Would you use NICS for FTF sales?

[zminer]

If your state offered a way for private citizens to do a NICS check - or something similar, covering criminal background and mental health - for face-to-face private sales, would you use it?

[For the purposes of this scenario, we'll assume that use of the system would be completely voluntary, free of charge, and simple to use - let's say that you could call it in via telephone.]

* * * * *

I am conflicted about this. On the one hand, I understand the appeal of having the selling process unencumbered by legal restrictions. "It's a sale like any other," etc.

On the other hand, though, I don't want to be unknowingly selling my guns to spousal abusers, or rapists, or other assorted deadbeats. Also, in NY State I don't really have the option to ask for a firearms license as a proxy either, because the licenses are sometimes hard to get - and are required only for those purchasing handguns - so not everybody has one.

What do you think?

 

[biggiesmalls]

i like the idea. some criminals can be intelligent, well-manner, but otherwise a crook. doing a ftf deal and just looking at someone's driver's license is hardly enough peace of mind. i'd hate to sell a gun to a cleancut gentlemen who's a psycho in disguise and bear responsibility later for his slayings. i might be covered legally but i'll still feel the guilt. writing up a bill of sale wouldn't mitigate this either because it doesn't keep it out of his hands. of course first time criminals wouldn't be in the system and NICS wouldn't be 100% effective for this anyway, but it's more. and if it's free, accessible via phone or internet, then heck, what's an extra 2 minutes? i chat more than that with people i do ftf deals with anyway...

 

[scythefwd]

Yes

I would use it if it was available even if it cost a nominal fee (say 25 or less). I see it as cya if you do sell to a felon or so. You can prove you did your due dillagence before the sell. The only people I wouldn't do it for is immediate family (and there are some who I will not sell to that I am related to).

 

[misANTHrope]

Principally speaking, if it was voluntary, I wouldn't do it. I don't want to sell a gun to someone who's not supposed to have it, but I think I'd be inclined to stop short of a NICS check.

But a potential issue that occurs to me is this- in your hypothetical world, I sell a firearm without performing the NICS check which is available to me. The buyer turns out to be a wacko and kills a bunch of folk. I could easily see a lawyer turning my decision not to run the check into negligence. We've already seen them go after shops that sold guns to folks that later went wacko, even if the buyers in those cases passed the NICS check.

In a way, I guess it comes down to a classical question: How do I balance my desire to not supply a gun to a criminal with my belief that the transaction should be as unencumbered as possible?

 

[Bozo]

No, I would not use it. Probably because I grew up in the time period of if you wanted to sell something, even a gun, you did it. You owned it, it was yours to do with as you pleased.

I do realize the world is different today but still, I would not call to check on someone, I would use my own instincts.

This does nothing for the RKBA.

 

[22-rimfire]

I have mixed emotions about this question. I would know when the sale was ongoing if I wanted to do a NICs check if it were available and could be used with a cell phone. But generally, I doubt I would use it unless I was forced to.

 

[tkaction]

In my state It is illegal to FTF with a handgun so its a no brainer. Of course. Rifles and shotguns FTF without nics is OK and perfered.

 

[ZombieHunter]

i understand the "principle" about it being property. but i also understand the "principle" behind doing my part. lots of things require someone to pass a certain standard to own or operate...a firearm (as many like to point out) is nothing more than a tool. several tools have limits as to who can own/buy them...giving a citizen the ability to keep a firearm out of the hands of a felon is the same as giving a citizen the ability to defend themself against said felon.

i would 100% agree with giving the citizen the ability to check, provided it was free and easy to do i would go as far as making it mandatory, provided there was protection for liability.

 

[Scanr]

No, a firearm is personal property. The government need to keep their bloody meat hooks off of them.

 

[22-rimfire]

In my former state of residence, handgun transfers must be through a FFL dealer except for direct family. When I objected to the law being passed, the standard reaction was "Do you want to sell a firearm to a felon?" There is no answer to that question other than of course not. So, if such a requirement was passed nationally in order to close the "gunshow loophole" I would have to comply. This is something that is likely coming legislatively. Prepare yourself.

There seems to be a lot of these kinds of questions being posed in threads since the Obama election. What better place to get feedback than posting on a gun forum from the Obama administration.

 

[browningguy]

I would certainly use it. I can't imagine how bad I would feel if I sold a gun to a certified nutcase or criminal when I could have easily prevented it.

 

[wally]

I'd use it, I's also lie and say I was selling a gun to Joe Blow before I rented him an apartment, offered a job, etc.

--wally.

 

[22-rimfire]

Lie huh? What about renting motel rooms? Buying ammunition? Would you like that? All to save $25 for a criminal background check.

 

[zminer]

There seems to be a lot of these kinds of questions being posed in threads since the Obama election. What better place to get feedback than posting on a gun forum from the Obama administration.

Tinfoil hat much? Somehow I think the Obama administration has better things to do than make policy decisions based on a non-representative sample of people on a single forum. (You also make the assumption that they intend to listen to firearms owners when making firearms policy decisions. I hope you ARE right about that.)

I posted because I was curious, because of a thread on another forum (that shall remain nameless ... but has a very similar name to this forum ) about using a state ID as a proxy for deciding whether someone is a good guy or a bad guy. People were coming up with various reasons why it wouldn't work - mostly due to state IDs not being required where they live - but a fair number of people seemed interested in the background of their buyers. And why shouldn't they be?

I voted "Yes" above, because it feels weird to me that official sources of firearms (gun stores, FFLs, etc.) have to do a NICS check, but private citizens don't. What's the difference? Why is it safe for me to sell a gun to anyone who has a telephone and a copy of the want ads, but Joe's Guns down the street has to do a check to make sure the the guy isn't a creep? Is it just an institutional CYA arrangement, or is there something else going on here?

 

[TeamPrecisionIT]

It's a firearm, which is nothing more then a tool or a piece of property. The GUN does not do the crime, the CRIMINAL does the crime.

Damian

 

[Kind of Blued]

I'd save the number in my cell phone and use it if I thought necessary. I trust my judgement, but if my impression of the individual isn't good, I could make sure my impression was substantiated before refusing. Of course, I still have the right not to sell a gun to anyone for any reason, but that's called freedom.

 

[rbernie]

Not until the Lautenberg amendment is repealed, and NICS is overhauled to provide an expediated appeals process.

 

[SMMAssociates]

Wanting an NICS check for private sales, IMHO, is one of those slipperly slope things. Next thing you know it's mandatory, and then it'll become difficult, impossible, or expensivce....

Remember that the criminal and terrorist friendly aim for a total ban in all handguns - a ban on sales, transfers, ownership, etc. After all, the new protected minority class (that elected them) might get hurt....

Why help them?

If you're concerned about an FTF sale, don't make it....

Meantime, work to elect people that will protect us from liability. Even passing an NICS check won't guarantee anything, and while a "due dilligence" mark on the record might be nice, that there be any record at all is not something we want....

Regards,

 

[Deus Machina]

I might, but I would fight against it being mandatory.

For now, I think I'll be fine keeping a copy of ID.

 

[22-rimfire]

I would only if I could and it was not required.... extended family member or co-worker who I had little knowledge of their background or they made comments that bothered me legally. Otherwise, I would just not sell at all. I would rather throw the thing in the trash than sell to someone I was uncomfortable with owning the gun.

 

[TAB]

I would... there is a good chance my finger prints are on that gun... I've been finger printed dozens of times for diffrent private and goverment agencys... they have my prints on file.

 

[22-rimfire]

I guess when you discuss a FTF transaction and you or they handle the gun wearing surgical gloves, it might be a hint.

 

[Fleetwood_Captain]

Crooks arn't going to want to give you ANY personal information when buying a gun for illegal use. Most of your gangbangers are getting their "straps" from the same guys that peddle dope around their hoods.

All those NICS checks are going to do is create more revenue for the government.

 

[hso]

If it were free and not mandatory? If I didn't know the person I probably would, but I'd also use it for sales of any significant asset or rental of property to anyone I didn't know. Just for firearms? Why, just for firearms since criminals don't usually purchase firearms from your average gunowner.

 

[7.62X25mm]

NICS requires an FFL dealer number. NICS makes an note of the dealer FFL, and the FFL makes a record of the transfer number.

That'd be a hard system to set up for private owners. First thing NICS would need to do is confirm that the seller lawfully possesses the firearm. That's basically "registration."

The state could always set up a "license" application protocol. Just like the transfer on an motor vehicle.

We need more red tape and license fees for our Second Amendment.