PDA

View Full Version : Individual Background Checks and Self-Reporting for Private Party Transfers


chief003
01-04-2013, 1:36 PM
Much has been talked about the 'Gun Show Loophole' and the large disparity in regulating Private Party Transfers between the more highly regulated coastal states and the rest of the country. Now with the tragic events in Connecticut, a national discussion has been renewed to increase federal regulation of gun sales.

It is my belief that new regulation will occur, so what can I do to help shape a process that fairly balances the desires of those seeking greater restrictions on firearm sales and transfers, against those who fighting for the rights enumerated in the second amendment.

iNICS
To aid the country in reaching a consistent process that is fair and equitable for all Americans, I propose a federal Individual Background Check process utilizing the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, a process called iNICS for short.

iNICS would utilize the existing National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) built and maintained by the FBI. Each citizen would log on to NICS to created an account and submit all currently required information necessary to generate a iNICS Certificate validating the individual is not otherwise prohibited from purchasing a firearm in America. This action would follow the current process in place with the FBI.

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.

iReport
If the purchase is a Private Party Transfer, then I propose a Self-Reporting Private Party Transfer process called iReport. iReport would be a national program requiring both the buyer and seller to report to their state through a national registry portal the transfer of a firearm. This national program would allow for individuals to purchase firearms across state lines from any seller. The buyer would be required to provide the seller proof of their current and valid iNICS Certificate.


The two systems combine to provide the following benefits:
Closes the perceived gun show loophole
Ensure every purchaser has completed a background check
Creates a national registry of firearm sales
Creates a legal process for individual sales of firearms across state lines
Creates one national process for firearm transfers that is consistent for all Americans.
Eliminates waiting periods

The consequences of this system are:
Creation of a national firearms registry
In states that currently do not regulate private party transfers, a new more restrictive process is created
Penalties for failure to report a transfer
The system does not address any current issues with the definition of prohibited persons
Does not address training requirements
Eliminates waiting periods
It is my belief that congress would favorably receive a proposal of this nature, while states would fight to defend their traditional role in establishing firearm transfer policies. In my opinion iNICS and iReport are fair compromises for those who desire strong gun regulations, while balancing the protections afforded all Americans in the Bill of Rights.

Please share your constructive feedback on this proposal.
Thank you.


NICS
Link to NICS Fact Sheet (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/general-information/fact-sheet)
According to the FBI, NICS has processed over 100 million background checks in the last decade, with approximately 700,000 denials.
It provides full service to FFLs in 30 states, five U.S. territories, and the District of Columbia.
NICS is customarily available 17 hours a day, seven days a week, including holidays (except for Christmas).

Bullets&Whitewalls
01-04-2013, 2:17 PM
If im reading this right we would do the reporting? on ppt? I think it would be better written that the ffl does the report instead of the buyer and transferee. But make access avail to all party's so we know before we go into a deal.

YubaRiver
01-04-2013, 2:33 PM
No need to use an FFL for long guns in most parts of the country.

Bullets&Whitewalls
01-04-2013, 2:41 PM
Right, but his proposal would be that "we" do the reporting to DOJ for transfer while it sounds good I think a lot of people wouldn't actually do it and that would be another problem entirely. Too make the govt happy,lol

dustoff31
01-04-2013, 2:42 PM
If private persons were able to simply call and get a NICS check done like FFLs in most states, or your iNICS proposal, there would be no need for any iReport system.

You want to buy my gun? We meet, I call NICS, they say you are GTG, we trade money for gun and go on about our business.

SlobRay
01-04-2013, 2:48 PM
iReport
Creates a national registry of firearm sales

Not good, I say no to this!


Ray

nothing4u
01-04-2013, 3:06 PM
All we need is to have NICS available to the public. With this implemented, PPT can conduct this on their own with out the need of the guberment passing any new laws. As this gives the seller the tools to validate if the buyer is prohibited or not.

chief003
01-04-2013, 3:35 PM
All we need is to have NICS available to the public. With this implemented, PPT can conduct this on their own with out the need of the guberment passing any new laws. As this gives the seller the tools to validate if the buyer is prohibited or not.

If private persons were able to simply call and get a NICS check done like FFLs in most states, or your iNICS proposal, there would be no need for any iReport system.

You want to buy my gun? We meet, I call NICS, they say you are GTG, we trade money for gun and go on about our business.

Yes, the idea is to empower 'We the People' to access the national NICS system either individually in advance of a transfer (creating the iNICS Certificate that could be shared with the seller) or by calling.
The challenge I see in calling in for the background check is what happens when the buyer is denied. You both are standing there, gun and cash in hand, do you go through with the sale anyway or do you back away and look for another buyer? Tough call when there is no one else around to witness the transaction. Because of this, I suggest written documentation that the buyer can provide the seller, thus the online iNICS system.

Right, but his proposal would be that "we" do the reporting to DOJ for transfer while it sounds good I think a lot of people wouldn't actually do it and that would be another problem entirely. Too make the govt happy,lol

By self-reporting, we could open up firearm sales across state lines, a big plus to any consumer.

stix213
01-04-2013, 3:46 PM
I like the self reporting idea. The big issue for me with background checks is having to go into an FFL and get dicked around like it isn't what they signed up for. And for anyone who thinks it would become an honor system, uhhh it already is, since there is nothing stopping people from exchanging cash for gun without an FFL today as it is.

nothing4u
01-04-2013, 3:56 PM
Yes, the idea is to empower 'We the People' to access the national NICS system either individually in advance of a transfer (creating the iNICS Certificate that could be shared with the seller) or by calling.
The challenge I see in calling in for the background check is what happens when the buyer is denied. You both are standing there, gun and cash in hand, do you go through with the sale anyway or do you back away and look for another buyer? Tough call when there is no one else around to witness the transaction. Because of this, I suggest written documentation that the buyer can provide the seller, thus the online iNICS system.

You call NICS, they say no, and it's a tough call for you to back out from selling? Your name don't get put on NICS for being a boy scout. If this is a tough call for you I don't think you would have used NICS if it was available to you in the first place.

By self-reporting, we could open up firearm sales across state lines, a big plus to any consumer.

You would have to rewrite everything the ATF has done and each individual state would have to do the same.

dustoff31
01-04-2013, 4:02 PM
The challenge I see in calling in for the background check is what happens when the buyer is denied. You both are standing there, gun and cash in hand, do you go through with the sale anyway or do you back away and look for another buyer? Tough call when there is no one else around to witness the transaction. Because of this, I suggest written documentation that the buyer can provide the seller, thus the online iNICS system.

I can see the benefit of a printed document, but any law only effects those who are willing to obey it. Personally, I have no intention of committing any felonies, so it would be a pretty clear choice for me.

Those who choose to do otherwise, thrown them in the federal pen for 10 years.

putput
01-04-2013, 4:50 PM
The anti's don't care about regular people being able to perform background checks.

They want a national registry with a paper trail for every transaction.

Forcing background checks through FFL's is the vehicle they would use to do it...

radioman
01-04-2013, 5:15 PM
Being in Arizona for four months I see what freedom looks like, you need to get out of ca to see past all the doom.

I have talking about us doing background checks for weeks now. one post asked what if you run a check and it comes back no, do I sell the gun ro walk away? I think IF we had a way to run checks for our self and it came back no, if you sold the gun anyway, I think TEN years would be just right!!!!!

clbshooter
01-04-2013, 5:31 PM
The Ca govt will not do this because it takes the CONTROL and MONEY away from the Demtards that want to make you call them when you want to fart and the fart police is 10 minutes away. Sorry I am so fed up with their crap it is making me Nucking Futs.:mad::mad:

speedrrracer
01-04-2013, 5:34 PM
iReport
Creates a national registry of firearm sales
Not good, I say no to this!

Ray


National registration pretty much already exists. FFLs keep all that info for years, so it's available to the feds already.

Not saying you should change your opinion! Just saying that fight is already over.

IVC
01-04-2013, 5:36 PM
iReport
If the purchase is a Private Party Transfer, then I propose a Self-Reporting Private Party Transfer process called iReport. iReport would be a national program requiring both the buyer and seller to report to their state through a national registry portal the transfer of a firearm. This national program would allow for individuals to purchase firearms across state lines from any seller. The buyer would be required to provide the seller proof of their current and valid iNICS Certificate.

Unlike self administered background checks, this one is a resounding NO. The whole underhanded approach by antis is to call for "background checks" (not unreasonable, but not effective either), while aiming for "registration" (extremely dangerous).

There is absolutely no need for the government to have information on our individual guns since it's not used for fighting crime and the only purpose is to facilitate various forced buyback schemes, also known as confiscation. If there is no intent for confiscation, they don't need the registry. It's better not to have it in the first place, just so that whackos are not tempted.

The limit on interstate transfers is already being challenged in courts in the context of ex pats who don't have a state of residence.

IVC
01-04-2013, 5:39 PM
National registration pretty much already exists. FFLs keep all that info for years, so it's available to the feds already.

Not saying you should change your opinion! Just saying that fight is already over.

That's where the private party transfer in free states kicks in...

The registry and info are NOT available and should stay that way.

Cnynrat
01-04-2013, 6:44 PM
The anti's don't care about regular people being able to perform background checks.

They want a national registry with a paper trail for every transaction.

Forcing background checks through FFL's is the vehicle they would use to do it...

I agree that's what the antis want. A way to counter their proposals, rather than just saying no, no, no is to put forward reasonable solutions that we find acceptable. I'd guess most here would agree with the proposition that we don't want guns in the hands of convicted felons and/or the insane. So the question is how best to accomplish that.

I find this proposal intriguing. I don't want to create a gun registry, so what if there was no requirement to identify the specific gun, only that a transfer took place.