Private sales background checks

[NoVA Shooter]

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.

This is a very broad and dangerous presumption.

Think about an attempt to ban all guns? This would probably reduce more gun related crimes than a background check. Would you be ok with that? After all, “Just because they can't be 100% prevented does not mean attempts at reduction are a waste of time.”

Just because they can prevent some gun related crimes does not mean attempts at reduction are worth the price.

In other words, just because a regulation/law/whatever that can reduce gun related crimes, doesn’t make it a good thing. Reducing crime is a worthy goal, but please do not fall into the trap of thinking that a crime free society is a more worthy goal than say, protecting our freedoms.

 

[Leanwolf]

BSA1 in Post # 44 beat me to this, however .....

Justin J, you need to look up the definition of the word, "compromise."

You and those several here who have endorsed the idea that a person should not be allowed by Big Brother to sell, give, trade, or dispose of his own private property unless with Big Brother's permission, have no understanding of individual Rights, Liberty, or Freedom, as defined by the U.S. Constitution.

Also it is profoundly ridiculous to think that millions of gun owning citizens, scattered all over the country, could access and obtain Big Brother's permission, without major, intentional inconvenience. How in the world would one not in a major or mid-sized city, do it? Or even there? Also, please put up a logical scenario of how such a law would be enforced, and how many thousands of new gun toting Federal bureaucrat cops would be needed to enforce it nationwide.

Slippery slope? You'd better believe it. Only a person with childlike naivete believes that once in place, no sales, transfers, gifts, trades of private firearms without Big Brother's permission, would be the "final step." As with all government progressives, it would not be long before more and more onerous restrictions would be put into place.

You "no private sales without Big Brother's permission" adherents, want to open up a spider's hole and crawl down in it, telling the spider you're good friends and begging the spider not to bite you.

Remember this: the left wing neo-lib progressives never, ever, disengage. Their long planned goal is to eventually disarm all us "worker peasants and serfs" ... for our own good, of course. Step by step by step ...

Criminals would never bother to pay attention to such a law, just as they do not bother to obey laws today. Just honest citizesn will be punished.

L.W.

 

[hermannr]

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.

Background checks of any type, at any time, are not effective and an inpediment to law abiding citizens...you want to restrict criminals from having firearms? We already have that..do the present system of checks prevent criminals from obtaining firearms...No

I grew up in a time when there were no FFL's, anyone could purchase whatever they wanted at the local hardware store, guns or ammo...that system was not broken...it would be better to get rid of the whole GCA68 and go back to the old free enterprise system than to add another layer of impediment to what is already here. The whole FFL/background check garbage does not make anyone safer, and costs law abiding citizens a lot of money...if the have firearms or not.

When will you "gun control" people understand...criminals do not care what the law is, they will do what they want...if they cannot purchase, they will steal, from the public, if the public does not have access to any firearms, they will steal from the police or the military. Ever heard of John Brown? He died doing WHAT?

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Reasonableness

No, not reasonability and rationality, but Reasonableness.

Reasonableness is a curse.

It is the affliction that leads men to seek explanations for bad ideas -- even fatally bad ideas -- like why it's smart to be in debt, why it's dumb to be married, why children should dictate to their parents, why sloth should be rewarded and industry punished.

It's a corrosive agent in the cause of freedom.

The idea of actual liberty terrifies some people. It frightens them that there are all these people running around out of their control and without any supervision.

When confronted with the idea that liberty is the way it's supposed to be -- the way our foundations were designed -- they seek to find subterfuges and tricks of language and ploys of logic that will "justify" the abridgment of freedom and the curtailing of liberty, because "unfettered freedom and liberty are too dangerous" (see my sig).

Well, yes, if your ultimate aim is to control your fellow man, then his liberty is indeed a hazard for you.

And so you go to him and croon about how he's being "unreasonable" and how "things are different now" and how "if you have nothing to hide . . ." and so on, and you prevail upon him to concede some portion of his "antisocial" stance.

And, being a decent fellow who doesn't want to be thought of as "antisocial," he reasons himself into accepting the premise that limits are okay, that unfettered liberty is contrary to the common good, that nobody "needs" whatever is the target of today's incursion into his scope of freedom.

Reasonableness.

No.

NO.

Be completely unreasonable. Instead, hand the power grabber a copy of the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, and a period-correct dictionary of constitutional terms, and send him on his way.


The Constitution is a finely tuned philosophical machine. When operated as designed, it assures freedom and liberty for its subscribers. The more crap you bolt onto it, the more it sputters and chokes.

The framers anticipated that a generation of word weasels would show up some day and do their best to "customize" it into some "modernized" vision of some "bright idea" without so much as a passing attempt to grasp what it really is and how it's really meant to work.

"A Republic, if you can keep it." A man of vision said that.

The framers also anticipated that, as governments are wont to do, those who are charged with the protection and maintenance of the machine will eventually attempt to morph it into a source of personal power and wealth and, eventually, tyranny.

And against this they bade the citizens be equipped and practiced -- "regulated" if you prefer -- as it would be necessary to the security of a free State.


The men who want to own you will offer "sensible reasons" for your gradual and ultimate disarmament.

Serpents in our garden.

Hold instead to the purpose of the original work.

Government shall be shackled, not citizens. Government shall only have as much power and authority as is needed to keep order and defend the nation.

For everything else, there's sovereignty. Sovereignty of the individual and the several states.

You are not obliged to concede liberty because someone else is frightened of what you'll do with it. Fear obligates no one but the man who fears.


I submit that it's a really bad idea to dream up ways to help erode your own freedoms, and then reason yourself into them, and then sell them to your fellows.

 

[danez71]

Id like remind every one that the OP said "voluntary".


Why is there such a giant leap to stripping away everyones freedom in favor of .gov tin foil hattery?


Personally, Id use it as currently I will only sell thru a FFL unless Ive known the person for many years.

YMMV.


I wonder what the measurable negative affect it has had on PP transfers in places such as CA were all PPT's have to go thru a FFL?

 

[Warp]

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.

lol

Yeah, like I'm going to believe that.


My answer is "no"

 

[danez71]

lol

Yeah, like I'm going to believe that.

My answer is "no"

Then dont use it.

Premise of the question is that its voluntary.

 

[Warp]

Then dont use it.

Premise of the question is that its voluntary.

In that case I do not believe that it will continue to be voluntary...and/or I worry that as soon as you don't use the "voluntary" call in you will be outcast for it and, should somebody down the line use a firearm you sold criminally, your not using the "voluntary" system will somehow magically be known and you will not come out as clean on the other side as you otherwise would have.

If people are that concerned with who they are selling a gun to they should only sell to dealers, pay a dealer a transfer fee to do it via them, or request a carry license/FOID/etc from the purchaser. Or something like that. Heck, get creative. Most people buying a gun privately are going to have bought others at a dealer. Ask to see an original bill of sale of a firearm from a licensed dealer with their name matching the name on the photo ID they show you at the time of purchase.

 

[danez71]

If people are that concerned with who they are selling a gun to they should only sell to dealers, pay a dealer a transfer fee to do it via them, or request a carry license/FOID/etc from the purchaser. Or something like that. Heck, get creative. .

Heck.... thats what the OP did. He got creative.

Voluntarily calling a # anonymously is just another option to voluntarily requesting " a carry license/FOID/etc from the purchaser. Or something like that. ....." as you suggested.


You could call from phone booth using prepaid calling card if your afraid you're going to be traced/tracked by .gov

 

[Warp]

Heck.... thats what the OP did. He got creative.

Voluntarily calling a # anonymously is just another option to voluntarily requesting " a carry license/FOID/etc from the purchaser. Or something like that. ....." as you suggested.


You could call from phone booth using prepaid calling card if your afraid you're going to be traced/tracked by .gov

Forgive me if I missed this as I have not yet read through the thread....but...

Who would pay for this service?

Who would run this service?

 

[danez71]

Forgive me if I missed this as I have not yet read through the thread....but...

Who would pay for this service?

Who would run this service?

Reading through the thread is usually good idea but probably a waste of time at this point LOL.

That wasnt discussed... seemingly, IMO because too many were too un-creative to give it a chance.

How about the gun mfg's volutarily do it and .gov gives them a tax credit for voluntarily participating?

(tongue in check - .gov would save SO much money by the reduced crime they could afford the tax credit).

 

[Warp]

Reading through the thread is usually good idea but probably a waste of time at this point LOL.

That wasnt discussed... seemingly, IMO because too many were too un-creative to give it a chance.

How about the gun mfg's volutarily do it and .gov gives them a tax credit for voluntarily participating?

(tongue in check - .gov would save SO much money by the reduced crime they could afford the tax credit).

The .gov would just about have to do it. And I trust them about as far as I can throw them, as the old saying goes. + that would mean tax payer's dollars pay for it. We have enough things sapping taxpayer dollars as it is.

We don't need MORE government.

 

[FROGO207]

If you are REALLY worried that your pending sale might be a problem just transfer it through a FFL. There---problem solved. Why is it that even the firearms community feel that there are so many possible problem people or nut cases awaiting you that the need for a background check should be mandatory. The ATF even says that you have a problem only if you KNOWINGLY sell to a prohibited person. I will agree with having a background check for firearms purchasers when there is a similar check for the purchase of alcoholic beverages due to possible FUTURE problems with those users as well. YMMV

 

[danez71]

If you are REALLY worried that your pending sale might be a problem just transfer it through a FFL. There---problem solved. Why is it that even the firearms community feel that there are so many possible problem people or nut cases awaiting you that the need for a background check should be mandatory. The ATF even says that you have a problem only if you KNOWINGLY sell to a prohibited person. I will agree with having a background check for firearms purchasers when there is a similar check for the purchase of alcoholic beverages due to possible FUTURE problems with those users as well. YMMV

Foir about the 6th time.... the premise of the question is that it would be voluntary on the part of the private seller.

LOL.... checking ID for alcohol sale is essentially that and is currently required. They are checking your age in anticipation that if you're not of legal age, there MAY be a problem with your ability to be resposible with the alcohol.

 

[1911 guy]

How about we first stop selling cars to alcoholics. Or at least make them prove sobriety for a period of time. After all, think of all the traffic deaths it would prevent.

Sarcasm off.

We need to stop accepting the premise that GUNS are the problem. HUMAN NATURE and failure to act responsibly is the problem. Rather than cave in to their "logic" (which falls apart when the basic principles are taken to their conclusions) we need to reframe the argument in the real terms of the real problem.

 

[Spats McGee]

I've continued to think about this, and a couple of things crossed my mind. Now, a lot of this is just shooting from the hip as it were, but . . .

1) I know that the OP said "no logging or tracking," but I have a hard time believing that it would stay that way.

2) Even if it starts as voluntary, I have this sneaking suspicion that it might not remain so. This has "Law of Unintended Consequences" written all over it. If large numbers of gun owners used the system, we may well be shooting ourselves in the foot by giving them sufficient numbers to back up the claim that "lots of gun owners support background checks on every gun sale."

3) Cost -- who's going to administer this?

4) Legal liability -- As things stand, a seller of a gun has no legal liability, either criminally or civilly, for bad acts committed with a firearm that he or she sold, presuming that the seller did not have reason to know that the potential buyer was a prohibited person. OTOH, if such a system were instituted, I wonder how long it would be before a civil plaintiff's lawyer made a claim for "negligent transfer of a firearm." I can already hear the speech to the jury: "Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, the defendant had a cell phone on his hip. He had access to a telephone number that he could have called. That simple phone call would have told him that Greg the Gunbuyer could not legally buy a gun. But Sam Seller couldn't be bothered to make that one simple call . . . He had a duty to check on Gunbuyer's eligibility and he violated that duty. As a result . . . "

Obviously, I can't predict that any one of the above will absolutely come to pass, but they are thoughts that have occurred to me.

 

[Skribs]

Very good point on Reasonableness, Arfin.

 

[beatledog7]

I would prefer a system where the sale would have to go through an FFL for a nominal charge so I could be absolutely sure the buyer has no history of mental illness or violent crime. It's no more than due diligence as a responsible gun owner.

It's a lot more than due diligence. The current system(s) of background checks does not absolutely assure this. It does well to find reported and properly filed instances of mental illness and violent crime, let alone identify instances of either that go unreported or are never officially filed as such.

We should never concede to any kind of additional restriction. What we should be insisting on is that the guilty get punished, swiftly and surely, and that the people who had nothing to do with the crime at hand are left alone until such time as they themselves commit a crime.

 

[FROGO207]

Danez71 I was NOT referring to your post and the voluntary versus mandatory part:banghead: I was STATING that the consensus was that a fair bunch of these responding would be OK with a mandatory system and I however was not in any way myself. The license to buy alcohol that I was referring to would never pass muster as too many of the liberal crowd would be offended that their rights were being trampled on unjustly IMHO.:banghead: What we need is for common sense to be our ONLY gun guidelines --no feel good laws needed.
Age has nothing to do with the alcohol license I was thinking of above.