Okay, I'll ask: Why isn't NICS open to all?

[Eleanors38]

Why isn't the National Instant Background Check System (currently accessible only to Federal Firearms Licensees (FLLs) open to all who wish to voluntarily use it? Please give your reasons & arguments so we get a fix on this issue. Consider:

1. Legal/privacy issues beyond current FFL restrictions

2. Administration problems; more computers, over the phone problems, technologies, etc.

3. Cost of system expansion & upgrade

4. Political opposition

5. Any other problems.

------
I envision private sellers phoning up the NICS line and entering (or buyer entering) similar data to get a NICS finding, all voluntary for both parties. Even a voluntary system would bring, I believe, millions more citizens who sell privately, but don't won't to deal with an investigation (even when the seller us not culpable) if the gun is used by a criminal. Such a system of voluntary action could be encouraged by pro-2A groups, and aid law enforcement by cutting down on unchecked sales.

[Lint Head]

1. All citizens of the US should be able to do a background check on any politician running for office.

Much less to buy a gun.

[Duckhunter935]

2. I assume cost and privacy

but that should not be too big of a problem to overcome. This would be a great step in the right direction.

[pipoman]

3. Because without the gun show loophole/universal background check

Fund raising possibilities gun control groups couldn't raise enough support or money to support their 1% leadership. They oppose anything constitutionally possible which may actually help in favor of railing year after year for the constitutionally impossible.

[tularetom]

4. I'm all for it but it's been my experience

that many private sellers just don't want to know.

Personally I would use it if for no other reason than to cover my ass. Once I've requested a NICS check, the ball's in their court if the buyer misuses the gun.

Politically I believe it would encounter significant opposition from both sides of the RKBA debate. Extremists on the gun control side would object to it because it would legitimize freer trade in firearms between private citizens and the NRA would probably oppose it as a further restriction on 2A rights.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

7. "many private sellers just don't want to know."

If they had the opportunity to know and then elected to not utilize the tool then they could be held liable for their willful ignorance. That alone would remediate the concern without resorting to legislation.

Personally I would use it if for no other reason than to cover my ass. Once I've requested a NICS check, the ball's in their court if the buyer misuses the gun.

Exactly. Which leads me to believe the earlier poster that NICS is restricted so it may serve as a political football.

[friendly_iconoclast]

5. I suspect the NRA avoids this so as not to piss off gun dealers

Background checks send a lot of traffic and $ to FFL holders, who are a major source
of support for the NRA

[rrneck]

6. There's no point in expanding it if you can't compel people to use it. nt

[Nuclear Unicorn]

8. It seems to me that if it were available then anyone not using it during a private sale

would be assuming the risk if the buyer used it illegally. I imagine it would be akin to a bartender not checking for proof of age only to see the patron later involved in a DUI.

[rrneck]

9. I think if you make someone legally responsible for something

you have to have the infrastructure in place to prosecute them for breaking the law. And you can't prosecute them without evidence and the rules that go along with it. I've never been able to figure out how to do that without some sort of a firearm registry. It looks to me like we'd be turning every gun owner in the country into a gun dealer.

I don't know how it would be possible to prosecute someone for another's crime except accessory before the fact or something. But you'd have to prove aid and abetting, and that's a stretch especially if conspirators want to avoid it.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

10. In my aforementioned bartender analogy

A party could bring suit even though there was no "alcohol registry" and charges need not be criminal, civil actions alone would suffice.

[rrneck]

13. I think one of the benefits of stand your ground legislation

is that people are shielded from civil liability if they legitimately defended themselves. If somebody is not in collusion in the commission of a crime they shouldn't be held responsible for it.

If somebody doesn't check an ID at a bar there is no way to adequately attach the results of alcohol consumption to alcohol consumed at the bar. They could have been three sheets to the wind before they got there or consumed alcohol after they left. The value of NICS checks is not so much keeping people from getting guns but in chain of custody after a crime has been committed.

Nuisance suits can wreck someone's life as easily as an assault. If the state can't offer any remedy for them it shouldn't make it easier for them to happen.

[Eleanors38]

11. Well, if the opportunity was there, I would require a seller to use it.

There are only some states requiring gun safes/lock boxes, yet there must be a lot of sales and use since the rate of childhood death rates-vis-guns has fallen steadily. I may be wrong, but the campaigns to encourage better home safety have had an impact, and most of it through voluntary. Opening NICS up for voluntary use might reduce gun transfers to disqualified persons.

I am puzzled that there is little political insider knowledge on this question. I haven't found much info at all.

[rrneck]

12. Opening up NICS for voluntary use wouldn't do any harm

Last edited Tue Apr 29, 2014, 11:05 AM - Edit history (1)

but I'm not convinced it would do any good either. It would expand the system and cost more money and more importantly it would annoy a lot of voters, not all of whom would be NRA members. Expending political capital on programs with little utility can have blowback elsewhere.

Requiring someone to do something entails the infrastructure to verify compliance, and I haven't figured out a way to do that without a firearms registry.

[flamin lib]

14. With NICS comes the responsibility of record keeping.

Where did the gun come from and where did it go? I would be happy to pass that responsibility off to a ffl for a paultry fee of $25 ( current rate here). Do any of you really want to maintain those records until you die and they are sent to the ATF by your heirs?

Careful what you ask for . . .

[Eleanors38]

15. Even without records, it might be helpful in thwarting

illegal gun transfers. Do you oppose such an opening up of NICS?

[flamin lib]

16. Only if the seller meets the same record keeping requirements as FFLs. nt

[Straw Man]

17. The problem is that ...

Where did the gun come from and where did it go? I would be happy to pass that responsibility off to a ffl for a paultry fee of $25 ( current rate here).

... the fee is often much higher than that, sometimes $100 and more. I don't fancy keeping records forever either, but I think a simple opt-in system, like the FOID (Firearm Owners ID) that some states have would make that unnecessary. Re-up your card every year or two and you're clear to buy firearms; felony conviction means immediate revocation, etc.

Sure, some people would try to beat the system, overall it would be a step in the right direction.