Don't get mad, just a question,

To answer the original question from this thread, the problem with restricting the use of collected data is (1) the executive department might ignore the law's restriction and (2) laws are easily changed. In the case of (2), assume that x years in the future Congress expands the use of the data. Now, all of that data from the past x years is sitting there waiting to be used for whatever purposes Congress or the Executive branch can envision.

Quick Draw McGraw said:

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.)

Click to expand...

Who gives you your "Freedom ID #"?

Of course, I've got my pre-approved "Freedom ID #".......It's called Utah CCW permit. Who here would make a private sale to me?

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

Click to expand...

Well keep in mind that the ONLY time ANY background check is at all useful is in a transaction between a law-abiding gun owner/gun dealer and an unknown buyer. If the seller is a criminal than obviously any law is moot and if the transaction is between two known parties than obviously a background check is unnecessary. There are of course a bunch of scenarios where laws won't work, but I don't personally subscribe to the "if it won't stop all cases of a bad guy getting a gun than it is worthless" school of thought. I'm not opposed to measure taken to prevent bad guys from getting guns as long as those same measures can't also be used as pseudo-registration.

Personally, I feel any permit to own or carry is plenty to prove legal ability to own. You have to jump thru hoops to get one in most states. For states that don't have one then a simple "type" of drivers license or state ID would do the trick. I believe that's how it works in most states anyway. You have a permit, you get to buy it, FTF or from an FFL. The background work is already done. There really shouldn't be a need for the 4473 for permit holders and I believe some states already allow that or is the 4473 a federal requirement?

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.

Click to expand...

And this is the fundamental issue.

Without registration, ANY such plan is utterly meaningless.

Those of us from Chicago know what comes next.

Who gives you your "Freedom ID #"?

Click to expand...

In my fantasy land where this law exists you get it from the NICS system, which has been modified to allow anyone free access. You put in your info similar to how you do for the 4473 form and if you check out in NICS it spits out this Freedom ID.

And I'd be all for allowing exemptions for CHL holders. It would be essentially treated as a "freedom ID" that is valid for as long as your CHL was valid.

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

Click to expand...

Wrong analogy. A firearm is not a car, boat, trailer, or motorcycle. There is no "shall not be infringed" right to own a car, boat, trailer or motorcycle.

Correct analogy: Do you have register and pay a fee to exercise any of your other constitutional rights? The answer is NO. So stop with the invalid analogies comparing firearms to boats or insurance. If you want to compare apples to apples, compare this 2nd amendment right to the other rights. See if you have to do anything (register, pay a fee, have your name compiled in a database) to exercise those rights (hint: you don't).

In my fantasy land where this law exists you get it from the NICS system, which has been modified to allow anyone free access. You put in your info similar to how you do for the 4473 form and if you check out in NICS it spits out this Freedom ID.

And I'd be all for allowing exemptions for CHL holders. It would be essentially treated as a "freedom ID" that is valid for as long as your CHL was valid.

Click to expand...

Quickdraw has the right idea in his posts. Something relatively anonymous, controlled by the user, with nothing traceable to a firearm and nothing logged.

This will not stop the trade among criminals. This will not stop a criminal from stealing or reselling stolen firearms. This COULD prevent average citizens from inadvertently selling to criminals, and I think most of us would agree that is a good thing. Still, this would not prevent the mass killings like Sandy Hook or Aurora. It might reduce urban crime, though, and that is where most of the murders take place.

Quick Draw, considering how easy it is to hack websites, I'm not sure a NICS website is a good idea.

As to OPs question, it sounds very similar to what Schumer says he is working on. A universal instant check with no registry or retention of records. I can see how, even without a registry, such a UBC requirement might be enforceable against private sellers at gun shows, because such sales are publicly visible. But private FTF sales and transfers are not publicly visible and a UBC could easily be avoided if both parties agree. (Of course, it would not be a good idea to agree to do this when selling to a stranger.)

Schumer probably hopes implementing UBCs without a registry will be acceptable, so that he can come back later and move for a registry because he just realized that UBCs don't work well without one.

If became obvious that universal BG checks were going to pass I would support your idea. If I were in congress I would try add an amendment to it that would sunset the law in 5 years (so hopefully we have a more 2A friendly president). I think you could sell that if you sold it with the idea that it would sunset after 5 years and do a study to see if it made any difference and if it did, congress could pass the law again. Which I would guess it wouldn't make a significant difference so it wouldn't reinstated.


(I do not support any new gun laws, this is only if universal BG checks was a sure thing)

Nope and nope!

No, not even a little bit, not now, not ever, not in the slightest, not at all.

I remember when seat belt violations were only secondary, as in, they couldn't pull you over for it. Look at it now. Restrictions always seem to escalate.

Quick Draw, considering how easy it is to hack websites, I'm not sure a NICS website is a good idea.

Click to expand...

Ok, fair enough. Phone only then? Smartphone app?

Would you be ok with a stranger repeating your social security number into a phone connected to -god knows who- but hopefully NICS?

I wouldn't.

By definition, a background check system cannot be anonymous. If one exists for gun sales, data will be collected on who checks are run on. It might not record everything, but you will be able to see who checks are run on.

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...

This would work for folks with common names, like John Smith. I search for Smith, John, find 110 prohibited persons, and I can tell by picture that none of them are you. ATF doesn't know which of the 10,000 or so John Smiths to put on their watch list. Personally, I have an obscure last name. If your name were something like Firkrann, Jackland, it would be very easy for the ATF to say "hmmm...this guy has firearms." The more specific the search is, the more likely the ATF is to be able to track who searches are run on, even if you're not in the list of prohibited persons.

No matter which way you slice it, in order to be enforceable, checks would need to be logged, and if logged a database could be created.

Would you be ok with a stranger repeating your social security number into a phone connected to -god knows who- but hopefully NCIS?

Click to expand...

I just did a 4473 form and NICS check a few weeks ago and didn't give my SS# and it was fine. Is that not normal? I didn't think that was necessary.

Quick Draw McGraw said:

Ok, fair enough. Phone only then? Smartphone app?

Click to expand...

^^^ That's it! An app that stores a transaction thats backed up by a constantly updated database of who's ineligible. Personally stored information that's encrypted to protect all parties. Just show up to your FTF, bump your android, exchange cash, exchange firearm, done.

^^^ That's it! An app that stores a transaction thats backed up by a constantly updated database of who's ineligible. Personally stored information that's encrypted to protect all parties. Just show up to your FTF, bump your android, exchange cash, exchange firearm, done.

Click to expand...

This would have two problems...
1) Many people do not own a smart phone. Do you now have to own a smart phone in order to go through with this? What if your carrier (or worse: the manufacturer) decides it doesn't like guns and will not support that app?
2) The system would still need to check your information against the database of prohibited persons. What is to stop the ATF from having information that is not in that database being added to another database of "people who are not yet prohibited"?

No. I completely see the problem in this. It was more tongue in cheek.

I just did a 4473 form and NICS check a few weeks ago and didn't give my SS# and it was fine. Is that not normal? I didn't think that was necessary.

Click to expand...

Depends. Is your name David Johnson or Herbert Balushade? If you have a common name, SSN can help make it easier to identify whether or not you're THAT David Johnson that has been in jail four times for armed robbery.

As an american we've can enough in 86' losing full autos. That was understandable. Back ground check is enough. Id think most gun owners are law abiting citizens. Its bad enough u have to pay $200 tax stamp to make certain gun mods. Once a person passes a back ground check,it should be yours! When gov't starts doing their job better,we'll talk then. Say 1% of ppl cant use electricity safetly,should we just stop using electricity!? Or motorcyclist,same principal?

Depends. Is your name David Johnson or Herbert Balushade? If you have a common name, SSN can help make it easier to identify whether or not you're THAT David Johnson that has been in jail four times for armed robbery.

Click to expand...

Ah, gotcha. I see. Yeah my last name isn't all that common.

Actually, it occurs to me that a "stranger repeating your SS#" to someone that is hopefully with NICS is what usually happens now at most gun dealers, unless you personally know the employee that is helping you. But hey, with my "freedom ID" idea, you at least are the one that would be giving your SS# over the phone and thus would presumably be in a better position to verify for yourself that were actually talking to NICS. amirite?