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

Require all firearm sales to go through a NICS check?

Discussion in 'Legal & Political Archive' started by bnsaibum, Dec 23, 2012.

  1. bnsaibum

    bnsaibum Corvallis, OR Well-Known Member 2015 Volunteer

    Messages:
    880
    Likes Received:
    486
    Serious question here, and since my brain is having trouble getting revved up today I thought I'd post it in hopes that some responses would give it a kick start. What are the pros and cons of requiring all firearm sales go through a NICS check?

    • Requiring FFL involvement would not be required and would be an onerous burden to the seller, IMHO.
    • Involving a state agency as Oregon does would be the same.
    • Criminals or those with criminal intent already find ways to avoid a NICS check.


    ETA: Not sure how to edit the thread title. It should read "all legal firearm sales". Thanks NWcid.
     
  2. deen_ad

    deen_ad Vancouver, WA Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,089
    Likes Received:
    1,310
    I wouldn't support it and we know it wouldn't stop the criminals anyway.
     
  3. keystir

    keystir Hillsboro, OR Active Member

    Messages:
    498
    Likes Received:
    123
    I think this would be a very effective way to curb the transfer of firearms into nefarious hands. Making gun owners legally responsible for where their firearms end up will help keep guns out of the wrong hands
     
  4. bnsaibum

    bnsaibum Corvallis, OR Well-Known Member 2015 Volunteer

    Messages:
    880
    Likes Received:
    486
    Thanks for the quick replies. Edited for clarification.
     
  5. Redcap

    Redcap Lewis County, WA Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,990
    Likes Received:
    2,731
    Will never happen, impossible to enforce.
     
  6. Greenbug

    Greenbug Bend Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,013
    Likes Received:
    593
    If required by law the service shoud be free to use, I know that will never happen!
     
  7. Suge206

    Suge206 Seattle Active Member

    Messages:
    344
    Likes Received:
    163
    I think its a common sense move.
     
  8. Coffindodger

    Coffindodger Seattle Member

    Messages:
    55
    Likes Received:
    27
    When one sells an automobile, should we be held legally responsible for any deaths that occur because a breathalyzer or blood test for drug use was not done? Far more deaths from impaired driving than firearms. When will doctors be held legally responsible for all the deaths of Americans they cause?

    When will punishing the irresponsible acts of criminals become more important than punishing law abiding citizens? Why does the responsibility of crime seem to fall on those of us ( a seemingly dwindling portion of the population) who follow the law?

    Murder is still illegal, more occur every year despite new legislation. Cocaine, meth, speed, prescription drugs with no prescription, pot ( federally) , LSD, uppers, downers, all arounders, and bath salts are all illegal. Yet more commit their lives to these drugs every year and they are illegal. Maybe we are responsible for their choice and the government hasn't told us about it yet.
     
  9. Greenbug

    Greenbug Bend Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,013
    Likes Received:
    593
    Against free trade!
     
  10. PBinWA

    PBinWA Clark County Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,092
    Likes Received:
    359
    I would only give up any more rights if we got to get some rights back.

    I'll support mandatory background checks for those who don't have a "national firearms card".

    What's a "national firearms card"?

    How about something like:

    A photo id card renewed every 5 years with a full background check and registration in national database.
    Allows holder to carry open and concealed anywhere (schools, airports, airplanes, post offices, etc.) and across state lines.
    Allows holder to buy and sell with other card holders and FFL's without government tracking or delays, this includes sales across state lines.
    Allows holder to buy and sell NFA items without a tax stamp or wait.

    Also, abolish the NFA act and allow the sale and manufacture of automatic and select fire weapons to those who have the national firearms card.

    What else can we ask for? ;)
     
    Doctnt, fredball, jim97701 and 9 others like this.
  11. Norm0931

    Norm0931 Hillsboro, OR Sgt. Sheep Silver Vendor 2016 Volunteer

    Messages:
    1,453
    Likes Received:
    1,465
    PB I like where you are going but, I'd suggest a few changes. 1) I'd limit the background and renewal to 2 years. A lot can happen to a person in 2 years and I feel that this would be a good "compromise" where we can give a little. 2) Post offices are still federal buildings and past airport security is never going to be an option for carrying, so I would remove those. 3) NFA without tax stamp will never happen. I'd be willing to accept with expedited services though. Or if your national firearms card was maybe $200 for the card, say $50 for the renewal, then each tax stamp was only $50 and had to be confirmed or denied within 30 days.

    With some of that money the Fed could create a simple background check website. You enter in the person's name and card number. It gives them a green or red light for private sales. No need to enter in info on the sale, just if they are good to go to participate.
     
  12. adipose

    adipose Warren Member

    Messages:
    86
    Likes Received:
    4
    When i lived temperary in California almost 20 years ago; FTF sales weren't allowed, even for long guns. All FTF sales had a 15 day waiting after filling your paperwork out with a FFL. Plus pay a 25.00 dept. of Justice fee.

    I can see this happening here. We already pay the state police a 10.00 fee in oregon per transfer (when most states it is free to call the Feds). The state police have already made 2.5 million off of this; this year alone.
     
  13. Muddslinger12

    Muddslinger12 Vancouver Active Member

    Messages:
    294
    Likes Received:
    121
    But whats next...? Swords, knives, crossbows, bows, slingshots, ROCKs, STEEL TOED boots, PENCILS, Glasses, fertilizer, cough syrup..............................................

    WHERE do we draw the line? Speak now or forever hold your peace.....

    And NO I am totally against it.... Millions of ppl own, buy/sell/trade guns EVERYday and HOW many shoot someone? Its a FREE market and should stay that way. Gun control laws only effect LAW ABIDING Citizens the criminals just DONT CARE about ANY laws so why are they gonna follow this?
     
  14. pokerace

    pokerace Newberg Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,293
    Likes Received:
    753
    You've got to be kidding!! That's just like the anti's suing the gun makers.. There is NO way a gun owner can keep a gun out of the wrong hands......




    And to some of the rest of you..STOP TRYING TO GIVE UP MY FREEDOM.
     
  15. bnsaibum

    bnsaibum Corvallis, OR Well-Known Member 2015 Volunteer

    Messages:
    880
    Likes Received:
    486
    Thanks for the replies

    Agreed

    Agreed, and would probably not reduce crime by any measurable amount.

    NICS is already free for FFL, expand to any NICS check (fecking OSP!).

    On the surface it would appear so, but if you look deeper it is replete with flaws, i.e. see above.

    Trading with the devil will come back to bite you in the arse. No go.

    ^This seems to be the $64,000 question. Unfortunately it is among the roots of why I posed my question in the first place.





    Don't take my intent wrong in asking the question. I think that most gun laws and gun bans are about as useful as feathers on a pecker. This was just one of the few areas I was having trouble seeing all the angles as they would apply for anyone selling a firearm.
     
  16. novamind

    novamind Hillsboro Active Member

    Messages:
    631
    Likes Received:
    183
    IMHO No.
     
  17. Norm0931

    Norm0931 Hillsboro, OR Sgt. Sheep Silver Vendor 2016 Volunteer

    Messages:
    1,453
    Likes Received:
    1,465
    Well, the stonewall everything answer is only going to lead to a bigger and more far reaching ban on firearms. I'm not at all excited about infringing upon my rights but, if we just sit there with our back turned they will pass it without any of us having input and then we'll really be screwed.
     
  18. WheatNuts

    WheatNuts Camas, WA Active Member

    Messages:
    128
    Likes Received:
    33
    I don't see how this would make it harder for criminals to obtain firearms. It would only burden law-abiding citizens. Most criminals steal or obtain firearms illegally to begin with.

    If a criminal wants to buy a firearm they are still going to by one privately from another criminal or someone who does not care about the law. Requiring all sales go through NICS would do nothing to curb criminals obtaining firearms in my opinion.

    It sounds like a good idea but when you think about it, it doesn't make any sense.
     
    jdogg, Redcap, Boomerang and 5 others like this.
  19. PBinWA

    PBinWA Clark County Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,092
    Likes Received:
    359
    I don't see why they couldn't get rid of the NFA act. It is antiquated and inefficient.

    I'd go two years on the renewal but I'm holding fast on getting rid of the NFA act garbage.

    How about an "Airplane Endorsement" that can be obtained with a special training class and only permitting certain types of ammo on the plane?
     
  20. keystir

    keystir Hillsboro, OR Active Member

    Messages:
    498
    Likes Received:
    123
    50% of households in this country have firearms with the number continuing to rise. Making people responsible for what happens to their firearms if they choose to sell them to bad people or allow them to be "stolen" by not properly securing them in their home would result in a dramatic decrease in bad people obtaining firearms.