Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Don't get mad, just a question,

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by mljdeckard, Jan 30, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Phatty

    Phatty Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2009
    Messages:
    701
    Location:
    Southern Illinois
    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.
     
  2. cluck

    cluck Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2010
    Messages:
    68
    Location:
    Gun Lovin' Utah
    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?
     
    Last edited: Jan 30, 2013
  3. Quick Draw McGraw

    Quick Draw McGraw Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2004
    Messages:
    112
    Location:
    Ottawa IL
    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.
     
  4. larryh1108

    larryh1108 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2008
    Messages:
    2,424
    Location:
    NC
    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?
     
  5. Deanimator

    Deanimator Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2006
    Messages:
    10,854
    Location:
    Rocky River, Ohio
    And this is the fundamental issue.

    Without registration, ANY such plan is utterly meaningless.

    Those of us from Chicago know what comes next.
     
  6. Quick Draw McGraw

    Quick Draw McGraw Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2004
    Messages:
    112
    Location:
    Ottawa IL
    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.
     
  7. rdhood

    rdhood Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2007
    Messages:
    943
    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).
     
  8. rdhood

    rdhood Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2007
    Messages:
    943
    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.
     
  9. JRH6856

    JRH6856 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2011
    Messages:
    3,828
    Location:
    Flower Mound, TX
    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.
     
  10. pty101

    pty101 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2010
    Messages:
    168
    Location:
    Nebraska
    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)
     
  11. mljdeckard

    mljdeckard Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2006
    Messages:
    12,739
    Location:
    In a part of Utah that resembles Tattooine.
    I'm not sure how you expect me to respond. I don't disagree.
     
  12. mljdeckard

    mljdeckard Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2006
    Messages:
    12,739
    Location:
    In a part of Utah that resembles Tattooine.
    And I certainly don't trust Schumer's intentions on the idea.
     
  13. CountryUgly

    CountryUgly Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2011
    Messages:
    613
    Location:
    The Dirty South
    Nope and nope!
     
  14. JVaughn

    JVaughn Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2010
    Messages:
    491
    Location:
    Northeast TN
    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.
     
  15. Quick Draw McGraw

    Quick Draw McGraw Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2004
    Messages:
    112
    Location:
    Ottawa IL
    Ok, fair enough. Phone only then? Smartphone app?
     
  16. silicosys4

    silicosys4 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2012
    Messages:
    2,376
    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.
     
    Last edited: Jan 30, 2013
  17. Skribs

    Skribs Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2010
    Messages:
    5,807
    Location:
    Lakewood, Washington
    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.

    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.
     
  18. Quick Draw McGraw

    Quick Draw McGraw Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2004
    Messages:
    112
    Location:
    Ottawa IL
    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.
     
  19. cluck

    cluck Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2010
    Messages:
    68
    Location:
    Gun Lovin' Utah
    ^^^ 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.
     
  20. Skribs

    Skribs Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2010
    Messages:
    5,807
    Location:
    Lakewood, Washington
    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"?
     
  21. cluck

    cluck Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2010
    Messages:
    68
    Location:
    Gun Lovin' Utah
    No. I completely see the problem in this. It was more tongue in cheek.
     
  22. Skribs

    Skribs Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2010
    Messages:
    5,807
    Location:
    Lakewood, Washington
    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.
     
  23. mljdeckard

    mljdeckard Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2006
    Messages:
    12,739
    Location:
    In a part of Utah that resembles Tattooine.
    I have a first and last name that will bring up the phone book in ANY search.
     
  24. Dlowe167

    Dlowe167 Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2012
    Messages:
    202
    Location:
    Cable,Ohio
    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?
     
  25. Quick Draw McGraw

    Quick Draw McGraw Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2004
    Messages:
    112
    Location:
    Ottawa IL
    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? :)
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page