Universal Background Checks... A better way? What do you think?

[GunXpatriot]

I'm going to entertain a thought I had a while ago. I think we always talk about how instead of banning certain guns, or whatever, we should actually be going after "meaningful" legislation, in order to lower gun crime and keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

After the Sandy Hook shooting, I started brainstorming. I can't blame guns. I won't. That's just not what I'm about. I've always been a person who believes in accountability. Personal accountability. But you can't TRULY expect that from people... Can you? Certainly the ones that have no accountability, or are simply insane, give us all a bad name. It's just how it goes for us.

But back then, after weeks of thinking... I thought of something like this... Check out this page and post made on DailyKos.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/02/11/1186281/-Why-I-oppose-Universal-Background-Checks-A-turning-point

Essentially, this dude, "noway2" opposes universal background check. I almost forgot why I opposed it, though I knew there was a reason. He outlined it. The check is useless without registration. But noway gives another anecdote here. He claims that the ATF actually keeps the background check records that they are required to destroy. And that they may be using this as a backdoor form of registration. And if they have records of every time each owner bought a firearm, it is, essentially, registration. Is it not?

So, if you've read the article and well into the comments, you can see that he recommended a different system. In his home state, carry permits are subject to a check on request. The individual then receives their permit. They are now able to buy a gun. And I remember... A while back, this was the only solution I could come up with. It would require a lot of funding, or simply a massive overhaul of the NICS system. This would also depend on if his claim about the ATF keeping records, which I'm not hesitant to believe.

What if to buy a firearm, a person would need a permit. This would have to be quick and easy. Less than a week to receive it, IMO. During that time, a solid background check would be done. The person would then receive their permit, preferably by mail. They would now be able to walk into a shop and get a firearm without another check. The government would not know what they have, but simply that they are (or were) a gun owner. This would be no different than the current NICS system. It would actually EXPAND our privacy, because instead of knowing "John Smith" bought a gun on *this date* and also *this date* as well as on *this date*, they would simply know that John is a gun owner. Why? Well... I think we can assume that every legal gun owner has bought through an FFL at least once. This means that they are already in the system, whether they like it or not. I'm going by that assumption for this whole thing.

Just typing this out, I can see a number of holes in this sort of plan, not to mention a complete overhaul of the entire system. Even still, many of the holes that would exist with this sort of plan, also exist with the current system.

And on transfers. People should be required to have record of the license of their buyer. But again, this would fall into an "honor system" which, by human nature, is pretty hard to follow...

And anyone here, feel free to burn me at the stake for suggesting something like this. But I have reason to at least attempt to do something about gun crime. I think we can agree that criminals shouldn't being running around with guns. This system may improve that, AS WELL as expanding our own freedoms, from the perspective of "registration".

I have to admit something here. I believe that there are approx. 32,000 gun deaths in America every year. Of those, 2/3 are suicides, if I remember correctly... I just want to say that, I was in a bad spot about this time last year, and two years up until THAT point. I do have an anxiety disorder, and as a result, I get depressed quite often. That has since improved. A lot!

Had I still be going through that now, or years from now, who knows what I'd have done? And I, as an individual who is anything but "normal", do not want to see more and more people kill themselves. It bothers me that suicide is such an epidemic in societies everywhere. But I don't know if such things can ever go away, unless we as a species, learn the error of our ways and learn to just be nicer to one another...

Alright, I went soft there for a second. But I dunno, like I said, feel free to dislike me for this. At least I'm trying, instead of relying on our idiotic representatives to do it... And continue to have them come up with the same nonsense, year after year...

Thanks for hearing me out. Tell me what you think. Tell me about possible holes, or tell me why the whole thing is a terrible idea. Hope to get a good discussion out of this. Also, I'm kind of "ramble" typing, so I'll try to fix any typos or grammatical issues I find... Thanks!

 

[SVO]

Seriously? A permit to purchase a gun? Which has been tried elsewhere and found wanting? I think you have too much of Bloomberg's kool-aid.

 

[GunXpatriot]

LMAO. I've been on-board with pro-gunners from day one.

Did you even read my post? Everyone is always talking about coming up with meaning legislation.

We have to do something. But I want that something to WORK, while not having to sacrifice our liberties. You know, instead of just being some moronic ban, or whatever crap these people come up with. It's just a thought. But I guess in the end, you can't make everyone happy. Especially anti's. They ask for an arm. You give it to them. They still wanna' take two legs.

What really bothers me, is that you put me within a thousand miles of Bloomberg's agenda. If he had his way, he would go door to door and take everyone's firearms, one by one, if that's what it took.

So... You have something better? Please, tell me...

But wouldn't you agree that something must be done, without having to sacrifice liberties? And I don't mean "this is a reasonable measure to reduce gun violence" and then have it be a total stab at our rights. That's not what I'm about. Just trying to... Well, actually try, I guess.

 

[Tom Servo]

But I want that something to WORK, while not having to sacrifice our liberties.

We don't know that it will work. There's no evidence that the NICS system has reduced gun violence. Criminals simply acquire guns in ways that bypass the system.

And yes, requiring a permit to exercise a right (when there previously wasn't such a requirement) is sacrificing liberties. Take a look at places in which purchase permits are required. The issuance process is difficult, expensive, and often subject to arbitrary judgment on the part of the issuing agency.

You know, instead of just being some moronic ban, or whatever crap these people come up with.

Why do we have to discuss "instead?" They didn't get their ban last year, and they didn't get Manchin-Toomey. I'm not going to play the appeasement game with them.

The NICS system is terribly deficient. Let's address that. People who break existing laws aren't being effectively prosecuted. Let's address that.

Offering up legislation to help the other side won't mollify them; it will only embolden them to push for more.

 

[jnichols2]

Here are 2 things the 2nd Amendment DOES NOT do:

1. It does not give me the right to bear arms.
It clarifies that I already have that right, and says that right shall not be infringed.

2. It does not require me to help the gun grabbers pass their laws.


Added thought: Sen Manchin is currently running for re-election, and, along with several other Dems, is claiming to be a GUN SUPPORTER.

 

[OuTcAsT]

GunXpatriot wrote;

we should actually be going after "meaningful" legislation, in order to lower gun crime and keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

Problem is, you cannot "legislate away" Crime or, stupidity.

A criminal will not follow the law, thus the reason they are criminals.

A lock on a door only keeps honest people honest.

Tell me what you think.

That any infringement on a right is still an infringement, there is no "middle ground".

Tom Servo Wrote;

Offering up legislation to help the other side won't mollify them; it will only embolden them to push for more.

Exactly.

 

[BumbleBug]

The "Permit-System" as described by the OP sounds very reasonable & benign. But once funded, in place & functioning it becomes another control point in gun ownership. How easy then would it be to change this permit system into a gun control tool that is a method of registration & eventual confiscation.

Also, I am very confused about the whole suicide thing. It's as if there were more background checks than we have now or even if we had strict federal gun control, suicide would be come too "inconvenient" & save lives. Preposterous! I wonder if there are any stat's on gun suicide that says the victims went out on the day of their troubled whim & bought a gun?

With all due respects to the OP I to wish there was an easy answer.

...bug

 

[Spats McGee]

I think not. Tom has already very eloquently expressed my reasoning, and I'll boil it down to a nutshell:

. . . . yes, requiring a permit to exercise a right . . . . is sacrificing liberties . Take a look at places in which purchase permits are required. The issuance process is difficult, expensive, and often subject to arbitrary judgment on the part of the issuing agency. . . . .

Why do we have to discuss "instead?" . . . .I'm not going to play the appeasement game with them.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

What if to buy a firearm, a person would need a permit. This would have to be quick and easy. Less than a week to receive it, IMO. During that time, a solid background check would be done. The person would then receive their permit, preferably by mail. They would now be able to walk into a shop and get a firearm without another check. The government would not know what they have, but simply that they are (or were) a gun owner.

Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I don't see any mention in the Constitution about permits or background checks.

Do you REALLY want to keep it simple? Arrest and prosecute and punish people who commit crimes, and leave the rest of us alone. No gun bans. No permits. No background checks. ALL of those are "infringements" on the RKBA, and the Constitution says the RKBA shall not be infringed.

Trying to regulate who can or can't buy guns, and what guns they can or can't by, is basically thought crime. It's punishing the entire populace in advance for what a few individuals might do. Your proposal is no different.

But wouldn't you agree that something must be done, without having to sacrifice liberties?

Absolutely. Unfortunately, your proposal sacrifices a fundamental liberty. Why not arm everyone, and make everyone responsible for their own security? You don't want active shooters in schools? I don't, either -- arm the faculty, and post an armed guard at the entrance.

My local bank branch has been robbed twice in the past 15 months. They now have an UNARMED "security" agent stationed in the parking lot. The best I can figure is that this person is there to provide a practice target for an armed robber to zero his weapon.

When I visited Russia some years ago (well after glasnost), EVERY bank and EVERY jewelry store had an armed guard on duty. And I'm not talking pot-bellied, retired cops looking to supplement their pensions. These guys all looked like Spetznaz troops.

Likewise in the banks in my wife's native country.

Your solution is akin to the TSA strip searching 90-year old grandmothers while ignoring young, bearded Arab men because we don't want to be accused of profiling. If you think there's a problem, address the problem.

 

[psalm7]

Take something that seems to make sence and give it to the Government and they will screw it up . Would someone explian the defferince between the background checks we have now and universal back ground checks ?

 

[Cheapshooter]

So you would have to get a permit to exercise a Constitutional right?
A permit to buy a gun.
A permit to express your freedom of speech.
A permit to got to the church of your choice.
A permit to vote.
The government has gotten too big as it is. Too many "permits" are required for every day life. Constitutional rights are NOT privileges like driving a motor vehicle that can require a permit. They are RIGHTS, guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. A guarantee that was granted in order to gain approval of the Constitution.

 

[Mosin-Marauder]

You have to have a permit to buy a handgun here. I thought that was how it was everywhere.

 

[zukiphile]

The scope of the 2d Am. has been covered by others, but a broader point may remain.

LMAO. I've been on-board with pro-gunners from day one.

Did you even read my post? Everyone is always talking about coming up with meaning legislation.

We have to do something.

Do we? "Don't just stand there - DO something!" is a dangerous impulse if no action is necessary or wise.

You describe yourself as "on-board with pro-gunners", but there is a difference between liking guns as a user or hobbyist, and believing in the importance of a civil liberty pertaining to guns.

The core of your proposal is to subject a civil liberty to a political process, a process that typically leaves the politically less powerful at a disadvantage. That isn't a flaw in the political process; it's a feature. Things we want to be easily changed by shifting political dominance are correctly part of the political sphere.

We strive to keep civil liberties out of that nakedly political process. So, we resist stripping 1st Am. rights of free speech and association from unpopular messages and groups because we know that these are important and vulnerable to transitory passions of majorities, and we entrust that protection large to a branch of government somewhat insulated from electoral politics.

Similarly we don't trust 4th Am. protections to a political sphere that might wish them away in fits of myopic passion.

So, if the thing to be done is to politically wish away a civil liberty, is it true that "We have to do something"?

 

[kilimanjaro]

The largest gun shows in Washington state are run by a collector's club. Non-members cannot purchase a firearm at a show, and membership comes with a NICS check.

I would support sending a CCW permit to every adult in the state who passes the check. You want to carry or buy a gun, you're good to go. Don't want to, toss it in a drawer. Get caught with a gun and no permit, jail time.

No registration, no gun owners list, just a vast pool of CCW holders who choose to exercise their rights or not.

 

[Gary L. Griffiths]

I agree that any requirement for a permit to purchase is an infringement on the RTKBA. I came up with what I believe to be a better idea:

While no responsible person wants to see firearms in the hands of an Adam Lanza, Jerrod Loughner, or similar deranged psychopath, neither do we wish to see our firearms listed in some Federal database, or be subject to prosecution for loaning a gun to a hunting buddy or giving one as a present to a family member. I’ve been kicking around an “outside-the-box” idea that, by using the carrot rather than the stick, would enable us to assure ourselves that we were transferring firearms only to those eligible to receive them. Bear with me, and please read the entire post. I’m certainly receptive to feedback, especially in the form of constructive criticism.

First of all, the ATF form 4473 will be eliminated. Firearms dealers will no longer be responsible for running background checks on you every time you purchase a gun. Instead, you may run a background check on yourself, at your leisure, from any Internet-connected computer or smart phone. You would have to enter your full ID data, plus read through a list of prohibitions like the questions that are on the 4473. If you passed the background check, you would be issued a unique alphanumeric ID# that would be valid for, say, 90 days. This number, and your ID data, would be on a PDF file, which you could print out in however many copies you wished. For convenience, it might also contain blanks for the make, model, caliber, serial number, and additional descriptive data for the firearm you wish to purchase. This would be for you to fill in at the time of purchase, and would not be furnished to the gov’t.

To purchase a firearm or firearms, you would present this form to the seller. The seller could then call a toll-free number and enter the ID number from your form. The seller would then be informed that that number was valid, and provide your ID data. You would then show your ID to the seller to confirm you are the one who received a clean background check, and the transaction(s) would proceed. The firearm’s ID data would be entered onto the form, and both you and seller would sign the form. The seller would then retain the form, with a copy going to you, if you wished to have one, and would act as a bill of sale for the firearm. A dealer would retain the form as a record of sale.

A dealer would be required to check your ID number, just as (s)he is now required to do a background check. A private seller would not. There would be no criminal penalty for a private seller not checking the ID#, or not asking to see one. However, firearms sellers who can prove that they checked the buyer’s eligibility by producing a copy of the bill of sale would be statutorily absolved of any criminal or civil liability for selling the firearm, or for any misuse of the firearm by the buyer.

The ID# would be valid for the purchase of any number of firearms during the validity period. Upon its expiration, within three working days, the ID data associated with that number would be required to be purged from gov’t records. The only data the gov’t would retain would be the ID# and the dates it was valid.

An individual could get an ID# as often as (s)he wished. While there would be no requirement for a seller to ask for and check the buyer’s ID#, the fact that the law provides legal protection to the seller would be a strong incentive, especially since plaintiffs’ attorneys would be quick to seize upon the fact that failure to check the buyer’s ID# could easily be construed as negligence, with consequential civil liability.

You wouldn’t have to swear to a bunch of statements like on the Form 4473, but if you are, say, an illegal alien, you can still be charged with unlawful possession; just not the “stacked” charge of perjury.

In short, gives anyone the ability to check a buyer's background, provides relief from liability for selling to a buyer who misuses the firearm, and the gov't has no permanent record of who purchased a firearm, and has no record at all of the number or types of firearms the buyer purchased.

 

[zukiphile]

Get caught with a gun and no permit, jail time.

If that works for the RTKB, it might also be useful elsewhere.

We could have permits to speak and publish, and travel and assemble. That would mean a lot of permits to keep track of, so we could just carry them around in little books. It would make policing easier too, since a PO could begin each encounter with a polite "papers please".

 

[Spats McGee]

You have to have a permit to buy a handgun here. I thought that was how it was everywhere.

Nope. I was surprised when I learned that states had this "permit to purchase" mechanism a few years back.

 

[Spats McGee]

. . . .First of all, the ATF form 4473 will be eliminated. Firearms dealers will no longer be responsible for running background checks on you every time you purchase a gun. Instead, you may run a background check on yourself, at your leisure, from any Internet-connected computer or smart phone. You would have to enter your full ID data, plus read through a list of prohibitions like the questions that are on the 4473. If you passed the background check, you would be issued a unique alphanumeric ID# that would be valid for, say, 90 days. This number, and your ID data, would be on a PDF file, which you could print out in however many copies you wished. For convenience, it might also contain blanks for the make, model, caliber, serial number, and additional descriptive data for the firearm you wish to purchase. This would be for you to fill in at the time of purchase, and would not be furnished to the gov’t. . . . .

Problems #1 and #2:
1) I'm not interested in opening up the NICS computers to the general public, which this would seem to require.

2) If we're just going to let folks printout their own PDF ID#s, well, it's ripe for fraud. Yes, I see the requirement below that dealers check the ID#, but: (a) dealers already have to do the NICS check, so that's not much of a change; and (b) I have some problems with adding this requirement for private sellers. (Yes, I know you said that private sellers aren't required to check it, but I'll deal with that below.)

To purchase a firearm or firearms, you would present this form to the seller. The seller could then call a toll-free number and enter the ID number from your form. The seller would then be informed that that number was valid, and provide your ID data. You would then show your ID to the seller to confirm you are the one who received a clean background check, and the transaction(s) would proceed. The firearm’s ID data would be entered onto the form, and both you and seller would sign the form. The seller would then retain the form, with a copy going to you, if you wished to have one, and would act as a bill of sale for the firearm. A dealer would retain the form as a record of sale.

An FFL is already required to do something very similar, but why would a private seller want to do this? What's more, why would I want private sellers to be required to do this?

A dealer would be required to check your ID number, just as (s)he is now required to do a background check. A private seller would not. There would be no criminal penalty for a private seller not checking the ID#, or not asking to see one. However, firearms sellers who can prove that they checked the buyer’s eligibility by producing a copy of the bill of sale would be statutorily absolved of any criminal or civil liability for selling the firearm, or for any misuse of the firearm by the buyer.

Private sellers are already not required to do background checks. Why put this (moderately) elaborate framework in place for something they don't have to do? Beyond that, once the framework is in place, someone will want to make it mandatory, and then we're basically back to UBCs.

While the Brady Campaign and its ilk do push lawsuits at firearms and ammunition sellers, their track record isn't that good. Intervening and superseding causation are already in place in the common law to protect sellers.

The ID# would be valid for the purchase of any number of firearms during the validity period. Upon its expiration, within three working days, the ID data associated with that number would be required to be purged from gov’t records. The only data the gov’t would retain would be the ID# and the dates it was valid.

Shooting from the hip here: the personal information associated with the ID would almost have to be retained for prosecution of violations of your proposed law. On top of that, in the recent past, our government hasn't really shown itself to be all that trustworthy with data that it isn't supposed to have.

An individual could get an ID# as often as (s)he wished. While there would be no requirement for a seller to ask for and check the buyer’s ID#, the fact that the law provides legal protection to the seller would be a strong incentive, especially since plaintiffs’ attorneys would be quick to seize upon the fact that failure to check the buyer’s ID# could easily be construed as negligence, with consequential civil liability.

While you don't propose to make it a requirement for private sellers to check the ID#, I suspect that once enacted, it would become a requirement in fairly short order. Besides, in the civil liability arena, how long do you think it would take a plaintiff's lawyer to come up with the following argument?

Judge, the statute says " . . . the seller shall be shielded from civil liability if he checks the buyer's Firearms ID Number." That means that there is no shield from civil liability if he does not."

You wouldn’t have to swear to a bunch of statements like on the Form 4473, but if you are, say, an illegal alien, you can still be charged with unlawful possession; just not the “stacked” charge of perjury.

What about the rest of us? If I don't have an ID#, will I be charged with unlawful possession?

 

[DAVID NANCARROW]

I would like to see Constitutional Carry in all 50 states. If you are good to go on a NICS check, then you are good to carry concealed or open. That should be the end of it. All the additional garbage which certain states require you to go through is nothing more than a state or local government grab for your hard earned money at best, and back door registration at worst.

Bottom line: If you have to pay for the right, it is no longer a right. It discriminates against the poor, and it is an invasion of our civil liberties, plain and simple.

 

[manta49]

Just because some people ignore a law and is not a good reason not to have it, You need a permit / licence to drive a car some ignore the law and drive without a licence, is that a good reason not to have a law requiring a licence. You need a permit to buy a firearm here I have no problem with that, but I can see why some in America would.