Would you use a voluntary NICS system if no gun/sell information was gathered?

[beavertonbuck]

The idea was floated by a Senator that a voluntary system be established for private parties to access NCIS. Let's assume a system was set in place where a buyer could go online and get a validation code that was valid for 30 days and showed that he wasn't a prohibited person. No information on whether there was even a sale or what type of gun was being purchased would be included.

Would you require buyers to provide you with such confirmation? What if the bill was set up that people that used the system were barred from criminal/civil penalties if there gun is later used in a crime?

Read More

 

[Nwcid]

I will use it........... As soon as the criminals and crazies do.

The problem is not that a way does not exist. The problem is that this does NOT stop anything. Just one simple example is drugs. They are illegal and have been for a long time. Has that stopped the problem? The people that are going to abuse them still do and those that would not don't. The law has not effected either group.

 

[pokerace]

It seems reasonable, however it would make Thu the senate judiciary committee. It would be gutted and stuffed into totally different. Would I go for it, NO I think not.It is still an infringement on my rights.

 

[PiratePast40]

Don't forget that every single legislator that has proposed one of these bills says over and over again that this is just the beginning. It's no longer about anything "common sense" or "reasonable" and the gun control people are the first to tell you that.

 

[chainsaw]

Not only no,but ****NO!I don`t have to ask to buy a car.Cars kill way more people than guns do.And,a felon can buy any car they want.The gov.needs to ban cars!

 

[mosinguy1]

NO

 

[Nwcid]

No one said it is an infringement. That is NOT the point.

The point is that it does NOT solve the problem. It will effect the legal people by making one extra step. It will have NO effect on the "criminals". So why spend millions of dollars for something that does no good? If it makes you feel good lets have the buyer sign a paper that says they will not the law with said firearm. It is just as effective and way cheeper.

 

[WasrNwarpaint]

NO
all information is gathered these day despite what your told

 

[jb11]

HELL NO!

 

[PiratePast40]

You allready have the option of using the Oregon background check system and stolen gun registry. You are required to use the background check for private sales at gun shows. If the senator is in Oregon, then tell him that as a member of the legislative branch of government, it's his freaking job to know the laws in his state. And by the way, Illinois and other states have such a system. In Illinois, it's called a FOID (Firearms Owner Identification Card). System works great in Chicago doesn't it?

 

[MrNiceGuy]

What if the bill was set up that people that used the system were barred from criminal/civil penalties if there gun is later used in a crime?

And therein lies the bass akwards thinking. So, if I sold a gun to someone who was legally allowed to purchase a gun and I DIDN'T do this "voluntary" bg check, then I WOULD be liable if the gun was later used in a crime. But if I sell a gun to that same person and I don't perform this bg check, then I am NOT liable for any future acts this person commits.

If you accept liability for NOT using the system, then it's not really "voluntary".

Anything that INCREASES my liability for selling a gun to someone legally is a non starter.

That's not even factoring in the cost of this boondoggle.

 

[kumabear17]

You are deluding yourself into believing the anti-gun people are really concerned with being sure gun transaction are by people validated to complete them. Their comments along the way make it clear the real goal is restriction and then confiscation. To them the 2nd Amendment is an obstacle to be overcome via legislation and not some "silly old" Constitutional process. It's really all about control of society and guns are just one element of the Left's strategy.

Any type of NICS/Background check system, including what we already go through, is just a building block for the Liberal Left. Yesterday's vote was a set back in a battle, not the end of a war. They will come back harder and their treachery knows no bounds.

My answer is not just "No", but "Hell No!"

Butch

 

[Redcap]

Nope. I won't use a voluntary one, I won't use a mandatory one. It is none of the government's business.

 

[deen_ad]

A WA DL and CPL or WAC member (valid) card works just fine for me selling a gun.

 

[beavertonbuck]

And therein lies the bass akwards thinking. So, if I sold a gun to someone who was legally allowed to purchase a gun and I DIDN'T do this "voluntary" bg check, then I WOULD be liable if the gun was later used in a crime. But if I sell a gun to that same person and I don't perform this bg check, then I am NOT liable for any future acts this person commits.

If you accept liability for NOT using the system, then it's not really "voluntary".

Anything that INCREASES my liability for selling a gun to someone legally is a non starter.

That's not even factoring in the cost of this boondoggle.

I tend to agree with your thought on this but I think the politicians were trying to provide a carrot to persuade gun owners to use the system without making it mandatory. I've had a couple of private sells and never had any concerns. I typically try and get a feel for the person but so far everything has been friendly and I've spent a little while shooting the breeze with them.

 

[Mark W.]

Oregon already has a way for a private person to do a background check. Its the same setup as used at gun shows. So how is this new?

 

[Jabba]

What if the state police simply kept a database of who could legally buy a gun. Just a simply website with a list of names and DL numbers. You wouldn't submit anything to use it. Why would you not use it, it takes 20 seconds?

 

[PiratePast40]

Oregon already has a way for a private person to do a background check. Its the same setup as used at gun shows. So how is this new?

Apparently, some here don't want to hear that. They would rather troll about and get useless arguments going.

Let's start another political thread - how about, it the automobile was invented, would you use it?

 

[beavertonbuck]

Oregon already has a way for a private person to do a background check. Its the same setup as used at gun shows. So how is this new?

My understanding is that anyone can call for a stolen gun check but that the FICS is only for FFL. When I check their website it says they provide services for FFL in the state but nothing about private individuals. Do individuals call the same phone#?

 

[Nightcrawler]

The problem is that every keystroke you make on the internet CAN be tracked, no matter how smart you think you are. Making an inquiry of your name means that will be a part of the system's history, along with your internet address. I don't believe for a minute they won't be trying to use spyware or other cookies.