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

[JayBird]

Ill tell ya what. Ill be okay with this 'compromise' when we get something in return.

How about, a repeal of the Hughes Amendment. It aint making 'machine guns' anymore legal than they already are, it just opens BATFE's book again.

Now that....is what I call a compromise.

As the proposal to make UBC's 'better', is just spraying air freshener on a turd.

 

[racenutz]

Assuming the widely accepted (even by the NRA) 60/40% statistical distribution (60% of purchases subject to NICS, 40% not) and permitting for extrapolation that any logical and honest actuarial analysis permits, this means that roughly 1,700 prohibited persons may have acquired their firearm through a non-NICS-subjected transfer. Granted, absent a specific survey we have no way of verifying that these guns did in fact reach the hands of prohibited persons, but we are allowed to interpret data in this way.

That 40% figure is nothing but myth http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/338735/40-percent-myth-john-lott#

 

[MErl]

I had to check that we still had Sedition laws, being a direct limit on #1
These proposals are direct limits on #2, I hope they would undergo as much scrutiny.

Checks on private transfers might block casual buyers. People that decide they want a gun to protect themselves but cannot due to their past (which they find out when they try).
They wont stop your violent felon or someone that wants to protest their drug stash. It blocks one avenue leaving others wide open.

Review my posts over the last month or so, I initially supported ideas like OP. I've since come the the conclusion that the small amount of extra denials is not worth carrying a "I am not a felon" card. The people that know they will be denied have other ways of getting firearms. The people that didn't know they would be denied, those are the ones in that list of 4,200.

side note:
decoupling the SN tracking from the BG check makes it completely impossible to trace a straw purchase, opening an existing hole a bit larger.

 

[mikechandler]

I have a CCW permit, so they already know who I am - but I like the idea of registering and easily identifying the felons, and no more background check needed. Tatoo everybody ever convicted of a violent crime, &stamps/indicators on their licenses, and let the rest of us go on with life.

Oh BTW - having a CCW permit, I never go through a background check when I buy a gun. I just give them my CCW permit and license, when I fill out the paperwork, and they file away the 4473. There is no call in of the information needed. But like I said, if you have a permit, they KNOW you have guns.

 

[pintler]

If were going to have universal background checks, why not put a flag on drivers licesnses that says this person has passed a background check.

Almost, but I agree with CapnMac - you turn 18, you get the 'G' endorsement automatically. When you commit a violent crime or are adjudicated a danger to others, you lose the endorsement. Or, if you just don't like the idea of being able to possess a gun, you can opt out and ask for the endorsement to be removed.

That last part addresses the concern that, God forbid, an employer or whoever be able to look at your license and know you are a violent criminal. You could just explain that you don't like guns and asked to have it removed.

 

[runes]

ID

I second Capnmac's idea
Simply mark the drivers license with a yes or no for gun ownership.
Might take a couple of years to cycle through the lifespan of a license.
If you lose your right the card is void and called in.

 

[JonnyGringo]

Why are felons denied their Constitutional rights to gun ownership to begin with? Didn't they receive their just punishment for their crime according to the law? For someone to do their time, often for a victimless "crime" such as smoking pot, yet often be disenfranchised and denied the right to keep and bear arms is unreasonable. Keep in mind here, before you respond with the standard "obey the law and you have nothing to worry about" that each and every one of you might potentially become a felon overnight by the mere stroke of a pen, or congressional vote and it will carry the full support of a good 40-50% of the American population.

 

[PowderMonkey]

My CCW does in OH. I like it. I wish it worked nation wide as I am stationed in NC right now. </snip>

Your Ohio CCW does what exactly? Are you implying it replaces a NICS check for a firearm purchase in Ohio?

 

[tgzzzz]

That last part addresses the concern that, God forbid, an employer or whoever be able to look at your license and know you are a violent criminal. You could just explain that you don't like guns and asked to have it removed.

I think this is a natural course for this action to follow. Good luck with that explanation.

 

[ngnrd]

Why are felons denied their Constitutional rights to gun ownership to begin with? Didn't they receive their just punishment for their crime according to the law?

Because that is what we - society at large - have agreed to.

Incarceration is expensive. Capital punishment is distasteful to many people. Early release is common. And recidivism rates are high. Thus, because felons have shown that they are both willing and capable of violating the rights of others, and regularly choose to continue to commit crimes after their first arrest/incarceration, we - society at large - have, as part of their punishment for the crimes they have committed, stripped them of their right to keep and bear arms in an attempt to provide some means of protecting the rights of the non-criminal population.

 

[JonnyGringo]

Because that is what we - society at large - have agreed to.

........the right of the people to keep and bare arms shall occasionally be infringed according to the whims of the majority of society at large......

It's amazing what you can get society at large to agree to. Lots of new potential felons in NY now, and soon to be other areas as well. I don't want to hijack the thread, I only brought this up, in part, because of someone above thinking that branding felons would be a good idea......

 

[ngnrd]

Knowing the penalties, the criminal made a conscious decision to violate the rights of others. Thus, by no leap of logic, they deprived themselves of their rights.

It seems disingenuous to argue that repeat violent offenders should have no restriction on their right to bear arms, don'tchya think?

EDIT: Or, how 'bout when they are still in prison? Would you argue that inmates should have free access to firearms?

 

[JonnyGringo]

It seems disingenuous to argue that repeat violent offenders should have the same right to bear arms, don'tchya think?

It does, which is why I have not argued that, lol.

 

[ngnrd]

It does, which is why I have not argued that, lol.

Actually, yes you did... the group "felons" includes "repeat violent offenders".

Why are felons denied their Constitutional rights to gun ownership to begin with? Didn't they receive their just punishment for their crime according to the law?

 

[JonnyGringo]

You have made it clear that you are in favor of allowing society to permanently take away Constitutionally guaranteed rights for certain individuals with majority approval. I respect your views, however on this matter we will have to agree to disagree.

 

[ngnrd]

I will say that if you are advocating that there should be a distinction made between violent felons and non-violent felons, that's certainly a valid position. However, simply separating the criminals into different groups does nothing regarding the problem of keeping firearms out of the hands of the violent ones.

So, if we can agree that there is some high-risk group of individuals that should not be allowed to possess firearms, the question remains... Is there a way to keep those people from having free access to firearms without infringing on the rights of the rest of the population? And, I'm not sure there's a feasible way to do that without instituting broad based capital punishment, or life imprisonment without parole. And, up to now, society has been unwilling to do either.

 

[ngnrd]

You have made it clear that you are in favor of allowing society to permanently take away Constitutionally guaranteed rights for certain individuals with majority approval.

I'm not sure how you came to this conclusion, but it is most definitely incorrect.

 

[hso]

You're looking for a solution to a nonexistent problem because you've been made to be afraid of what might happen if you don't "do something". The problem is that there's nothing you can concede that is going to sacrifice to these wolves that will satisfy them. They don't want a solution to violent crime. They simply want to do away with firearms in the hands of private citizens. Who will you throw to the wolves next time?

 

[gc70]

I will say that if you are advocating that there should be a distinction made between violent felons and non-violent felons, that's certainly a valid position.

Done! Some white-collar felons are already excluded from the definition of prohibited persons.

18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(20): The term "crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year" does not include -
(A) any Federal or State offenses pertaining to antitrust violations, unfair trade practices, restraints of trade, or other similar offenses relating to the regulation of business practices,

 

[gossamer]

That 40% figure is nothing but myth http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/338735/40-percent-myth-john-lott#

First, on the 40% stat: it is not myth. It is merely dated and, based on current methodology and available resources not perfect data. It is, however, not disputed by the nra, nor do they dispute the method or findings of the study. It remains our only data in the matter.

On the other hand, John Lott, who you cite has been proven a demonstrable fraud. Read “Jon Weiner, Historians in Trouble: Plagiarism, Fraud, and Politics in the Ivory Tower (2005), 136–48; Mark V. Tushnet, Out of Range: Why the Constitution Can’t End the Battle over Guns (2007), 95–97.” for evidence of Lott's fraud. Besides creating data out of whole cloth, and no way to prove it was ever actually collected, Lott has been shown to pose as Mary Roth, a fictional student of his, to support his own research and post glowing reviews of his own book.

 

[ngnrd]

Denying the existence of a problem does not make the problem nonexistent.

In my view, a very real problem exists in that bad guys currently have relatively free access to tools which allow them to easily, and often violently, violate the rights of others - acts which the bad guys are all too willing to commit.

Eliminating those tools is certainly not a viable solution; nor is limiting access to those tools to the remainder of the population. History has proven that doing so has extremely horrific consequences. And, eliminating the bad guys has proven to be ... problematic ... throughout history.

So, where does that leave us? Given the need for a free society to defend itself from oppressive governments, should individuals then also be forced to defend themselves against similarly armed and oppressive individuals? Or should we at least try to find a solution to the latter that doesn't diminish our ability to do the former, should the need ever arise?

 

[gossamer]

You have made it clear that you are in favor of allowing society to permanently take away Constitutionally guaranteed rights for certain individuals with majority approval. I respect your views, however on this matter we will have to agree to disagree.

So you're against the death penalty? Because thats the ultimate revocation the ones constitutional rights. And against one's right to shoot and kill someone who aims to kill their family I assume.

 

[ngnrd]

You're looking for a solution ... because you've been made to be afraid of what might happen if you don't "do something".

That is a hasty generalization, and has nothing to do with what I said. I never said that we should "do something", and I'm certainly not afraid of what may happen if we don't. I simply responded to a question posed by JonnyGringo regarding why felons are no longer afforded the right to keep and bear arms. His implication that felons should necessarily maintain their Constitutionally protected natural rights is a patently false premise; incarceration in and of itself is a revocation of the Blessings of Liberty secured by our Constitution. (Natural rights are neither unlimited, nor are they irrevocable. i.e., Your right to swing your clenched fist in the air ends abruptly at my nose. And your right to liberty can be, and often is, revoked when you ignore that limitation.)

I have neither advocated for, nor in any other fashion even suggested that, society should give up any gun rights. Nor have I suggested that we should "throw something to the wolves" in an effort to appease them.

I merely posed a different premise - that there are certain individuals that should have their rights lawfully revoked - and then asked a question regarding how such a revocation could be implemented without infringing on the rights of the remainder of the population.

Please don't put words in my mouth, or try to redefine the words that I say. I can speak for myself just fine, thank you.

 

[Isaac-1]

I just want to point out that not all people that are felons and have lost their right to own guns did anything that many of us would consider as grounds to remove their gun ownership rights. I know a guy fairly well that was convicted of a felony when he was about 20 years old (is now in the process of trying to have his rights restored now), his conviction was related to a non violent domestic issue / break in trying to retreive his property from ex girl friend / mother of his child. Studpid yes, but I already said he was 20 years old when it happened, he is a person I would trust with a gun as much as anyone I know, and while what he did was probably wrong, I think the punishment far exceeded the crime. There are many more like him out there.

 

[ngnrd]

That's certainly a fair critique of the obvious flaws in our current system.

But, your anecdote doesn't address the premise that there are individuals who's revocation of rights may be justified, and if it's possible to keep those individuals from possessing firearms without infringing on the rights of everybody else.