Informal Poll on Background Check Ideas

[Dashman010]

So, amid the absolute grid-lock in Congress over anything gun-rights related, I figured I'd throw this out there and just get INGunOwners' thoughts:

What if the legislation to expand background checks had the following caveats:

1. All transfers at gun shows should require a background check. For this to practically occur, one of two things has to happen. Either (1) the ATF must provide a way to perform background checks for private sellers via a booth or automatic system, or (2) there must be a fairly low cap on the amount of money a Federal Firearms Licensee can charge a person to run a background check–say $10.
2. Transfers between family members are exempt, subject to the already existing rule that you cannot give a gun to someone you know is disqualified from having one, like a felon.
3. People who have obtained a license to carry a handgun or concealed carry license in their state, so long as the process to receive the license requires a federal background check, are exempt if they are receiving the firearm and their license is still valid. This is actually what I do when I sell a firearm: I require a buyer to show me their Indiana License to Carry a Handgun.
4. People are allowed to transfer their firearm to other people they are acquainted with for the purpose of borrowing the firearm. I don’t know how to write this language into law, but this is a must-have exemption.
5. All other transfers are required to go through the NICS background check system, again with a cap on the amount an FFL can charge to do the transfer. $10 seems non-intrusive and will compensate the FFL for their time.

Would you support this type of background check system? My full blog post, where I posited this idea, is here: A Middle Ground on Background Checks | THE DAILY BRAIN TRUST

I wrote it in response to the many people I know who want some middle ground, w/o trampling on the rights of gun-owners.

Warm up the popcorn....

 

[baddyna96]

I would agree to this language.

 

[japartridge]

I say leave it the way it is, but add the option of allowing private citizens to run a buyer through a check. It's my damn property, I should be able to sell it to damn near anyone I want! You can sell a car to a drunk, what is the difference?

The government has no place in personal property sales.


Government regulations are not the answer! Less government, more personal responsibility is the answer!

 

[Scutter01]

NO MORE COMPROMISES. I will not concede another inch. NOT ONE.

 

[Dashman010]

I say leave it the way it is, but add the option of allowing private citizens to run a buyer through a check. It's my damn property, I should be able to sell it to damn near anyone I want! You can sell a car to a drunk, what is the difference?

The government has no place in personal property sales.


Government regulations are not the answer! Less government, more personal responsibility is the answer!

Well, you do have the option to run a person through NICS, you just got to an FFL and they will do it for a fee. But more to the point, do you feel some responsibility to ensure you're not selling you're gun to a bad person? A felon? A rapist?

To your statement, you can sell a car to a drunk, but if I had a way to check and see if they were a drunk, and confirmed they were, I probably wouldn't do it.

 

[Taylorz71]

We have compromised (LOST) to much already.

 

[Sylvain]

NO MORE COMPROMISES. I will not concede another inch. NOT ONE.

There are already too many gun laws, we need to remove some, not add more.

 

[Scutter01]

We have compromised (LOST) to much already.

It's not a compromise if the other side never gives anything up. We should be forcing THEM to "compromise" by giving us back what they have stolen, but I will not give them another inch.

 

[japartridge]

Well, you do have the option to run a person through NICS, you just got to an FFL and they will do it for a fee. But more to the point, do you feel some responsibility to ensure you're not selling you're gun to a bad person? A felon? A rapist?

To your statement, you can sell a car to a drunk, but if I had a way to check and see if they were a drunk, and confirmed they were, I probably wouldn't do it.

That was my point, give me as a private citizen access to the Check, I shouldn't have to pay to sell! As an FYI any private sales I have done, I have required to see a valid LTCH and ID. So calm down, none of the 3 or 4 weapons I have sold were sold to felons. Read the rest of my post... personal responsibility That is the key term.

 

[baddyna96]

What do you think about this:

A renewable license, similar to a drivers license, renewable ever two years. Must be presented to the seller upon sale of a firearm, ammunition or magazines whether a dealer or private party.

 

[eldirector]

Thanks, but no.

What again are the gun-grabbers giving up in your scenario?
1 = A gain for the gun grabbers, and a loss for us.
2 = No change either way
3 = A gain for gun grabbers, and a loss for us.
4 = No change either way
5 = No change for gun grabbers, a loss for some FFLs, and a loss for us

How about:
- No Background checks required by law
- Background checks available through a dealer volintarily
- No more NFA list
- No more "safe school zone" Federal law

Let's take THAT position, and let the grabbers compromise.

 

[Sylvain]

What do you think about this:

A renewable license, similar to a drivers license, renewable ever two years. Must be presented to the seller upon sale of a firearm, ammunition or magazines whether a dealer or private party.

Why would you want more restrictions on your rights?

No wonder we might get some new BS laws since it looks like people actually want them.

 

[japartridge]

What do you think about this:

A renewable license, similar to a drivers license, renewable ever two years. Must be presented to the seller upon sale of a firearm, ammunition or magazines whether a dealer or private party.

NO, absolutly not! why should [STRIKE]I[/STRIKE] any of us have to pay to be able to buy what is constitutionally protected? How about this every 2 years you have to pay a fee to be able to exercise free speech? Doesn't sound so reasonable now does it?

How about we enforce the laws we have now, and eliminate those in office who forced FFL's to sell to known felons?

 

[Scutter01]

What do you think about this:

A renewable license, similar to a drivers license, renewable ever two years. Must be presented to the seller upon sale of a firearm, ammunition or magazines whether a dealer or private party.

So, you want me to give up my lifetime license AND ALSO now I have to present a license to someone every time I want to buy? And I get nothing in return for this little infringement plan of yours? I'm going to go ahead and say "NO MORE COMPROMISES".

Why do you keep looking for ways to hand my Rights away?

 

[Hornett]

But more to the point, do you feel some responsibility to ensure you're not selling you're gun to a bad person? A felon? A rapist?

Shame on you.
That is just inflammatory.
Of course, no one on here wants to sell a gun to a felon.
That's why most of us will look at the buyers LTCH and Drivers license.
If they have a LTCH, they are good to go.
Because you can't get one of those if you're a felon.

In other words we can, with assurance, know that we are selling to a proper person.
Even a stranger.
AND Without adding the transaction to some list somewhere that will be used for confiscation in the future.
The OP is a ridiculous compromise that is just really a cave in to the demands of the left.

I'm not a felon.
Why should I have to endure a background check every single time I buy a gun.
Whose business is it if I have 3, or 12, or 30 handguns?
As long as I stay out of trouble, I should have the freedom to buy and sell what I want.
When I want.
To whomever I want, whether they are family or not.

Get ready for a shocker...
It's illegal for me to sell a gun to a felon.
Right now.
Without changing a single law.
Already on the books.

 

[kludge]

It's not a compromise if the other side never gives anything up. We should be forcing THEM to "compromise" by giving us back what they have stolen, but I will not give them another inch.

 

[Dashman010]

Shame on you.
That is just inflammatory.
Of course, no one on here wants to sell a gun to a felon.
That's why most of us will look at the buyers LTCH and Drivers license.
If they have a LTCH, they are good to go.
Because you can't get one of those if you're a felon.

In other words we can, with assurance, know that we are selling to a proper person.
Even a stranger.
AND Without adding the transaction to some list somewhere that will be used for confiscation in the future.
The OP is a ridiculous compromise that is just really a cave in to the demands of the left.

I'm not a felon.
Why should I have to endure a background check every single time I buy a gun.
Whose business is it if I have 3, or 12, or 30 handguns?
As long as I stay out of trouble, I should have the freedom to buy and sell what I want.
When I want.
Whether they are family or not.

I guess that's the point. You wouldn't have to go through a background check. Neither would 99% of gun owners on this forum who have an LTCH. If I want to sell a gun to you: Done. You to me: Done. But I guess I just don't have a concern with being required, as opposed to being advisable, to see a person's LTCH or get a check on them. If they have an LTCH, no records are exchanged so there is no gun ban fear. But if I ask, and the person's answer is "yeah I don't have an LTCH," at least as it relates to a handgun, I want (and I think most people would want) to have that person checked to make sure they're legit.

And I don't think my rapist etc. comment is inflammatory, it's just real. I really don't want to sell to someone, and I don't want anybody else selling to someone, who represents a serious risk to society. While I think most of us can agree that (at least it seems) that we check LTCHs for people to make sure we're all law abiding, some people aren't that concerned. They just don't care. But for all of our sake, I think we should care whose hands guns fall into, so long as the standards are reasonable.

 

[AlphaSig112]

I do not find fault with the limited scope that you have provided for this addition to the current back ground check for one reason. This would not affect me at all. I do not buy guns at gun shows and have yet to find anything another gun owner has that I want. Where this falls apart is in light of recent events we have learned that most people that use guns illegally will not pass a background check anyway and therefore do not submit to them.

The Newtown shooter was denied the right to buy a gun. The system worked. Go us.

Now I have come to the realization, through an argument had last weekend with a very liberal college roommate, that there is no point in trying to compromise here. As I have learned, the more I agreed to the more they asked for. At first I said gun show background checks are important. Then they said there should be registration like for cars on guns. I said no. TO further the conversation I said "what if I agreed with you". They said then we would know who had what and where to go looking for it if we needed to. End of conversation.

I will not entertain many of these ideas anymore. We are in the right no matter what brush is used to paint us as bad. The only thing being compromised here is our freedoms and I see no reason to go further. I have the absolute right to own firearms for defense and training as per the second amendment. This right has already been infringed upon by the massive liberal movement. Most of my college educators through the general education programs (sociology among others) taught me that no matter how bad an idea is, how impossible a law to enforce, how impossible an ideology to live, if they want it you must want it and if you don't agree your chances for a good grade will suffer. I never agreed and had to work twice as hard to do well until I got into the business school. Never had the problem again.

The point is this. No matter what the compromise is today even if they got everything they say they want this time. Next time they will take what they can and claim we are being unreasonable by resisting. I am going to set this straight now. I am a rational person so prove to me that your plan will change something. If you can not it is not a plan I will submit to. I will not be unreasonable until you show me no consideration. The liberals think it is funny to say all I have is my guns, fishing, and religion. I wish I could say the same about them. I am proud to have all three of those things and they had best be left alone or you will find an anger awakening in the heartland of America.

 

[Classic]

NO!

Why in he** do gun owners keep making "compromise" proposals that are essentially win-lose propositions with the "left" winning and gun owners suffering differing increments of loss?

There is no "gridlock" at this point and if there was I would be OK with it because that would mean no more government regulation of our lives.

Please stop talking "compromise" before we lose more of our rights. Rights should not be traded away.

 

[Dashman010]

Also, I never said this was a "compromise." I'm just trying to find a solution to keep guns out of the wrong hands, while allowing normal people to be affected as little as possible. I would think this would be a common goal of all sides. Not a give and take. But something to strive for.