My answer to the gun show "loophole"

More accurately, the way I would go about assisting private citizens ensure they are not selling a firearm to a prohibited person.


First, it is important to understand that there is no such thing as a gun show "loophole". It does not exist. There is nothing different about selling a gun at a show than any other venue, be it a parking lot, a classified ad, your kitchen, the buyer's kitchen, a range you frequent, all of these are the same.

A gun show is simply a rented hall where a variety of Federal Firearms Licensees rent tables, and set up shop for the day. Non-FFLs can also rent tables, be they custom knife makers, people who sell ammunition and accessories but no actual firearms, people who sell outdoorsy clothing, whatever.

Any FFL who has rented a table is not suddenly exempted from the State and Federal laws that they are obligated to follow at every other location. They literally move their business, for the duration of the show, from their home shop to a table or two at the location of the shop.

Just as the FFLs are still under the exact same rules and regulations regarding the sale of firearms, so is everyone else in the venue.

What that means, is that where ordinarily a private citizen has the right to sell off private property at will, with firearms the rules governing sale to another private citizen mean that the seller must not sell a firearm to a person they know or have a good reason to suspect is prohibited from owning firearms. However, with the current state of affairs there is no unobtrusive and cost-effective means for them to determine if someone is lying about their status beyond checking to make sure they have an in-state driver's license.


FFLs use the National Instant Criminal Check System, which is illegal for a private citizen to use. So how do we institute an effective system that meshes with current requirements, is real-world compatible, is cheap, and doesn't infringe on anyone's rights or privacy?

The answer, I think, is to start marking every driver's license and state ID with a small, unobtrusive marking on the back of the card. Maybe a small green diamond for everyone who has not achieved prohibited status, and a small red square for anyone who has. To implement it, whenever someone goes before a court and loses the right to possess firearms, which is how everyone has their rights stripped, part of the process will be to either mark their existing ID then and there or require them to turn in their ID before being allowed to leave, then when they go get their new ID, it will be appropriately marked.



So what does everyone think about them apples?

And make putting such a mark, completely voluntary, with the exception of the "no sale" mark..

That is a very real solution, of course the anti gun folk, (who want bans) won't go for it.

what you needed in Alaska to get a gun and they said an address, photo id and money. nothing more.

If they or you are implying otherwise, they/you are wrong.

Probably figured you knew, or if not, whatever, it's a fairly quick process and you don't really need to know anything about it in advance anyway.

The FFL (Federal Firearms Licensee, i.e. gun dealer) will provide the ATF form 4473 and the means to conduct a NICS background check, but you will have to fill out the form and pass the NICS check; without those, you cannot legally purchase a firearm from an FFL anywhere in the United States.

Wow, Fred Meyer stores in Alaska sell firearms, even handguns? Cool. They don't in Washington state. Though a bit of Googling reveals that a number in Oregon have FFLs as well.

The Mark of the Beast, yet another "Gumnit" intrusion by the other side. I personally don't have a problem with it, but you could make the rule that all gun sales at these shows must follow FFL guidelines, even for private sales. Use a third-party service that checks the info and gives thumbs up or down on the matter.

And using an FFL to do transfers for you means you have to pay that FFL for his time. Some have a reasonable cost, others, such as the entire state of California's, do not. I have heard of prices as high as and possibly higher than $100 for a single transfer.


That is highway robbery, meant strictly to force people to buy their stock and not from other people or shops.

Why should we encourage people to pay protection money when there is a cheap, simple, and effective way to deal with the potential (but not major, accordig to the Department of Justice statistics I have seen in the past) issue that meshes perfectly into the existing system?

Your funny .

A small fee ($10) needs to be charged to prevent major abuse of the system.

Since potentially all legal private sales would go through NICS, and not merely those which occur at gun shows. This has been debated here in the past, and the consensus is most pro-2A folks favor some kind of NICS test for ALL citizens, not just at FFL dealers.

The problem, of course, is that gun prohibitionists will then seek to make permanent these records, then open them to scrutiny; hence, registration. MSM has also shown a predilection for both getting at the present NICS registry, and revealing in public the list of various state registries of Concealed-carry permits. This desire to create de facto gun registration is what makes 2A advocates wary of more universal approaches to employ NICS.

Lighting will strike twice...

The post wasn't about gun shows.

The post is floating a very real, very possible solution to the problems inherent in a society that values private property rights, yet denies private citizens the ability to really ensure they are not selling to someone who should not be in possession of a weapon.

This would allow people to make sure that the buyer is not a prohibited person, while not complicating life any mroe than is absolutely neccessary. A quick form for the courthouse where someone is adjudicated to be a prohibited person, and a companion form for the licensing/ID agency in the state. Bam, done, no worries.

Because the "gun show loophole" has nothing to do with gun shows, it is about private sales. Instead of denying people the right to sell their own privately owned property, the only other way I can think of to enable private citizens to ensure they are not helping a felon or domestic abuser acquire a weapon, this will allow them to check by themself in a matter of seconds.

fee. Just like the title to a car or real estate. Local FFL charge 10 bucks. They can charge what they want. I'll always go to the cheaper one and help make him rich. Many states require that for all handgun purchases and it has not been found to be unconstitutional by the courts. I'm all for legal to own by law, citizen owning firearms and have no problem with registration of handguns.

The Second Amendment has almost never gone to court before, other than Miller, Heller, now McDonald, and I believe one other time in the late 19th Century.


There are some locales where the cheapest transfer is more than fifty dollars. That is extortion.

My guy charges me twenty, and gives a pretty good discount when I am transferring more than one thing at a time, once I believe it was $30 for three. Not bad, I appreciate it, and he has always been straight. His hours suck, and he is well out of the way, because he actually is what some of these clowns have referred to as a "hobbyist dealer", in that he is an FFL, but that isn't his career, so he is open for two or three hours two evenings a week. Whatever, I don't mind. He also has busted his ass to help me secure the best possible deal on a limited run of a pistol I wanted, even after he found out the distributor wasn't going to send it to him because they only worked with fulltime, storefront-type FFLs.

He even gave me a nice little S&W branded assisted opener on my birthday almost two years ago. I can tell you one FFL who will always be getting my referrals and business.

I know it's the moral equivalent of that to some folks but it's not. The system as it is now is a bit burdensome to law enforcement, at least enough to make fishing expeditions a waste of time.

Allowing private citizens to check NICS before doing a face to face sale is a good idea. Problem is NICS isn't available to everyone, just FFLs. Do the check, receive an email confirmation in a few minutes, proceed with the deal. Then all you have to do is retain the email. Now there are guys out there who make a living buying and selling guns without a license. They wouldn't be a bit happy about this intrusion in their lives.

Straight up registration like a motor vehicle? Nope I'm not going there.

quick think of the children.

Way to add to the discussion.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Sorry you're so butthurt over it.






P.S.- what's with the penis joke? Can't have an opinion without deciding for yourself that people who disagree are sexually incompetent?

I think equating guns and freedom is pure nonsense. Do you have to wield deadly force to be emancipated?

been a hallmark of the free individual.



If you think that part of the Constitution needs to be removed, then get enough votes in the house and senate that agree with you, and have at it.

This is why your side always loses.

The states in blue or green are gun friendly. Blue means they have shall-issue concealed carry. Green means that they allow concealed carry without the need for a permit.
Do you think you can find 13 states here that will block your efforts to amend the Constitution?

By the way, the penis insinuations are so third grade...

Revolutions are rarely better than their means . . . in this case, I hope that a true "left-wing insurrection" would look a lot more like a movement led by Gandhi or Mandela than the Red Army under Trotsky.

. . . in my own boorish way.

Do remember that ends rarely escape the ramifications of their means! That's why Gandhi and Mandela and Martin Luther King are models for non-violent revolutions.

I'll not quote all of his stuff, but had Virginia Tech occurred on his watch, and he couldn't have stopped Cho non-violently, Gandhi would have tossed a .38 to the nearest student under a desk. But I agree, better Gandhi or Mandela than Trotsky.

Concerning the constant use of penis references by gun-controllers/prohibitionists: "He who first smelt it, dealt it" -- Euripides

What he did was NOT caused by working gunshows . His confessed motive was payback .

Probably more than used Commodore 64s as a teenager (at least, in the U.S.), which is something McVeigh also did. McVeigh got bullied in high school, too.

McVeigh didn't do what he did because he visited gun shows; if anything, he visited gun shows because he was already inclined to do what he did. McVeigh's animosity towards the federal government predated his visiting gun shows.

How about making it a requirement that if you sell more than one firearm each month - 12 per year - you need to be a federally licensed dealer, and only licensed dealers can sell at gun shows?

Close the loophole by closing the loophole.

the rest of the months they sell guns in the newspapers, online, at their homes, etc. Closing gun shows will not dent the private sale of guns.

You are talking about private citizens selling personal property - that's the "loophole". However, they can only sell to people that live in the same state as they do. They can't transport guns across state lines to sell them. They can't make a living selling guns without a FFL.

The OP is right there is no gunshow loophole.

If anything there is a private property loophole. The same statutes that let me sell at a gunshow also let me sell by classified ad, in my kitchen, to my friend, to someone at the range, etc.

Gunshow loophole only exists in the minds of some people.

say you have a matter of weeks before being mobilized, how would that work out?


Again, see my post to Onehandle, because this post has nothing to do with gun shows. It is a private sale issue, where private citizens cannot adequately ensure that the person they are selling to is prohbited beyond making sure they have a state ID, this would allow them to sleep soundly knowing they did not help a prohibited individual get a gun.

Again, a gun show is no different from any other place in the state, the rules for a gun show are EXACTLY the same as the rest of the state.

Its a state by state thing and its called properly called private party transactions.

The same laws apply to gun shows as they apply to everywhere else. If a dealer wants to sell you a gun, he must do a NICS check as one of the ways to verify you are a legal buyer. There is no geographic exemption to this, gunshow table or store table.

Non dealers are prohibited from using the NICS checks. Non dealers must use other means of verifying your buyer status, if they choose to do any check. Many do play the odds since the vast majority of the citizens are legal buyers. However, this lack of NICS check for non-dealers is not a loophole. It is a specifically stated prohibition by law with no geographic restrictions, gunshow table or kitchen table.

It is in strict accordance with the law.

Don't like it? Change the law.

Not adding anything new.

This is an intentional exemption for private sellers. The law was constructed so that individuals with no FFL are not responsible for running a background check before selling a gun. This applies at home, and it applies at a gun show. Attack it on its own merits rather than using weak rhetoric. Either way, it doesn't appear you're making any headway.

The NICS test is for FFL dealers, and was never intended as a universal process for all non-dealers. The manufactured "gun show loophole" is no more an end-around of the law than my neighbor's selling a shotgun over the kitchen table. If you required everyone who goes to a gun show to sell/buy via a background check, you will affect rather few purchases: I and millions more would simply sell from their homes, out a car trunk, in a vacant lot, at a flea market, and on and on.

The OP has actually proposed something more sweeping than your "gun show loophole."

Go figure.

probably some fool who is more interesting in whining about all the crime caused by firearms who has little interest in actually doing something proactive to help solve the problem.

For a group of people who desparately want to reduce firearms crime and constantly bemoan how easy it is for people to wander into a gunshow and buy up every firearm in the place without so much as a cursory glance from the "dealers" there, they certainly seem opposed to anything that would actually reduce the chances of a prohibited person acquiring a weapon.


It was much the same the last couple times this system was devised and floated on here.

which if you read carefully is to them an incremental approach to banning all firearms in civilian hands.

I seriously believe a few of these individuals hope and pray for a massacre in a school or another public place so they can push for more restrictive and even draconian gun laws.

Such people would have little interest in actually reducing the amount of gun related violence by criminals as that would hurt their objective of disarming all citizens. Therefore they would be opposed to your idea just because it might work.

Fortunately, not all posters who favor more gun control are this extreme and I believe they will be interested in your idea.

And have declared as much, that EVERY single gun control mechanism they would like to see implemented is just one more step they acknowledge they must take before fully banning firearms.

Like the poster who gleefully exclaimed how wonderful a registration system will be so that in the future it will be easier to round them all up.

I believe the same poster was absolutely giddy about the prospect of gun owners being murdered by police and federal agents in the course of having their firearms illegally confiscated.

at the views of a few.

I'm kind of curious about it. I didn't expect to be hailed with much fanfare and babies to kiss over it, but it didn't seem like a bad idea to me, then or now.

often after the unrecs by the people who hate firearm topics, the more reasonable people take time to read the post and rec it.

scary stuff, there are people writing comments saying they want to outright ban and even confiscate guns...I couldn't believe what I was seeing...someone saying that and claiming to be a progressive Democrat? It's insane!

I'm a Poster, not a Moderator!

(In your best DeForest Kelley voice...):evilgrin:

I don't think I had the pleasure of trying to swallow any bilgewater from that scurvy wharf rat, this time around the hystrionic, murder and rape-promoting authoriarian sociopath in progressive's clothing was CABluedem, I forget which specific thread it was that I referred to, but she was postively glowing with the thought of all of her state's gun owners being murdered by police and if not, then thrown into maximum security prisons in the worst parts of the state, to be raped and assaulted on a regular basis in prison.

almost as much fun as Ivory-Crystal.

I almost miss that one, but I feel like I am far more able to communicate effectively without every post being bogged down by forty pages of esoteric Canadian legal terminology and extreme parsing of every letter of verbiage, not just other posters, but her own as well.

Anyone who posts something and then spends seven hours claiming it meant something different than what everyone reads it as is doing the whole "communication" thing wrong.

Everything really boiled down to "I'm more rational/smart/caring/educated/et cetera than you are."

I;m in stitches over here, that was the most accurate assessment of another poster I've seen on here, oh, maybe, EVAR!!!


And you didn't even need to publicly ponder the size of her genitalia.

Good on you.

is:

1) I sell only to people I personally know.

2) These people have to have a current concealed weapons permit.

Obviously this limits my ability to sell a firearm if I chose. The proposed idea would be a vast improvement.

I would like to see the NICS background check opened up for private sales. Doing this might involve a considerable upgrade of the system to handle all the requests and if all private sales had to have the background check ran by a licensed dealer, that idea would involve a fee and the time required to journey to a dealer.

The only drawback to the license idea that I can see is that many people would object to having a small red square on their license showing they were forbidden to purchase firearms. Perhaps these people would also not commit the acts that would lead to their license having a negative mark.

And if I recall correctly, at the time the leading anti-gun rights posters were incensed about the very thought of putting a mark on non-gun owners licenses, as if putting an identifying mark on every gun owner's license would be ok but having a tiny little mark that said "no-go" on prohibited people's licenses would be a vast and ongoing invasion of their privacy.


I didn't get it then, and I don't get it now. I mean, I know why they wanted to play it liek that if it ever came to be, because they would ideally like to see every member of the (rapidly dwindling in their scenario) gun-owning public marked, labeled, declared, all private information to include addresses and occupations as public information, while the thought of a guy like Cho having a tiny little mark on his license is somehow a massive invasion into his medical history. If a system like this were implemented before he had been adjudicated mentally incompetent to own firearms, the shop owner could have very easily caught the prohibited person that the NICS couldn't.


That's another advantage to this type of thing, since you already have to show a license or state ID to an FFL when buying, they would have a second, more primitive and therefore more reliable way to check out a buyer's status, doubling down on the NICS check.

if you have a record of DUI.



That would be far more visible and embarrassing than a simple small red square on a drivers license.

I could check up on anyone, any time, regardless of reason.

That's just not right, an invasion of privacy.

It being on your license also invokes "nobody's damn business."

How about if you're thinking of ever buying a gun privately, then register with NICS and get an ID consisting of your last name and a number, and you enter a PIN. The name/number combo is to be unique, plus your name in it lets the seller know you're not faking it.

The seller can call an 800 number, he spells-out your ID by voice.

The system asks for a PIN, he hands you the phone, you type your PIN, and give it back. He gets a simple "yes" or "no" response.

I really can't see forcing this though without violating any rights.

However, having done this is proof the seller made an honest effort to weed out bad guys. Should the buyer turn out to be a bad guy the seller should be by law shielded from any criminal prosecution or civil liability in relation to the sale or what was done with the gun afterward.

That might be enough of a carrot.

their rights? Is it really any different from, say, a lender checking someone's credit rating before giving them money to buy a Cadillac? I see and sort of agree with your privacy concern but I guess I don't have a big problem with denying someone with a high risk factor from buying guns...(and I have owned dozens on and off for over 50 years - never terrorized anyone with them) :-)

I could call about my neighbor, a coworker, etc.

And for a credit check they still need your permission.

So imagine your neighbor being able to check your credit at-will without you knowing.

No, there has to be something like a password or PIN to restrict lookups to authorized instances.

would eliminate the possibility in the same way a credit check works. There will not anytime soon be a publicly accessible website for firearms transfers.

whose CHL license check is thorough enough that the NCIS call is not needed. All you do is show your CHL and the number is put on the 4473. Five minuets and your done!

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

I buy another safe............one of the joys of being retired and blissfully divorced.

:woohoo:

much like those with lifelong job security in the "war on drugs" have no real incentive to "win" it and thereby dissolve their sinecures. The same mindset prevents companies from manufacturing durable goods that really are durable; nobody wants to sell one widgit and have no repeat business and no control freak wants to give up a steady income or to, on another level, lose the psychological (and financial) upper hand that an eternal battle ensures.

is more that information is only needed by the people involved in a gun transaction, why would you want to go to the trouble, expense, and possible privacy issue of marking DLs. The other more difficult hurtle is the fact we are talking about a solution only implementable at the State level. It couldn't be implemented at the federal level without a Constitutional Amendment, which would be getting the cart before the horse. If there were a will, at the state level, to do something like this, it is already done, see FOID in IL.

I get the impression that the people who say they want the so-called gun show "loophole" closed, and who are sufficiently informed on the issue to know it's not actually a loophole, really only want one thing: to outlaw private party sales, and require all transfers to be conducted via an FFL at least. As a result, they're not interested in any proposed solution to the "gun show loophole" that stops short of that.

And that raises the suspicion that the actual objective is not to prevent prohibited persons from acquiring firearms, but to harass all gun owners by imposing additional effort and expense on even perfectly legal transfers. In response my attitude boils down to "if you won't compromise (remember that word?) by accepting less than a mile, I don't see any reason to give even an inch."

and another box to check for alcohol and marijuana eligability.

tobacco, fast cars, and pornography!!!

:rofl:

that the clerks can no longer do the math on all those age checks?
:smoke:

but the implementation is more difficult. What ever variation of implementing (marks on DL, simply requiring all sales go through an FFL, or what ever) it must be initiated and implemented at the state level. It is that simple. This is a states rights issue, not a second amendment issue, always has been.

What could be done at the federal level is to enact a new regulation to ffl licensure requiring ffl dealers to do private transfers and for a low statutory fee, like $20. This is a voluntary program, depending on state laws. A PR campaign at gun shows and publications promoting this service. A revision to both civil and criminal code which allows for immunity from prosecution and future civil actions based on the future misuse of the firearm if transferred through a ffl dealer. Entirely voluntary, until states make it mandatory, or not. It would make a system available to the states which would completely keep the drivers license bureau, the sheriff or anyone beside the buyer, the seller, NICS and the ffl involved with the transfer...no cost for implementation to the state, a self supporting and economy enhancing system.

Give me any solid reason why you don't think this is a good approach to preventing guns from being unknowingly sold to prohibited individuals, and I won't fault you for unrec'ing it.


If you won't, don't, or can't, I'm going to go ahead and chalk you up as just another asshat who doesn't actually care about preventing violence, so long as you have your prohi ways and your culture wars to wage.

Why don't you just buy them the truckloads of ammonium nitrate?

it's a "problem" that has not had any significant impact on our crime rate one way or another, nor has it caused any trouble for the two hundred plus years that it has been everyday business.

So when someone on our side of the table tries to proactively come up with a good, effective way to deal with the "issue" their side dreamt up, all they can do is drool out incoherent nonsense about "gunbaggers" and advising us to buy bombmaking material.

It's almost as if they don't really want a safer world to live in, as long as they get to keep their boogeymen.

I just posted about how I don't really miss the supreme miscommunications of the old girl of the forum, but unintelligible drivel like this makes me reconsider.

although often it led to a chase down the rabbit hole.

She did make you think and she easily out argued all the current posters who favor gun control.

What it means is that onehandle watched Rachel's special on Timothy McVeigh tonight and it's all he can blubber about. Note the other reference to the program on another thread.

There is a simple solution to this problem, and it has been mentioned before.

Make NICS background checks part of all drivers' license and state-issued ID issuances.

Then encrypt the code on the ID, so that you cannot tell by looking at the ID if the person is NICS-yes or NICS-no.

You take your ID to the gun store to be scanned by a computer which can decrypt the code and if yes, you can buy your firearm and if no, you can't.

Mother Smucker was right in post #21- some folks have too much invested (financially or psychologically) in the various
"wars" to actually win whatever it is that they say they want to win.

If they didn't have the ability to pronounce their 'superiority' over others, they'd be bereft. Seems like
a thin gruel to nourish ones' self-image, at least to me...

It doesn't need to be a physical mark.

Why are you apparently discouraging a solution to the 'gun show loophole'?

First of all, everyone, pro and anti-firearm alike, need to come clean on what the loophole is.

Yes, there is a loophole. It's not a "gun show" loophole. It's simply the fact that private firearm sales in this country require no background check.

Consequently, it is absurdly simple for any criminal or insane person to buy a firearm. They need only open the local Penny Saver classifieds newspaper and make a phone call and put cash on the table and they are done.

Period.

If we are serious about keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals and insane people, then we must come up with a system that does more than just screen firearms sold through dealers.

The system I have proposed is similar to what you have suggested.

First of all, I would make the NICS background check apply to everyone who applies for a state drivers' license or state-issued ID. If you want to buy firearms, you will need either a driver's license or state-issued ID, and this will cover 99% of all people.

Make the process opt-out, NOT opt-in. And opt-in system means only firearm owners will opt-in, and this makes a defacto government registration database of firearm owners. This is not acceptable. But an opt-out system means most people won't bother opting out, which means that the database will not be indicative as to whether or not the person actually owns firearms or not. This preserves firearm ownership anonymity, which is essential.

Secondly, the NICS background check results, being either YES or NO, should be encrypted on the person's ID. This way you cannot tell just by looking at the ID if the person is allowed to own firearms or not. This prevents the ID from serving as a scarlet letter that indicates that the person has past mental or criminal issues.

Then, when you want to purchase a firearm, you must take it to your local FFL dealer, or police station, where the buyer's ID can be scanned and it will be revealed if the person is allowed to own firearms or not. No record should be kept of this scan.

Then, the seller is required to keep a record of the ID number of the buyer for some period of time, say 10 years.

By following this process, no one would be willing to sell to an invalid person, because crime-recovered firearms could be traced from valid owner to valid owner until the point where it was sold to an invalid owner. This would be a large disincentive for selling firearms to people who were not able to show they could legally buy them.

The problem with a telephone system is all you could do is key in the FOID number. And DING! This is an instant log in a database that that particular FOID is probably an actual firearm owner.

No, all that should be on the FOID is whether or not the individual is allowed to own firearms or not, in an encrypted format. Visit a decryption machine (hell, you could even scan the ID and submit it online for decryption) and all it does is decrypt the "yes" or "no" on the FOID. No tracking of the actual FOID number is required.

FFL's could charge for it, or PDs could choose to 'de-prioritize' those services in an attempt to dis-incentivize people from availing themselves of the service.

Hell, put the service up on the FBI website with a statutory 'must not keep' requirement. (the same way they must destroy 'PASS' NICS records after 24 hours.)

It's just too damn easy. The government is already engaged in pervasive domestic surveillance, monitoring all electronic communications at the trunk level.

I'm not envisioning this device as a service. I'm envisioning it as a device that sits on a desk and you go up to it and place the ID under the laser scanner and in a semi-hidden window it says "yes" or "no". Completely self-service. You walk up, scan your card, and walk off. No need for any involvement by any clerk or police officer - that is just the safe and logical place to station the equipment. Hell you could put them in post offices or DMV offices.

Considering that rural folks have access to a post office, for the most part.

they take application for our federally standardized US passports. They have nothing to do with state issued drivers licenses.

I'm just thinking about how to not have a disparate impact on anyone.

In my small town, there wasn't a gun shop per se. Heck, I never visited a real gun store until well into my 20's.

We had a flea market every saturday, about 45 minutes from where I lived. The state DMV branch office was.. umm.. 30 minutes away.

isolated areas but there are ffl dealers in proximity to most people. Around here there are one man show ffl gunsmiths in detached garages in most towns. What if my state is unwilling to spend the millions to put this system together and yours wanted encrypted info?

Unless someone can make the case that DMV's in a particular state aren't?

Re the cost, I could see the fed not requiring it (can't, intrastate commerce), but setting aside money to help implement, and penalizing states who refuse.

It's already funded at the federal level, why would we fund another system which does the same thing? are we getting rid of NICS?

Call NICS from your cell phone, transact the sale from anywhere. NICS charges a small ($10) fee to your phone bill to help fund the system and help prevent abuse of the system.

What you propose will create a federal firearms registry.

Gun data is not included in the NICS check. Buyer data only.

Incorrect. See section D of form 4473:

http://www.thundertek.net/documents/4473.pdf

The form does have a spot for the result of the NICS results, but that is only because the FFL is required to run the NICS check.

The NICS check contains no data about the gun, just the data about the buyer.

Many times the NICS check is being done while the buyer is still filling out the 4473 form.

Have you listened in on an NCIS check?

I remember hearing "long gun", "handgun", or "receiver".

eta: Now that I thing about it, that's probably to meet the >18 for long guns, >21 for handgun sales requirement.

Now I know that some states act as their own POC for NICS mandated checks, so those states may be requiring additional information.

http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cjisd/nics/nicsfact.htm

No one is proposing getting rid of NICS. All the states would do is simply query the existing NICS system at the time of issuance of your ID, and encrypt your eligibility onto the back of the ID.

or cost effectiveness of not simply going to an ffl through NICS when/if I want to buy/sell a gun? Why go to the expense of tying it to your ID card or license. If that is what an individual state decides, to require some sort of ID on DL or a FOID card doesn't really matter. There simply are too many factions who would not allow this to happen.

It seems treated as a side issue in this thread, but the real live issue is that states have not taken any steps to control private sales before, when they were flush with gov. grants and property taxes. Now with states closing schools and cutting off funding for the indigent, states certainly aren't going to go to that expense. No system will be enacted forcing the states to do anything which will cost millions. They may be enticed if the feds required ffl dealers to conduct transfers for a low statutory fee, $20+/-, and the feds agree to hold the private seller harmless from civil or criminal actions if the gun is ever used illegally after the transfer. I think the NRA would endorse this as would most gun owners. The NICS system is already funded at the state (compliance with records) and federal level through operation of the system.

just make them easier for the seller to be safe on. If all private sales are forced to go through an FFL, a dying breed in some states, then that is a mega fail.

You'll have to get more specific than "mega fail" to convince anyone...mega fail?

Though I have to travel a bit to get to the best of them, but not every state and region is Maine.

Some places charge several times the average price of a transfer here.

The idea is to not change the procedure for a private citizen as it stands any more than is absolutely neccessary, a small increase or diversion in spending on it is one thing, a massive increase and infringement like making every sale go through the NICS or an FFL is another.

FFL license law would be a simple amendment to existing FFL restrictions requiring every FFL to do private transfers for a low set fee, say $20, whether it is Pauls Gun Shop located in Pauls backyard garage or Gander Mountain they are required by the terms of FFL licensure to do a private transfer for $20.

The problem is in adding some sort of info to every single person's DL in every state, and keeping track that all 200 million plus people's info on their DL is current would cost more than sending a car over to pick up every private transfer (probably 5 million +/-} and taking the buyer and seller to the FFL.

My point is that the DL idea would be extremely expensive and a massive infringement on the 200 million people who don't buy a gun this year.

But it's very nice.

I'm getting ready right now to run out the door and catch a taxi to a tailor, grab my pants there, then a bus to a service in my home town for someone very much near and dear. But it has been a really great reminder that yes, there can be civility online, even friendliness, even when you float a half-way finished idea and get the errors of it pointed out.










There is a reason I keep coming back to this place after months away, and it's people like you, gorfle, TPaine7, BenEzra, SteveM, Old Mark, and a few others I am too dreary to remember without looking right now. X Digger. You guys are incredible.

should be taken off of the Brady table. With this issue gone, I believe the few remaining Bradyites will be diminished to complete oblivion.

It is now about the solution which will pass constitutional scrutiny, minimize the cost of implementation, require the least amount of government action to implement, and be acceptable to gun owners and the public alike. I believe a variation of what I posted in post #34 is the answer...I believe the NRA would even support some variation of this solution. There may be other answers, I just don't believe it is realistic to expect that to be any sort of DL marking system.

I'm still not seeing the utility or cost effectiveness of not simply going to an ffl through NICS when/if I want to buy/sell a gun?

BECAUSE YOU JUST CREATED A FEDERAL REGISTRY OF FIREARM OWNERS.

Why go to the expense of tying it to your ID card or license.

How expensive is it to simply print an encrypted "yes" or "no" on the back of a drivers' license???? Most states print them on the damn spot these days. How hard can this be?

If that is what an individual state decides, to require some sort of ID on DL or a FOID card doesn't really matter. There simply are too many factions who would not allow this to happen.

Well there are too many firearm owners who will never submit to a federal registry of firearm owners, I can tell you that for damn sure.

the NRA and most firearms owners are quite fine, in fact support, NICS. Very few people worry about a registry knowing that such a registry would be tantamount to Watergate with the current regulations on purging the system.

Such encryption readers could be made so cheaply that you could probably BUY YOUR OWN.

You could probably get an app for your cell phone that would scan the code and decrypt it for you.

Or scan it on a scanner and let a computer decrypt it for you.

the BestBuy could require your DL to issue a creditcard, use this super cheap ap, and rate you up if you are a criminal....or a prospective employer could simply slide your DL to see if you are a good egg or a bad egg? Not only will that dog not hunt, that dog was hit by a truck...imnsho..talk about a massive privacy infringement.

Some people believe that if a person has had a felony conviction 20 years ago, fuck'em. If that is you, well then we are NEVER going to agree on this. I am a civil libertarian and am vehemently opposed to life long punishment/stigmatizing for people who have paid their proverbial debt to society. BTW, I am a voter and can buy any gun I wish including fully auto if I had the money/desire to own one legally, this isn't about me, it is about civil liberties.

the BestBuy could require your DL to issue a creditcard, use this super cheap ap, and rate you up if you are a criminal....or a prospective employer could simply slide your DL to see if you are a good egg or a bad egg? Not only will that dog not hunt, that dog was hit by a truck...imnsho..talk about a massive privacy infringement.

Some people believe that if a person has had a felony conviction 20 years ago, fuck'em. If that is you, well then we are NEVER going to agree on this. I am a civil libertarian and am vehemently opposed to life long punishment/stigmatizing for people who have paid their proverbial debt to society. BTW, I am a voter and can buy any gun I wish including fully auto if I had the money/desire to own one legally, this isn't about me, it is about civil liberties.

The fact is, criminal records are already a matter of public record. If you hand someone your driver's license, they can use the information on that license to run a background check on that person today. I do it with prospective renters all the time.

So as far as I'm concerned, I wouldn't even bother to encrypt the "yes" or "no" on the drivers' license. First of all, just because you have "no" on your ID would not definitively mean that you are a felon or a person with a mental condition. It could just mean you chose to opt out of the NICS check.

But encrypting the "yes" or "no" would prevent people from casually looking at your ID, say at the grocery store when you are buying a beer, or whatever, and knowing that you are not illegible to own firearms.

But if you really care, just use an encryption that is not publically decryptable. Now you are back to having to use state-controlled decryption devices, which means you have to travel to your local FFL, or police station, or post office, or whatever.

I don't think that level of protection is really necessary, but it could be done.

jump through the whoops to check, not looking at or scanning a DL.

Your idea here is so contrary to my deep held civil libertarian beliefs that I can't agree with your reasoning.

I do background checks on potential renters, over the web, using their driver's licenses, within 5 minutes.

Anyone with access to your driver's license for any amount of time can get your criminal history.

go to the expense of involving the DL bureau, which would result in having to have the DL coded, recoded if status changes, and do all of this at state expense and create a burden on state systems, then it must be voluntarily enacted state by state with all of the nuances and political games...sounds like a cluster.... to me.

Why not simply make it easy for people to use NICS through an FFL with a low fee. No burden on the state, can be enacted at the federal level, states could simply rewrite a small portion of their current civil code and criminal code to enact it. No new equipment, no NICS check for every man woman and 16 year old driver when relatively few will use it, no updates aside from the already required reporting.

I'm just having a hard time understanding why all of the support for a very difficult to implement, and burdensome DL based system.

The problem with requiring NICS checks for ALL firearm purchases, public and private, is that you just created a federal registry of firearm owners. I won't support that.

I don't see what's so hard about adding a few more characters onto the back of a drivers' license.

of firearm owners, the records are purged every, what is it 30 days? I thought the NICS was a mistake when enacted....gun registry and all. Since I have used the system and find it completely acceptable and has been quite effective as long as the records are purged, which they are.

This is a state by state issue, DLs aren't federal, nor should they be IMHO. Why not just a foid card like IL? The overwhelming majority of people would feel that carrying around a scarlet letter whether on the face of or encoded in your dl info is unacceptable. This would require a DL program each time someone becomes ineligible regardless the reason which I find patently offensive from a civil liberties standpoint.

Again this is simple. The system is already there. It is already funded at the federal level. The authority as the licensing agents for ffl dealers allows for a very simple enactment of ffl license law requiring ffl dealers to conduct private sale nics checks for a small fee which the ffl keeps entirely, say $20. No matter the solution we must agree that this is a state issue, not a federal issue? Right now every single state in the country is HURTING for money. The system you are talking about would cost millions at the state level to accomplish. It simply isn't even reasonable to expect this will ever happen beyond some state passing some similar system, but I can tell you my state isn't looking for a way to spend more..

that as standalone markers they do not necessarily have current data. When the data is updated, a new card need to be issued.

Since the NICS checks already use a database of prohibited purchasers, opening it up to non-dealers seems like a better option. Access should be by phone or web service. Charge a small fee ($10) to prevent abuse of the system by the users and fund the maintenance. The seller submits the buyer's data and fee payment data, gets back a response of { "allowed", "not allowed", or "pending" }. No need to find an FFL.

And agree to an extent, the idea I have is that as part of becoming prohibited, you are required to turn in the old and go pick up a new license. Once it's done it's done, doesn't have to be absolutely perfect, so long as privacy 1st and property 2nd rights are protected, and it allows for individuals to do their part as much as possible to help prevent prohibited people from buying firearms.

tracking which would be required to track people down and replace their DL every time status is changed even though the vast, vast majority of those people have no intention of buying a gun? This would require enactment and implementation at the state level...every state. Privacy wouldn't/couldn't be maintained. As it is every state has NICS reporting already in place, implemented, and most importantly already funded.

Here is a very common scenario. In most states when a divorce is filed, a restraining order is automatically part of the filings and temporary orders, even when there is no history of, or fear of abuse...it's just part of the process. This restraining order makes it illegal for the respondent or petitioner to buy a gun. So now you must get the new, prohibited mark. You are then stopped on your way home from the DVM for not using your turn signal. The officer immediately knows you are prohibited and goes on a higher alert. Your privacy and possible safety have now been compromised. Strike the ticket. You go to BlockBuster and rent a movie, the BlockBuster guy now knows you are prohibited, again so much for privacy.

This entire plan is described as a simple thing. It is so completely not simple. The implementation would take decades or longer. The cost would be tremendous on states which already are loosing funding and revenue....my state recently closed several schools, and cut Medicaid benefits to a point which will result in old people being removed from nursing homes...there is no money nor will to spend the time or money to implement a DL marking system...it ain't going to happen here.

NICS is already funded at both state and federal level. The only people effected by NICS are people who want to buy or sell a gun during a given year probably <10% of the population.

I'm not saying your idea wouldn't work, only that it will never get funded, it would be an unnecessary duplication of services.

Do you see the unnecessary cost and tracking which would be required to track people down and replace their DL every time status is changed even though the vast, vast majority of those people have no intention of buying a gun? This would require enactment and implementation at the state level...every state. Privacy wouldn't/couldn't be maintained. As it is every state has NICS reporting already in place, implemented, and most importantly already funded.

Personally, I don't CARE if privacy is maintained. In my original rendition of the idea, I'd just put a big green "F" on your ID and call it done. If you have the F you can buy a gun, otherwise, no.

But other people here complained that this would be used to discriminate against people without the F. So, the way to fix this is to encrypt the F so that you can't tell by casually looking whether or not someone is illegible to own a firearm or not.

Here is a very common scenario. In most states when a divorce is filed, a restraining order is automatically part of the filings and temporary orders, even when there is no history of, or fear of abuse...it's just part of the process.

Then the process should be changed. If there is no history or fear of abuse, then why is there a restraining order issued anyway?

This restraining order makes it illegal for the respondent or petitioner to buy a gun. So now you must get the new, prohibited mark. You are then stopped on your way home from the DVM for not using your turn signal. The officer immediately knows you are prohibited and goes on a higher alert. Your privacy and possible safety have now been compromised. Strike the ticket. You go to BlockBuster and rent a movie, the BlockBuster guy now knows you are prohibited, again so much for privacy.

If a police officer stops you today, they are going to know your criminal background and consequently whether or not you are illegible to own a firearm. They may not know your past mental history, but my guess is there are far more people ineligible to own firearms because of their criminal history rather than their mental history.

Unless the guy at BlockBuster has an decryption device, and you watch them process it, they won't be able to tell your firearm owning status.

This entire plan is described as a simple thing. It is so completely not simple. The implementation would take decades or longer.

Why?!?! All the state ID issuing office has to do is use the existing NICS system and encode "YES" or "NO" on the back of your state-issued ID! What is so hard about this?

NICS is already funded at both state and federal level. The only people effected by NICS are people who want to buy or sell a gun during a given year probably <10% of the population.
And therein is the beauty of the system. By pre-screening everyone, instead of just people who own firearms, you preserve firearm ownership anonymity.

I'm not saying your idea wouldn't work, only that it will never get funded, it would be an unnecessary duplication of services.

What services would be duplicated?

All the state ID issuing office has to do is use the existing NICS system and encode "YES" or "NO" on the back of your state-issued ID! What is so hard about this?

You are proposing nics checks on 200 million people, and then subsequently keeping track of them, right now nics is set up to transfer around 10 million.

the court/justice system, DMV system, it's not like it would be the same level of funding as it is now.

Why increase the load on the NICS system by 20 fold to accommodate the 5 or 10 million private transfers, why not just a 2 fold increase to accommodate only those who wish to buy/sell a gun?

My state is closing schools and lowering Medicaid payments right now, if this costs anything at all at the state level, it won't be happening anytime soon, there just isn't any public support for adding this budgetary measure.

All the 'gun show loophole' hype and pressure is at the federal level where there is no way to make NICS mandatory on intrastate commerce. If it wasn't for this Constitutional inability of the feds to place requirements on personal transfers within a given state, it would have happened years ago. Now the only hope at the Federal level is to make enactment of NICS palatable to the masses. 1. It must not cost the state. 2. It must be acceptable to the masses of voters. 3. It must be acceptable to gun owning voters

Would you agree to using an ffl to buy/sell if doing so would insure that as a buyer, you are immune from civil or criminal actions for where the gun came from ie. a crime gun or stolen, and as a seller you are immune from prosecution and civil involvement if the gun is later used to commit a crime?

Why increase the load on the NICS system by 20 fold to accommodate the 5 or 10 million private transfers, why not just a 2 fold increase to accommodate only those who wish to buy/sell a gun?

My state is closing schools and lowering Medicaid payments right now, if this costs anything at all at the state level, it won't be happening anytime soon, there just isn't any public support for adding this budgetary measure.

All the 'gun show loophole' hype and pressure is at the federal level where there is no way to make NICS mandatory on intrastate commerce. If it wasn't for this Constitutional inability of the feds to place requirements on personal transfers within a given state, it would have happened years ago. Now the only hope at the Federal level is to make enactment of NICS palatable to the masses. 1. It must not cost the state. 2. It must be acceptable to the masses of voters. 3. It must be acceptable to gun owning voters

Would you agree to using an ffl to buy/sell if doing so would insure that as a buyer, you are immune from civil or criminal actions for where the gun came from ie. a crime gun or stolen, and as a seller you are immune from prosecution and civil involvement if the gun is later used to commit a crime?

They "why" is simple.

The #1 prerequisite for any background check system is that it preserve firearm ownership anonymity. Firearm owners are not going to support any system that requires mandatory registration or creates a registry.

Everyone agrees that only doing background checks on people who buy firearms through FFL dealers completely misses all the people who purchase firearms privately.

So nearly everyone agrees that in reality, ALL firearm purchases should require that the purchaser undergo a background check.

However, if you devise the system so that only people who are buying firearms undergo a background check, you have just created a system that can easily identify and record who all the firearm owners in the country are. This is completely unacceptable.

The only option, then, is to screen everyone by default. I am willing to allow people to opt-out of screening. By doing this, just because you have screened someone through NICS does not mean that they are a firearm owner.

All states already have a procedure in place for generating state-issued IDs. It should be trivial to, at the time of application for the state-issued ID, also run the person through NICS. For most people, the NICS results are returned in seconds, and this information could be printed on their ID. For the people who are delayed, they could either be given a temporary ID until NICS comes through, or they could simply opt out (and thus be ineligible to own firearms).

Yes, there will be an added cost to closing the FFL-only-background-check loophole. This is a cost that society SHOULD be eager to bear as it will guarantee that virtually every firearm sold by law-abiding people will be sold to people who can lawfully own firearms. It should also deter even non-law-abiding people as they will know that any illegally-sold firearm will likely be used for ill purposes, and thus will likely turn up at a crime scene eventually, and be traced back to the last legal owner of the firearm.

concerning the 2nd.

You are proposing nics checks on 200 million people, and then subsequently keeping track of them, right now nics is set up to transfer around 10 million.

This is all extremely trivial with computers. A database of 10 million records vs. 200 million records is nothing. Keeping track of them is likewise trivial.

And of course, we don't have to keep track of all 200 million people, only the felons and insane people. But these are precisely the people that we need to keep track of and disallow from owning firearms.

they are already there. NICS is about a human being physically running personal information and either allowing or prohibiting the transfer. Now if you make the NICS office run 20 times more record checks than they currently are, they will need 20 times more people, 20 times more office space, 20 times more terminals, 20 times more health insurance, 20 times more retirement plans, 20 times more man hours, etc...all for the net result that maybe 2 times these things could accomplish.

Most NICS checks are done by computer. I doubt there is much human intervention at all. Every time I've had a NICS check it came back faster than any human could have done the lookup.

There might be a person typing in your name and SS number, but how hard is that, and couldn't that be computerized anyway?

I used to, right after enactment of nics, get a go ahead immediately. Then I became involved with a very well known and unsavory criminal organization, underwent background checks with the Bureau of Prisons, Treasury, FBI, and a few other acronyms, now I get around a 30 second to 1 minute delay every time. The ffl is told to wait, then put on hold, then the person comes back and approves the transfer. I have even bought 2 guns within days of each other, both times the same brief delay, if there was a residual on the last check, one might expect no delay on the second transfer. These checks involve some human interaction and processing 200+ million of anything with a human involved requires expense.

I've never seen an FFL use it, but it's out there. Not sure if a person has to give the go ahead as in the situation you mentioned or what, though.

http://www.nicsezcheckfbi.gov/servlet/echeck.http.Index

beyond what I have seen in gun shops. I am interested in knowing. I do believe that the records of transfers are being purged as required. I think it is a good system which has been effective. I am a bit surprised that there are those here who still don't trust the system.

I am a bit surprised that there are those here who still don't trust the system.

We've had two administrations now that admit that they are engaged in pervasive domestic electronic surveillance and have issued proclamations holding the telecom carriers immune to penalty for cooperating with the government to do it.

You should be operating under the assumption that any electronics communications involving you are compromised. Any communications even remotely controversial even more so.

day to day minutia of the runnings of a restaurant in a retirement village, or my wife and my dinner plans aren't being recorded nor are those of the vast, vast majority of others. That said, I don't like the patriot act, nor several other aspects of the brush era of surveillance.

All that said, I trust most transfers are being purged just as the law requires. Are there possibly some which are being recorded? Maybe, in fact mine might be. As I stated before, I have the same delay every time which may be related to my defense work in years gone by. I don't believe that a 'gun owner registry' is being illegally constructed by any agency..there would be no need...every second or third house has gun(s).

and see no reason to reinvent the wheel, which isn't going to happen on any grand scale because of cost alone, not to mention opposition because of privacy issues.

I don't believe there will ever be access via web or telephone for non ffl dealers/law enforcement because of no long term tracking, the additional cost and privacy issues. The ffl system works because there are records available to track sales if needed, they just aren't maintained in one central repository. This makes it very difficult to compile any kind of gun owner registry...hell there isn't enough manpower to pursue people who violate the nics system, let alone build a database from ffl records. But, if I buy a new gun from a gun show ffl dealer, he will do a nics check, then I later sell the gun to my neighbor, we go to the local pawn shop or other ffl dealer and I transfer the gun to him. Now 10 years later the gun shows up at a crime scene. The police would contact the manufacturer who would identify the distributor, the distributor would identify the original ffl dealer, the original dealer would identify me as the purchaser, I would identify my neighbor as the buyer (but now the neighbor has moved and I can't remember his name) and the pawn shop as the ffl who transferred, they then go to the pawn shop and retrieve the transfer, enter the buyers info into ncic and viola, they find the buyer, this goes on until they know the last owner. I trust my local gun shop owner, not so much the feds.

When the data is updated, a new card need to be issued.

I don't see this as a very big problem.

When someone commits a crime or otherwise becomes ineligible to own firearms, the local sheriff should be dispatched to confiscate any firearms the person may own, anyway. At that time, they can confiscate the ID also.

If the ID is conveniently "lost" at the time of confiscation, well, the ID is only good for a couple of years before it has to be renewed anyway.

If there is reason to believe you may harm yourself or others, guns nay be detained. Talk about advocating for civil liberties violations.

Look, we have already settled, as a matter of law, that people who meet certain criteria can't own firearms.

At a minimum, when you become disqualified to own a firearm you should lose your license to own them.

If you don't want to seize any firearms actually in their possession at the same time, that's fine with me, but seems kind of silly, since the point is to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals and insane people.

There is no federal registry of firearm owners, the records are purged every, what is it 30 days? I thought the NICS was a mistake when enacted....gun registry and all. Since I have used the system and find it completely acceptable and has been quite effective as long as the records are purged, which they are.

I do not believe for an instant that those records are purged. Once an electronic database exists, it's going to exist forever. Count on it.

This is a state by state issue, DLs aren't federal, nor should they be IMHO.

Why not? Generally driving requirements are universal, and are reciprocal across any state. So why not have a federal drivers' license?

Why not just a foid card like IL?

The problem with a separate FOID is that only firearm owners will bother to obtain them. There you have instant registration.

The overwhelming majority of people would feel that carrying around a scarlet letter whether on the face of or encoded in your dl info is unacceptable.

I don't see why anyone would care if there was encrypted data on their drivers' license if it is not readable to anyone without your express consent.

This would require a DL program each time someone becomes ineligible regardless the reason which I find patently offensive from a civil liberties standpoint.

Your sentence does not parse, so I'm not sure what to make of it. It would require that your drivers' license be revoked should you become ineligible to own firearms, requiring you to get a new one. I don't have a problem with this, because the local sheriff should be visiting these people to confiscate their firearms at that time, anyway. Just confiscate the ID at the same time.

Again this is simple. The system is already there. It is already funded at the federal level. The authority as the licensing agents for ffl dealers allows for a very simple enactment of ffl license law requiring ffl dealers to conduct private sale nics checks for a small fee which the ffl keeps entirely, say $20.

If you require NICS background checks for all firearms at the time of purchase, you have just created a federal registry of firearm owners. I will never support that.

No matter the solution we must agree that this is a state issue, not a federal issue? Right now every single state in the country is HURTING for money. The system you are talking about would cost millions at the state level to accomplish. It simply isn't even reasonable to expect this will ever happen beyond some state passing some similar system, but I can tell you my state isn't looking for a way to spend more..

I don't care if it is handled at the state level or the federal level. The easiest way is at the state level, since every state already has a means for creating IDs, and it would be, or should be, trivial to add another piece of information to such IDs.

Will it cost more money? Of course there will be a cost involved in doing background checks on all the previously unchecked purchases going on today. I see this as a good thing to invest in, far, far better than, say, waging wars on drug users, as it will go right to the problem of keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals and insane people.

But the most important thing, over safety, over cost, over anything, is anonymity. If you provide the government with a list of everyone capable of resisting oppression you just made a target list should the government ever become oppressive.

I do not believe for an instant that those records are purged. Once an electronic database exists, it's going to exist forever. Count on it.

This is simply more cynical than I am. I have no reason to believe that a registry is being kept. For what purpose? Not purging those records which are required to be purged by federal law is against the law...

So why not have a federal drivers' license?

You just said that you don't trust the federal government in the last retort, now you want the feds to administer your drivers license? Jeez, how much is that going to cost. Getting rid of every single state's DL system and building new buildings in every zip code in the US to have a federal drivers license? Not even reasonable to discuss, it ain't going to happen.

I agree about the foid.

I don't see why anyone would care if there was encrypted data on their drivers' license if it is not readable to anyone without your express consent.

But why would you want it encrypted and the expense of administering the system would be tremendous, this is doing ncis checks on every person in the US instead of the few million who buy a gun during a given year, and then keeping a running tally...this is getting very expensive..

Your sentence does not parse, so I'm not sure what to make of it. It would require that your drivers' license be revoked should you become ineligible to own firearms, requiring you to get a new one. I don't have a problem with this, because the local sheriff should be visiting these people to confiscate their firearms at that time, anyway. Just confiscate the ID at the same time.

Who are "these people"? You do know committing of, say a second DUI doesn't result in asset forfeiture? Nobody comes to your house to get your guns. You just better not get caught with a gun.

If you require NICS background checks for all firearms at the time of purchase, you have just created a federal registry of firearm owners. I will never support that.

So you oppose NICS as it is now? Even with the purge law?

I don't care if it is handled at the state level or the federal level. The easiest way is at the state level, since every state already has a means for creating IDs, and it would be, or should be, trivial to add another piece of information to such IDs.

It can't be handled at the federal level without a Constitutional Amendment or a federal id card. There is nothing about enactment of your idea which is trivial, how will this be read? Will equipment be needed? How much is that?

Will it cost more money? Of course there will be a cost involved in doing background checks on all the previously unchecked purchases going on today.

But this isn't what you are proposing. You are proposing checking every single adult in the US, then tracking them down, and reissuing, and keeping track of everyone...everyone, not just "previously unchecked purchases going on today". I am the one proposing only checking "previously unchecked purchases going on today".

We agree that it would be good to have background checks available. It is my contention that the only cost effective solution is the one I ave been espousing throughout this thread.

This is simply more cynical than I am. I have no reason to believe that a registry is being kept.

The government is now known to be engaged in pervasive domestic surveillance. Basically any electronic communications are being eavesdropped on at any time without a warrant.

This alone should be reason enough to be cynical.

For what purpose? Not purging those records which are required to be purged by federal law is against the law...

So is warrantless wiretapping, but obviously that's not stopping anyone. For what purpose? Power, as usual.

You just said that you don't trust the federal government in the last retort, now you want the feds to administer your drivers license?

Since the information is already in a state database, who cares if it's in a federal database?

Jeez, how much is that going to cost.

Theoretically about 1/50th the cost it is currently being done nation-wide?

Getting rid of every single state's DL system and building new buildings in every zip code in the US to have a federal drivers license? Not even reasonable to discuss, it ain't going to happen.

Of course, there's no reason why the existing state facilities could not continue to be used, only just have them use a single database instead of 50 separate ones, but I don't really care if drivers' licenses are federalized - there is no need to do this to make a national FOID system work.

But why would you want it encrypted and the expense of administering the system would be tremendous, this is doing ncis checks on every person in the US instead of the few million who buy a gun during a given year, and then keeping a running tally...this is getting very expensive..

You want to encrypt the data printed on your ID so as to protect the privacy of the owner of the ID. You would not be able to look at the ID casually and determine that the person is not illegible to own firearms. You would have to voluntarily hand your ID to someone with a decryption device in order to access your firearm illegibility information.

I don't see why there would be lots of expense or work administering the system. NICS is already available and most people can be checked in seconds. What running tally are you talking about?

Who are "these people"? You do know committing of, say a second DUI doesn't result in asset forfeiture? Nobody comes to your house to get your guns. You just better not get caught with a gun.

The way I think it should work is that if you are convicted of a disqualifying felony or are determined to have a disqualifying mental condition, and you currently have an ID that permits you to own firearms, then the local sheriff should be dispatched to your place of residence to confiscate the ID and any firearms found on the premises.

So you oppose NICS as it is now? Even with the purge law?

I have no problem with NICS today, because today anyone can claim that they sold all their firearms privately and there is no record to say otherwise. Consequently NICS is entirely useless for creating a federal firearm registry, because all they know is that at some point I bought a firearm through an FFL dealer, but they cannot know, today, what became of that firearm.

I think NICS is a great idea. I even support NICS for all sales, private and public. But you have to preserve anonymous firearm ownership.

It can't be handled at the federal level without a Constitutional Amendment or a federal id card.

Completely incorrect!!!!!

I could very easily just make it so that Alabama, for example, runs a NICS check on my prior to issuing me a STATE ID, and encodes my illegibility to own firearms onto my STATE ID.

There is nothing about enactment of your idea which is trivial, how will this be read? Will equipment be needed? How much is that?

As I have explained, it is all extremely trivial.

You go to get an state-issued ID. State runs federal NICS check on you, unless you opt out. They then encode "yes" or "no" on your state-issued ID. This encryption could be decoded by a special device, or by scanning the code and using a computer, or even an application for your cell phone that could use its built-in camera to image the encryption and then decrypt it.

But this isn't what you are proposing. You are proposing checking every single adult in the US, then tracking them down, and reissuing, and keeping track of everyone...everyone, not just "previously unchecked purchases going on today". I am the one proposing only checking "previously unchecked purchases going on today".

No. What I am proposing is that when you go to get a state-issued ID, you are automatically run through NICS, unless you choose to opt-out. The results of your NICS check would be printed on your state-issued ID in an encrypted format.

You don't have to keep track of everyone (although they are already kept track of in the database). You only have to keep track of people who commit disqualifying felonies or have disqualifying mental conditions. But these are exactly the people we need to keep track of!

I don't think your idea will ever, ever even be seriously considered under any circumstances by most states.

I believe your proposal would be way, way too expensive, too privacy infringing, and too controversial.

instead of what many anti-gun rights individuals (I can't keep up with the terminology here, sorry mods if I screwed the pooch) wanted in the past, which was a marking that only gun owners would have on their license, or an 'opt-in' system that would clearly show who was buying firearms.

you are advocating a 'scarlet letter' be affixed to everyone's primary identification. If a person gets a felony DUI, it isn't the business of the grocery store clerk that the person isn't eligible to buy a firearm, do you see the gigantic privacy issue this idea creates?

But instead you are advocating a 'scarlet letter' be affixed to everyone's primary identification. If a person gets a felony DUI, it isn't the business of the grocery store clerk that the person isn't eligible to buy a firearm, do you see the gigantic privacy issue this idea creates?

If the scarlet letter (yes or no) is ENCRYPTED on the state-issued ID, you won't be able to tell anything about the person from casual examination of the ID.

How about an option to get yourself pre-screened? Voluntarily submit to a background check, and if you pass you get your license so marked for a year or three. Or until you have a disqualifying event, at which time your license is revoked and re-issued without the "approved" indicator.

Many have correctly pointed out problems with stigmatizing peoples' ID cards with negative info

There is no problem if the firearm illegibility information is encrypted on the ID.

How about an option to get yourself pre-screened? Voluntarily submit to a background check, and if you pass you get your license so marked for a year or three. Or until you have a disqualifying event, at which time your license is revoked and re-issued without the "approved" indicator.

The problem with this is that it is an opt-in system, just like the current Illinois FOID system. And the only people who opt-in are firearm owners. Thus you have just created a firearm owner registry.

...and if you had your right to own guns pulled, that corner got clipped off by the judge. Then it's quite simple... when selling a gun the buyer has to show his license with the corner intact. No corner, no sale, no excuses.


The issue that one of the members brought up was that, since there are only a few circumstances where you would be prohibited from buying guns, then the clipped corner was de facto proof of a) domestic violence convistion, b) violent felony conviction, c) restraining order, d) mental incompetence, or e) non born in the US. This information would be available to anybody that needs to look at your license, such as a bank teller or store cashier.

:shrug:

I would oppose any marking on a DL, I believe the ACLU would have a problem with it too.

For the record, I am fully eligible to buy guns, my opposition isn't because I can't, it just doesn't jibe well with my civil libertarian leanings.