hogshead
Member
To many laws now. Unless I am mistaken this law you are proposing would have done absolutly no good on any of the mass shootings of late.If your so concerned about selling to a prohibited person require a CCP or go through a ffl.
To further your analogy - I support your decision to buy a car alarm. That does not give you the right to force me to buy one even if it makes no sense for my situation.
Your idea causes time and money to be expended for no gain. That is an impediment. How large of an impediment depends on the implementation. When some bureaucrat marks you as "not allowed " by mistake or fiat and you have to fight it in court, that would be an impediment that some would not be able to overcome.
I mentioned this would be easy to get around if you were a criminal. Have you never heard of fake ID's? Criminals use them. How is this an improvement if you sell to a criminal with a fake ID?
I haven't proposed any law. Nor am I advocating for any new laws to be put in place. And I never claimed that any mass shootings would have been prevented. Please do not try to make this into more than what it is. And, what it is, is a discussion about a possible method to easily identify prohibited persons relative to a private transfer of a firearm.To many laws now. Unless I am mistaken this law you are proposing would have done absolutly no good on any of the mass shootings of late.If your so concerned about selling to a prohibited person require a CCP or go through a ffl.
I don't disagree. But, this discussion is not about spending money we don't have to build and operate new prisons. Nor is it about fundamentally changing the way the country views and implements the death penalty.The only way to keep violent criminals and the insane from using firearms on the public is to prevent their interaction with the public, but we don't do that.
Inconviencing the law abiding citizen while NOT doing anything to deter an actual criminal from obtaining a gun is an idea that is just so...liberal, that it's bound to garner support.
Actually, I am simply looking at the feasibility of a common tool with which private sellers could identify prohibited buyers, in an effort to help keep such buyers from illegally obtaining firearms from unwary sellers. And, I haven't ever mentioned trying to make participation in such a program mandatory, national or otherwise. On the contrary, I specifically made a clarification that this discussion is about individual programs administered by each State individually. Please don't try to twist this into something that it's not.You are concentrating on the tool as the reason for violence, not the criminal who is the real cause.
Well, I suppose you could. So, I guess we should just give you a gun then, so that society won't be accused of forcing you to commit yet another crime when you do steal one. "Boo Hoo! Nobody would illegally sell me a gun, so I had to go and steal one... It's all your fault that I'm a criminal."Let's assume your plan is implemented and I have an I.D. that prevents me from owning a firearm.
So I'll just steal one.
ngnrd said:Seriously. Can anybody provide any legitimate input on the concept? Or can you only make lame excuses for not wanting to try to keep prohibited persons from buying firearms, and complain that any discussion about it is an infringement of your rights. C'mon guys. You're better than this.
After going back and reading all of the replies again, I think I should clarify something.
I'm not describing a national background check, run by the Federal government. That program already exists, and is limited to commercial/retail sales of firearms. What I'm describing is a State run program wherein each State uses its own existing database of felons, or violent offenders, or whatever other criteria is allowed by their individual Constitutions, to provide a means to identify prohibited individuals during a private sale.
I don't know if that makes it better or worse. But, I still think it's worth discussing.
No it is not. You are free to go to an FFL and ask him to facilitate the transfer for you. Many will gladly do this and collect $50 for their troubles.and is limited to commercial/retail sales of firearms.
None whatsoever, unless you count as a benefit infringing on EVERYONE'S rights to accomplish absolutely nothing tangible while increasing taxes on everyone to pay for such a program.Are you saying that there would be no benefit to such a program?
And again, I understand that criminals are very adept at finding ways of circumventing the law. But is it your position that because of this we should have no law at all?
Well to be fair...if he's in the business of regularly selling firearms, he should probably be a licensed dealer. I got no problem with people defining their own criteria for private transactions...it's his gun, he has every right to set the conditions of sale.I think that your personal policy is commendable. But alas, I neither have a CCW permit, nor am a member of any gun club. So, even though I am in no way prohibited from owning firearms, you have chosen to exclude me as a buyer. I agree with your reasons. But it certainly limits your market, doesn't it?
So you think it is incumbent on the general population to prevent criminals from being criminals?All valid points.
As I mentioned earlier, the cost of such a program is an issue for which I have not seen any good solution. And, false positives could certainly prove to be a serious problem. Fake ID's? Yes, that could reduce the program's effectiveness. But, again... I know that a real car thief will steal my truck if he wants it. Isn't it my duty as a responsible car owner to remove the keys and lock the doors anyway? Or is it better to just leave everything open because I know that criminals don't respect locks?
This goes to the point that I keep trying to make to people on both sides of this debate - have things gotten better or worse, from a gun crime standpoint, since we started creating all these new laws and background check requirements since 68? If things have gotten worse, how can one logically assume that more of the same will garner a different result?I do not agree with background checks at all. They serve only the government for the purposes of confiscation and/or persecution at some level (healthcare provisoins are the next threat).
Prior to 1968, you could purchase a gun through the mail and they would send it to your home. They advertised in comic books and just about everywhere else.
We know for a fact that criminals acquire their guns through theft and other means. Background checks will stop a few purchases, but those people will go to friends, spouses, random people, or turn to crime, to get the guns they want.
It's a complete farce, just like the TSA garbage that goes on in the airports. Do not fall for the lies and propaganda. You are not supporting anything that does one bit of good.
I believe that citizens have a responsibility to do their due diligence when selling or giving away items that have a reasonable risk of being used for illegal activities or harm to others. I'm not going to sell you a gun if I have a suspicion that you are a criminal or a moron any more than I would sell you a puppy or let you date my daughter.So you think it is incumbent on the general population to prevent criminals from being criminals?