PDA

View Full Version : Gun Show Loopholes


cmacjvan
01-03-2013, 7:44 PM
What are gun show loopholes? Are they possible in Kalifornia?

5thgen4runner
01-03-2013, 7:47 PM
That's a bs made up phrase along with "assault rifle".

morrcarr67
01-03-2013, 7:47 PM
Gun show loopholes is a made up political phase.

stix213
01-03-2013, 7:49 PM
What the "gun show loophole" refers to is the private sale of your own property not having to go through an FFL like a new gun sale, in most states. Sometimes people sell their private property at gun shows, so to confuse the public they refer to these private sales as the "gun show loophole" even though the issue they are targeting has little to do with gun shows and by definition is not a loophole. It is just another term brought to you by the same liars as "assault clip," "shoulder thing that goes up," "spray fire from the hip," etc.

The anti-gunners have succeeded it making it illegal to sell your private property in this state without paying a fee to process the transaction through a government agent, so there is no "gun show loophole" in CA.

SuperSet
01-03-2013, 7:53 PM
In other states, you are free to buy and sell your firearms without going through the NICS background check to other individuals. You still have to do a NICS background check if buying from a dealer.
Seven states, including California, require a background check for all purchases.

donny douchebag
01-03-2013, 8:01 PM
OP: In other words in most states anyone can buy a gun from anyone else in moments as long as they have some form of payment acceptable to the seller. Anyone. I don't know which is more amazing: that or those short-sighted people who feel it's the way things should be.

5thgen4runner
01-03-2013, 8:10 PM
OP: I don't know which is more amazing: that or those short-sighted people who feel it's the way things should be.

Please elaborate.

M14 Junkie
01-03-2013, 8:13 PM
In other states, you are free to buy and sell your firearms without going through the NICS background check to other individuals.

Just curious....do most people here think that this is a good policy, or bad?

I'll go ahead and offer my opinion since I asked you. I think that it is stupid, and should made illegal.

Nobody should be able to buy a firearm without the check being done.

5thgen4runner
01-03-2013, 8:16 PM
Just curious....do most people here think that this is a good policy, or bad?

I'll go ahead and offer my opinion since I asked you. I think that it is stupid, and should made illegal.

Nobody should be able to buy a firearm without the check being done.

Yes because a criminal looking to murder someone is going to obtain a weapon the legal way. Let me guess you feel that gun free zones are a good thing...

ssaction
01-03-2013, 8:17 PM
Just curious....do most people here think that this is a good policy, or bad?

I'll go ahead and offer my opinion since I asked you. I think that it is stupid, and should made illegal.

Nobody should be able to buy a firearm without the check being done.

I agree. Residents of all states should go thru the same hell we do.

Goop
01-03-2013, 8:24 PM
Gun show loop hole does not really impact California. It refers to the other states where you do not need to do background checks in order for Person to Person transfers. In California you already do.

tcrpe
01-03-2013, 8:28 PM
Let me guess you feel that gun free zones are a good thing...

Not for the students . . . . .

SuperSet
01-03-2013, 8:29 PM
Just curious....do most people here think that this is a good policy, or bad?

I'll go ahead and offer my opinion since I asked you. I think that it is stupid, and should made illegal.

Nobody should be able to buy a firearm without the check being done.

An instant NICS background check would serve as the primary check against prohibited persons such as felons or the mentally unstable obtaining a firearm through legal purchasing. It is not foolproof but is supported by many, including myself.

M14 Junkie
01-03-2013, 8:34 PM
Yes because a criminal looking to murder someone is going to obtain a weapon the legal way. Let me guess you feel that gun free zones are a good thing...

No man, you are completely wrong. I don't agree with the so called "gun free" zones. It's a silly law.

I don't want another AWB, I don't want a ban on ammunition sales...I don't want any of that ****!

I DO think that IF you cannot pass a "background check" you should not be able to buy a gun-from anyone.

Do I think that is going to stop a "criminal" from getting his hands on a gun?

No, but it may make it more difficult, and would possibly identify someone who has been adjudicated as "mentally ill" and disqualify them from getting one.

Or, don't you think that is a good idea?

I'll just add that, when you use sarcasm and derision in response to a serious question posed about this issue, it makes you look like the buffoon that the anti's think that we all are.

SickofSoCal
01-03-2013, 8:38 PM
What are gun show loopholes? Are they possible in Kalifornia?

Not sure what some of these other posters are getting at, but......

In this state, cash and carry (non handgun) 50-year old+ C&R's. I least that's what I have always thought they meant by "gun show loophole."


In so-called "free states," cash and carry "assault weapons." For instance, last summer in a "free state" a friend of mine bought this fine firearm at a gun show. No background check. No waiting period. No taxes. No paperwork. The horrors!

Just.......Oggle. Cash. Carry. Oggle again. Drive away. Fire. And, in that order, all in one afternoon in 2012 America. Heck, we could even drive around with it loaded.

Those days my friend, are almost over. Another slice of Americana, gone forever. With 315 million of us, it was bound to turn out this way, of this, I am certain.


http://s1.postimage.org/9yf4lp4an/IMG_1640.jpg

H Paul Payne
01-03-2013, 8:39 PM
Just curious....do most people here think that this is a good policy, or bad?

I'll go ahead and offer my opinion since I asked you. I think that it is stupid, and should made illegal.

Nobody should be able to buy a firearm without the check being done.

FYI, In most of A M E R I C A, as opposed to CALIFORNIA and maybe a few other places, law-abiding citizens are free to buy/sell their private property WITHOUT over-burdensome government interference.

Paul

manuelcardenas77
01-03-2013, 8:43 PM
So sounds like some of you guys are ok, with no background checks? Oh I get it so you can say your free... Oh loop holes are just made up... Please

5thgen4runner
01-03-2013, 8:44 PM
No man, you are completely wrong. I don't agree with the so called "gun free" zones. It's a silly law.

I don't want another AWB, I don't want a ban on ammunition sales...I don't want any of that ****!

I DO think that IF you cannot pass a "background check" you should not be able to buy a gun-from anyone.

Do I think that is going to stop a "criminal" from getting his hands on a gun?

No, but it may make it more difficult, and would possibly identify someone who has been adjudicated as "mentally ill" and disqualify them from getting one.

Or, don't you think that is a good idea?

I'll just add that, when you use sarcasm and derision in response to a serious question posed about this issue, it makes you look like the buffoon that the anti's think that we all are.

The fact still remains, a new law requiring this or that will not detour or out anyone willing to commit a crime.

The Buffoon is the person believing a law, ban, or requirement will stop any crime from happening, and it is exactly what the antis want you to believe.

SickofSoCal
01-03-2013, 8:45 PM
Just curious....do most people here think that this is a good policy, or bad?

I'll go ahead and offer my opinion since I asked you. I think that it is stupid, and should made illegal.

Nobody should be able to buy a firearm without the check being done.

Guess what pal? It's been done tens of millions of times, all over the country, for decades.

In the New America, obviously we cannot have such nonsense. The New America just breeds additional irresponsibility with each passing year.

Real Freedom & Liberty are dangerous. It can scare and frighten many so-called rational adults even. That being said, I still heartily prefer it to "ordered" Socialism. Why are we trying so hard to standardize the world anyhow? Celebrate diversity!


"I prefer the tumult of liberty, to the quiet of servitude." - Thomas Jefferson

5thgen4runner
01-03-2013, 9:31 PM
Debate?.....What debate? Where's the debate? Tell me where I can find it.

The people who think like you (which are many here) don't allow for a debate on ANYTHING concerning gun laws.

You are unwilling to expand your thoughts to consider that anything opposed to your way of thinking just might be a good idea.

You are like talking to a wall.

Ok then what do you suggest? What would make a difference? More laws? More restrictions? More government?

I'm listening, we are listening.

tcrpe
01-03-2013, 9:43 PM
Ok then what do you suggest? What would make a difference? More laws? More restrictions? More government?

I'm listening, we are listening.

Box up the crazies and the criminals, they just don't play well with others. Make the entire staff at these government schools into mandated reporters, and give them the behavioral standards to move these anti-social psychos into the prohibited column early on. Provide additional processes to get off of that list if you must. There are millions of ticking time bombs out there.

That's just one suggestion.

Here's another:

If one has ever drawn public benefits SSI, SDI, SS, etc., for mental conditions, move him onto the prohibited roll. There are several million in that category alone.

I've posted two others in the last month.

No sense in outlawing self-defense for functioning adults.

tozan
01-03-2013, 9:48 PM
Debate?.....What debate? Where's the debate? Tell me where I can find it.

The people who think like you (which are many here) don't allow for a debate on ANYTHING concerning gun laws.

You are unwilling to expand your thoughts to consider that anything opposed to your way of thinking just might be a good idea.

You are like talking to a wall.

As stated above only SEVEN states mandated a NCIS check on every person who buys a firearm. and interestingly those SEVEN states have the higher crime rates then the other FORTY-THREE states that DO NOT require an NCIS check for every purchase... I would say the NCIS check OBVIOUSLY IS NOT WORKING in California or those other states and if it is ineffective then it is ignorant to do so...

So it is best if this stupidity stays inside the borders of those states with the highest crime rates... Because in free states like Florida where I live part time we do not want stupid laws and higher crime rates...

5thgen4runner
01-03-2013, 9:50 PM
Box up the crazies and the criminals, they just don't play well with others. Make the entire staff at these government schools into mandated reporters, and give them the behavioral standards to move these anti-social psychos into the prohibited column early on. Provide additional processes to get off of that list if you must. There are millions of ticking time bombs out there.

That's just one suggestion.

Here's another:

If one has ever drawn public benefits SSI, SDI, SS, etc., for mental conditions, move him onto the prohibited roll. There are several million in that category alone.

I've posted two others in the last month.

No sense in outlawing self-defense for functioning adults.

100% agree. A real solution to the crazies, without infringing on 2a, self defense, and normal citizens.

IVC
01-03-2013, 9:52 PM
A type of "background check" is already performed even in free states. The seller will verify the ID to ensure he is selling to another resident of the same state, since selling to an out of state person is a federal crime (with some exceptions, I believe).

Adding a background check for private property has three inherent problems:
(1) Intra-state commerce is not regulated by federal government unless it's a controlled item. Antis would *love* to make all firearms controlled items like drugs.
(2) The PPT background check system where implemented is always linked to a registry, the kind that could be used for confiscation. One of the big problems with any AWB that our dear leaders want to implement where they would outlaw *possession* is that they don't know who owns those firearms, which is the way it should be precisely for the reason they want to have it.
(3) The PPT background check has a very convenient "side effect" that antis love, which is reducing commerce by forcing people to meet at prespecified locations.

An acceptable quick background check would be performed: (1) on the spot by the seller, e.g., over an internet connection, where the buyer enters his data to validate request and seller verifies it matches the ID, (2) doesn't create a permanent record of transaction in a government database, just a receipt for the seller/buyer, and (3) is not forced on the states through the "commerce clause".

Now, antis *really* don't want this type of background check since it takes their talking point away, while not achieving their main three goals. Wouldn't it be reasonable to have background checks to protect buyers/sellers (not create registries), have it be most convenient for the buyers/sellers (not impede commerce) and be free of charge? All antis have to do is agree to something that is *actually* reasonable...

NiteQwill
01-03-2013, 9:53 PM
Some folks in this thread have either:

a. Lived in California their entire life
b. Been in California too long
c. Never lived in a free state

Possession and sale of private property should not need any government intervention to proceed with such sale.

LoneYote
01-03-2013, 9:58 PM
M14 as a point I believe the selling of firearms to someone you know or should reasonably know is prohibited is a crime. So basically, there is no loophole as it is a crime and by selling to them you are committing one. The only legislation that should be added would be to enforce reporting to NICS (government laziness or conflicting ideals) and perhaps opening a civilian portal to access the system to run data(although this is very open to abuse).

bohoki
01-03-2013, 10:00 PM
the gun show loophole is the able to sell ones property to another party its basically the "everywhere loophole" but gunshows get the blame

tozan
01-03-2013, 10:04 PM
IVC, I understand your reasoning there but if you implemented a personal background check it would be easy for the state to assume a firearm was purchased and they will again have a tracking system in place. It would also violate personal information that could be obtained by anyone for any reason... But if we get back to the truth of the matter criminals and crazy people will still get guns if they want them so it will have no measurable effect on reducing crime...

Stupid and ineffective laws should not exist period...

Capybara
01-03-2013, 10:08 PM
When you buy an SKS here in a F2F CC transaction, how is that any different other than the gun is older?

Capybara
01-03-2013, 10:08 PM
When you buy an SKS here in a F2F CC transaction, how is that any different other than the gun is older?

lilro
01-03-2013, 10:09 PM
Maybe we should have background checks for knives. And baseball bats. And Halloween masks. And if you participate in martial arts, your hands and feet should be registered. Those things are dangerous, ya know.

And don't get me started on fully automatic vehicles. With a manual, you have to shift gears each time to go faster. With an automatic, you just hold the pedal down and VROOOOOOMM into a crowd of innocent people. We can't have that on our streets.

safewaysecurity
01-03-2013, 10:10 PM
It's where you go to a gun-show anywhere in the U.S and take a "Lasso" with you. Any gun that someone sells to you throw the lasso at the gun show AKA " loop hole at the gun show " does not require a background check. Weird huh? Congress just blatantly made an exception for people with ropes at gun shows.

tozan
01-03-2013, 10:13 PM
bohoki is right in a free state you put an add in the local paper and you sell it to anyone with a state drivers lic. You are required to check if they are a resident of the state.

You are not required to keep track of who they are.

Something to be a little more effective and it would not be so invading on personal information would be to include your craziness or in ability to own or touch a firearm on your drivers license and if you do something to get you prohibited then you will have to get an updated DL That would severely limit the odds of a restricted person from getting a gun.

tozan
01-03-2013, 10:13 PM
bohoki is right in a free state you put an add in the local paper and you sell it to anyone with a state drivers lic. You are required to check if they are a resident of the state.

You are not required to keep track of who they are.

Something to be a little more effective and it would not be so invading on personal information would be to include your craziness or in ability to own or touch a firearm on your drivers license and if you do something to get you prohibited then you will have to get an updated DL That would severely limit the odds of a restricted person from getting a gun.

5thgen4runner
01-03-2013, 10:14 PM
Uh oh the walls are speaking....

speleogist
01-03-2013, 10:15 PM
What are gun show loopholes? Are they possible in Kalifornia?

It refers to the sale of bolt action 1895 Chilean mausers sold for 500 dollars at gun shows that are more likely to blow up in the face of the buyer than anything else.

IVC
01-03-2013, 10:30 PM
IVC, I understand your reasoning there but if you implemented a personal background check it would be easy for the state to assume a firearm was purchased and they will again have a tracking system in place. It would also violate personal information that could be obtained by anyone for any reason...

The discussion about background checks needs to address two completely separate issues:
(1) Whether there should be background checks.
(2) How to implement a background check system where it's not used covertly to achieve additional sinister goals through the "convenient side effects."

By concentrating on (1) and calling it a "loophole" antis are very conveniently (again) avoiding the real discussion which is (2). If we can instead concentrate on (2) and make sure we understand *exactly* how an agreeable process would work, we can use it to force antis back into discussion of how to achieve their stated goal with minimal infringement. This significantly diminishes the value of this particular talking point.

Essentially, they would be pushing for spending federal money to facilitate more liberal gun transfers in states where they have the firmest grip such as CA. A federal standard would actually simplify PPT transactions in CA while being functionally identical to the current system. I'm not sure they'd keep pushing hard if we made them aware of it.

If the antis still insist with background checks, then and only then should we even consider discussing (1) which is a much more contentious issue.

Seven_Duce
01-03-2013, 10:31 PM
Some folks in this thread have either:

a. Lived in California their entire life
b. Been in California too long
c. Never lived in a free state


Possession and sale of private property should not need any government intervention to proceed with such sale.

You missed one

d. All of the above

tozan
01-03-2013, 11:25 PM
I see your point IVC ...

What happened to our debaters.... Did they run out of talking points and facts to support their arguments?

Carnivore
01-03-2013, 11:52 PM
I see your point IVC ...

What happened to our debaters.... Did they run out of talking points and facts to support their arguments?

The problem is and always has been that no matter what points, facts or support you have, if the opposing side won't agree that it is a point the whole thing is pointless. Then it is just two over opinionated people trying to out do each other. In the end they are just waiting to see who will just give up first or will say..."that is all I have to say I am done." Remember...
http://fakkelbrigade.eu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/arguing.jpg

M14 Junkie
01-04-2013, 12:26 AM
The discussion about background checks needs to address two completely separate issues:
(1) Whether there should be background checks.
(2) How to implement a background check system [QUOTE]where it's not used covertly to achieve additional sinister goals through the "convenient side effects."


What are those? What do you mean by "convenient side affects?' And "sinister goals?"

If you're concerned about individuals being "tracked" by "them", forget about that already.

All that "they" have to do is mash a couple of buttons on a keyboard somewhere with your name in the box and, everything there is to know about you is up.

There is no "privacy" any more. It doesn't exist.

IVC
01-04-2013, 12:36 AM
What are those? What do you mean by "convenient side affects?' And "sinister goals?"

If you're concerned about individuals being "tracked" by "them", forget about that already.

All that "they" have to do is mash a couple of buttons on a keyboard somewhere with your name in the box and, everything there is to know about you is up.

There is no "privacy" any more. It doesn't exist.

A newspaper in NY published personal information of all gun *owners* (they require license to own). A newspaper in CA about a year ago did the same thing for LTC-s. At least some versions of proposed AWB call for forced buybacks and confiscation. A bill in IL just yesterday introduced forced registration.

This *cannot* happen in AZ or AK (and some other states) that *don't have* a registry of carriers or owners. Further, a hypothetical federal AWB that would require forced buybacks cannot be implemented even in principle because there are states that don't allow registries.

If all states were like CA, there would be much more potential for abuse of various databases. That's the primary reason we must fight any registration. Since these days there is a simple and efficient way to perform background checks while *explicitly* preventing government from creating registration database, even if we agree that there should be background checks, we can have them done in a very nonintrusive way.

In other words, if the antis want to create registries so that they can play the "ban game" in the future, they better say so.

tozan
01-04-2013, 1:31 AM
But they are not going to say so... Even without registration if a NCIS check is done the government can and will have the information that you have a gun. The whole idea is ripe for abuse. Do you really believe that information is not stored someplace? Even 4473 are permanent....


The so called loophole abuse lets try to define it and examine it...
1. What is the actual number of people who are getting guns this way?
2. Are they actually using them to commit further crimes?
3. If so How many crimes will this stop?
4. If we stop them from getting guns will they get other weapons anyway?

If one weapon is removed from someone who is bent on killing they will most of the time still kill by using the next available weapon therefore the removal of the weapon is NOT the solution to the problem and would be a waste of time...

NCIS checks and registration fall into that sane trap they will seldom change the outcome...

fizux
01-04-2013, 2:30 AM
the gun show loophole is the able to sell ones property to another party its basically the "everywhere loophole" but gunshows get the blame

Yes, that's the problem. You can purchase a gun in about 10 minutes for cash. No waiting period, background, registration, age restrictions, arrogant jerks talking about bullet buttons, FET, DOJ fees, sales tax, or proof of address required. It's called the "criminal loophole."

I don't want any more "help" from big government that renders me defenseless in public, while gang bangers slinging guns on High Street take EBT.

IVC
01-04-2013, 2:51 AM
The so called loophole abuse lets try to define it and examine it...

That is exactly the point. Let's concentrate on figuring out the *practical* side of any scheme before ever getting into details of whether it's good or bad.

These days my favorite retort to "gun show loophole" is:

"Federal government cannot regulate private purchases between in-state individuals. Only states can do that. With new guns, the feds can regulate it because it's interstate commerce."

It might not be an *entirely accurate* statement, but it moves discussion from "we must have background checks for all purchases" to "how can we even do this."

kantstudien
01-04-2013, 3:01 AM
No such thing as a "gun show loophole" in California. We can transfer C&R long guns cash and carry anywhere, not just at a gun show.

SiegeX
01-04-2013, 3:35 AM
I posted the following in a similar topic not more than a week ago and so I'll post it here as well:

------

"Closing the loophole" by requiring background checks will not stop a determined criminal from obtaining a weapon. However, it will force them to acquire the weapon either on the black market or steal it themselves which increases the probability of the criminal being caught, by how much I can only speculate but I don't believe it's negligible. Had this been in place, would it have stopped Lanza from acquiring weapons from his murdered mother? No, but that is just one datapoint which can neither fully support nor refute any new policy.

I look at this issue much in the same way IT professionals look at computer security. There is no such thing as an absolutely secure network/computer, all you can do is add layers of security to make it harder to be broken into. Since we are dealing with individual rights its obviously a lot tricker, however, I'm willing to go on the record and say mandatory background checks is a "layer of security" that I feel has the potential to infringe little while providing the potential for gain in security.

-------

Speaking of IT professionals, the database abuse problem has already been solved by them. It requires public key encryption where each record of the database is fully encrypted by your public key and only you hold the private key to decrypt your information. In this manner, if the database were to ever leak no info is gained without each individuals private key. Granted, there would be a lot of logistics to actually get something like this setup and it would most likely not ever happen but it is doable. Read up on how a password manager like Lastpass works, they are setup such that nothing you send their servers is ever enough for them to decrypt your data.

mosinnagantm9130
01-04-2013, 4:02 AM
Private sales, basically BS drama.

It refers to the sale of bolt action 1895 Chilean mausers sold for 500 dollars at gun shows that are more likely to blow up in the face of the buyer than anything else.

Cause there has been such a rash of mausers exploding lately :rolleyes:

tozan
01-04-2013, 10:49 AM
Closing the loophole" by requiring background checks will not stop a determined criminal from obtaining a weapon. However, it will force them to acquire the weapon either on the black market or steal it themselves which increases the probability of the criminal being caught, by how much I can only speculate but I don't believe it's negligible.

Lets get the facts first.... (I am not saying the following are pure facts either but they are based on some imformation out there and are something to think about)

From what I have heard about 40% of gun sales in the US are not on the books yet less than .007% of ALL guns will be used in a crime... This fact alone would lead you to believe the chances of just one of those off the books guns being used in a crime must be miniscule at best... Thats not even 1 in a million....

I agree with you it will not stop the determined criminals and what is that % of the actual so called loophole sales? Maybe .00007% and of those .00007% who will now go off radar completely what are the chances they will get caught? I am just guessing 1 in a million at best except that the first .007% ia almost one in a million to start with...

So for more less than a 1 in a million chance we are willing to put all of seigex personal information out there and we are willing to keep record of his personal information so every police officer at a whim as they run his tags while he is innocently driving down the street can see he owns a gun and they now can come up with an excuse to pull seigex over to see if he is carrying it and if he is is he doing it correctly?

Personally I don' want siegx to even be put into that position because that is not freedom.

radioman
01-04-2013, 11:02 AM
This is the first time in my life that I live in a free country, I bought my self a P94, FTF no paperwork, no middle man, it was great.

But would you call in to get an Ok, would you take and send in the paperwork to sell a gun FTF, no FFL, no fees. But you had to do it, by law. it would put an end to the "gun show loop hole" and you would know who you were selling to.

Librarian
01-04-2013, 11:21 AM
Could be an interesting thread - if all stick to the question and not the personalities.

TeddyBallgame
01-04-2013, 11:23 AM
maybe its not the popular consensus here on Calguns, but, I too, think a background check would not be a bad idea for a firearm transfer...there is already a law in place making the purchase of a firearm by a prohibited person illegal, but, that is ONE way around it...the background check would be a way of helping to enforce it

while not interested at all in pacifying these gun grabbers in any way, but, maybe, and this is a HUGE maybe, if, we tightened our own borders, showing we keep guns transfers solely in the hands of other law abiding citizens, they would have less to rant over...sure they'll find something else next month, but, at least, they can't hang the graves of innocent children on our shoulders, for being irresponsible, when it comes to selling our goods...just my thoughts

plus, I wouldn't mind my own peace of mind, knowing that the person I sold my firearm to, was legally entitled to own one at the time of sale...I would hate to think of how I would feel, knowing a firearm I sold to some violent felon, was used to end someones life

M. D. Van Norman
01-04-2013, 11:25 AM
Here’s an excerpt from my recent commentary on reasonable gun control (http://mdvannorman.blogspot.com/2012/12/reasonable-gun-control.html).

… you may find the dinner-party loophole somewhat easier to understand. This is the gap in health-and-safety laws that allows you to serve food and drink to your own family or to host a dinner party for friends and associates without having to obtain FDA approval or a conditional-use permit from your county of residence. Closing this loophole would require you to obtain the services of a licensed caterer before dining at home.

While there is much talk about requiring all private firearms transfers to be conducted through the agency of licensed dealers, as they currently are for the most part in California, it’s unclear whether such restrictions would be deemed constitutional. In addition to the Second Amendment, controls on private property also implicate the Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Amendments. On top of this, such regulations are very difficult to enforce, effectively guaranteeing a low rate of compliance.

A better approach would be to encourage voluntary participation in the national background-check system. Providing private sellers with access to NICS would be well received by the vast majority of gun owners, who are generally eager to follow the law and who would appreciate the extra peace of mind while still avoiding the gross inconvenience of conducting private sales through licensed dealers.…

phamkl
01-04-2013, 11:37 AM
Let us use NICS and then put out an awareness campaign, like "click it or ticket" and "over the limit, under arrest."

And then be done with it.

nothing4u
01-04-2013, 11:52 AM
maybe its not the popular consensus here on Calguns, but, I too, think a background check would not be a bad idea for a firearm transfer...there is already a law in place making the purchase of a firearm by a prohibited person illegal, but, that is ONE way around it...the background check would be a way of helping to enforce it

while not interested at all in pacifying these gun grabbers in any way, but, maybe, and this is a HUGE maybe, if, we tightened our own borders, showing we keep guns transfers solely in the hands of other law abiding citizens, they would have less to rant over...sure they'll find something else next month, but, at least, they can't hang the graves of innocent children on our shoulders, for being irresponsible, when it comes to selling our goods...just my thoughts

plus, I wouldn't mind my own peace of mind, knowing that the person I sold my firearm to, was legally entitled to own one at the time of sale...I would hate to think of how I would feel, knowing a firearm I sold to some violent felon, was used to end someones life

The gubberment needs make a database available to the general public that lists all who are prohibited. So that when you do PPT in those other free states you can do it with some confidence.

cruising7388
01-04-2013, 11:55 AM
100% agree. A real solution to the crazies, without infringing on 2a, self defense, and normal citizens.

You're going to tangle with the devil dealing with the details, because statistically:

1. Most crazy people are not violent.

2. Most violent people are not crazy.

MrTokarev
01-04-2013, 12:13 PM
Americans shouldn't need the government's permission to sell their own personal property. It's as simple as that.

The fact that other gun owners in CA think otherwise makes me glad I'm going to grad school in a free state.

cruising7388
01-04-2013, 12:21 PM
Box up the crazies and the criminals, they just don't play well with others. Make the entire staff at these government schools into mandated reporters, and give them the behavioral standards to move these anti-social psychos into the prohibited column early on. Provide additional processes to get off of that list if you must. There are millions of ticking time bombs out there.

There's nothing novel about the solution you propose but it's remarkable that it comes from you considering that you're a long time conservative proponent of slashing government spending. That's a very defensible position, but in the context of your proposal, what would be the cost of training and hiring professionals to establish the standards that would define dangerous crazies, and having done so, what would be the cost of institutionalizing these millions of ticking time bombs out there? Who pays for this?

tcrpe
01-04-2013, 12:26 PM
Don't recall suggesting they be institutionalized at the taxpayers' expense.

They do need to be actively prohibited, though. They need to be boxed in by those around them.

No guns, no access to guns.

With respect to standards, I am neither a psychologist nor a psychiatrist, nor do I wish to engage in a google duel. We can put a man on the moon and return him safely to earth, we can write standards.

IVC
01-04-2013, 12:29 PM
Americans shouldn't need the government's permission to sell their own personal property. It's as simple as that.

The main idea is not to have government get involved, but to have a means for the seller to have a peace of mind that he/she is not selling to a felon. If we can get that without any government intervention except providing a centralized database of prohibited persons, then we can even begin to discuss what good (if any) comes from such a process.

Note that the antis are selling to the public our opposition to the background checks as a proof that we want to sell to prohibited persons and don't want to get caught. We know this couldn't be further from the truth, yet to people outside the gun community this is a palatable sell.

We are playing straight into their hand by upfront opposing background checks instead of putting the burden back on them to create a system that would be minimally intrusive while providing a great benefit to the sellers. If they oppose such a system (no traces, no registration, no FFL-s, no fees), now they become the ones who look unreasonable to the masses.

5thgen4runner
01-04-2013, 12:39 PM
The main idea is not to have government get involved, but to have a means for the seller to have a peace of mind that he/she is not selling to a felon. If we can get that without any government intervention except providing a centralized database of prohibited persons, then we can even begin to discuss what good (if any) comes from such a process.

Note that the antis are selling to the public our opposition to the background checks as a proof that we want to sell to prohibited persons and don't want to get caught. We know this couldn't be further from the truth, yet to people outside the gun community this is a palatable sell.

We are playing straight into their hand by upfront opposing background checks instead of putting the burden back on them to create a system that would be minimally intrusive while providing a great benefit to the sellers. If they oppose such a system (no traces, no registration, no FFL-s, no fees), now they become the ones who look unreasonable to the masses.

Devils advocate: why should a seller be responsible for what happens after he sold his property to someone else? If you sold a car to someone that the next week ran over 10 people would you feel bad or responsible? Or not care since its not a gun?

MrTokarev
01-04-2013, 12:47 PM
We are playing straight into their hand by upfront opposing background checks instead of putting the burden back on them to create a system that would be minimally intrusive while providing a great benefit to the sellers. If they oppose such a system (no traces, no registration, no FFL-s, no fees), now they become the ones who look unreasonable to the masses.

That would be fine if the antis were reasonable people. But they are not. We can't give them anything. They don't want to compromise, they don't want us the have guns period.

The entire history of gun control has been one of us giving up freedoms in the hope that the antis will be satisfied. But they won't be. I object to this idea that we should be playing ball rather than stonewalling.

Cpt
01-04-2013, 12:54 PM
Troll Trend?

tcrpe
01-04-2013, 12:55 PM
We are playing straight into their hand by upfront opposing background checks instead of putting the burden back on them to create a system that would be minimally intrusive while providing a great benefit to the sellers. If they oppose such a system (no traces, no registration, no FFL-s, no fees), now they become the ones who look unreasonable to the masses.


Gotta agree there, move the argument away from banning guns to banning crazies and criminals.

There are millions that need to be banned. And appease the ACLU by providing an appeal procedure.

cruising7388
01-04-2013, 12:56 PM
A better approach would be to encourage voluntary participation in the national background-check system. Providing private sellers with access to NICS would be well received by the vast majority of gun owners, who are generally eager to follow the law and who would appreciate the extra peace of mind while still avoiding the gross inconvenience of conducting private sales through licensed dealers.…

Perhaps for the purpose of checks and balances, the seller making the NICS inquiry has to secure the prior consent of the buyer. The buyer could certainly opt out of the NICS inquiry but the seller could then (and IMO probably should) opt out of the transaction. Your inclusion in the chain of custody of a firearm that you unknowingly transfer to someone with a criminal record may be perfectly legal, but who needs that baggage?

radioman
01-04-2013, 1:05 PM
That would be fine if the antis were reasonable people. But they are not. We can't give them anything. They don't want to compromise, they don't want us the have guns period.

The entire history of gun control has been one of us giving up freedoms in the hope that the antis will be satisfied. But they won't be. I object to this idea that we should be playing ball rather than stonewalling.

What would you lose? paying fees to sell your gun? your right to sell, peace of mine knowing you sold a gun that won't be used in crime or maybe a new stick to fight the anti's back with. All in all this could be a win, maybe not for State, but for the People.

IVC
01-04-2013, 1:05 PM
Devils advocate: why should a seller be responsible for what happens after he sold his property to someone else? If you sold a car to someone that the next week ran over 10 people would you feel bad or responsible? Or not care since its not a gun?

There are no "prohibited persons" when it comes to cars. If there were no concept of "prohibited person" with guns, there would be no sense even talking about background checks.

Since there are some people who are not allowed to possess a gun and selling to them is a felony, a mechanism to ensure the seller is not committing a felony is not a bad idea. Otherwise, the only defense would be "I didn't know he was a prohibited person," which tends to be a pretty weak position.

Also, note that the seller will already ask the buyer for an ID to ensure the sale is not to an out of state person. This is already different than the cars and functionally very similar to what a quick NICS check by the seller would look like.

IVC
01-04-2013, 1:08 PM
That would be fine if the antis were reasonable people. But they are not. We can't give them anything. They don't want to compromise, they don't want us the have guns period.

We shouldn't give them anything. All we should do is eliminate their talking point by offering a solution that is not intrusive, doesn't accomplish their hidden agenda, shows we are reasonable and would require antis to work hard to implement, while it would be the gun owners who would benefit.

radioman
01-04-2013, 1:15 PM
There are no "prohibited persons" when it comes to cars. If there were no concept of "prohibited person" with guns, there would be no sense even talking about background checks.

Since there are some people who are not allowed to possess a gun and selling to them is a felony, a mechanism to ensure the seller is not committing a felony is not a bad idea. Otherwise, the only defense would be "I didn't know he was a prohibited person," which tends to be a pretty weak position.

Also, note that the seller will already ask the buyer for an ID to ensure the sale is not to an out of state person. This is already different than the cars and functionally very similar to what a quick NICS check by the seller would look like.

you and I are the page here, it could be a good law, if it made it that far, I don't see any fail in this. Now for all you hold the line types, to do that would take a revolt, not protest but all out revolt! The plan I put out is working within the system, I not saying joining them, I'm saying go around them, beat them at their own game.

SiegeX
01-04-2013, 1:21 PM
Devils advocate: why should a seller be responsible for what happens after he sold his property to someone else? If you sold a car to someone that the next week ran over 10 people would you feel bad or responsible? Or not care since its not a gun?

If I later found out that this person has a history of DUI's or habitually runs people over, then yes I would feel bad that I played a part in that. However, I would not feel responsible as there is no painless way to verify such information. If such a system existed such that I could get their insurance company to provide a summarized letter grade (A through F) for their driving record then I would absolutely grab that info prior to selling a car to an individual and I would refuse sale to anybody who does not have the responsibility to maintain a grade of B or greater as they have proven they do not have the mental or physical capacity to responsibly operate a 2000lb metal projectile.

Wrangler John
01-04-2013, 1:22 PM
With the talk about mentally ill individuals being immediately placed on a ban list or institutionalized, there is one overriding necessity; that of due process. Given that SCOTUS has ruled that the Second Amendment protects the individual's right to keep and bear firearms in common use at the time for self-defense purposes, and that this is a fundamental right. We are left to demand that any inclusion on a prohibitive list has been adjudicated by a court of law, subject to appeal and final determination.

Receiving treatment, Social Security Disability, Medicare benefit or Veteran's Administration care for the majority of mental conditions, such as depression, PTSD, brain injury or disease, SAD or any number of disorders not related to severe psychosis and violent behaviors, can not be an automatic bar to the loss of rights without an examination of the medical basis and legal review. This is exactly why the founders adopted an adversarial legal system, and enshrined the principle that the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty, or in this case, mentally incompetent. That means a full hearing of the medical facts and behavioral history must remain the only path to declaring an individual incompetent and a danger to self and others.

To do less would be to support the same kinds of restrictions and violations of fundamental rights that we seek to avoid for firearms owners and users. To deny due process for anyone is to relinquish the foundation of liberty.

I would like to see a means of determining who is mentally unfit to exercise their right to arms, yet we must tread carefully. The Connecticut school shooter was allegedly suffering severe mental disability and psychosis. There were reports that his mother was involved with legal action to have him assigned a conservator as a prelude to commitment, which may have triggered his murderous attack. Yet there are two facts presented in this case: His mother owned firearms and even taught him how to shoot. The State of Connecticut earlier rejected a law that would have made it easier to institutionalize suspected mentally ill individuals. In this case we are left to ask, if there were a means to remove Adam Lanza from the home until the psychiatric and legal process concluded, or to temporarily remove the firearms from the situation, would the outcome have been different? In this instance a banned list relative to firearm purchases would not have had an effect. School security and a more responsive mental health system would have.

We have a long debate ahead of us on how to craft mental health laws that will pass Constitutional muster, a debate I fear our politicians are more inclined to demagog for their own ends than to perform their duty.

cruising7388
01-04-2013, 1:25 PM
Don't recall suggesting they be institutionalized at the taxpayers' expense.

They do need to be actively prohibited, though. They need to be boxed in by those around them.

No guns, no access to guns.

With respect to standards, I am neither a psychologist nor a psychiatrist, nor do I wish to engage in a google duel. We can put a man on the moon and return him safely to earth, we can write standards.

Point taken. You're correct. I misread your your suggestion to "Box up the crazies and the criminals, they just don't play well with others." as a measure to actually trundle them off to institutions.

Writing standards is the easy part. Creating them is where the rubber meets the road and that's not easily accomplished when faced with the fact that crazies are rarely violent and violent criminals are rarely adjudicated as crazy. The threshold that distinguishes benign idiosyncratic behavior from aberant bahavior isn't that easy to put your finger on. If it's even doable, it sure wouldn't be any cake walk. When does acceptable concern for the behavior of our family, friends and neighbors become bothersome meddling?

SiegeX
01-04-2013, 1:32 PM
The main idea is not to have government get involved, but to have a means for the seller to have a peace of mind that he/she is not selling to a felon. If we can get that without any government intervention except providing a centralized database of prohibited persons, then we can even begin to discuss what good (if any) comes from such a process.

Note that the antis are selling to the public our opposition to the background checks as a proof that we want to sell to prohibited persons and don't want to get caught. We know this couldn't be further from the truth, yet to people outside the gun community this is a palatable sell.

We are playing straight into their hand by upfront opposing background checks instead of putting the burden back on them to create a system that would be minimally intrusive while providing a great benefit to the sellers. If they oppose such a system (no traces, no registration, no FFL-s, no fees), now they become the ones who look unreasonable to the masses.

This is what needs to happen. We may all have differences of opinions on what is a reasonable gun provision but the one thing that ties us all together is that we are responsible gun owners. I'm curious, how many of you out of pure principle would not run a NCIS check prior to a private party gun sale if it was as easy as visiting a website and entering in a driver license number?

MudCamper
01-04-2013, 1:52 PM
So sounds like some of you guys are ok, with no background checks?

Correct, that many here believe that there should be no background check at all. And to believe that there should be a background check at a gun store, but not between private parties is hypocrisy or just naivety. If you're not going to have them on private party purchases, there's no point in having them on store purchases.

And a warning to the online-gun-forum-uninitiated, to support background checks will get you flamed something serious, accused of being a traitor, unpatriotic, etc., etc. For the record, I have no problem with background checks, (for all gun transfers, as to do some and not all is illogical and counter-productive), as long as those background checks are 1) instant, 2) free, 3) not registration.

jwkincal
01-04-2013, 1:53 PM
This is what needs to happen. We may all have differences of opinions on what is a reasonable gun provision but the one thing that ties us all together is that we are responsible gun owners. I'm curious, how many of you out of pure principle would not run a NCIS check prior to a private party gun sale if it was as easy as visiting a website and entering in a driver license number?

I don't know about you, but when I was a young buck EVERY FEMALE I KNEW had a bogus driver's license, issued by the State of California, that said she was legal to go to the clubs. It will never be secure if you make it that simple.

In any case, we need to remember something: As whacko as Feinstein and her ilk may be, they know damn well they are not going to get everything they are asking for in the new legislation. That's why they are asking for the moon, so that they can make the appearance of giving up stuff they know they'll never get in the spirit of "compromise."

That's why our starting position HAS TO BE, "no compromise," on ANYTHING. Otherwise we're giving the farm away too early and we will get our backsides handed to us.

NOW IS NOT THE TIME to be talking about what we are willing to "give up" because as soon as we articulate that willingness we lose our shirts.

TeddyBallgame
01-04-2013, 2:10 PM
Devils advocate: why should a seller be responsible for what happens after he sold his property to someone else? If you sold a car to someone that the next week ran over 10 people would you feel bad or responsible? Or not care since its not a gun?Devils advocate 5th: would you be comfortable selling your car to someone who showed up at your door with cash, but, no license to drive? how would the prospect of them driving off in a vehicle you just sold them make you feel?

me, personally, i would have an uneasy feeling, but, that would never happen, because I wouldn't sell my car to someone without a license...granted, you dont even need a license to buy a car, but, i'll be damned if im going to allow you to drive off in one...if you want that car, best have someone there with you that is licensed

and, lets be honest, a gun is not some simple random object that just gets passed around like last months girlfriend...it is an object of responsibility, and, I think both buyer and seller share in a responsibility when transferring ownership...guns are serious products and need to be treated as so...the ability to just pass the firearm over to crackhead kevin, just because he has a couple of benjamins on him, not good enough...not with a clean conscious

we can't keep having this straight face, while making like our firearms are no different than a chess set...we know there is more to it

and, you shouldn't be responsible for something AFTER you sell it...but, maybe you could be just a bit responsible BEFORE you sell it

TeddyBallgame
01-04-2013, 2:26 PM
one thought that came to my mind...many people seem in favor of having a background check, but, dont want any kind of paper trail...I agree

what if....

every firearm owner, or, non prohibited person had a NICS approval card, with its own unique ID number, photo, and, all a seller had to do would be to call a number, input the ID, and, the only information that would come back would be #ID VALID, for a person who in still able to purchase a firearm, or, #ID RESTRICTED, meaning there is an issue with his clearance, and, until it is taken care of, he cannot legally purchase a firearm???

no other information would be given, either VALID or RESTRICTED is all you hear...maybe even a confirmation number for you personal reference...obviously, it would become illegal to sell that firearm to a RESTRICTED person...since no other information is given out, I don't see a problem with it violating a persons privacy, they would have to give you permission to call it in

also, no paper trail, no forms, no other requirements necessary...if all is good he/she hands you cash and they walk away new owners, and, you've done your part in making a legal firearms transaction

I think a similar thing like this is done in Nevada, it could actually be implemented on all levels of a gun purchase, even from LGS, and hence, no 10 day waiting period

jwkincal
01-04-2013, 2:33 PM
and, lets be honest, a gun is not some simple random object that just gets passed around like last months girlfriend... it is an object of responsibility, and, I think both buyer and seller share in a responsibility when transferring ownership...

In 2009, the estimated number of deaths of persons with an AIDS diagnosis in the United States and 6 U.S. dependent areas was 18,234.

Not so different as one might think. Same goes for the car analogy... everyone here knows that more people are murdered/killed by motor vehicles than with firearms, and this is in light of the fact that there are roughly equivalent quantities of both in this country, but the Feds have zero regulations in place on whether I can sell my car to whomever I want. Letting the opposing political forces paint the OBJECTS OF PROPERTY as the problem is allowing them to control the dialog. Don't do it.

5thgen4runner
01-04-2013, 2:37 PM
Devils advocate 5th: would you be comfortable selling your car to someone who showed up at your door with cash, but, no license to drive? how would the prospect of them driving off in a vehicle you just sold them make you feel?

me, personally, i would have an uneasy feeling, but, that would never happen, because I wouldn't sell my car to someone without a license...granted, you dont even need a license to buy a car, but, i'll be damned if im going to allow you to drive off in one...if you want that car, best have someone there with you that is licensed

and, lets be honest, a gun is not some simple random object that just gets passed around like last months girlfriend...it is an object of responsibility, and, I think both buyer and seller share in a responsibility when transferring ownership...guns are serious products and need to be treated as so...the ability to just pass the firearm over to crackhead kevin, just because he has a couple of benjamins on him, not good enough...not with a clean conscious

we can't keep having this straight face, while making like our firearms are no different than a chess set...we know there is more to it

and, you shouldn't be responsible for something AFTER you sell it...but, maybe you could be just a bit responsible BEFORE you sell it

I understand your viewpoint, however to you and many others, a gun is somehow a greater threat or could be a greater threat than IE a car, or a knife. Too me they are no different. Because at the end all of all of all of all ... A human is at the other end of that object now used as a weapon.

And to regulate human behavior has not and will never work. The only solution is finding the people that are giving out the right signals " ticking Time bombs" and lock them up. And/Or give the target of such would be criminals a fighting chance at protecting themselves.

I'm not trying to argue just debate...

M. D. Van Norman
01-04-2013, 2:45 PM
Perhaps for the purpose of checks and balances, the seller making the NICS inquiry has to secure the prior consent of the buyer. The buyer could certainly opt out of the NICS inquiry but the seller could then (and IMO probably should) opt out of the transaction.…

Exactly. Many lawful sellers in “loophole” states already do something similar by limiting their sales to licensees.

The whole effort is largely symbolic, since there will always be unscrupulous sellers, but the alternative is to do almost nothing.

IVC
01-04-2013, 2:47 PM
NOW IS NOT THE TIME to be talking about what we are willing to "give up" because as soon as we articulate that willingness we lose our shirts.

The idea is NOT to give something up. The idea is to formulate a meaningful background check strategy rather than have antis formulate one for us. Either way, they'll push for it. Either way we won't push for it.

All we do is force the antis to push for something that would benefit gun owners, instead of pushing for something that would be an infringement. It makes us look reasonable and them unreasonable.

Think of it this way: instead of the "front end resistance" where we look as supporters of illegal gun trafficking while antis push for their agenda anyway, we opt for the "back end resistance" where we have a plan that eliminates antis' talking point while they are pushing for their agenda, yet we can still reject it when (if) it gets to the point of implementation.

nothing4u
01-04-2013, 2:57 PM
one thought that came to my mind...many people seem in favor of having a background check, but, dont want any kind of paper trail...I agree

what if....

every firearm owner, or, non prohibited person had a NICS approval card, with its own unique ID number, photo, and, all a seller had to do would be to call a number, input the ID, and, the only information that would come back would be #ID VALID, for a person who in still able to purchase a firearm, or, #ID RESTRICTED, meaning there is an issue with his clearance, and, until it is taken care of, he cannot legally purchase a firearm???

no other information would be given, either VALID or RESTRICTED is all you hear...maybe even a confirmation number for you personal reference...obviously, it would become illegal to sell that firearm to a RESTRICTED person...since no other information is given out, I don't see a problem with it violating a persons privacy, they would have to give you permission to call it in

also, no paper trail, no forms, no other requirements necessary...if all is good he/she hands you cash and they walk away new owners, and, you've done your part in making a legal firearms transaction

I think a similar thing like this is done in Nevada, it could actually be implemented on all levels of a gun purchase, even from LGS, and hence, no 10 day waiting period

What you just proposed does exactly that, make a paper trail. What I propose is make the list of criminals and those who are prohibited available to the public. If you not on that list you are good to go. That is exactly what the NICS is at the moment but restricted access.

TeddyBallgame
01-04-2013, 2:58 PM
I understand your viewpoint, however to you and many others, a gun is somehow a greater threat or could be a greater threat than IE a car, or a knife. Too me they are no different. Because at the end all of all of all of all ... A human is at the other end of that object now used as a weapon.

And to regulate human behavior has not and will never work. The only solution is finding the people that are giving out the right signals " ticking Time bombs" and lock them up. And/Or give the target of such would be criminals a fighting chance at protecting themselves.

I'm not trying to argue just debate...and you are right too, sir, i dont necessarily disagree with what you are saying...my only point is, there is an ability to better absolve us, as gun owners, from putting the gun into a prohibited persons hands, be it, they will still find a way, just not on our shoulders...one less attack from the gun grabbers, one less thing to throw in our faces...it could be done simply enough, it will never regulate human behavior, but, that isn't the responsibility of a gun owner anyway...we could be responsible for the individuals we sell to, this is a "cover your ***" world we live in now...let them find something else to rant over

even a vehicle transfer does require information about who we sold the car to...remember, the little form attached to the pink slip that you need to fill out and send into the DMV, but, you are not responsible to take them on a drivers test before you sell it :)

TeddyBallgame
01-04-2013, 3:07 PM
What you just proposed does exactly that, make a paper trail. What I propose is make the list of criminals and those who are prohibited available to the public. If you not on that list you are good to go. That is exactly what the NICS is at the moment but restricted access.other than the confirmation number that you could opt to get, how is there is papertrail? it doesn't even conclude that a transaction actually took place, only that an inquiry was made...i could call my own ID number everyday and what would it prove? The list you talk about, where would it be available? Online? A new list would have to be generated every single day...and, how could you at least prove that you did check it? thats what a confirmation number would afford you...proof that when you checked, the person was gtg in their system...i honestly dont see a huge paper trail in that...seems very minimal and acheivable, it would be the NICS's responsibility to keep the database updated

jwkincal
01-04-2013, 3:10 PM
The idea is to formulate a meaningful background check strategy rather than have antis formulate one for us... have a plan that eliminates antis' talking point while they are pushing for their agenda, yet we can still reject it when (if) it gets to the point of implementation.

It's a good idea, but a road which must be undertaken with great caution. I agree that we should probably keep throwing stuff at the wall, though... one of these days something practical may stick.

Seriously, though... in the places where the doing gets done, it is imperative that the starting position be one of no quarter. A practical counter-proposal would be good to have in our back pocket, and I do believe that in the end we'll wind up with the NICS for P2P transfers, but it has to be at a high price for the opposition.

TeddyBallgame
01-04-2013, 3:17 PM
It's a good idea, but a road which must be undertaken with great caution. I agree that we should probably keep throwing stuff at the wall, though... one of these days something practical may stick.

Seriously, though... in the places where the doing gets done, it is imperative that the starting position be one of no quarter. A practical counter-proposal would be good to have in our back pocket, and I do believe that in the end we'll wind up with the NICS for P2P transfers, but it has to be at a high price for the opposition.
I would have no problem submitting to a background check on ANY firearm purchase, as long as that same background check granted me worthiness to carry on my person...fair trade, what do you think?

If my past behavior has earned me the right to purchase, I should also have the right to carry, I earned it :)

hakenlag
01-04-2013, 3:26 PM
An instant NICS background check would serve as the primary check against prohibited persons such as felons or the mentally unstable obtaining a firearm through legal purchasing. It is not foolproof but is supported by many, including myself.

You're right that it isn't foolproof. In fact, to date it has proved to lack any efficacy whatsoever.

TeddyBallgame
01-04-2013, 3:40 PM
You're right that it isn't foolproof. In fact, to date it has proved to lack any efficacy whatsoever.YUP

You seem to be very comfortable with a variety of gun controls - you also post that the Sacramento CCW process is "too easy"?

Are you able to provide any evidence that prohibiting all private sales would have any effect on crime?probably very little, but, its all a facade anyway...we all know the real problem, but, the gun grabbers dont want to hear it, they want to pitch the tent over this circus of gun control...i think we need to shield ourselves from culpability...they grandstand this "gun show loophole" like, "thats where all the illegal sales are happening"...we know its horsesh**, but, that is the battle they're bringing to us, so, you have to nip it in the bud, make them find something else...they will

I'd rather argue all day long with them about background checks, versus, arguing about ways they want to disarm me

It come down to us telling them "Hey we're doing our part to keep the guns out of the wrong hands, now, what are YOU doing"?

M14 Junkie
01-04-2013, 3:41 PM
I posted the following in a similar topic not more than a week ago and so I'll post it here as well:

------

"Closing the loophole" by requiring background checks will not stop a determined criminal from obtaining a weapon. However, it will force them to acquire the weapon either on the black market or steal it themselves which increases the probability of the criminal being caught, by how much I can only speculate but I don't believe it's negligible. Had this been in place, would it have stopped Lanza from acquiring weapons from his murdered mother? No, but that is just one datapoint which can neither fully support nor refute any new policy.

I look at this issue much in the same way IT professionals look at computer security. There is no such thing as an absolutely secure network/computer, all you can do is add layers of security to make it harder to be broken into. Since we are dealing with individual rights its obviously a lot tricker, however, I'm willing to go on the record and say mandatory background checks is a "layer of security" that I feel has the potential to infringe little while providing the potential for gain in security.

-------

Speaking of IT professionals, the database abuse problem has already been solved by them. It requires public key encryption where each record of the database is fully encrypted by your public key and only you hold the private key to decrypt your information. In this manner, if the database were to ever leak no info is gained without each individuals private key. Granted, there would be a lot of logistics to actually get something like this setup and it would most likely not ever happen but it is doable. Read up on how a password manager like Lastpass works, they are setup such that nothing you send their servers is ever enough for them to decrypt your data.

Thanks for that. You articulated your opinion better than my attempt at the same thing.

M14 Junkie
01-04-2013, 3:44 PM
I would have no problem submitting to a background check on ANY firearm purchase, as long as that same background check granted me worthiness to carry on my person...fair trade, what do you think?

If my past behavior has earned me the right to purchase, I should also have the right to carry, I earned it :)

Makes sense to me. If you can legally own one, why can't you legally carry it?

chief003
01-04-2013, 3:46 PM
I agree that we need to continue to throw some ideas against the wall. To that end I created a new thread call Individual Background Checks and Self-Reporting for Private Party Transfers (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=670763) that proposes the expansion of the NIC system that grants individuals access to the system and allows for the creation of NIC Certificates that are valid for some period of time.

The iNICS process would:
1. Allow individual American's access to the NICS system,
2. Generate an iNICS Certificate valid for some period of time (to be determined, perhaps as little as 2 days or as long as 30 days), and
3. Then authorize iNICS Certificate holders to purchase firearms from any business or individual in any state in America.

Check out the thread and share your comments.

dfletcher
01-04-2013, 3:47 PM
Interesting that CA gun owners who support a variety of gun control schemes such as an AW ban or stricter CCW licensing in CA (is that possible?) call it a "gun show loophole" when in effect it's a ban on all private sales regardless of location. And given the recent court ruling on FFLs such a requirement bans handgun sales to 18 to 20 year olds - is this supported by CA gun owners too?

Is there any evidence that private sales result in crime to a greater degree than those going through an FFL? If so those supporting the prohibition ought to bring it forward.

Rather than prohibiting private sales I'd propose the following. Allow individuals to access NCIS in some fashion when doing a private sale and if they do so, provide protection from a lawsuit should there be misuse of the firearm by the subsequent owner.

the86d
01-04-2013, 3:49 PM
W6-FtsnIFsc

All they really need to do is issue a card for people "kosher" to own a firearm, each with a unique number.
The number could be looked up for currency on the Internet to see if it has been revoked, and if not, then buy and sell freely, paperless, and just verify ID against said card...

This (two sentence PERFECT) solution is WAY too complicated for fool-politicians like Feinstein, Pelosi, Obama, and Boxer... as the only reason to register is for future confiscation, period.

TeddyBallgame
01-04-2013, 3:53 PM
Interesting that CA gun owners who support a variety of gun control schemes such as an AW ban or stricter CCW licensing in CA (is that possible?) call it a "gun show loophole" when in effect it's a ban on all private sales regardless of location. And given the recent court ruling on FFLs such a requirement bans handgun sales to 18 to 20 year olds - is this supported by CA gun owners too?

Is there any evidence that private sales result in crime to a greater degree than those going through an FFL? If so those supporting the prohibition ought to bring it forward.

Rather than prohibiting private sales I'd propose the following. Allow individuals to access NCIS in some fashion when doing a private sale and if they do so, provide protection from a lawsuit should there be misuse of the firearm by the subsequent owner.if we play it right, maybe we could get Mark Harmon to do the checks for us :D

or LL Cool J

lilro
01-04-2013, 4:21 PM
W6-FtsnIFsc

All they really need to do is issue a card for people "kosher" to own a firearm, each with a unique number.
The number could be looked up for currency on the Internet to see if it has been revoked, and if not, then buy and sell freely, paperless, and just verify ID against said card...

This (two sentence PERFECT) solution is WAY too complicated for fool-politicians like Feinstein, Pelosi, Obama, and Boxer... as the only reason to register is for future confiscation, period.

It should be a yellow patch we wear on our clothes.:rolleyes:
Registering as a "kosher" gun owner is no different than registering individual weapons. When they try to confiscate, they are coming for everything. It won't matter how many or what kind of guns we have.

baddos
01-04-2013, 4:23 PM
What I don't understand is why is it conceived by some that background checks and their associated costs (both time and money) are a good idea? We know that honest lawfull people will be able to buy guns, and that dumb criminals will get slowed down. However, aftering being denied by the background check they will not be arrested. In fact, they will just go to the black market or their garage to obtain the weapon they desire.

The only thing background checks do is add cost and delay to lawfull people. They also give people a dangerous and ignorant sense of security that "we" or "the government" is doing something about crime.

the86d
01-04-2013, 4:28 PM
It should be a yellow patch we wear on our clothes.:rolleyes:
Registering as a "kosher" gun owner is no different than registering individual weapons. When they try to confiscate, they are coming for everything. It won't matter how many or what kind of guns we have.

Do we not get an electronic yellow patch when we purchase a handgun, and will we not when we purchase or transfer a long gun after Jan 1 2014 as the law sits here in California right now?

Bobio
01-04-2013, 4:31 PM
A great idea for anyone to buy a deadly weapon completely anonymously with out any tracking? It's this mentality that will get firearms banned. Its completely irrational or at best criminally self centered. I wanna by and sell my stuff with out record and I don't care what nut or criminal benifits from it. Come on. If you want to own deadly weapons police them yourselves or you are gonna loose them.

baddos
01-04-2013, 4:36 PM
A great idea for anyone to buy a deadly weapon completely anonymously with out any tracking? It's this mentality that will get firearms banned. Its completely irrational or at best criminally self centered. I wanna by and sell my stuff with out record and I don't care what nut or criminal benifits from it. Come on. If you want to own deadly weapons police them yourselves or you are gonna loose them.

http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_sacat=0&_from=R40&_nkw=knives&_fscr=1

Holy crap, look at all these violent weapons sold without any checks. Not even face to face sales here!

lilro
01-04-2013, 4:42 PM
Do we not get an electronic yellow patch when we purchase a handgun, and will we not when we purchase or transfer a long gun after Jan 1 2014 as the law sits here in California right now?

I thought we were talking about free states where private sales are not monitored by the state.

Bobio
01-04-2013, 4:45 PM
http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_sacat=0&_from=R40&_nkw=knives&_fscr=1

Holy crap, look at all these violent weapons sold without any checks. Not even face to face sales here!

Keep up that kind of thinking and your gun collection is going to become a knife collection. Try defending your house with your knife collection. I'd rather buy and sell my guns through an FFL then have a knife collection.

SiegeX
01-04-2013, 5:37 PM
And a warning to the online-gun-forum-uninitiated, to support background checks will get you flamed something serious, accused of being a traitor, unpatriotic, etc., etc. For the record, I have no problem with background checks, (for all gun transfers, as to do some and not all is illogical and counter-productive), as long as those background checks are 1) instant, 2) free, 3) not registration.
I'm with you brother, on all three requirements. Also, I don't mind having people disagree with my beliefs, what a boring place this would be if we all agreed on everything. But, those who would flame with ad hominem attacks only make themselves look foolish and doesn't bother me in the slightest. If you have a valid argument, it should stand on its own without resorting to rash assumptions, belittling and/or personal attacks.

I don't know about you, but when I was a young buck EVERY FEMALE I KNEW had a bogus driver's license, issued by the State of California, that said she was legal to go to the clubs. It will never be secure if you make it that simple.

That analogy doesn't fly because the bouncer is not running the drivers license number against the DMV database to make sure that it's 1) a valid number and 2) the information matches, including picture.

I understand your viewpoint, however to you and many others, a gun is somehow a greater threat or could be a greater threat than IE a car, or a knife. Too me they are no different. Because at the end all of all of all of all ... A human is at the other end of that object now used as a weapon.

Although I agree both a car and a gun possess equal abilities to be lethal, there is a flaw in trying to correlate gun-related deaths to vehicular manslaughter on a 1-for-1 basis based on ownership. This would only work if every gun owner used his or her gun on a daily basis, in a crowd of people that allowed for cross traffic.


Rather than prohibiting private sales I'd propose the following. Allow individuals to access NCIS in some fashion when doing a private sale and if they do so, provide protection from a lawsuit should there be misuse of the firearm by the subsequent owner.
I am in favor of this. Make a NCIS check optional but provide some sort of incentive (assuming peace of mind is not enough) such as an indemnity clause.

What I don't understand is why is it conceived by some that background checks and their associated costs (both time and money) are a good idea? We know that honest lawfull people will be able to buy guns, and that dumb criminals will get slowed down. However, aftering being denied by the background check they will not be arrested. In fact, they will just go to the black market or their garage to obtain the weapon they desire.
I'm going to let out my nerd side here and quote Spiderman: "With great power comes great responsibility." We all know the gun is the great equalizer and that brings with it a lot of power. I believe (and you are free to disagree) that we have a moral obligation to ensure that before we allow somebody else to wield this powerful tool that they have demonstrated by way of their actions that they have the capacity to wield it responsibly. In actuality it would be the reverse of that, everybody starts out qualified and would need to have done something to prove otherwise.

A great idea for anyone to buy a deadly weapon completely anonymously with out any tracking? It's this mentality that will get firearms banned. Its completely irrational or at best criminally self centered. I wanna by and sell my stuff with out record and I don't care what nut or criminal benifits from it. Come on. If you want to own deadly weapons police them yourselves or you are gonna loose them.
This.

jwkincal
01-04-2013, 5:49 PM
That analogy doesn't fly because the bouncer is not running the drivers license number against the DMV database to make sure that it's 1) a valid number and 2) the information matches, including picture

But they could have. The girls had state-issued, valid CDLs, with their own picture, that had someone else's information on them. Teenage girls did this in large numbers without the aid of any underworld forger or anything like that.

But hey, if it makes people feel better, and gets the statists off our backs, they can certainly make arrangements like that for gun purchases, I'd be happy to see the DBs flooded with crappy data points... and throw in a carry clause for the win!

ronlglock
01-04-2013, 6:07 PM
An instant NICS background check would serve as the primary check against prohibited persons such as felons or the mentally unstable obtaining a firearm through legal purchasing. It is not foolproof but is supported by many, including myself.

In theory, someone who is not legally allowed to own a gun buying a gun is an illegal purchase anyway - isn't it? wouldn't background checks be the first line of defense? I agree the perp could just go to the back of a car or whatever, but at least the bar is being raised a little bit.

dfletcher
01-04-2013, 6:17 PM
if we play it right, maybe we could get Mark Harmon to do the checks for us :D

or LL Cool J

I'd hope to be paired with Daniela Ruah but would probably end up with Linda Hunt ....... :mad:

IIRC OR has some sort of set up in which a non-licensed seller can call their State Police and get an instant OK. Whaveretheheckitis, it seems to work. A 7-11 can debit my account at 3am in Delight, Arkansas so theprocedure seems doable.

JDay
01-04-2013, 7:47 PM
The "Gun Show Loophole" is no different than a unicorn, it doesn't exist. Just a fantasy the anti's came up with to justify more infringements on our rights.

MrTokarev
01-04-2013, 11:07 PM
A great idea for anyone to buy a deadly weapon completely anonymously with out any tracking? It's this mentality that will get firearms banned. Its completely irrational or at best criminally self centered. I wanna by and sell my stuff with out record and I don't care what nut or criminal benifits from it. Come on. If you want to own deadly weapons police them yourselves or you are gonna loose them.

I just picked up a framing hammer from the Home Depot the other day. No waiting period, no background check. But I'm pretty sure that if I tried to beat someone to death with it they'd charge me with assault with a deadly weapon.

I have no problem policing my own possessions, the issue I have is with the government needing to police them as well.

5thgen4runner
01-05-2013, 12:03 AM
I just picked up a framing hammer from the Home Depot the other day. No waiting period, no background check. But I'm pretty sure that if I tried to beat someone to death with it they'd charge me with assault with a deadly weapon.

I have no problem policing my own possessions, the issue I have is with the government needing to police them as well.

Agreed. Key word " possession". A possession is the sole responsibility of a possessor No body else. The government should not interfere with private possessions because just like everything else I own, a gun is simply just a possession. It cannot act or make decision without me having some type of influence over it.

smith629
01-05-2013, 2:24 AM
Some folks in this thread have either:

a. Lived in California their entire life
b. Been in California too long
c. Never lived in a free state

Possession and sale of private property should not need any government intervention to proceed with such sale.

Ever tried selling your house or car without any government intervention? Not trying to be a jerk but that's simply not the type of ideal world we live in. Theoretically that's great, but as my economics teacher once told me: if you think your house/land is private property that you "own" try not paying property taxes for a couple of years and see what happens.

the86d
01-05-2013, 8:16 AM
A great idea for anyone to buy a deadly weapon completely anonymously with out any tracking? It's this mentality that will get firearms banned. Its completely irrational or at best criminally self centered. I wanna by and sell my stuff with out record and I don't care what nut or criminal benifits from it. Come on. If you want to own deadly weapons police them yourselves or you are gonna loose them.

I hope you are not talking about my 2 sentence perfect solution... as if you are, it was only two sentences long and you will need to "read" it again... excerpt: "The number could be looked up for currency on the Internet to see if it has been revoked..." No quote... so nobody knows what you were referencing.

NiteQwill
01-05-2013, 8:23 AM
Ever tried selling your house or car without any government intervention? Not trying to be a jerk but that's simply not the type of ideal world we live in. Theoretically that's great, but as my economics teacher once told me: if you think your house/land is private property that you "own" try not paying property taxes for a couple of years and see what happens.

Let me guess, you have never lived in a Free State? California WAS exactly like most of the U.S. until recently [per se]. It only takes a few "feel good" laws to make people forget what freedom is like. Are you saying that 43 other states have it wrong?

Turn off the blinders. I'm not talking about taxes.

hakenlag
01-05-2013, 9:13 AM
Keep up that kind of thinking and your gun collection is going to become a knife collection. Try defending your house with your knife collection. I'd rather buy and sell my guns through an FFL then have a knife collection.

In 20 years, if enough people continue to compromise and capitulate, you won't even have a knife collection.

nothing4u
01-05-2013, 1:53 PM
The "Gun Show Loophole" is no different than a unicorn, it doesn't exist. Just a fantasy the anti's came up with to justify more infringements on our rights.

Do you know what happens when you sell your guns prohibited person? The ATF traces it back and this happens.

vhuKUoOrlaA

Anyone who thinks it's a loophole is a moron.

otalps
01-05-2013, 2:35 PM
What are gun show loopholes? Are they possible in Kalifornia?

The "gun show" loophole is a term made up by people afraid of inanimate objects used to make others feel there is something scary about ones ability to sell or give a gun to a brother, sister or best friend without permission from the government.

IVC
01-05-2013, 2:56 PM
Too many keep on going back to "it's not government business." Correct, it's not government's business to interfere in simple transactions, BUT selling a firearm to a prohibited person is a felony and the seller is part of that transaction.

All of the solutions that were suggested here are not in order to bring the government into the process (we don't want to use FFL and we certainly don't want to have a system that can even in principle create a registry; that's what antis want), BUT in order to protect us, the law abiding gun owners, from unintentionally committing a felony.

Blake760
01-05-2013, 3:14 PM
On a related note, my wife recently asked me," Why do you need a background check for every firearm you purchase?" Her point being; we already own guns. If I go crazy tomorrow, I already have a gun(s). I could think of no logical reason except government greed and deference.
Also, we were recently in Montana to visit my parents. My father did his background check and fingerprints when he got his state CCW (don't get me started on that). Every subsequent firearm purchase is cash and carry.

OneAvgWhiteGuy
01-05-2013, 3:52 PM
I can think of two reasons off the top of my head.

1. Someones legal status may have changed.
2. Previous purchases can be sold. They may have no guns.

fizux
01-05-2013, 4:46 PM
Ever tried selling your house or car without any government intervention? Not trying to be a jerk but that's simply not the type of ideal world we live in. Theoretically that's great, but as my economics teacher once told me: if you think your house/land is private property that you "own" try not paying property taxes for a couple of years and see what happens.

That is a reasonable point to raise, but I believe that is not really a good analogy. Both real property and the average car have a substantially greater value than the average firearm.

Although not required, you would be well advised to record your purchase of real estate (so the old owner can't resell it to someone else). Recordings must be acknowledged by a notary public; max fee is $10. The recording fee is in the range of $12-20 (depending upon whether the deed is all on one page or if the legal description is attached as exhibit A, whether your county's recorder is authorized to charge $1 for the improvement fund, and whether you want a conformed copy), plus a statewide doc xfer tax of $0.55 per $500. Basically, your cost of recording is about 0.11% of the transaction plus $25. Yes, charter cities cost more; as can be expected, SF is by far the most outrageous at $12.50 per $500 for properties over $10M, or a whopping 2.5%. There is no sales tax on real estate (until next year). Unlike the FFL or DMV, I am usually in and out of the SF Assessor-Recorders office in under 10 mins.

Failure to record the deed is not a crime. You are not required to use or pay for a private recording service.

Ignoring sales tax, let's take that $25 DROS plus $10 PPT fee at $35. $35 / 0.11% = $31,818, or the price of the used gun that you'd have to buy to equal the state transfer tax by percentage. Even in SF, any used guns under $1,400 command a higher percentage of transfer fees than a $10M+ home. Of course, I say "used" because that caps the FFL dealer fee; interstate and new purchases are worse.

In case someone is about to post this:
1) "Wait, but I paid so much more than that in title insurance, escrow fees, loan app/points, appraisal, etc., when I bought my real estate, and my agent told me I was required by law to pay those things"
or
2) "... a huge brokerage commission of 6% when I sold ..."

Here are my answers:
1) These costs are not required by law, but would have been required by your lender if you financed your purchase. Make sure you factor 30 years of the spread between credit card and mortgage interest to your firearm calculation.
Certainly some of these costs make sense even if you don't have a loan, but would you seriously buy a $250,000 firearm without insuring it, getting it authenticated/appraised, and making sure there wasn't a lien on it?

2) This was not imposed by the govt. You were paying someone else to market the property and have other agents show it to their clients, get your disclosures in order, and give you good advice about pricing (including staging and good ROI improvements). If you had a decent agent, your sale price ended up way more than 6% higher than the average person would have gotten as a FSBO.

If you want to bring up annual real property tax, please PM me for my response as I am not going to post it here.

With vehicles, it is slightly less exaggerated, but still as a ratio, the purchase price of a vehicle divided by the administrative burden is surprisingly easier for a vehicle than for a firearm. I would argue that a 10-day "cooling off" period before you can pick up your new car would save far more lives (and marriages) than the one in place for firearms. "Vehicle PPT" IS cash and carry, and the onus is on the buyer to send in the registration paperwork (seller does have to send in a notice if they don't want to pay future parking tickets). You only have to send stuff into DMV because vehicle title is managed by a Torrens system, unlike California real estate.

Now look at the level of government involvement in licensing you to use these items in a public place.

Driver licenses are "shall issue" to anyone over 16 ("may issue" at 14, with a good reason per CVC 12513), can be procured at DMV office in the state even if you don't reside in that county, are $24 every 5 years, and have nationwide reciprocity. The only required multi-appointment scenarios or required training for non-commercial licenses are age related restrictions (aspiring motorcyclists under 21 / auto drivers under 18); otherwise, you can walk out the same day as your initial application with a valid temp license, even if you are an illegal alien. If you haven't gotten too many tickets or accidents, most renewals can be done online; you never have to pass another practical test to renew unless your license was revoked or you did something flagrant like being at fault in a fatal accident. The license is not specific to the VIN of the vehicle you used on the day of your practical test, and you don't lose your license for committing minor infractions using a vehicle.

Now try to say the same for CCW. Keep in mind, more people are killed by cars than guns (including self defense) every year. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm
The right to keep and bear arms is a specifically enumerated constitutional right; driving is a privilege.

fizux
01-05-2013, 5:09 PM
I can think of two reasons off the top of my head.

1. Someones legal status may have changed.
2. Previous purchases can be sold. They may have no guns.

If current ownership exempted backgrounds in CA, sellers would probably use the statewide registration system to verify that buyer is the registered owner.
1. Upon status change, the black helicopter guys use the statewide registration system to know what guns to take away, and flag that person as ineligible.
2. He would no longer be the currently registered owner, would he? Also, how is requiring a background going to make a difference if #1 isn't enough?

Blake760
01-05-2013, 6:52 PM
I can think of two reasons off the top of my head.

1. Someones legal status may have changed.
2. Previous purchases can be sold. They may have no guns.

That's like saying should have to buy a new drivers license every time I buy a car :facepalm:

OneAvgWhiteGuy
01-05-2013, 7:19 PM
More like making sure your license is valid before you drive off the lot.

Pont
01-05-2013, 11:41 PM
How about this... instead of just "fixing the gun show loophole", you have a General Verification Card. You go to the post office, DMV, or licensed private business with access to the system, verify your identity, and they print out a multi-purpose General Verification Card for a small fee like $5.

This card includes basically everything you need for typical verifications of eligibility, so the government has no way to know *why* you requested the card. After printing, you can black out any parts of the card you don't want to show whoever is verifying what.

The card is dated.

Your legal residence, for verifying things like school district eligibility *and voting district*. The address would be arranged so that it is easy to black out parts starting with specific and moving on to general.

Your work eligibility. (e.g. green card or US citizen, H1B, tourist-not-eligible)

An icon indicating you are/not over your local age of consent.

An icon indicating you are/not over 18.

An icon indicating you are/not over 21.

An icon indicating you are/not a prohibited person (remember, you can black out what you don't want people to see).

Choptop
01-05-2013, 11:51 PM
There are federal requirements for being able to purchase a firearm... checking to see if a person meets those requirements is not out of line.

fizux
01-06-2013, 1:45 AM
There are federal requirements for being able to purchase a firearm... checking to see if a person meets those requirements is not out of line.

I've got no basic complaint with the first check, but CA gets a little extreme, especially with a proposal to charge additional background fees for ammo.

Once I've paid to have a background check, should I have to pay again for another background check to buy from the same seller? At the same time?
If you buy a handgun and long gun at the same time, you have to DROS both separately, and pay the fee twice. How exactly does that help public safety?

Suppose someone has a 03 C&R FFL, or a Certificate of Eligibility from CA DOJ (requiring fingerprints and an annual fee). Either one of those two documents proves the federal requirements have been met, and the current status can be verified instantly. How does requiring another background fee and waiting period improve public safety?

What if someone already holds one or more professional licenses in California, for which they provided fingerprints and pay the license fees to keep that background updated continuously, does it make sense to require duplicative payment for the same service?

Moonshine
01-06-2013, 1:55 AM
I used to think it would be reasonable to have all transfer require a background check including face to face at gun shows. I've since changed my mind, if the gun control folks want even 1mm of ground they'll have to fight for

thegratenate
01-06-2013, 9:38 AM
For years I had thought that a system just like a Drivers license would be best for guns, where you can get an endorsement for hazmat, high occupancy, doubles, tanker, etc, just substitute SBR, SBS, explosive device, Full Auto, etc in the endorsements section. This system would provide us with more access to the rights that we have been denied for decades, and allow sellers(both private and FFL) to make a reasonable, and possibly verified check of the purchasers legal ability to own the item being offered for sale.

The major flaw in this logic is that it is correlating an enumerated right, with an activity that has been deemed a privilege. What I was failing to take into account is that the right to arms has the same significance as the right to own a bible, a facebook account, a clipboard for gathering petition signatures, or to gather and discuss political events. At this point I don't know what I would consider to be an acceptable level of infringement on a right that the government has been told to not infringe on, but I am darn sure that we are way beyond reasonable and need to take some ground back.

Choptop
01-06-2013, 10:40 AM
I've got no basic complaint with the first check, but CA gets a little extreme, especially with a proposal to charge additional background fees for ammo.

Once I've paid to have a background check, should I have to pay again for another background check to buy from the same seller? At the same time?
If you buy a handgun and long gun at the same time, you have to DROS both separately, and pay the fee twice. How exactly does that help public safety?

Suppose someone has a 03 C&R FFL, or a Certificate of Eligibility from CA DOJ (requiring fingerprints and an annual fee). Either one of those two documents proves the federal requirements have been met, and the current status can be verified instantly. How does requiring another background fee and waiting period improve public safety?

What if someone already holds one or more professional licenses in California, for which they provided fingerprints and pay the license fees to keep that background updated continuously, does it make sense to require duplicative payment for the same service?


I concur.

with the state of technology today there is no reason that two purchases cant be handled on the same background check. I'm not even opposed to a fee for the check, the database dont maintain itself, nor are the servers, terminals or connections free. Not unreasonable to expect to help support that system.

IVC
01-06-2013, 11:38 AM
I'm not even opposed to a fee for the check, the database dont maintain itself, nor are the servers, terminals or connections free. Not unreasonable to expect to help support that system.

As far as the paying goes, it should all come out of the budget. This is not a voluntary transaction involving an arbitrary privilege. It's a compulsory step of exercising a civil right.

Voting machines and keeping polling places up and running also costs money, but poll taxes or similar "pay to play" schemes are already unconstitutional.

Choptop
01-06-2013, 11:41 AM
As far as the paying goes, it should all come out of the budget. This is not a voluntary transaction involving an arbitrary privilege. It's a compulsory step of exercising a civil right.

Voting machines and keeping polling places up and running also costs money, but poll taxes or similar "pay to play" schemes are already unconstitutional.


fair enough.

fizux
01-06-2013, 12:01 PM
I concur.

with the state of technology today there is no reason that two purchases cant be handled on the same background check. I'm not even opposed to a fee for the check, the database dont maintain itself, nor are the servers, terminals or connections free. Not unreasonable to expect to help support that system.

I am not opposed to a fee to maintain such a system either; however, the fee should be limited to the cost of the system, and not used to subsidize the gun grabbing agenda. Last time I was at a gun show in Virginia, I found out that the background fee charged by the state police (including NICS) was $2. California charges $25, plus forces a dealer fee, every time, every handgun. Wanna bring something back and register it? No online system to allow convenient entry, but ding! more fees.

This isn't about background checks, or public safety. It is about making legal compliance unnecessarily expensive and administratively painful, with the intended purpose of deterring the exercise of a specifically enumerated constitutional right. That is what I find so offensive.

When the Joe Biden commission doesn't want to talk to any pro-gun groups, and Senator Yee's office sure doesn't answer pro-gun offers to help craft something that makes sense (I have offered, in writing, and provided my contact info and credentials), it confirms that public safety is not the goal but merely the justification.

Yankee Clipper
01-06-2013, 7:52 PM
I can't believe that some people on this forum believe that NICS background checks will solve anything, Maybe Finesteine would but what about the rest of us thinking people? Many of us grew up when you could buy handguns and have them shipped to you by Fed Express. Now we have to jump through mega hoops to buy any firearm and the killings have gotten more massive. Pistol mags and small rifle mags( ie: carbine) haven't gotten that much larger. Now, all of a sudden it's become politically expedient to outlaw smaller magazines and proscribe semiautomatic rifles.
I don't have an answer but I can't believe our democracy can survive unless we solve this simple problem. If we go the way GB and Australia have we are surely domed.

Pont
01-06-2013, 9:52 PM
As far as the paying goes, it should all come out of the budget. This is not a voluntary transaction involving an arbitrary privilege. It's a compulsory step of exercising a civil right.

Voting machines and keeping polling places up and running also costs money, but poll taxes or similar "pay to play" schemes are already unconstitutional.

A minor fee, in this case, would go a long way in preventing abuse. For example, if a NY Times reported decided to find all our real identities and run a check on each and every one of us, it would cost a lot of money and there would be a paper trail leading back to them.

dfletcher
01-06-2013, 10:02 PM
Why should a person who already possesses a gun be required to submit to a records check when buying subsequent guns? Who is being made safe, what government interest is being served by such a restriction?

I'd be curious to know how the following might go over with gun control proponents. Require background checks for all "1st time buyers" but eliminate them for those who already legally own and possess guns. That's compromise, yes?

tozan
01-08-2013, 8:31 PM
In Fla if you have a weapons permit you can cash and carry all guns...

IVC
01-08-2013, 8:53 PM
A minor fee, in this case, would go a long way in preventing abuse. For example, if a NY Times reported decided to find all our real identities and run a check on each and every one of us, it would cost a lot of money and there would be a paper trail leading back to them.

The most important aspect of any background check system would be NOT TO HAVE a registry where something like this could happen even in principle. If the seller keeps the record and the database only keeps it for a few days, then the seller is covered and NY Times can go pound sand.

The main hidden agenda of antis is to try to attach *registration* to any background check system - this is the aspect of any background check system that we absolutely have to fight to the end.

hakenlag
01-09-2013, 7:11 AM
In Fla if you have a weapons permit you can cash and carry all guns...

Since when does FL have a weapons permitting system? There are only 9 states any sort of permitting system.
Only 2 for long guns.

M. D. Van Norman
01-09-2013, 9:33 AM
I believe he was suggesting that a Florida CWL exempts the buyer from additional background checks therein.

Sgt Raven
01-09-2013, 1:52 PM
I believe he was suggesting that a Florida CWL exempts the buyer from additional background checks therein.

Yep, the same in Az. In Az, with a Az CCW & Az ID, they skip the background check and just fill out the 4473.

hakenlag
01-09-2013, 2:42 PM
I believe he was suggesting that a Florida CWL exempts the buyer from additional background checks therein.

Actually it doesn't. The Florida CWL is issued by the Dept. of Agriculture. The CWL bypasses the waiting period in FL but not the federal background check.

the86d
01-24-2013, 5:07 AM
1) Issue a card for people "kosher" to own a firearm, each with a unique number.
2) Look up card on Internet to see if it has been revoked due to mental instability or felony, and if not revoked, then buy and sell freely, paperless, and just verify ID against said card...

This PERFECT two sentence solution is WAY too complicated for fool-politicians like Feinstein, Pelosi, Obama, and Boxer... as the only reason to register is for future confiscation, period. Registration serves no other purpose, and does NOT deter crime in any way. The DOJ would save millions in background checks, and they have to update data anyway.

eaglemike
01-24-2013, 8:34 AM
OP: In other words in most states anyone can buy a gun from anyone else in moments as long as they have some form of payment acceptable to the seller. Anyone. I don't know which is more amazing: that or those short-sighted people who feel it's the way things should be.
Ummm, you sure about that? "A Gun" is pretty general.......... :)

1st2fight
01-24-2013, 9:25 AM
Until facts are known about how many guns used in crimes that were purchased with the so called "gun show loophole", let's not create more laws or bureaucrats who we can't afford to pay.

One of many reasons why it's called "gun show loophole" is because that's where you often find more private sellers and buyers in one place. Maybe for CA it should be called "calguns loophole" with the amount of selling and buying being done by private sellers daily here. ;-)

For CA, you can buy a "C&R" rifle, such as M1 Garand, M1 carbine and SKS centerfire rifles over 50 years old from private parties without background check/waiting period required. This can be done almost anywhere, i.e. gun shows, private residences, etc... Many of these "C&R" rifles are more deadly than an AR15/M16/M4 and some can take more than 10 rounds.

If a seller or buyer feels he/she wants to make sure the firearm is not hot or buyer is legit, they can use a FFL dealer to transfer the firearm. This is voluntary and can be agreed by both sides before hand. For long guns, there's no limit to number of firearms that can be transferred on the same background check and it typically costs $35.