Do you support access to the NICS for private sellers?

[friendly_iconoclast]

Something DonP said on another thread made me think, and I suspect he is correct:

...I've noticed though that the people demanding the close of the "loophole" don't seem too interested in actually allowing private citizens the unlimited use of NICS. It's more about closing down gun shows than actually catching bad guys trying to straw purchase guns...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=263163&mesg_id=263286


Now correct me if I'm wrong, but I do not seem to recall anyone denouncing the so-called "gun show loophole" advocating
opening up the instant check system to private sellers.

And yes, I do support the abilty for non-FFL holders to use the system. I do not want ineligible persons buying
firearms.

[virginia mountainman]

1. Absolutly....

To close the so called, Gunshow loophole, would open us up to Federal gun registration...And the ability to confiscate. As has already happened in California.

Allowing the general public access to NICS, with no paper trail should be a non brainier.

But the people that want the so called, gun show loophole closed, have much bigger plans, that are contrary to our civil rights

[grasswire]

2. when dissent is criminalized...

...these massive databases are going to be considered the enemy of liberty for America.

[Mnpaul]

3. I think it would be a good idea

There would have to be a few changes made to make it work. It would give the seller a sense of security as well knowing that you didn't sell the gun to a felon.

[Recursion]

4. Yes, with caveats

There needs to be some kind of regime for privacy protection.

[Euromutt]

5. Personally, I'm not too fussed one way or the other...

...but the way I see it is that you can't have it both ways. You can't decry the fact that private (non-FFL) sellers at gun shows (or elsewhere) aren't required (indeed, permitted) to run NICS checks, while simultaneously refusing to even consider any scheme whereby private sellers would be able to access NICS.

[Hoopla Phil]

6. I would support that. I would even go so far as to mandate it AT gun shows but NOT

to mandate it for any other purpose. Voluntary only with the only mandated exception being at gun shows.

[Recursion]

7. I still don't see the special treatment for "gun shows"

I mean, what defines a "gun show"? There will have to be a statutory definition for that, though I understand some states already have them (they make the sales laws more strict at them) so we could probably work from there.

If a tenth of the energy being spent on this alleged loophole were spent on catching and prosecuting unlicensed dealers and straw purchasers, this wouldn't be an issue.

[SteveM]

36. Maybe I'm wrong, but "gun shows" don't sell guns. Sellers at shows do...

This "loop hole" thing is really the much broader condition where individuals -- non dealers -- aren't required to run a NICS and in fact CANNOT run a NICS if they wanted to. The disingenuous label of "gun show loop hole" is, I believe, an attempt by the gun-controllers to conjure up a "problem," then to "solve" it and declare political victory.

Though I think such a measure would have negligible effect on violent crime, murders, etc., I support universal access to NICS if there was no way a data base could be created by subterfuge. Frankly, I don't trust many elements in government to go along with any safeguards like this. I recall some gun-controllers who wanted carte blanche access to the NICS records (whatever their form) so they could "research" crime trends and such. No, I think they want to compile a list of people likely to have guns; hence, registration.

[aikoaiko]

8. Yes, open up NICS.

You could just open it up, but I like the suggestion that driver's licenses (or state ids) have a number on the back that can be used when calling NICS.

[spin]

9. Absolutely.

[paulsby]

10. absolutely

it's a great idea.

[AtheistCrusader]

11. Yes.

Best solution available.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

12. No.

There is no way to enforce the usage of NICS in a private sale without a discrete record of the sale, either by NICS recording the info or private sellers that are required to record the sale. Either action could be used to build a registry. The reason NICS works for dealers is their diligent use of FFL bound books (record-keeping they are required by law to maintain) and compliance with ATF inspections and inquiries of such records.

Furthermore, the NICS system could be used as a tool by criminals to choose victims that may be prohibited from owning firearms. I'm sure criminals prefer unarmed targets.

[Euromutt]

14. It doesn't have to be direct access

The most common objection to allowing general access to NICS is that it would permit any Tom, Dick or Harry to check up on private citizens. But the fact is that FFLs don't get to browse the database; they can submit the information from a 4473 and get a response of either "Proceed," "Delay" or "Deny." What we need is some method whereby a private seller can be guaranteed that the NICS check actually applies to the prospective buyer, without the prospective buyer handing over enough personal information to perform identity theft to a complete stranger.

Somebody else had the idea of having an ATF/FBI-run NICS booth at gun shows, where private parties could request background checks on themselves for a nominal fee, or for free (thereby side-stepping the objection of requiring the buyer to hand over all his info to the seller). An additional idea I had was to have such a booth issue a one-day certificate indicating that on that date (and that date alone), Mr. John Doe, WA driver's license DOEJQ**356ZZ, could not be determined to be ineligible under federal law to possess a firearm, and that any sale of a firearm to Mr. Doe could therefore PROCEED.

Such an idea is pretty much only workable at gun shows, because there's a large enough concentration of transactions going on that it's worth the effort.

[Tim01]

17. A drivers license with a pre approved mark on it.

If you sell a gun to somebody you are required to have a photocopy of their drivers license, and keep it for a certain number of years, just like tax records.
If somebody ends up with a gun, and police work leads back to you, you better be able to prove you saw their drivers license and it had the correct mark.
No record of the gun at all.
How does that plan sound?

[OttavaKarhu]

13. I don't understand the issue...

...because at the gun show I attend monthly, only members of the organization can buy and sell either privately OR as dealers.

So when you buy or sell either as a dealer or a private individual, you have the buyer's or seller's name and membership number. The organization that sponsors the shows--best run I've ever encountered--knows who these people are, since a background check, driver's license, and herky paperwork is required for membership. Annually. Any member can confirm this at the point of private sale.

Anyone buying from or selling to a non-member is ejected, period. One strike means immediate and permanent expulsion. They did this last year to a seller who had been a member dealer in good standing for something like 20 years. In this case it was a misunderstanding on the paperwork (by the buyer) at the most crowded show of the year. (Buyer was law abiding and checked out.) Didn't matter.

Also the organization has a big team of members circulating and keeping an eye on things, plus a membership that is adamant about burning straw purchasers. We're a bit on the populist-competency side in my state, both liberals and conservatives alike. We like to do things well for the right reasons without Big Brother getting involved, with all his expensive and frequently ineffective bureaucracy.

Maybe it's not like this in other states, but I think it's a better model. I'm of the opinion and experience that citizens can take care of buying and selling firearms lawfully ourselves without government interference. And without the creation of monster ass databases that can be used later to identify or frame dissenters, put them on secret Star Chamber "terror suspect" lists they can never get off of, seize their property, and demolish their liberties.

I'm also of the opinion that the "gun show loophole" is Bradyblather like "assault rifle" and "cop killer bullets" and all those other focus-grouped sneezes of hysteria.

As a practical note, in private buying/selling, I always require of the other party this organization's membership, a valid in-state (not reciprocal) CCW, plus seeing the buyer or seller's driver's license. I document all of that for both me and them. Law-abiding people don't mind this level of care-taking. If the person doesn't have a CCW, I apologize and don't sell, and the times this has happened, they also have understood. I don't need the karma of a gun-ignint wingnut using something I sold them to "shoot out tires" or whatever.

In closing, I do understand law abiding people who do not like this system, considering it way too far on the government-bureaucracy side as it is. But that's another topic. I'm just reacting here to the idea that the only way to "prevent straw purchases" is to have some magical gigundo bureaucracy run by millionaires and billionaries and administered by private corporations.

[Tim01]

16. The gun shows in my state are not remotely like yours.

You pay your money to get through the front door, that's it.

[OttavaKarhu]

28. May I ask where you are?

Or can you point to adjoining states, and I'll figure it out? ;)

Is there only one organization organizing the gun shows?

I ask out of genuine curiosity.

[X_Digger]

29. Texas is like that, too..

.. pay your money, you're good. Now at one show I go to, if you want to set up a table, you have to be a member of the club, and I assume there are more club rules for that.

[Tim01]

31. Virginia. I believe North Carolina is the same way.

Most of the gun owners I know would be OK with some kind of system to stop illegal gun traffic, as long as it does not create a defacto gun data base.

There are multiple gun show organizers. If a private individual sells another individual a gun it is perfectly legal.There is no requirement at all, as far as I know. Buying from a dealer is a different story.

[Tim01]

15. Very much so. nt

[pipoman]

18. Since shorly after the NICS was put in place

and the whole 'gun show loophole' was invented, I have advocated access to NICS by private sellers. I believe that the process should be that a FFL should be required, as one of the many, many terms and rules of having a FFL, to conduct private sale transfers for a low ($20 or less) statutory fee and within a reasonable statutory time frame. I have said over and over that the BATFE, or state and local LEO should have a kiosk at gun shows to conduct private sale transfers. These transfers could not be mandated by federal law for the same reason that they are not federally mandated right now, that is that the fed has no authority on private intrastate commerce. That said, states could mandate all private sales must go through NICS, and in fact some have. If, at the fed level, a voluntary system was set up as above, then if a private seller voluntarily uses NICS for the transfer, the seller was insured against criminal or civil lawsuits arising from the use of the weapon in the future, I believe many (if not most) people would opt to transfer through NICS. The fed could start a public awareness campaign, many of the problems arising from private sales could be eliminated. In truth, most 'gun show loophole' squawkers aren't really interested in taking a proactive approach to curb ineligible buyer's access to firearms, they simply would like to enact more federal gun control to the ultimate end of making gun purchases so difficult that most people don't participate.

[slackmaster]

19. Yes, as long as safeguards are put in place to prevent and detect misuse

A person who gets checked should be sent a snail-mail notification with the name and address of the person who initiated the check.

Using it for unauthorized purposes should be a misdemeanor.

[burrfoot]

21. I think

that this could also be addressed by requiring that both parties confirm that a sale is taking place?

i.e., The seller inputs the request, then the prospective buyer has to log on and approve that the request be processed? That should cut down on people requesting NICS checks as a way to snoop....

[X_Digger]

20. Yes- allow but not require

Have NICS take type of weapon being sold, state, and driver's license number which dips into the respective state driver's license database for personally identifiable information used to do a check.

Make it available, but not required though- I'd want it to sell to people I don't know, but it's silly to do it for sales between family and friends (and could be turned into a registry via nibbling expansion.)

[Tejas]

22. No - privacy issues

With the ATF sweeps in the states bordering Mexico, potential crime from handing out personal info to a stranger, etc.

"Hey, I bought a gun from you last week and somebody broke into my house and stole all of my guns!"

[1z2z]

23. Private NICS, legal here in NV

http://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-202.html#NRS202Sec254

[Endangered Specie]

24. If it is, it might end up being overused...

though thats not necessarily a bad thing, but I can see employers calling it up to screen potential new hires, women could call up their dates, etc etc

[gorfle]

30. And voters might call to check up on their politicians!

:)

[TPaine7]

25. Yes. n/t

[friendly_iconoclast]

26. Thanks to all who posted. Notice that no "loophole" complainers showed up?

Seems more and more obvious the "gun show loophole" "problem" is a scam....

[virginia mountainman]

27. They know they are full of shit...

And wish not to expose themselves to a clearing, and cleaning breeze of truth.

They prefer to stink, among themselves, so each other can have a smell of what they bring to the table...

[DonP]

32. That was kind of my original point

I don't expect any gun control people to show up for the discussion.

I don't think the gun control people give a damn about the gun shows or really believe they are a major source of crime guns. It's one more incremental step to solve a problem that doesn't exist.

It's just about doing everything they can to make it harder and harder to buy a gun or ammunition and discourage as many people as possible.

But if it ever does become available to individuals - the next step will be a limitation on how many NICS checks you can do in a year, month or week.

Then the BATFE will be able to come calling and check your guns and records, the way they can now with C&R class 003 licensees.

[LAGC]

33. FUCK NO!

We need to get rid of NICS altogether! If someone is too dangerous to own a gun, THEY SHOULDN'T BE LET OUT OF PRISON OR MENTAL HOSPITAL IN THE FIRST PLACE!

But once someone has served their time, they should get ALL of their civil rights restored, including RTKABA.

Sure there's still the issue of people who are on probation or parole who can have some of their civil rights temporarily suspended (like their Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure) but the onus shouldn't be on the seller to police matters for them, it should be up to the probation/parole officers to enforce compliance, by checking the offender's premises from time to time to verify no contraband is on site.

All NICS does is turn the retailer/seller into a de facto arm of the police state, and makes them do the job of law enforcement.

Plus, you can't tell me NICS isn't de facto registration, as I'm sure all those records don't just "disappear" off of FBI/ATF servers once called in. Its just a very bad precedent that has no place in a free society.

My 2 cents.

[Xenotime]

34. Short of banning most sales, yes.

Any kind of control is good in this regards.

[virginia mountainman]

35. So you regard the 20,000 gun control laws that are on the books.

As a complete lack of control???

[SteveM]

37. That is what bothers many of us here...

"Any kind of control is good in this regards."

No, folks here are NOT looking for 'any kind of control,' they are looking for a specific plan with safeguards. As has been noted, there is concern that some kind of open NICS would be seen as just one step in a series of steps for more 'kinds of control.' This is precisely why most gun-control proposals are not "reasonable" or of "common sense." They are handfuls of slop slung against a barn to see what sticks.