Checking the buyer without the gun. I could buy that.

[Spdracr39]

find a way to make criminals follow any such system and I'd consider it.

I believe they can. Just arrest anyone that can't produce their papers on demand and send them to a labor camp. The communists did it all the time.

 

[joeschmoe]

I would not mind such a system. I would like a way to sell a gun privately without worrying about whether the guy just got out of prison for armed robbery.

What part of private did you not understand?

I don't see a problem with a gun "buyer's license". It doesn't prove you own any guns, just that you considered it at one point.

 

[gc70]

The Ohio CHL (Concealed Handgun License) does not take the place of a background check, it never has. . . . Mine sure hasn't.

Correct; Ohio has no permits that qualify as an alternative to NICS. As of 8-26-2011, this ATF list shows all of the NICS alternatives by state.

The more discussion I see of checking the buyer rather than the gun transaction, the more I am in favor of checking everyone when they get a drivers license and putting a limitation (text or logo) on the licenses of prohibited persons. I could 'compromise' on such a system IF:

• Everyone had a NICS check when they got a drivers license; there would be no record that would identify a person as a gun owner.
• NICS checks would be one-time; if a person subsequently became prohibited, the court imposing the disability would not only submit information to NICS, but also seize the person's drivers license and have it invalidated by the state of issue.
• 4473 forms would be eliminated; even now, with only 3-4 dozen prosecutions a year, they do not 'prevent' sales to prohibited persons, and only serve as records of dubious value in trying to trace guns after a crime has occurred.
• Limitations on interstate sales of firearms would be eliminated; this is a throwback to the era of paper records and checking with localized law enforcement - the national NICS database is just as applicable to the most distant state to which a person might travel as it is to their state of residence.

 

[Agsalaska]

So instead of leading to a registry of who owns which guns, it just leads to a registry of who owns guns?

No. I refuse.

There is no registry of who owns which guns. They do not request that information when doing a Background check and no background check is completed for CCW holder. So this would really be no different.

 

[AIM]

NRA does not appear to support 40% check NRA-ILA home page '40% myth'.

Here in Texas a CHL does avoid call to NICS for purchase.

 

[denton]

Realistically, we are probably not going to see the end of Form 4473. However, a couple of thoughts....

What we are doing now with background checks is the functional equivalent of rounding up everyone in town to question them when there is a mugging. Would we tolerate that? No.

Under Heller and McDonald, the present system is probably unconstitutional. Why? There is a fundamental, protected right to have firearms. All things essential to a right are as protected as the right. Being able to buy firearms is therefore a protected right. And government regulation of a protected right must be at least somewhat narrowly tailored. What we have is about as broad as I can imagine.

In order to be constitutional, whatever we get shouldn't just arbitrarily sweep up everyone and then grant permission in those cases where the government chooses to grant it.

 

[Newcatwalt]

No thank you. I'm tired of jumping through "hoops" every time I want to purchase a gun.

 

[gdcpony]

Correct; Ohio has no permits that qualify as an alternative to NICS. As of 8-26-2011, this ATF list shows all of the NICS alternatives by state.

The more discussion I see of checking the buyer rather than the gun transaction, the more I am in favor of checking everyone when they get a drivers license and putting a limitation (text or logo) on the licenses of prohibited persons. I could 'compromise' on such a system IF:

• Everyone had a NICS check when they got a drivers license; there would be no record that would identify a person as a gun owner.
• NICS checks would be one-time; if a person subsequently became prohibited, the court imposing the disability would not only submit information to NICS, but also seize the person's drivers license and have it invalidated by the state of issue.
• 4473 forms would be eliminated; even now, with only 3-4 dozen prosecutions a year, they do not 'prevent' sales to prohibited persons, and only serve as records of dubious value in trying to trace guns after a crime has occurred.
• Limitations on interstate sales of firearms would be eliminated; this is a throwback to the era of paper records and checking with localized law enforcement - the national NICS database is just as applicable to the most distant state to which a person might travel as it is to their state of residence.

There is a way it could work. But the basic principle is that a person is cleared to purchase unless the right is forfeited (there is the murky area). Nothing would say they did or did not purchase anything. That would replace the current system. Might not be a perfect solution, but for once it is a compromise where they give more than us.

I corrected myself as far as the OH permit. I thought I would be good if I purchased there which I haven't done yet being stationed in NC since a couple months after I got it. Guess not. No biggie, just another phone call next time I am on leave and find a 1911 I like.

 

[vont01]

Buy and sell only with CCW. it eliminates any concerns you or they may ahve about the legallity of the buy or sell. It also eliminates the 4473. May not sell as quick but it will sell.

 

[ngnrd]

Except that free States don't require a CCW.

Soooo... there's that.

 

[rd_zzyzx]

We can not identify a felon as a felon because it is branding them? We are willing to prove ourselves innocent because we don't want to brand a felon as a felon? I might use a list of felons to see if my daughter is dating one?

Sorry, but I am not worried about the consequences one has to deal with as a felon IN RELATION to the 2nd Amendment which shall not be infringed and background checks.

I do not trust the government not to make a background check into a registration list. Trying to justify registrations, fees, and licenses by comparing this to a driver's license doesn't hold water because driving is not guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

The U.S. Constitution doesn't say you have the right to keep and bear arms once you have shown proficiency in shooting, shown you have no tendency to get angry, shown no tendency to believe in armed revolt, shown no tendency to reject regulation, etc...

If it is illegal to sell to a felon then provide me a system where I can identify a felon.

The idea that committing felonies should have no lingering consequences, no scarlet letter, no brand, seems to imply some other problem, such as there are two many crimes that are labeled felonies, or there is a disproportionate amount of falsely convicted felons, OR we all just want to have a soft warm fuzzy feeling that we have forgiven the felon even though the legal system has placed restrictions on the felon, restrictions that are part of their restitution to society.

The legal system already dumps dangerous child molesters and pedophiles into our communities and makes us have to look up the list and figure out if any have moved in, what level of crime the committed, and watch out for our "lambs" because they let out the "wolf".

Give me a system where I can look them up. That is all that is needed.