An idea for a reasonable and non-invasive gun-control law

[krispos42]

As most of us know, there is a way to buy guns that avoids the federal NICS background check. This method is to simply buy a used gun from another private seller in the same way you bought that old sofa from your uncle without having to involve a furniture store.

This is popularly, although incorrectly, know as the "gun-show loophole". Most of the regulars here know why it's wrong so I won't go into details. If you don't know, ask.

Anyway, this is one avenue that criminals and other people that have had their right to purchase or bear a gun removed via due process can use to acquire a gun. There are others, of course. Straw purchases and theft are two other big ones.

But I think I have figured out a way to keep people from selling or giving guns to people that can't possess them without (and this is the important part) creating a treasure trove of information for the government and corporations to sift through AND doesn't make people drives dozens of miles to a federally licensed gun dealer (twice, if your state has a waiting period) and pay a service fee.


How about this:

When you apply for a driver's license or another form of state-issued ID, you are automatically run through the NICS system to see if you are prohibited or not. Each state has an ID card with a corner that says something like "NICS OK". If you pass the NICS check, the ID is issued to you with that corner intact. If you fail to pass, the DMV clerk snips off that corner before handing you (or mailing you) your ID.

If this system was implemented, checking to see if the person at your yard sale eying your shotgun was prohibited would be a simple manner of checking their ID to see if the corner of it was missing.

The system would have the advantage of being able to be updated quickly. If, say, you had a restraining order issued against you, the bailiff could take your ID card and snip off the corner right then and there in the courtroom.

There are privacy issues. You can buy a gun unless you're a) a convicted felon, b) a convicted domestic abuser, c) involuntarily committed to a mental institution, or d) not a US citizen. There are probably a couple of more as well that I can't think of off the top of my head. Anyway, if you show your ID to, say, the guy at the checkout line of the grocery store and he see the missing corner, he knows that you are one or more of the above. Unless, of course, there was an opt-out at the DMV.

If you can choose to opt-out of the NICS check at the DMV, then the missing corner of the ID really doesn't mean anything negative anymore. It is no longer a label.

Now, there is no excuse for NOT knowing if the person you are selling your privately-owned handgun to is qualified. "Show me the NICS OK" at the sale is all that has to be done.

Naturally, licensed dealers, called FFLs, would still have to use the call-in NICS system at the point of sale to make sure the most current information is used.

We could probably reasonably say that if you can't buy a gun, you also can't buy ammunition or magazines for a gun either. This could also be a requirement for private sales of magazines and ammunition.... show me the "NICS OK"! We probably don't have to extend this to all gun accessories (sights, laser beams, stocks, grips, etc.) but ammo and magazines seems reasonable.


We could also probably reasonably require that when a private seller sells a gun, he or she makes a photocopy or takes a picture of the person's ID and records the make, model, and serial number of the gun being sold. The private seller would have to store this information for a set period of time, say, 1 year or 5 years or something. This way, if the sold firearm is quickly used in a crime (characteristic straw purchases) the police can quickly back-track the gun's chain of ownership and come up with a suspect or two. But because the records are in the hands of private citizens, the police cannot simply troll through a database. Privacy is respected.


I will state up front that this would not have stopped any mass shootings in recent history. Not Columbine, not Virginia Tech, not Tucson or however you spell the city's name. The first was a classic straw purchase and the straw purchasers went to prison for their role. The 2nd and 3rd were done using guns legally bought through the existing system.

However it would probably do a better job of making guns harder for career violent criminals to get, and thus probably lower the rate of gun-involved violent crimes and domestic abuses. And it would do so without inconveniencing millions of legitimate gun purchasers annually or creating yet another government database for authoritarian politicians to troll through. It just might make a dent in the non-front-page murders that make up the vast bulk of American homicides.



If the people of DU think this is a good idea, maybe we can act together to let our elected representatives know of this. It may not be able to be done on a nationwide level, but on a state-by state level is a possibility, as the states are the issuing authorities of IDs.

I appreciate all feedback.

[shadowrider]

1. At first glance, it appears reasonable

However, to an anti, if it doesn't contain the words, "Ban, registration etc.", it isn't acceptable.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

2. How about just a little logo ot marking somewhere on the ID

[X_Digger]

3. Then it couldn't be 'snipped off' -- you'd have to print a new ID without the logo. n/t

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

6. So? Your ID is printed at the DMV anyhow.

Instead of the DMV clerk cutting corners, the ID print is modified. Either way, it happens when the ID is made. Plus, snipping a corner makes the ID overtly noticable... perhaps to others watching whom you don't want to see.

I don't like when government agencies cut corners anyhow.

[krispos42]

9. It takes time to get a new ID... and money.

In Minnesota, for example, they mail you new ones whenever you change your address. Takes several days. So if I get sent to a mental institution for a couple of days, I still have my old ID before my new one arrives. And what's to stop me from using the old one to still buy guns to take revenge on that bastard egghead doctor that's probably part of the conspiracy by the Tri-Lateral Commission anyway?

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

11. I would grant powers for police depts or other agencies to issue replacement IDs.

Have a new ID provided to the offender on the spot and destroy the old one.
No new picture or expiration date needed. Just swap it out before releasing the person.

[krispos42]

48. Offhand, I would say it would be due to budget and security concerns.

You're talking about all of a sudden having to buy lots of ID-printing machines and have them securely managed. That would likely be turned down in favor of having the baliffs just whack off a corner with a pair of scissors. When the person's right to buy a gun is restored, they can apply back at the DMV for a new license with 4 corners.

[X_Digger]

16. *snort*

[X_Digger]

4. 90% agree..

.. the 10% comes with requiring retention of the ID information.

When I've sold a gun in the past, I write up a bill of sale. I don't retain a person's address or driver's license number- just name, city, state.

I wouldn't be cool with someone doing that to me, either, identity theft being what it is.

The presumption would be that you have to prove you're innocent, rather than the state having to prove you're guilty. Not cool.

[krispos42]

10. Good points. Hmmm.... something to think about. n/t

[krispos42]

53. Of course, the buyer would be trying to steal the identity of a person...

... that a) knows where the seller lives, and b) owns a gun!

[chibajoe]

5. That is actually an excellent, well though out solution.

Consequently, it will never be accepted by either side. I'm not really ok with the requirement that private sellers need to keep records, simply because it's kinda silly considering that you're not required to keep records on anything else you sell to another individual (not to mention that it probably wouldn't pass legal muster).

[krispos42]

54. Well, in lieu of a permantent government-maintained record...

...it seems to be the lesser of two evils.

[RSillsbee]

7. No

Is that simple enough for you?

[krispos42]

8. Yes, although feedback would be appreciated n/t

[RSillsbee]

13. I'm against it because it edges up to REAL ID

I have friends who are illegal aliens. I have had the opportunity to examine their documents thoroughly and I can't tell the difference. Do you see where I am going w/ this?

First demonstrate to me that a significant portion of of guns used in crime are being purchased in private sales. Then explain how this works w/ out registration. I own several firearms that I purchased privately that aren't tied to me on paper at all. How do you prove I sold them to a criminal w/ out registration?

Then, we'll talk

SPELLING

[Atypical Liberal]

30. The beauty of this system is it avoids registration.

The beauty of this system is that it avoids registration. Because it would be an opt-out system, rather than opt-in, just because someone has an FOID does not mean that they actually own firearms. Hence, no registry of firearm owners.

In Illinois, you are required to keep a record of who you privately sold firearms to for 10 years. Failure to do so is a petty offense.

Any firearm sold in at least the last decade, and probably much earlier, can be traced, from its serial number, to the FFL who originally sold it. They can provide the information to who it was sold to.

After the passage of the proposed law, police could then go to the FFL, and then go to each subsequent owner of the firearm, until they find the last legitimate owner of the firearm who has paperwork on file to who they sold it to.

[RSillsbee]

35. Tracing firearms

The firearms I own "off paper" are completely off paper. What I mean by that is the person I bought them from kept no record of the sale. When the police get to them the trail is done. The one gun I've sold in the last 10 years went to a guy on THR who's real name I don't know, not that it matters because I got the gun in box of junk.

There are millions of guns out there that just "fall off the the map" after the first owner how do we (w/ out registration) regulate the sale of them?

[Atypical Liberal]

36. Obviously the system does nothing for many firearms already in circulation.

Any firearm that has been privately purchased to-date will obviously be "off paper" and untraceable.

Any firearm that was purchased from an FFL to-date (within the last decade or more) will be "on paper".

But going forward, all firearm sales would be "on paper".

[RSillsbee]

38. I just don't see it working

Or more correctly I'm sure there is more potential for abuse than good

[Atypical Liberal]

39. Such as?

I see this as a win-win situation. It makes it so that going forward, all legal firearm owners have gone through a background check. It takes away the whole "gun show loophole" argument. And yet it preserves anonymous firearm ownership.

It also won't do much to deter crime, but then we all know that that is already the case. Criminals won't obey laws, and criminals will never be hindered in obtaining them. They will either obtain stolen firearms, ones with no paperwork, or sellers will become diligent in grinding off serial numbers.

But all legal firearm owners (people unlikely to be involved in crime anyway) will be vetted, without creating a registry.

[RSillsbee]

40. It won't do much to deter crime

And when it doesn't the antis will start screaming for registration

[Atypical Liberal]

41. But that should then be pretty easy to head off.

Once it can be shown, definitively, that most firearm crime is committed by people operating outside the law, it should be easy to head off registration. At least, that's what I would think would be logical.

[RSillsbee]

46. It WOULD be logical if the goal were to stop crime

However, the antis have stated time and again, that their goal is 100% confiscation of privately owned firearms. As (I think) Beevul has posted there are several direct quotations floating around here to that effect. ADDED QUOTES (while Beevul is busy destroying Tokyo)

We're going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily -- given the political realities -- going to be very modest. . . . e'll have to start working again to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen the next law, and maybe again and again. Right now, though, we'd be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal -- total control of handguns in the United States -- is going to take time. . . . The first problem is to slow down the number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered. The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition-except for the military, police, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors-totally illegal.

Pete Shields, founder of Handgun Control, Inc. which is now the brady campaign

"Brady Bill is "the minimum step" that Congress should take to control handguns. "We need much stricter gun control, and eventually we should bar the ownership of handguns except in a few cases,"

Rep. William L. Clay D-St. Louis, Mo

I think you have to do it a step at a time and I think that is what the NRA is most concerned about, is that it will happen one very small step at a time, so that by the time people have "woken up" to what's happened, it's gone farther than what they feel the consensus of American citizens would be. But it does have to go one step at a time and the beginning of the banning of semi-assault military weapons, that are military weapons, not "household" weapons, is the first step."

Stockton, California Mayor Barbara Fass


Knowing their goal why concede anything?

IMO that's like giving a rapist a blowjob and hopping he's happy w/ that

[krispos42]

47. You're worried about forged documents?

Well, I'm not sure what the going price is for a good fake ID, but I imagine it's reasonably expensive. I really don't see anybody except dedicated gunrunners spending a couple of thousand dollars to "legally" purchase a $600 handgun or $400 shotgun, but, hey, it siphons away money that could used to buy guns instead.

As to the percentage of privately-purchased guns used in crime, I'm trying to remember what the BJS said about this. IIRC, something like 40% of guns used in crimes were stolen and about 40% were acquired via straw purchasers. This leave 20% that come from "other", including guns bought from an FFL and those acquired from private sellers. Again, if I recall correctly.

Regarding registration, well, it would work like this: FFL sells a gun that eventually, several years later, gets used in a crime and is left on the scene, or is perhaps pulled off of an arrested suspect or seized in a search. Regardless, the police get the records of the initial sale and go track down the initial buyer. Assuming they find him, they ask him when he sold the gun in question and who he sold it to. And so on and so forth down the line until the trail peters out with a theft, or they find the guy that sold the gun to a person with his rights revoked.

The system would take time to work its way into common usage. For example, both you and I have guns that no government agency knows we have because we got them from private sellers. If, after my proposed law took effect, you or I sold a gun to a person with a cut-corner ID, they are not traceable from the FFL and initial point-of-sale. However, the criminal we sold them to could squeal to the cops about the private seller he bought the gun from. Thus, this forms more of a dis-incentive for private sellers to sell to cut-corner ID holders.

[beevul]

12. Without the wrinkles ironed out...

Without the wrinkles ironed out, as others have done a fine job mentioning, AND, something of equal value in return, I say no.

[RSillsbee]

14. Constitutional carry in all 50 states?

After all it says right on your DL you're NICS OK

[beevul]

15. No.

We already have "shall issue" in most states, and its only a matter of time before the exceptions are forced in line.

I'm thinking something more along the lines of repealing the hughes amendment at a bare minimum, and maybe even a free or 1 dollar tax stamp to boot.

[RSillsbee]

17. How about repeal of NFA entirely?

and "Shall issue" ( although it beats "May discriminate" ) isn't gettin' it for me I want Vermont carry

[YllwFvr]

42. right

shall issue isnt working too well here in Pa, its a joke. Shall NOT issue seems to be the SOP in Philthadelphia

[YllwFvr]

43. people are looking into destroying the hughes amend

already. The video of it passing seems rather shady.

[krispos42]

55. How about lifting the bans on imported guns?

I've heard criticism from time to time about how some guns can't be imported because they don't have enough "points" to be imported. The example I remember is how Walther make the PPK/S pistol, which was basically a PP frame (regular size) with a PPK barrel/slide (compact size) so that the PPK/S could be imported.

I've also heard that federal law or presidential executive order or ATF regulations now prohibit the importation of civilianized AK-47s or some such nonsense... something about "domestic contest" minimums or something? And that gun makers can't make new AK-47 pattern rifles?

What if those restrictions were lifted?

I'd also like to see retired US weapons converted to semi-automatic only and sold on the US civilian market. All those guns the Army is capturing from insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan, too... instead of blowing them up, ship'em back to the US and sell them to gun dealers in lots.

And how about selling Pentagon-surplus ammo without pulling it apart? That would be nice, I think.

[hack89]

18. So anyone who knows they are ineligible ops out of NICS

and buys a gun in a private sale that doesn't require NICS. Don't see what you have accomplished here.

[X_Digger]

19. A scrupulous seller (like most of them) would ask to see ID..

Then on seeing the clipped corner? No sale.

[hack89]

21. And the guy says "I opted out of NICS but I can legally buy your gun"

and the seller says "OK - I have no reason to doubt you."

[X_Digger]

22. So have 'opted out' be a different corner cut off.

The idea isn't to stop all illegal sales, but give a tool to those private sellers who'd rather not sell to a prohibited person.

No registration, no having to chase down an FFL.

Seems like a win-win to me.

The only other downside I can see is that it'd take a while for these new IDs to filter out to the population. (In Texas, it would be five years.)

[hack89]

23. Doesn't the idea of a DMV database

with so much private information concern you? A nice handy list of all potential gun owners with pictures and addresses can't possibly be misused, can it?

[X_Digger]

24. That's the beauty of it.. it's opt-out.

Everyone would get run through NICS, unless they opt-out.

[hack89]

25. But isn't the intent to foster the notion that private sellers

don't sell to people unless they have gone through NICS? Don't you now have a database where those most likely to own a gun have just self identified?

If, on the other hand, your message to private sellers is "you can still legally sell to anyone regardless of whether they have submitted to NICS." then what is the point? You force states to spend a shit ton of money they don't have to accomplish what?

[X_Digger]

28. You have a database.. of everyone.. which is useless for confiscation.

Unless someone opts out of the NICS check, or is disqualified, they'd be in that database.

And even if you opt out, that doesn't mean you don't have a firearm, or didn't purchase one retail and go through NICS that way.

It's not tied to a gun purchase at the time of the check, so it would make a potential wanna-be confiscator gnash their teeth to get their hands on the list- it's useless for those purposes.

The intent is neither of the options you proposed. It serves as a tool for private sellers to ascertain whether or not a prospective buyer is eligible.

I'd think most sellers would abide by the corner- who wants to be fingered by a con when he's asked where he got the gun?

Those who don't care if they sell to a felon are likely already part of a black market, so other, more restrictive means of closing the 'gun show / water cooler / flea market / classified ad / yard sale loophole' would have no effect on them whatsoever.

It would be an easy 'gimme' that we could point to when they bitch about 'common sense / reasonable' restrictions. No fee, no having to chase down an FFL, no registration, no list of gun owners.

No, it's not cheap, and it does nothing to stop the black market sales that supply the majority of firearms to criminals. But it also doesn't restrict our liberty, preserves anonymous ownership, and takes away a major whining point of the gun control advocates.

[petronius]

29. But having the 'opted out' snip was to protect the privacy of prohibited persons

So if it's a different corner, that beneficial blurring is removed...

[X_Digger]

32. True, I thought of that after I posted.

You could either take their word for it, or not.. and expect no immunity if you present that answer if the cops come knocking.

Personally, I wouldn't sell to someone with a snipped corner.

(I already refuse to sell to someone who won't show me their driver's license.)

[krispos42]

57. Then the buyer and seller can go to an FFL.

The FFL would have access to the NICS database. If the guy opted out of the DMV NICS check then the FFL can simply run the sale through.

Or the buyer can get a new license and not opt-out.


But it would be an ironclad law: no corner, no sale by private citizens.

[hack89]

75. Or the seller will sell the gun

without a background check because it not worth the hassle or cost and he knows that the state doesn't have the resources to enforce it.

[krispos42]

78. Then he's a criminal. And if the police arrest him 3 years later,

well, too fuckin' bad.

[hack89]

79. But we know that criminals ignore existing gun laws

so I don't see how you can justify this considerable expense on the part of states to try to enforce a law that criminals will ignore. And isn't that the real issue - the criminal misuse of guns? 99.99 percent of gun owners will never be involved in gun violence so how can you justify wasting so much money on people that aren't causing the problem in the first place?

The states have better things to spend money on - education and health care come to mind. Either would be a better use of money then your scheme.

[krispos42]

87. I'd rather they pass something like my "scheme" than a ban on gun ergonomics

Oooo... it's got a pistol grip... weapon of mass destruction, certainly.


My idea prevents criminals from buying guns privately, puts people that do sell guns to criminals in jail, and puts straw purchasers for criminals in jail.


Bringing back the AWB does... what? Put more Repubes in office in 2012 through 2020?


No, if something *must* be passed by a panicky Congress to placate the masses, I would much rather my little scheme here than Rep. McCarthy's permanent "assault-weapons" ban.

[hack89]

90. How about leaving things the way they are?

which is the most realistic assumption into today's political environment. Your idea is a solution in search of a real problem. Lets spend our time and money on more pressing social issues.

[RSillsbee]

20. The idea is to make checking the ID mandatory in all sales

and when that's proved unenforceable they push for registration

[Atypical Liberal]

31. People would have an incentive not to do this.

So anyone who knows they are ineligible ops out of NICS and buys a gun in a private sale that doesn't require NICS. Don't see what you have accomplished here.

But sellers would have an incentive not to sell to people without a valid FOID. If you sold a firearm to someone without a valid FOID, odds are good that they will use that firearm in a crime, and it will end up in the hands of police, who will then trace the firearm back to its last legitimate owner.

In Illinois, it is a petty offense not to record who you sold a firearm to. I would beef that up by saying if you get caught not recording who you sold a firearm to you lose your own FOID for 3 years.

[spin]

26. K&R ...sounds like a reasonable idea to me.

[one-eyed fat man]

27. In Kentucky

The State Police run routine NICS checks every month on all holders of a Concealed Carry License. By selling only to someone with a CCW you would be reasonably well assured of their residency and eligibility.

I suspect that the ACLU would have a lot of heartburn over a driver's license anyone could look at and determine the holder was a "prohibited person."

Maybe it would cause no more consternation than the notion that gun owners should be branded in some way so those who believe them pariahs don't inadvertently find themselves in the same grid square.

[Atypical Liberal]

33. By being opt-out, no info is leaked.

I suspect that the ACLU would have a lot of heartburn over a driver's license anyone could look at and determine the holder was a "prohibited person."

Firstly, by making it an opt-out system, just because you don't have the FOID mark does not mean that you are a prohibited person. It may just mean that you opted out of the NICS check.

But, if this is really a concern, the information can be encrypted on the ID.

[one-eyed fat man]

34. If it's encrypted how does an ordinary seller know?

That's always been part of the objection. The impediment to access to NICS is not that people might not use it, it is that people will quickly abuse it. You have a job applicant, call NICS. Blind date for Saturday night, call NICS. Suspect your daughter's new boyfriend, call NICS.

If that weren't the objection the FBI could easily hire more folks to man the call center in Martinsburg, West Virginia to handle the greater volume of calls. They are likely the best paying jobs above ground in the area.

[Atypical Liberal]

37. You'd have to go somewhere to have it decrypted.

If the FOID status was encrypted, you would have to go to a local police department, or post office, or FFL dealer, and use a device to have it decrypted.

Or, you could take a picture of the encoding with your cell phone camera, upload it to the NICS web site, and have it decrypted real-time.

[YllwFvr]

44. Not a bad idea on the surface

but being able to visibly identify a person just by getting a peek at your DL I dont agree with. Perhaps something close to your idea like the small letters NICS on the back somewhere. A place that your average person wont look and see when you are IDed for tobacco or booze. Then a seller could look for it, but your average sales clerk wouldnt.

For example, a hologram on the back

That says NICS in one small spot

[Surf Fishing Guru]

50. I agree how about UV reactive ink?

NICS FAIL could be written on the back of all licenses in a reactive ink that only becomes visible under a certain wavelength of high intensity UV light. If one is under rights disablement the clerk does it at initial issuance, if one becomes ineligible later the person surrenders his license when his case is settled and it is done then and there by court personel. Once activated the words would be highly visible and unalterable.

[Statistical]

45. No. It lacks accountability and thus will provide nothing more than "feel good" effect.

I can see you spent time thinking about it so I am not being intentionally rude I just feel it would do nothing.

Here is why.

I have a gun I ask to see your ID, says it is ok. I sell you gun. You get caught turns out you were a felon. Ooops guess I got fooled by a fake ID. Now to cut a deal with the DA you say. "Hey this guy statistical knew I was a felon. He charged me extra (cash of course no accountability)." Of course you are willing to go states evidence to bust me.

On the other hand if the system has no penalty then I can easily sell guns to felons (charging more of course) and then claim plausible deniability that they must have had fake ID.

The system accomplishes nothing. We need a way for private persons to confidentially access NICS in a manner that still protects privacy and said system needs some method of accountability like a confirmation code. That way I have a confirmation code, I can put it in my safe and no matter what I am protected. Maybe the system screwed up, maybe the guy had a fake ID but I have this code which confirms that I need check w/ NICS and the system said "OK".

No accountability = no point. It really is just another feel good, do nothing law.

Of course there are also problems with my "proposal". It can be abused. There is no combination of personal information that would validate a person for a gun sale that couldn't be abused by other persons including employers, media, etc and that presents a privacy violation. One way to avoid that would be to have a mechanism for people to opt in AND back out of the "Person 2 Persons NICS". For example if someone is not opted in the system provides no indication of status. A person could "opt-in" complete a sale and then "opt out" again thus protecting one's privacy.

The reason no fast, easy, and effective solution has been developed is because it is a complex problem with no perfect solution.

[krispos42]

52. A confirmation code would require that permenant records be kept.

Sort of a de facto gun registry.

The ID issue is why I thought it would be best if the seller photocopied or photographed the ID; if it was obviously fake, the "oh, I was fooled by a fake ID" line would be flushed down the toilet.

I originally thought it would be best if the seller xeroxed the person's ID and took a picture of the person buying it and the gun being bought, but I thought that was a bit over the top.


The fast, easy, and effective solution is to simply require all sales to go through an FFL, but that would mean we would have to triple or quadruple the number of FFLs out there, and it would still be inconvenient!

[Statistical]

73. No it wouldn't.

I do a lot of work with cryptography in my job. Plenty of ways to generate a confirmation code (one way hash) that can be validated after the fact that don't require keeping records.

For example using a given hashing algorithm and a secret key (known only to NICS) a set of inputs will always generate the same output = hash / code. So verification after the fact can be accomplished without any records. Essentially law enforcement would simply provide the same inputs and would receive the same confirmation code.

[HankyDubs]

49. obviously this is a good idea

At least laying the groundwork for a reasonable and beautifully simple solution to the problem of illegal sales.

I commend krispos for introducing a sensible solution.

How do we know it is such a good idea?

The absolutist extremists hate it.

[beevul]

51. Long on allegations...

"The absolutist extremists hate it."

Long on allegations.

Short on proof.

[NewMoonTherian]

56. I'm an absolutist, and I don't see too much wrong with it.

RSillsbee had a great idea(see the sub-thread starting with post #12). I would happily agree to this legislation, in exchange for the repeal of the NFA. This strikes me as a reasonable compromise.

[RSillsbee]

58. And constitutional carry in all 50 states NT

[HankyDubs]

59. these posts just show

That the absolutist extremists are not serious about keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and maniacs.

The proposed idea does not impose any additional restriction on gun ownership, and actually makes life easier on private sellers by simplifying the process. If the absolutist extremists were serious about keeping guns out of the hands of maniacs and criminals, they would endorse this proposal, since the only thing it does is make it tougher for maniacs and criminals to purchase guns and ENFORCE EXISTING LAWS THAT THE EXTREMISTS PRETEND TO AGREE WITH.

But "in exchange" for this perfectly sensible and NON-INVASIVE proposal that would only target criminals and maniacs, the extremist absolutists demand:

repeal of a federal law that has served us well for almost 80 years...and since that wouldn't be enough...they also demand sweeping changes that are against the will of the people in various sane states.

I should thank you guys for proving that your side of this thing is totally irrational and that you aren't the least bit interested in keeping guns out of the hands of maniacs and criminals. Not that I really needed more evidence of these things, but it's funny when you "out" yourselves like this.

[beevul]

60. Why don't you...

Why don't you just come out and say it.

Anyone that disagrees with you is an "absolutist extremist".

Just admit it.


Beyond that, it gone beyond "maniacs and criminals" purchasing guns.

Most folks who are pro-gun, I would say, have come to the conclusion that attitudes like yours, and the movement which mirrors it, are far more dangerous than "maniacs and criminals".

I would say there is a consensus that your movement gains no free ground, anymore.


If you want to gain ground, your going to have to lose it somewhere else.

I think, personally, that if YOU care about your movement, and about "maniacs and criminals" gaining access to guns, that if you and those like you are put in a position where you have to decide carefully what your going to keep, and what your willing to give up, that maybe we're ALL a little better off.

I know that kind of pulls the rug out from under foot, and would make you and your movement stick to whats important, rather than making laws for the sake of harasing people whom you disagree with, and attacking a culture you think shouldn't exist.

Your movement isn't going to get anything for free. We tried that once, and your movement made clear they couldn't be trusted.

Don't go blaming the gun culture for it.

[HankyDubs]

63. thank you

for providing such a clear example of what an absolutist extremist looks like.

First of all, I'd like to point out that you didn't address anything I said in any meaningful way. This is important...when I cornered your buddies by making an argument they/you couldn't refute, you resorted to howling and screaming as a substitute for rational discussion. This is common practice among absolutist extremists across all spectrums.

Secondly, I'd like to point out that I singled out a person on this very thread who I often disagree with on this issue...singled this person out for praise. By definition, this person is not an absolutist...this person is looking for solutions that people who disagree in general might be able to agree upon when it comes to specific policies. I have done this several times with several different pro-gun posters who I believe to be rational people interested in solutions.

All this shrieking and deliberately misrepresenting my motives isn't doing your side any favors, it merely demonstrates the point I made. The rational pro-gun posters who probably often/always disagree with me know this. My point, of course, was that you and the other absolutists on this thread don't give shit about criminals or lunatics getting their hands of firearms and murdering innocents. A far higher priority for you is scoring some points at the expense of "my side," and FUCK all the innocents who die as a result.

"We tried that once, and your movement made clear they couldn't be trusted."

How exactly? This isn't a rhetorical question, please answer it. In what way have you, personally, been materially harmed? I'm interested in hearing the answer, even if you have to invent a falsehood or two.

Try to address the question I asked and the point I made without throwing another unseemly, off-topic tantrum.

[beevul]

76. You are quite welcome.

"First of all, I'd like to point out that you didn't address anything I said in any meaningful way."

Thats what happens when you don't say much in the neighborhood of meaningful.

"you resorted to howling and screaming"

I did no such thing. Characterizing someone who disagrees with you as doing something they did not in fact do, is an example of what your movement does, and an example of why it can not be trusted. And you do it again, in the very next paragraph:

"All this shrieking and deliberately misrepresenting my motives isn't doing your side any favors, it merely demonstrates the point I made."

I neither shrieked in any way, nor did I say anything at all, about your motives. And yet again, you accuse someone of doing something they did not do:

"How exactly? This isn't a rhetorical question, please answer it. In what way have you, personally, been materially harmed? I'm interested in hearing the answer, even if you have to invent a falsehood or two. Try to address the question I asked and the point I made without throwing another unseemly, off-topic tantrum."

I threw no tantrum. Another example of saying someone did or said something they did not do. Beyond that...

Your movement had power in the 90's and proved clearly they couldn't be trusted with it. It pushed the "assault weapon" ban, was sold (pushed) on the American people by claims that "assault weapons are the choice of criminals and gangbangers" - A claim wahich was patently untrue. Your movement gave nothing up in return for it. AKA in the real world as free. One of the figureheads of your movement even now claims that glock pistols "are not suitable for self defense".

Your movement is doing it again, too, saying that "nobody needs a 31 round magazine" while actually going after all magazines over ten rounds. Its dishonest.


So like I said:

Your movement isn't going to get anything for free. We tried that once, and your movement made clear they couldn't be trusted.

Don't go blaming the gun culture for it.

[HankyDubs]

77. So you still never addressed the point.

And like a politician you decided to answer a question other than the one I asked you.

[beevul]

88. If the question was...

If the question was "how was I materially harmed"?


The answer is "the same way I'm materially harmed when people restrict a womans right to choose".

[RSillsbee]

62. Seriously guy,

I live in Colorado, if I choose (and I dochoose occasionally) I am legally allowed to openly carry a firearm w/out any type of permitting process at all. this is currently the case in about 40 states.

So tell me how my firearm suddenly becomes more dangerous because I put on a jacket?

[HankyDubs]

64. again

not addressing the point I made.

[RSillsbee]

65. The criminals and maniacs already carry w/ out a permit

why shouldn't I?

If you want to keep the guns out of the hands of criminals stop plea bargining away weapons charges. You commit a crime while armed w/ anything you do 10 years no questions asked, no exceptions.

[HankyDubs]

67. still

failing to address the point...

Oh, and I'm not a prosecutor, I don't have the authority to make a plea bargain with anyone at all.

[RSillsbee]

68. Perhaps I'm dense

what is the point

[HankyDubs]

70. you said it

I didn't.

[RSillsbee]

72. I also asked to to restate your point NT

[RSillsbee]

66. Show me a way to make this really work W/ out registration

and I'll be on it like Jillian Michaels on a fat chick

[HankyDubs]

69. why would a lawful gun owner or seller

be opposed to registration? I can see why criminals would oppose that, but not law-abiding persons.

[RSillsbee]

71. Why I oppose registration

We're going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily -- given the political realities -- going to be very modest. . . . e'll have to start working again to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen the next law, and maybe again and again. Right now, though, we'd be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal -- total control of handguns in the United States -- is going to take time. . . . The first problem is to slow down the number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered. The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition-except for the military, police, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors-totally illegal.

Pete Shields, founder of Handgun Control, Inc. which is now the brady campaign

The grabbers flat out telll me they want to confiscate my firearms why should I A.)not believe them and B.) concede anything to them?

TYPO

ETA quite interesting that this post goes unanswered

[HankyDubs]

82. sorry

I didn't see this post until just now.

As usual this is a slippery slope argument that ignores political realities. You aren't opposed to registration per se, merely opposed to it because you believe it is a slippery slope.

Meaning that you don't oppose registration based on its own merits...but only because you can find a quote that supports a paranoid thought process.

Mr Sheilds probably feels strongly because his own son was murdered with a handgun. I understand why he feels strongly...and I suspect you would also feel strongly if your son or daughter was murdered by madmen with guns.

[RSillsbee]

84. I was shot

by an idiot w/ a gun does that count?

And yes I opposed registration because I see it as a slippery slope. I also have concerns because it's a line that you can't uncross, once it's done it's done.

[beevul]

85. Uh... Current political realities perhaps.

Uh... Current political realities perhaps. We have not forgotten what the political realities were in the 90s. We do not trust that things will always be the way they are now.


Beyond that, registration at the federal level is ILLEGAL, per the firearm owners protection act of 1986.

Go ahead and repeal it if you want registration, but keep in mind that doing so also kills the hughes amendment, which would open the NFA registry.

Bottom line, is that when our opponents have stated what they want to do, and have demonstrated what they want to do by trying to do it, our position that they will try to do it again, is not a slippery slope argument.

Its an educated realistic position, no matter what you say to the contrary.

If you want things to go better, denounce these extremists among your movement, and offer up somethign WE feel is valuable in return.

[NewMoonTherian]

74. I would love to see that, but...

it has to be accomplished in the individual states, not with a sweeping federal mandate.

[hack89]

80. By definition, don't illegal sales involve breaking at least one law?

If people are inclined to break gun laws now, just how does this new law change a damn thing? Won't criminals ignore this one too?

[HankyDubs]

81. good question

here's the answer. These loophole sales rely on the voluntary compliance of the dealer, based on their subjective belief about whether the buyer is or is not capable of passing a background check. So while these sales would be illegal if they were conducted by licensed dealers, they are not illegal when conducted by so-called private sellers, who are for all intents and purposes, actual for-profit gun dealers.

[hack89]

83. But if a criminal wanted to sell a gun to another criminal

this law is meaningless, correct? And isn't the real problem to be addressed the criminal misuse of guns? This law is focused on those people least likely to indulge in gun violence so how does this make me any safer? There is a huge pool of weapons and people that exist that can't be touched by this licensing scheme.

[RSillsbee]

86. Private sellers

Are not ,by and large, for profit gun dealers. Most of them are people that find a shotgun they haven't fired in GAWD-ONLY-KNOWS how long in the back of their closet and decide to run an add in the classifieds to get rid of it.

I bought a Mini-14 two years ago private sale. When I go it home and broke it down to clean it it still had packing grease on the internals. ( FWIW I bought that gun for 475$(ish)I saw an add for the same gun in the paper the other day 1700$).

I also own a S&W 6906 that I bought private sale at a gun show (w/ NICS BTW) last year. I took it home and broke it down and found that it still had fresh cutter marks on the underside of the slide (IOW this gun had never been fired) this particular pistol was still in the original box and had been sold by an FFL in Denver on may 30th 1989 and spent the next 21 years sitting on a shelf (presumably) in someone's gun safe.

Words of wisdom from dear old dad, people don't sell guns they like they sell guns they never use to make room for guns they will. You can get some damn good deals buying used

[LAGC]

61. How long until Fake ID's show up and foil your system?

Hell, you can already defeat NICS with Fake ID, if you just attach your photo to some other legit person's address and vital stats.

Seems like a lost cause. People who are determined to get a gun will always find a way.

[krispos42]

89. Fake IDs are already out there

And, frankly, I wish the police would spend more time finding them and arresting them.

Regardless, if a person has to spend an extra $500 or $1,000 or whatever to buy a fake ID to buy a gun, that works for me.

Besides, the point is to find the people that sell guns to criminals and to find people that purchase guns expressly to give them to criminals.

[kudzu22]

91. Nice idea, but too many problems

#1 - NICS volume. I'd wager that far more people renew Driver Licenses every day than buy firearms. It would overwhelm the system.

#2 - NICS inaccuracy. A significant percentage of NICS checks are denied due to similar names, mistaken identity, etc.

#3 - Privacy, which you covered.

#4 - Cost to states. It'd cost money for states to modify their DL process, and they're already broke.

#5 - Ineffective. It only stops the transaction if the seller cares to ask for proof. The vast majority of crime guns come from illegal sales between felons, or theft from lawful owners.

#6 - Stale information. My state only issues licenses every 4 years, so the "OK" could be invalid when the transaction is done. I could commit a felony, serve my time, and be released and still have the "NICS OK" on my unexpired drivers license. Today they run a NICS check every time you buy a gun. Doesn't matter if you were "OK" yesterday -- they check again today because you could have become prohibited in the last 24 hours, let alone the last 4 years.


I think it would be better and easier if they simply allowed private sellers to use the NICS system voluntarily. I would wager that 99% of the lawful sellers would use it.