[wvtarheel]

This is a pretty good idea, because it would only burden ex-felons. I like it.

[whoflungdo]

Originally Posted by skorper

Very few felons are getting guns from sales via individuals? Are you sure about that? Aside from stealing them that is exactly how they are getting them. I have dealt with several cases involving felons being in possession of guns under disability and in less than fifty percent of these cases did the guy actually steal the gun. He just went out and bought it.

Let me try this again. Very few felons are buying weapons in face to face transactions from people that legally own the firearms. They are being bought and sold on the black market or being stolen. Both of which are already illegal and the OP's suggestions would have no effect on that. The only way to force all individual firearm purchases to go through a back ground check is know who owns a firearm now. It will not affect the black market.

[pizza_pablo]

Around here, most ftf Sellers want to see a concealed pistol license, for piece of mind.

[Flying-Dutchman]

And this is being discussed now because these measures would have saved the Sandy Hook lives how?

[whoflungdo]

Originally Posted by Flying-Dutchman

And this is being discussed now because these measures would have saved the Sandy Hook lives how?

I get it... You are under the impression that gun control and/or gun restrictions are about saving lives. Let me educate you, gun control has nothing to do with saving lives... There, my good deed of the day is done... I'm outta here..

[guns54]

Originally Posted by skorper

It may prohibit a lot of felons from buying firearms on the open market.

I dont think so.If they want then,They will get then.

[blackjack]

Originally Posted by whoflungdo

Here's the rub. Very few felons are getting guns from sales via individuals. What you are purposing will not affect felons from getting weapons. It's spending time, money, and adding restrictions to law abiding citizens. That's why you won't get any support and very little traction. Gun laws are not about felons, they are about disarming the law abiding.

Yup...especially the bold part...

Originally Posted by whoflungdo

Nothing is stopping your from going to an FFL and having them do a transfer for you on your face to face transactions and having them do the background check. Inviting the Federal government into a private transaction is a bad idea.. period..

And yup, again...Bold indicating exactly where the Feinstein bill will be whittled back to and where we'll have to make a stand.

[DanaT]

Originally Posted by taurn88

In the past, I would require buyers to show me their weapons license, match it to their license, and it would be a deal. Not everyone does that, but it gives me a better peace of mind.

Not sure where you live, but we have no "weapons license"in the state I live. If you are not a prohibited person, you can own a firearm without any permission.

Of course, as of today, I am not sure where I live as I have now two official addresses...

[Diesel McBadass]

is the system used by ffls to background check people avalible to regular people? Seems easy to call a number, say there name dob and such, then find out a yes or no.

[WarCry]

Originally Posted by Diesel McBadass

is the system used by ffls to background check people avalible to regular people? Seems easy to call a number, say there name dob and such, then find out a yes or no.

Someone smarter than me will have to answer this definitively, but I was under the impression that NICS was only open to FFLs.

Inviting the Federal government into a private transaction is a bad idea.. period..

And this is EXACTLY the point I'm making. This would remove the government from getting into a private transaction. If someone is a felon, they are prohibited. If I see a license with this hypothetical "Restriction" note on it, then I know that I can't sell to this guy.

This would provide a flag for individual, non-FFL sellers to tell them "This is a no-go" without having to involve any government or FFL.

To me, this seems like a way to reduce - not eliminate, but reduce - one channel for firearms getting into the wrong hands.

For those asking about the privacy/disclosure for felons, how would this be any different than the court-upheld, publicly-accessible list of sex offenders? Being part of that database and letting the public know who and where you are is part of the sentence. Why would this be any different?

Originally Posted by wvtarheel

This is a pretty good idea, because it would only burden ex-felons. I like it.

And this, right here, is my point. This takes the burden OFF of law-abiding citizens - if I don't have that flag on my license, then a private individual knows I'm not a felon. Say, for instance, if I wanted to buy a gun at the dreaded "gun shows".

The only time the flag would be in place is if you would be flagged by NICS anyway. So it's really no different than an FFL making the call and getting told "No."

[skorper]

Originally Posted by guns54

I dont think so.If they want then,They will get then.

They sure will. No one is arguing that. They just won't get them from law abiding citizens in public places like they can do now.

[WarCry]

I know I keep seeing the question "What would this have done to stop....." whatever the most recent shooting was: Aurora, Sandy Hook, the kid in NM, Columbine, whatever. For those on the gun RIGHTS side of the issue to ask this is just as foolish as the gun CONTROL folks to go after guns used in the latest event.

You can't plan to fight the last war. That's a losing strategy, and it's bad tactics. This isn't about changing what DID happen, and the discussion from EITHER side should never be about that.

This is a discussion about what we can do, as gun owners and gun rights advocates, to achieve TWO goals:

1) To try and prevent firearms from being in the hands of people who shouldn't have them, be they felons or those adjudicated as having mental issues (BTW, I'd use the same flag for this, too, so again, no one would have to know WHY a person is restricted, just that they are).

2) To accomplish #1 without putting any undue burdens or restrictions on those who are legal, law-abiding owners.

If we can't have even a simple discussion like this without tearing ourselves apart like rabid dogs, how are we ever supposed to expect the fence-sitters to take ANYTHING we say seriously?

[Diesel McBadass]

id be cool with background checks for private sales if the bacground checks were made avalible to general public, and free.

[IndyGunFreak]

Originally Posted by G29Reload

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire

To the ops idea, massive fail. Such info on a dl could be massively prejudicial to the holder when interacting with leos, and an invasion of privacy when having to present id to others of whom have no business knowing when simply checking an id. Same concept in jurisprudence when during a court case on a criminal matter it is not allowed to disclose criminal past during trial phase but only allowed at sentencing if convicted. Branding someone w a scarlet letter thats not even current is ridiculous. Plus it would not be updateable since you only get a new card every 4 or 5 years.

A better way would be to have a list of felons constantly updated in realtime to the gun shop and if youre not on it, head for the cashier.

Bingo..

I say HELL NO.. to what has been suggested.

[skorper]

Originally Posted by IndyGunFreak

Bingo..

I say HELL NO.. to what has been suggested.

As to it being on the license, that 4 or 5 year interval would be problematic. How about a "No" No Go" system? Just going to get a background check once you decide you are going to be looking to buy a gun? It would have a time limit on it. Say like 30 days. You could have it available to show a dealer or a private seller.

As far as privacy issues are concerned, you are not telling anyone your history by having a "no firearms restrictions" on a background check. On the contrary. And as far as dealing with LEO's or the court system, how could having one possibly be prejudicial? Or even not having one for that matter.

I could see where a "No Go" would be prejudicial however. But of course then you just wouldn't be issued anything.

[WarCry]

Originally Posted by skorper

As to it being on the license, that 4 or 5 year interval would be problematic. How about a "No" No Go" system? Just going to get a background check once you decide you are going to be looking to buy a gun? It would have a time limit on it. Say like 30 days. You could have it available to show a dealer or a private seller.

As far as privacy issues are concerned, you are not telling anyone your history by having a "no firearms restrictions" on a background check. On the contrary. And as far as dealing with LEO's or the court system, how could having one possibly be prejudicial? Or even not having one for that matter.

I could see where a "No Go" would be prejudicial however. But of course then you just wouldn't be issued anything.

See, I think you get what I'm saying. I guess I should have been more concise, but I was throwing the idea together on the fly. Putting "FELON" in big letters on the license probably wouldn't fly, but putting something like you said, a "No Firearms" classification would probably work. No one needs to know WHY, just that they can't sell to you.

The only part I disagree with you on is that it COULD be on the license, because the license can be reissued. If it's a "burden" to the individual, give them a twice-use "free" reissue - one to put the restriction in place (again, make it court-ordered if needed to be done within 14 business days of conviction and/or release from prison) and then once again if/when the restriction is removed. That one, they probably wouldn't even need to make it an order. Those folks that fight to get their rights back would be fairly RUNNING to get the license changed back to "normal".

[skorper]

Originally Posted by WarCry

See, I think you get what I'm saying. I guess I should have been more concise, but I was throwing the idea together on the fly. Putting "FELON" in big letters on the license probably wouldn't fly, but putting something like you said, a "No Firearms" classification would probably work. No one needs to know WHY, just that they can't sell to you.

The only part I disagree with you on is that it COULD be on the license, because the license can be reissued. If it's a "burden" to the individual, give them a twice-use "free" reissue - one to put the restriction in place (again, make it court-ordered if needed to be done within 14 business days of conviction and/or release from prison) and then once again if/when the restriction is removed. That one, they probably wouldn't even need to make it an order. Those folks that fight to get their rights back would be fairly RUNNING to get the license changed back to "normal".

Well, putting "No firearms" on a driver's license would be prejudicial in a lot of ways when presenting a drivers license for other purposes. A "Cleared for firearms purchase" or some such phrasing may even be misconstrued by some people in some ways as well. And of course it is subject to change before the license is expired, a matter of years. Say someone gets an "all clear" license and then commits a felony two years later. Would they still have an "all clear" on their license for another two years on a 4 year license?

Maybe you decide that you are going to be purchasing a gun or guns. You go and get a check, it is OK, and you get an "all clear" independant anything else. Then you don't have to show it to anyone you don't want to show it to. And it would be good for 30 days or something like that. When you decide on a gun you let the seller see your "all clear" or "Good to go" or whatever you want to call it and buy the gun. Or guns. Then buy another gun from someone else, with the same "all clear", or whatever, in the time period that the "all clear" is good for.

"No firearms restrictions" would be the mosy uninvasive and to-the-point wording I can think of.

[WarCry]

Originally Posted by skorper

Well, putting "No firearms" on a driver's license would be prejudicial in a lot of ways when presenting a drivers license for other purposes. A "Cleared for firearms purchase" or some such phrasing may even be misconstrued by some people in some ways as well. And of course it is subject to change before the license is expired, a matter of years. Say someone gets an "all clear" license and then commits a felony two years later. Would they still have an "all clear" on their license for another two years on a 4 year license?

That's why I put out the idea that, if you're convicted or otherwise have your status changed from "Go" to "No Go", then you would be REQUIRED to go get a new license and show proof to the courts.

Originally Posted by skorper

Maybe you decide that you are going to be purchasing a gun or guns. You go and get a check, it is OK, and you get an "all clear" independant anything else. Then you don't have to show it to anyone you don't want to show it to. And it would be good for 30 days or something like that. When you decide on a gun you let the seller see your "all clear" or "Good to go" or whatever you want to call it and buy the gun. Or guns. The buy another gun from someone else, with the same "all clear", or whatever, in the time period that the "all clear" is good for.

There are several states that already have this, where you have to go to a county sheriff or other authority and get a "permit to purchase." You have to go, hat in hand, and ask (and typically pay) for the right to purchase a firearm.

The problem is that it puts the burden of proof back on the innocent person. Why is that better than putting the burden on those already convicted of a crime? Why should a law-abiding citizen have to ask permission to purchase a gun like that?

[skorper]

Originally Posted by WarCry

That's why I put out the idea that, if you're convicted or otherwise have your status changed from "Go" to "No Go", then you would be REQUIRED to go get a new license and show proof to the courts.



There are several states that already have this, where you have to go to a county sheriff or other authority and get a "permit to purchase." You have to go, hat in hand, and ask (and typically pay) for the right to purchase a firearm.

The problem is that it puts the burden of proof back on the innocent person. Why is that better than putting the burden on those already convicted of a crime? Why should a law-abiding citizen have to ask permission to purchase a gun like that?

Good point. It is already required now, when buying a gun from a dealer. Even a used gun. To buy a gun from an FFL you must get a check.

I am leaning more your way though. My plan would perhaps put an undue burden on the innocent party. Maybe not so good an idea.

[skorper]

With the license, perhaps it could be used as a defacto "GO" without any extra wording at all. This would not be prejudicial. The only ones who would get any firearms related wording would be those who are prohibited from purchase. In other words, you have a face to face transaction and the seller asks to see your license. If it doesn't say "Restricted" on it then it is all good.

[WarCry]

Originally Posted by skorper

With the license, perhaps it could be used as a defacto "GO" without any extra wording at all. This would not be prejudicial. The only ones who would get any firearms related wording would be those who are prohibited from purchase. In other words, you have a face to face transaction and the seller asks to see your license. If it doesn't say "Restricted" on it then it is all good.

Yes, exactly! That's what I was saying. It's as simple as that.

Whatever the wording used, the ONLY "flag" applies to those that are NOT able to purchase.

[whoflungdo]

I've got a question for warcry and Skoper...how do the two of you purpose that this be enforced? How do you prove to the government that you sold the firearm to a non prohibited person? If this is strictly voluntary, why even propose it? If you are worried that the individual you are selling too is a prohibited person, do the transfer via an ffl... As I and others have pointed out, how is this gonna stop felons from getting guns? How is this any different from what we have now?

[WarCry]

Originally Posted by whoflungdo

I've got a question for warcry and Skoper...how do the two of you purpose that this be enforced? How do you prove to the government that you sold the firearm to a non prohibited person? If this is strictly voluntary, why even propose it? If you are worried that the individual you are selling too is a prohibited person, do the transfer via an ffl... As I and others have pointed out, how is this gonna stop felons from getting guns? How is this any different from what we have now?

You have the exact same narrow-minded view as so many anti-gunners.

The quesion you asked that's most important is "how is this gonna stop felons from getting guns?" and the answer is that it is NOT going to stop felons from getting guns. It will stop SOME felons from getting guns.

There will never - ever - be a solution that means bad guys don't ever get guns again. But this is as foolish as some people hear in Illinois that say "Screw CCW! We want nothing less than no-license carry!!" That's a great thing to say for rhetoric, but just isn't reality.

So, no, this idea would not STOP felons from getting guns. If you're holding out for a 100% solution with a smile behind your hand because you know it's not possible, then you're helping goad the anti's into going all out.

Yes, this would be voluntary. But, as a seller, I'd like some assurance that who I'm selling to is less likely to go out and take down a bank with it. Right now, the only way I'd ever sell a gun is through an FFL. And before anyone attacks me for THAT, that's my choice. I'm not saying that's what everyone should do.

No, this is not a flawless, 100% fool-proof answer. It's simply one step that I think that COULD be taken to take a bite out of the problem.

[racerford]

I have a simpler question. So the guy shows up, maybe with a friend in the car, or another car that you don't see. You asked to see his license. He says FELON on it. Now what? You are standing face to face with a murderer (or something else) and you say sorry, I can't sell it too you, because you are a felon. He says ok then I will just take as his friend points a weapon at you. Now what?

I guess your supposition is that they would not even attempt to buy if they have a restricted license? How would you know if it were counterfeit?

People are worried that private transactions are happening at a gun show. That is way safer as a seller, and buyer than meeting in the parking lot of Walmart.

I have regetted every gun I have sold. I would not sell any gun in the future to someone I didn't know, or at a gun show or to a dealer.

[WarCry]

Originally Posted by racerford

I have a simpler question. So the guy shows up, maybe with a friend in the car, or another car that you don't see. You asked to see his license. He says FELON on it. Now what? You are standing face to face with a murderer (or something else) and you say sorry, I can't sell it too you, because you are a felon. He says ok then I will just take as his friend points a weapon at you. Now what?

I guess your supposition is that they would not even attempt to buy if they have a restricted license? How would you know if it were counterfeit?

People are worried that private transactions are happening at a gun show. That is way safer as a seller, and buyer than meeting in the parking lot of Walmart.

I have regetted every gun I have sold. I would not sell any gun in the future to someone I didn't know, or at a gun show or to a dealer.

Let me show you something about your question:

While it's a long shot, why should we take the chance on selling AR-15 style rifles? I mean, there's an outside chance that someone might take one and use it to kill a bunch of people. No, it would be easier to just not allow them to be sold at all because of that minimal risk.

Yes, selling a gun in private sales are a risk. Unless you're saying private sales should be done away with (and good luck selling THAT around here!), then you're just going to have accept that there are risks. This is an idea to try and help the good guys stay good guys, that's all.