Hillary Clinton's Gun Control Proposals

Just for the record (reference the above post), I am NOT in favor of a UBC through an FFL.

It does not pass the "sufficient actual benefit" test to warrant that kind of interference with
those who would abide such a law, and NO benefit/protection from those who would/do
ignore the law.




You have to show me extraordinary benefit to -- in effect -- sweep the legs out from under
The People.
 
I'm just glad that the Democrat candidates have the good sense to remind folks just how anti-gun and anti-2nd amendment they really are; unlike the previous elections where they openly denied their positions.
 
One can argue that NICS checks for all gun sales at gun shows takes away a strong talking point of the 'gun show' loophole.

That has appeal to folks and perhaps the next wave - AWB, mag bans - won't have that appeal.

Now is this a reasonable point? I dunno but just putting out there from past debates. Private sales at gun shows seem not a major source of criminal guns.
 
One can argue that NICS checks for all gun sales at gun shows takes away a strong talking point of the 'gun show' loophole.
Click to expand...

I do wonder if the NRA came out and supported background checks at all gun shows if that might be seen as support for “reasonable” gun control. We all know it would have little impact on crime, but it would also impose little real inconvenience on most gun owners. It could go a long way toward building good will and eliminate this as an issue. Now, if they tried to include all person to person sells I would oppose that for a multitude of reasons.
 
This might be slightly off topic so feel free to delete it if necessary.

When you buy a new gun they do a NICS check based off your 4473 form. It usually takes but a few moments to clear and you're free to purchase your firearm, including handguns.

When you apply for a CCW license in my state (Indiana, not sure how the process works in other states) the process can take months and despite the fact you were legally allowed to purchase a handgun or other firearm you may be ineligible to carry a firearm in public.

I know an individual who had been put on suicide watch within the last 9 years. Under these circumstances, at least a year later after the incident, he was able to purchase a handgun. Shortly thereafter he applied for his CCW license and was subsequently denied after 4 months of waiting.

There has to be a way to make this process more effective. If the concern is that someone is suicidal, what good does denying them the right to carry a firearm do if they can still buy one anyway?
 
zincwarrior, for the sake of argument, what effect do you think implementing UBC's would have?
Click to expand...

OK, if we can all remain calm and respective of each other's opinions. I like TFL and its avoidance of politics.

With that notation, I am supportive of UBCs as:

***If there is justification for the NCIS in the first place, then all should be covered.
***The incremental cost of running it through an FFL is not material.
 
What is the legal definition of "gunshow"? There is a lot of leeway right there in such a background check law.
Click to expand...

When they talk about the "gunshow loophole" they mean having background checks on ALL private sales, whether at gunshows or otherwise.

If they really wanted to have universal background checks, they'd offer some sort of compromise to sell it instead of making it yet another slice off of gun owner's rights.

For starters, UBC should be free. Who benefits from running a background check, the buyer or society at large? Since it's society, society (i.e. the government) should pay for it.

In addition, it should be instant. It's the twenty-first century. It's entirely possible to keep track of who's had a disqualifying conviction and find out right now. If UBC is important enough to do, it's important enough to make it work. The question of holding the gun after three days should be moot, because a search as long as three days should be an unheard of event.

So what sort of concession would be an acceptable trade for UBC? Please note: I'm not necessarily advocating it, I just want to see what people come up with.
 
Last edited:
One step in the right direction would to require a NCIC check for private transactions.

Look I support the 2nd amendment and the NRA as much as the next person, but for private sales to be exempt from a NCIC check is crazy.
 
Just make NICS checks available to everybody for a $5 fee. INSTANT checks payable with a credit card over the internet. Seller would keep the information for 5 years in case a crime is committed with the gun. Failure to perform a NICS check and keep the record for 5 years might make you an accessory to a crime committed with that gun. Gun shows stay open. Seller's feel more comfortable with selling their guns FTF at gun shows. Government makes a little more money.

IF THAT WAS THE END (and it won't be), I'd be ok with this.
 
Just make NICS checks available to everybody for a $5 fee. INSTANT checks payable with a credit card over the internet. Seller would keep the information for 5 years in case a crime is committed with the gun. Failure to perform a NICS check and keep the record for 5 years might make you an accessory to a crime committed with that gun. Gun shows stay open. Seller's feel more comfortable with selling their guns FTF at gun shows. Government makes a little more money.
Click to expand...

I like this idea. If you live in a state where private FTF sales are legal (and no background check is performed) then doing a background check at an FFL is pointless.
 
Skans said:
Just make NICS checks available to everybody for a $5 fee. INSTANT checks payable with a credit card over the internet. Seller would keep the information for 5 years in case a crime is committed with the gun. Failure to perform a NICS check and keep the record for 5 years might make you an accessory to a crime committed with that gun. Gun shows stay open. Seller's feel more comfortable with selling their guns FTF at gun shows. Government makes a little more money.
Click to expand...
I'd add one more condition.

Holders of state-issued photo-ID gun licenses are exempt from the NICS check requirement IF the state provides a free hotline to verify whether the license is legit. Licenses would have simple security features such as a second proprietary number printed on them, like a credit card CVV code, to forestall spurious calls to the system to harvest licensees' personal information.

To wit: <activate robo call voice>

"Welcome to the State of ___ Gun License Verification System. Enter or speak the 6-digit license number printed on the face of the license across the photograph."

6-5-4-3-2-1

"Enter or speak 3-digit security code found at the lower left hand corner of back side of license."

9-8-7

"Enter or speak the first letter of the first and last name of license holder, last name first."

D-J

"Doe, John. White male, age 32, brown hair, blue eyes, weight 150 pounds, height 5 feet 10 inches. Address 1234 Main Street, Central City. If this information matches the information on the license and the buyer's physical description, the sale may proceed. Thank you for using the State of ___ Gun License Verification System." <click>
Skans said:
IF THAT WAS THE END (and it won't be), I'd be ok with this.
Click to expand...
Perhaps. The devil's in the details.
 
Last edited:
Look I support the 2nd amendment and the NRA as much as the next person, but for private sales to be exempt from a NCIC check is crazy.
Click to expand...

Criminals will not/do not pay any attention to NICS check laws. This is why a national firearm ownership database would be necessary. And why I oppose any such laws.
 
Calling the current situation "the gunshow loophole" is misleading. What is actually happening is that requiring background checks on sales between residents of a given state is left up to the discretion of the states. Some states require it, some don't.

The too oft repeated mantra of "no background checks at gunshows or over the internet" isn't true. If sales are allowed without checks in a given state it's because the state wants it that way. Just because you didn't get exactly what you wanted when a bill is passed doesn't make every feature you had to compromise on to get the bill passed a "loophole".

Leaving background checks to the states was a big point when GCA 68 was passed. Changing it to a federal mandate that all transfers must have a check is a big concession that demands something equally big in return.

Since we're imposing a Federal mandate over state discretion, how about universal must issue CCW in return for UBC? Get your CCW, go through a serious background check and have your CCW serve as a background check henceforth unless it's revoked for cause.

If they're serious about "common sense gun control" it's time they learned to give in order to get.
 
No $5 fee. NICS should be free. Most of the work involved in running NICS is collecting records from courts and mental health professionals about prohibited individuals, and that's a separate part of the system, and those costs should not influence the NICS query cost at all since they have to be maintained no matter how many people run queries.

The incremental cost of a single web-based API query to some well-run NICS internet service should be approximately $0. The cost to administer collection of fees would exceed the true incremental cost. Just like PACER requests. When that happens, and the underlying information has to be collected and kept regardless of demand, it's no longer a legitimate fee, but more like a tax.

If you run a mandatory program like NICS or PACER, the implication is that society benefits. The implication for charging more than the incremental cost is that you want to reduce the program's usage. Those two goals seem incompatible.
 
Criminals will not/do not pay any attention to NICS check laws. This is why a national firearm ownership database would be necessary. And why I oppose any such laws.
Click to expand...

Look, I oppose a firearm ownership database, but are you saying that felons should be able to purchase guns from legal channels? Is your statement referring to the felons selling guns? If so, that will never be fixed. I'm more concerned about felons buying from legal individuals.

Right now a felon can answer an ad over the Internet, show up with a valid driver's license, claim they don't have any felonies and walk away with a gun. The seller the entire time is under the assumption that the person is not prohibited from owning firearms.

This can't happen. All purchases need to go through an FFL or individuals need a way to run background checks. This can not be disputed.
 
I'm going to put a few folks on the spot here. Don't take it personally. I'm just trying to get the ideas out there.

If there is justification for the NCIS in the first place, then all should be covered.
Click to expand...
We have seen no data that shows we benefit from the NICS system. There is no attributable decline in crime associated with it. Nobody can show it's anything but a burden.

The incremental cost of running it through an FFL is not material.
Click to expand...
In my area, the average FFL transfer charge is $30. Had the bill passed, I'm aware of several dealers who planned on raising that price or refusing to do private transfers at all. They simply didn't want the additional responsibility, paperwork, and liability.

There's no way that's a fair or acceptable burden on the exercise of the 2A.

Just make NICS checks available to everybody for a $5 fee.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but that's a big hunk of "no." Take a look at the 4473. Sections 1-10 are a half-page identity-theft kit. That information is necessary for the NICS operators to make a (somewhat) clear identification of the buyer.

There's simply no way any of us should feel safe handing that information off to a stranger.

Seriously, I don't understand why gun owners are lining up to proactively give the antis this. It won't help us. Ask Neville Chamberlain.
 
The problem Tom is a lot of gun owners haven't thought it all the way through, and they don't do enough transfers to realize the risks. They buy a gun once every 5-10 years so to them they don't see what the big deal is. It's only when you pay attention to the fine details that you realize what a slippery slope it is.

IF they passed some sort of universally require nics check, they'd have to then order EVERY FFL to accept running them on behalf of individuals. They'd then have to set a fixed price to keep those stores from raising the price exponentially. Then they'd have to speed up and simplify the process to make it all feasible so the FFL's don't get bogged into oblivion.

But we know what the anti gun crowd wants is FOR it to get bogged down, for the price of obtaining an FFL to be prohibitively high, and hope to remove guns by attrition.

It's for that reason I'll never support any type of restrictions on a right that's not supposed to be infringed in the first place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top