So, what about this idea?

The OP's idea is not workable because, typically, drivers' licenses are valid for many years. (For example, my current license has a term of 10 years.) This would be useless in determining gun eligibility, unless the state is required to revoke and reissue licenses whenever disqualifying events occurred (felony convictions, domestic assault convictions, etc.). There would be more holes in this system than in the current NICS system. Besides, it would be extremely expensive for the states to administer.

Fast Frank said:

No license? No sale. Marked as prohibited? Now I can avoid arming a prohibited person.

Why not? Why would anybody have a problem with this idea?

Click to expand...

For privacy reasons, I prefer to use my passport rather than my DL for ID in circumstances not explicitly requiring a DL. The residential address on the DL presents significant risks ranging from identity theft to home invasions, and most places asking for an ID are simply not trustworthy enough with their handling of my data. I strongly recommend that gun owners keep their residence addresses as private as possible.

Further, if implemented at the federal level, the proposal creates an unfunded mandate for the states. The feds cannot even manage to keep their database straight, so it is nonsensical to think that 50 different states could do a better job.

Zooming out, the proposal should offend the conscience of every thinking American. For what other Constitutional rights must one prove one's innocence before exercising? The only "reasonable" measures relating to firearms rights should also apply to voting, online posting, and church attendance.

The broken system should not be "fixed" with greater government intrusions. It should be abandoned.

Fast Frank said:

And, I might add...

I'll also wager that there's some dude somewhere in America that only wanted the 500 bucks so he could finance some other thing he wanted to do- And now he's sitting there white faced and shaking going "My God What Have I done?".

They will be talking with him shortly if not already and I would not want to be that guy.

Click to expand...

How many of us have sold guns? We could be that guy.

If it's a concern, simply perform every transaction through an FFL; would add $40-80 to the cost, and you'd know a BG check was completed and all laws followed.

Larry

I like the idea. Something similar is under review in TN regarding DUI offenders. The way I understand it the bill aims to alter the license by changing printed letters to red instead of black. One line per DUI conviction for the purpose of reducing the legal saleable volume of alcohol. This same principal could be used to identify prohibited persons with a simple mark on the ID.

WestKentucky said:

I like the idea. Something similar is under review in TN regarding DUI offenders. The way I understand it the bill aims to alter the license by changing printed letters to red instead of black. One line per DUI conviction for the purpose of reducing the legal saleable volume of alcohol. This same principal could be used to identify prohibited persons with a simple mark on the ID.

Click to expand...

So like a big Scarlett Letter? Maybe they should be branded or tattooed with a barcode? Shades of 1930s Germany

Not at all. The only times you are asked for a photo ID are when buying booze, guns, or when asked by a police officer. I don’t remotely liken this to any of the things you reference. In fact it would be very much more discrete than items like ankle bracelets or even photo ids which clearly indicate a revoked license. A small mark in a given location would serve well for quick determination without broadcasting prohibited status. It’s a lot better than some of the registries that exist for some convicted criminals as well. A red pistol printed perhaps on the back side of a drivers license...not any realistic infringement.

All I need to do is ASK the buyer if they are a prohibited person. I also ask to see his current state DL or CCW (I do NOT make a copy or write it down); all in agreement, exchange goods for cash, shake and say goodbye. I do not look for IDs when selling axes or chainsaws or other deadly implements at a garage sale, it should be same in this instance.

Fast Frank said:

Here we go with another shooting.
And we know there's gonna be more attacks on the second amendment.
And we know that whatever the grabbers do isn't going to make any difference at all as far as mass shooting go.

So, why don't we propose something that might?

In the most recent case, the guy was prohibited from buying by his dishonorable discharge, but he had a Ruger AR.

Now we go back to the "Gunshow Loophole" nonsense. As if that would make a difference.

I have an idea, and I figured I would fly it here to see if it's workable.

Why not put a mark on the drivers license that says "Prohibited from buying or having guns"?

Now, when I want to legally sell my gun online or at a gun show all I have to do is ask to see the license.

No license? No sale. Marked as prohibited? Now I can avoid arming a prohibited person.

Why not? Why would anybody have a problem with this idea?

Maybe if we could get the grabbers on board we could actually do a little good instead of just stomping on the second amendment.

Click to expand...

Better yet why not do like Virginia.

At gun shows the state police have a table. If you’re selling gun to someone and you’re not a FFL you can go to the table. The person fills out the paperwork allowing a background check and pays a small fee, I believe $2.00. They then let you know if the person is prohibited or not.

I believe they’ll also do this at a station (although I’m not certain).

Fast Frank wrote:
Why not put a mark on the drivers license that says "Prohibited from buying or having guns"?

Click to expand...

How would you actually make that work? Someone is convicted of a felony. Until they go down to the DMV and get their state driver's license re-issued, it will lack the prohibition language. So how do you get the prohibition language added?

And since some prohibitions are only temporary, how do you get them timely removed? For example, someone could be indicted for a felony (Question 11.b on the Form 4473) which would make them a prohibited person. But if the indictment were dismissed they are no longer prohibited. How do we get the prohibition off the driver's license?

And since every drivers license transaction conducted by every state now involves an NICS background check, how do we pay for the expansion of the system? And what does the state do if they run the NICS check and it comes back "delayed"? Are we going to impose mandatory three- or five-day waiting periods for drivers licenses?

The idea proposed in the OP, while well intentioned, can have some unintended consequences.

Firstly, as has been addressed by a few other members, is that it can lead to issues with stereotyping or denying things to anyone whose committed a felony. And before anyone raises a point of them "shouldn't have done the crime then" argument, take some time to google some of the most ignorant things you can be convicted as a felon for. Your phone or computer ever connect to an unsecured ISP while out and about? You've just committed a third degree felony. Or better yet, pretty much every single one of us on this forum are guilty of felony computer fraud. By using forum names instead of our actual real names, technically we are all committing violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act which is 5 to 10 years.

Secondly, and the one I really get leery of, is granting that kind of power to any level of government. Because once the precedent is set for the state to label our license in a way that advertises we're not allowed one product then the gates are opened to mark it regarding other things. It's a back door way of granting government control of our actions through a document we all have to have to function in modern America. Almost anything we do now requires some form of government issued ID and the government knows that.

Like I said....I feel you. And I applaud the exercises in thinking of proactive ways to stop anti-gun legislation and it's effects on legal gun owners. But...it just opens the doors to too many bad things and control mechanisms.

George P said:

So like a big Scarlett Letter? Maybe they should be branded or tattooed with a barcode? Shades of 1930s Germany

Click to expand...

You mean you wouldn't support the nice yellow stars given to us by the government to sew to our clothes to identify us as people ok to purchase a Constitutionally protected tool to project our innate right to self defense? Obviously you're a commie liberal socialist tree hugger nazi anti-American terrorist loving racist freedom hater......

lol