[Al Norris]

Originally Posted by chucksolo69

1. A background check is necessary by FFL dealers to make sure you are not a criminal or mental defective or drug/alcohol ABUSER. Excludes nicotine use or people using prescription drugs in the legally prescribed manner.

No... The NICS check is to ensure the FFL is not selling to a prohibited person. It is not about You. To make the law about YOU, would require penalties to be imposed upon the prohibited person for attempting to purchase a firearm from an FFL.

But you didn't say a NICS check, you said a background check which, which entails a more thorough (and costly) check. Who's to pay for this? The buyer?

A case can be made that such a scheme would cross over the prior restraint bar. Add to this, that in todays jurisprudence, another case can be made that paying for such a check would amount to taxing a fundamental right.

The current NICS check is constitutional. Extending it may or may not be. Changing it to an full background check would place an undue burden upon the right.

2. If you sell your legally obtained gun to a person with a criminal record or mental health record in a face to face transfer or straw sale, and the gun is used in a crime, you will be equally liable. This would apply even if the gun changes hands many times. You were the original owner after all. It would be up to you to verify that the person could legally own a gun. Forms for legal transfer among private citizens could be obtained at gun stores. It would be up to you to keep the record of sale and identity verification of the person you sold the gun to. Having been presented false identity documents would be no excuse for sale to anyone not eligible to own a gun.

You would extend "straw purchases" to ordinary citizens? It's bad enough that some FFL's are not well versed on what constitutes a "straw purchase," but you would complicate that by extending it to everyone? Under what justification? I'm not aware that there is a problem with ordinary folks knowingly sell to others, who are purchasing for a third party. Another "solution" in search of a problem, if you ask me.

You wish to also extend legal liability to the original owner, or the original purchaser? I'll assume you mean the original retail purchaser. So I'll need some kind of form 4473 to complete this purchase, and I'll keep it for 20 years or until I die, at which point it gets sent to the BATF (similar to what an FFL does)? Is that you scheme? Or do I just submit the paperwork as soon as the transaction is complete?

Hmmm, now you burden me with more required paperwork and/or reporting requirements. You are extending personal liability, regardless of how many times a firearm I sell is sold to others. You are forcing me to scrutinize my fellow man, more than I would my daughters first date!

3. You must be a citizen of the USA and prove it to obtain a gun, any gun. This would also apply to face to face or straw sales of guns. Again, it would be up to the seller to acertain [sic] if the buyer is a citizen of the US. Having been presented false identity documents would be no excuse for sale to anyone not eligible to own a gun.

Since we are talking of a right here, you can not lawfully require this, unless you repeal portions of the 14th amendment. (Hint: This is where anyone under the jurisdiction of the US Government has the same rights as you or I. Reading and understanding the Constitution of the United States is a requirement to fully participate in these debates.)

... And ... You now want to make every ordinary citizen liable for being duped by forged and/or false documents.

4. If your gun is stolen, you would have to report it within 24 hours to the authorities or it would be the same as law #2. After all, gun security is every gun owner's responsibility.

As others have noted, is this time period when the gun is actually stolen or when you discover it? Who gets to define how secure your Firearms must be? The benevolent government or me?

I'm thinking you would have a better chance at just banning the damn guns than getting people to agree to these onerous requirements. Overall, the effects would be similar, as they would have a chilling effect on the exercise of your right to keep and bear arms... But then, that's the whole point of all the various gun control schemes anyways, isn't it?