Background Checks

[44 AMP]

What boggles my mind is that these same people, who give full faith and credit to the idea that background checks will solve the violence problem, see an ad for buying stocks, and hear the warning "to read carefully, past behavior is no guarantee of future performance" and think "yep, that's a good idea, its just common sense"...

[elsancudo]

How about a background check on individuals who want to work in the media? The things they say and write cause more violence than any weapon. The pen IS mightier than the sword.

[kmw1954]

These people that are writing the RED FLAG Laws today are the same people that wrote the HIPPA PRIVACY LAWS yesterday. Figure that one out.

[FITASC]

Red Flag laws are simply an easy way to circumvent the Constitution, and we have let it happen.........yet another slice in the "death by a thousand cuts"

[Onward Allusion]

NICS should be mandatory for private face to face sales. It is a loophole like it or not.

The guy who sold the AR to the Odessa shooter is finding out the hard way, even though it doesn't appear he did anything wrong.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/04/us/we...ter/index.html

That's why I have one major rule when it comes to selling my firearms.

#1 - Never do private Intrastate firearm sales w/o a FFL
#1a - Never do private Intrastate firearm sales period.

[44 AMP]

NICS should be mandatory for private face to face sales. It is a loophole like it or not.

Obeying the law as it exists is NOT a "loophole".

People who think the law should cover areas it does not cover say those areas are a "loophole", but they aren't. They get upset at people obeying the law as written, when the people they should be peeved at are they people who passed a law they think didn't go far enough. "Loophole" is a distraction tactic, a "red herring", to get people to think someone is doing something nefarious when in fact they are just simply obeying the law.

NICS mandatory for private sales? In principle, I object to that, not the check part, the mandatory part. I've got nothing against the check, IF the NICS system were available to everyone, and free. It's not.

My state passed a law requiring a background check for all private transfers. Under that horribly written law (which is a separate issue) we are required to take ourselves, the person we want to transfer the gun to, and the gun, to an FFL dealer, and pay them to run the check.

My biggest problem is that the law removes my right to use my own judgement. If someone I'd never met and knew nothing about was looking to buy my gun, then yes, I want a check done (and I'd require him to pay for it) but the law also requires me to have the check done if I want to sell a gun to a friend I've known for over 20 years, who has held high level government security clearances, and who has more guns than I do. Yet under the law, Both of us and the gun have to go to an FFL (during business hours) and pay the fee ($35 in this case).

I don't get the choice. I don't think that's right.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

Obeying the law as it exists is NOT a "loophole".

People who think the law should cover areas it does not cover say those areas are a "loophole", but they aren't. They get upset at people obeying the law as written, when the people they should be peeved at are they people who passed a law they think didn't go far enough. "Loophole" is a distraction tactic, a "red herring", to get people to think someone is doing something nefarious when in fact they are just simply obeying the law.

I agree.

I don't like speeding tickets, so I usually drive at pretty close to the speed limit. By this "loophole" logic, I'm avoiding speeding tickets by taking advantage of a "loophole" in the traffic laws by driving in a way that doesn't violate the law.

Thank about that ...

[BBarn]

Originally Posted by Onward Allusion

NICS should be mandatory for private face to face sales. It is a loophole like it or not.

If NICS becomes mandatory as you suggest, would you then say that registration needs to become mandatory since without it your first suggestion is unenforceable?

To put it another way, without registration, a requirement of NICS checks on all transfers is unenforceable. So does the lack of registration then become "loophole" in your view?

[Onward Allusion]

Yes, I understand that current law doesn't require NICS and the guy who sold the AR to the shooter didn't do anything (technically) wrong. However, he now has his life turned upside down for not doing anything wrong...

I agree that NICS should be available for free for private Intrastate transactions. If NICS is used, there "supposedly" isn't a record for approvals or a record of the type of firearm being purchased, hence no backdoor registration. No, I don't believe in registration...etc but I will say that private sales are a weak area. I personally don't sell guns w/o at least one FFL involved.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by Onward Allusion

If NICS is used, there "supposedly" isn't a record for approvals or a record of the type of firearm being purchased, hence no backdoor registration.

If there is no record for approvals, isn't a NICS requirement for non-licensee transfers unenforceable? How could a state enforce something of which there isn't ever a record?

[Aguila Blanca]

I know from FFL friends in Connecticut that their background checks go through the CT State Police, not through the FBI and NICS. Each transaction approval gets a number, which the FFL enters on a form that's in addition to the 4473.

Since Sandy Hook, Connecticut has extended that system to ALL sales of firearms. Face-to-face private sales can be made, but the seller must call the State Police for an authorization, and must complete the forum -- in quadruplicate. The seller keeps one copy, the buyer gets one copy, one copy is sent to the State Police and one copy is sent to the police department in the buyer's town of residence.

The Connecticut form includes the make, model and caliber of the firearm, so it is a registry. I'm sure the Connecticut State Police would not be happy to just have an entry added to the driver's license, because that wouldn't allow them to keep adding firearms to their registry.

[Mac Sidewinder]

I agree that NICS should be available for free for private Intrastate transactions. If NICS is used, there "supposedly" isn't a record for approvals or a record of the type of firearm being purchased, hence no backdoor registration. No, I don't believe in registration...etc but I will say that private sales are a weak area. I personally don't sell guns w/o at least one FFL involved.

First of all if there isn't a record then how do you enforce a mandatory FFL check. 2nd, how many FFLs do you usually involve in a private sale anyway?

Of all the new proposals being thrown out there for consideration, Expanded background checks scare me the most. Under that, I couldn't even let my son (who has as many guns as I do) borrow one of mine to take to the range without having to have a FFL transfer to him then back to me when he is finished. The only way to make this work would be a registration of every firearm. When the media quote that 80-90% of all people including gun owners approve of expanded background checks, I don't think the public really know what that actually entails.

Mac

[Tom Servo]

NICS should be mandatory for private face to face sales. It is a loophole like it or not.

No, it quite literally is not. A loophole is defined as such:

an ambiguity or inadequacy in the law or a set of rules.

There's nothing ambiguous in the Brady Act. They knew it wouldn't pass if it had to cover private sales, so they took what they could, and they exempted private sales as a deliberate concession.

If there is no record for approvals, isn't a NICS requirement for non-licensee transfers unenforceable?

It absolutely is, which isn't a bug but a feature. Once the bill passes, they'll point that out and tell us we absolutely need a federal registry of all firearms to enforce it.

And that was the original intent behind the Brady Act.

[raimius]

Until you have a publicly available "NICS2.0" plan that also respects privacy (So I can't run NICS2.0 checks on all my prospective employees to weed out people, etc), I won't support UBCs. Private sales should not have to involve an FFL middleman (who will charge for his business time). Further, the definition of "transfers" that fall under the UBC requirements is a serious issue. I like a change of ownership "transfer" not a "here hold my hunting rifle while I cross the fence" "transfer."

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by Onward Allusion

NICS should be mandatory for private face to face sales. It is a loophole like it or not.

Nope. As Tom points out, the exemption for private sales was a deliberate concession. It was neither an oversight, nor a drafting error.

Besides, whatever fits in the loophole is still legal. One of my problem with "loophole arguments" and "spirit of the law" arguments is that they boil down to "things that aren't in the law." The whole point of written laws is to put people on notice of what is required or prohibited. If something that isn't in the law that should be, there's a process to amend it.

Originally Posted by Onward Allusion

The guy who sold the AR to the Odessa shooter is finding out the hard way, even though it doesn't appear he did anything wrong.

And launching an investigation into his sale of the rifle to the shooter is completely legitimate. If he knew or had reason to know that the shooter was a prohibited person, then the sale violated federal law and he should be prosecuted.

Originally Posted by Onward Allusion

That's why I have one major rule when it comes to selling my firearms.

#1 - Never do private Intrastate firearm sales w/o a FFL
#1a - Never do private Intrastate firearm sales period.

You're free to use an FFL for every firearms transaction you make. There's nothing stopping you. I don't see the need to do the same.

[Onward Allusion]

You're free to use an FFL for every firearms transaction you make. There's nothing stopping you. I don't see the need to do the same.

Yup, and thank gawd for that. In this anti climate, I feel for the poor guy who inadvertently sells a gun in a private F2F Intrastate transaction w/o a FFL that ends up being used in a crime by the purchaser.

[osbornk]

NICS should be mandatory for private face to face sales. It is a loophole like it or not.

Have you considered the time, expense and inconvenience a mandatory NICS check would cause? How long does it take to find and go to a FFL when you live in the sticks, on weekends and nights when they are not open or on holidays? What is the cost charged by the FFL for their time to do the checks? How many people will simply sell anyway illegally because of the inconvenience? How much will the expense impact the lower income folks who need but cannot afford a firearm?

[Onward Allusion]

^^^^^^^^

Living is this non-free State (ILL-inois), we are required to perform a "background" check on private Intrastate firearm transactions. All that is required is logging into the Illinois State Police site with the other party's FOID number and Buyer's DOB. It's merely a yay/nay system. If approved, an approval number is generated and unlike the 4473, must be kept for only 10 years. No make/model/caliber/serial info. Cost is zero.

Why can't the guberment let mere mortals access NICS?

Personally, even with this kind of system in place, I would not sell directly to a private individual in my home State. The system is not 100% foolproof. Folks have slipped under the radar with NICS and can happen with the ISP's FOID system. I would rather have the sale handled by the Buyer's FFL, even within the same State. I'm blessed, and I live a semi-bourgeois life. Too much to lose over selling a gun worth less than $1K. Of course, this is my opinion and YMMV.

[44 AMP]

The only way to make this work would be a registration of every firearm.

No, its not the only way it could work. Its just the only way one side of the argument will accept. The only system they offer is one that needs registration in order to answer the question "did the buyer have a background check done when they bought that gun (ser# xxxxxx)??

This is a question that does not need to be asked.

As previously mentioned, it is entirely possible to have a system where the focus is on the PERSON, not the gun.

we are not being offered that kind of system as a choice. We are only offered a system that cannot answer the unnecessary question without registration.

THIS IS DELIBERATE. Make no mistake about that.

[sigarms228]

Why can't the guberment let mere mortals access NICS?

Privacy concerns for one. It could be used by potential employers, lenders, boyfriends/girlfriends, or whoever to obtain info about someone. I suspect a lot of employers would be reluctant to hire someone who fails the NICS.

There would have to be a way to maintain that and also not include any information about the firearm. Possibly when a potential buyer wants to buy a firearm the seller could call NICS and they would then call potential buyer to see if it is OK and if it is the potential buyer would be given a code good for a period of time that he could give to the seller to use to call NICS for approval and then the seller would be given a code to keep in his records of the transaction if approved. Of course that is not foolproof either as the potential buyer could lie/have fake IDs but there are probably ways to minimize that.

Illinois does similar but everyone has an FOID but I am against a national FOID which would give federal government power to determine who can own firearms and revoke for whatever reasons they come up with. When members of congress refuse to denounce the NRA being called a terrorist organization I find that very disturbing.

[BBarn]

44 AMP,

I agree with your accessment of the underlying purpose of the proposed UBCs. And I also agree that a check focused on the potential buyer (if followed) could be used to verify that the would be buyer is not a prohibited person at that moment. But there seems to be a rub as far as enforcement.

I don't see a path to enforcement of a "individual" type BC like you have suggested. It seems an individual centric BC (with no data on the firearm) would be easily disregarded and avoided. With no record of when specific guns are transferred, what evidence would exist that a gun was transferred without a BC? And if it was transferred without a BC, how would you know who transferred the gun?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that a BC focused on the individual is a bad idea. I just don't see it gaining traction because it would seem to be prone to ineffectiveness (due to the difficulty of enforcement).

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by BBarn

I don't see a path to enforcement of a "individual" type BC like you have suggested. It seems an individual centric BC (with no data on the firearm) would be easily disregarded and avoided. With no record of when specific guns are transferred, what evidence would exist that a gun was transferred without a BC? And if it was transferred without a BC, how would you know who transferred the gun?

The transferee will always have been a party to the transfer.

If the goal of a law that designates some people as prohibited persons is that they should not possess weapons, when and from whom a transfer occurs isn't pertinent to whether a transferee has a legal disability prohibiting them from possessing. That's your prosecutable crime.

Of course, to accomplish the goal of dissuading prohibited persons from possessing arms, it would require active prosecution rather than relatively passive administrative interference that only works against people amenable to that kind of interference.

To repeat the obvious, if passive administrative interference doesn't work well now, simply expanding the pool of people you want to comply with the interference isn't going to work any better.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by BBarn

I don't see a path to enforcement of a "individual" type BC like you have suggested. It seems an individual centric BC (with no data on the firearm) would be easily disregarded and avoided. With no record of when specific guns are transferred, what evidence would exist that a gun was transferred without a BC? And if it was transferred without a BC, how would you know who transferred the gun?

I can think of a couple of ways. First, as others have proposed, since we're now in the age of the "Real ID" driver's license, why can't drivers' licenses include a field that shows whether or not the holder is cleared to possess firearms? Drivers' licenses are already coded to show whether or not they are Real ID compliant. It would be easy to run a background check each time a DL is renewed, and just code that onto the license.

Another would be for NICS to not just say "Okay" to a check, but to issue an approval number. The seller would then be able to write down the date of the check and the approval number. He wouldn't have to show it to anyone, just keep it with his records. If the BATFE comes sniffing around ten years later because the gun was used in a crime, the seller just calls up the sale date and NICS authorization number. Done. No information about the firearm is needed. If a buyer is okay to buy one gun from me on Tuesday, he's okay to buy five guns or ten guns from me on Tuesday (NFA firearms excluded, of course).

[Tom Servo]

It could be used by potential employers, lenders, boyfriends/girlfriends, or whoever to obtain info about someone.

Yep, and that brings us to the second problem: scaling. Opening up NICS to a whole slew of people (none of whom have been trained to use it) is going to be a logistical nightmare, and the system will grind to a halt.

Notice that none of the "universal" background check bills mention increasing funding for the system.

[zxcvbob]

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

Notice that none of the "universal" background check bills mention increasing funding for the system.

Y'all (not just Tom) seem to think UBCs are supposed to work. They are supposed to *not* work.