Idea regarding background checks

[Dolomite_supafly]

I got to thinking and everyone I know or talk to do not want background checks because it is a defacto registration. That is because the guns you buy are listed on your background and their serial numbers are checked at the same time as you. And I suspect they keep records now even though they deny it.

 

What would you think if the background check did not list the firearm, how many or what type you bought?

 

Basically you walk in and if you decide you want to buy a firearm you have a background check completed before picking out any firearms. Then after you pass you are allowed to pick out whatever gun you want and pay for it with no reporting of what you bought to the background check system. That way there is no serial number tied to you on a national level. The FFL will keep a record, like they do now, of the firearm info and who bought it but it will only be stored locally. The firearm information will only be added to the locally stored record after the background has been completed.

 

For face to face transactions the seller and buyer go to a FFL. The FFL completes a background on the buyer then the seller and buyer exchange the weapon without the FFL ever inspecting the weapon.

 

For face to face transactions it must not cost the buyer or seller anything. But for a person buying a gun in the shop's inventory the same background fees as now.

 

As a consequence of this make 18 the age limit for all guns, not just rifles.

 

For those of you who don't know I do have a personal stake in this. I have a metally ill brother who is also a heavy drug user. He has tried to kill my family and I in the past yet he still gets firearms regularly.

 

Dolomite

 

 

[Steelharp]

I think that's a terrific idea and compromise.

 

And I am so sorry about your family situation. Wow...

[UncleJak]

This idea seems reasonable.

[Mike.357]

still seems like a tax to exercise a right

 

Do we pay a tax on any other enumerated rights?

 

Will background checks stop people such as your brother from getting a gun?

Edited February 5, 2013 by Mike.357

[Jonnin]

I think someone here suggested that your HCP cover the background check for you as a one time, done deal solution.  This would be similar and work for non permit holders.   This works because presumably if you get a felony conviction or restraining order etc you lose the HCP, right?

 

And it won't fly.  They want their $$$$ every time you buy, at least in TN. 

Edited February 5, 2013 by Jonnin

[BryanP]

The only catch I can think of is that right now they also use the instant background check as a chance to check the serial # of the gun against the list of guns reported stolen.

 

For face to face transactions it must not cost the buyer or seller
anything. But for a person buying a gun in the shop's inventory the same
background fees as now.

 

Not sure how you'd do that.  Everything has an associated cost.  If it's a .gov service and you get it "for free" that just means you're shifting the cost to everyone. 

 

For the record, I'm not opposed to the basic idea you're proposing, just playing devil's advocate.

Edited February 5, 2013 by BryanP

[daddyo]

No background checks, period. Anything else is an infringement.

[Romad7]

I have often wondered why they even need to mention any details about the gun that I am buying when they call it in (they call at the store that I use).

I would love to have a system that I could use to check the person that I am selling to without having to use the details of the gun since that is irrelevant to the intent. We are trying to keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them not compile a list of our transactions and what guns we all have.

So, yes, this sounds like a great idea. It would also serve to increase traffic for the gun stores and maybe bring them more sales to offset the free background checks.

[Jonnin]

The only catch I can think of is that right now they also use the instant background check as a chance to check the serial # of the gun against the list of guns reported stolen.

 

 

Not sure how you'd do that.  Everything has an associated cost.  If it's a .gov service and you get it "for free" that just means you're shifting the cost to everyone. 

 

For the record, I'm not opposed to the basic idea you're proposing, just playing devil's advocate.

 

There is NO cost.  Its a 10 second lookup into a database maintained for law enforcement.  Law enforcement is already paid to do this work and maintain servers, from tax dollars.  Charging the users is double dipping. 

[Dolomite_supafly]

still seems like a tax to exercise a right

 

Do we pay a tax on any other enumerated rights?

 

Will background checks stop people such as your brother from getting a gun?

 

What part of what I said what I said regarding tax is different from what goes on now? How about all checks are free?

 

If a criminal is going to be a criminal and sell a gun then there is nothing that can be done. And in those cases prosecute those that are caught and sentence them to stiffer penalties. As it stands right now most criminals serve less than 10% of their original sentence.

 

If a legal, legitimate seller goes to sell a gun and finds out the buyer is a criminal I would hope they would do what is right. I know I would even if it is a face to face transaction. And as it stands right now my brother can buy a gun from anyone here. There is no way for anyone here, other than me, to know my brother cannot own a firearm. So anyone here could conceiveable sell him a firearm.

 

We, as legal gun owners, need to distance ourselves from those who are not legal gun owners.

 

Dolomite

[Wingshooter]

The only catch I can think of is that right now they also use the instant background check as a chance to check the serial # of the gun against the list of guns reported stolen.
 

 
Not sure how you'd do that.  Everything has an associated cost.  If it's a .gov service and you get it "for free" that just means you're shifting the cost to everyone. 
 
For the record, I'm not opposed to the basic idea you're proposing, just playing devil's advocate.

Maybe every FFL receiving a used gun could run the serial # to check the gun's status before it is even offered for sale.

[ShamGlock]

I really like this idea. This is the kind of common sense compromise that will most likely never get talked about though. Sadly, it seems we have been backed  into an all or nothing scenario due to repeated encroachments on the Second Amendment. I wish one of our elected officials had the gumption to stand up and call the gun grabbers out on what they are really saying right now. They are essentially admitting that the 20K gun laws already on the books are ineffectual, and therefore need to be scrapped and re-evaluated as all they are is an infringement on a Constitutional Right with no net positive effect on society.  I wish we could start a movement to push for eradication of all existing gun laws that, by gun grabbers own defacto admission recently, have had no effect in deterring crime or mass murderers. Then we could all start over with true common sense proposals like this. 

[Guest sL1k]

What a lot of us see with putting any system in place is what's the next step? Since this system relies on the honor system for private transfers most of us would comply but what about the ones that don't? The next step would be an EO to keep serial numbers (one already signed to keep the info for 10 years) or legislation to force registration (original legislation did not save that one life we must do more!). I firmly believe that the information searched by all states should be uniform. Some states use only their system some use both. I would be more for a voluntary phone or online check system we could personally use by entering a name + driver license number to run a check if we felt the need.

[hipower]

still seems like a tax to exercise a right

 

Do we pay a tax on any other enumerated rights?

 

Will background checks stop people such as your brother from getting a gun?

 

1  Yes it is.

2  No

3  No

[Wingshooter]

I like the idea. I don't see a legitimate background check as an infringement. "Legitimate" being the key word. If it only checks the person and does not link the person to the firearm, then it's not a back door registration.

[Mike.357]

What part of what I said what I said regarding tax is different from what goes on now? How about all checks are free?

 

If a criminal is going to be a criminal and sell a gun then there is nothing that can be done. And in those cases prosecute those that are caught and sentence them to stiffer penalties. As it stands right now most criminals serve less than 10% of their original sentence.

 

If a legal, legitimate seller goes to sell a gun and finds out the buyer is a criminal I would hope they would do what is right. I know I would even if it is a face to face transaction. And as it stands right now my brother can buy a gun from anyone here. There is no way for anyone here, other than me, to know my brother cannot own a firearm. So anyone here could conceiveable sell him a firearm.

 

We, as legal gun owners, need to distance ourselves from those who are not legal gun owners.

 

Dolomite

 

I don't disagree with not selling to prohibited people.  If I knew or suspected someone was prohibited I would never sell.

 

The tax I mention would be a transfer fee from the gun shop even if a TICS fee was waived.  I am not so sure a gun shop owner would do this for free.  He could not do it for free anyway, it is going to cost him time which is money.

[Dolomite_supafly]

A FFL would not be doing a transfer between individuals, only a background check. There will be no paperwork filled out.

Or perhaps an endorsement on a DL that shows you are allowed to purchase without going through TICs. I know other states allow HCP holders to purchase without doing a background. And by all accounts it works well for everyone involved.

Dolomite

[Romad7]

The DL endorsement would work and could be revoked just as a HCP would be in the event that the person is no longer eligible.

Or they could install a cheap scanner at gun stores that you scan your license and get a go/no-go result. Edited February 5, 2013 by Romad7

[Mike.357]

someone still has to pay for the background check.

 

 Maybe an already active gov't agency could do them, like the sheriff or police as long as associated costs are absorbed without an increase in budget for it?

 

Or they could install a cheap scanner at gun stores that you scan your license and get a go/no-go result.

 

who pays for that?

 

I can get behind HCP holders not going through background checks.

Edited February 5, 2013 by Mike.357

[Dolomite_supafly]

It would not be hard at all to tie your DL information to your background check information. Link the two and when you renew your DL there is an endorsement. And with that endorsement you can walk in and buy ANY firearm without going through a background check. You would still fill out the same paperwork except the FFL would not need to spend 15 minutes uploading your information or 5 minutes making that call. They just verify your information matches the form and that you have the endorsement. Seems like it would be a win for the FFL's.

 

Criminals are going to be criminals but if you look back at all the "mass" shooters they have all had mental issues. The check would be more about keeping the firearms out of those who have proven mental problems.

 

Dolomite

 

 

[Dolomite_supafly]

Even if you do not have a HCP it would allow those with the endorsement to purchase a firearm without reporting the firearm information.

 

Dolomite

[Jonnin]

I don't disagree with not selling to prohibited people.  If I knew or suspected someone was prohibited I would never sell.

 

The tax I mention would be a transfer fee from the gun shop even if a TICS fee was waived.  I am not so sure a gun shop owner would do this for free.  He could not do it for free anyway, it is going to cost him time which is money.

 

Or, doing it free encourages you to go to his store, to buy some ammo, a holster, *something*.  Happens all the time, *most* of my person to person buys have been at a gun store and in almost all of those I have gone inside and bought some things for the new gun (I usually buy, rarely sell). 

 

Sometimes a business has to give a little to gain customers, this would be a great way to get folks in the door.

[Guest PapaB]

Background checks aren't worth much when they only include part of the population. 100's of thousands of individuals are barred from owning firearms at the same time they are barred from being listed in the instant background check system. That means that, although they can't legally own or purchase a firearm, they will pass the background check. I won't support any system that infringes my rights, especially when it was designed to protect certain criminals.

 

See this topic, post 12, for more detail.

 

http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/topic/60201-would-univeral-background-checks-be-constitutional/

Edited February 5, 2013 by PapaB

[Dolomite_supafly]

Then we add them. Those that have a mental defect, as determined by a doctor, that affect judgement and/or have shown to be violent should be added. I am not worried about those who are depressed, have an anxiety disorder or even PTSD unless it has been determined to affect judgement and/or be violent. The single common denominator in all the mass killings have been the mental state of the killer.

 

Just as a criminal, who is a danger to the public, has no expectation of privacy the same should hold true for the mentally ill who are a danger to the public. Once the mentally ill are found to be a threat to society their right to privacy, as it relates to firearm ownership, should be gone. Their mental illness should be made available to those who manage the background check system.

 

Everyone, on both sides, is having a hard time coming up with a solid solution because there isn't one.

 

As much as I hate to say it I would rather have a background, done like I described earlier, than have my guns legislatively neutered. By background I mean done once when you get your ID/DL then again only when you renew your ID/DL and not every time you purchase. This would eliminate a lot of extra work for the FFL's, eliminate the wait we sometimes have to go through as well as the $10 TICs fee every time you have a background done.

 

I realize nothing is going to be perfect and honestly I would love to be able to buy ANY firearm I want without a background check. But the background checks are here to stay so why not do it once every 4 years rather than once every few months. Just from a fiscal standpoint it is good for the gun owner and the FFL.

 

Dolomite

[Oh Shoot]

I have often wondered why they even need to mention any details about the gun that I am buying when they call it in (they call at the store that I use).

 

For one thing, FFLs have to file a separate form for 2 or more handguns bought by same person in a week.

 

TX, AZ, and NM have to also separately report 2 or more semi-auto rifles over .22 in a week.

 

- OS