View Single Post
Old April 15, 2013, 01:23 PM   #14
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,819
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kochman
Fair question Spats,
The current use of 4473, where the "seller" keeps the records, works fine for me.
I haven't sold a gun without the use of a 4473 (often via shipping to an FFL after an online sale), nor will I.
The current system is that the FFL keeps the 4473. I understood your question to be extending the 4473 to private sales involving "strangers." As you said below, "all unknown buyers." I can't get real excited about filling out a form that includes my name, address, DL#, date of birth, and SSN, and then handing it to a stranger. That kind of screams "come and get me, identity thieves!"

That's Problem #1. (Only in the order of answering, not necessarily in the order of magnitude.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kochman
So, expanding that to all unknown buyers is what I would like to see.
Can we perfectly enforce that? No. And I realize that some sellers will take the risk, calling whoever their "friend" to avoid running the check... but for what? To save a $50 bill? Time? It's just not worth it.
Enforcement. Presumably, we're all more interested in keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill and convicted felons than out of the hands of law abiding citizens. You will never be able to enforce this requirement against those two groups. See, e.g. Haynes v. US (1968). That being the case, why in the world would I want to enforce it against those who lawfully own guns?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kochman
That being said, ideally, there would be an automated system, via the internet probably, where you would enter the information of a buyer, and then get back a "Go" or "No Go", and it wouldn't be limited to just gun buying, but it could be a general background check system that people could use for renting their homes to someone, dating their daughter, etc... where the person in question voluntarily gives up their information. The seller could print out the results, and store them.
See Problem #1, above.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kochman
Now, Spats, I will ask, why are you opposed to the use of 4473s?
I'm not hugely fond of them, but I don't actively oppose their use in the case of FFL transactions. I do oppose extending background checks to private intrastate sales, for the following reasons, in no particular order:
1) See Problem #1, above.
2) If you can't force bad guys to use them, why should the good guys?
3) It's utterly unenforceable without registration, which I most strongly oppose.
4) I object to the notion that I should have to prove my eligibility to exercise a fundamental, individual Constitutional right before its exercise.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some.
Spats McGee is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.02465 seconds with 8 queries