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

[PiratePast40]

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#?

Hers's the link to the Oregon law: https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors166.html
Here's the beginning of the section on private transfers at gun shows: 166.436 Firearm transfers by persons other than gun dealers; criminal background checks authorized; liability. (1) The Department of State Police shall make the telephone number established under ORS 166.412 (5) available for requests from persons other than gun dealers for criminal background checks under this section.

Here's the section about stolen gun checks: 166.421 Stolen firearms; determination; telephone requests. The Department of State Police may respond to a telephone request from any person requesting that the department determine if department records show that a firearm is stolen.

For both of the citations, I've only quoted parts of them. For the full text, you'll need to actually read the statute.

I get rather frustrated when I continually see this discussion, but have to remind myself that, before I became involved with this issue, I was unaware of the laws. My apolagies to anyone offended by my harshness. I feel that at this stage of the legal fight, we realy need to be aware of the real laws to be a part of the discussion.

 

[Suge206]

yes, of course. if there's no cpl or WAC card.


someone said crazies won't use it. hilariously ironic.


sounds like the seller is the actual crazy...lol

 

[pokerace]

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?

NO

i DON'T WANT THAT INFO. ON THEM WEB.................

 

[Nwcid]

yes, of course. if there's no cpl or WAC card.


someone said crazies won't use it. hilariously ironic.


sounds like the seller is the actual crazy...lol

What about the good folks that live in states that do not have shall issue CPL and do not live in WA? Guess they must all be heathens and crazies, bad people all around. How about ALL the people that sold guns before there were CPL's? What about all the sales that were made though magazine ads and mail order back in the day? All Crazy?

I am VERY proud though that you think that a seller that is following the law, following the Constitution and standing up for everyones rights is crazy. That puts a real good light on where you stand. I was not sure before with some of your posts but now I am. You just hit troll status If you hate freedom so much I suggest you find a better place to live.

 

[Suge206]

yes, I totally hate freedom. you nailed it.

can you get real for 5 seconds and join us back reality for a quick pow-wow?


I don't people want ineligible people buying a used firearm from me. given a quick, free option to check eligibility I would certainly use it....or maybe I really just hate freedom....

 

[watchman]

All background checks are unConstitutional. So is the classification of ineligible buyer.
Once a man is released from State custody, he has the same Right to self defense as anyone else. And the tools thereof.

Even ex cons and the mentally ill have a Right to self defense.

 

[ak56]

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?

Backwards. Should list those who can not legally buy a gun. And it would have to be more accurate than the governments no-fly-list (and we know how accurate that is).

 

[Netspirit]

Yes, I most definitely would - for the same purpose I would run a credit check on a renter.

They absolutely have their Constitutional right to defend themselves, and I would oppose a mandatory check system which would give the government the unreasonable power to block each and every private sale for any arbitrary reason or even a "mistake" (such as "our computers are down for maintenance" or "we have run out of tax dollars to pay for electricity").

However, I have my own right to choose who I do business with, and if I learn it is one of those Boston bombers, for example, I would walk away. If you do not want to know who you are arming - your choice, your morals, your freedom. Please be free, and let me be free, and things should sort themselves out.

 

[speeddemon94]

I am really sick of this.

If you believe the government should institute ANYTHING else that could further be used to somehow infringe upon our Second Amendment Rights, and I guarantee that this would, you are dead wrong, and quite deluded.

The government has become too big and overreaching and there are too many people who seem okay with that. We should be working at less restrictive laws.

Thant being said, I wouldn't use one either, voluntary or mandatory. The government in it's attempts to control us will turn a great deal of us into criminals. No more rules, no more laws.

 

[PiratePast40]

Under existing Oregon law, a dealer, including a pawn shop, is required to send a copy of the transaction record, including the gun information to the State Police when they transfer a used gun. The form is clearly marked as Register of Transfer of Used Firearm. Let's not kid ourselves and say that there is no state registry.
<broken link removed>

 

[Father of four]

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

 

[Father of four]

It is none of the government's business.

Well said....typed.

 

[nick1980]

i think that is a very good idea

 

[Nwcid]

yes, I totally hate freedom. you nailed it.

can you get real for 5 seconds and join us back reality for a quick pow-wow?


I don't people want ineligible people buying a used firearm from me. given a quick, free option to check eligibility I would certainly use it....or maybe I really just hate freedom....

You literally called anyone that does not do the same as you crazy, "sounds like the seller is the actual crazy...lol". That is the problem.

IF you choose to go above and beyond what the law says that is YOUR choice and I will not bash you. I will not call you names. I will not try to keep you from having the right to do so.

Why should ANYONE selling a gun by following ALL the laws be "crazy" for not taking extra steps that are not required? Why are you as a gun owner putting down other gun owners? Why if it it not YOUR way does it become "crazy"?

 

[Suge206]

I actually didn't 'literally' do that. I was making light of your comment, using a play on your own words.


appearantly, the irony is lost on you of you trying to be the victim here after telling me I must hate freedom for disagreeing with you and then telling me I need to gtfo your America.

 

[Misterbill]

The more the government tries to take away our rights, the less inclined I am to have ANY regulation on guns. So ya, after this latest fiasco of freedom-bashing? I wouldn't use NICS if I could do it from my living room.

 

[jb11]

What about the good folks that live in states that do not have shall issue CPL and do not live in WA? Guess they must all be heathens and crazies, bad people all around. How about ALL the people that sold guns before there were CPL's? What about all the sales that were made though magazine ads and mail order back in the day? All Crazy?

I am VERY proud though that you think that a seller that is following the law, following the Constitution and standing up for everyones rights is crazy. That puts a real good light on where you stand. I was not sure before with some of your posts but now I am. You just hit troll status If you hate freedom so much I suggest you find a better place to live.

x2

 

[Netspirit]

If such a voluntary system exists, I think we can all agree that it needs to be self-funded, collecting fees and not using taxpayer money.

 

[9MilMan]

I think Speeddemon nailed it. We can talk all day about what SYSTEM or PROCEDURE is REASONABLE. But if the people don't have faith in their government not to abuse its powers, then they cannot have any faith in any system that is put in place. The reason people are resisting universal background checks, is not because that idea, by itself is unreasonable. It is because of what it could lead to (registration). And because we KNOW that the people behind such REASONABLE ideas, really want much more, but know they can only get a fraction of what they are seeking. You heard it straight from the mouths of Reid/Pelosi/Biden/Obama......THEY ARE NOT DONE, and they "won't take no for an answer". THIS is why we fight ANY and ALL INFRINGEMENT. Because it will not end with whatever victories they achieve. The people are losing their faith in their government. THEREFORE, they lose faith in ANY proposal that can even remotely lead to a reduction of their liberties. Until faith in the government is restored, NOTHING the government proposals can be accepted as REASONABLE.

 

[chris61182]

If such a voluntary system exists, I think we can all agree that it needs to be self-funded, collecting fees and not using taxpayer money.

Though on the flip side if it's mandatory, like the anti's want , there should absolutely be no fee to use it.

In other words if the public wants it they can pay for it. If they don't want to pay for it, they must not want it that badly.