OMG! A Gun Sale Without a NICS Check! OMG!

A private citizens buys a gun from another private citizen without involving the federal government. The problem being? Anyone who thinks that the FBI’s criminal background check system stops criminals, terrorists and madmen from obtaining firearms is seriously delusional. Which means the Panorama reporter shouldn’t have been able to buy a gun. (How post-modern is that?) Hey Panorama! How about finding out how hard it is to buy a gun on the streets of New York City? Now consider this from cnn.com . . .

From the time when the gun control measures of the Brady Act were enacted on March 1, 1994, through the end of 2008, the federal government processed more than 97 million applications for gun transfers or permits, the Justice Department says.

Almost 1.8 million applications were denied, the agency said.

And so the [unknown percentage of] criminals amongst those number—representing less than two percent of all total checks—just gave up. Right? They said screw this, I won’t get a gun now. Too much bother, mate. I’ll just use a knife or a cricket bat like they do in old Blighty. Or go straight.

While the NSSF, NRA, GOA and other gun rights orgs pay lip service to the NICS check system, in truth the FBI background check doesn’t do squat for cutting crime or preventing mass murder.

This despite the fact that “ten states and the District of Columbia have their own laws requiring background checks for any firearm sold at a gun show” while “16 states and the District of Columbia require background checks on handguns sold at gun shows.”

The fact that Auntie Beeb is shocked—shocked I tell you!—at the lack of a NICS check for a private firearms sale in Texas is all the proof I need that it’s a stupid idea. The check, not Texas. Texas is looking better and better by the day . . .

comments

  1. avatar In Memphis says:

    In related news; Because of a recent purchase of an AR-15 without a background check, all public school students will be expelled effective imediatley and placed on the terrorist watch list.

  2. avatar Shawn says:

    I just did a person to person transfer in PA at the local LGS. We went through the process at the state and federal level. We both had no issues with that. So, what is the problem. All persons should be checked to see if they are legally allowed to own any gun. I would not want to do a person to person transfer to some gang banger or racial supremacist person that would later use it in a drive-by or some stupid killing.

    1. avatar Pwrserge says:

      That is your choice. I would not care. Once the gun leaves my hands, it’s not my responsibility. The government has no business telling me how I can sell my property.

      1. avatar Shawn says:

        And if someone decided to kill a bunch of children with it…you would be okay.

        1. avatar In Memphis says:

          Last I checked (using your words) “gang bangers and racial supremiscists” are not the ones out on spree killings. A college student (Va Tech), two minors (Columbine), an Army officer (Ft. Hood), a PHD candidate (Aurora)… need I go on?

          Youre entitled to do business as you see fit but background checks wouldnt have done much good in the afore mentioned scenarios. Keep in mind one gun used in Columbine was a straw purchase.

        2. avatar Kory says:

          And why would should I be responsible for someone else’s actions because they happened to use some property that used to be in my possession?

          Should a sports store be responsible for selling a baseball bat to someone who misuses it? They are not and neither are we who sell our personal property.

          Plus, most of those killers either stole the guns illegally or legally went through the background check process. The problem is the drugs not the tools used to commit crimes. The problem is the brain behind the weapon, not the weapon itself.

        3. avatar Yellow Devil says:

          No different than any other object I might sell to another person. If I sell a computer to someone and they use it to hack and steal people’s identity, should I feel bad? If I sell someone my car and they use as a getaway vehicle in a robbery, should I be guilty of that too?

    2. avatar ST says:

      Shawn, I stand dissapointed.

      Based on Congressional testimony by the Illinois State Police and other organizations, it’s likely that Joe Thug would still pass a BG check despite having a criminal record.

      “WHAT?!Doesnt NICS deny transactions on crooks?”

      Sometimes: IF the bad guys warrant has made it into the NICS database. Due to time and logistics, this is unlikely to happen fast enough to stop a bad guy from buying a gun anywhere they wish, including an FFL. Court issues a warrant on Joe Scumbag, warrant takes 3 days to travel to the NICS office in Virginia via express mail, and add in 24 hours for staff to enter the info into the computer-Assuming the court &/or LE agency can mail it in a timely fashion. ISP testified in 2004 that their backlog on prohibited people goes back FIVE YEARS. They are one of the largest LE agencies in America, btw.

      Bottom line: the Brady Background Check system is a farce, a marketing exercise devoid of purpose except to legitimize more restrictions on the Second Amendment.

      1. avatar int19h says:

        So let’s fix the system to clear that backlog.

        1. avatar ST says:

          Pull out your wallet then. The tab is about $10 million dollars.

          Talk is cheap. Hiring an army of examiners to follow up with warrants and mental health paperwork is not.

      2. avatar Shawn says:

        So, since the system is broke I should sell a firearm to some who should not possess a firearm and not worry about it. Just sell it to some random person. Frak that. That is not the way I think.

        1. avatar Justice06RR says:

          It is fine if you want to do a background check on your own sales.

          The issue lies in mandating it for everyone; it should be a choice and not by force. If you feel better doing the BC on the buyer of your gun, its up to you.

          Just don’t expect the rest of the nation to forced to do the same. it is a free country you know..

    3. avatar Josh says:

      I don’t know how Cadillac salesmen live with themselves after allowing gangsters to buy SUVs.

    4. avatar إبليس says:

      Because we all know the NICS check is actually a psychic screening which reads the buyer’s motivations, right? Or are you saying you just won’t sell to brown people and white guys with shaved heads?

      1. avatar Shawn says:

        I am a white guy with a shaved head. I guess you are a terrorist by your name written in Islamic lettering.

    5. avatar Chris says:

      Or you could ask a few probing question and refuse to sell to the individual.

      1. avatar JMS says:

        Or, like me (and many other people in my State), ask to see the buyer’s concealed pistol license. I don’t need to go to an FFL and go through the NICS process, pay the fees, submit to paperwork, etc, to see for myself that the buyer is legally able to possess a firearm. A valid concealed carry permit proves that they have passed an extensive background check.

        Would I sell to a buyer who does not have a CPL, without mandating that we do it through an FFL? I’d rather not, but I would on a case-by-case basis depending on the person and the firearm. This is just my preference.

        Do I think the law needs to force my decision one way or another? No. I have read thousands of classifieds in my State in the past few months, and people are extremely responsible. The criminals are going to completely ignore these sorts of laws no matter what. Let the responsible, law-abiding folks make some decisions on their own.

        1. avatar Shawn says:

          And if they have committed a felony and did not turn their CPL in. Seriously, you really do not know a person. Hell, some people do not even know who they are married to.

        2. avatar int19h says:

          >>> A valid concealed carry permit proves that they have passed an extensive background check…

          On the date on which the permit was issued. Which may well be several years ago, and a lot could have changed since then.

        3. avatar JMS says:

          That’s fine. We all have different levels of comfort and can make our own choices. This is mine.

          As we know, there are lots of things that don’t pop up on a NICS check anyway. There are 100% perfectly law-abiding people who “snap” and kill themselves and others. We all know that some of the mass shooters who have made headlines in the past few years (Virginia Tech, Arizona, Dorner in LA, etc) DID pass a NICS check. There is no guarantee in life. Don’t pretend like you are absolved of all “guilt” just because you did a transaction through an FFL. Maybe that person was crazy and passed the NICS anyway. Maybe they weren’t crazy but they end up freaking out in the future and killing somebody.

          If you are so afraid that the purchaser of your gun might use it in a bad way in the future, then don’t sell your guns. Checking a CPL like I choose to, going to a dealer for a full NICS background check transfer, or doing none of these things won’t guarantee any outcome one way or the other. If you feel like using an FFL absolves you of any moral guilt if the worst happens, but checking a carry permit doesn’t, then use an FFL. Your choice. I don’t see a difference. There is a level of prudence that I choose to exercise and I’m comfortable with it. I am not legally responsible for the actions of another person, and for me, what I choose to do absolves me morally as well. Maybe I have more faith in people in general and less faith in the NICS system in general than you do.

          BTW — CCW holders are an EXTREMELY law abiding group of people. Way more law abiding than the general population, and they even commit felonies at a lower rate than police officers. I am absolutely comfortable selling a gun to somebody with a permit. Not to mention the fact that they almost certainly already own at least one firearm. Picking up mine most likely will not change a darn thing, even if they have fallen out of law abiding status since receiving the permit. But, again, look at permit revocation rates in Florida, Texas, WA, and other places and look at arrest rates and you’ll see that CCW holders are very good, responsible people with only very rare exception.

    6. avatar Rob Eide says:

      Would you do the same if it was your son, father, or maybe your next door neighbor that you have known for 20 years? Or would that be different? Let us know.

      1. avatar scottlac says:

        Exactly. Family transfers are exactly NONE of Uncle Sam’s business regardless of how many whiny pinkos think it is. My kids will inherit my arsenal documented or not.

      2. avatar Shawn says:

        Family…not sure about. I would not give or sell my brother a firearm. He is not mentally stable to own one. Yes, he should be put on a list not to own one. My dad, sure…not a problem. He has served. My next door neighbor. Has to be checked. But, the point is…I see no problem with a background check. If one has an issue with it, most likely one has something to hide. A gang banger could easily get one off of Armslist and get in a gun fight with my family/friends. And, I am not okay with that. Yes, it can happen. So, do not give me that crap that it can not. That is where I stand. And again, that is why the seller and I were both okay with the transfer at an FFL. What I would like to know is when does a life of a child mean less than requiring a background check? Yes, the mother was at fault for not locking up the firearms and trying to hide that the son the mentally unfit. He should of never has access to a firearm.

        1. avatar neo297 says:

          At what point do we stop this crap do I need to check the backround on a buyer for my car? What if they were to have a dwi, what if they were just a shitty driver and drove faster than the speed limit or ran stop signs or texted and drove or caused multiple acccidents, what if they drove without insurance. The statistical chances of some one actually hurting someone else or breaking the law where someone could get hurt is greater with the sale of a car V a gun. Please tell me why you need to do anything differently with a gun versus any other item that someone could use illegally or irresponsibly. Oh wait you say that you do not want to sell to a gang banger or supremmacist but as a society we don’t give a second thought to who you would sell your car to or who buys tools if you have a garage sale etc. but we know those items cause more harm than guns. If I want to sell a gun I should have the right to sell it without the government butting in. I can decide if I feel comfortable with the individual or not. I’m tired of gun owners being expected to put up with more governmental intrusion and being asked to like it. When we don’t stand up and say enough they will keep putting more restrictions and costs upon us so maybe we lose you but are we better off that way I’m not so sure. Accepting the status quo may not be the best course of action in these times.

        2. avatar scottlac says:

          Shawn, if you know your brother well enough to not transfer (sale or gift) then don’t. That your right. On the other hand, when I pass on to the great reward, my heirs have every right to my collection without the feds declaring them to be accidental felons due to my passing.

          Until then, keep your mandatory checks out of my private business.

          “Liberty is not a loophole.”

        3. avatar rybred says:

          Shawn, although you know PERSONALLY that your brother shouldn’t own a firearm, you’re saying that if he could pass a NICS check you’d be fine with selling him a firearm? Oh but isn’t that what you said?

          I think he WOULD pass NICS. What if I sold him a firearm and went through NICS? Would I be an irresponsible person in your eyes?!?

          What about your dad? You said he served yet Feinstein said that vets suffered from PTSD and that they should be put on the ban “list”. You see?!? Slippery slope. Who determines what gets you on the list?

          There is no such thing as pre-crime and the sooner you realize that the massive resources spent on a such a failure of an endeavor would be a waste, the better. Once you realize that with 330million people in this country, there WILL be unpreventable tragedies then you will realize that no amount of additional legislation would be worth implementing.

          Although you seem like you could be of the mindset of “If it could only save ONE life” and harm MILLIONS of others in the process, that would make you FEEL much safer. Don’t forget that any extra legislation potentially turns good people into criminals and subject to incarceration, but THAT would make you happy I’m sure…

        4. avatar Lenni says:

          The only SURE THING, is should you or your family become targets or victims of a crime, you AND your family stand a heck of a lot better chance of surviving it while armed, as apposed to not being armed. End of story. This is a FACT.

    7. If you don’t trust the guy, do the transfer through the FFL, fine. But it’s neither necessary nor productive to force everyone to do that.

      If my family wants to throw together and give me a gun as a present, should they have to pay a transfer fee? What about people who are ignorant and then fall afoul of the law?

      Also, let’s incentivize criminals stealing more guns, and gather up all the information in one place with universal registration (pardon me, I mean background checks), because that could never lead to more stolen guns on the black market: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-06-01/scores-of-guns-stolen-from-nsw-homes/4046140

      Oh, wait.

    8. avatar Silver says:

      Spoken like a true statist dependent.

      1. avatar Shawn says:

        So correct…you know me so well. When I was out of a job and house went into foreclosure…you know what we did…we worked it out and got our asses out of the situation without anyone’s help…local, state, or federal. So, f’ you.

        1. avatar Silver says:

          Congrats, couldn’t care less. You believe in the state’s right to intrude on my 2A rights, so you’re an enemy. f’ you back.

      2. avatar Shawn says:

        You people need people like me for the cause. Continue with the name calling and insults and it just turns people like me away and hurts your cause. There are many more of us out there than you think. Keep it up and you will lose everything.

        1. avatar Leo338 says:

          You mean a paranoid freak with mental issues that run in the family who also has a lot of radical liberal views and will always vote for democrats because there are a lot more important issues other than the 2A in your mind? Then is stupid enough to come on a pro gun forum and tell all of us we need people like him? HA! Yeah, I don’t think so. FLAME DELETED

        2. avatar pat says:

          Shawn, you are lost. One quote by Jefferson may begin to help you find your way…”I prefer dangerous freedom to peaceful slavery”. You REALLY dont want to give ‘Big Gov’ even more power and money.
          Liberalism is a mental disorder.

        3. avatar Silver says:

          You’re exactly the type of person I don’t want. A “gun owner” who’s willing to sell us out bit by bit in this all-or-nothing war the progressives are waging. The fact that you refer to it as “your” cause and not “ours” is telling.

          Keep thinking we need you, but we need you like a tree needs rootrot. Owning a gun doesn’t make you a gun rights advocate.

    9. avatar cz82mak says:

      Dude, again, criminals don’t follow laws. How hard is that for people to grasp?
      If you don’t trust the person you are selling to, just say no, or go see an FFL about a background check.

      Don’t try to rationalize your subservience to the rest of us.

      1. avatar Shawn says:

        And that is what I did…went to an FFL and did it right. The person to whom I sold the firearm to, said that it is the legal way to do it. If you don’t, then one is hiding something. See how easy it is to judge someone…just like the rest of you are judging me. I, for one, do not want to hand a firearm to someone off the street without knowing that they are good. The system might mess it up (good or bad), but that is not my fault.

        1. avatar Silver says:

          So if I don’t want my name on a government registry because it’s none of the government’s business what I buy, nor do I want to pay a “sin” tax that presumes guilt to practice a constitutionally-protected right, I’m trying to hide something? Way to to generalize without a shred of evidence, like any good gun-grabbing stooge.

      2. avatar int19h says:

        The point of such a check is to prevent law-abiding citizens from selling guns to criminals, not to prevent criminals from selling guns to other criminals.

        How do you know whether to trust or not trust a random person that you’ve never met before who wants to buy a gun from you? Do you assess them by their handshake or something?

        1. avatar Shawn says:

          Thanks, someone understands.

        2. avatar Silver says:

          I suppose you’re in favor of universal checks for knives, axes, saws, two-by-fours, hammers, and rocks? After all, how does Home Depot know they’re not selling an axe to a murderer?

  3. avatar David says:

    Is it true Texas passed a Tax Free Day for guns and ammo, March 2, in celebration of its Independence Day?

    1. avatar Stinkeye says:

      A bill has been filed in the Texas legislature for that, but it hasn’t been voted on yet.

      I believe Louisiana already has such a tax-free holiday for guns, so they beat us to the punch there. But we have prettier women and better music, so it’s okay.

  4. avatar Rich says:

    And as proof positive that this is pure madness, crazy people flocked to the show, bought all the private sale AR’s/AK’s/WMD’s and killed everyone in sight.

    1. avatar Josh says:

      I was the last man standing this weekend at the clay shooting club. Everyone else blew each other away.

  5. avatar DonS says:

    My acronym redundancy checker fired…

    “the NICS check system”

    The “National Instant Criminal Background Check System check system”? Is that like an “ATM machine” or a “PIN number”?

  6. avatar David says:

    How would you feel if you sold him the car he used in a drive by shooting or some stupid killing? Just wondering!

  7. avatar JMS says:

    Of course, the fact that the vast majority of those 1.8 million denied NICS checks were false positives doesn’t matter to anyone. The system, even when it’s used, doesn’t actually work that well. The number of actually prohibited parties who have been properly denied by the system is soooooo terribly small it just doesn’t justify the expense and hassle of the system itself. I do, however, understand the argument that the system is a deterrent to criminals attempting to buy guns from dealers in the first place, and I don’t think I would really argue otherwise… so it’s a tough debate.

    1. avatar Thomas Paine says:

      sorry, you’ve been put into ‘research’.

      1. avatar JMS says:

        Read the comments by John Lott in response to this video: http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2013/02/fox-news-sunday-and-interviews-about.html

        http://www.newsmax.com/JohnLott/bradylaw-gunownership/2011/06/14/id/399967

        The actual data from the Government: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/grants/239272.pdf <<< read page 5 for: "The remaining denials (71,410, or nearly 94%) did not meet referral guidelines or were overturned or canceled."

  8. avatar Pro Gun Brit says:

    http://www.ammoland.com/2013/03/obama-republicans-working-to-team-up-pass-dangerous-gun-control/#axzz2NGZBmR8L

    URGENT! You all need to see this right now! The future of your 2nd Amendment rights could be in jeopardy!

  9. avatar Silver says:

    Pathetic how slave-minded people in this country have become.

    1. avatar Leo338 says:

      +100 A scarier thought is that these people are also breeding and raising their kids to have the same mentality. Hopefully they believe in abortion and practice it. It’s a shame their parents didn’t choose to exercise this right.

  10. avatar Ralph says:

    If the feds were really concerned about NICS checks for private sales, they’d open the system so that private sellers could use it. The system would not be burdened any more than it would be if FFLs were making the calls. However, the issue isn’t background checks, it’s making the process as discouraging and time-consuming as possible while maintaining the 4473s in a place where the federal b@stards can get their hands on them.

  11. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    Background checks are a totally ineffective solution to the real problem: we have dangerous, violent people walking among us … many of whom have already been through the revolving door that we call our criminal justice system.

    Once an ex-convict is out of prison, they can pick up a tree branch at zero cost and make a club capable of killing anyone with one swing. Or they can spend $8 to $15 to purchase a hammer or knife at a local store. All three of these objects can be deadly weapons and all three are readily available to a criminal for next to nothing. Thus even if we somehow made firearms disappear, it would not reduce violent crime.

    I hope this final question makes it clear: if we don’t trust an ex-convict with a firearm, then why do we trust an ex-convict with clubs, knives, and hammers?

    Let’s apply the resources that we waste on criminal background checks on something that actually reduces violent crime.

    1. avatar Robert Bub says:

      True. Look at the mass stabbing that occurred at a Chinese school the day before the Newtown tragedy.

    2. avatar T-DOG says:

      Your right when you said “the real problem: we have dangerous, violent people walking among us … many of whom have already been through the revolving door that we call our criminal justice system.”
      This guy was a 6 time felon. With in hours of him getting out he kills his grandparents after they threw him a welcome home party.
      This is what needs to be fixed. A gun-control-what-ever doesn’t fix stupid.

      http://mynorthwest.com/11/2223797/Udpate-Suspected-murderer-looking-to-kill-cops

  12. avatar Robert Bub says:

    *rolls eyes* (sarcasm) Because a background check of the gun buyer will also determine if the other members of the buyers household have undiagnosed mental illnesses and/or violent tendencies.

  13. avatar John Rand says:

    This is all just slight-of-hand.

    First, if the purpose on background checks is to enforce the law that disenfranchised people can’t hold firearms, then there’s no reason the make, model, and serial # of the firearm needs to be on the 4473 or transmitted to the government. The purpose on the serial # is tracking and registration. Period. Requiring any legal transfer of a firearm to run through a system with serial number is defacto gun registration, even if you are ignorant enough to not think that was the goal.

    Second, the _RIGHT_ to keep and bear arms is enshrined in the 2nd amendment to he US constitution. It can not be infringed without changing the constitution, much in the same way that voting can’t. Poll taxes are illegal, yet we feel it’s OK to tax arms? Heck, you don’t even need ID to vote. So if you want to provide validation and recoup the costs on administration to administer to inalienable rights, then it should be consistent across the board. So, why don’t you get around to putting in poll taxes and voter identification/validation that’s equitable to the CURRENT restrictions on firearms, and then we can talk about moving forward.

    The media is intentionally obfuscating the issue. While background checks are mostly useless, and are an infringement on the right of personal property, they’re not nearly as odious as some of the others that are currently in power. IMO the sticking point on universal background checks are the registration issue, and the hubris that says taxing the transfer of arms (a right) is somehow less a right than some other right where it’s illegal (voting).

    If the powers actually wanted to compromise, it would be easy. NCIS opens up firearms check database to the public sans any serial#. Any citizen can enter someone else’s data and run a check. It comes back Go or No-Go. Problem solved. If someone chooses to not use the system, then they’re a criminal, which is exactly what happens now.

    Of course, this would never happen as it’s not the actual goal of this debacle, which is sin tax on firearms and a national gun registry.

    1. avatar rtempleton says:

      not to belabor the point but you do not have a “right to personal property” if you are a strict constructionist. Though locke wrote of “life, liberty and property,” it became “pursuit of happiness” in the declaration, and that’s not a legal document.

      Not that the “it’s a poll tax” isn’t a valid argument, it’s a valid one for any system that adds a cost to the weapon sale. Registration doesn’t necessarily add a cost. I know, I know, “government tyranny.” Most people, though, are used to registering their cars, registering to vote, registering for permits for events and assemblies and protests that they don’t see registration as a means to perform state evil.

      I keep saying this, but if you are trying to reach out to Dems, wavering on any issue but the 2nd amendment itself is fruitless. You aren’t going to convince many fence sitters that background checks or gun registration are “government tyranny.” Myself included. I don’t have a problem at all with registering firearms, and have yet to see a coherent argument against it–one that does not involve into anti-government extremism, I mean–and I think you’ll find most gun-owning or gun-agnostic moderates won’t be swayed by that argument either. The typical response to this, I know, is “you’re just asleep/a sheep/a dupe/government flunkie/statist/etc” trust me, I hear it all the time around here. It really feels more like a culture war than a political battle.

      I know a TON of moderates or liberals who feel the same way (hell I go shooting all the time with a socialists), but it’s increasingly irritating for us to interact with “gun people” because of this. We love guns just as much as them, but we aren’t a part of the political culture and so are outsiders.

      I’m not saying the radical anti-gov politics isn’t your right, but it’s alienating to outsiders. If you follow that up with mocking and insults, you’re just going to make fence sitters either fight against you, or not care when you lose. “Gun culture” is so deeply tied to radical anti-government culture that it’s hard to separate the two, but if you want to win on the issues that matter, from weapon bans to mag restrictions to increased taxes, you’re going to have to.

    2. avatar mountocean says:

      I agree, except to the impracticality of such an open background check system. Without some gatekeeper (FFL) validating a defacto firearms sale, people would be calling up NICS for everything from barbers to dog-walkers to babysitters. It’s another conversation whether that would be good or bad, but I see that as the biggest impediment for those that actually want to see a registration-free open background check. I’m 100% with you with the cost and serial # on the 4473, just dont’ see how we would impliment the “annonymous hotline”.

      1. avatar Stinkeye says:

        It should be relatively simple to implement such a system that would give a “go/no-go” answer to a private seller, and still protect privacy and prevent abuse. Picture this:

        Buyer calls up toll-free number, gives his identifying information, and if he’s clear to purchase a firearm, is given a unique transaction number.

        He gives this number, plus his name and address (not Social Security number or any other sensitive info) to the seller. The seller calls the hotline, gives them the transaction number, the hotline operator asks the seller to confirm the name/address info (to prevent someone from getting a cleared transaction number and giving it to a prohibited person to use). If everything syncs up, the hotline says it’s OK to sell a gun to the buyer, and the transaction proceeds.

        No 4473, no transfer fee necessary, and it provides just as much (meaning almost none) assurance as the current “background check through an FFL” system. Of course, it would never be implemented this way, because the purpose of the current system isn’t keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, it’s keeping track of who owns what firearms.

        1. avatar mountocean says:

          Replace “buyer” with babysitter and “seller” with concerned mother and the hotline doesn’t know the differance. A free and open background check on anybody might be a nice service for the FBI to provide, we just need to recognize it won’t work on a firearms only budget.

        2. avatar Stinkeye says:

          The “buyer” in this arrangement has to provide their SSN to the hotline. If you already know your babysitter’s Social Security number, that implies a level of trust such that you probably don’t need a background check.

          There is still potential for abuse, but the only information you’re going to get is whether the person can purchase a firearm or not. No details on why they’re prohibited, if that turns out to be the case. You can already get way more info than that with a background check through any number of private services.

          I want to make clear here that I think the whole “background check” thing is a farce, and it’s just security theater. My only point is that it would be possible to construct a relatively painless system for private transactions, if that was the goal (which it isn’t).

  14. avatar Steve in Iowa says:

    No. Simply put, NO! No more government interference. We have already given in to “common sense” gun laws too many times. No more. Enough is enough. “Shall Not Be Infringed” does not equal 20,000+ gun laws already on the books.

  15. avatar AJ says:

    “From the time when the gun control measures of the Brady Act were enacted on March 1, 1994, through the end of 2008, the federal government processed more than 97 million applications for gun transfers or permits, the Justice Department says.

    Almost 1.8 million applications were denied, the agency said.”

    You know, the antis are always trotting out things like this, and put a period on it. They present it as a solid basis for a concusion, when in fact it’s not. If you do not analyze the information to its logical conclusion then it is useless. IMO, there are several questions that need to be asked for any usefullness to be found here:

    How many of the denials were erroneous
    How many of the denials were “legitimate” (IE prohibited persons)
    How many persons denied still got a gun, but through other means
    Of the “legitimate” denials, how many of the applicants were prosecuted

    These are the minimum questions you would need to aks to glean anything useful from the data.

  16. avatar Matthew Volk says:

    I believe that the gov’t is mearly attempting to inventory all guns. at some point i believe that the government will come and get them from us, or at least try. all i know is that im not giving up any of my guns without the people attempting to take them getting a demo on how accurate of a shot i am. its a free country and this liberal bull needs to stop. this isnt communist china. ITS THE USA. and i have the right to keep whatever guns i own, and its nobodys business including the govt, just which kind of and how many guns i own. what is this country coming to? i am scared for the next generation, because other than obama running the country bankrupt, now hes trying to take our rioght to protect ourselves.. what about the person that breaks into my home with an illegal gun placed to my head? criminals will always have guns, and soon it seems all of the rest of us wont. OVER MY DEAD BODY. ill bury my guns in a box in my backyard before i give them to the govt.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email