The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old December 18, 2012, 11:02 AM   #1
SilverBulletZ06
Member
 
Join Date: March 17, 2012
Posts: 32
Should NICS be opened for everyone?

Should they change the rules so that anyone doing a private transfer would be able to access NICS? I've been thinking more and more about it. First, from the sellers perspective it takes a lot of heat off of you if something were to go wrong. Second, it shuts up whiny anti-guns talking about loopholes that don't exist.
SilverBulletZ06 is offline  
Old December 18, 2012, 11:32 AM   #2
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,836
Subtle question - do you mean that NICS is mandated for a private sale or that it would be available, say at a gun show. You could ask the buyer to go to a NICS station for a check?

Or having it as a general data base? That would lead to data snooping by all kinds of folks. Do you want your boss to be able to do a NICS check?

If at the confined instance of the a gun show, such privacy intrusions probably would be unlikely.

Having a NICS stand at the shows for private sales if you want to make a purchaser have one is different.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old December 18, 2012, 12:15 PM   #3
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,202
First, if I sell a piece of personal property, assuming the sale is legal, why should I be held responsible for the actions of the buyer?

Second, why spend time, energy and resources trying to fix non-existent problems?
__________________
A gunfight is not the time to learn new skills.

If you ever have a real need for more than a couple of magazines, your problem is not a shortage of magazines. It's a shortage of people on your side of the argument. -- Art Eatman
Spats McGee is offline  
Old December 18, 2012, 12:23 PM   #4
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,618
First off, I don't like the idea of the NICS system at all. For now, it's something licensed dealers have to use.

Expanding it so anyone could use it would lead to everyone using it to run superfluous background checks on themselves, and it would bog the system down for retailers.

As it is, the system has been hopelessly overburdened the last week.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old December 18, 2012, 12:24 PM   #5
SilverBulletZ06
Member
 
Join Date: March 17, 2012
Posts: 32
Glenn, NICS as it sits no, no database just a call in and BG check.

Spats, it would be more as a counter to the stupidity of the elected officials and for sound peace of mind for those who sell if they wish.
SilverBulletZ06 is offline  
Old December 18, 2012, 12:26 PM   #6
sigcurious
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 25, 2011
Posts: 1,755
I could be wrong, but couldn't this already be done voluntarily? Take the firearm in question to an FFL pay them transfer/consignment fees and do the sale there?
sigcurious is offline  
Old December 18, 2012, 12:34 PM   #7
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,479
In the state of Washington that would never fly. FFL transfers in this state are subject to a use tax on the full value of the firearm + the FFL fee + shipping, if any.
JimDandy is offline  
Old December 18, 2012, 12:42 PM   #8
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,202
Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverBulletZ06
. . . .Spats, it would be more as a counter to the stupidity of the elected officials and for sound peace of mind for those who sell if they wish.
I think it rewards stupidity and anti-gun sentiment more than anything. It also opens up the possibility of requiring a NICS check for every firearm transfer. I can already hear Dianne Feinstein saying, "Why, the NICS system is already there, and already available for anyone to use. There's no reason anyone shouldn't use it, so let's make it mandatory."

No, thank you.
__________________
A gunfight is not the time to learn new skills.

If you ever have a real need for more than a couple of magazines, your problem is not a shortage of magazines. It's a shortage of people on your side of the argument. -- Art Eatman
Spats McGee is offline  
Old December 18, 2012, 12:46 PM   #9
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,479
There are a couple issues to deal with, but if those were solved, I can't say I'd object even if it was mandatory.

First, the openings for identity theft are astronomical.

Second, the waiting period for a handgun in a private sale isn't acceptable. I'm not a private business with store hours, and a security system to prevent the guy from coming back and stealing it while "waiting for the approval" once he knows I have it.
JimDandy is offline  
Old December 18, 2012, 12:53 PM   #10
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,618
Quote:
Do you want your boss to be able to do a NICS check?
There are other, similar systems that many employers do use.

NICS is unique because its purpose is specifically for a licensed firearms dealer to verify eligibility of a buyer. 99.9% it's shockingly efficient, but it is designed for that purpose only. The operators are trained to enter and process very specific information in a very specific sequence and nothing else.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old December 18, 2012, 12:58 PM   #11
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,479
The real question is do you want some guy you met on Craiglist, Gunbroker, or the Swap Meet two counties over, selling you what may be a stolen gun, to have your address and social?
JimDandy is offline  
Old December 18, 2012, 06:28 PM   #12
raimius
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2008
Posts: 1,360
With tweaks to prevent identity theft and privacy issues, I'd support it. Frankly, one reason I don't plan on selling any of my guns is due to the fact that I might be selling to a less than decent person (although many would obviously slip through any NICS-like system).

If the identity and privacy issues can be worked out, I could see an open "instant check" system preventing a small number of bad sales (certainly a good thing).
raimius is offline  
Old December 18, 2012, 07:08 PM   #13
WW2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 7, 2009
Location: Southern California.
Posts: 198
In California...

All transfers must go through an FFL. Problem solved.
__________________
Clinging to my God and my guns!

Luke 22:36
Quote:
Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.
WW2 is offline  
Old December 18, 2012, 08:24 PM   #14
JN01
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 16, 2005
Location: SW Ohio
Posts: 513
If it is just something to ease your own conscience, you could ask to see the buyers concealed carry license (if he has one), then your background check is already done.
JN01 is offline  
Old December 18, 2012, 08:41 PM   #15
rajbcpa
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 27, 2012
Posts: 315
The federal government cannot regulate a transaction between two residents of a single state of the union.

This is discussed in the commerce clause of the Constitution.

A federal requirement to have background checks for an intrastate transaction is NOT coming to your state.
rajbcpa is offline  
Old December 18, 2012, 08:44 PM   #16
Stressfire
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 16, 2011
Location: Ohio
Posts: 1,497
Quote:
If it is just something to ease your own conscience, you could ask to see the buyers concealed carry license (if he has one), then your background check is already done.
That's what I do - seems to have worked fine so far
__________________
"The best diplomat I know is a fully charged phaser bank" - Montgomery Scott
Stressfire is offline  
Old December 18, 2012, 08:48 PM   #17
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,202
Quote:
Originally Posted by JN01
If it is just something to ease your own conscience, you could ask to see the buyers concealed carry license (if he has one), then your background check is already done.
In AR, your address is on the license, so it also lets the seller confirm that the buyer is a resident of the state, or at least was at the time the CHCL was issued.
__________________
A gunfight is not the time to learn new skills.

If you ever have a real need for more than a couple of magazines, your problem is not a shortage of magazines. It's a shortage of people on your side of the argument. -- Art Eatman
Spats McGee is offline  
Old December 19, 2012, 12:20 AM   #18
raimius
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2008
Posts: 1,360
Quote:
The federal government cannot regulate a transaction between two residents of a single state of the union.

This is discussed in the commerce clause of the Constitution.

A federal requirement to have background checks for an intrastate transaction is NOT coming to your state.
Valid point.


...too bad the federal government doesn't much care about the limits of the commerce clause.
raimius is offline  
Old December 19, 2012, 11:37 AM   #19
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,479
Quote:
All transfers must go through an FFL. Problem solved.
No thanks. Turning a $200 transaction into a 250+ transaction and allowing the state to collect sales tax on a private sale for an item already taxed is a bit much for me.
JimDandy is offline  
Old December 19, 2012, 03:39 PM   #20
EricReynolds
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 23, 2008
Location: Syracuse, NY
Posts: 393
In NY for a private sale of a couple pistols I had to go to the sheriff's dept. with the buyer and write down makes, models, and serial numbers of the weapons. They are then transferred from my permit to his. This is a pain, I know, but there will be no question of accountability on my end with whatever happens in the future with those guns. People will bring up the issue of why does responsibility fall on the seller? It would be illegal for the seller to knowingly sell a gun to felon, but what about all the times when a seller UNknowingly sells a gun to a felon? This happens, and it's an easy fix, but would lead to inconvenience on the part of the sellers. Just a thought, could a seller stop into a local Bass Pro Shop or wherever and have the clerk run a NICS check for you? Maybe pay a small service fee? It would be a pain for a sellers to do, but we as gun advocates need to start thinking of fair and reasonable compromises on this issue because something is coming. It can either be change we can live with or not. I'd prefer a change we could live with.
EricReynolds is offline  
Old December 19, 2012, 03:45 PM   #21
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,479
That's the NICS check. And mostly I'm ok with it, except for the sales/use tax. Washington State has worked pretty hard to make sure they get a slice of the pie in any gun transaction they can. Out of state/internet site purchase? Use an FFL, and pay tax on EVERYTHING, gun, shipping, even the FFL fee. Now if you sell your deer rifle to your kid, or worse, "sell" your kid's deer rifle to your kid himself when he turns 18, or 21, or moves out on his own, or whatever rite of passage you choose...

In fact, gifting in this state using that system could be even more costly. Without a bill of sale reciept, you'd have to pay use tax on the FFL fee, shipping if applicable, and sales tax on the fair market value of hte firearm.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for SOMETHING, as long as it doesn't start giving the state another way to stick their hand in my wallet for a sale that either isn't sale, or they don't belong in as interstate commerce, etc.
JimDandy is offline  
Old December 19, 2012, 04:10 PM   #22
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,202
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricReynolds
. . . . we as gun advocates need to start thinking of fair and reasonable compromises on this issue because something is coming. It can either be change we can live with or not. I'd prefer a change we could live with.
If something is coming, it's not a compromise. Compromises involve both sides giving something up. I doubt very seriously that the anti-gun crowd wants to give anything up.
__________________
A gunfight is not the time to learn new skills.

If you ever have a real need for more than a couple of magazines, your problem is not a shortage of magazines. It's a shortage of people on your side of the argument. -- Art Eatman
Spats McGee is offline  
Old December 19, 2012, 04:13 PM   #23
sigcurious
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 25, 2011
Posts: 1,755
Quote:
but we as gun advocates need to start thinking of fair and reasonable compromises on this issue because something is coming.
What part of it is a fair or reasonable compromise? What is the other side giving up? They're not...that's not compromise, thats one side demanding something from the other side, which has no evidence that it will benefit public safety or achieve the stated goal of benefiting public safety. So it is inherently unreasonable and unfair.

Quote:
It would be illegal for the seller to knowingly sell a gun to felon, but what about all the times when a seller UNknowingly sells a gun to a felon?
There are a number of voluntary ways to vet a person and no one is forced to sell to someone that they do feel might be a prohibited person.

Edit: Spats beat me to it!
sigcurious is offline  
Old December 19, 2012, 05:01 PM   #24
gc70
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,496
I am fundamentally against requiring NICS checks for private transactions.

Giving people access to NICS poses serious problems, as previously discussed.

The only way I can envision voluntary NICS checks for private transactions would be if buyers could go to an FFL and get a certificate showing that the buyer had passed a NICS check.
gc70 is offline  
Old December 19, 2012, 05:05 PM   #25
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,479
I'd be ok with that in some form.. a number entered on BATFE website that shows a name and "Pre-approved" good for a week.. match name to photo-id.
JimDandy is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:35 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.12888 seconds with 7 queries