No FFL HAS to sell to anyone.

With the caveat that if the system is routinely failing to process the required check in a timely manner, then improvements must be made. Modern "big data" technology has the technical end more than covered (this is not a challenging task for, say, an Aerospike database). Lack of timely and accurate reporting from law enforcement agencies is unacceptable.

Background checks aren't any sort of panacea (common career criminals will still be arming themselves via the black market), but for certain types of shooters, a universal and properly functional background check system could save lives, and with no genuine infringement on the 2nd Amendment rights of citizens.

from de facto denying a firearm purchases by not properly processing a background check. This concern is not theoretical or really about technology at all, and happens frequently in states such as New Jersey, California, Illinois, etc.

Everyone is entitled to timely due process and equal protection, regardless of whether the issue concerns firearms, and even those complaining about the three day rule acknowledge that most checks are completed within minutes and the number of people actually affected is astonishingly small (without any mention of how many of these people still ultimately pass the background check).

In any event, no FFL is required to sell after three days, it is entirely optional. If the authorities cannot complete a background check within the designated period, I believe they should be statutorily mandated to inform the FFL of precisely why the check cannot be completed and the specific bases for any concerns about the sale. If these Senators are requesting forbearance from firearm sellers, there should at least be a some commiserate responsibility from the government.

In fact, I would be willing to offer a compromise. Since firearm purchase waiting periods have not been shown to have any demonstrable effect on public safety, no less for people who already own firearms, I would agree to extend the federal NICS background check period to a maximum of seven days, more than double the current three, on the condition that such a law would override state and municipal waiting periods by federal preemption. I would still leave the final sale after the background check period to the discretion of the FFL.

I definitely agree, re: not allowing heel-dragging by the authorities to become de facto denial. That's why I mentioned that the system needs to be properly functional (at least the vast majority of the time; I realize no such system will be infallible). FWIW, I've never had a check take more than a few minutes. I don't buy a huge number of guns (I'm not a collector...I have two self-defense pistols and several competition rifles, along with a .22lr plinker), but I've been through a few checks.

I also agree with that compromise. Seems a sound plan...

by the vast majority of people concerning gun rights / safety / control. There is a vast, relatively silent political middle that is under-served by our elected officials.

The problem is twofold: (1) There is so little trust, and the issue is so partisan, that political compromise is difficult. Firearms crime are now part of the culture war instead of a simple criminal justice dilemma. (2) A lot of people don't understand what "compromise" really means. It does not mean a little gun control now so people become accommodated to control or to weaken the "gun culture," so that there might be more gun control later. Compromise requires each side to actually offer concessions.

There are many areas where gun rights proponents could offer ground, including universal background checks, safety and proficiency training, storage requirements, support for "smart guns," improving the speed, accuracy and efficiency of NICS databases, storage requirements, increased penalties for gun crime, etc. Gun owners (btw, I personally own no guns) have no desire for criminals or the psychologically dangerous to possess weapons than any other American. However, gun control groups must offer actual immediate, tangible concessions that build trust, such as federal preemption of waiting periods, concealed carry reciprocity among states, "shall issue" rather than "may issue" laws, protections against registration lists and criminal penalties for disclosure, state preemption over municipalities for uniform state firearm regimes, support for marksmanship and sport training in schools and communities, etc.

If gun control advocates actually became the gun safety proponents they now deceptively claim to be, much could be done to actually improve gun safety.

In any event, I doubt most of these comprises would demonstrably change criminal gun and injury deaths in the country. Besides the fact that two-thirds are suicides that do not require guns, American rates of violent crime (not just gun crime) are not that different from other comparable highly diverse, industrialized countries (and the we tend to be much more open and honest about are statistics than other countries). Even the purported gun control utopias in Europe, Australia and Canada are not really much safer overall than the USA, and many of our cities actually have significantly lower crime rates. As these countries diversify more and there social safety nets strain, their crime rates are increasing while social cohesion is diminishing.

Crime rates in the USA have been cut dramatically over the last few decades while the number of guns has increased. The only way to further impact violent crime rates is to stop the myopic focus on (constitutionally-protected) tools such as guns, and attack root causes such as a failed drug war, lack of economic opportunity, social disruptions and lack of investment in inner cities, improved metal health and drug addiction screening and treatment, etc.

... and you are giving the Federal government carte blanche to deny any sale for any (or no) reason. All gun sales could be halted merely by freezing NICS checks, and there would be no recourse short of a lawsuit.

Any other proposals for shielding government agencies from accountability for their ineptitude?