drx

Why not make available a system that everyone can access by phone or internet that allows you to quickly do a background check on someone to determine if they are legally allowed to purchase a firearm? Make it law that the onus is on the seller to know that they are not selling the firearm to a prohibited person. Boom, done.

When we sell ftf in state now it's on us to know that the buyer is from our state. Same thing. Guns stay off the books but the prohibited persons are denied access to them. If anyone was really about keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, they would allow an easy way for a private seller to determine whether the buyer is prohibited. The gun has nothing to do with it. It's about making positive ID on the buyer and determining their legal status.

NukMed

Two things:

1. Background checks for the purchase of arms are an unconstitutional infringement as they alert the government to a firearms purchase. They don't need to know what I buy or when, or collect any other information about me, unless conducting an investigation of me under reasonable suspicion of me having committed a crime.

2. Allowing any Joe Citizen to run background checks? Really? What's to keep folks from abusing the opportunity to run background checks on just anyone for any reason they choose. Does nobody else have privacy concerns about this?

bd111

If we suppose that Brady-NICS is going to be extended to personal FTF, the issue is economic. Right now only FFL dealers can access NICS to do transfers, so only FFL dealers can get transfer fees. I don't see them giving that up easily.

KurtC

That is exactly what the some States, the Feds and even the NRA are proposing. Everyone seems to be on board to a certain degree.

The problem is financing. Who will pay for it? Right now the shops running the NICS get billed by their prospective state agency, and they pass the cost on to the firearm recipient. Allowing individuals to access the system directly will create a few issues regarding payment.

500grains

No new laws.

Condor1970

Example. Guy walks in your house to buy a gun. You do a background check. While you are on the phone getting a denial, he panics, pulls a gun and shoots you when he knows he's getting rejected, and your hands are full holding a dumb phone, or staring at a computer screen. Then walks out with everything you own, including your gun.


As much as the concept seems legit, I can't see this working out well for us.

It reminds me of posting everyones names who own guns on a Google Map.

geeck

Universal background checks WILL LEAD TO GUN REGISTRATION! That is the end game.

drx

True, and I guess that point of my "plan" is really unnecessary. Truth be told it is already against the law to sell a firearm to someone who is not allowed to purchase it. As long as you've done your due diligence and have no reason to believe that person is prohibited, you're fine.

I've sold ftf many times in state. I always get a DL and do a bill of sale. If I could call a number or go on a website and put in someone's DL number and get an 'ok' I would do that. Why would I not? There's no record of what I'm selling them or that I'm selling them something at all.

What I'm envisioning here is a quick, anonymous check to see if the person is prohibited. No fee, no confirmation number, no username or access code or anything like that. Something like how you can check if an FFL is valid or not online.

nSquid

Rhetorical question: Why not set up a similar system for Voting?

Answer: old school pols don't understand new high-tech methods of "fixing" the vote. (old dog, new variation on old trick - pols getting dumber every year just like the lemmings they "lead")

There and Back Again

Do I really have to explain how to combat firearm confiscation by means of a universal check/registration database?

It really is easy to thwart El Gobierno.

Squid

Just simplify the issue - what the really are doing is registering people who own guns and maybe they do it by putting the serial number on the owners body...it's no different than any "scheme".

Shirley Temple

Close to what drx was saying and what I've proposed to a lot of people who have no say in it, is why not issue a card or driver's license endorsement to confirm that you have had a background check.

Here's how it would work. Every so often (let's say 2 years) you get your background check and fill out a form similar to what you have to do now, and if you pass you are issued a card that allows you to purchase- from a store, at a gun show, or from a private party. This card would be renewed from time to time, and attempting to buy without one or knowingly selling to someone without one would be a punishable crime.

At the time of purchase you simply present the card and that's it. No phone calls, no paperwork, nothing. The government would not know what you bought, how many you bought, where you bought, or even if you bought a firearm at all. All they would know is that for a 2 year period you were eligible to purchase a firearm.

And since you passed a check and were deemed responsible enough to own a firearm, there would be no restrictions on what you could buy.

I think this is a reasonable approach and we would come out ahead in the end. My 2 cents.

There and Back Again

For such a system to properly function it has to be updated "on the fly" so every two years (or some such duration) may not suffice.

Already, I can see it... the implement this national registration system and then charge us an arm and a leg annually to renew it. :/

osokusmc

The NICS system has wrongfully delayed me 60% of the time a check has been run. The system isn't accurate or efficient, all we need is a million more people trying to use it. The government is incompetent to run a database, they need to stay out of firearms transactions all together, all they do is impede commerce.

Vos Parate

Oh so Close. The only way for universal background checks to work is to have all of the firearms registered FIRST.

To all of those offering suggestions on how to make universal background checks acceptable - please stop it.