system for Private sale background checks

Would you agree with a Background check card as described?

  • Yes, sounds like a good and reasonable idea

    Votes: 5 10.0%
  • Yes, but without the personal description information

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Yes, but not as you described (post thoughts)

    Votes: 1 2.0%
  • NO!! It's a terrible idea, that would lead to gun registration

    Votes: 27 54.0%
  • No, I don't see any need for the current system to change

    Votes: 14 28.0%
  • No, but MAYBE with some changes I'll post

    Votes: 3 6.0%

  • Total voters
    50
  • Poll closed .

Rogueone

New member
I'm curious how others think about an idea I've had in the past. I want to preface this by saying I believe there is no reason to restrict a legal gun owner from legally selling their guns to another who is legally able to purchase and own guns. BUT, how are we as private sellers suppose to "know" it's ok if we don't "know" the person?

So, my thought, which could be a solution to these "loophole" issues in places like Virginia, would be a Buyer's License, or Background check ID, or some kind of name like that. Essentially, just like a hunters license or a drivers license, you pay a small fee to a local FFL who runs the background check on you. Say it's $25. Once passed, you receive a "license", or card, good for 1, 2, 3 years, some reasonable number. Maybe even 5 years like a CHP license. The card would have your name and a Reference # to use when calling the database to verify the card owners status, and the phone number to call.

(edit after post 13: I should stress that as I envision this, it would be voluntary for the seller, both as a means of personal satisfaction as to the legal status of the buyer as well as protection from possible future prosecution as long as the seller keeps a record for that purpose. There would be no "legal requirement" for a buyer to get one of these cards or licenses. Also, it might serve as a way to speed up current FFL purchases, as the FFL might be able to simply enter the ID number and verify your ID ?? )

As I envision this, I as a seller would take your, the buyer's, card and call the number. After entering your ID number, it tells me your status as a legal gun purchaser is unchanged. AND, I'd like it to tell me you are white/black/asian, 5' 10" 205 lbs , blonde/black/brown hair, etc., so I as the seller can reasonably verify that you ARE the person the card was issued to and not someone with a stolen card. This is the extent of what I would want this system to contain or do. Be simply a method for non FFL sellers to verify a buyer is legal, as well as providing the simple description that would prevent us, legal gun owners, selling to an obvious thief.

As an example, say I steal the ID of a friend (assume I can't pass the check due to multiple felonies on my record, and don't know his description is provided). I'm at a show, start the purchase of a gun from a private seller, who calls it in. The call says "ID 20050678 is not barred from ownership or purchase of Firearms. Please verify the purchaser fits the following description: 5' 11" , 215 lbs, black hair, brown eyes, Japanese American heritage". Upon looking at me, the seller notices I am 5' 8", 205 lbs, dark blonde/gray hair, hazel eyes. Obviously I am NOT the owner of the card, so he's able to refuse to sell me the gun, and prevent a multi time felon from using the private sale mechanism.

Would you be ok with a system like this? ? Keep in mind, at no point are serial numbers reported, nor is there even a record of whether a purchase actually took place. Simply a verification that the person is still legal for purchase and ownership.
 
Last edited:
A separate ID card, NO,

We're already documented, cataloged, and otherwise indexed in entirely too many ways as it is.

Here in CA, for example, there are multiple state licenses that require fingerprinting. Guess what? You've got to be fingerprinted separately for each one, at a $100 fee for each shot, and there's only one company authorized by the State to do it (LiveScan). Gee, I wonder who wrote and lobbied for that law?

This idea is the same thing.

How about a free, online database. You put in your prospective buyer's DL / state ID / whatever else number, and the site returns a simple, YES / NO. For added peace of mind, each answer could have a unique number attached to it, so that you could print it out and keep it, in case someone ever tried to sue you for either selling the gun (if they did something bad with it), or not selling the gun (if they claimed discrimination).

Just some thoughts... Yes, there are ways to allow private sellers to verify that their prospective buyers are legally allowed to own a firearm, and that's not, in and of itself, a bad idea. But a) a new ID card isn't the answer, and b) I'm looking at this from the perspective of protecting the seller.

--Shannon
 
Why on earth would one even suggest such a thing ? Are you next going to suggest that the seller is responsible to see to it that a purchaser of an auto in a face to face deal have a valid DL and insurance ? .
 
tube_ee, well, if the database works off of DL data, I suppose that would be just as good. To be honest, I hadn't rethought it from that aspect. I've sort of been free flow thinking on this awhile, and my initial thought was a "license" that you simply carried and the seller would be like, "cool, you have one of those preapproved background checks so here ya go, enjoy". But as I thought more on it, I figured it made more sense to have a way to verify the status was unchanged, since it'd be too easy to get a license "before" your status changed because you knew you were going to loose it and a no verify card wouldn't work.

IF, we could get online access to the system without charge, I'd be all for that, just not sure they'll open it up like that.

Thanks for the good feedback
 
Why on earth would one even suggest such a thing ? Are you next going to suggest that the seller is responsible to see to it that a purchaser of an auto in a face to face deal have a valid DL and insurance ? .

Depends. Is it a crime in your jurisdiction for somebody without a license/insurance to purchase a vehicle (assuming they aren't driving it off the lot)? To own one?
 
Redneck, so it wouldn't bother you if you sold a gun privately, only to find out the next day they've gone and killed an entire family during a home invasion, or robbed a place, like a bank, and shot and killed half a dozen people??? Or turned out to be the next Cho?? (not that it would have helped with Cho since his data wasn't reported) You'd rather have no idea than some idea if the person you're selling to is legal to own the gun??

I guess that means you'd sell your car to a 14 year old as well since you don't seem to be concerned about the legality of the buyer. Interesting.
 
Redneck, so it wouldn't bother you if you sold a gun privately, only to find out the next day they've gone and killed an entire family during a home invasion, or robbed a place, like a bank, and shot and killed half a dozen people??? Or turned out to be the next Cho?? (not that it would have helped with Cho since his data wasn't reported) You'd rather have no idea than some idea if the person you're selling to is legal to own the gun??

I guess that means you'd sell your car to a 14 year old as well since you don't seem to be concerned about the legality of the buyer. Interesting.

I dont sell guns to any tom dick or harry that comes down the street , and i have sold a bunch over the years . I do quite a bit of gun trading to both friends and dealers . What i find interesting is that on a pro 2a board you apparently are in favor of further restricting rights, and doing it with a typical " feel good " measure that would have little to no effect on crime or criminals getting guns . I have not noticed crime going down measurably since Brady checks were made law . Nor for that matter since GCA68 when form 4473 was adopted .
The fact is that Brady loves to tout a huge figure of denied sales , I ask how many felons and other prohibited persons have been arrested and charged for attempting to purchace ?

We dont need to further penalize lawful gun owners doing lawful transactions , we need to penalize criminals . Think about this a sec .. By simply " defunding " your pie in the sky " free " ( read taxpayer supported ) system the agency responsible for administration , or congress for that matter can make a de facto ban on any private sales in the us . Dont think that can happen , well ask all the Vets who once again can appeal a VA decision to report them to NICS as mentally incompetent if they so much as mention stress ect.. It took how many years since brady checks for these folks to be able to even appeal to regain a wrongfully lost right ??

If you still have the nerve to question MY motivation well feel free as i suspect i know where YOU stand .
 
If you still have the nerve to question MY motivation well feel free as i suspect i know where YOU stand .

No, the point is that it doesn't restrict rights at all, it serves as an absolution to the seller so that they can't later be held responsible for the buyers actions. They would be given the same rights as FFL holders in that way.
 
We dont need to further penalize lawful gun owners doing lawful transactions , we need to penalize criminals . Think about this a sec .. By simply " defunding " your pie in the sky " free " ( read taxpayer supported ) system the agency responsible for administration , or congress for that matter can make a de facto ban on any private sales in the us . Dont think that can happen , well ask all the Vets who once again can appeal a VA decision to report them to NICS as mentally incompetent if they so much as mention stress ect.. It took how many years since brady checks for these folks to be able to even appeal to regain a wrongfully lost right ??

A fair argument. For defunding, in theory it could be written into that law that if at any point sales were being denied due to lack of funds the law becomes void. For the fact that it's not truly "free," in theory it could be tied into existing systems and overall the system would cost, on a "federal budget" scale, absolutely nothing.

Of course, "in theory" I may also indeed be the King of Spain. Just sayin', though.
 
No, the point is that it doesn't restrict rights at all, it serves as an absolution to the seller so that they can't later be held responsible for the buyers actions. They would be given the same rights as FFL holders in that way.

The point is that sellers would be forced to jump thro legal hoops in order to dispose of property , and face no dobut criminal charges for failure to do so . If you have reservations about a person , or in fact person to person sales then dont do it . You are now free to sell all your guns to a ffl , and that requires nothing more than we have . I also have not see where by it was suggested that a seller would have immunity from either criminal or civil charges and suits in the op's poll . But hey keep pitching up the strawmen as there is no need or justification for any such mesure .
 
The point is that sellers would be forced to jump thro legal hoops in order to dispose of property , and face no dobut criminal charges for failure to do so . If you have reservations about a person , or in fact person to person sales then dont do it . You are now free to sell all your guns to a ffl , and that requires nothing more than we have . I also have not see where by it was suggested that a seller would have immunity from either criminal or civil charges and suits in the op's poll . But hey keep pitching up the strawmen as there is no need or justification for any such mesure .

Well, if you reread the OP, which you think I didn't, then you would note that no serial numbers would be passed through or recorded. Obviously, from that statement, it would be voluntary on the part of the seller.

The only reason the seller would jump through the "hoop" of a 2 minute phone call / internet lookup would be for personal satisfaction on the veracity of a potential buyer and in the event of a lawsuit later be able to demonstrate that steps had been taken.

It wasn't a strawman, merely taking the minimum obvious logical steps that such a proposal would take you to.
 
It wouldn't be an inconvience for me as you state it. The goverment already has all that information anyway. They're not learning anything new.

And it would be nice to know the person I was selling to was legal. It would help avoid consignment fees at the very least. However, I think it ought to be a voluntary thing, not a mandatory thing.
 
Well, if you reread the OP, which you think I didn't, then you would note that no serial numbers would be passed through or recorded. Obviously, from that statement, it would be voluntary on the part of the seller.

The only reason the seller would jump through the "hoop" of a 2 minute phone call / internet lookup would be for personal satisfaction on the veracity of a potential buyer and in the event of a lawsuit later be able to demonstrate that steps had been taken.

It wasn't a strawman, merely taking the minimum obvious logical steps that such a proposal would take you to.

yes, this is what I meant in the OP. Redneck, I should apologize as I did not make it clear that I intended this to be a voluntary thing. Simply a method for a private seller to, if they desired, verify the buyer is legit. Which is why I both stressed no collection of data on a purchase, as well as thought it an interesting add-on to include the buyers description, which could also be voluntary I suppose, a check box if you will on the form. I still think a nominal fee to cover the costs would be acceptable, rather than purely free, which as you pointed out nothing is "free" truly.

Thank you to those who understood and helped clarify some of what I left unclear :) think I'll go add a little clarification. IF you would, please look at the "edit" section I just added and tell me if that is more acceptable or if you still would never consider such ?? and thanks for the input either way
 
My God, I can't believe self defense rights advocates would support such an infringement on the intrinsic right to be armed.

Very sad.
 
My God, I can't believe self defense rights advocates would support such an infringement on the intrinsic right to be armed.

Very sad.

Where's the infringement? Instead of not making a personal sale to someone that "doesn't feel right" I can somewhat comfortably sell it.. seems like the opposite effect of what you think. You don't have to use it if you don't want to. Unless you feel that it is such an intrinsic right that it cannot be removed via felony... One of the INTENDED side effects would be to alleviate complaints about gun show purchases.

Of course, whether it would be financially workable, have any legitimacy (how would law enforcement hook into it, etc) is a completely different issue. Once in place it could be useful, but getting such a thing into place would be extremely difficult, most likely requiring coordinated efforts by all levels of Law Enforcement. Seems to me that Occam's Razor indicates that status quo would prevail.
 
I would hope it would simply be a side piece of the current NICS system (it is NICS right?) Basically, you go to an FFL, apply for the card, which appends the number you are assigned to your record. When a person calls the toll free number, or uses a web site perhaps, used for only this function (I would want a number for private sellers apart from whatever FFL's use) and enter your number, it simply speeds up the lookup of your data. Since the NICS system is updated however it is, this would make these checks equal to an FFL's check as far as a buyers legality to purchase.

I realize there is a fear among many gun owners, but this isn't any different than having an FFL run a check before you buy, it's simply a method for private sellers to tap into it. The card or license is simply a method of carrying around the ID number on your record for speedier access to your data. Unless you refuse to use the current FFL system, I'm not sure why you would object?? As I understand it, when you buy from an FFL, they keep the serial number for their own records, they are not passed to the Government, as would be the case here. I wouldn't even want an acknowledgment of if a purchase occurred, because that would be tantamount to tracking how many guns you own. I simply would like to know I'm not accidentally selling to a nut or a felon.

and SecDef, are you reading my mind??? Being I'm from VA and all the "gun show Loophole" junk being spewed here, that is also one of the reasons I would be ok with something like this. It would really deflate the anti gunners arguments, and as long as the cost is minimal, and especially if it could be used to speed up normal FFL dealer purchases, wouldn't that be nice? It's usually 30 minutes or more at the larger shows here in NoVA due to the number of buyers, so something that could reduce that by half or more would be great, at least I think it would.
 
interesting so far. 4 0 0 4 4 1. Have to say , sort of what I expected. Would have been nice if the last 3 NO!!'s would have posted thoughts :(
 
I voted NO!!! Don't you trust your own judgement? If a prospective buyer looks hinky, don't sell to them. No police, no fees, no new regulation, and you've done your duty of caring enough for the community to be careful of who you sold it too. We must be allowed to think for ourselves without governmental interference.

If I thought I better make a phone call to check somebody out, deals off have a nice day and I'll save my quarter. You have a decent idea inasmuch as we should all be careful who we sell weapons off too, but get real, doing it your way would require regulation and control. Something the governing forces always abuse to the detriment of the honest man.
 
Well Edward, here's a question for ya.

Are not there many "felons" who don't "look" like felons? or possibly they are simply persons like Cho. Would you have thought to not sell to him? (i know, it wouldn't have mattered since the system didn't have him in it, but would his being a quiet unassuming person set off your nut detector?)

How about child molesters, rapists, etc. I'd say most of those people are very "normal" looking. Just look at how many ended up in the priesthood. No one suspected them until it had become catastrophic in scope. How about a guy who is everyone's best bud at work, and is the guy to hang out with at a bar, but is a wife abuser at home and gets drunk and violent at home? Are you going to know he's been convicted of something that would prevent his buying your gun?

Again, I'm not asking for something different than what's in place, simply an easy method for myself to access the current database if i don't know the person and have a reasonable comfort level in the person. If it's someone I know who already owns 10 or 20 guns, I'm not going to be concerned. If it's someone answering an add in the paper or some such, perhaps I'd like more than a meet and greet to help decide if I should sell the person my gun. I must say it's the absolute refusal that I don't get, since I'm only asking for a private access of the existing database that you use when you buy from an FFL. But unlike the FFL method, this one doesn't mean you actually bought a gun. When an FFL runs ya, it's because you are in the process of purchasing, and are only awaiting authorization before finalizing the deal. While that might be implied by what I'm suggesting, it can't be implicitly implied, only suggestive.
 
Back
Top