|
I’ve read through many of these and I think the focus is inadvertently on the seller and law-abiding purchaser; why not the criminal or those restricted due to mental or other gun-prohibitive conditions?
I know this goes along with a voter ID card and the ACLU would flip their lid, but how about those who have lost their 2A rights get a small symbol on their driver’s license or other state recognized ID card prohibiting them from owning or purchasing firearms.
Sure, I would not knowingly sell any firearm to a criminal, but I shouldn’t have to jump through hoops just so it’s “seller beware”; that’s absurd and I wouldn’t want to maintain records of sales for the rest of my life. Likewise, as a buyer, I shouldn’t have to undergo unreasonable burdens just to exercise my rights.
In my world, I show you a valid driver’s license without the gun-restriction symbol and we make the sale. If the ID looks sketchy, you have the right not to make the sale. Put the burden on those who have lost their rights, not on those who obey the law.
The current background system doesn’t work and just as mentioned, failed NICS or background checks are rarely followed up on and even fewer prosecutions.
First case in point: I was denied a firearm sale when I moved from KS to TX. The burden was definitely on me to clear it all up and I underwent a more stringent background check and I’m now part of the Voluntary Appeals File for my NICS checks because some jackass used my SSN while attempting to purchase a firearm in KS. Had I not pursed the attention to clear up this NICS red flag, there was no follow up or calls why I failed. If I was a criminal, I just move on to other sources…
Second case in point: I was recently renewing my FL CHL and was denied continued processing as I failed a background check. Understand, I’ve been Active Duty Army with a TS/SCI clearance for the past two decades and not even a speeding ticket on file for over a decade. Not that it matters, but FL found a red-flag on an arrest in WA state about five years ago (WA state is still my home of record even though I haven’t resided there in over 20 years)….the same time I was deployed to Iraq. NICS and the more encompassing NCIC help desks at the FBI level didn’t see anything and even the WA state police, country sheriff’s office and local PD of the alleged incident couldn’t explain the issue. An inverted or badly recorded incident somehow tagged me during some incident that wasn’t even an arrest (mistaken ID)…yet some FL state clerk found it (kudos to the clerk but an inadvertent anomaly). The criminal (not even touching on the mental health inclusion) background system is far from perfect with too many disparate system feeds and a poorly federated database that will always be prone to human error.
I just think your driver’s license or state-issued ID card should be your proof of gun ownership. If you’re a criminal, especially at local levels, your tagged and it should show on your driver’s license. If for any reason you lost your right to own a firearm due to charged criminal activity, the burden should be on you to clear it up and remove that restrictive symbol on your ID card. I would suspect that 97-98% of the population could legally own or purchase firearms; why burden them for the 1-2% of the population? Burden that 1-2%...
Now, during my FL CHL debacle, I did find the WA State “WATCH” on-line criminal checking system pretty cool. It did cost me $10, but like already mentioned, these are simple background checks to see if somebody has a criminal record. All that was needed was the full name and birth date. Of course, it just listed four or five others with similar names and birth dates close to mine, but none were even close…so according to that system and the print out, I wasn’t a criminal in WA State. Make a national system like that, accessible to everyone and make the “certificate” valid for a year and allow buyers to show the seller their non-criminal certificate before purchasing a firearm. I like the idea and it would allow you to check on yourself much like a credit check to make sure there are no “issues” prior to purchasing and it then puts the proof back on the buyer and not the seller. I would be in favor of a system like this as there are no records of the buyers, only records of the criminals who are prohibited from owning a firearm (it could also eventually include those with restrictive mental health diagnosis without violating privacy acts as only that individual would see the results). As a seller, someone shows me a valid certificate and a photo ID and I would be satisfied and the burden is less than a current 4473.
Of course this would fly in the face of the liberal goal of records tracking and registration, but it would allow the people to police themselves and the a national criminal data base would be easier to federate and manage vice a database of gun sales of law abiding citizens (again, only tracking 1-2% of the population instead of the 98-99% of the population).
Just some thoughts borne from my own personal frustration…
ROCK6
|