abortion-records-found-in-dumpster/

Private Abortion Records Found In Dumpster

OVERLAND PARK, Kan. (AP) – An Overland Park woman says she found more than 1,000 private abortion records dumped in a recycling bin
outside an elementary school.

The patient records are from a defunct clinic, Affordable Medical and Surgical Services in Kansas City, Kan. They show personal information such as names, birth dates, Social Security numbers and health history, including if the women had abortions.

The clinic was run by Krishna Rajanna, who lost his medical license in 2005.
Rajanna told the Kansas City Star he thought the records would be recycled before anyone saw them.

Local and state authorities are investigating.

Kansas law requires that all medical records be kept a minimum of 10 years. But hundreds of the discarded records were less than 10 years old.

Click to expand...

No, we have already have that and the government ignores it.

It's just another piece of information about you that will be floating around in cyberspace. There is too much hacking going on now, you can't even count on your bank to not get hacked. Why give crooks another way to steal your identity. And you will never know who gets access to these things.
Although "things arent supposed to happen the seem to always do."

I would absolutely hate having to go thru the expense and hassle of dealing with a FFL to give my brother a Christmas gift consisting of a firearm or for that matter buying ftf when I am already a law abiding citizen in good standing and fully capable of legally owning and possesing a firearm.

I fear though that we ARE heading in that direction,much to my dismay and anger.

(Mods, if this isn't going to get better you can just close it.)

Click to expand...

Some people have gone off topic for the thread (but on topic of registration > confiscation), and you've argued those. However, I don't see you discussing the issue with those of us who have made points for how it would be impossible to enforce background checks without it being possible to create a registry.

Just because we disagree with you doesn't mean the thread is bad.

or for that matter buying ftf when I am already a law abiding citizen in good standing and fully capable of legally owning and possesing a firearm.

Click to expand...

for the purpose of this discussion, the F2F sale may include you, the legal seller/owner, and the buyer who says he's legal but could be lying (how would you know?). If I was a felon, I'd look for F2F to buy a handgun and probably have a fake ID as well. Why not? It's pretty easy to do. Hundreds of F2F ads out there so all they'd need is the money.

Here's a database for you!

If the government needs to compile a database, it should be one that is comprised of the people who are not eligible for a firearm and let that be publicly accessible for a check. Include photos for positive identification. It might be a problem in cases of mental health denials but that can be easily resolved. Most information on felons is already public record including booking photos.

Why should there be more paper work to give a gun as a present than there is to run for office?

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?

Click to expand...

I'm not so sure the current system is really designed to not allow for any tracking of sold guns. Its kind of strange the way it's done but there was an interesting article somebody linked the other day about how the ATF traces guns.

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?

Click to expand...

The biggest question is how does one enforce it. For example, i suppose you could just pass a law that background checks must be done by private sellers through a phone or computer system with no records retained but the only enforcement method option i can see would be through stings. UC cops try and buy guns from gun shows or ads and then verify a check is done. This would of course be very little deterrent to those privately selling to friends and family as the fear of selling to a UC would not exist. I suppose the other option, and this would not be totally anonymous, would be that when a check is performed a record is kept that Bob ran a check of Bill on whatever day. Then if Bill ever does something bad with the gun it can be verified that Bob did actually run a check of Bill.

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

If the government needs to compile a database, it should be one that is comprised of the people who are not eligible for a firearm and let that be publicly accessible for a check. Include photos for positive identification. It might be a problem in cases of mental health denials but that can be easily resolved. Most information on felons is already public record including booking photos.

Click to expand...

I like this. It has been mentioned in other threads but this makes sense, especially the photo part. Just use the mug shots on file. When someone gets released, they get a current mug shot and they go into a database similar to the sex offenders database. It's already being used so make one for felons and others ruled by law to be ineligible to possess. The only thought is that I'd hate to be there to tell the felon that the system said no. That would piss him off a bit and could just steal it from you or jump you when he sees your body language is not going his way. Ideally, this would be done before the F2F meeting to remove this from the equation.

Why buy it Larry1108?
If I was a felon I would just break into a house and steal one along with whatever other "free" stuff was lying around for me to take.

Ok, how about this idea. (I will probably regret this)

We get rid of the 4473 forms, and replace it with a 'pre-approval' process. In this case, the onus is on the buyer to get the check done. Anyone would be able to call or log in online to a NICS site and provide their information and be pre-approved for a gun purchase, that lets say would be good for a week or so. You would be given some sort of code or approval #. In my mind the goal would be to have the process of getting this be quick, similar to how a routine NICS check is done now. Additionally, if you are denied for some reason, there would be some recourse for you to follow up on this and get it resolved before going to the gun shop or meeting for a face to face.

Next step is for you to take a photo ID and your approval number to wherever you are buying the gun. For the sale to take place, the seller must then simply call or log in and provide the approval number and the name of the buyer, and would receive in return a simple yes or no - confirmation that the approval # is valid and they are fine to go ahead with the sale. The seller would not need to identify him/herself.

And thats it, it would apply to all sales. The plus I see would be that NICS would not know who the seller was, and in a similar fashion to the 4473 form, the buyer would only provide "handgun" or "long gun" in order to be approved, so there would be no way to trace an individual weapon. And just because someone calls to confirm the pre-appoval number doesn't mean that the sale actually went through. Additionally, since the seller is never identified, you would never know if the buyer were to re-sell that particular weapon in the future.

I can already see people having issues with the use of the word "approval", and that's understandable, I just came up with it, but come up with something better if you want. Maybe call it a freedom ID # or something, whatever. But does anyone think that the functional aspects of this idea would work? (Not that it would ever become law, because I don't think even the antis would be in favor of this because it would neuter the 4473 record keeping system for gun dealers.)

Skribs said:

Some people have gone off topic for the thread (but on topic of registration > confiscation), and you've argued those. However, I don't see you discussing the issue with those of us who have made points for how it would be impossible to enforce background checks without it being possible to create a registry.

Just because we disagree with you doesn't mean the thread is bad.

Click to expand...

I too see purpose in seeing this through. If we can just get beyond the flag waving and finish dissecting the idea, we might actually come out of it with a solution that would essentially cover my heinie and stop enabling putting firearms into the hands of bad guys.

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?

Click to expand...

Would it be acceptable to give the Sudetenland to Germany, as long as the language of the agreement states in black and white, that the rest of Czechoslovakia will remain sovereign and inviolate?

You presume that I have the tiniest iota of trust or respect for the other side.

I don't.

They're bad people with bad goals and bad motivations, and whose word is worth less than nothing.

Why buy it Larry1108?
If I was a felon I would just break into a house and steal one along with whatever other "free" stuff was lying around for me to take.

Click to expand...

Because he wants to take The High Road?



Seriously, buying it is easier than a home invasion where there may be people home or they may be no weapons. He can look online, make a call, set up a meeting and have a gun. This does bother me but not enough to enact mandatory registration. If in doubt, go thru an FFL. Price it to cover the cost to do so.

My question for the OP or anyone that wants to expand background checks is how many criminals will use this system?

Sure he can larry.
But most felons I have known,and I have known several,are pretty much not the type to lay out four or five bills to pay for my Ruger,Smith,Taurus,etc.