So, what about this idea?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Fast Frank

Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2007
Messages
1,114
Location
Houston, Texas (Woodlands)
Here we go with another shooting.
And we know there's gonna be more attacks on the second amendment.
And we know that whatever the grabbers do isn't going to make any difference at all as far as mass shooting go.

So, why don't we propose something that might?

In the most recent case, the guy was prohibited from buying by his dishonorable discharge, but he had a Ruger AR.

Now we go back to the "Gunshow Loophole" nonsense. As if that would make a difference.

I have an idea, and I figured I would fly it here to see if it's workable.

Why not put a mark on the drivers license that says "Prohibited from buying or having guns"?

Now, when I want to legally sell my gun online or at a gun show all I have to do is ask to see the license.

No license? No sale. Marked as prohibited? Now I can avoid arming a prohibited person.

Why not? Why would anybody have a problem with this idea?

Maybe if we could get the grabbers on board we could actually do a little good instead of just stomping on the second amendment.
 
Because legislators can get very ornery about people having a "mark" on them for criminal behavior. The exception being SORNA violations being on a website but not a sign in the yard.
 
The idea has some merit and would give an opportunity to folks like you and me and most folks who want to sell off the odd firearm to avoid selling to a prohibited person.
 
herrwalther said:
Because legislators can get very ornery

This is true.

But we can always turn their tactics against them. "It's for the children!" or "If it only saves one life!"

The truth is that this idea would not cause any discomfort whatsoever to you or me, and would make it impossible for our sicko to just forget that he is prohibited and buy an otherwise legal gun.

It would force the buyer and the seller to participate in a crime and both of them would know they were doing it.

In my mind, that would be about as good as it gets for gun control.

Of course, we know it's not about the guns, it's about the control- but at least I'm trying...
 
Devils advocate here:

So you're now requiring anyone who wants to purchase firearm to have a drivers license or government issued ID card? We suddenly now require a significant burden for people to be able to legally purchase a firearm that never existed before.
 
Here we go with another shooting.
And we know there's gonna be more attacks on the second amendment.
And we know that whatever the grabbers do isn't going to make any difference at all as far as mass shooting go.

So, why don't we propose something that might?

In the most recent case, the guy was prohibited from buying by his dishonorable discharge, but he had a Ruger AR.

Now we go back to the "Gunshow Loophole" nonsense. As if that would make a difference.

I have an idea, and I figured I would fly it here to see if it's workable.

Why not put a mark on the drivers license that says "Prohibited from buying or having guns"?

Now, when I want to legally sell my gun online or at a gun show all I have to do is ask to see the license.

No license? No sale. Marked as prohibited? Now I can avoid arming a prohibited person.

Why not? Why would anybody have a problem with this idea?

Maybe if we could get the grabbers on board we could actually do a little good instead of just stomping on the second amendment.

That would likely infringe upon a felon's rights post-sentence. Would you hire a person who presented a DL that said that?

UBCs are probably going to happen sooner rather than later. They won't significantly reduce crime...but...

How about a positive and not negative ID? A FOID-like device, for free, or a neat little gun logo on the driver license that says someone is good to go?

No one should be denied a right, and in some cases a right delayed is a right denied, but one appeasement might be an ID card that renews at some interval with a free NICS check.

Like it or not, there’s politics to be played on this issue, whether it does nothing or actually helps. Be the side with the good ideas that dont hurt our cause.
 
This is true.

But we can always turn their tactics against them. "It's for the children!" or "If it only saves one life!"

The truth is that this idea would not cause any discomfort whatsoever to you or me, and would make it impossible for our sicko to just forget that he is prohibited and buy an otherwise legal gun.

It would force the buyer and the seller to participate in a crime and both of them would know they were doing it.

In my mind, that would be about as good as it gets for gun control.

Of course, we know it's not about the guns, it's about the control- but at least I'm trying...

OK, try on the 'gun control legislator' cap for a minute: How would you control FTF sales?

It would force the buyer and the seller to participate in a crime and both of them would know they were doing it.

OK, but it will still happen. Maybe not by dealers, but FTF.

Now, gun control thinking cap on again, State Motor Vehicle Depts. are notorious for slow service, and getting things wrong. You sure that's who you want responsible for such a thing?

Next, although it's getting harder, faking licenses is still done. Any 18 year old will know someone who can do it for a price.

Of course, we know it's not about the guns, it's about the control- but at least I'm trying...

That's exactly what Feinstein, et. al. , tell their constituents when they try to ram draconian laws through, 'At least we're trying to do something about it'

Feel good idea not thought through.
 
Fast Frank said:
In the most recent case, the guy was prohibited from buying by his dishonorable discharge
No, he had a bad conduct discharge, not a dishonorable.

There are a bunch of different levels of discharge, but the only one that bars you from possessing firearms under federal law is a dishonorable discharge.
 
As discussed in several concurrent threads, there are 4 levels of discharge: Honorable, General, Bad Conduct, and Dishonorable. Theohazard is correct, only Dishonorable prevents one from owning firearms.
 
As discussed in several concurrent threads, there are 4 levels of discharge: Honorable, General, Bad Conduct, and Dishonorable. Theohazard is correct, only Dishonorable prevents one from owning firearms.

Most civilians, the press included, don't know the difference.
 
I agree that there's no law that will prevent a criminal from commiting a crime.

The idea behind this is to keep an honest man from mistakenly helping a criminal aquire a gun based on what looks like a legal sale.
 
He got kicked out for beating his wife and kid.

Domestic violence would still DQ him for a legal sale.

*If* it was reported to NICS.

Sometimes authorities fail to report the disposition of a case to NICS, but usually it’s a case of a felony arrest that’s reported and a not guilty verdict, or a plea bargain to non-criminal ordinance violation or other misdemeanor that isn’t reported as the disposition.

And like the civilian system, he may have plead to a lesser charge. 364 days in jail, not prison, and not DV, but simple battery. Answers an honest “no” to the 4473 questions about crimes and discharges.
 
Last edited:
He spent a year in military prison for the domestic violence charge. There’s no excuse for that not prohibiting him from buying/owning a gun.
 
He spent a year in military prison for the domestic violence charge. There’s no excuse for that not prohibiting him from buying/owning a gun.

And yet here he is, shooting up a church full of innocents with an AR.

I'm pretty sure he didn't even try to pass a background check.

I would wager that he bought it from somebody that assumed or was told that he was a legal buyer.

That means a gun show or in a Walmart parking lot somewhere. What we call a "Face To Face".

Currently, there's nothing at all to limit this, and what the gun grabbers want is to make all sales like this illegal. You can bet we will be hearing that real soon.

My idea at least makes it possible to prevent honest people like you and I from selling this evil one a weapon. And it does nothing to the good guys.

Their idea does nothing but hurt you and me.

Yes, I know that passing laws to stop criminals is stupid. In fact, I'm pretty sure that crime it's self is already illegal.

But passing a law that helps an honest man not sell weapons to the evil ones seems like a good idea.
 
And, I might add...

I'll also wager that there's some dude somewhere in America that only wanted the 500 bucks so he could finance some other thing he wanted to do- And now he's sitting there white faced and shaking going "My God What Have I done?".

They will be talking with him shortly if not already and I would not want to be that guy.
 
And, I might add...

I'll also wager that there's some dude somewhere in America that only wanted the 500 bucks so he could finance some other thing he wanted to do- And now he's sitting there white faced and shaking going "My God What Have I done?".

They will be talking with him shortly if not already and I would not want to be that guy.
Good point.
 
All indications I’ve heard are that he bought it leagaly from a FFL in Texas.


On topic: jenrick has it right in post 5, for proof just look at voter I’d laws and debates.... you may be called a racist for your idea before you get through.
 
Devils advocate here:

So you're now requiring anyone who wants to purchase firearm to have a drivers license or government issued ID card? We suddenly now require a significant burden for people to be able to legally purchase a firearm that never existed before.

How does that person cash their checks? What ID do they use?
 
He bought it through an FFL -- and the background check never turned up the conviction/prison term for domestic violence because the Air Force never entered it into the system.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...er-to-obtain-firearms/?utm_term=.a8954c514b1a

Bottom line: The Law was already there to stop this slaughter before it ever started....
But not only did the System fail, but so too did all the people who knew him, saw the guns
on his Facebook posts, and still never raised a red flag.
 
And, I might add...

I'll also wager that there's some dude somewhere in America that only wanted the 500 bucks so he could finance some other thing he wanted to do- And now he's sitting there white faced and shaking going "My God What Have I done?".

They will be talking with him shortly if not already and I would not want to be that guy.
So only sell your guns to FFL dealers. Problem solved.
 
I get what you’re going for. But before expanding why not fix what’s already broken.
Federal agencies already don’t talk to eachother. Isn’t that how he was able to get said firearm?
The Air Force didn’t update his info into the NCIS?
So now you want 50 more organizations contributing?
Shouldn’t we get the standard into an actual standard?
 
How does that person cash their checks? What ID do they use?

I know plenty of folks who don't take checks, and don't believe in credit cards. That might be barter, might be cash, might be gold. While I agree it is a small subset of folks, they certainly do exist.

-Jenrick
 
How does that person cash their checks? What ID do they use?
Huh? On the rare occasion where I receive a physical check, I just deposit it to my bank using my phone app. No ID required.

And as far as writing checks in stores and being requiring to show ID, does anyone actually do that anymore? A debit card does the exact same thing but it does it much easier and faster.

The only checks I've written in the last decade are rent checks, and even then I have an electronic deposit set up with my current landlord.
 
How does that person cash their checks? What ID do they use?
Possessing a firearm and voting are fundamental rights – cashing a check is not.

Whether obtaining a firearm or voting, more government regulation, more requirements to document identity, are potential infringements on both those rights.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top