Private sales background checks

[JustinJ]

One of the more common complaints of those who advocate gun control is the fact that the NICs checked can be completely bypassed by private sales buyers at gun shows and through other resources. I'm interested in the thoughts of others regarding the creation of a fast and efficient resource to perform background checks by sellers of private weapons. Something along the lines of just a simple phone number one can call into, provide a driver's license #, and find out if the potential buyer is prohibited from owning a firearm. No tracking or logging but simply a yes or no. While voluntary compliance by the gun community would be great it is unfortunately unlikely so a legal requirement may warrant consideration but just having it available would be useful. At the very least it would at least provide something to counter the impression that gun owners are uncaring about crime prevention. If gun advocacy groups used their lobbying power to advocate such a system it could really help improve the general image of the gun community.

 

[Mayvik]

Horrible idea IMO. Next step to having it is making it mandatory. Then making it mandatory for any transfer (ever give a gun as a gift?). Then making it mandatory to transfer ammo..etc etc. Slippery slope. If you're worried about a FtF with a nutter, don't sell guns to sketchy people (or just don't sell them at all!).

 

[JustinJ]

As my post indicated my concerns are not for my own ends but in regards to gun rights on the whole. "Slippery slope" is not a real argument either. It can be used to argue against anything. It is possible to make compromises or take steps without going to the extreme.

 

[highorder]

NO.

Private property transfers are just that; private.

 

[CoRoMo]

...counter the impression that gun owners are uncaring about crime prevention.

I don't see the point in arguing over a lie. Why don't we make the antis' to prove their claims rather than become defensive every time they make one? You're letting them stage the discussion and they've only proven to be untenable and dishonest.

 

[huntsman]

yeah .gov can make that number right after they make the turn in your neighbor number.

 

[Mac45]

No.
For all reasons listed above.

 

[General Geoff]

I'd rather advocate for the abolition of background checks for commercial sales, as statistically they do not prevent or reduce crime or the availability of guns to criminals. Repeal the 1968 GCA.

 

[Skribs]

I'm actually with you, JustinJ. One of the things I am proud of as a CWP holder is that I have passed a background check, and I pass one again every time I purchase from a store. I only buy NIB firearms (for other reasons), so I have to go through this check every time. It's also something we like to say about stores who post "no guns" signs, is that CWP holders have gone through the checks that say we are not a violent sociopath.

While I disagree that it should be called "gun show loophole", and I don't think an actual buyer would go to someone off the street and say "thanks for letting me buy from you, I'd never pass a background check", I do think it would be incredibly easy for Joe Shmoe fresh out of prison on parole to get whatever he wanted from his neighbor.

I will agree with you that "slippery slope" applies to any change, it is something we should be very wary of with regards to gun ownership. Anything that keeps guns out of criminals hands is, IMO, a good thing, but anything that makes it difficult or impossible for me to have access to a weapon I want is a bad thing. This sounds like something that would be more aimed at keeping guns from criminals, while not hindering my ability to purchase a firearm.

I would also propose that if this were available, legislation be put so that if the individual you are giving/selling the firearm to has a close enough relationship with the receiver, that the background check need not apply. So if its someone you see at the range every week, a friend or family member, you don't need to go through the check (but if it's someone answering an internet ad, you do).

That's just my personal perspective.

 

[CoRoMo]

Repeal the 1968 GCA.

Now that's an idea!

Why don't we make the antis counter the fact that gun control has utterly failed to do anything it was sold to us for.

 

[JohnM]

I can not imagine any gun owner even suggesting such a thing.
Want to do something constructive, work on abolishing the GCA.

 

[T Bran]

The only thing worse than turn in your neighbor is turn in your employer. Oh wait we already have that one.

I understand your intentions however this is one of those give an inch and loose a mile deals. Meeting in the middle with rational people works, unfortunately we are not dealing with reason we are dealing with fear. Scared people are anything but reasonable.

 

[Skribs]

I can not imagine any gun owner even suggesting such a thing.

If it's something that wouldn't hinder ME from buying a gun, but would prevent people who can't pass the NICS check from buying them, I don't see it as something unfathomable for myself to agree with.

Getting rid of the checks entirely would level out the field, but I don't feel that the NICS check hurts my ability to get firearms. NFA act makes it more difficult to acquire some things I'd like, especially supressors. That's something I'd like to see go away.

 

[skwab]

The thing is, putting in place any number of background checks would not have prevented this tragedy. You will never be able to legislate crazy out of the population.

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Premise

I do not accept the foundation premise.

Background checks are something you do when you suspect someone is a criminal. It's something you do to eliminate a person from the pool of bad people whom you know are all around you everywhere.


I'm not a criminal, and frankly I'm tired of having to continually prove it when I show up somewhere and want to buy something that's supposed to be constitutionally guaranteed.

Why are you creating a class of "prohibited persons" whom you allow to wander freely among the rest of us? I conjecture that it is for the express purpose of having a plausible excuse to "run a check" on anyone wishing to exercise their Second Amendment right, and thus provide a disincentive toward that exercise.


Let us instead quit perpetuating the lie that background checks do anything at all to retard crime.

All they do is convey suspicion that the honest man in front of you wishes to do something bad.


My foundation assumption is that if a man is walking free, he can be trusted with a gun. If he can't be trusted with a gun, or any of a dozen other things that can be used to commit murder, why did you let him out? Served his time? That's your criteria? Paid his debt to society? Clearly not, because you're continuing to impose a penalty on him after his "debt is paid."

So make up your mind. Is he dangerous or not? Dangerous? Then he doesn't walk free. Not dangerous? Then give him his life back and leave him alone.


And quit making me prove I'm not him.

 

[Texan Scott]

The reason antis bring up the 'no NICS checks' objection is NOT because they want you to be able to. I fact, they'e well aware that it' not LEGAL for you to access that database. They don't WANT you to do your own background check; it would rob them of the argument they're trying to use to END ALL PRIVATE TRANSFERS. That's their goal. Please don't give them anything to work with by suggesting there's validity to any aspect of their argument.

 

[CoRoMo]

...I don't feel that the NICS check hurts my ability to get firearms.

As the list of prohibitory actions grows, that might change. It used to only be felonies that disqualified someone from purchasing a firearm. Now there are a number of misdemeanors as well. It's like a weed that we allowed to exist in the yard; it has grown into something that we didn't think it would, and it's still growing. The weed should never have been planted and we really ought to cut it out.

 

[Midwest]

Get rid of 1968 GCA, get rid of waiting periods, purchase permits, firearms ID cards. Those feel good schemes do nothing to prevent crime. The more people protecting themselves and those around them can and will reduce crime.

At the very least it would at least provide something to counter the impression that gun owners are uncaring about crime prevention.

I don't know where you got that impression...We care about reducing and preventing crime and us gun owners throughout the country are doing exactly that by carrying when we go out and being armed as well at home. If that doesn't prevent crime, then nothing will.

Remember that the police have no obligation to protect us according a court ruling. But we have an obligation to protect ourselves and those around us, and we do and will continue to do so.

Private sale background checks?

Hell no

 

[oneounceload]

As my post indicated my concerns are not for my own ends but in regards to gun rights on the whole. "Slippery slope" is not a real argument either. It can be used to argue against anything. It is possible to make compromises or take steps without going to the extreme.

Wrong.

Why not do it then with knives, bats, ski masks, and on and on? Why not have a check on ANYTHING that might cause harm - even your car.

 

[Skribs]

Scott, the problem with that logic is if you take away their ability to argue that we don't do NICS checks on private transactions, then they will lose their current basis for arguments about private transactions.

Please don't give them anything to work with by suggesting there's validity to any aspect of their argument.

If I personally believe an aspect of an argument makes sense, I'm going to explore it. I am a gun owner and proud of it, but I'm also willing to listen. So far, not much has made sense to me that the other side has said.

Arfin, you make a very good point. However, there are some people that are not in jail any longer (or even yet) that would not be permitted to have a gun, and I agree with the assessment - persons with a restraining order, persons with mental illness, or persons who are out of prison but were convicted for some variation of domestic violence are all people I wouldn't want to put a gun into the hand of. These are all people that would be out on the street.

 

[k4swb]

IIRC, in NC whenever a gun changes ownership for whatever reason all the paperwork should be done. Even if I die and leave my guns to my family, especially handguns.

If I give my child a handgun he is supposed to get a permit and we are supposed to follow most of the procedures just as if he had bought it at an FFL dealer. I'm not required to keep a bound book but I'm required to get a permit for every handgun I sell or give away.

Even long guns require a 4473 or something very similar.

This law is not enforced but pertains to all sales, including gun show sales. There really is no "gun show loophole," just laws not being enforced.

Everyone I know that has read the gun laws in NC in their entirety has come to the same conclusion.

It may be different in other states since states set handgun laws.

 

[Texan Scott]

Perhaps I explained myself poorly. My point is that they do not actually want private transactions to perform private checks.... they want private transactions under public control. They are raising an objection, not because they want it answered, but because they want to exploit the problem they create if we accept the legitimacy of their objection, thus:

1) you MUST do a background check to make a responsible sale.
2) you are NOT ABLE to do a background check.
3) therefore, you CANNOT responsibly make the sale.

Now substitute the word 'legal' in place of 'responsible' (which is what they seek to do). By conceding the necessity or reasonableness of their premise, you leave them free to corner you and legislate a legal activity into an illegal one. They do not WANT you to propose an alternate solution; they want you to BOW TO THEIRS.

 

[JustinJ]

The thing is, putting in place any number of background checks would not have prevented this tragedy. You will never be able to legislate crazy out of the population.

I assume you are referring to the movie theater shooting? I never proposed it would have prevented that one specifically.

My foundation assumption is that if a man is walking free, he can be trusted with a gun. If he can't be trusted with a gun, or any of a dozen other things that can be used to commit murder, why did you let him out? Served his time? That's your criteria? Paid his debt to society? Clearly not, because you're continuing to impose a penalty on him after his "debt is paid."

Unfortunately we do not yet have a machine that lets us know with any certainty if a person will commit another crime. The two extremes you are alluding to are indefinite incarcerations or letting felons have guns. Also, are you proposing that people with mental illness be allowed guns or locked up? Neither seems like a wise idea to me.

All the rhetoric and one liners are contributing nothing to this discussion. The fact is that the gun community has gained a reputation as being unreasonable and self centered amongst more than just those that lobby for gun control. That image is very damaging and if we don't take steps ourselves to try and reduce gun violence somebody else eventually will. We may not like it but the general public has a strong tendency to act out of emotion over reason and enough mass shootings and resistance to any compromise on our part will very likely only hurt us in the end. What i'm trying to do is find a way to actually find some sort of method that does not infringe on our rights to own firearms but still at least makes an effort to reduce gun related crime because pro gun one liners aren't helping. Remember, in a storm it is the trees that lack flexibility that eventually break.

 

[Skribs]

I get what you're saying Scott, but if we DID have the ability to a background check, this would take that argument away. So maybe it wouldn't be a compromise, but it would take away one of their big selling points for why we can't have public transactions.

The thing is, putting in place any number of background checks would not have prevented this tragedy. You will never be able to legislate crazy out of the population.

You see, that's the interesting thing, is the absolute worst shootings are done by people that background checks wouldn't have stopped. Generally because these are smart people that just snapped, as opposed to people who've made poor decisions all their life.

I'd also like to point out one of the reasons why NICS checks haven't worked is because its not enforced on all transactions. If it were, some criminals would still get guns, but it would be harder for them.

 

[JustinJ]

You see, that's the interesting thing, is the absolute worst shootings are done by people that background checks wouldn't have stopped. Generally because these are smart people that just snapped, as opposed to people who've made poor decisions all their life.

Assuming that is true, it is still a worthy goal to reduce gun related crimes of all types. Just because they can't be 100% prevented does not mean attempts at reduction are a waste of time.