Closing the "gun show loophole"... rationally

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

tube_ee

Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
476
I had this idea...

What if, rather than "closing the gun show loophole" by banning private-party sales, it was possible to allow private sellers to access the NICS database online, using information that a prospective buyer would have on hand?

IE, Joe Blow wants to buy a gun I'm selling.

Joe shows up at my pad to buy the gun.

I take Joe's name (and maybe SSN, or last 4, or whatever), and log into nics.doj.gov, and type it in.

2 seconds later, I get a pop-up window that says "yes" or "no".

If I do this, and the answer is "yes", I am shielded from any criminal or civil actions deriving from the firearm that I sold.

What say you all? Given that no regulation of private sales is preferable, but that some regulation is probably coming, could we get out ahead of the parade?

--Shannon
 
Tub I think this would be fine but would never work --Not a big fan of Federal Databases here. The government and technology usually doesn't mix well. Many strong defenders of the 2A will argue that since you are guaranteed the RTKBA anyone walking around over the age of 18 should be able to freely purchase and sell. Those who shouldn't be allowed gun ownership should be locked up in club fed.
 
There was apoll on this recently I think the majority voted they rather not have to access NCIS
 
It would be an easy way to check out potential girlfriends, room mates, people you work with and so on.
If they cant buy a gun and they are old enough then they did some thing pretty bad.
 
I'd rather not have to, either.

But something about this is coming. Not that it matters to me, living in CA, but there will be Federal restrictions on private sales.

So, given that some limitations are probably on the way, what is the minimum we would accept?

Like I said, if the parade is coming, you can either grab a baton and get out in front of it, stand in the street and get trampled, or you can sit on the curb.

So, if "no change" is not an option, what are the "improvements" we'd be willing to accept?

If the "buy a gun with no background check" is really the issue, then something that allows those checks to take place but does not require all sales to go through an FFL should attract enough support from both sides to pass, and would then head off more draconian restrictions.

--Shannon
 
Given that no regulation of private sales is preferable, but that some regulation is probably coming, could we get out ahead of the parade?
Click to expand...

Suggesting the implementation of the Brady Org wish list, before they do so, doesn't seem to help out our cause.
 
Tried That Nobody INterested

A few days ago I suggested:
If they really wanted to close the "Gun Show Loophole" they could make it possible for non-FFL holders to do a background check. It could be done inexpensively and without invading anyone's privacy.

Here's how it would work. John Doe goes to buy a gun from someone - FFL holder or not. The seller sits down to at his PC, goes to a website and enters Mr. Doe's name, ssan, date of birth (2 of those 3 are on a state driver's license) and asks if the sale is righteous. The computer at the other end does a check of the databases and comes back with a confirm or deny and a transaction number along with the original data input. The seller hardcopies the result and either completes the sale or apologizes. In the latter case Doe would be free, if he desired, to enquire later - using the transaction number - as to the particulars for which the transaction was denied.

If the feds wish to audit the seller, they have the seller's particulars (at the very least the IP address of their PC) and can check up on them.

Of course a similar system would make it easy for employers to do due dilligence to keep from hiring illegals too.

No I do not expect either system to be implimented in my lifetime - or my GRANDCHILDREN'S for that matter!
Click to expand...

It is hard to figure out how even the feds could screw up such a system but doubtless they could.

CoRoMo said:
Suggesting the implementation of the Brady Org wish list, before they do so, doesn't seem to help out our cause.
Click to expand...
How about we appear to be giving in a tad to stave off their doing even worse.

BTW, you guys hear that Jim Brady died today (1/28/09)? Now they got a genuine sainted martyr for their cause.

Cy
 
How about we appear to be giving in a tad to stave off their doing even worse.
Click to expand...

So "they" get to say, "Hey look, even gun owners are on our side, see?"

Um, yeah, no thanks. And the defeatist attitude is going to get us exactly...where? :scrutiny:

"We" in the gun owning community have relented before "to stave off their doing even worse" and it's bitten us in the collective rear-end.

For all the chest beating, pry it from my cold dead hands talk there's been in the past, I think it's kind of funny to have seen the threads lately saying, "well, if we only give in a little, just THIS time, and this time it will be different."
 
Your suggestion only regulates me, not the criminal. Mr. Thug won't call the NICS when he sells a gun.


For decades we have been telling the gun control crowd that deeper regulation only regulates the honest citizens that were never the problem. Let's not turn and go right down that road voluntarily.


We want effective gun control? How about a "One Strike And You're Out for Life with No Possibility of Parole" mandatory sentence for possession of a gun during the commission of any felony or misdemeanor. It won't stop the criminal from committing an armed crime once, but it will surely prevent the recurrence. Do you think it's too costly and we will never be able to afford it? It currently costs $25,000 per year to hold an inmate in prison ($35,000 if the inmate is over 65 years of age and has medical problems), and there are approximately 290,000 crimes committed per year with a gun according to the DOJ uniform crime statistics. That's less than $8 billion per year to incarcerate them all. One-tenth the amount we are spending on the War in Iraq. We can certainly afford it if we want.
 
I agree with ants :) doesn't stop the people who are committing crime at all.

Plus giving public Access to the NICS system is likely a bad thing, what does a proceed/denied mean? That you're eligible to own a firearm, ok if it's proceed it's cool, if it's denied/delayed, then suppose your employer checked you out, you're a denied, or a delayed, then you're fired, however he's missed your middle initial entered wrong birth date or whatever, resulting in a false negative. There's too much scope for abuse.

Finally suppose the person buys the firearm off you with fake ID, can you tell it's fake? Are you liable if the gun is subsequently used in a crime for a NICS false positive, or fake ID? You did the check, you saw the ID. If you're not liable then there's no point,
 
Please read the whole thing...

If Joe Sixpack lies, but NICS says "yes", you'd be protected. Which is as it should be, as you'ld have made a good faith effort to ensure that your buyer was legally allowed to buy from you.

Essentially, straw buyer != straw seller, if the seller was acting in proven good faith.

And please bear in mind that I approach the 2nd Amendment much as I do the 1st. Basically, my approach to any fireamrs regulation is to substitute the word "book" for the word "gun". If the proposed restriction still makes sense, it passes the test. Damned few do.

But again, if some restrictions on private sales are inevitable, and I think that they are, this would be about as far as I'd be willing to go. It's certainly better than the "all sales must go through an FFL" rule. If that's more than the brethren are OK with, fine, but we do need a backup position, since "no!" will likely result in our losing on all points.

I'd rather end up with a compromise win than a principled defeat. Only results matter.

--Shannon

--Shannon
 
If Joe Sixpack lies, but NICS says "yes", you'd be protected. Which is as it should be, as you'ld have made a good faith effort to ensure that your buyer was legally allowed to buy from you.
Click to expand...

So why would Joe Sixpack ever tell the truth? If he lies, and uses a fake identity, he can never get caught, because no one will know who he is. And the seller still sells to him, because he think the sale is a go from NICS.

You can't keep guns out of the hands of criminals, only law abiding citizens.
 
Nothing will keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

A quick look at Mexico, where private ownership is, for all intents and purposes, illegal, shows that clearly.

What I'm interested in is a system that protects the rights and interests of the law-abiding purchaser and seller, keeps private transactions legal, and has a snowball's chance in hell of making it through the legislative process.

As much as I believe that the Constitution really means "anybody can by and sell whatever they want, from whomever they want", the reality isn't there, and never will be. That being the case, I want the least restrictive regime that can be set up.

--Shannon
 
Enforcing laws and imposing punishment on criminals would be much more productive than creating more restrictions on guns. Punish people for their actions, not make more laws to hinder the general public.
 
I'd rather end up with a compromise win than a principled defeat. Only results matter.
Click to expand...

By self regulation you''d wind up with neither a compromise win, nor a result. Whatever "you" the self regulator proposes will be looked at by your opposition as suspect, they'd amend it warp it, and ultimately make it their own, in their own image. Thus you would be the orchestrator of your own defeat.
 
Last edited:
In stead of keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, keep criminal's hands out of the reach of guns. It works better and we won't need to do unconstitutional background checks on us law abiding citizens to make sure we're not one of those criminals.

See how simple that is?

Woody
 
So, we are to simply lock criminals away forever. Yes, that's very simple.

One of the nicer aspects of our justice system is that people can supposedly pay their debt to society and have their liberty restored. But, I guess we don't really need that anymore.

Aside from permanent internment facilities, how do you intend to keep criminals hands out of the reach of guns?
 
I don't see a loophole in FTF sales. I would like to see the fee for background checks for firearm purchases be removed. It always bugs me that I have to pay for the right to buy something in a store.
 
No. No reasoning, no nothing. Not right now in the precarious state the 2A is in general, with court cases and a huge momentum in our favor at the moment, despite Obama.

we have to fight every measure. I'm sure alot of us would not care either way and/or would maybe prefer that the 'loophole' be closed, but the whole thing here is that we have all heard more than once that the long-term goal - in one way or another - is not gun control, but gun prohibition.

The only sensible thing to the Brady Bunch is that only the police and military (legally) have guns other than hunting rifles, and that even those should be a hassle to get.

and if we want to keep felons from guns, then perhaps punishing violent or potentially violent crime as harshly as possible should be given a look at. Imagine how many people may (may, being the key word) think twice about committing a felony when getting caught meant that they actually went to jail for a very long time instead of maybe less than a year and parole for another year on a charge that should have bought them ten years in prison. And if that doesnt deter them, then...well, at least they will not be in society for a very long time if ever again.
 
So, we are to simply lock criminals away forever. Yes, that's very simple.

One of the nicer aspects of our justice system is that people can supposedly pay their debt to society and have their liberty restored. But, I guess we don't really need that anymore.

Aside from permanent internment facilities, how do you intend to keep criminals hands out of the reach of guns?
Click to expand...

Silly rabbit!

All we need to keep locked up are those who cannot be trusted with guns - or any other kind of weapon for that matter.

Anyone who has done their time and is not a violent criminal should be set free with no infringements on their rights.

We already have permanent facilities. Violent criminals can be kept in those facilities until they can be trusted with weapons. Those who can never be trusted with any weapons should be executed. They are the people who continue to murder when released from prison.

Woody
 
Look. Criminals are going to find a way to get guns. Period.
If they don't buy them directly through the so-called "gun show loophole", then they'll just pay their 18 or 21 year old friend who doesn't have a criminal record (yet) to buy one.

If that doesn't work, they'll steal one. If that doesn't work, they'll have them smuggled in from 3rd world countries, just like drugs.

So what would happen if we were to eliminate the "gun show loophole". How would you give a gun to your friend or brother?? There'd be some rule requiring you to transfer it through a dealer.

How would you leave guns to your children when you died?? They'd have to be transferred through a dealer.

All of this could be done for a "small fee", of course. This would be a way to eventually get all guns "registered". All guns sold before the days of the 4473 would eventually have to be transferred this way (either through sales or when the previous owner dies).

Does this sound like a good idea to you??? If all these "criminals" out there are such a threat, then here's a simple question. Why the heck are they not still in jail?????
 
We already have permanent facilities. Violent criminals can be kept in those facilities until they can be trusted with weapons. Those who can never be trusted with any weapons should be executed. They are the people who continue to murder when released from prison.
Click to expand...

So, the obvious questions are:

When can a criminal be trusted and released?

What criteria is being used to establish who can be trusted?

Who determines said criteria?

Perhaps we need to research crystal ball technology so we can accurately determine who will continue to murder when released from prison. This new technology will allow us to execute only people who will eventually be found guilty of habitual violent crimes before they actually commit them.

Yes. Very simple, indeed.

I do agree that people convicted of non-violent crimes should have their liberty fully reinstated after doing their time. Felonies should largely be confined to violent crime, gross abuse, and other physically damaging crimes.
 
Does this sound like a good idea to you??? If all these "criminals" out there are such a threat, then here's a simple question. Why the heck are they not still in jail?????
Click to expand...

They're not all in jail because the justice system is generally not allowed to hold someone past their length of sentence. If you are sentenced to 5 years, it would be pretty unfair to simply hold you for an additional 45 years. So there is a question of fairness.

And if we were to simply go to a more draconian system of punishment, I suspect even the most absurd and fanatical individuals among us would object...

Punishment for stealing bread: Death.

Punishment for robbery: Death.

Punishment for assaulting your drunk neighbor who is insulting your wife: Death.

Punishment for getting involved in a questionable (at least to the overzealous DA) shooting where you were merely defending your life, property and family: Death.

Yes, that works very well.

We can't really just go about locking everybody up because they might cause problems in the future.

Why not a title system similar to title on a car.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

J
  • Locked
Is the "gun show loophole" real?
2
Replies
27
Views
2K
SMMAssociates
S
U
  • Locked
Heller and the "Gun Show Loophole"
Replies
24
Views
1K
Oro
O
L
  • Locked
Did the Senate vote to close the so called "Gun Show Loophole"
Replies
1
Views
445
Hkmp5sd
H
C
  • Locked
The gunshow loophole?
2
Replies
36
Views
1K
Andrewsky
A
J
  • Locked
[VA] The 'Loophole' - Today's RTD lead editorial
Replies
11
Views
1K
bender
B
Back
Top