Would you use a free background check service?

Something similar to what law enforcement uses to do a criminal history check that reports ONLY firearm owning disqualifications in your state wouldn't be hard to do. For example in Texas, felony convictions with the release/end of parole date less than 5 years, a family violence conviction, or an active protective order. And a drivers license to establish state residency would be the other part. There are a few other things that would need to be added from the feds, but it wouldn't be a huge database pool their checking against.

All of the above information is complete public record, and based on open court records not some hidden watch list.

I for one would be fine using something like the above when I sell a gun to a stranger. I have passed on sales before due to them "not feeling right," and something like this would be helpful.

For those concerned about it tracking "who is buying guns" that could be very easily defeated by simply running random queries, to complete screw up the list of folks being queried.

I tend to agree with the view that the intent of the antis, in regard to a UBC system, is backdoor registration. Obviously they are not openly stating it that way, but they have the initiative and that is what they are going to get if it passes.

The many constructive alternatives, mentioned above in this thread, could come to fruition only if the pro-gun side took the initiative on UBC's. That's not going to happen as long as the pro-gun side is locked into adamant opposition to everything (stonewalling). This is the tragedy of the whole gun debate. Our inflexibility is going to be our undoing.

(And yes, inflexibility and stonewalling worked fine as long as we had the upper hand politically. Unfortunately, due to a number of factors, there's a sea change coming and we're about to lose the upper hand.)

Jenrick said:

Something similar to what law enforcement uses to do a criminal history check that reports ONLY firearm owning disqualifications in your state wouldn't be hard to do. For example in Texas, felony convictions with the release/end of parole date less than 5 years, a family violence conviction, or an active protective order. And a drivers license to establish state residency would be the other part. There are a few other things that would need to be added from the feds, but it wouldn't be a huge database pool their checking against.

All of the above information is complete public record, and based on open court records not some hidden watch list.

I for one would be fine using something like the above when I sell a gun to a stranger. I have passed on sales before due to them "not feeling right," and something like this would be helpful.

For those concerned about it tracking "who is buying guns" that could be very easily defeated by simply running random queries, to complete screw up the list of folks being queried.

Click to expand...

The key here is selling gun to a stranger. This greatly expands who one can sell a gun to. That is real benefit of UBC.

I live in Maine. It is a free state as far as firearms. So l once had a firearm stolen, then recovered, then the court case. I finally got word l could pick up my rifle but when there l had to provide a bill of sale AND pass a UBC. For an old type68 Arasaka that had been rebarreled mind you. I had purchased it in a private sale with no paper work. They stated l might have stolen it so needed proof of ownership to get it back. My reply was if l had been given it by a deceased realitive with no paperwork years ago how was l going to get my stolen property returned legally. Also l asked if they had anyone else trying to claim that rifle as theirs. They said no. I had the SN and pictures of it in my computer l showed them. Then they handed it over without further problems or a UBC. None of the hassle was needed as l was the reporting person and gave them the SN when it was reported stolen. Sigh--------* Obviously the new DA came from a non free state and wanted to do things his way. Many problems with this approach around here though.

I would like a readily available background check system and even a requirement to keep records similar to what has been the norm under a Curio & Relics license.

In my state (Ohio) a CCW issued after 2015 can substitute a BC (at FFL discretion) shouldn’t the private seller accept it as well? Then the solution would be no CCW no sale.

FWIW the greatest danger in UBC is that it makes a gun something more than what it is my personal property, in a free society citizens are free to buy and sell personal property.

If I sell a gun that I had a background check on, it will only be sold to someone who will fill out a bill of sale, with date and time of sale on it.

If there's any future problem with that gun and it comes to me as being the last recorded owner, I want to have proof it was no longer mine. I do the same with vehicles I sell, record date and time on bill of sale. Someone buys my car, has an accident before they register it and bails, I want proof it was no longer mine.

No.
I wouldn't use it no matter what side of the isle I was on.
I would never ask a private individual to do it, and if a private seller asked me to, I'd politely say "no thanks."
The most I am willing to do in a private transaction is show my CHL to the seller to ensure them I am a resident and a non-prohibited person. No photos, no recording my personal information. You can look. If you want more than that, sell it to someone else.

Tom Servo said:

There are two concerns here. The first is the extent of the information that has to go into such a system. That's a goldmine for identity theft, and it's bait for hackers.

Click to expand...

Always a worry in today's world.

The second is the misconception that gun-control advocates would let us have anything that does us good. Any proposed system would end up being poisoned or used against us.

Click to expand...

Another worry

Given that nobody has been able to show any kind of strong correlation between background checks and a reduction in crime, it's safe to say the original system is broken and useless.

Click to expand...

In 2017 there were about 181,000 denials for purchase by a prohibited individual.
https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/694290.pdf

That's just short of 500 a day. Each denial is a probable felony and gods know what they were planning to do with them. I know in Fla BR checks are mandated to be purged after a couple of days. It is when I check what BR checks I have run, any over a couple of days the names are purged.

I had shared elsewhere about the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation stopped two sales of stolen handguns in businesses. I rather have them found there than on me later on. My dealer will call in serial numbers for me. This call is permitted in Tennessee. The deal is I have to be there understanding the gun must be turned over if hot. The reason is that I do not want to spend $600.00 on a custom work to have gun taken as stolen later. I don't want a stolen gun under any circumstances.

I don't worry what might happen. I could be hit by lighting on the way there. Taylor Swift could kidnap me or hit by a meteor. The anti-gun people have told me the neighbors will be turning gun owners in. Also, they will listen for the sound of gun shots. "Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof"

FlSwampRat said:

In 2017 there were about 181,000 denials for purchase by a prohibited individual. That's just short of 500 a day. Each denial is a probable felony

Click to expand...

Actually, no. The majority of denials (Lott has quoted as much as 86%) are in error. The problem is, if I'm denied, the process to get it fixed is very opaque, very difficult, and often expensive. And I have to go through that even though I've done nothing wrong.

The aggregate number of denials is often quoted as "proof" that the system works. When they were pushing Manchin-Toomey in 2013, they loved to brag that NICS "kept 1.6 million felons, domestic abusers, and drug dealers from getting guns." That's an outright lie.

Furthermore, if even a fraction of those denials were due to felonies, why have there been fewer than 60 prosecutions for violations of the Brady Act since its inception in 1998?

FlSwampRat said:

In 2017 there were about 181,000 denials for purchase by a prohibited individual.
https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/694290.pdf
That's just short of 500 a day. Each denial is a probable felony and gods know what they were planning to do with them.

Click to expand...

Tom Servo said:

Actually, no. The majority of denials (Lott has quoted as much as 86%) are in error. The problem is, if I'm denied, the process to get it fixed is very opaque, very difficult, and often expensive. And I have to go through that even though I've done nothing wrong.
The aggregate number of denials is often quoted as "proof" that the system works. When they were pushing Manchin-Toomey in 2013, they loved to brag that NICS "kept 1.6 million felons, domestic abusers, and drug dealers from getting guns." That's an outright lie.
Furthermore, if even a fraction of those denials were due to felonies, why have there been fewer than 60 prosecutions for violations of the Brady Act since its inception in 1998?

Click to expand...

Please note the word "Probable" in my original post. These numbers are from the government accounting office. The reasons boil down to just two. Prohibited person or bad data in the system, which is why I strongly advocate for fixing the dratted system. But, it's only as good as the people supporting it. Departments not reporting all pertinent data, courts not updating statuses, mistyped data, etc.

As for why there weren't more prosecutions, I have no idea. Every pawn in South Florida is automatically reported via the days transactions being directly uploaded to the local LEOs daily. Serial numbers are compared with information from reported thefts. But I can tell you that in the 90's when I worked in Miami-Dade County they were going over every pawn/buy form running the names as well looking for prohibited persons getting rid of guns. On the pawn form you swear you own what you're pawning or selling. If you have a firearm and are a prohibited person, instant felony. I know, I testified against enough of the people doing it.

I think I would use it.
I would like to know that the person to whom I was selling was not prohibited and then only if I thought the sale were not somehow recorded. If I was selling now I'd insist that the firearm go through a FFL, even at my expense. The reason for that is my desire for a 100% clean break: an unassailable record of sale and of course the associated background check.

I wouldn’t ask someone to do something I wouldn’t be willing to do.

That said I wouldn’t mind a free system the didn’t allow the (private) seller to access my personal information, and didn’t allow big brother to have any information about the gun I am buying, obviously said system would have to be voluntary.

So yes, if such a thing were available, I’d use it.

DeepSouth said:

I wouldn’t ask someone to do something I wouldn’t be willing to do.
That said I wouldn’t mind a free system the didn’t allow the (private) seller to access my personal information, and didn’t allow big brother to have any information about the gun I am buying, obviously said system would have to be voluntary.
So yes, if such a thing were available, I’d use it.

Click to expand...

In Fla we only submit name, type of gun (handgun, rifle, shotgun), type of transfer (sale, pawn redemption, etc), DOB, POB, race, sex and state of residence, which has to be Fla. SSN is optional. I get back approved, non-approved or conditional.

I've never sold a gun privately and am not likely to.

What I dont understand about this check on private sales is how it would make a difference. We see all these shooters that have bought guns legally from FFLs that run the same check that is being discussed here for private sales.

I've sold plenty of cars privately and never asked to see any type of ID or run a BGC. What if someone I sold a car to had a history or plans and decided to mow down a populated area? Should we require the same for all private car sales?


None of the expansion on BGCs makes any sense at all.

I think it's a good idea.

Right up there with, not automatically taking taxes FICA / SS out of a persons payroll check. You should have to voluntarily submit it. Once ppl see the shear volume of taxes surrended to the .god er, .gov , they will recoil. This is known, and, why the ''auto deduction'' is continued.

I HAVE SEEN PPL buying new guns at a known, good upstanding dealer/general merchandise store chain get a deny. Dude looked up to them and said , ''again?''
I know a former officer of high rank, trainer of high level police, in state and across the nation, holder of credentials is as thick as a small phone book, 1000% deny, every time, week in & out month I/O, year, decades. Nope the PIN thingie didn't help either.

** Let ppl see the abuses of the UBC system at hand, personal, as happening to them, friends, family, neighbors. WITH A SUNSET PROVISION , OF COURSE

Meeks36 said:

When I buy or sell I always ask are you willing to do a bill of sale. Lost a good deal on a sks on Armslist. Guy said he would rather not. So I never contacted him again. Just seemed to shady.

Click to expand...

I always avoid sellers on armslist that require a bill of sale. You may think it's shady, but I'd prefer that you don't have a permanent record of my information. I've seen sellers say they're going to take a picture of my CCW license too, again, no thanks. I don't have a problem showing my CCW permit to you if that's what it takes, but that's as far as I'm willing to go.

Good Ol' Boy said:

I've never sold a gun privately and am not likely to.

What I dont understand about this check on private sales is how it would make a difference. We see all these shooters that have bought guns legally from FFLs that run the same check that is being discussed here for private sales.

I've sold plenty of cars privately and never asked to see any type of ID or run a BGC. What if someone I sold a car to had a history or plans and decided to mow down a populated area? Should we require the same for all private car sales?


None of the expansion on BGCs makes any sense at all.

Click to expand...

I'm guessing it wouldn't make a difference. If the BC were voluntary, I would use it to hopefully shield myself from liability.

BigSteve57 said:

If the BC were voluntary, I would use it to hopefully shield myself from liability.

Click to expand...

What makes you think that you have any liability with way things are now?

bearcreek said:

What makes you think that you have any liability with way things are now?

Click to expand...

Because people can sue that maker of a firearm for what some nutcase did by way of misusing their product. A direct seller would be much more targetable by those looking to sue.

I notice that individuals who supplied firearms in mass shooting are being prosecuting and attempts are made to sue gun makers. Would the seller be responsible if the buyer was excluded legally from gun ownership. Also, would the seller be liable if buyer committed a gun related felony with injures? Next.

FlSwampRat said:

Because people can sue that maker of a firearm for what some nutcase did by way of misusing their product. A direct seller would be much more targetable by those looking to sue.

Click to expand...

Has that ever happened?