Backgound checks, how could this work?

[dlb435]

I must be a bit dim or something. Just how is this proposed background check system supposed to work? We're talking about private gun sales here, not through an FFL dealer. First, there is no national gun registry, so how does anyone know who as what? Second, how could a private party even get a background check done? Third, if there is no registry and no record of sale, how would anyone ever know?
What am I missing here?

[Doyle]

If they were to go to such an extreme, there would be two ways to accomplish it. First would be to open up the NICS system to non-FFL holders. 2nd would be to require all firearms transactions to go through an FFL.

[sigcurious]

It would work because a majority are law abiding people.

Correct me if I'm wrong but you seem to be implying that if such a law were passed people would choose to ignore it because it would be hard to enforce.

2nd would be to require all firearms transactions to go through an FFL.

IMO, this is the most likely manner in which it would be carried out. It alleviates many of the privacy concerns that would go along with allowing anyone and everyone to access NICS.

[tyme]

First would be to open up the NICS system to non-FFL holders.

For how much money? If it's free, it would be overrun with people calling in to do background checks on their neighbors, employees, employers, competition, etc.

There's already too much stigma attached to many types of criminal convictions. Felons are already unhireable in a lot of areas of the workforce, which doesn't aid their rehabilitation very much. I think even easier access to background checks would make it worse.

[TailGator]

Quote:
2nd would be to require all firearms transactions to go through an FFL.
IMO, this is the most likely manner in which it would be carried out. It alleviates many of the privacy concerns that would go along with allowing anyone and everyone to access NICS.

That is my expectation, too, and for the same reason.

Personally, on the few occasions I have sold a pistol I sold it to a LGS. I know I could have sold them for more privately, but I was and am willing to take a lower price in order to be certain that it is sold to a legitimate buyer.

I am not saying that this should be law - it is my personal principle and nothing more.

[Double J]

--There are sites on the internet now that can give information about a person's background such as criminal records, driving records, etc. But all of those I've checked charge a fee. Even an FFL is charged a fee for each NICS check. The last NICS I called in was in 2009, and the fee then was $2.00. But also remember that just because the check was approved, doesn't clear the seller from fault if he or she has reason to believe there's something not just right with the buyer. And just because a NICS has been done doesn't mean there has been an actual sale made.
--A national data base would have to be made for everyone that might want to sell a gun. I think that could be a tough hurdle to accomplish in reality. Here in Illinois, we have our FOID cards, which says that we can own a gun. So when we sell to another person, that person is also supposed to have a FOID card. But, the FOID only says who CAN own. It doesn't say if we DO own or WHAT is owned. And the FOID isn't a reliable way of assuming the person's background is clean.
--We would all like to have a foolproof check system, but so far, such system evades us.

[ROCK6]

I was just talking about this. The biggest issue is not a single database as there are several on the federal level and then you have state and local databases. That doesn’t even account for medical or whatever else they are considering. Most police departments can run a simple background check in minutes. Why not allow a “buyer” to run a check on themselves, get a simple receipt saying he or she is “clean” and just list their name and age. Show the seller your recent background check receipt and make the deal. It’s too easy, but wouldn’t appease those wanting to develop a database of weapons tied to owners.

My recommendation is that if the gov’t is going to propose universal background checks for gun-owners, than it should also apply to anybody who votes, opens a bank account or receives government education or other financial assistance…see how the socialists would like that.

ROCK6

[Sgt Pepper]

Doesn't it already happen all the time with interstate private sales, including those through the classifieds on this site? Generally, if a sellers ships a firearm to a buyer, it must be delivered to an FFL holder who receives it, logs it in, and then transfers it to the buyer who must complete Form 4473 as if the buyer were purchasing the firearm from the FFL holder itself and submit to a background check as required by law. The FFL holders charge a fee that I've seen range anywhere from $10-$60 per transaction. Buyer always pays the fee. Local private sales could work in a similar fashion: seller tenders gun to FFL, who for a nominal fee charged to the buyer processes Form 4473 and does whatever background check is required by law. Frankly, I do not see the big deal to the end of undocumented private sales, unless your main priority is to own firearms in secret. Actually, for sellers, it is a plus because Form 4473 and the background check act as a liability shield to the seller in the event that the buyer commits a crime with that weapon or turns out to be someone not entitled to own such a weapon.

[flyguy958]

"Frankly, I do not see the big deal to the end of undocumented private sales, unless your main priority is to own firearms in secret."

Exactly! If the federal government knows where the firearm are it doesn't take long to confiscate them. Look at history, it is a great indicator of the future.

[Tom Servo]

Even an FFL is charged a fee for each NICS check.

No, we aren't.

There are two problems with this.

First, the whole shebang is a solution looking for a problem. No significant percentage of crime guns comes from private sales between law-abiding individuals. The "loophole" is a myth, and a new law would only make things harder on those disinclined to break the law in the first place.

Second, it will present a burden to FFL's. I wish that transfers were as easy as people assume them to be. In real life, that's far from the case, and they're often a time-consuming logistical nightmare. Now, multiply that burden of time and payroll, and dealers will raise prices on all transfers.

[Sgt Pepper]

Tom, those are both excellent points, but unfortunately, reality or practicality or cost/benefit is rarely a consideration in hasty, emotion driven administrative decisions.

[manta49]

Would the police not have a record of any criminal offences a person had. If they had being in prison etc that could be checked.

[Ronbert]

Simplest system would be to have "OK firearms" or "NOT OK firearms" to be on one's driver's license.

That way there's no special checkup required and transactions between parties would only require a simple DL swap.

But of course the people who want gun control think that getting an ID to vote is an impediment to exercising a Constitutional right.

Here in Colo having a CCW (with fingerprinting and background check) was not considered adequate. Still have to do the state "instant" check to buy from a dealer.

It's not about safety or efficiency.

[sigcurious]

Simplest system would be to have "OK firearms" or "NOT OK firearms" to be on one's driver's license.

That way there's no special checkup required and transactions between parties would only require a simple DL swap

Yeah because forging licenses that pass a cursory inspection is hard or uncommon

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by dlb435

I must be a bit dim or something. Just how is this proposed background check system supposed to work? We're talking about private gun sales here, not through an FFL dealer.

I wouldn't call that dim. You've identified some of the key issues down the road for this plan to make everyone go through background checks for every transfer.

Originally Posted by dlb435

First, there is no national gun registry, so how does anyone know who as what? . . . . Third, if there is no registry and no record of sale, how would anyone ever know?

Your "first" and "third" kind of go together, so i'll address them together. THIS is exactly why some folks are screaming that universal BGCs will lead to national registry. If those predictions are correct, in just a few years, the antis will complain because crime rates didn't drop when universal BGCs were enacted. The anti response will be: "Well, universal BGCs were not effective because we didn't have national registration. Solution: National Registration."

Originally Posted by dlb435

Second, how could a private party even get a background check done?

For a fee at an FFL. If I screw my tinfoil hat down real tight, I'd say the next step will be banning private transfers altogether so that all x-fers have to go through FFLs.

[Come and take it.]

We are not talking about registering the gun by a person personally having to register it.

We are talking a gun registry.

This gun registry is created by the ATF but must rely on two sources of information.

1 it relys on the background checks themselves to know when you have purchased guns and how often.

2. When a gun dealer goes out of business , or the ATF decides to reveiw his records they enter this information into a database. Many guns can be indentified by the serial number alone because of the different format in which they are layed out.

This doesn't require a learned atf agent to identify this. These can be entered into a program and the program can dicipher what type of gun the serial number belonged to.

It would be impossible with human effort alone. Computers make this possible and once this information is in digital storage it can be stored in a place that would survive the destruction of the documents themselves.

It is not registration but it certianly takes a large step toward it.

If for instance an assault weapons ban were later passed that required registration the ATF could review this database and begin to pursue the trail of firearms that were in the last known possession of a particular person who once purchased the gun through a brady gun background check.

A person would think his assault rifle could just be hidden away in his safe and decide to disobey the assualt rifle ban would be surprised when the ATF or local sheriff knock on their door wanting to know about the gun they once purchased.

This gun registry exists now but it is highly incomplete. With a universal background check it would bring the gun registry to a very high level of completion.

This concerns me because whether it seems common sense or not it is an infringement on a freedom I have taken advantage of all through my life and enjoyed it with friends, neighbors and family.

[sigcurious]

1 it relys on the background checks themselves to know when you have purchased guns and how often.

2. When a gun dealer goes out of business , or the ATF decides to reveiw his records they enter this information into a database. Many guns can be indentified by the serial number alone because of the different format in which they are layed out.

This gun registry exists now but it is highly incomplete. With a universal background check it would bring the gun registry to a very high level of completion.

Are you saying you believe that the number 1 & 2 statements currently occur? or Are you saying by the mere fact that FFLs have a record of sale it creates a de facto registry?

[arch308]

You will never keep firearms out of the hands of criminals bent on getting one. I think it is a pipe dream. Any new background check laws will only hamper law abiding citizens, cause more govt. intrusion into our private lives and waste more money borrowed from China!

[Come and take it.]

They can retain this information easily. One is that once information like that is on computer if there is a requirement to delete it at a later time than good.... however how much effort do they put into deleting it?

Do they reformat their hardrive? Do they comb the servers to make sure duplicates of the information weren't made. What if it was shared over internet servers to other agencies? did they go into the internet servers and clear out all those (commonly most files stored on the internet are duplicated into multiple servers in different locations for backup purposes)? Maybe a flash drive just happened to get misplaced during the process.

Digital information is much harder to dispose of than paper, and if there is a way to attempt to build an unofficial registry, and if there is an advantage to doing this than... why not?

We aren't dealing with monastic orders who have avowed to obey the ten commandments.. we are dealing with people who have gone as far down the darkly road as to sell guns to known criminals south of the Mexican/ American border knowing people would be killed by them.

In my opinion our country took the wrong direction in the 1800s when the first six shooter ban laws were passed with the intention to disarm freed slaves. It is a huge joke and always has been.

I think a lesson can be learned during the black militia skirmishes of the post civil war years. It demonstrates how the law can be manipulated to target specific groups of people and disarm them. For instance some of the laws never mentioned in their text that only the blacks were not to have six shooters but they were the only ones who were forced to hand them over. Whites were looked over.

Gun confiscation took place in America in the late 1800s.

Think about this for a minute. Isn't that what germany did. They didn't take the guns away from everyone. Just the Jews, "mentally ill", "criminals", worthless dredges of society.

Does all this sound familiar? It should.

Registration is the first step to confiscation. It serves no other purpose.

[Tom Servo]

When a gun dealer goes out of business , or the ATF decides to reveiw his records they enter this information into a database. Many guns can be indentified by the serial number alone because of the different format in which they are layed out.

Let's remember the Firearms Owners' Protection Act, which added this to 18 U.S.C. 926 (a):

No such rule or regulation prescribed after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or dispositions be established. Nothing in this section expands or restricts the Secretary’s authority to inquire into the disposition of any firearm in the course of a criminal investigation.