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

Background Check Suggestion (Ending the "Gun Show Loophole" argument)

Discussion in 'General Firearm Discussion' started by Riot, Oct 5, 2012.

  1. Riot

    Riot Benton County, Washington Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,035
    Likes Received:
    1,728
    I understand that this is probably going to be a heated debate, but I would like to know if this would be a workable idea or not. As gun owners, I would like to know your honest opinion on this or any flaws I haven't thought of. So lets begin...

    I, like many of you here, am tired of hearing about the "Gun Show Loophole". However, I would also never want a convicted felon to obtain a firearm. If many of you haven't already realized, I used to be LEO and currently work in corrections. I've dealt with many of these felons from day to day, heard their phone calls, read their mail and have (unfortunately) spent more time with them than I have my family. I would never want felons to have access to firearms...nevertheless they brag about how easily it is to obtain one from simply opening up a Thrifty Nickel and buying one from a private individual. Am I the only one that is uncomfortable by this? I doubt it...

    View attachment 46458

    Nevertheless, I'm for private individuals selling their property to other private individuals...and I'm also against making people register their guns or having to report to the government who is buying/selling something.

    View attachment 46459


    So, I propose a compromise.

    How about a 1-800 number or internet site to see if someone is eligible to purchase a firearm? Just a simple "Yes" or "No" from the site or operator and "voila!". Obviously this is a system already set up and available- but restricted to FFL dealers. But I just can't see why someone can't call up a 1-800 or click on an FBI site, give/put in the info of the person, get a "Yes" then hang up and complete your transaction. The feds don't have to know who is selling or what is being bought...just clearing someone to be able to what purchase a firearm so you can sell it without giving a felon or a known mental case a gun.

    View attachment 46457

    Lets hear it...the feds would rather have all firearm transactions go through a paper trail and have each person registered to each gun purchased. Like many of you here, I'm against this. So, what are your thoughts on the above?
     
  2. pry

    pry pdx Member

    Messages:
    96
    Likes Received:
    37
    I would be ok if it was required to have a ccw for both parties doing a private sale so long as they kept ccw permits easily obtainable to people without felony convictions. A lot of people already require that for ftf deals.
     
  3. Swedish K

    Swedish K SW Washington Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    1,943
    Likes Received:
    1,231
    Good idea overall, one of the problems I can see with this after working warrants and running/reading hundreds of rap sheets is the links created when a felon - particularly con men / identity theft types - uses another person's social security number, drivers license number, etc. I have seen rap sheets with over 40 "AKA"s and well over 80 other affiliated social security numbers. While you would think that clarification notes would be listed for those who's identity were linked to the felon it isn't always the case. When running contractors background for admittance to the prisons I ran across more than one that required contacting the original arresting agency to verify that the felon was not the same person as the person I was checking on.
    While instant background would work in the majority of cases those who are unfortunate enough to have been linked to a felon might well loose out on more than one deal through no fault of their own. Lets face it - if you called the number and got a false no go would you trust the person enough to hold off on the deal until it could be clarified?
    Another thing to consider is fake IDs. When CA went to the holograph laminate and magnetic strip on their IDs/DLs in less than a month they busted a fake ID shop where perfect knockoffs were being made. Real DL #, correct laminate, correct magnetic strip, new photo for the holder. Cops couldn't tell the difference unless the original person's height/weight/eye color, etc were off a ways or if the person was arrested using the fake ID and the prints didn't match up.
     
  4. Mark W.

    Mark W. Silverton, OR Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    5,774
    Likes Received:
    4,958
  5. Misterbill

    Misterbill Yakima County, Washington New Member

    Messages:
    1,308
    Likes Received:
    1,013
    I think this is a bad idea because it simply gives ground to the totally unfounded debate on the part of an ever-shrinking minority that thinks gun shows are in any significant way, a venue for PPs to get guns.

    I reject that argument entirely and suggest to the antis that it is up to THEM to actually demonstrate such activity before we should take it seriously. If you're talking 1%, then that's what's going to get through NICS. (ON A GOOD DAY).

    If you're suggesting 10 or 20%, lets see your numbers and the empirical evidence you have to support it. If you don't have it, then why should anyone listen to you?

    WE ALL GET that there is a downside to civilian firearms ownership,

    NO RIGHT is free from a downside.

    the difference between us and you is that we also see the UPSIDE of civilian gun ownership, As in over 1 MILLION defensive gun uses a year that deter crime. (And I'm on the very CONSERVATIVE number there.)

    We don't and should NOT make policy based on chicken little and what MIGHT happen. We should base it on what DOES happen. And those happenings make defensive firearms uses outnumber ALL crimes committed with guns by a factor of two or more, depending on whose nu,,mbers you want to listen to.

    In NO CASE do they support a ban or restriction on civilian firearms ownership.
     
    Sgt Nambu and (deleted member) like this.
  6. slingshot1943

    slingshot1943 salem or Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,085
    Likes Received:
    321
    I am not in favor of any restrictions on firearms as per the constitution.
     
  7. jbett98

    jbett98 NW Oregon Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    6,457
    Likes Received:
    7,649
    You still have the problem of a "Straw Buyer" buying the firearm and then handing it over to the felon.
     
  8. keystir

    keystir Hillsboro, OR Active Member

    Messages:
    498
    Likes Received:
    123
    I like it. I think it's a good idea overall but I do agree with some of the arguments above. My biggest concern would be that this could be used in the future as a gateway to further gun registration efforts.
     
  9. GTeye

    GTeye Lake Stevens, WA New Member

    Messages:
    22
    Likes Received:
    16
    There is no gun show loophole, it's the same laws that apply to all face to face transactions.

    The only difference is alot of people are getting together in one place.

    If it was called the "Everett Bake Off" and 50 people who all wanted to buy and sell guns "happened" to show up, the same laws would apply.

    I don't see why anything needs to change... if you change the gun show "loophole" (which doesn't exist) then people will just use other For Sale sights to find local guns for sale, do we then alter how FTF sales are handled to close that "loophole"?

    Also, under this proposal, what is to stop people from abusing this and calling up about anyone for anything at any time? That seems like a huge invasion of privacy.

    I see no way to allow citizens to perform these checks without some way of verifying that the person whos information is being checked is consenting to it. With a FFL, these people are licensed and went through a process so that trustis given to them because of that but private citizens?

    WOuld you require a photo id be faxed prior to allowing the private citizen to run the check? Fine.. I ask you, who pays for the money it would cost to run such a program?

    And couldn't this already be done right now? As a private citizen, I believe I have the right to have an FFL handle the transfer and run the check anyway?
     
  10. PBinWA

    PBinWA Clark County Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,092
    Likes Received:
    359
    I might be willing to support certain restrictions if it meant repealing the NFA and GCA Acts. Basically, give law abiding citizens access to full-auto, SBR, and "military" weapons without having to jump through the hoops. Basically, I would require more from the government than I would be prepared to give up.

    They've taken enough rights away.
     
  11. GTeye

    GTeye Lake Stevens, WA New Member

    Messages:
    22
    Likes Received:
    16
    And you do realize that the first image you showed, which has all of those guns out on display on that table, is most likely from a "business", not a private seller.

    I have been to many gun shows and I have never seen a booth that is selling used guns be a "non business" selling that many guns.

    Booths like that are businesses selling firearms who are FFL's, which means anyone buying from that table will go through the FULL NICS check anyway.

    That image seems more to cause "fear" and "panic" to add credibitility to the claim being made.

    Most tables selling privately have just a couple of guns for sale, or it's people walking around with a rifle they want to sell privately.

    Out of curiosity, Have you ever gone to a gun show or purchased a firearm at one?
     
    Thebastidge and (deleted member) like this.
  12. Flopsweat

    Flopsweat Slightly right of center Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,975
    Likes Received:
    2,203
    I'm in favor of a system that makes it easier for private citizens to verify the eligibility of someone who wants to buy a firearm - I'm sure I'd use it myself. I'm against any law requiring a background check for private sales. Just like seat belt laws and mandatory cigarette warning labels, the basic premise is a good idea but making it a law is taking things too far.
     
  13. skerky

    skerky Southern Oregon Member

    Messages:
    84
    Likes Received:
    6
    I hope this isn't off topic, but my concern is the more fundamental issue of these violent felons free in society. If someone is that dangerous, I wouldn't trust him with a knife, car, or many other tools that could be used to kill/injure someone. Personally I think there are some crimes that ought to be punished by death.

    So while such a system might be nice, I think it's addressing a symptom of the problem and ultimately could infringe on our rights.
     
    Sgt Nambu, Riot, Thebastidge and 3 others like this.
  14. hermannr

    hermannr Okanogan Highlands Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,830
    Likes Received:
    871
    There should be no background check...when did I leave my rights at the door? Any give to the anti's just makes them bolder.

    When I was young (I turned 21 before the GCA68 became law) There were no background checks, or "prohibited persons". There were less problems then, then there are now. Restricting ownership does no good...those that will possess, legally or illegally, will possess. Just look at NYC and Chicago...are their guns on the street????eh????

    Any infringement only suppresses the rights of those that will not use their weapon improperly...it does nothing about those with criminal intent.
     
  15. Muddslinger12

    Muddslinger12 Vancouver Active Member

    Messages:
    294
    Likes Received:
    121
    Absolutly NOT this gives reason for the "seller" to gather personal info on a potential "buyer" NO WAY!! Not with all the ID theft going on. This would only effect LAW ABIDING CITIZENS!! A criminal will get a straw buyer or use a fake name.

    It is great as it is NOW The seller sets the terms! If you feel iffy about someone you DONT SELL you can check for active warrants (atleast in WA) however i would personally require a VALID DL and CPL/OHL for any firearm sales that verifies everything you need to know (unless they JUST commited felony) however you would have done anything in your power to verfy they arent using it for criminal activity.

    ALSO you should ALWAYS ASK "Are you eligible", "Are you a felon, crazy, etc" , "What is your purpose for buying this?" AND "Are you buying this for criminal reasons?" (Really knock them off guard with this one!) If they seem wierd DONT SALE its that simple. LEO often ask unseemingly ??S to knock criminals off guard, like asking if any weapons, firearms, knives, bazookas, RPGs, etc JUST TO SEE THEIR REACTION if they respond with a chuckle (Good) if the get wierd and nervous (bad!) Although I know a determined crook can "play" you and react calmly and "NOT-wierd" it is still a great strategy to deter your firearms ending up in criminal hands, although you NEVER really know. The least you can do is ASK if they Lie than they lie. INNOCENT til PROVEN GUILTY you really have no choice but to ask, and take there word for it, thats as per the law REQUIRES and should NOT change cause the criminals will just find another way!
     
  16. slimer13

    slimer13 Deer Park Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,869
    Likes Received:
    3,189
    Worst idea ever.

    Dont KNOWINGLY sell to a felon, judge people by their appearance (if you have a bunch of gang tatts and look like a scumbag, no gun for you) and if you really want to be paranoid ask for DL/CPL. The absolute last thing we need is to willingly place restrictions on ourselves that the Bloomberg/Moore types would have a wet dream over:nuts:
     
  17. Sgt Nambu

    Sgt Nambu Oregon Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    7,548
    Likes Received:
    10,538
    NO!
     
  18. BroncoFan

    BroncoFan Eastern Oregon Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    470
    Likes Received:
    275
    Simply put - It's a bad idea.
    It would have to be dependent upon an efficient and effective government agency - I have yet to see one of those. More to the point - While technically not an infringement upon my rights (I would presumably pass any check), a system you suggest implies a de facto government approval of an inalienable right. Even if I could get past that I just can't conceive of a bureaucracy worthy of entrusting one of our foundational principles.

    Better idea - Punish the felons - Lengthy prison sentences with no parole while some need to be taken out of the gene pool according to their crime (i.e., our Colorado shooter - If found guilty after a thorough and fair trial he needs to go on the other side of the grass as expediently as possible).
     
    Thebastidge and (deleted member) like this.
  19. Riot

    Riot Benton County, Washington Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,035
    Likes Received:
    1,728
    First of all, thank you for your responses...especially to those that actually read the entire post.

    This is probably the best arguement against the above...I will reconsider my stance on it, as well.

    Nowhere in my post did I mention that I suggest this be mandatory or a law, just an option available to civilians to verify that they weren't selling the firearm to someone that was ineligable to own a firearm. Even my last statement makes it clear that I am also against any further restrictions...

    Yes. I bought my first AR-15 at a gun show in NC. Also, it was just a picture of a gun show I found on Google Images to attract your visual learners to the thread more...don't read too much into it.
     
  20. biggie24420

    biggie24420 Beaverton Oregon Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,725
    Likes Received:
    637
    I think there should be a number to call to find out if the person is a criminal, but no mention of any gun sales. I simply wanna know if the person is wanted or a killer.... etc. I don't want the person providing me with the info to know if Joe Tactical is interested in buying a gun. This way if someone wants to check on their kid's new boyfriend or girlfriend... they can call that number too lol.