Would you use a free background check service?

[bearcreek]

For purposes of negligent entrustment, I'm not convinced that a sale would be any different than a loan. I could make an argument that it is, but I haven't seen any authority to support it. Then again, I haven't done any significant research on that issue.

Seems like the biggest difference would be that generally, with a loan, you know something about the person. With a private sale, you don't, you just have to reasonably believe that they're not a prohibited person. Even with loans, in some cases, you don't have to know that the person is responsible, you just have to not know that they aren't. For example, in the document you posted earlier is a case, McBrayer v. Dickerson, in which a kid was held (quoting the synopsis) "not liable for negligent entrustment of firearm to friend who accidentally shot third party absent showing that juvenile knew of friend's incompetence or habitual recklessness".

 

[bearcreek]

not happening in a million years. all my guns go through an FFL and that should be enough.

So...you're already doing it. Going through an FFL when you're not legally required to is almost exactly what we're talking about, it's just more intrusive and isn't free.

 

[Spats McGee]

Seems like the biggest difference would be that generally, with a loan, you know something about the person. With a private sale, you don't, you just have to reasonably believe that they're not a prohibited person. Even with loans, in some cases, you don't have to know that the person is responsible, you just have to not know that they aren't. For example, in the document you posted earlier is a case, McBrayer v. Dickerson, in which a kid was held (quoting the synopsis) "not liable for negligent entrustment of firearm to friend who accidentally shot third party absent showing that juvenile knew of friend's incompetence or habitual recklessness".

Agreed, but that's not quite the point I was trying to make. What you've discussed is a set of underlying, operative facts that might be proven at trial. What I was trying to get at was that if I'm sued for negligent entrustment, I don't think the legal tests would change, based on whether it was a sale or a loan. Under a given set of facts, I might be found to have negligently entrusted a firearm to Person A, whether it was a sale or a loan. I don't think the "sale vs. loan" aspect changes the tests, but there's an argument that it might. In any event, that discussion is probably best reserved for another thread.

 

[CraigC]

No, I shouldn't have to ask the gov't for permission to buy or sell personal property.

 

[bearcreek]

Are you saying i or people should buy guns directly from each other without without the aid of an FFL ?

That's not what I was saying when I responded to you but yes, you should be doing that. It's not legal in some states but in most it is.

Look there's a really i am at home drinking beer and typing this message and that because i am not in jail or having some kinda issue with the law. But going through an FFL is the most i can do. Another background check besides that is unnecessary to me.

No one here is talking about "another" background check. They're talking about a voluntary, free one where one is currently not legally required.

 

[Spats McGee]

Are you saying i or people should buy guns directly from each other without without the aid of an FFL ?

Why not? It's legal in most states, including my own. With that said, if you want to use an FFL for your private transactions, that's perfectly legal, too. I also have to admit that I don't know your location, so it may or may not be legal in your state.

Look there's a really i am at home drinking beer and typing this message and that because i am not in jail or having some kinda issue with the law. But going through an FFL is the most i can do. Another background check besides that is unnecessary to me. Because owner/carry a firearms has nothing to do with the constitution. its not a right given to me by the government because its a choice of freedom.

I'm gonna have to disagree with the underlined part.

 

[sota]

The only system I've heard described is one where the "buyer" requests a verification code that the seller can input into the site that gives him a pass/fail response.
However I, as buyer or seller, wouldn't want to indicate i'm involved in a firearms transaction.

 

[GBExpat]

... If there was a free (not mandatory) National background check number that anyone, not just a registered Federal Firearms dealer to call just to be sure I would have happily complied. If there was such a service, would you use it? ...

If the unknown-to-me Buyer could not provide a current CHP, yes, I probably would.

If I were the Buyer, I would have no problem with the Seller running my basic info (name/address/phone) thru such a system. I would not provide (or ask to be provided) anything more specific (such as SSN).

 

[SamT1]

Facebook gun sales used to be the best. Someone message you about a gun, you creep them a little and see where they live, who they hang with, and their general view on life. They do get really pissed when you won’t sell to them though! That was the day. I’d argue it was the best background check system ever.