PDA

View Full Version : National nics check for all firearm transfers?


tommyid1
01-26-2011, 11:20 AM
Who would oppose & who is for instant background checks for all transfers sales ppts and why?

Merle
01-26-2011, 11:30 AM
Private property is private. How I dispose of it should not be the governments business.

Don't want a felon or a person convicted of a DV to own a gun? Explain how you're going to prevent ALL felons from owning versus adding another layer of bureaucracy and relive me of more of my money. If they're still a threat, then explain why they can still operate a motor vehicle.

BoxesOfLiberty
01-26-2011, 11:32 AM
I see no reason to think this would accomplish anything other than the addition of even more red tape to an already over-regulated process.

safewaysecurity
01-26-2011, 11:40 AM
If I want to give my friend a gun why should I have to go through a bureaucratic process?

ocspeedracer
01-26-2011, 11:41 AM
Completely against. This would infringe on the more free states too.

stix213
01-26-2011, 11:45 AM
I'd only be in favor if the seller could on their own go on a website or make a phone call. I do not support having to go down to a gun shop.

nicki
01-26-2011, 11:47 AM
Mandatory NICS checks on all gun sales, no.

I do however think that the seller's of guns should be accountable if they sell their guns to prohibited persons.

However, since we now do have a NICS, what is the compelling government interest to prohibit you from buying a gun in a different state?

I think a resident of New York City who is visiting another state should be able to walk in and buy a gun and take it home.

Nicki

gunsmith
01-26-2011, 11:49 AM
OK, but first we gut the first amendment and register computers and printers, and require a background check before you're allowed to post on the internet.

Also, we need a background check for anyone getting a library card.
Y'know, we need background checks for anyone buying a car-far more crimes are committed with cars than guns.

Hell, lets just imprison anyone who wants to keep the gov't out of their life.

tommyid1
01-26-2011, 12:17 PM
My personal opinnion is that sure save for maybe interfamilial stuff there should be a background check. After which you aren't responsible for what happens w said weapon. There should be no regisration for firearms whatsoever after that though. Granted none of this would stop someone like loughner from getting his gun cause he wasn't in the system to begin with. But for my piece of mind id feel better knowing I didn't sell to a prohibited person.

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk

tommyid1
01-26-2011, 12:21 PM
I agree with you niki there is no compelling interest for them to restrict that.

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk

Gray Peterson
01-26-2011, 12:28 PM
Mandatory NICS checks on all gun sales, no.

I do however think that the seller's of guns should be accountable if they sell their guns to prohibited persons.

However, since we now do have a NICS, what is the compelling government interest to prohibit you from buying a gun in a different state?

I think a resident of New York City who is visiting another state should be able to walk in and buy a gun and take it home.

Nicki

Dearth v. Holder.

NytWolf
01-26-2011, 12:29 PM
I am for a national instant check, as long as we do away with the waiting period. Instant check means instant gun in hand.

magsnubby
01-26-2011, 12:33 PM
I see no reason to think this would accomplish anything other than the addition of even more red tape to an already over-regulated process.

What he said.

Cnynrat
01-26-2011, 12:34 PM
I am for a national instant check, as long as we do away with the waiting period. Instant check means instant gun in hand.

I was thinking of something like this as well. I might be OK with it if we also:


Eliminated the 10 day waiting period (maybe only after your first gun purchase)
Make it legal to buy a gun out of state without going through a home state FFL
No background check for intra-family transfers


Something to think about anyway.

M. D. Van Norman
01-26-2011, 12:42 PM
I would only support a voluntary system.

tommyid1
01-26-2011, 12:45 PM
Exactly. Nics check and you get your gun. Right then n there no exceptions. No having to proove residency etc. Go to nv az was ny whatever nics, buy, home in that order

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk

orangevale
01-26-2011, 12:46 PM
Could have sworn we plowed that ground all ready.
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=383523

dantodd
01-26-2011, 12:48 PM
Policy-wise I would prefer no mandatory checks for ppt's but I do think it is probably constitutional. I would rather be literally indemnified by using a b-ground system rather than having liability written into the law.

Pred@tor
01-26-2011, 1:04 PM
not this idea again... Why ask government masters for your goods? These checks do nothing to prevent crime and the law is circumvented all the time. Its stupid. All it is just a feel good measure to make it look like something being done. One with a clean background can just decide to do a heinous crime all the sudden. Oranglevale provided a link to a discussion on this very subject not that long ago. Its a commie bigot idea the Bradies came up with.

xenophobe
01-26-2011, 1:40 PM
I would be for this if it took DOJ mostly out of the loop. Most "free" states use NICS as opposed to their own system. Just saying. :p

trevilli
01-26-2011, 1:40 PM
not this idea again...These checks do nothing to prevent crime and the law is circumvented all the time. Its stupid. All it is just a feel good measure to make it look like something being done.

So tell me your philosophy. If criminals circumvent a law, then that law has no purpose, is that what you are saying? Speeders speed, even though it's illegal. Is having a speed limit on your road a stupid law? Are we "bootlickers" because we can't drive as fast as we want?

I'm asking honestly. I'm not trying to single you out, but I'm getting the impression that you think everyone who doesn't agree with you is a bootlicking, slave who doesn't care about his or her freedom, and I say respectfully that there is middle ground. It isn't quite so black and white.

PsychGuy274
01-26-2011, 2:11 PM
No; simply because it will not reduce crime.

xenophobe
01-26-2011, 4:36 PM
Why is everyone against this?

Instant background check = less reason for a waiting period.

Pred@tor
01-26-2011, 5:14 PM
So tell me your philosophy. If criminals circumvent a law, then that law has no purpose, is that what you are saying? Speeders speed, even though it's illegal. Is having a speed limit on your road a stupid law? Are we "bootlickers" because we can't drive as fast as we want?

I'm asking honestly. I'm not trying to single you out, but I'm getting the impression that you think everyone who doesn't agree with you is a bootlicking, slave who doesn't care about his or her freedom, and I say respectfully that there is middle ground. It isn't quite so black and white.

Vehicles well thats different look at the Autobahn. ;) Then take a gander at Montana. Do we really have to have our hands held all the time? Boo hoo.

Its a useless gun law that don't address the criminal misuse of a gun. Criminalizing an inanimate object is silly because its not until the fact it is used in a criminal fashion that it is a problem.

I do not like registered guns, filling out those stupid forms, nor is it anyone's business of what guns I own or where there at. Whether I want to sell a gun without government intervention or to buy one myself.

The only interest is knowing or getting a background check is to simply class folks as lessors and so their guns can be taken. It serves no purpose to stop crime. Most of the prohibited buyers are people who thought they had their felonies from many years ago expunged not career criminals. Not some dip **** whos gonna do something illegal anyway like murder. Criminals do not fear a background check it do not stop them from getting their guns. Almost anything is a felony these days. To be treated like a criminal for "thought crime" is pointless this aint minority report...

If they cant be trusted with a gun they should be locked up or dead. CCW is a good deterrent to crime. Freedom comes with a price... Criminals have their freedoms obviously while we must bow down to the ATF and ask our masters for our rights to keep and bear arms. This is just an infringement because well it does nothing to curb crime. Criminals will be stopped in their tracks by those who choose to bear arms. Not by wussy *** paper work or a screening.

We didn't have background checks till the 90s and the criminals were getting their guns way before then too.

Why is it that a small minority on this forum wants to roll over and give up their rights? trading their freedom for security? I do not understand it because I value my rights and privacy. Fear of freedom? Or what the so called establishment deems a lessor person by being branded a "felon?"

Why is everyone against this?

Instant background check = less reason for a waiting period.

There are no waiting periods here why do we have to compromise more of our rights away just because its that way out there in California? Dont shove this crap down our throats and you can see a good majority of us do not want it. The cancer needs to stop! Why should we be ****ed because of the ****ed up laws out in California? Sure its only 15minutes and a phone call to buy from a dealer in our "free states" but why must we have to have government agents involved in transactions? Its none of their damned business.

aklover_91
01-26-2011, 5:59 PM
As out there as Predator can be, it's a sapient point.

I believe it's a federal law to run NICS on dealer sales, but many states do not require them on PPT and still do not have a waiting period.

Rather than make everybody suffer to make things a little better here in California, why don't we continue to try to make California like everybody else?

the foot
01-26-2011, 6:26 PM
I read Calguns for comic relief. You guys provide me with a wealth of comedy.

Are you talking about a federal law? Maybe to make everybody as miserable as California gun owners? Background checks? Get out of here. Get right out of here.

Anchors
01-26-2011, 6:54 PM
First of all. There is no fee nationally for the check. Only in CA's DROS process.
When I buy guns in Arizona they slide my ID through a funny looking phone and have a 20 second conversation with someone at the FBI.

And no. Like someone else said, only if people could access online/by phone would I even consider it.
If you could type a DL number in to a website and get a simple "Good to go" or "No go"
And all records from it aren't even saved then I would agree to it I suppose.
But they would have to apply that to gun shop transfers too. No records kept.

Pred@tor
01-26-2011, 7:02 PM
As out there as Predator can be, it's a sapient point.

I believe it's a federal law to run NICS on dealer sales, but many states do not require them on PPT and still do not have a waiting period.

Rather than make everybody suffer to make things a little better here in California, why don't we continue to try to make California like everybody else?


I could careless if what I think is out there. I'm sick with a cold but yeah it ticks me off that my fellow gun owners want to screw us over. I escaped the hell...

Yes its true we have federal NICS at FFLs but other wise its just face to face.

Keep working at trying to make California a better place is a great idea.

gunsmith
01-26-2011, 8:43 PM
its a GIGANTIC ATTACK on gunshows, which is a GIGANTIC ATTACK on free speech.
That's why they call it the gun show loophole. Really its the freedom loophole, here in NV ppl can sell a gun without the gov't sticking its nose in yer biz. If you WANT TO you can call the brady unit ( funny name huh? wonder where they got that from, huh?) & get an instant check-its only voluntary not needed to be legal.

Gun shows are also 1st amendment protected-we gather together to TALK and give each other POLITICAL INFO ( freedom of assembly ) the freaking bradies and their fascist ilk hate gun shows for more then just guns, they hate that we communicate with our fellow gunnies who are not on calguns and other forums.

Anybody who supports mandatory checks on ppt's is supporting a GIGANTIC ATTACK on the Bill Of Rights . It's not the freaking Bill Of NEEDS!!! ...

N6ATF
01-26-2011, 8:57 PM
What happens when NICS continually crashes, shows false positives like the no-fly list, or god forbid, is tampered with in order to deny specific libertarians and constitutionalists? Time to pay the piper.

dustoff31
01-26-2011, 9:21 PM
Mandatory NICS checks on all gun sales, no.

I do however think that the seller's of guns should be accountable if they sell their guns to prohibited persons.

Nicki


I understand what you are saying, but how would that work? I'm responsible for who I sell to, but can't require them to undergo a background check?

If you're selling to a someone you know personally, and know not to be prohibited, that's fine. Otherwise, I should think that it would have a rather chilling effect on private sales.

To tell you the truth, of all the current threats to the 2A, I believe that mandatory background checks is the one most likely to become reality. Even with a Republican majority.

Dreaded Claymore
01-26-2011, 10:14 PM
I am for a national instant check, as long as we do away with the waiting period. Instant check means instant gun in hand.

I was thinking of something like this as well. I might be OK with it if we also:


Eliminated the 10 day waiting period (maybe only after your first gun purchase)
Make it legal to buy a gun out of state without going through a home state FFL
No background check for intra-family transfers


Something to think about anyway.

I like this.

xenophobe
01-26-2011, 11:06 PM
As out there as Predator can be, it's a sapient point.

I believe it's a federal law to run NICS on dealer sales, but many states do not require them on PPT and still do not have a waiting period.

Rather than make everybody suffer to make things a little better here in California, why don't we continue to try to make California like everybody else?

And I didn't make the suggestion that other states should have to. I think my stating that taking DOJ out of the loop would be good for us. Our waiting period was reduced once... if we went to a NICS check maybe we could get it done again.

Admittedly, I didn't put my comments in context nationally. I meant this as a state thing, hence my previous comment about taking DOJ out of the loop.

This is CalGuns.... California. As in, our state where we reside.

Apparently he didn't get that memo.

BTW, no reason for a backwoods neanderthal to curse me out for his failure to read my posts. :p

aklover_91
01-26-2011, 11:37 PM
And I didn't make the suggestion that other states should have to. I think my stating that taking DOJ out of the loop would be good for us. Our waiting period was reduced once... if we went to a NICS check maybe we could get it done again.

Admittedly, I didn't put my comments in context nationally. I meant this as a state thing, hence my previous comment about taking DOJ out of the loop.

This is CalGuns.... California. As in, our state where we reside.

Apparently he didn't get that memo.

BTW, no reason for a backwoods neanderthal to curse me out for his failure to read my posts. :p

The OP is worded rather poorly, and it seems we weren't the only two who took it to mean at the national level. As it is in california we're already required to do a PPT at a dealer, so it would seem redundant if that's not what the OP meant.

No need for name calling.

Pred@tor
01-27-2011, 1:13 AM
Yeah missed that post above all I saw was the one I quoted.

xenophobe
01-27-2011, 1:16 AM
No need for name calling.

And no need to be ****ing cursed out for having a mother ****ing opinion either. :rolleyes:

Yeah missed that post above all I saw was the one I quoted.

Yeah, and I probably should have worded it better... but here in California we don't use NICS. The DOJ has their own background check, one that isn't instant... so they 'need a week while you wait' for them to process it. If we could eliminate the DROS background check with NICS, they would have no valid reason for making us wait so long.

pitchbaby
01-27-2011, 1:18 AM
NICS checks for everything is another step closer to National Registry.

Pred@tor
01-27-2011, 1:26 AM
And no need to be ****ing cursed out for having a mother ****ing opinion either. :rolleyes:



Yeah, and I probably should have worded it better... but here in California we don't use NICS. The DOJ has their own background check, one that isn't instant... so they 'need a week while you wait' for them to process it. If we could eliminate the DROS background check with NICS, they would have no valid reason for making us wait so long.

The OP should explain his post a little better too...

I got worked up for nothing sorry... Im a dick when I do not feel good too been avoiding people all day.

I know about DROS and all though I bought my first pistol in California when I lived out there. So much red tape didn't wanna make me buy a gun from a California dealer again. I never felt so violated...

Omil
01-27-2011, 1:36 AM
1st time buyers = 10days wait, after that just instant BG's = WIN/WIN!

xenophobe
01-27-2011, 1:42 AM
The OP should explain his post a little better too...

I got worked up for nothing sorry... Im a dick when I do not feel good too been avoiding people all day.

lol no worries. Me too. Nice to meet you. :D



I know about DROS and all though I bought my first pistol in California when I lived out there. So much red tape didn't wanna make me buy a gun from a California dealer again. I never felt so violated...

Yeah, it sucks. I'm 'that guy' that thinks if you can pass an instant Federal background check you should be able to buy a MG/SBR/AOW/DD/silencer/etc... and leave with it that same day.

Pred@tor
01-27-2011, 2:16 AM
lol no worries. Me too. Nice to meet you. :D





Yeah, it sucks. I'm 'that guy' that thinks if you can pass an instant Federal background check you should be able to buy a MG/SBR/AOW/DD/silencer/etc... and leave with it that same day.

I'd like to be able to do that... I got scanned for my CCW. I am willing to get the cool stuff out here eventually when I have the money.

Liberty1
01-27-2011, 4:13 AM
NICS prevents criminals from getting firearms? RIIIIIIIGGGGGGGHHHHHHT...

tommyid1
01-27-2011, 9:02 AM
I've never sold a gun via ppt just bought. But for me since nics is done on everything bought new from a dealer anyways it doesn't make sense why its not done for ppts. Someone mentally ill or with a hx of dom violence could just go and get whatever they want used as long as someone is willing to sell to them. How are you to know that that person is sound. Can the gubment come back and get ya for selling to a prohibited person?

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk

YubaRiver
01-27-2011, 9:09 AM
Voluntary only. No fee. Info not a bad thing.

Mandatory - no. Don't need for opportunities for abuse.

gunsmith
01-27-2011, 9:46 AM
this is also "class warfare" against rural people, I do not even have cell phone reception where I live, a 2 hour drive to go shopping ( 300 plus round trip ) 2 hours back. I live off grid in the wilderness, so under stupid unconstitutional bizarre useless regulations proposed by people 3000 miles away from me - I cant buy my neighbors .22 to shoot jackrabbits eating my vegetables?? Go jump in a lake. Not only is this an attack on the Bill Of Rights, it is an attack on poor rural people. ... like your other sick regulations it will be ignored and then when some poor schmo gets arrested he will resist and the anti's will have more ammo to regulate freedom. if you are for mandatory background checks you're swallowing brady propaganda.

freaking useful idiots

gunsmith
01-27-2011, 9:52 AM
I've never sold a gun via ppt just bought. But for me since nics is done on everything bought new from a dealer anyways it doesn't make sense why its not done for ppts. Someone mentally ill or with a hx of dom violence could just go and get whatever they want used as long as someone is willing to sell to them. How are you to know that that person is sound. Can the gubment come back and get ya for selling to a prohibited person?

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk

Some ppl have genitalia, if you are crazy and violent you can sexually abuse children. therefore everyone with genitalia needs a background check, starting with tommyid1 and everyone who supports mandatory fascism

gunsmith
01-27-2011, 9:58 AM
Someone mentally ill or with a hx of dom violence could just go and get whatever they want used as long as someone is willing to sell to them. How are you to know that that person is sound.

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk

right, because violent criminals are always stopped by vile stupid laws.
& how are to know someone is sound??? WE DON'T!! We don't know if todays sound person will be a sound person tomorrow, a FREAKING COP in AZ is under arrest for MULTIPLE RAPES.


Freedom is dangerous, I don't think you're capable of handling it, perhaps you should try North Korea, I hear "crazy people" are not allowed to own guns over there, you'll be safe in N.K I promise.

formerTexan
01-27-2011, 9:59 AM
If someone is prohibited from owning firearms, then they are already breaking the law by simply acquiring one now. Another law/rule is not going to stop them. Stop trying to appease the antis, and instead fight to bring California inline with the rest of the country.

Apocalypsenerd
01-27-2011, 10:05 AM
I would support a NICS system that allowed a person to be checked on the spot, but that did not record the amount, type, or serial numbers of weapons being purchased.

gunsmith
01-27-2011, 10:07 AM
I would support a NICS system that allowed a person to be checked on the spot, but that did not record the amount, type, or serial numbers of weapons being purchased.

I would support you never being allowed to own a gun for advocating class warfare

Sgt Raven
01-27-2011, 10:23 AM
lol no worries. Me too. Nice to meet you. :D





Yeah, it sucks. I'm 'that guy' that thinks if you can pass an instant Federal background check you should be able to buy a MG/SBR/AOW/DD/silencer/etc... and leave with it that same day.

Yep, I'd even pay the $200.00 tax, but shouldn't have to wait for BATFE to mail the stamp. I don't have to wait for CaDMV to send me my plates to take my new car home. :p

tommyid1
01-27-2011, 11:46 AM
So how am I to be sure I'm not selling a gun to someone with mental illness. Could someone be held responsikble if something happened
As someone already said if you were able to completely indemnify yourself id do it. Like someone said go online or look it up etc would be nice
Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk

gunsmith
01-27-2011, 1:12 PM
So how am I to be sure I'm not selling a gun to someone with mental illness.


YOU CANT!! That's why freedom is dangerous.

A cop in AZ passed all the psych test,passed all the background checks yet he raped a bunch of women. You cant be sure that someone doesn't or wont develop mental illness.


are you reading the replies to your insipid questions?

dustoff31
01-27-2011, 1:34 PM
And no need to be ****ing cursed out for having a mother ****ing opinion either. :rolleyes:



Yeah, and I probably should have worded it better... but here in California we don't use NICS. The DOJ has their own background check, one that isn't instant... so they 'need a week while you wait' for them to process it. If we could eliminate the DROS background check with NICS, they would have no valid reason for making us wait so long.

Actually, you do use NICS. Or rather DOJ does. They must make the call, it's mandated by federal law. So they know the answer as to whether one is prohibited or not in a matter of minutes.

They use the rest of the time to see if you have parking tickets, an expired DL, or whatever other nonsense they look into.

xenophobe
01-27-2011, 2:52 PM
Yep, I'd even pay the $200.00 tax, but shouldn't have to wait for BATFE to mail the stamp. I don't have to wait for CaDMV to send me my plates to take my new car home. :p

Agreed.


Actually, you do use NICS. Or rather DOJ does. They must make the call, it's mandated by federal law. So they know the answer as to whether one is prohibited or not in a matter of minutes.

They use the rest of the time to see if you have parking tickets, an expired DL, or whatever other nonsense they look into.

My point was letting dealers use NICS directly as opposed to letting DOJ take their sweet time... hence my whole 'taking DOJ out of the loop' comment I made twice.

bigstick61
01-27-2011, 3:12 PM
No. I don't even support the current mandated NCIS checks.