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

Thought experiment RE: private sales of firearms

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by ngnrd, Jan 16, 2013.

  1. JVaughn

    JVaughn Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2010
    Messages:
    491
    Location:
    Northeast TN
    No, sorry, we can't keep the guns out of the criminals' hands no matter what we do.

    Bad guy breaks into house, steals good guy's gun - bad guy has a gun outside the background check process.

    Bad guy buys gun from other bad guy - bad guy has a gun outside the background check process.

    Good guy sells gun without checking buyer's ID - bad guy has a gun outside background check process.

    No gun laws, no restrictions, no checks, no registration - bad guy robs armed good guy, good guy shoots back - bad guy, now dead, no longer armed.

    No gun laws, no restrictions, no checks, no registration - bad guy goes to school / work / theater and starts shooting, armed good guy shoots back - bad guy, now dead, no longer armed.

    No gun laws, no restrictions, no checks, no registration - bad guy realizes good guys are everywhere, and unpredictably armed at any given time due to the lack of gun free zones in the country, bad guy thinks twice and no crime occurs.

    you see where I am going with this...
     
  2. ngnrd

    ngnrd Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2010
    Messages:
    984
    Location:
    South Central Alaska
    I think that your personal policy is commendable. But alas, I neither have a CCW permit, nor am a member of any gun club. So, even though I am in no way prohibited from owning firearms, you have chosen to exclude me as a buyer. I agree with your reasons. But it certainly limits your market, doesn't it?
     
  3. TennJed

    TennJed Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2010
    Messages:
    3,454
    We have people that are prohibited from drinking alcohol. Do we have background checks on everyone that purchases alcohol? (which BTW causes a lot more problems in society than guns ever will, but that is another story)
     
  4. ngnrd

    ngnrd Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2010
    Messages:
    984
    Location:
    South Central Alaska
    Certainly not. But I don't think it's unreasonable to think that responsible gun owners should also be responsible gun sellers. Do you?
     
  5. Lupinus

    Lupinus Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2005
    Messages:
    3,502
    Location:
    Upstate SC
    If it doesn't work to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals why on Earth should we expand it?
     
  6. Hokkmike

    Hokkmike Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2006
    Messages:
    2,158
    Location:
    Sullivan County PA
    Just code everybody's DL and eliminate point of sale checks....
     
  7. tomrkba

    tomrkba Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2010
    Messages:
    1,943
    I do not agree with background checks at all. They serve only the government for the purposes of confiscation and/or persecution at some level (healthcare provisoins are the next threat).

    Prior to 1968, you could purchase a gun through the mail and they would send it to your home. They advertised in comic books and just about everywhere else.

    We know for a fact that criminals acquire their guns through theft and other means. Background checks will stop a few purchases, but those people will go to friends, spouses, random people, or turn to crime, to get the guns they want.

    It's a complete farce, just like the TSA garbage that goes on in the airports. Do not fall for the lies and propaganda. You are not supporting anything that does one bit of good.
     
  8. armarsh

    armarsh Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2009
    Messages:
    410
    Location:
    Southwest MN
    This idea would do nothing to stop mass murderers. It would create one more impediment to lawful gun owners. How is this a good thing?

    I can think of several ways around what is proposed, so long as I don't care if I break the law.
     
  9. ngnrd

    ngnrd Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2010
    Messages:
    984
    Location:
    South Central Alaska
    No. But, like I stated at the bottom of the OP, Alaska does provide a tool that is easily used to identify those who may not purchase alcohol by court order; a mark on their ID card.

    My question is... if we can identify those that are prohibited from buying alcohol with a simple note on a State issued ID, why wouldn't that type of system work for those persons prohibited from purchasing firearms?

    Maybe it wouldn't. That's why I wanted to have the discussion. But nothing in this thread so far, except for the comment about the cost to implement the program, has provided any indication that a similar system wouldn't work. Most of the comments against the system have been related to one of two things. Either - laws don't work, so we shouldn't have any laws, or - the notion that identifying prohibited persons somehow infringes on 2nd Amendment rights, which it doesn't, because by definition, prohibited persons don't have those rights.
     
  10. Lupinus

    Lupinus Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2005
    Messages:
    3,502
    Location:
    Upstate SC
    Refresh my memory.

    Which amendment guarantees the right to buy alcohol again?
     
  11. BP44

    BP44 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2008
    Messages:
    454
    Location:
    Oregon
    It just might work......... More laws, rules, and regulations that is. Any unlawful person is sure to tremble :banghead: more laws will not solve anything and the unlawful will still do as they do.


    when will folks understand this!!! when it's too late I suppose.
     
  12. ngnrd

    ngnrd Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2010
    Messages:
    984
    Location:
    South Central Alaska
    First, I never said that this would stop mass murders.

    Second, how is having the ability to check whether or not a buyer is a prohibited person an impediment to lawful gun owners?

    Third, this is less about keeping criminals from breaking the law, than it is about providing a means for responsible gun owners to keep from being an unwitting part of criminal activity.

    As an analogy, I understand that there are car thieves out there. And I also understand that if they really want my old pickup, they are going to take it. That doesn't stop me from rolling up my windows and locking my doors when I walk away from it. I even paid to have an alarm installed. I know that won't stop a real car thief. But, it might keep the punk kid down the street from starting his life of crime by rifling through my stuff. So I guess the question I'm trying to answer is... is the cost of the alarm worth the hassle, and will it actually be a deterrent?
     
  13. mjw930

    mjw930 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2012
    Messages:
    61
    The DL flag is a good idea but the BATF doesn't even recognize my states CWP for whatever reason where they accept other states permits. It's unlikely we could get them to universally honor a DMV based check.
     
  14. Old Fuff

    Old Fuff Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    23,908
    Location:
    Arizona
    I don't think that many members really understand how NICS works.

    First of all, only FFL dealers can make NICS background checks, and then only when selling or otherwise transferring a firearm to an unlicensed person (read that to usually mean a retail buyer).

    The dealer cannot make a check until they have first made out a #4473 form with personal details about the buyer and specifics about the firearm(s).

    The dealer then calls NICS, and reading off the form tells the party on the other end some of the buyer's personal information, as it is entered on the #4473 form. This information is keyboarded and checked against a database, after which the buyer will pass, be denied, or put on hold for up to 3 working days. No specific information is transmitted about the firearm. However the dealer is given a number that he has to enter on the form, and since NICS retains that number tracking back to the #4473 form is relatively easy.

    Many private sellers believe that they would be personally able to make background checks without the information being retained. This isn't true, and it isn't the game plan. What's intended is to force ALL firearm transfers go through an FFL, and in the process create the basis for a database containing information about guns and they’re owners, which in time could lead to registration and then outlawing or confiscation of certain classes of firearms.

    Be careful for what you wish for, because you might get it.
     
  15. ngnrd

    ngnrd Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2010
    Messages:
    984
    Location:
    South Central Alaska
    None explicitly. Although one could argue that the 21st Amendment, which repealed its prohibition, does.

    Are those of you that are holding to the position that there should be no gun laws actually advocating that those whom use guns to commit violent and heinous crimes, preserve their right to keep and bear arms?
     
  16. ngnrd

    ngnrd Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2010
    Messages:
    984
    Location:
    South Central Alaska
    I don't believe I said anything about creating more laws. I am simply asking if identifying prohibited persons would be a benefit to responsible gun owners wishing to sell a firearm.
     
  17. ngnrd

    ngnrd Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2010
    Messages:
    984
    Location:
    South Central Alaska
    Fuff... I am not talking about having either individuals or the DMV conduct NICS checks. And, I am definitely not a proponent of NICS checks for all firearm transfers. I would like to find a way to keep a database like you are describing from ever happening. This is precisely why I think my proposed system could be a better path. Everybody gets a cursory check when their ID is issued/renewed. Those who are prohibited are marked as such. There would be no way to compile a database because virtually everybody would be in it. If you want to talk about NICS checks for commercial/retail transfers, that's a different discussion. This would simply be a way for a private seller to identify prohibited buyers without infringing on the rights of either the seller, or the buyer.
     
  18. mjw930

    mjw930 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2012
    Messages:
    61
    Wrong!

    According to the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004 (or ‘‘Omnibus’’), requires the NICS to destroy ‘‘any identifying information submitted by or on behalf of any person who has been determined not to be prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm.

    http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/federal-register-july-23-2004-on-nics

    Even though the FFL retains the paper copy there is no linkage to any federal data base and nothing we know indicates they plan on overturning these provisions. Until we have details it's all speculation.
     
  19. Old Fuff

    Old Fuff Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    23,908
    Location:
    Arizona
    Sure... So why do they give the dealer a number that must be entered on the #4473 form?

    And of course they would never go out and collect those #4473 forms which the dealer is supposed to retain for 20 years...

    Obviously those who want registration and bans cannot accomplish their goal if (as they claim) 40% of gun sales do not go through a formal background check. They must find some way to establish a paper trail on that 40%. Forcing private sales to go through an FFL dealer's bound book and #4473 forms could give them what they want.

    What the president is trying to accomplish is no longer speculation.
     
  20. brboyer

    brboyer Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2009
    Messages:
    956
    Location:
    Tampa Bay Florida
    So you are suggesting everyone in the US must go through a NICS check and those prohibited are somehow so indicated on their DL? Well, you just infringed on my rights, by forcing me to go through a check even though you have no reasonable belief I have ever committed a crime, nor ever intend to even purchase a firearm?

    And your plan would create a database of everyone. Or do you suggest that there be some magical computer program that prints "Felon" on the DL, then magically just forgets it just did that, then erases the memory of the DMV clerk?

    So, that's your proposal, we want to be fair, so we infringe on everyone's rights and not just gun buyer's? Great Idea!

    And this 'mark' on the DL, it would be something secret right, something that only a private gun seller would know to look for? Not that it would ever be used by an employer, or an apartment manager, or the police, right? Oh, that's right, they would not be issued the secret decoder ring would they? :banghead:

    Where do people come up with this stuff? :cuss:
     
  21. armarsh

    armarsh Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2009
    Messages:
    410
    Location:
    Southwest MN
    To further your analogy - I support your decision to buy a car alarm. That does not give you the right to force me to buy one even if it makes no sense for my situation.

    Your idea causes time and money to be expended for no gain. That is an impediment. How large of an impediment depends on the implementation. When some bureaucrat marks you as "not allowed " by mistake or fiat and you have to fight it in court, that would be an impediment that some would not be able to overcome.

    I mentioned this would be easy to get around if you were a criminal. Have you never heard of fake ID's? Criminals use them. How is this an improvement if you sell to a criminal with a fake ID?
     
  22. brboyer

    brboyer Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2009
    Messages:
    956
    Location:
    Tampa Bay Florida
    No, they will just get their baby-momma to buy it for them, just like they can do today!
     
  23. ngnrd

    ngnrd Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2010
    Messages:
    984
    Location:
    South Central Alaska
    After going back and reading all of the replies again, I think I should clarify something.

    I'm not describing a national background check, run by the Federal government. That program already exists, and is limited to commercial/retail sales of firearms. What I'm describing is a State run program wherein each State uses its own existing database of felons, or violent offenders, or whatever other criteria is allowed by their individual Constitutions, to provide a means to identify prohibited individuals during a private sale.

    I don't know if that makes it better or worse. But, I still think it's worth discussing.
     
  24. ngnrd

    ngnrd Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2010
    Messages:
    984
    Location:
    South Central Alaska
    Are you saying that there would be no benefit to such a program?

    And again, I understand that criminals are very adept at finding ways of circumventing the law. But is it your position that because of this we should have no law at all?
     
  25. BP44

    BP44 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2008
    Messages:
    454
    Location:
    Oregon
    I'm sorry I jumped to conclusions and stated the lawless will always be lawless and more laws won't solve anything. You might be right and this will go into effect with hopes and fairy dust. My guess is it would take higher action tho:rolleyes:

    Remember, a compromise is just the start and if you can't see that your a foolish individual.
     

Share This Page