Non FFL Background Checks

[JWKilgore]

I'm all for keeping firearms out of the hands of felons and the mentally incompetent. Every time some idiot does something stupid with a gun it increases the chances that my 2A rights will be impacted.

 

I would actually agree to background checks for private gun sales...

 -- EXCEPT --

... currently, the only way to conduct a gun-sale background check is to drive to an FFL, pay a fee, and fill out form 4473.

 

As I have recently found out, quite often these forms find their way into the hands of the BATFE. I am not a big conspiracy theorist (no, Obama isn't coming to get mah guns). However, I know several people who have immigrated from countries where confiscations have occurred; they all agree that the first step in eventual confiscation is registration. I will always fight any step toward a national firearm registry.

 

As I understand it, TN has a state-run background check system and doesn't rely on the Federal interface (i.e., they call TICS instead of calling NICS). Currently, the only way to access that system is to have a Federal Firearm License and set up an account. The FFL may either call or use the web for background checks.

 

My question: Why can't they change the TICS system such that any TN resident may access it if they want to?

 

Personally, I would be more than willing to pay a few bucks for the peace-of-mind from knowing the guy I'm selling to isn't a felon or recently escaped from Moccasin Bend; but I have no interest in the trouble of doing the transaction at a gun shop and filling out excessive paperwork. This could be as simple as downloading a smart-phone app which snaps a picture of the bar code on the back of a TN drivers license or HCP and returns a simple "APPROVED" or "DENIED". Or type the DL number into a web interface with the same result. No weapon-identifying information would be included. No form 4473 sitting in a file cabinet to be later transported to the BATFE.

 

The state would actually make more money in background check fees, so no increase in spending. FFL checks are governed by Federal law, so those would still occur at the same frequency. No paper trail, no registry.

 

This wouldn't be mandatory under my proposal; so if you don't care whether than scruffy-looking guy with $500 cash can legally own a gun or not you don't have to use it. But I definitely would.

 

Any thoughts?

Edited July 2, 2014 by JWKilgore

[Oh Shoot]

As I understand it, TN has a state-run background check system and doesn't rely on the Federal interface (i.e., they call TICS instead of calling NICS).

 

TICS does indeed query NICS. It's just an additional overlay. If NICS is down, transfer won't proceed.

 

- OS

[jimic]

i understand if you hold a HCP in Ky there are no requirement for the check . Where all there crazy's ?

[tartanphantom]

 

Any thoughts?

 

Yup. Abolish the unneccesary TICS altogether and go with NICS... like just about every other state.

[JWKilgore]

i understand if you hold a HCP in Ky there are no requirement for the check . Where all there crazy's ?

TN's HCP doesn't satisfy NICS requirements because we don't have an annual renewal/background check. 

 

Yup. Abolish the unneccesary TICS altogether and go with NICS... like just about every other state.

I would be all for that, but getting the federal government to agree to non-FFL access to NICS would be harder than getting the state to agree to access to TICS (fewer people to convince). Getting rid of TICS would save state money, though.

[daddyo]

How do background checks of any kind keep felons and the mentally ill from getting firearms?

[Chucktshoes]

How do background checks of any kind keep felons and the mentally ill from getting firearms?

Simple answer is that they don't.

[Oh Shoot]

TN's HCP doesn't satisfy NICS requirements because we don't have an annual renewal/background check.

 

No, yearly background check is not a requirement.  See 18 USC (t)(3) and 27 CFR (d) for requirements.

 

Pretty sure TN could enact this if they chose to, and indeed a bill did get discussions in committees to do just that two sessions ago.

 

- OS

Edited July 2, 2014 by Oh Shoot

[A.J. Holst]

We need more criminals to legally try to buy firearms from licensed dealers to get the most out of the TICS / NICS system.

 

We need those who are mentally ill, habitual drug users and straw purchasers to be honest when filling out the 4473.

 

Otherwise where's all the fun for guv'mint and media crackdown with all you law-abiding, mentally competent folks buying firearms?

[Guest kingarmory]

My primary issue with the "universal background check" BS that Obongo is pushing for is that it further violates the 10th Amendment.  Private property sold between two residents of the same state is not involved in any sort of interstate commerce and is strictly a state issue, where is the Constitutional authority for the federal gov't to regulate it?  Why then would we voluntarily further erode state sovereignty to try to appease the soccermom crowd?  If a state wants to institute a background check for private party sales, that is their choice, but to try to make this a federal matter will bring more overreach from DC and they will force ALL states to do it.  Much like the gay marriage issue where the activists got the feds involved and now states are being FORCED to allow/recognize gay marriages even if the residents of the state did not vote to approve it.  "Universal background checks" are nothing more than another power grab by the feds to further centralize power away from the states.

[JWKilgore]

How do background checks of any kind keep felons and the mentally ill from getting firearms?

Background checks would keep felons and the mentally ill from getting a firearm from me.

 

 

No, yearly background check is not a requirement.  See 18 USC (t)(3) and 27 CFR (d) for requirements.

 

Pretty sure TN could enact this if they chose to, and indeed a bill did get discussions in committees to do just that two sessions ago.

 

- OS

I was just quoting the TICS FAQ: http://www.tbi.state.tn.us/firearm_check/firearm_faqs.shtml

[mikegideon]

How about we don't cooperate with these gun grabbing assholes in ANY WAY? They don't want background checks on private sales. They want gun ownership by private citizens to be totally eliminated. Their gun control schemes don't work, even in their anti-gun utopias. Piss on 'em.

[Oh Shoot]

Background checks would keep felons and the mentally ill from getting a firearm from me.

 

 

I was just quoting the TICS FAQ: http://www.tbi.state.tn.us/firearm_check/firearm_faqs.shtml

 

Hmmm. I see what you mean, then. Apologies if the comment seemed insulting or anything.

 

"Tennessee's Handgun Carry Permit does not meet the requirements of the federal Brady Bill because it lacks a requirement for an annual re-check of the permit holder's criminal history and it does not require a check through the National Instant Check System (NICS).  Therefore, purchasers holding a valid Tennessee Handgun Carry Permit still have to have a TICS/NICS check performed when purchasing a firearm."

 

 I can find no requirement for the yearly check. Also, to think your HCP app is not vetted through NICS seems absurd. It's sent to FBI for criminal background check, which runs NICS. So what would FBI use if not their own system?

 

Also, our state legislators seem to think that we could enact it if we chose. Not that they're exactly the intelligentsia, but I do believe someone would have checked on that before writing the bill, which included no changes needed in the HCP process.

 

Frankly, I think that entire paragraph is bogus until proven differently. And the reason we can't use HCP for NICS is because we haven't enacted it, as the federal statute requires. Not to mention the fact that the state is not willing to let go of the 10 clams per pop.

 

As always, I'm certainly willing to be wrong -- but I'd like to see some documentation regarding this beyond their statement.

 

- OS

Edited July 2, 2014 by Oh Shoot

[Mongo]

TICS is just accessing the NCIS......in some way it's "money grab" by the state.....The state could can the whole TICS system and dealers could use the ATF's system which is free......but then they'd be losing a. revenue source.......I lived in Nv before moving here and CCW/HCP holders there had to pay for the state check UNTIL the legislators revised the law requiring annual reviews.....once they did that the ATF approved an exemption for Nv CCW holders. ......At $25 a gun a $125 CCW fee for 5 years was a no brainer........

[teecro]

Background checks would keep felons and the mentally ill from getting a firearm from me.

 

But what about knives, axes, cars, gas and sharp poles? Once you open the door saying this is ok then they will move on the next and soon you will be asking the gooberment for permission to take your poop.... 

[eRay]

I would not have a problem with background checks but for the fact that they want the serial number and description of the firearms. This is not checking out purchasers records. This is forming the ground work for a gun registry one day.

[Oh Shoot]

I would not have a problem with background checks but for the fact that they want the serial number and description of the firearms. This is not checking out purchasers records. This is forming the ground work for a gun registry one day.

 

You sent in your records when you closed up shop, right?  Registry is already there. Incomplete, but certainly there.

 

http://www.atf.gov/publications/factsheets/factsheet-national-tracing-center.html

 

- OS

[daddyo]

California had "universal" background checks in place when Elliot Rodger went on his killing spree with a CA compliant firearm and magazines, all bought legally.

Why didn't the so-called "universal" background check system stop him?

Edited July 3, 2014 by daddyo

[45guy]

Why does someone that has been convicted of a felony not have the right to protect themselves and their families?

[daddyo]

Why does someone that has been convicted of a felony not have the right to protect themselves and their families?

 

Didn't they waive that right when they decided to break the law?

[45guy]

Didn't they waive that right when they decided to break the law?

I can understand if the crime was violent but it is not that hard to be charged with a felony these days. There are felony convictions when the person did not even know what they did was a crime.

[daddyo]

I can understand if the crime was violent but it is not that hard to be charged with a felony these days. There are felony convictions when the person did not even know what they did was a crime.

 

Agreed. If our government continues on its current path, it's really only a matter of time before we're all felons.

[A.J. Holst]

45guy, on 03 Jul 2014 - 07:47 AM, said:

I can understand if the crime was violent but it is not that hard to be charged with a felony these days. There are felony convictions when the person did not even know what they did was a crime.

 

Agreed. If our government continues on its current path, it's really only a matter of time before we're all felons.

 

 

Another Atlas Shrugged prophecy???

 

Dr. Floyd Ferris to Hank Reardon, Chapter 3, White Blackmail

 

"Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?"  said Dr. Ferris.

"We WANT them broken. 

You better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against - then you'll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures.

We're after power and we mean it.

You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it.

There's no way to rule innocent men.

The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals.

Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one MAKES them.

One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.

Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens?

What's there in that for anyone?

But just pass the kinds of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt.

Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."

 

copyright 1957

[Clod Stomper]

If I were king of the world, I'd do away with background checks and the 4473.

Then anyone who is legally ineligible to purchase a firearm would have it noted on their driver license or other state ID. Perhaps a different background color. Just like under-21 drivers used to have. (Is that still the case?)

So I go into a gun dealer's shop. I show him my ID, give him my money and walk out with my gun. Almost as if it were 1967.

It's a pipe dream, of course.

[DaveTN]

Why does someone that has been convicted of a felony not have the right to protect themselves and their families?

Because actions have consequences.  
 

I can understand if the crime was violent but it is not that hard to be charged with a felony these days.

They had to draw the line somewhere. It was drawn between Misdemeanor/Felony. Then the FEDS added in misdemeanor domestic violence and many states followed suit.
 

There are felony convictions when the person did not even know what they did was a crime.

How many people do you know that have been convicted of a felony that didn’t know they were committing a crime?