What is your opinion of this?

[Birds Away]

I have been watching alot of the gun related testimony/discussion on various channels. I heard a recommendation that I thought might alleviate some of our concerns about background checks/registration. I would like to hear opinions.
The gist of the idea is that there would be comprehensive background checks for any firearm transaction. But before you dig in your heels and say HE$$ NO! Anyone possessing a FFL or a valid carry permit in their State of residence, who is completing the transaction is said State would be exempt from the background check. It makes sense to me. If you have a valid carry license then you have already successfully completed a full background check and another would be redundant. Of course there would probably be language that would encourage or perhaps force States to monitor their licensing and ensure that, should a licensee become disqualified for any reason, that the database is updated accordingly. On the face of it this would seem to allow "gun people" who routinely buy and sell to continue to do so without interference while allowing the Gubmint to keep track of those non-licensees who are dealing in firearms. I know it isn't perfect but, for me, there seem to be some merit to this idea. Tell me what I am missing...other than we will not accept any infringement. I get that.

 

[THard6]

uhh fill me in a little if i'm wrong... but what exactly were you wanting to change?
there is no way to monitor EVERY firearm transaction, there will always be a "black market" for them and it's just going to grow if the clowns keep up the gun ban threats.
and one thing, if I have a life time pink slip and get a felony charge after having it for 5 years. what are they going to just come search for my slip?
NOPE. i'll still have a valid gun permit that you will see....

and for those dealing without a license, well that's our job as gun owners to watch out for things like that. I don't care if you're a good guy or not, show my the credentials and then we can deal. if you do not posess any identification, then i'll find someone that does and saell/buy from them.
but, maybe i'm not understanding you all that well.

 

[eldirector]

Replace one background check with another? What, again, am I gaining?

We would still lose the right to sell face-to-face, we still would have to visit (and likely pay) an FFL, and we still get checked against a government database. All to legally exchange property that the Federal government has no business messing with.

What am I getting in exchange for all of this? Don't tell me "safety", because that is simply not true.

 

[Birds Away]

Replace one background check with another? What, again, am I gaining?

We would still lose the right to sell face-to-face, we still would have to visit (and likely pay) an FFL, and we still get checked against a government database. All to legally exchange property that the Federal government has no business messing with.

What am I getting in exchange for all of this? Don't tell me "safety", because that is simply not true.

When I said that licensees would be exempt that means if you and I both have pink permission slips then we don't have to go anywhere, we can do our deal because we are exempt.

 

[jgreiner]

I have been watching alot of the gun related testimony/discussion on various channels. I heard a recommendation that I thought might alleviate some of our concerns about background checks/registration. I would like to hear opinions.
The gist of the idea is that there would be comprehensive background checks for any firearm transaction. But before you dig in your heels and say HE$$ NO! Anyone possessing a FFL or a valid carry permit in their State of residence, who is completing the transaction is said State would be exempt from the background check. It makes sense to me. If you have a valid carry license then you have already successfully completed a full background check and another would be redundant. Of course there would probably be language that would encourage or perhaps force States to monitor their licensing and ensure that, should a licensee become disqualified for any reason, that the database is updated accordingly. On the face of it this would seem to allow "gun people" who routinely buy and sell to continue to do so without interference while allowing the Gubmint to keep track of those non-licensees who are dealing in firearms. I know it isn't perfect but, for me, there seem to be some merit to this idea. Tell me what I am missing...other than we will not accept any infringement. I get that.

The ONLY way to monitor every private transaction, is to have every GUN registered. That I refuse to comply with. The only reason to have a registry, is so that the gov't knows where they are when it comes time for them to pick them up and take them from us.

And just how is Joe Blow going to run a background check on someone buying his gun? To do this, would open ALL our backgrounds up to anyone who wishes access.

 

[Birds Away]

uhh fill me in a little if i'm wrong... but what exactly were you wanting to change?
there is no way to monitor EVERY firearm transaction, there will always be a "black market" for them and it's just going to grow if the clowns keep up the gun ban threats.
and one thing, if I have a life time pink slip and get a felony charge after having it for 5 years. what are they going to just come search for my slip?
NOPE. i'll still have a valid gun permit that you will see....

and for those dealing without a license, well that's our job as gun owners to watch out for things like that. I don't care if you're a good guy or not, show my the credentials and then we can deal. if you do not posess any identification, then i'll find someone that does and saell/buy from them.
but, maybe i'm not understanding you all that well.

Well, under the circumstance that was proposed, yes, they would come and get your pink card. If you said you lost it, fine. If you are found using it in a transaction then I would guess you would have new living arrangements for a period of time.

 

[eldirector]

When I said that licensees would be exempt that means if you and I both have pink permission slips then we don't have to go anywhere, we can do our deal because we are exempt.

But, you also mentioned them "keeping the database up to date, in case someone gets disqualified".

There is absolutely no way a pink permission slip does that, unless we also must renew our slip routinely (at a cost, and yet another background check), OR the permission slip is verified electronically before the transaction (at a cost, with yet another background check.

I can't imagine any gun-grabber would think our lifetime LTCH would allow as to purchase F2F for our lifetime.

Back before Indiana had a lifetime license, you COULD purchase at a dealer just by showing your slip. But, you had to re-apply routinely and get re-checked.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

This looks like a good place for my Federal Collector's License proposal.

 

[Thegeek]

I see where you're going. Personally, I like the idea, but I think it should be implemented differently, and bidirectionally. The check system should have 2 flags. First, if you are licensed in your state, it's flagged as "state verified". That should serve as notice to fast track the background check system response. Second, if the state revokes, it should flag as an immediate deny. This would also serve as a mechanism for the gun store to confiscate and destroy invalid LTCH.

Neither would have any affect on law abiding gun owners and would not provide any new information to either enforcement body.

 

[eldirector]

I see where you're going. Personally, I like the idea, but I think it should be implemented differently, and bidirectionally. The check system should have 2 flags. First, if you are licensed in your state, it's flagged as "state verified". That should serve as notice to fast track the background check system response. Second, if the state revokes, it should flag as an immediate deny. This would also serve as a mechanism for the gun store to confiscate and destroy invalid LTCH.

Neither would have any affect on law abiding gun owners and would not provide any new information to either enforcement body.

So, you are perfectly OK with outlawing face to face sales, even in your own state? Even to your own family?

 

[Birds Away]

So, you are perfectly OK with outlawing face to face sales, even in your own state? Even to your own family?

Once again, if you hold a valid LTCH you are exempt from a background check. You don't need to go anywhere or do anything you just make the exchange. Only a person who is not licensed in their state has to go to an FFL for the background check. That is my understanding of the proposal. The gubmint would have no knowledge whatsoever of what gun you bought/sold or traded. Only those without a state issued license/permit (for whatever state they reside in) would need to go to an FFL.

 

[ViperJock]

I have been watching alot of the gun related testimony/discussion on various channels. I heard a recommendation that I thought might alleviate some of our concerns about background checks/registration. I would like to hear opinions.
The gist of the idea is that there would be comprehensive background checks for any firearm transaction. But before you dig in your heels and say HE$$ NO! Anyone possessing a FFL or a valid carry permit in their State of residence, who is completing the transaction is said State would be exempt from the background check. It makes sense to me. If you have a valid carry license then you have already successfully completed a full background check and another would be redundant. Of course there would probably be language that would encourage or perhaps force States to monitor their licensing and ensure that, should a licensee become disqualified for any reason, that the database is updated accordingly. On the face of it this would seem to allow "gun people" who routinely buy and sell to continue to do so without interference while allowing the Gubmint to keep track of those non-licensees who are dealing in firearms. I know it isn't perfect but, for me, there seem to be some merit to this idea. Tell me what I am missing...other than we will not accept any infringement. I get that.

Weren't the last few tragedies caused by legally purchased firearms?
Freedom isn't safe.

I appreciate your ideas to try and find ways to improve things without decreasing the rights of the responsible. I have been thinking about this topic a lot. Its a complex situation. I fear that the result will be; lack of self improvement in the gun community will result in more regulation than otherwise would be possible if we could find a way to make ourselves "safer." Or at least APPEAR safer.

Preventing all deaths from any cause is a pipe dream. Only a delusional ideologue would even consider such a possibility....

 

[nemo97]

...shall not be infringed... Is where I see the biggest problem. Heck, the Second does not exclude criminals either. Just saying as we have long excepted limitations to our rights.

The State constitution in Section 32 reads: "The people shall have a right to keep and bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State."

Get down to it, I think it could be reasonably argued our pink slips are in conflict with our State constitution. That said, I think it is wholly unacceptable for more infringements on our Rights. I think what we need is a major pushback against those who seek to further defile our Natural Rights and restore said Rights.

No more compromising!!

 

[Lecaia713]

I used to work in a courthouse digitizing records, so that they could be pulled up and printed off as certified copies. That being said, an electronic database that *required* your LTCH number to search would not be that hard to set up, nor that hard to limit the information received. Ie- input name and LTCH number, and it comes back valid/suspended/denied. However, more than likely this would require renewal of your LTCH every 4-5 years, so lifetime would go away. Secondly, how would those who live in Constitutional Carry states use this? Just some points to consider.

 

[Birds Away]

Weren't the last few tragedies caused by legally purchased firearms?
Freedom isn't safe.

I appreciate your ideas to try and find ways to improve things without decreasing the rights of the responsible. I have been thinking about this topic a lot. Its a complex situation. I fear that the result will be; lack of self improvement in the gun community will result in more regulation than otherwise would be possible if we could find a way to make ourselves "safer." Or at least APPEAR safer.

Preventing all deaths from any cause is a pipe dream. Only a delusional ideologue would even consider such a possibility....

I agree completely. But this is far and away better than universal registration. It screens people who may need to be screened without infringing on the privacy and rights, anymore than has already been done, of the lawful, licensed gun owner. It is by no means perfect. It is a heckuva lot better than universal registration.

 

[abnk]

The right is not negotiable. It's really that simple.

 

[nemo97]

I agree completely. But this is far and away better than universal registration. It screens people who may need to be screened without infringing on the privacy and rights, anymore than has already been done, of the lawful, licensed gun owner. It is by no means perfect. It is a heckuva lot better than universal registration.

Screening someone to exercise their Rights??? The only universal registration I think would be tolerable is when Uncle Sam comes to my door and issues each member of my family a selective fire weapon to be used in the defense of the State if such need were to arise. And that registration would be nothing more than Uncle Sam inventorying their taxpayer funded weapons procurements and disbursements.

We need to stop arguing within the framework the enemy of our Rights has defined. As long as they define the debate, then they will continue to win the argument even if by nothing more than implementation by way of baby steps.

 

[eldirector]

Once again, if you hold a valid LTCH you are exempt from a background check. You don't need to go anywhere or do anything you just make the exchange. Only a person who is not licensed in their state has to go to an FFL for the background check. That is my understanding of the proposal. The gubmint would have no knowledge whatsoever of what gun you bought/sold or traded. Only those without a state issued license/permit (for whatever state they reside in) would need to go to an FFL.

So, if the Government has no knowledge of the transaction, what is to prevent non-LTCH folks from buying guns?

We already have a law that "prevents" us from selling to felons and such. Do we need yet another law to prevent us from selling to felons and such?

This sounds like another feel-good knee-jerk reaction that will not have any noticeable up-side, but will have all the usual downsides.

I simply don't see a way to prevent "bad" people from getting guns that doesn't also put a huge burden on "good" people.

Look at Meth, for instance. Totally illegal, and yet still super easy to get. The government even put huge restrictions in place, to the point that *I* can't hardly buy decent cold medicine any longer, and yet meth is being made/bought/sold/abused as much now as before the silly laws.

Punishing legal gun owners isn't going to put a dent in a criminal's access to guns. Every single attempt to do so has ended up a dismal failure (see: Chicago, New York, California, the UK, Australia, and the list goes on).

Banning an object, or putting massive burdens to legally possess an object, isn't going to change the amount of violence in our society. The object isn't the cause, and doesn't even have an effect. Until we address the ROOT causes of violence, this is all just mental masturbation.

 

[Birds Away]

Ok, I guess you don't really want to get it. That's fine, enjoy your day.

 

[richieray]

Here is the problem with this proposal as I see it. Even the most ardent gun grabber knows that they are not going to be successful with "just get the gun" approach. If they are to be successful they need to chip away at the "problem". First you come up with a "compromise proposal " like this one. One in which many guns owners will say "that's no so bad I can live with it". Then 6 months later you introduce another "compromise" which is only slightly more then 1st one using that very line it's only a little more than you've already agreed to. Next thing you know we have compromised ourselves out of any rights. A true compromise is one where each side gives something what are they proposing to give us, we already have these rights. What's next robbers offers this "I'll make you a compromise I won't stab you of you'll let me have your car"