Would you use NICS for FTF sales?

[Firethorn]

I don't mind making it voluntary, assuming that it's such that it simply returns 'this guy is/is not qualified to own a gun', and doesn't store the query/results.

No need to ID the weapon being sold, no need for a transaction number. That's to make sure the ffl did the required for him check.

 

[Kevin108]

We don't need any additional government involvement on the sale of private property between adults.

 

[CajunBass]

No

Ok. The system won't take just plain "no," so I'll say it again.

No.

 

[shotgunjoel]

I think I would like the option. I would prefer to only sell guns to people I know, but if I sold to a stranger I would probably use the check.

 

[1911 guy]

I fear for our Republic. Those of you who are unfamiliar with the late Colonel Jeff Cooper, please hit the THR archives and acquaint yourselves with the concept of the "Nanny State". Then re-think the question. And maybe your answer.

In short, it is not the job, or the right, of government to dictate who can and cannot do anything. If you willingly abdicate your rights and responsibilities, don't act surprised when more are forcefully taken from you.

So some of you are in favor of more government involvement. That will change to blustering and stuttering when the next target, theoretical or real, is your particular firearm or type of weapon. Everyone wants to abandon a sinking ship. Stop betraying your fellow citizens and help man the bilges.

 

[alsaqr]

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

.


Best post on this thread.

We do not need the federal and state governments getting their snoopy long noses into private gun sales.

 

[leadcounsel]

Would you sell a car to someone with a suspended drivers license?

Would you sell a set of steakknives or a baseball bat to a stranger?

I think NICS is an invasion of privacy in general. To extend it to private sales is one step closer to outlawing private sales entirely.

 

[TStorm]

Turn the question

Would it be a good idea for the NICS to be accessible by the general public?

I think not. All you need is the required ID information and you are in like Flynn. You wouldn't need to confirm a gun purchase, just start checking people for kicks.

Its about as bad as being able to look up anyone's property purchase price and their taxes online.

Too much information.

 

[SMMAssociates]

Paranoid-R-Us, but my bet that the Feds counter to TStorm's ideas would be to keep a record of who asked, and the serial number of the gun in question....



Regards,

 

[ZombieHunter]

I'm concerned that so many people on here say no. The OP's scenario has it as being: free, easy and voluntary.

I understand a gun is private property and a tool. But then again so are super computers and I don't want Iran having those.

It's not a slippery slope thing, it's a common sense thing. If the tools to prevent someone with a history of violence from purchasing a gun exist and you have the ability to use them you have the responsibility to use them.

 

[American_Pit_Bull]

Another serving of gun control, for me?

No, thank you.

 

[mp510]

In Connecticut, it's already required for ftf handgun tansfers. It's optional for ftf private long gun transfers. It is accessible to non-FFL's.

 

[shiftyer1]

Just out of curiosity, does anyone know the stats on how gun laws actually REDUCE crime? I've been around the block once or twice and I know that guns on the street are cheaper then on the legal market. Soooo, how does a law restricting gun sales stop a criminal from his crime? If someone is going to commit murder or other crimes how do these laws help? I understand strict laws on full auto and such as gun control but if ya really want or need a pistol u can find one, with or with out a mandatory backround check.

sorry i went out on a tangent for a minute but I really got to thinkin about that lately.

 

[rbernie]

Just out of curiosity, does anyone know the stats on how gun laws actually REDUCE crime?

There are none.

The FBI keeps stats on many folk are disallowed from buying firearms each year via NICS. The FBI's stats show that at least 8% of these rejections each year are successfully appealed.

There is no knowing how many rejections are inappropriate but never appealed.

There is no data to correlate NICS rejection rates to violent crime rates.

There is ample data to illustrate that even complete gun prohibitions (a la the UK) do not reduce violent crime.

In my opinion, NICS is a sham. It pretends to make you safer and yet cannot deliver on that promise (because nobody can).

 

[zminer]

In Connecticut, it's already required for ftf handgun tansfers. It's optional for ftf private long gun transfers. It is accessible to non-FFL's.

How does this work? And is it free? I'm really surprised to hear that this is actually being used somewhere. It seemed like a lot of the criticisms that people have brought up are pretty valid.

 

[shiftyer1]

rbernie

I would assume if all these laws were sucessful they would proudly flaunt them. Of course I also believe that if ya take away all then firearms and edged tools folks will use use sticks and rocks. Silly me. I would assume that increased firearm ownership would equal lower crime rates????? I watched an episode of cops las nite and there was a burglery and the homeowner shot the bad guy. The homeowner also played dumb after shooting the bad guy. Because he was scared of the consequences of protecting hisself in his own home. HOW IS THIS ACTION WRONG? What should he be afraid of? Is your life not a god given RIGHT?

 

[HarleyFixer]

I would not use it for several reasons.

A. I do not sell guns. I quit in 1975. I ONLY buy guns.
B. I would not sell a gun to someone I don't know. (one of my buds would buy it)
C. The Gov needs to leave us alone and let us go about our lives WITHOUT watching everything we do.

 

[RKBABob]

Other.

I'd love to use it when selling a firearm... i don't want any of mine to fall into a criminal's hands, after all.

I'd prefer not to use it while buying in a face-to-face transaction... I don't want the government knowing that I'm buying.

 

[Treo]

Your weapons are your private property it is your right to disposition them as you wish and I respect that. My opinion is that no one should have to prove their eligibility to purchase, own or posses a firearm. Because as soon as the restriction is in place the government (Just to be clear I view all government beyond municipal as evil) will find a way to apply it to everybody. Once they find a way to apply the restriction to everybody (be advised we’re heading into black helicopter territory) they will disarm everybody then they will decide how you raise your kids, what you teach them, where you live (If you live) and what you do for a living.

Do you somehow think that the same country that produced David Duke or Charles Manson couldn’t produce a Pol Pot or Josef Stalin? For that matter ask any Deaf person about Alexander Graham Bell’s plan to sterilize all deaf people so they couldn’t pass on the genetic defect, yup that happened right here in American and a lot of people bought it that’s why Deaf schools were started.

The purpose of this rant is to express my fears for the short-term future (I don’t think we have a long-term future) of this country. I believe that there is a plan in place to disarm us and give away our sovereignty to some concept of a world socialist government. And I believe that the current police state tactics, is just a way to get people used to being herded, hence my “virulent anti police” stance. I also believe that every single piece of gun control legislation introduced from NFA to Brady two was aimed at doing just that.
And that is the reason that I am so vehement against even the slightest infringement of my sovereign rights by the police or any restriction placed on the free transfer of firearms between consenting adults.

 

[mgregg85]

I'm conflicted on it but it sounds like such a voluntary system would play merry hell with tort lawyers.

If you sold a gun to a nut without doing the NICS check and then he went and shot some people, you could count on being sued in a week.

 

[mp510]

How does this work? And is it free? I'm really surprised to hear that this is actually being used somewhere. It seemed like a lot of the criticisms that people have brought up are pretty valid.

It is free (for both dealers and private persons). All transactions from dealers and ALL transactions at gunshows go through NICS and require DPS paperwork. Private long gun sales are NICS-opptional, and most people don't do them (since many transfers are between friends/ people who know or trust eachother).

http://www.ct.gov/dps/cwp/view.asp?a=2158&Q=294488&dpsNav=|

 

[TeamPrecisionIT]

Teamprecision,
Your examples of dui's and cars killing someone. DUI's exist because someone legally bought alcohol and drank it and then drove. There are laws on the books that allow bars and restaurants to stop serving alcohol to people who are drunk. Reason for that is to not contribute to the problem. Cars killing people is usually an accident (I know better than most as my mother was killed in a car accident, as well as my uncle in a different one, and my aunt, two cousins and my grandfather were hit by two semis on halloween). I have buried too many people because of accidents, but thats all they were. The drivers didn't start out with the idea to commit a crime. For those to dui's to happen, the driver has to get alcohol. There is nothing legally stopping the driver from drinking, nor should there be since it can be done responsibly. I don't mean he can't get pissed. I mean he doesn't drive when he does which is against the law. In the case of a ncis check, there might be a reason to turn down the buyer, be it he is mental (but at the meeting in control and medicated), an ex felon, or say wanted on a warrent of some sort (I'll let the legal system sort it out before I arm him thank you). If you can show me a common place use of paper and pens (or any form of ink) that causes people to die, please show me. I don't think bounced checks kill people very often, nor does identity theft. Car use is regulated, and people do have their cars taken away, as well as the privilege to drive for misusing them. If I loan my car to someone that I know has a suspended license because of dui and he goes out an kills someone, then I am at least as responsible as he was because I gave him the tool. I don't loan my car to people who don't have licenses anyways. I do photo copy the license and give the copy back when I get my car back. Same as if I sell a gun to a felon who goes out and commits murder with it. IF I can limit the chances of a gun of mine getting into the wrong hands by my own actions, I will. This said, I do not support bans for people who can legally own a firearm (non felon). I will not sell to someone convicted of domestic violence. When your name is cleared of any DV, then feel free to come by and pick up your new gun.

So what you're saying is that in your life you have made your own changes and the government had nothing to do with it? I am sorry for your loss(es) (just to interject that). So, can I ask you question, in regards to the rest of the post. If a guy goes to a bar and drinks and then gets a DUI, is the bar legally responsible for his actions?

I voted no. If you tink for 1 second a felon were going to continue the ftf process after the mention nics you would be wrong. Would it be handy yes in some cases. I just wouldn't/won't sell a gun to somebody that I think I need to do a nics check on. I know hind sight is 20/20 and may possibly regret some transaction, but just because they passed nics doesn't mean that they can't turn crook/crazy later. Then you would be feeling the I should have known he seemed weird still going through all the what ifs.

So YOU are not responsible for said clowns action, right? So a background check is irrelevant to preventing a crime from happening, correct? So, like I have said prior, it is the criminals action that needs to be dealt with. What happens prior to that is irrelevant. Are we going to go all 'Minority Report' and have people getting arrested on the thought of committing a crime? Does that sound anything like freedom?

Damian

 

[BlacklabelOP]

heck no!

 

[scythefwd]

So what you're saying is that in your life you have made your own changes and the government had nothing to do with it? I am sorry for your loss(es) (just to interject that). So, can I ask you question, in regards to the rest of the post. If a guy goes to a bar and drinks and then gets a DUI, is the bar legally responsible for his actions?

Actually yes, the bar can be held liable. They are all called dram shop laws.

 

[qwert65]

IF it's voluntary couldnt criminals just do a "straw purchase" on ftuf sales like they do now? if it's mandaotory couldn't they do the same thing and report it stolen?

Couldn't criminals just use a fake ID?

Fact is if you want to be sure no one will commit crimes with a gun you sell the only way is not to sell it.

As for mental health if tey're clever enough to use a ftf transfer they prob are not on a list yet. If it's a high school shooting they're under 18 I belive those records are kept private.

Nics prevents zero crimes extending it might make you sleep better at night but you'd just be lying to yourself