Quantcast
  1. Sign up now and join over 35,000 northwest gun owners. It's quick, easy, and 100% free!

Backgound Checks - Are They Backward?

Discussion in 'Legal & Political Archive' started by Provincial, Feb 13, 2013.

  1. Provincial

    Provincial Near Salem, OR Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    456
    Likes Received:
    537
    First, I don't agree with the present system of background checks, and even less with the proposed expansions I see. I think they are wrong.

    I wonder if the whole system of background checks is being approached from the wrong direction. I believe that background checks should not be linked to the gun type or serial number (sneaky registration), or the seller.

    As a private party, I would like to be able to check out the purchaser of a gun I sell, or check the stolen gun database for any gun I buy from a private party. I don't think either of these checks should be traceable back to me, since there is no good reason for the government to know.

    What if the government set up a database similar to the current one FFL's use, but expanded to provide more knowledge about mental health? It already maintains a database of stolen guns, but this (as far as I know) isn't available to non-FFL's. If a FFL runs a s/n of a stolen gun, it has to be siezed and reported. My proposal is that anyone should be able to run the s/n of a gun in a proposed transaction "in the blind", meaning that there is no record of the inquiry. That way, if you are looking to purchase a gun and it turns up as stolen, you can walk away from the transaction, it is is your discretion as to reporting it to authorities.

    In a similar way, the "private" background check would be "in the blind" and not traceable to the seller. If the buyer didn't pass the check, only a crazy person would accept the liability of selling the gun to them!

    Keeping the checks "blind" is the hard part. Since databases already exist, access shouldn't be a big obstacle. Perhaps setting up an independent gatekeeper with the same access as a FFL would work.

    Governments won't like this idea because it conflicts with their remorseless drive toward gun registration. It would make it harder to sell a stolen gun and protect the buyer from inadvertently purchasing a stolen gun. It would protect the seller from involvement with an unqualified purchaser.

    Could it work? If it would, it could pull the teeth from the drive to register guns.
     
  2. PiratePast40

    PiratePast40 Willamette Valley Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,092
    Likes Received:
    2,064
    My feeling is that it would be the same as anyone running a credit check on you. There would have to be something in place to prevent a stranger from running a background check on you without your permission.
     
  3. rpatton

    rpatton Graham WA Member

    Messages:
    220
    Likes Received:
    23
    Valid point for privacy purposes but if you've listened to an FFL make the call, there is a lot of personal information (DOB, place of birth and such) that someone who really is a stranger isn't going to know about you. In the end it would work out the same as when people post that they need to see a CPL and/or WAC card... people who don't have those generally don't attempt a purchase. When a background check is listed as a mandate in an add it will discourage most who know they can't pass the check.

    I like the OP's idea myself, make it voluntary, make it no cost to seller or buyer, make it blind/anonomous and pull the teeth of the "universal background check" crowd.
     
    Redcap and (deleted member) like this.
  4. kumabear17

    kumabear17 Issaquah Active Member

    Messages:
    284
    Likes Received:
    144
    The one thing you might have to re-think is your comment of "make it no cost to the seller or buyer". There is no free lunch. Someone will have to foot the bill for such a system and it would (will if it passes) be us, the gun owners. Either as a tax or a fee. And I think it is naive to the max to think the State won't retain the information. The Feds are already doing it here in this State - legal or not - and during an audit making copies of the owners 4473 forms. The State will just continue the same sort of approach.
     
  5. pchewn

    pchewn Beaverton Oregon USA Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    543
    Likes Received:
    289
    Any background check or licensing should be paid for by taxes on EVERYONE ... not by fees specific to the gun buyer/seller/owner. The reason is this: The buyer/seller/owner is not "gaining" anything by getting the license or the background check. In fact, most of the buyers/sellers/owners don't even want to have to get the background check or license. So why should we pay a fee for something we don't even want?

    The only people "benefiting" from the license or background check are the gun-grabbers -- so they can feel good that they are doing something to "prevent the gun violence" -- so they should be paying for it.

    It is totally wrong to make a law requiring me to get a background check or a license "for the good of the people" and then, to make ME pay for it exclusively. WRONG WRONG WRONG
     
  6. PiratePast40

    PiratePast40 Willamette Valley Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,092
    Likes Received:
    2,064
    Although I agree with you, I would say that other fees and licenses are also passed on to the user. Take for example, hunting and fishing licenses. The person wants to hunt or fish but does not ask for the fee. Same with a marrige license. People don't have a desire to pay the government a fee for their right to marry but they are still forced to pay it. I'm sure there are many other examples. Not that I agree, but the precedent has been set.

    It wouldn't be a bad idea to propose a law that raises taxes on everyone to pay for any new gun registration and background check laws. Even tie the taxes to the bills. I can see how it could even gain traction from liberals since they view the restrictions as "for the common good" and "for saving the children".