Back in 1968, NRA was OK with the Gun Control Act outlawing gun sales to prohibited persons by federal firearms licensees (sanctioned gun dealers). In 1993, they didn’t say no to the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act mandating instant background checks for new gun sales. Despite the fact that background checks fall afoul of the Second Amendment’s prohibition against ANY infringements on Americans’ gun rights. And the fact that checks are useless. So how can the NRA defend new gun background checks and argue against background checks for gun shows and private sales? Although I doubt the veracity of the video above, I say checkless sales are how it should be for all gun sales, just like it used to be. What say you?

228 Responses to Question of the Day: Would You Eliminate NICS Background Checks?

    • Make the requirements to vote the same as to own a gun; and the requirement to own a gun the same as to vote.

      Simply go to the polling place, fill out a Form 4473, show your ID, and the poll worker will check with the FBI database to make sure that you’re not prohibited from voting. If everything is working correctly, you will be allowed to vote in a few minutes.

      If the GCA/Brady system does not violate the rights of gun owners, then what possible objection could there be to implementing the same system for voting?

      • Because that would be a deterrent for minority voters, he’ll just requiring ID is oppressive. Why the left doesn’t raise the same argument on behalf of minority gun owners…well it’s not like they have a history of disarming minorities to make them softer targets for murder and harassment.

        • “…well it’s not like they have a history of disarming minorities to make them softer targets for murder and harassment.”
          Yeah, that stuff never happened….LOL.

      • I have used this argument on my more progressive “friends” and it can’t be argued (against) logically. Usually I get told to F myself.

        • Ask your progressive “friends” if they can identify which Amendments to the Constitution and, for that matter, the other laws, should be applied to which group? Obviously, they see it that some laws should apply to some groups, but not to others. Seems like they’re happy to live on the Animal Farm, aren’t they?

  1. I’m all for getting rid of it, but that will never happen. A bit more realistic would be to open NICS to the public. Maybe that way the antis will stop pushing UBCs. Also, drop the 4473 and the bound books because they are a registry.

    • You’re right, it won’t happen if we keep agreeing that it won’t happen.

      We need to stop agreeing. We need to start the conversation to repeal the NFA and GCA. We need to move the ball in the other direction, and not just keep trying to slow the ball moving in their direction.

      Resignation never wins.

    • I agree Just keep it simple. The buyer logs onto nics, runs the check and get a number if approved valid for x amount of time. All the seller would have to do is type it in and the nics site would say John doe of blah blah born on such a date is approved. No record of why the check was performed. Oh and it would have to be a voluntary check.

    • If you are going to drop bound books and 4473 then just drop NICS altogether because without those it is completely unenforceable.

      What I suggest is, keep NICS in place and simplify the process. Bound books should still exist because it cover’s the dealer’s ass more than anything else; however, the ATF should not be given unlimited access to the book and all of it’s records when they audit. Photos or electronic records of an audited bound book should be completely verboten, like the punishment should be the agent all the way up to their supervisor/ director lose their jobs and face criminal charges if they violate it. The phone call to NICS should also be simplified and should only include the minimum amount of information to establish identity and eligibility of the purchaser and then generate a unique record identifier to affix to the purchase in the bound book in case of audit. If no purchase happens the approval goes in the trash, but the NICS office does not need to know if the transaction is completed. If the buyer then purchases the weapon in question the only record should be the outgoing inventory on the bound book with the NICS approval. The point is to make it as dififcult as possible to connect the dots for someone looking to create a registry but simple enough that if they are running a crime trace they can see if the sale was good or not. That’s it. And it should be a requirement that all records are paper, no digital records allowed whatsoever. I wont be buying any new guns from Cabela’s anytime soon for this reason. I just recently bought a used deer rifle there and the entire process is electronic and stored god knows where. Imagine if a criminal hacks that, he has a Rolodex with all the customers’ identifying info (social, DOB, DL, CHL if applicable etc), and guns they bought while doing it oh and their address conveniently all in one place. Anyone not concerned by this should take a look at the Home Depot, JP Morgan, and Target data breaches.

      • “If you are going to drop bound books and 4473 then just drop NICS altogether because without those it is completely unenforceable.”

        Tex, NICS is completely unenforced now, and always has been. The few dozen prosecuted each year are being prosecuted for other reasons, the 4473 is just the only thing which can be proved. They claim 70,000 blocked sales a year, and 40 prosecutions, with 20 convictions, at a cost of WHAT? Not mentioned, cost is no object when prosecuting crap against gunowners.

        This has been a complete waste of taxpayers’ money, and should be discontinued INSTANTLY. If a prohibited person attempts a purchase and is not immediately put in prison as a result (not 5 years later), the law is a waste, he can get a gun any of hundreds of places, most cheaper than his LGS, like stolen guns on the street, for pennies on the dollar.

        Without prosecutions, the rest of your sensible arguments are unimportant, the law should be repealed. I agree with above that the NFA and GCA should also be repealed.

        • Once the NICS is approved, the number obtained From FDLE is put on the Form 4473 in Florida. After that, FDLE nor the FBI have that info. Plus, they only know if its a long gun or handgun.

      • out west some states get a single fingerprint others maybe all fingerprints. Anyone know if they ( cabelas) do that by electronic means also?

    • NICS open to the public would be a disaster. It would be used by people to check out their neighbors, the new babysitter, a potential date they met on some dating website, political opponents, potential job candidates, etc. The system would crash in the first fifteen minutes. Additionally, I can almost guarantee the security of the underlying data would be a joke and it would get hacked shortly thereafter.

      • You’re kidding, right? With a single online tool and nothing but your name, I can find how much you owe on your mortgage, your criminal records, your estimated salary, everyone you’ve lived with and everyplace you’ve lived for the last twenty years, the name of your wife, kids and parents and a lot more personal data that’s much more intrusive. NICS is nothing.

        Wake up.

    • elimination of NICS checks will never happen. gun owners will have to accept that background checks is not a battle that can be won. it doesn’t matter if NICS is ineffective, doesn’t matter that denials are not prosecuted. the public simply doesn’t care and is not interested about that.

      gun owners should focus money and effort on those battle that can be won. background checks is not one of them.

      • Absolutely correct Dan. Our ranks are filled with arm-chair constitutional authorities who deride any tactical or strategic discussions in the name of purity. None of them seem to have a practical suggestion as to how to achieve purity in a filthy world run by politicians. None of them point us to crowd-funding sites where we can all match their generous contributions to the repeal of any existing laws. Were these absolutists in the vanguard who fought the good fight that got us Shall-Issue in so many States in the past quarter century?
        How do we make progress within the political system We the People have created in the past century? I read these blogs looking for people with ideas that can actually move the ball forward. I find precious little; among them, your observation that we work on battles than CAN be won; getting rid of NICS not making that cut.

  2. So, is he saying that blind people shouldn’t be allowed to purchase firearms? Seems a bit discriminatory to me, but I’m not a Democrat.

    • He’s running in Mesa Arizona (the most conservative large city in America) against the incumbent republican. I would make some kind of blind joke here but I am trying to avoid the low hanging fruit today.

      If he paid $100 for that gun at any gun show in Phoenix I am apt to call bullshit since I can’t even get a used hi point for that much around here. If he didn’t show ID then the seller could be prosecuted for not verifying he is an in state resident. So either he is flat out lying or he has some seriously good luck.

      • It’s a 125 year old top-break that will probably blow up on the first shot. That’s why there was no background check.

      • There’s no law in Arizona requiring a private seller to verify residency, nor should there be. If they want to open nics up to the public (and make it free), then they can start requiring checks, until then, tough nuts.

        • Federal law states that non FFL handgun sales may only happen in the state of residency to a resident of the state, so my wording should have been “The seller could be prosecuted if he sold the handgun to an out of state resident without verifying ID.”

          FWIW I personally have never been able to buy a gun without at least showing my ID, even in omgwtfskurryguns Arizona.

        • Well, I have SOLD guns without requiring an ID, particularly since I wouldn’t know what to look for anyway. Hell, a long time ago, I sold a truck to a couple of kids who wanted it right now, couldn’t wait for banks or dealers to open, want to take it with us. I ain’t no dummy, Of course not… OOoops, they handed me the full amount asked in cash, bye-bye. The plan as they explained it was to spend Dad’s money for the truck, then drive it down to Peru to deliver it to him. They showed back up to transfer papers and such a couple weeks later, I was in no hurry either. I had notified my insurance company of the transaction, otherwise I couldn’t figure why it made a difference to me if they never transferred the title. Same with guns. Give me the money, and I give you the gun.

        • I bought a long gun from an LEO, asked him if he wanted to see an ID, he asked “are you legal to purchase or own a gun in this state?”. I said yes, and he told me that he had fulfilled his legal duty as a private seller, nothing further was required. Paid him and left with the gun.

      • The wording of the law as I understand it is that you may not knowingly sell to a prohibited person. There is no requirement to ID the buyer nor ask any questions pertaining to their legal status. If you sell to a felon or other PP and it comes back to you the only legal repercussion will be if they can convict you of having known or suspected in advance. A tricky thing to pull off without a confession or recording.

  3. As they exist now: yes. What little good they do are far out weighed by the problems they cause. Not to mention how easy it is for these checks to be used against persons who have committed no crime or action that warrants to revocation of their rights.

    • It most definitely should be more difficult.
      Socks: high or low, white, black, or brown. Easy choices.
      Guns: Semi-auto, full-auto, bolt action, lever action, etc., pistol v. rifle, caliber, barrel length, optics, … Much harder choices, and I’d like even more options.

      • Absolutely. Anyone advocating that it is OK “somewhat” is playing to the progressive agenda. Infringed is infringed. The progressive machine churns slowly but certainly. People who 20 years ago were solidly opposed to NICS checks now are wishy-washy ok with it, to some extent. Their kids will never have seen a problem with it, and smart guns will be a good idea, so long as they cannot be remotely disarmed by authorities. The next generation will be to the point that those few people allowed to own a weapon in public should have it remotely armed/disarmed by authorities…..etc. You notice one thing, the compromise never seems to help gunowners, it always enables further controls. That isn’t real compromise. That is “progress”, or so they claim. Like it or not, most gun owners are guilty of capitulation, and are all responsible for the death of the 2nd Amendment, and so much more of our freedoms as well.

      • You showed me nothing of any difficulty in the “guns” category. Simply start out with one of each, and go from there.

        • A man should have a wardrobe to suit any occasion including at least one suit, he should similarly have an armory to suit any occasion including at least one .50cal.

  4. Yes. No background checks to practice religion, or speak freely, or for the RKBA. Such is the price of freedom. Punish those who use these rights as access to wrong-doing, do not inconvenience those doing nothing wrong.

    • Weeeel we already have to register and jump through hoops to gain the full benefits of being a church, they are working on registering the press, along with some “common sense” requirements open to interpretation and alteration later. And we have been required to register our marital status since certain people realized that would be a handy tool against minorities.

      • You are playing apples and oranges. One can worship freely wthout going through any hoops, and one can open a church with similar ease. The “hoops” relate to taxation, and have nothing to do with worship. In fact one can easily be ordained a minister online for free in minutes.
        That they are “trying” to register the press and that effort is being opposed only underscores the truth of my point, not yours.
        Keep trying.

  5. Background checks are middle-class solutions to problems that are rooted in criminality. The more we attempt to regulate the sale of guns to the “wrong kinds” of people, the greater the propensity for those people to simply resort to smuggling and theft as ways to arm themselves. Not surprisingly, gun smuggling is rife in countries like the UK and OZ were there are restrictive gun-control laws. That’s exactly what’s happened with the “war on drugs”. When most 15 year old’s know how and where to buy street drugs, it’s clear that kind of regulation doesn’t work very well.

  6. The list of things to eliminate is rather long. At the moment, the only organizations that would not fall under that category are those which are strictly voluntary. Big subject…

    To answer the specific question: Yes.

  7. No. I would much rather have public, anonymous access to NICS. As in, no permanent record of what was transferred to whom. Merely a check, pass/fail, and move on. It would be helpful for anything from baby sitters to contractors to the cable guy to the guy you met from Armslist. I don’t want prohibited persons having access to firearms and if I’m the (private) seller I want to perform all due diligence to ensure that I am not supplying a prohibited person.

    I also disagree that checks are useless. Violent crime peaked in 1993, the same time the Brady Bill was passed and it’s been in steady decline since. While BCGs are NOT a catch-all to prevent all crime from happening ever, it does seem to have *some* effect.

    • Correlation is not causation, and there are probably private sector solutions to having a background check that could be voluntary and similar to a credit check.

    • “I also disagree that checks are useless. Violent crime peaked in 1993, the same time the Brady Bill was passed and it’s been in steady decline since. While BCGs are NOT a catch-all to prevent all crime from happening ever, it does seem to have *some* effect.’

      So you voted FOR I 594???

  8. Criminals don’t buy guns from dealers. Background checks can get it wrong and deny a lawful person a permit. Case in point. A former colleague applied for a transfer permit in NC. He was here on a 6 month contract. So he went and got an NC driver’s license. Has a CCH from his home state.
    GSO denied the transfer permit because someone with the same name, but provably not him, was accused of a felony 30 years ago in Texas. Never convicted. Just accused and it wasn’t him. GSO said their hands were tied by federal law.
    I guess it is good thing I have a less common name. Lord help anyone named Joe Smith.
    Holder’s Justice department twisted the interpretation of existing law to expand the list of people not eligible.

    • I know some people are against it, but if he put his SSN on there the whole name thing is completely avoided.

      I had that problem on my very first paperwork, a week later I did it again with my SSN on there and I have never had a problem since.

  9. I would argue that the background check system limits the liability of gun dealers, and as such facilitates gun sales. Imagine the alternative in today’s gun sales and legal climate, whereby each salesperson at a gun store needs to make the decision of whether or not to sell a gun. The potential for a civil suit on discrimination grounds is huge. Even an unsuccessful suit could put a store out of business. Under those conditions, I doubt many stores would choose to open at all. With the NICS system, most transactions (aside from somebody acting super-crazy) are a simple binary decision; you either pass the check or you don’t.

    • I posted this above, but I’m sure there are private sector solutions to having some sort of background check if a dealer wanted to have one that could function similar to a credit check. When people say “the government must do X, think instead about how private enterprise could do the same thing.”

      • There “are” or there “could be”? I am not aware of any private sector solutions, and if there were, who is going to pay to create, maintain and update the database on a daily basis? As it is, the Feds can’t seem to compel some states to submit their information at all, others only provide some information. Further, any such private sector business, without a special law in its favor, would not have sovereign immunity for errors in the database, and in particular an absence of records that allow prohibited persons to purchase firearms. Which means that your private sector business will soon find itself sued into oblivion for its “negligence” in failing to maintain adequate records. IF there is to be a system to vet buyers, there is no practical way to accomplish it other than through an inefficient federal bureaucracy.

        • I don’t have all the answers and thanks for nitpicking the choice of “are” vs “could be,” but how exactly does does an insurance company estimate risk? Each company operates by a series of calculations and in the end they come up with a coverage amount and a premium you must pay based on risk.

          Similarly when your credit rating is determined they use it to tell you If you are getting a loan or not. In absence of background checks a private company could use similar data via cooperation with various agencies who have useful data(big data analysis maybe) about you where it pertains to your risk of violence with a weapon. Trends can also be analyzed in terms of who is most prone to violence and who is not. The firms with the best prediction measures would rise to the top.

          As to your question of who would pay for it. I suspect that each gun shop would pay for access to this info, and might even get a reduction in their premiums if they subscribe and perform checks of their customers. Whether or not these firms or services are established in the first place will depend on the demand for some info about the risk of selling to customer A vs customer B. That info is unknown to my mind.

          The firms that don’t provide good info might get sued(although our litigious society is incredibly stupid), and the best ones won’t.

          This is just spitballing here.

          Ideally I’m not for having any background checks at all, but by saying that it can’t be done(should people choose to do so) except via the status quo is in my mind intellectual sloth at best.

  10. I don’t care about NICS. Just get rid of the 4473. That’s the gun registry right there. Get rid of the 4473. No 4473, no registry.

    • No way, Jose. You simply cannot do that. It would be far too sensible. I mean, without it, how could we trace Fast & Furious guns?

  11. While I won’t argue the constitutionality of NICS, I find it surprising that the POTG often dispel the effectiveness of NICS by pointing to the number of false positives. While false positives should be a factor in evaluating the performance of NICS, it is not a good indicator of its effectiveness.

    We all agree that most criminals today obtain their guns through nefarious arrangements. Could the same be true prior to the implementation of NICS? The real measure of the NICS effectiveness is to know what percentage of prohibited persons obtained their guns through legitimate means prior to NICS.

    The majority of prohibited persons do not bother with FFL’s because they know NICS will deny the transaction. But, if no such system existed would prohibited persons still acquire their guns via the black market. Since black market prices are almost always higher than those obtained through legal trade, would the removal of NICS drive criminals to legally obtain firearms through an FFL, without worry of being denied the transaction?

    • BS. The only valid indicator of such a law’s effectiveness is the conviction rate. I doubt 1000 people have been convicted in the 20 years it has existed. If not enforced, it is useless, repeal it.

      • Now that is not true. The NICS was to prevent sales to unqualified buyers, not to prosecute people for attempting to buy a firearm. There are plenty of folks who may show up on a prohibited list for a reason unknown to them, or who may be mistakenly on the list, or temporarily on the list. An unresolved court case is a good example. If and when the person is found not guilty, they are again qualified.
        I am anti-NICS, but you seem to not understand the underlying reason for them in the first place.

    • You have made several false assumptions, 1: the price of black market guns. Everything we know about them suggests this is not true. In the case of straw purchases it makes sense. As the purchaser may be paid for the service. However a burglar who squires a $500 flock for free is not likely to demand or receive near market value. Neither is the buyer likely to pay retail when the potential available guns always outweighs demand. 2: you seem to think that denying the purchase at the counter thus forcing the buyer to go black market is a good thing. The black market being fueled by theft proves that wrong. 3: you suggest success is measured by the rate of denials, not the intended effect on crime. There is zero link between gun control and reduced crime. If your success is defined as no deterrence from violent gun crime with a necessary rise in burglary and assault you are using fundamentally flawed metrics.

  12. What I will write has no relevance for US gun debate due to the 2A as well as the large proliferation of firearms in population already. Nevertheless, I very much enjoy the fact that here in the Czech Republic, having the shall-issue gun license, I can buy & carry concealed basically any gun I want (bar full autos) and at the same time be quite sure that if I ever have to use it in self-defense, the chances of the bad guy having a firearm are next to non-existent (unless it is a premeditated hit on me). Background checks make sense when they are designed in a way that really makes it very hard for a criminal to get a hands on gun and at the same time poses only a minor hassle for law abiding citizens.

    • Background checks make sense when they are designed in a way that really makes it very hard for a criminal to get a hands on gun and at the same time poses only a minor hassle for law abiding citizens.

      How can that be done?

      • No, they don’t make sense, period. They are legal today only on FFL purchases, because they are not technically required of the purchaser, but as a requirement upon the seller. An FFL licensee must comply with applicable laws, so the infringement is not on the purchaser, per se. UBC’s change that, and hence are in no way constitutional.
        Background checks only inhibit those who would follow the law.

      • Of course it can’t.
        I know for a fact it is not hard to get firearms illegally in Czech Rep. Up to and including fully automatic rifles. Russian soldiers would sell anything before we kicked them out of country.
        There is still lots of WWII leftover guns around. And black market with stolen and smuggled guns works just like everywhere.
        I have been offered “black gun” from random strangers several times. As a ccl holder I refused naturally.

    • What evidence do you have that a criminal is less likely to be armed? Are there statistics or is it the warm fuzzy reassurances of the law makers?

  13. when i started dating my girlfriend she was a bit concerned about me being a gun owner. then i told her that for every gun i bought i went through a background check. if i was a felon, i would not be able to buy a new gun. that actually worked and she was then ok with it lol

  14. I’m not opposed to it in principle, but it can’t work in practice without infringement. Either you place a requirement on gun sales from stores that is not on the general population (which basically makes it ineffective), or you open it up to the public (which is a 4th amendment infringement). And the 4473 is definitely a 4th amendment infringement.

    • Right now the reasoning you mention is why it is legal at all. The government cannot legitimately infringe gun purchasers, but it can require FFL sellers to do a background check before making a sale. You can always purchase from someone else, in theory, so long as it is not an FFL.

  15. ” Shall not be infringed.” Either that means exactly what it says or it means nothing. NO checks, NO registration, NO government involvement whatsoever.

  16. I am opposed to it on principle….for all legal citizens non citizens can go fight and die in their home country for their own second amendment

  17. When I was 13 I bought guns at yard sales and road them home on my bike. At that same time mail order guns were delivered straight to your home. The background check for the mail order guns consisted of a single quetion on the order form you tore out of the magazine. Actually, 2 questions

    Are you old enough to buy this gun?

    Is it legal to own this gun in your state of residence?

    Wording may not be exact. A few years have gone by.

    NICS? ATF? Waiting periods? Approved lists of guns? NFA? Not only no, but phuck no.

      • If he was 13 in 1967, there were still mail order sales of guns. That would mean he was born in 1954, and is now 60, not 93.

        I believe his last line is what he believes should not exist in the USA.

  18. LOL. So if the seller denied selling the gun to the blind guy he would be sued for discrimination. When he sells the gun to the blind guy he is evil because- gun show loophole!

    Oh… why does the blind guy get a pass on brandishing a firearm in a public place? Now that’s discrimination!

  19. I guess no one noticed the dirty bomb in his little black briefcase he left behind on the bench. . . . . a BLIND TERRORIST !! Just like that Shiek in the first World Trade Center bombing!!!

  20. I think there should be some kind of background check for gun show sales. Just like at the local gun shops. But, I do doubt the effectiveness of it in preventing criminals from obtaining guns. Doubt that many of them actually get their guns at gun shows. And the I-395 abortion in WA State is an example of some liberals writing a law that overreaches to the extent it is ridiculous and probably unconstitutional. Some lawmakers just can’t seem to control their urges to make a simple law more and more complex. As if they really think they are accomplishing something by doing that.

    • “I do doubt the effectiveness of it in preventing criminals from obtaining guns.”

      Agreed. But if a law will not accomplish its reason for existence, repeal it!

  21. “In 1993, they didn’t say no to the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act mandating instant background checks for new gun sales.”

    I’m sorry, but did I miss the site’s re-branding? Are they changing it to The Half Truth About Guns? The relaunched THTAG may have a tough go of it, though, as that is an extremely crowded field with many groups already providing half truths about guns. And that’s not even counting the outright liars.

    The NRA supported instant background checks, albeit less than ideal, in exchange for doing away with federal waiting periods.

    Now, if you prefer waiting periods to background checks, then say so. If you think you can build a bigger gun rights organization and achieve better legislative outcomes, then do so. I’m sure the NRA would love for you to show ’em how it’s done.

  22. Let ‘s have mandatory background checks on guns and everything else. Cars, gasoline, knives, Tylenol, nails, saws, pillows, airplane tickets, rope, razor blades, fertilizer…
    Background checks on everything! Vote for me!

    /sarc

    I hate when a lawful anti-gunner goes in, purchases a gun and complains about how easy it is. Of course it’s easy, you’re a law abiding citizen!

    • “I hate when a lawful anti-gunner goes in, purchases a gun and complains about how easy it is. Of course it’s easy, you’re a law abiding citizen!”

      Yes EXACTLY!

      Jeee I just went and bought a gun, see how easy it was?
      Well was there some reason you shouldn’t have a gun?
      Well noooooo…. but it shouldn’t be EASY.

    • I’m with you 100% on that one. Maybe even worse is when licensed carriers buy a gun from an FFL and brag about “skipping” the background check, feeling as though tbey’re among the chosen ones, some special select few who get to skip it. Well.

      The reality is that they’re skipping it only because they’re being checked by their state monthly or perhaps continually as a condition if maintaining their license. That all happens behind the scenes, though, so people eithet don’t think of it or maybe even don’t know of it.

      All the while they’re thinking themselves special, when in reality they’re very heavily checked, AND they’re paying a license fee for the privilege of having their freedom infringed.

  23. We seemed to get along just fine for 200+ years without NICS. I bought my first gun from the Sears Catalog. Arrived in the mail. Took it to school (IN NY MIND YOU) twice a week in winter for rifle team practice in the basement. Think my old High School still has a rifle team practicing in the basement?

    • I took my rifle to school also. In NYC. And my high school once had a range in the basement, but sacrificed it when the pool was enlarged.

  24. The problem isn’t NICS, the problem is the classification of people who are not incarcerated as ‘prohibited’. As long as we want to ban certain people from possessing firearms at all (and that seems to be the consensus at the moment,) NICS is a relatively unobtrusive solution.

    I would rather spend time and effort on getting silencers off the NFA list, or liberating slave states.

  25. I’d be ok with the NICS if it were available to all, online, by a mobile app, with database limited to instant yes/ no with database adminn contracted to independent third party not under direct control of the Executive, with open audit by citizens at any time. This is not rocket science. If you donate to a political organization, your information is publicly available. If you have a drivers license, or credit, or criminal record, your information is publicly available. And soon, although it should not be so, your health records will be avaiable, already via the federal govt, and insurancd co’s and various leaks, thru fusion centers to state and local pds, and marketers and data brokers va insurance co agreements.

    So this sould be reverted back to the citizen with open access and use.

    All the citizen need do, to abide by law of sale to approved person is keep a record of the check at the time of sale. This puts the onus on the government to make it work. And in case of disputes on accuracy, the default is on the govt to prove citizen is wrong, ie innocent until govt proves guilty, by verified crosscheck of criminal or mental health status, within some reasonable time, say 14 days.

    This forces the government to focus on the keeping the data clean, and gives tools to address the person who no longer qualifies, so the State can address thrir criminality and mental health teatment as needed.

    But only if 4473 and any other record of the gun were expunged and prohibited. That is the registry. That is meaningless as it only tracks the tool, and that is a fools game for two reasons. History shows weapons registration only leads to confiscation. Second, the numbers and cost of tracking provide no practical beneftit UNLESS the goal is confiscation. The Canadians recent experience trying then dropping long gun registration proves great expense, for no net benefit.

    If the NRA and SAF were to simply agree to educate the public on the above, it would go a long way to take away the confusion and fear that is the primary tactical tool of gun grabbers.

    I’d suggest to nominate the NRA to be the third party independent NGO running the process, (remember the roots of NRA was as partner to Federal govt to train riflemen, among citizenry), then we gun owners would feel comfortable the data would be in the hands of an independent entity working for the citizens, not the State.

    If the NRA, SAF, GOA could join forces in a public education campaign to hammer this message of lawful citizen empowerment, home in every single election, from county to national, we’d be done with gun control in four years, and focusing on individual lawbreakers, instead, and putting them in jail, or getting them the mental health needed.

    A separate but independently run campaign to formalize a national concealed handgun carry permit, with rational training baselined, and certificate updated to NICS as to status, would further incentivize legal gun owners to improve their skills, and create more disincentives to criminals.

    This also has been proven to work in numerous states.

    This alos focuses the uneducated public on the reality the Progressives dont want to acknowledge, holding individuals responsible for illegal behavior, instead of penalizing the much larger mass of the law abiding, we abolish fear of the tool, and promote trust in the law abiding.

    By simplifying the process of who is allowed, vs who is not, the State can then focus on the irresponsible or criminal few, instead.

    In other words, hold people accountable for their actions, and stop fearing the tools in the tool box.

    Its time to get this done. Gun control and information control are weapons of a tyrranical State. By ceding both to citizens, we can get moving on bigger issues facing the nation.

    • “In other words, hold people accountable for their actions, and stop fearing the tools in the tool box.”

      Progressives Modus Operandi is for people to NOT be accountable for their actions.

  26. There should be no “prohibited persons” to begin with.
    If youre too dangerous, either due to criminal tendancies or mental incompetence, to be around firearms, then you are equally ill prepared to deal with the daunting responsibility associated with operating a motor vehicle, or possessing a knife, wrench, baseball bat etc.
    If youre such a dangerous person that we camt trust you with a gun, you should still be in prison or a mental institution.

    • ^^^ That was so sweet! This person did all my typing for me! 🙂
      …but then again I think suppressors should be sold out of vending machines.

    • If youre such a dangerous person that we camt trust you with a gun, you should still be in prison or a mental institution.

      Agreed — keep the violent bastards in prison where they can rot. Because as soon as they get out, they’re going to commit new crimes, which would be a lot easier for them if they can go to their LGS and buy a gun.

  27. The irony is that even with a background check, Mr. Woods would still have been able to buy the gun. No checkbox on 4473 for “Are you blind?”.

    I think the only requirement to buy and own a gun should be that you’re 18 years or older. I don’t want kids hacking into Mom’s Amazon account and ordering some guns. If you have a prior felony conviction, you should be able to buy and own a gun, or you should still be in jail. Otherwise, what you spend your money on is up to you, and should not be subject to government oversight.

    And as for the blind guy? How about we wipe all the gun laws off the books. Every one of them. And replace them with the 4 Rules of Gun Safety. Punishing violations of the rules criminalizes the behavior, not the gun. Mr. Woods would have violated all 4 of the rules with what he was doing on that bench. Send him to jail for that, not for owning a gun.

  28. Short answer is yes. Rights shouldn’t require background checks. Long answer is yes … because:

    * As a method of attempting to prevent bad guys from getting weapons, it cannot ever be as effective as its proponents want it to be. Bad guys will either steal a gun, use a straw purchaser, find an underground seller, or find an alternative weapon to use (knife, fist, fake gun, baseball bat, etc.). The proponents of the background checks will always push for more restrictions, because bad guys will continue to get guns or other weapons. (See how they’re pushing for “knife control” in the UK. They WILL NOT STOP.)

    * Any false positives are a needless obstacle to those who are purchasing a firearm, and are potentially dangerous – if a firearm is quickly needed for self-defense against a likely threat (e.g. ex-significant other, stalker, etc.).

    * Nobody is actually harmed when possession of a gun changes. If there’s no harm, it shouldn’t be a criminal offense. It’s simply one person buying a piece of metal & plastic from another. Car sellers are not responsible if a person buys a car, then later drives drunk and kills someone. The bad guy is the guy who causes harm.

    * It is no business of the government who has what firearms. Background checks allow a government to create a gun registry. As the 2nd Amendment exists in part so that citizens may defend themselves against an overreaching government, it is not in the interest of the people for a government to have a record of firearms transactions.

    * Rights do not require permission. Insisting on a background check is asking permission to exercise a right. Having a background check be a mandatory government requirement in order to become a journalist would be insane. This is no different.

  29. For those with very short memories, the NRA was OK with the NICS system because it did away with the federal waiting period. While the efficacy of the system is still hotly debated, the numbers show that quite a few actual, honest-to-badness felons were indeed refused a sale through legal channels. So I file the check system under “due dilligence.” I’ve never seen it as “gun control,” but rather, “criminal control.” Most of us breeze through a check in under 15 minutes (my last was WELL under — about three), and the few “false positives” are still inconvenienced less than they were during the old waiting period days.

    We know of very few gun controls that actually impact criminals. NICS seems to be one that does. At least the lazier, more apathetic (and stupid) of the lot. So I have no problem with it. I’d also have no problem with them beefing it up to handle higher traffic and allowing anyone selling a gun to run their own check. Put it online, like a sex offender registry, and let ME check out whoever wants to buy any guns I want to sell. If it was online, you could run checks anywhere cellphone service, wifi or a landline is available; from gun shows to the kitchen table. No registry, no forcing sales through FFLs to jack-up fees, no gunk untrol nonsense.

    But the gun banners aren’t really concerned with safety and would fight this idea tooth and nail. And many firearm fans, who think that any effort to keep guns out of the hands of convicted criminals is some sort of infringement will JOIN them to scuttle the idea. In short, it’s a classic impasse.

    • Just because a felon or other prohibited possessor gets blocked by NICS (and prosecutions for which are EXTREMELY rare, despite the big numbers NICS lovers spew), that does not mean that these same individuals did not manage to acquire a firearm for their purposes through other means.

      And it certainly does not mean they did not carry out their criminal plans by some non-firearms means, either. NICS is a phony measure meant only to frustrate and intimidate lawful firearms owners. It serves to establish the government as the right and proper gatekeeper to our natural, civil, constitutional, and human rights, such as that to keep and bear arms.

        • You flatter yourself that this validates your reasoning, it does not. It validates that rights are rights, nothing more. That you concoct a statement that could effect similar sentiment does not make your statemenf valid. Nice try.

        • Did I not predict your reply? It’s a yes or no question.

          Rights are indeed rights. Criminals abdicate them when they choose their behavior. We deprive them of their freedom — the most basic right — and nobody questions it. Many state and national offices are then closed to them once they’re released — they cannot hold public office — and again, we accept it. Some states deny them a vote. Yet when it comes to denying people who have already demonstrated a contempt for, and/or inability to follow, the law and have harmed others in the past access to firearms, that somehow represents the “slippery slope?” Sorry, but I’m not buyin’ it. I’m all FOR a way for those who have made honest mistakes the ability to restore their gun rights, but when it comes to career criminals and serial violent offenders, THEY earn the consequences of their actions.

        • I can predict that the sun wil set this evening, that it does so is not validation of my prediction. Only an idiot would be flattered by such things.

        • Indeed, which is why flattery has nothing to do with it. Human behavior, or, in particular, dogmatism, is ever so slightly different than the orbital mechanics of the Earth around the sun. Only an idiot would conflate the two.

        • True enough, the physics of orbitals are scientific, your opining more resembles bovine flatulence.

        • Despite your asinine assertion, one cannot “abdicate” rights. One can be deprived of rights, though the term deprivation itself implies a limit, a less than permanent situation. Deprivation of life is a bit irreversible, of course. It is a progressive and unconstitutional view that one can lose natural rights.

        • The law disagrees with you, I’m afraid. Actions have consequences, some of which can be a deprivation of rights. As Larry Potterfield might say, “that’s the way it is.”

        • No law can contradict the Constitution.
          You stated “And many firearm fans, who think that any effort to keep guns out of the hands of convicted criminals is some sort of infringement will JOIN them to scuttle the idea”….this is pure opinion on your part, unsupported by any fact. I know of no firearm fans who see this point as having anything to do with guns and convicted criminals. It is about rights of all Americans. But you go on spewing flatulence and thinking you are intelligent. You proffer false reasoning for a given conclusion, and pat yourself on the back for it?

        • Clearly not, as evidenced by your rabid, dogmatic reaction here; I predicted it and, lo and behold, here you are being a poster boy. That’s not “opinion,” bruh. You also need to comprehend that the very existence of the judicial system is to balance the rights shared by ALL. While you speak of the natural rights of the criminal (and, to be fair, all people), you FORGET about the rights of the law abiding. This, by necessity, will always impose an upper limit on anyone’s rights, since, as the old saying toes, “your rights end where mine begin.” But I didn’t expect to begin a primer on the principles of Constitutional law here. The bottom line is that, as is currently written, convicted felons have NO right to firearms, no judge has yet to consider the idea of NICS being any sort of infringement, since it doesn’t impede your (or any other law abiding citizens’s) right to buy guns, and the only “opinion” I expressed was that I consider said check “criminal control” as opposed to gun control. You are certainly free to disagree, but NOT to be ill mannered and spew unwarranted insult.

        • Again, you wish to separate the rights of criminals and so-called law abiding (there is no such thing), and aim to put words into my mouth.

          For you to give a primer on Constitutional law would be hilarious. You seem ill-acquainted with the concept. By the way, nobody has a right to be safe. That idea is another idiotic progressive idea.

          Also, the idea of “criminal control” is laughable as well. The Constitution did not separate classes of people, some having rights and others not,though you seem to want to do that. Please point me to the part of the Constitution that allows judges to rule on constitutionality, I can never find it. An infringement is an infringement, despite what anyone, even a judge, says. It seems you are getting “rabid” over this discussion, which is why you must attempt to project such things upon me. That tells a lot about you. It is just more of your attempt to paint others who would disagree with your mindless drivel, before the fact, so you can claim some sort of precognition. It just isn’t so, sis.

        • What’s truly hilarious is your constant focus on me, rather than the argument. In three paragraphs, you managed to say “you” seven times! This isn’t about me. Read beyond the Bill of Rights. Read what the duties and responsibilities of government ARE; what the judiciary IS. When we talk about “lawmakers,” that’s what they do: make law. And they have been for more than 200 years now. Presumably those laws were built on the foundation of the Constitution. If you have a gripe with any of them, then hire a Constitutional lawyer and take your shot. Whole sections of the Constitution, and especially the Bill of Rights, deal with how government is to deal with lawbreakers; what rights they have, what is expected of both parties and how conflicts are resolved. When that resolution ends in conviction, punishment by fine, imprisonment or both, there are also penalties imposed, one of which is a loss of former liberties previously mentioned. Again, if you don’t like that, your argument isn’t with me. As it sits, I have ZERO sympathy for violent offenders, and if the law says they cannot have firearms, then I have no problem finding ways to make that happen AS LONG AS IT DOES NOT get in the way of the law abiding. And THAT seems to be the main concern among most rational gun rights advocates.

        • I have read beyond the Bill of Rights, which is why I know that judicial review is not within the purview of scotus. You also used “presumably” when discussing Congress and lawmaking, you presume too much. There is nothing wrong with the Constitution, but your reading of it, or lack thereof, is problematic.
          Even with scotus usurpation of judicial review, how many laws have they found to be unconstitutional.
          It seems you are the one who needs to read the Constitution, maybe even the Federalist and Ant-Federalist papers, etc….
          I have no sympathy for idiots who believe that they will never be branded criminals and found to suffer the same circumstances they happily endorsed for others. Government has shown that it is quite proficient at creating new classes of criminals, and I am certain you are already guilty of plenty of things, even if you are unaware. Ignorance of the law is no excuse….go turn in your guns.

        • AH, so the bar is perfection, is it? The unachievable goal! It is poor logic to insist that no law be implemented if the whole is not perfect. We’re human beings doing the best we can. So by all means, let’s fight the abuses and corruption! But let’s not sacrifice the possible on the alter of perfection.

          P.S.
          You know zero about me, so save your advice and ad hominem.

        • You started the insults with your insinuation that those opposed to NICS checks were in favor of helping criminals, remember? You hardly can speak for any, let alone all, opposed to infringements like NICS.
          Where you get the idea of calling for perfection is beyond me, but I do certainly expect the Constitution to be followed. How you can abide grievous disregard of the law of the land by lawmakers and courts, and in the same breath call blatantly unconstitutional things like NICS legitimate law shows a lot, you are at best a hypocrite.

        • I have my opinion. You have yours. And that’s what they are. Even the decisions handed down by judges are called “opinions.” They explain them. I explained mine. Yours is an absolutist one that fails to explain exactly HOW this infringes upon the rights of the law abiding? And it was you who stated that nobody can abdicate their rights, nor can they be removed, under any circumstances, which as I see it is just different wording to say that you’re against violent felons losing their gun rights. Please correct me if I’m wrong. If I’m right, then I respectfully disagree. I also disagree in that my position is not an insult; it is a fact; if you join the most extreme anti-gunners in opposing the improvement of the NICS system so that it actually works as intended — to bar criminals and not the law abiding — then you aid and abet the most extreme anti-gunners. Now, I could agree with you that a more ideal solution would be to replace the NICS system with the Alan Korwin endorsed BIDS system; THAT would be constructive.

          Here’s my original overview from last March, when it looked like there was going to be some sort of movement on background checks:
          http://ammoland.com/2014/03/for-it-before-we-were-against-it/#axzz3HNCt7C8H

          Here’s the skinny on BIDS, a superior alternative to NICS:
          http://ammoland.com/2012/09/blind-identification-database-system/#axzz3HNCt7C8H

        • Perhaps you just do not understand terms. Look up “infringement”. It is pretty simple. It has nothing to do with whether someone is a felon, a man, a woman, law-abiding (a fantasy), whatever. A person, or persons, rallying for their rights as enumerated need not be doing so to accommodate anybody, felon or otherwise. That is your insinuation, and it is insulting.

          Second, since you are so inclined to use the term law-abiding, why have you not rallied to have scotus imprisoned, and Congress, and potus? None of them are abiding the Constitution.

          You seem to pick and choose what laws you think should be followed, and which should be ignored. Hypocrisy at best.

        • If your interpretation was correct, then ANY penalty for any reason would be an “infringement.” The nature of crime and punishment IS infringement! Prison deprives you of your very freedom. So again, there’s a distinct difference between the infringement of the rights of the innocent and the punishment of criminal behavior. You are, of course, free to disagree, but yours will be an odd, minority view. Seems your problem is with our legal system in general. If so, I didn’t create it. I’m just trying to live with it.

        • You are wrong again. Penalizing a person for an actual wrongdoing is one thing, assuming everyone is guilty and automatically infringing the rights of everyone in return is different. If I break the law, punish me. Do not assume everyone has something to hide. That is hardly a minority view.

        • Oh, you mean like voter I.D.? I mean, it’s exactly the same issue: proving you are who you SAY you are. Asking for I.D. and making sure you’re not a prohibited person is no infringement. It’s due dilligence.

        • Hardly. It is one thing to make a person prove they are who they claim to be, it is another to presume they are guilty of some wrongdoing until it can be proved otherwise. Now you are just being silly. Besides, voters are registered, and voting is not an inalienable right. There are Constitutional amendments spelling out conditions for which one cannot discriminate in allowing someone to vote. If you check, you will find that most municipalities actually have laws on the books restricting voting on property tax linked issues to only property owners being allowed to vote (These laws are regularly ignored, allowing non-taxed persons to input on issues they do not have any right to opine on). They are legitimate law, and should be enforced.
          Comparing voting and gun rights is inane.
          I can understand wanting ID, to check that a person is old enough (age of majority) if there is any doubt, just like for cigarettes and alcohol.

        • The only presumption is that felons and other prohibited persons have tried and will continue to try to get guns through legal sources and that they sometimes lie. Checking to make sure you’re actually who you say you are and not some lyin’ sack criminal is no infringement and your argument is moot. And seriously, you’re going to start mincing which rights are worthy of protection and which aren’t? I.D. only works if it is checked in any case.

        • I am not a felon or prohibited person, and you claim you are not, but yet it is presumed that you and I are, until checked out and proven otherwise. All are presumed guilty. Sugarcoat it with circular logic all you like, but you are lying to yourself and trying to get others to believe your lie. Don’t get mad at me for understanding that which must be beyond your ken.
          According to your government, you are that lying sack of crap criminal, unless you can prove otherwise.

        • Bullshit. Verification is de facto accusation. There are no two ways about it.
          Apparently you have never filled out a 4473.

        • Facts are facts. Verification implies doubt, thus is a de facto accusation. No amount of rhetoric or terminological gymnastics can change that.

        • Your love for using “dogmatic” belies your hatred of facts, and of your attempts to “soften” them into something they are not. To need verification of something is to assert (how is that) that there can be no belief without proof. Ir is an accusation. You cannot dance around that. It is not “dogmatism”, it is simple truth.
          Your linguistic games do not change that. Progressives like to think that reiterating something differently changes the truth, it does not. Verification means there is no trust, it means you are not what you claim absent proof. It is an accusation. Period.
          Maybe you should verify that you are not an idiot? Not that I am calling you any names, or accusing you of anything, trust but verify. Granted, no proof would be sufficient.

        • That’s just it: I don’t know you. The guy at the polling place doesn’t know you. The guy at the gun shop doesn’t know you. How do I know you’re not a liar? Again, your issue isn’t with me, but with the law. You carry I.D. for a reason, bruh. If you were right, nobody would need any. Get over it. People lie; it’s a fact of life. If you are who you say you are, you’ve got no worries.

        • You keep bringing up voting. It shows you are clueless. Voters are registered. I cannot go to the next city or county and vote…but I can bear arms there, and buy guns.
          Voting is not inalienable. Arms rights are. This means that voting can have discriminations, and voting rights are dependent on meeting criteria.
          You are falling into your own bullshit now….what right do you have to accuse me of being a liar? Maybe police should stop and frisk people on the street, everyone, because who knows who is carrying guns, drugs, whatever? Asking them wouldn’t do, they might be lying. Suspicion is not required, they don’t have to look like bad people to be bad. That’s how you see things, it seems.
          Shall not be infringed is pretty clear, and you keep making a better and better case for NICS being an infringement, and an accusation. Good job!

        • Unless I woke up in communist China this morning, your right to vote is as “inalienable” as any. BUT, it’s YOUR right, not somebody elses, and in order to make sure that YOU are the one casting the vote, they ask for ID. (Registration is to facilitate voting due to the districting system, etc.) Being asked for ID is not being called a liar, unless you’re particularly thin-skinned and touchy. It’s due dilligence.

          You seem incapable to discuss without ad hominem, and BOTH of us are explaining things as WE understand them. I cannot claim perfect understanding and nor can you. What you CAN do is stop hollerin’ “bullshit” during a civil discussion. We’re apparently just going to disagree and that’s that.

        • Voting is not an inalienable right. Have you never perused the amendments to the constitution limiting the reasons such the vote can be denied someone?
          http://www.fjc.gov/history/home.nsf/page/tu_anthony_questions.html
          Voting rights and the Constitution

          The Nineteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1920, prohibits the states or the U.S. government from denying or abridging the right to vote on the basis of sex. Several other provisions of the Constitution impose similar restrictions on laws regulating access to the vote. The Fifteenth Amendment guarantees that no one can be denied the vote on the basis of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. The Twenty-fourth Amendment guarantees that no one can be denied the vote because of failure to pay a poll tax or other tax. The Twenty-sixth Amendment guarantees that no one eighteen years of age or older can be denied the right to vote on the basis of age. And Article I, section 2, of the Constitution requires that the voting qualifications each state establishes for elections to the U.S. House of Representatives shall be the same as those for elections to the more numerous branch of the state legislature.

          None of these provisions guarantees a citizen’s right to vote. Only in the mid-twentieth century did the Court recognize the right to vote as one entitled to the strictest constitutional protection. In the 1960s, the Court considered a series of cases involving the reapportionment of state legislative and congressional districts on the basis of geography rather than population. Culminating in the landmark 1964 holding, in Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964), that legislatures must be apportioned according to the “one-person-one-vote” formula, the reapportionment cases established that the federal courts could hear cases involving the alleged infringement of voting rights—the issue in such cases was whether a particular voting system or scheme denied a person or a group of persons the equal protection of the laws.

          The Court declared in Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964), that “no right is more precious in a free country than that of having a voice in the election of those who make the laws under which we, as good citizens, must live,” and in Reynolds the Court said that “any alleged infringement of the right of citizens to vote must be carefully and meticulously scrutinized” because “the right to exercise the franchise in a free and unimpaired manner is preservative of other basic civil and political rights. . . .” While not creating any substantive voting rights, these pronouncements helped to establish the modern conception of voting as an essential aspect of citizenship.

          Bullshit is bullshit, BRUH…..and I am not your “bruh”.

          Also, in quite a few states it is illegal to ask for ID to vote. Sorry, just the facts.
          So they can’t ask for ID to vote, a privilege, but they can run your background for exercise of a right. Nope.
          If you ask me for ID and I am not trying to cash a check I will tell you where to stick it. If a cop asks me for ID for no good reason, I can and have respectfully refused, he cannot do so absent reasonable suspicion.
          I do not need ID to be in public.

        • I find it ironic that, in a diatribe designed to convince me that voting is not a right, you then detail all of the reasons why a vote cannot be denied. Some truly twisted logic! (Or, in your parlance, “bullshit.”) You might also want to peruse the 9th Amendment. The Bill of Rights was never designed to be the total limit of one’s rights. Nor are all rights are described as “inalienable,” but that doesn’t make them non-rights.

        • Apparently you are not big on understanding. It is not ironic at all. It makes perfect sense. The vote is quite alienable, excepting for certain reasons enumerated in the Constitution. The rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights all contain any exceptions to them in the right’s enumeration itself. Emblematic of this is the 3rd amendment. In the 2A, we find simple words….shall not be infringed.
          Even the fed gov understands this, which is why it has yet to pass universal background checks…they know they cannot make citizens undergo a background check to exercise their 2A rights. They can, however, force FFL’s to not sell any firearm to anyone without such a check being performed. By making it a rule for the FFL instead of for the citizen, they side-stepped the legality problem, sort of. Gov has lots of creative ways of abrogating the rights of the people, it is sad that so many are chomping at the bit to support their efforts.

        • LOL! Well, there’s certainly a lot I don’t understand, but I always try. In this case, though, I understand very well and still disagree; your interpretation is fantasy. As proof, I’d offer habeas corpus, which has been by and large legally nullified.
          http://billofrightsinstitute.org/resources/educator-resources/americapedia/americapedia-constitution-text/habeas-corpus/

          Different, yet the same. And no, I’m not a fan.

          We could also grapple with the exceptions to one’s freedom of speech, the freedom to assemble (which these days often requires a permit) and so on. No “inalienable” right is absolute. The term is synonymous with “inherent,” which means that it is to be extended to every citizen as a birthright, yet this has never been held to be unlimited, or to have legislation enacted to prevent/punish abuse. For instance, freedom of speech does not mean freedom to incite, slander or libel.

          The reason why the last universal check bill wasn’t passed had nothing to do with your arguments and everything to do with a filibuster, based on issues of the checks being used as an illegal “back door” registry and that forcing checks through FFLs imposed a defacto tax on private sales. The BIDS system would sidestep those issues handily. And again, asking for ID is no infringement to anything.

        • BIDS is a marvelously good idea that reduces some of the problems with the NICS inquiry system and – accompanied by a dilution of the 4473 record-keeping requirement – would move the ball forward. Most importantly, it retains a notion of BC and a notion of record keeping such that supporters of BC and records should not dismiss a BIDS proposal out-of-hand.
          If we want to make progress within our political system we ought to be discussing BIDS and advancing this proposal.

        • By and large, many of the actual prohibitions you speak of are unconstitutional as well…using one unconstitutional intrusion on rights to justify another is inane. Some of your ideas are just plain false, as well.

          Freedom of speech is not limited as you speak regarding slander or libel. One is quite free to do so. One is also quite open to being held responsible for the lies one spreads. That is not a limitation on free speech any more than not being able to shoot people for no reason is a limitation on the RKBA. The old and too often brought up “shouting fire in a theatre” is also incorrect. Plenty of dissertations on the falseness of that doctrine can be found online if you wish to look into that.
          In addition, freedom of assembly does not require a permit. The words are “peaceably assemble”, which does not mean non-violently. It means without disturbing the peace. If you disrupt traffic, obscure the sidewalk from passers-by, make excessive noise, etc….you are not being peaceable. Think as in terms of what would get someone cited for “disturbing the peace”. The permit process exists as a means of granting permission for assemblies that would not be peaceable. It allows the community to prepare for the inconveniences that it will have to contend with.
          In no way does that intimate that one cannot peaceably assemble. It just realizes the limits of such assembly.

        • It’s the non-“by and large” issues I’m referring to. You may be surprised that I agree with most of what you posit here; rights come with responsibilities and misusing them has consequences, but prior restraint — the infringement of rights based on suspicion — is nothing supported by the Constitution or me. The limitations, again, are when your rights butt-up againt mine. You may remember the old megaphone trucks back in the ’30s and ’40s, used to promote everything from political candidates to tea sellers. These are arguably rights, since they’re used tor speech, and we all have a right to free speech. Yet non-enumerated rights such as the one you mention, “disturbing the peace,” were eventually given precendent; your right to the peaceful enjoyment of your home and property without such unbidden intrusions is, apparently, more “inalienable” than some free speech rights of others. These are situationally dependent.

          It is also my understanding that assembly permits are more about the demands on the area in question. The Capitol steps, for instance, can only be used by one group at a time, and the permitting process is a way to avoid clashes between all of the various groups holding raliies there. I don’t buy the argument that it’s about preparation. If that were the case, then all that would be required is a certain notification period. By requiring a permit, it is no right at all, since a permit can be denied. This is why I’ve always championed what is known as “constitutional carry.”

          And returning to the point at hand, there is an ample body of case law that supports the fact that simply asking for ID is NOT prior restraint. You are denied no right in the process.

        • Peaceable assembly is in the first amendment, it is an unalienable right. Disturbing the peace is not, and never was. You are being incoherent. Disturbing the peace was understood even back then. Your rights are not “limited” when the butt into the rights of others, you do not have the right to intrude others….that is not a limitation on any right , that is a natural condition.,
          You keep trying to read in things that are just not there. Looking for sidereal manners to explain things which are much simpler than you want to make them. No wonder you are so messed up.
          Whether or not you buy the arguments given about permitting processes, they are what they are. You do not have the right to publicly assemble in a manner that would be of detriment to the other members of the body public being able to use that area. In your example of the Capitol steps, any assembly could be construed to be detrimental. Permits allow for controlled access for assembly, to limit the detriment to public access. Again, you like to over-complicate things.

        • You wrote, “Peaceable assembly is in the first amendment, it is an unalienable right” in your first sentence, and then say, “Permits allow for controlled access for assembly, to limit the detriment to public access.” You’ve ceded the “infringement” of a permitting process on an “unalienable” right, and then call ME “incoherent?”

          Mine was an example of how one form of free speech is trumped by another’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of their home; how rights vs. rights can clash. This is a reason why said rights are not absolute. There are conditions. Courts are the arena to settle disputes, and just about all disputes concern rights vs. rights. Again, I don’t invent this stuff, so it’s not me making things more complicated! Just crack open some law books and take a look at how complex many of our laws are. And WE are supposed to know all of them that govern whatever we do.

          “They are what they are” is actually a good way of putting it. You end with, “Permits allow for controlled access for assembly, to limit the detriment to public access. Again, you like to over-complicate things.” I can only hear a liberal anti-gunner saying, “The same is true about guns!” And since you’ve agreed already that a permitting process is necessary for ONE “unalienable” right, you’d have no leg to stand on to disagree. I do. I would never agree to permits being required to own or buy guns. I deal with concealed carry permits because I HAVE to, not because I agree with them. By the same token, I have zero sympathy with or empathy for violent criminals, rapists and thieves, and have zero problem with the legal notion that they’re stripped of rights they’ve already demonstrated an inability to use responsibly. I therefore have few reasons to oppose controlling these miscreants by closing legal avenues of gun sales to them, just as long as any mechanism designed to do so does NOT infringe on my rights, or any other law abiding citizen’s, to buy, own and properly use guns. Proving I am who I say I am, given the reality of straw purchases and lying sack criminals, is no infringement. It hardly slows down the transaction, so no right is delayed.

        • I did not cede any infringement of anything in the first amendment. The first amendment itself stipulates “peaceable” assembly, the limitation is built in to the amendment itself. Wow. Just like “shall not be infringed” is part of the 2A.
          Get it now? The first amendment enumerates peaceable assembly as a right. A permit allows for other than peaceable assembly. Peaceable doesn’t mean non-violent.
          Yes, you are incoherent.
          One is free to peaceably assemble. Much of the assembly people partake in does not meet the definition of peaceable. I have taken part in both peaceable and permit allowed assemblies which would not have been considered peaceable. There is a difference. It isn’t rocket science.

        • Um… I didn’t miss the wording. I’m a part-time writer, so I pay attention to them thingies. In fact, ANY assembly requires a permit, however. And who defines “peaceable?” Does that refer to violence? Noise? Subject matter? Seems to me that they make that determination before any such gathering. So is that right still “unalienable?” I say that any right requiring a permit is not a right at all. I also find that far more egregious than being asked for I.D. by a store clerk.

        • Now you are straight-up lying. I have taken part in numerous assemblies which required no permit. As a writer, you sure have a poor grasp of English. Peaceable has nothing to do with violence, per se, it is about maintaining the peace of the community. Those laws would be on record in your community. Noise, impeding the flow of foot or vehicle traffic, and other things, all are likely to factor into that.
          Yes that right is still inalienable…notice the right itself specifies “peaceable”. So long as your assembly is peaceable, you’re covered. See, you can feel that needing a permit to assemble in a manner that breaches the peace to be a right, but the Bill of Rights does not. HUGE difference. Now maybe you can get to work on getting that simple little word taken out of the 1A, and while you are at it get the “shall not infringed” taken out of the 2A, and then, and only then, will the Constitution fit your opinion. Until then, sucks to be you.

          By the way, I have personally taken part in numerous assemblies without permits, of a peaceable manner, even had police stop through to say hello because someone had called on our assembly. The officers agreed that we were not disturbing the peace, we knew the laws of our community, and we were left alone. We were utilizing our inalienable rights.
          You would think a writer would have a better grasp of words.

        • Repeat: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/tu-quoque

          Your understanding is faulty. Your opinions are interesting, but unsubstantiated; you seem to ignore the questions I posed in favor of like nice, tidy fantasies that aren’t spelled-out in law as you say. (If they are, please show me. I’m all ears.) The hard truth is that your right to assemble for peaceful purposes is STILL regulated, and if your local authorities didn’t want your “peaceful assembly” to proceed, you could’ve been charged and arrested for loitering. Here in my county, they consider gatherings in parking lots “cruising,” which of course is prohibited by ordinance.

          I’m a gun rights advocate and I’ve attended a good many rallies and marches myself. So what? It doesn’t change the fact that none of our rights are absolute. Given that we ALL have them, then they couldn’t be when you think about it. You should do more of that and less spewing of ad hominem.

        • “it hardly slows down the transaction, so no right is delayed”….So you are saying it is barely an infringement.
          Maybe you should reread the 2A.

        • Yes, I’m saying that nobody considers a few minutes while a NICS check is run any real infringement. At worst, you might see it as an inconvenience, and only if your sales clerk is super fast at filling out the paperwork and you even NOTICE that the check is being run. My last purchase earlier this year was all over in about 12 minutes, and the check took all of three. If that’s your idea of an “infringement,” then it’s safe to say you’ve never experienced any for real. Your actual BEST counter-argument is the occasional false positive, which can delay a sale for up to three days. THAT, to me, is a true infringement, and my biggest complaint with the system as it sits.

        • Oh, so it is not a “real” infringement!! It is an infringement, but not a real one! I missed that part of the 2A.
          It is an infringement, your false perceptions aside. You keep on trying to rationalize what you know is wrong. Warm fuzzy infringements that promise to help keep you safe (but do nothing really) are still infringements.
          You are into full cover-up mode now, the foolishness of your false rationale is now laid bare.

        • The “reasonable man” position is a neurtal one: I had no reason to believe that you’re not who you claim to be, but I also have no reason to believe that you are, either. Since YOU made the claim, then the onus of proof is on you as well.

        • No, that is wrong. You may think it reasonable to cede one’s rights. Most of sound mind do not. Even those who would at first, eventually learn the folly of their “reasonable” stance.
          Your position on ID is hogwash.
          You have no right or good reason to demand ID from me. Period. Your suspicions are the mark of paranoia.
          Look up the law, ask a cop under what justification he can demand ID….you are off your rocker.

        • You have no right to be trusted unconditionally. People have the right to be skeptical.

          Being asked to prove a claim in not an infringement of your rights, Period. End of story.

        • The law disagrees with you. As does nature. You are just wrong. You have no right to call me a liar. Typical leftist.

        • Voting is not inalienable. Guns are. Yet states rule against ID to vote…and for background checks (much more intrusive than ID) for inalienable gun rights. Their thinking is as bass-ackwards as yours.

        • Voting is as “inalienable” as any right. (Please read Amendment IV.) Not all of our rights are listed in the Bill of Rights, nor do they need to be. Inalienable (or, as written, “unalienable”) does NOT mean absolute. It does not mean that no rules or regulations can be written as to its misuse or abuse. In fact, whole bodies of law are concerned with those very things. Get to know some lawyers. Don’t take my word for it. (As if you would — LOL!)

        • Voting most certainly is not an inalienable right. As a matter of fact, certain amendments to the Constitution elaborate on specific reasons that the right to vote cannot be denied, you will notice that there are plenty of reasons that it can be denied left over.
          I can’t even vote in the next city over, they will deny me my rights!!! You too, I bet.

        • Exactly; all that means is that the right to vote is not absolute either. That does not mean you’re outright denied, but that conditions apply. This can be said of every right you have.

        • I do not make claims as to who I am, I merely answered your inquiry. If you have a REASON to doubt it, then you might have reason to ask. Your paranoia is not a reason.

        • Is it paranoia for a medical marijuana store owner to suspect that his business might attract potheads? Yes, a ridiculous question, EXACTLY the same as a gun store owner being suspicious that his business might attract a criminal element. See, there’s a difference between paranoia and prudence.

        • In order for the comparison to be valid, such a right to marijuana would have to exist. Invalid comparison. Try again.

        • Now you’re just being obtuse. The comparison isn’t about who has a right to what, but the likelihood of attracting a certain type of person. Let’s stick with honest discussion.

        • Nothing obtuse, marijuana is restricted, only certain persons are able to access it. Alcohol, in being almost freely accessible, barring prohibited persons, is a fairly valid comparison. It was even prohibited and then reallowed in the USA, so it has even had constitutional mention. Also, the BATF has alcohol under its purview.
          There is no valid discussion, you favor intrusion upon the rights of the people.

        • Incorrect: I favor barriers to criminals, as long as they do not infringe on the rights of non-criminals. I disagree with your silly notion that showing I.D. is somehow an “infringement.” And I predicted this from the beginning.

        • Quit trying to bait and switch. The question was if NICS was an infringement, and it is.
          You yourself admitted it.
          Ben Franklin was quite correct, but you keep thinking a little loss of liberty for “safety’s sake” is okay. It is not.
          As to voting, ID has been deemed discriminatory in a number of states, even Texas. I disagree, voting rights can be subject to limitations, whereas the 2A is uninfringeable.
          Also, being asked to show ID for no reason is not legitimate, even for a police officer.
          Get your shit straight.
          Never mind the fact that NICS has been utterly ineffective at stopping criminals, and much more effective at stopping legal purchasers from being able to arm themselves.
          If the gov grabbed gun rights all at once, everyone would be up in arms. But when they do it piecemeal, quite a lot of people are blind to what is happening.
          Maybe you should go get some glasses, your vision is awful.

        • Once again — TEDIOUSLY once again — a BG check being an infringement is your OPINION. I disagree, since it does not bar you your rights to keep or bear arms, nor does it impose any meaningful delay. Nowhere did I ever “admit” that it was anything of the sort. If you think so, perhaps YOU are the one needing to check his vision!

          Precisely what “liberty” is lost by you proving you are who you say you are and a seller confirming it and checking your record? Pray tell. Because I see the only liberty in question being lost here is for a criminal to bullshit a seller by answering “no” to the “are you a convicted felon” question. There is very good reason to be asked for ID, and you’re being obtuse if you don’t see it: criminals are barred firearms. Since there is no way to TELL, by looking, who is a criminal and who is not, then not only will you be asked, but your claim verified. If you can think of a better way to facilitate rights for the law abiding while barring those who have no such right, please enlighten me and everyone else in the world. We’d love to know.

          If you really want to know about REAL rights and their loss, check out James Bovard’s “Lost Rights.” (Hint: none involve showing I.D.) 🙂

        • A closer approximation, does a liquor store have the right to run a background check of every customer so as to not sell alcohol to customers who may as a result of probation or parole have a ban on consumption of alcohol?
          It sounds pretty ridiculous, huh? I am sure the public outcry would be quite loud in the event such things were attempted.

        • Well, I COULD use your tactic and holler “nobody has an unalienable right to booze,” but it seems that by this comparison even you consider that facetious. So I’ll play: EVERY LIQUOR STORE WILL ASK YOU FOR I.D. Unless you are obviously older than 21, you WILL be asked for I.D. They aren’t “calling you a liar.” They are just verifying your claim as the law demands. Thus far, I’m unaware that all released felons have been barred the use of alcohol.

        • There are quite a few persons who as conditions of parole or probation are not allowed to possess or consume alcohol. There are tethers which monitor for consumption, and persons who are called in randomly to be breathalyzed. Still, no background checks to buy alcohol.
          There is a world of difference between verifying age, and a background check. And notice, you yourself noted that ID for alcohol is contingent on the person believing that you may not be old enough to buy alcohol….a reasonable suspicion. Of course, as a seller, they have the right to refuse anyone, anyways.
          Big difference in that regard.
          No a single liquor store or other seller of spirits I have ever seen makes background checks before alcohol sales. Quite a few are located near half-way houses and other areas with high residencies of parolees too, as a matter of fact.
          The point is not verifying age, it is background checks.

        • Again, any comparison will eventually break down, which is what we’re seeing here. A gun seller has no outward ability to even hazard a guess as to whether or not a customer is a prohibited person or not. It’s much easier for a liquor store clerk to make a guess as to age safely, and where he/she cannot, they’ll ask for ID. This is no infringement on any legal buyer.

          I almost went into the prohibited felon weeds, but didn’t think I’d have to, since we both understand that it’s far from a blanket prohibition.

        • So you have nothing. You choose to ignore the point instead of address it, since it seriously destroys your argument. Why no background checks to keep prohibited people from buying alcohol? It would be quick and easy, hardly an infringement at all, unless the system is down, or busy, or whatever. And people have no right to alcohol uninfringed anyways. So why not? People seem to like their rights, I guess.
          The complacent will allow themselves to be rationalized into letting them disappear slowly through attrition. It doesn’t hurt as much when you cede your right piecemeal, huh Stu?

        • Um… please re-read my response. I answered you quite clearly. I’ll repeat, for your convenience: THERE IS NO BLANKET PROHIBITION AGAINST ALL FELONS FROM BUYING ALCOHOL. <— That's the reason. Right there. Writ large. You're welcome.

          And again, they DO ask for I.D. if you don't look like you qualify — are under 21 — which is the exact same "infringement" that have your panties in a bunch when buying guns. And I'll say it here one last time: having to prove you are who you SAY you are is NO INFRINGEMENT. Zip, zap, zero, nada, nuttin' honey. Piecemeal or otherwise. And guess what? YOU EXEMPLIFY and AFFIRM my original statement! I predicted it, and here you are proving me more and more correct with every post. Thank you.

        • No one stated anything about a blanket prohibition on felons and alcohol. Dude you really are slow sometimes.

          The point is that loads of ex-cons are restricted from using alcohol as condition of parole or probation. Alcohol is much more dangerous than guns…and easier to access even. Why aren’t there programs in place to background check all purchasers, so as to keep those persons from illegally buying alcohol? It would be a much more effective use of big government intrusion on our rights, and it would barely infringe the rights of the populace at large.
          You know why, just as I do…..at that point everyone would know that such things are an illegal intrusion on our rights…even if alcohol is not an enumerated, uninfringeable right.
          Your refusal to see that even the NICS checks is not limited to felons is idiocy. It must be the cognitive dissonance in your head.

        • And all decorum and manners once again go out the window. Nice. Show your true colors, bruh.

          YOU made the comparison. I shredded it. Spare the Scotch tape and glue; it’s toast. Anyone can see the difference.

          Go ahead: reinforce my point with more posts.

        • I can see now beyond any doubt that your “part-time writer” career is descriptive of your visiting gun rights, and likely other right-aligned web sites, fomenting unrest, and spreading propaganda.
          You have likely never even handled a gun, you are probably afraid of them.
          Have a nice day idiot.

        • Aw, now don’t go away mad! Just go away.

          BTW: I’m an NRA certified firearms instructor. Not only are you wrong, but you’re colossally, stupendously, uproariously MEGA wrong — LOL!

          Seeya.

        • You are a liar. Of course, the NRA has been on the wrong side of the issue plenty of times, so who knows. Still, I am a life member. You are still wrong. It has been demonstrated here plenty of times, you yourself have admitted it, but you keep going in new circles every time you are proven errant. I am not going to continue to prove you wrong only to have you veer left, proven wrong again, veer right, proven wrong again, veer left again…..the truth is plain.

        • You’ve been reduced to accusation and insult, which is ample evidence of your empty argument. You’ve spouted opinion and have proven nothing, and I refuse to let you drag me into your ad homenemfest. Your baseless accusations are no counter-argument. Bring some facts. You can’t “prove” anybody wrong without ’em. Sorry.

        • I have stated fact again and again, even had you admit that NICS is an infringement ….did you use “barely” or “hardly” one, either is still an infringement. You just keep talking because you want to erase that you are wrong. It gets old. You cannot talk yourself right.

        • Yes, the original NICS was implemented exactly in the manner I said, for the reasons I stated. It does not implement an infringement on the people, but a requirement on the FFL. People were still free to buy weapons through non-FFL means, free of infringement.

          Background checks on the people is an infringement, no ifs and or buts. Just because judges have claimed “no right is absolute” does not make it so.

        • On this, I will again disagree, at least with the last half of your statement. As long as background checks impose no barrier to your rights, it does not constitute any infringement whether it’s performed by an FFL or by your neighbor over the internet. There is also an ample body of case law and court decisions that support the denial of certain rights to people convicted of felonies. It is not unreasonable, then, for gun sellers to assure that their customers are not among this group. That’s “criminal control,” not “gun control,” and again represents no infringement to you or I.

        • So I guess you are also okay with no-knock searches of neighborhood homes, especially where known crime occurs. So long as you have done nothing wrong, or have no contraband, it is just an inconvenience. No presumption of innocence for you.
          A body of case law? Seriously? You are kidding, I hope. Reliance of precedent to infringe people’s rights…you really are a leftist, aren’t you?
          Oddly, even those arguing for background checks typically agree that they are infringements, but “justified” ones. You have already “progressed” us to not seeing them as infringements.
          They are infringements, they are unconstitutional, and that is all that matters.

        • Fallacy alert: strawman + false equivalency. You’re seriously going to compare armed, no-knock, no warrant raids to asking for I.D.? Again, producing an I.D. is no infringement, and if producing it inconveniences you, I’d suggest an easier to open wallet.

          The LAW relies on precedent. I’m not inventing this stuff. If you claim to live within the law, by rule of law, then you have to deal with what IS. You can pursue the ideal, through legal challenges, voting, etc., but there will always be laws we disagree with, for whatever reason. Opinion is no excuse to ignore them.

        • Is it a false equivalency? Extension of the same concept. Law and order abrogates, or infringes, upon exercise of a right in either case. You already started the ball rolling by saying that insuring that bad guys are kept under control is good reason for infringing or inconveniencing the public….it is a natural progression of your concept.

        • Not at all. I just differ with your OPINION on what is considered “infringing or inconveniencing the public.” I see showing ID and having a quick verification done as neither.

        • There are people who are of the opinion the moon is made of bleu cheese, they are free to their opinion, however wrong it is.
          When your opinion is contrary to fact, not much else to say.

        • I do not carry ID for the purposes you proclaim, sorry. Seems you cannot ask for ID to vote…but that privilege comes with prerequisites. I guess the polling place is expected to believe we are truthful. Damn does that blow the crap out of your arguments.

  30. My first problem with NICS is that it’s unconstitutional. My second problem is that it opens the door to, and conditions people to accept, further unconstitutional infringements. My last problem with it is that it doesn’t work, at least not in accomplishing anything it was sold as intended to address.

    Get rid of the damn thing and let’s quit trafficking in fairy tales about millions of bad guys being blocked from obtaining firearms.

  31. Background checks are a fraud upon the naive public. That said, generally, they seem to perform the same function for guns as age limits on the purchase of alcohol and tobacco. No one harbors any illusion that age limits are effective in limiting access to alcohol or tobacco by minors. Minors have little difficulty obtaining alcohol and tobacco; criminals have little difficulty obtaining guns. Same farce; different object.
    That said, try to repeal the laws on gun BCs by FFLs; or, repealing ID-checking by alcohol/tobacco dealers. If some constituency is committed in principle to repealing these laws then let these people pony up the money to try to repeal these laws. Why isn’t this happening? Precisely because we all realize that the prospects of any such repeal are too small to justify any effort in that direction.
    BC and ID laws are essentially public-relations window-dressing that protect their respective “industries” from criticism that they are open to the patronage of “prohibited persons” (felons, minors). Dealers and their customers can live with BC/ID laws provided that they don’t impose a really onerous burden. Generally speaking, they don’t.
    So, we PotG are in a position of being unable (or unwilling) to roll-back FFL-BCs while at the same time doing a really poor job of explaining to non-gun people why U-BCs are a bad idea. Non-gun people are likely to intuit that U-BCs are a “common sense” idea.
    After all, if it’s illegal for an adult to give alcohol or cigarettes to a minor, why shouldn’t it be illegal for a gun owner to transfer a gun to a prohibited person? Non-gun owners don’t understand that this sort of analogy doesn’t quite hold between alcohol or tobacco vs. guns. And, we don’t explain it clearly; and, it’s not easy to explain. Even so, we could explain the difference if we made the effort.
    Checking ID for alcohol or tobacco is pretty easy if the receiver has a driver’s license (or, simply looks old enough). Checking an FOID could be just-as-simple if the gun receiver happens to have an FOID (CCP, etc.) IF, and to the extent, that U-BC accepts the simple showing of an FOID to satisfy U-BC, then U-BC wouldn’t be an onerous imposition. And, after all, under Federal law, the FOIDs of 21 States serve in lieu of a NICS check.
    Our problem is primarily with those receivers who don’t already have an FOID. By analogy, plenty of NYC residents don’t have a driver’s licenses because they don’t need a driver’s license. Most gun users don’t have an FOID (or CWP, etc,) because they don’t need an FOID.
    Suppose a U-BC REQUIRED anyone receiving a gun under any circumstances had to hold an FOID. Well, OK, so that would mean that any citizen would have to acquire and show a State-issued ID card before exercising his Constitutional right under the 2A. Seems like a good idea? Well, then, why isn’t it a good idea to require a citizen to acquire and show a State-issued ID card before exercising his Constitutional right to vote. Just as soon as SCOTUS supports a showing of ID to vote we PotG will cheerfully consider supporting showing an FOID to acquire a gun. Fair?
    Short of overcoming the obstacles of acquiring FOIDs for all gun users, we need to understand the difference between dealer sales and private transfers. Dealers must have an FFL, a shop, and they get access to NICS. If any consumer could have access to NICS we might be able to live with a U-BC scheme allowing either a FOID showing or an internet inquiry to the NICS database.
    There might be some legitimate objections to opening access to NICS. Doubtlessly, there are illegitimate objections to allowing anyone to do a BC for any reason not having to do with a gun transfer. Making private transfers under the auspices of FFLs is not acceptable. The FFLs will impose a fee for their services; or, the law will compel FFLs to provide free services. To some extent, these objections can be mitigated by opening access to NICS beyond FFLs; e.g., gun clubs, gun ranges, notaries public, American Legion halls, etc.
    A much more practical approach would be to encourage – but not necessarily compel – BCs on private transfers. Almost all the desirable objectives of U-BCs COULD be achieved with very LITTLE impact on gun users.
    First, exempt gun loans from any BC scheme. If Owner lends a gun to Borrower then Owner can reasonably be presumed to know Borrower well-enough to expect Borrower to return Owner’s property. If Borrower neglects to return the gun promptly, generally Owner knows where to find Borrower. (I left a gun with a family of friends in 1969 and picked it up in 2014; I keep track of these things.) If a trace leads to Owner, that trace can be carried on one more step to Borrower. The simple exemption of loans will probably eliminate 90% of the burden of BCing private transfers. I’d make it a felony to KNOWINGLY loan a gun to a prohibited person. No crime at all for UN-knowingly loaning to a prohibited person.
    Second, make it a misdemeanor to permanently transfer (sell, raffle, inherit, gift) a gun to a prohibited person without the receiver either: a) showing a valid FOID; or, b) conducting a NICS inquiry. Anyone who bought several guns per year from private parties would likely acquire an FOID even if it cost him an hour with his Sheriff and $100 for a 4-year permit. At “gun shows” the operator of the show should be allowed to run NICS checks and print-out NICS-check certificates good for the show. That would – very conveniently – handle many stranger-sales where buyer-meets-seller at a gun show. If access to NICS is widely open (gun clubs, gun ranges, notaries public, American Legion halls etc.) then most other permanent transfers would be accommodated without making the parties the victims of the only near-by gun shop. Bear in mind that MOST private permanent transfers are apt to be done by parties who know each other very well. E.g., a couple of good friends living in a rural area. In these cases, the transferor would rely on his personal knowledge of the transferee and skip the BC. He would simply accept a small risk that he made a mistake in judgement and the prosecutor would pursue him on a misdemeanor. Only a small minority of transfers would actually be subjected to a NICS check via the most convenient venue; e.g., FFL, notary public, American Legion hall, etc.
    We must also explain to the non-gun-owed that 4473 forms on private transfers are out-of-the-question. Here, the problem is primarily the issue of record-retention; secondarily the issue of record-making. FFLs are now obliged to keep every 4473 form for 20 years. Expecting a private party to keep a form for 2 years would be onerous. There simply isn’t enough benefit to justify the cost of imposing a record-keeping requirement on a private party. Filling out the form correctly is a significant, albeit secondary problem. Just ask Officer Obramski (to say nothing of his FFL’s employees). His misunderstanding of the 4473 form had to be resolved by SCOTUS. It’s entirely unreasonable to impose these record-making and -keeping requirements on amateur private parties.
    There is virtually no evidence that law enforcement makes much use of gun traces using FFL 4473 forms. The Paperwork Reduction Act cries out for an empirical validation of the existing 4473 requirement for FFLs before extending it to consumers.
    In any case, even if an argument might be made for private party record-making and -keeping, enabling tracing of every gun to the current owner is absolutely off-the-table. Any such comprehensive record-keeping requirement would tempt the Federal and State governments to undertake confiscation; and, that is intrinsically violative of the 2A. Any attempt to establish comprehensive record-keeping will make any legislation Dead-on-Arrival. The public might have a U-BC bill; it can’t have any Universal Record-keeping law.
    PotG might – and that’s a very tentative MIGHT – entertain some sort of U-BC scheme; however,
    – No U-BC bill will pass if it has a comprehensive record-keeping scheme (effectively universal registration); and,
    – Congress must make concessions (e.g., National-Reciprocity, 1A-Defense-of-2A-in-Public-Schools) in exchange.

    We PotG face a tough choice:
    1) – strive to roll-back FFL BCs
    2) – strive to maintain the status quo of FFL BCs but no BCs on private transfers; or,
    3) – strive to trade our own (convenient) BC for private transfers in exchange for other concessions.

    Absolutists among us PotG are to be commended for standing on principle in advocating Choice 1. Now, who will open his wallet and fund such an effort? Absent the money to advance principle, we seem to be stuck living with Choice 2. Is attempting to hold the ground we have proving to be effective? Or, are we spending a lot of time and money merely exchanging alternating small losses and victories (e.g., the Federal AWB followed by the failure to renew the Federal AWB). If we feel we are slowly but surely gaining ground then this Choice 2 might be the correct one. Ultimately, if the best defense is an aggressive offense, then might we have more to gain via concessions then we would have to lose by a U-BC bill of our own design?

  32. “We need to stop arguing about things we all agree on. Americans overwhelmingly support background checks, and they are proven to work.”

    Where is the proof again? Oh wait, that was just an unsubstantiated assertion based on bias and opinion. But sure – they work… right. If work is inconveniencing lawful gun owners to perform background checks, registration, and paperwork – I feel they are working well in that endeavor.

    “If we are going to be responsible with our freedom, we need to stop the argument and require background checks.”

    More cringingly ridiculous statements. We need to be responsible with our freedom, so we need to stop arguing and limit that freedom. Makes no sense at all. Total nonsensical brain liquefying statements. If people were responsible with their freedom there wouldn’t be any background checks because no crime (with guns) would occur. Again, why do I have to limit my freedom because someone else is irresponsible with theirs? Being responsible with our freedoms means giving them up. Ludicrous.

    Now… back to the topic. NICs is a worthless pile of garbage whose existence (and that of the ATF) is to tax specific and arbitrary products. Products like alcohol, tobacco, and firearms. It’s just more funding for the US gov. – And… we are funding jobs for people to help tax these specific products to fund their own salaries. Insanity.

    NICs does not work and if expanded and strengthened where every gun purchase goes through NIC’s, criminals will still not obtain their weapons by undergoing a NICs check. It is a useless tax burden for more arbitrary bureaucratic red tape nonsense.

  33. Cute video.
    There should not be any background checks and I should be able to legally possess any weapon the military uses. God given right versus government granted approval.

  34. We live in a country with as many guns as people, which IMO is probably the single best thing about this nation. But face it, there is no way for the government to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. If you’re not safe to have a gun, you’re not safe to walk the streets a free man.

  35. Absolutely, and here is my answer as to why.

    The National Instant Check System is hopelessly broken and generates an untold number of “false positives”, possibly on the order of 99% thanks to some valid number-crunching by researcher Dr. John Lott (as opposed to the nigh universally invalid number-crunching of gun-grabbers), for which the FBI “conveniently” doesn’t keep any statistics on. No one is being held responsible for the non-submittal of records, and it’s hopelessly behind the curve in data entry anyway. For an example, the state of Maryland has contributed a grand total of six records to the NICS in totality. This includes criminal and psychological adjudications in the program’s entire 20-year history. Every effort to make it smoother, easier, and less burdensome has been summarily shot down by shrill outcry from the obstructionist civilian disarmament industrial complex. Funny how they constant piss and moan about wanting to fix it, then purposefully blocking any and all efforts to do so. Add to that the fact that psychiatry itself is, as any medical professional in the field worth their salt will tell you, is still far from an exact science despite how far we’ve come from the days of Sigmund Freud. Who gets to determine the definition of “mentally defective”? If found to be, how does a court make a carefully measured decision that is properly weighed against the presumed defendant’s civil rights? What circumstances would even trigger a court case against them, especially if they’ve yet to commit a crime? Oh, and let’s not even get into how irrecoverably screwed up our health care system is, and just how desperately under-equipped and ill-prepared and dare I say even generally unwilling to comprehensively and compassionately care for the mentally ill in any form or fashion. All of these issues and more will have to addressed before the rest of us sane people can even begin talking about background checks again with a straight face, with “sane” being the descriptor for anyone who isn’t a gun control advocate.

  36. I honestly don’t have a problem with background checks. The second admendment would have repealed years ago without it. That being said we have instant background checks so I say open it up to the public. I don’t sell guns to anyone except friends now because I don’t want then getting into the wrong hands. I think they should only require the same information that is required to vote. If showing an id is too hard to vote then it is too hard to buy a gun. If a valid Id and background check is needed to buy a gun then it should be needed to vote. If it would allow me to have a new gun shipped to my house then I would have no problem opening the background checks up to the public. But the government would have to do its part in pressing charges against those that try to buy a gun when they know that they can’t, so far they have failed!!

    • You can’t repeal a natural right, it exists even if you attempt to repeal it’s enumeration. By the same token, having to be background checked prior to exercising a right is illogical and unconstitutional, among other things.
      It is people like you, with defeatist attitudes, who capitulafe so easily, that do gun rights the greatest harm. If you were black you would be trying to convince your brethren that the back of the bus isn`t all that bad, it could be wofse.

  37. I think the NICS is quite useful; it’s a grand idea, except anyone should be able to use it — if I sell a rifle, it would be nice to be able to check to see if my prospective buyer has any violent felonies, etc. My problem with it is that it’s in the hands of the government. Personally, I’d rather see JPFO running it, and the government would need a warrant to be able to see any of the information at all.

  38. I’d keep it…

    …If I trust the information to be relevant and accurate.
    …If I trusted that its content would not be prone to abuse.
    …If I trusted that the information was flushed upon completeing and not horded by some external agency.

    Since I’m zero for three on that, no. I wouldn’t keep it.

Leave a Reply

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