General Discussion

Squinch

(60,266 posts)

9. But it would have to be voluntary, right?

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 12:24 AM

Dec 2012

Seems like a start.

But just to be sure I am understanding: the federal government doesn't have jurisdiction in intrastate sales between individuals. So you are saying, for those individuals who choose to do so, the dealers MUST provide background checks for a nominal fee. If the individual seller goes through this process, they get some benefits with respect to immunity against problems arising with the future use of the gun. Do I have that right?

In this system, is there any way to implement voluntary licensing? Because it seems like a lot of other control measures would depend on licensing. Like safe storage laws, etc. (THe NICS system is just about background checks, right, not licensing?)

This does seem like a start, and it's the kind of thing that we need to begin to implement. But it wouldn't have prevented Lanza. Is there any provision within the background checks that deals with other members of a gun buyer's household?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

39 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The "Gun Show Loophole" solution? [View all] pipoman Dec 2012 OP

Solution: Spryguy Dec 2012 #1

That's what OP proposed. nt jody Dec 2012 #2

Not quite. Spryguy Dec 2012 #4

Can't (Constitutionally) be regulated at the intrastate level...now what? pipoman Dec 2012 #5

"I believe that if the licensing requirements for FFLs were amended to require every FFL dealer to jody Dec 2012 #8

You make an excellent point. NashvilleLefty Dec 2012 #3

I really believe the gun lobby may agree pipoman Dec 2012 #7

Thank you for your post. LisaLynne Dec 2012 #6

But it would have to be voluntary, right? Squinch Dec 2012 #9

Yes it would start out voluntary.. pipoman Dec 2012 #12

Thanks. I do think this is just the kind of thing that is needed to begin to work on this, and it Squinch Dec 2012 #28

I believe your idea is a sound one. Jenoch Dec 2012 #10

The "it's not the Federal Government's jurisdiction" talking point is simply inaccurate. DanTex Dec 2012 #11

Yes it does..well, regulates, not necessarily prevents.. pipoman Dec 2012 #13

While I like your suggestion and I'm adding it to my list of what my legislators are going to hear Squinch Dec 2012 #29

Thanks... pipoman Dec 2012 #35

How do pawn shops handle the sales? Do licencsed dealers take consignment deals? rwheeler31 Dec 2012 #14

If a pawn shop sells guns pipoman Dec 2012 #15

If you have ever watched Pawn Stars Jenoch Dec 2012 #19

Your idea sounds good to me. (n/t) spin Dec 2012 #16

There would have to be action on a state-by-state level. krispos42 Dec 2012 #17

I believe pipoman Dec 2012 #26

Very smart. Squinch Dec 2012 #30

Even post-Brzonkala, it's not clear to me how the court would rule, particularly... Recursion Dec 2012 #18

It wouldn't be a manditory system unless or until the pipoman Dec 2012 #25

I think initiatives like this would do very well at the ballot box SpartanDem Dec 2012 #20

2 problems Angleae Dec 2012 #21

The first pipoman Dec 2012 #23

I'm glad to see someone providing constructive ideas davidpdx Dec 2012 #22

I and others have floated this and similar ideas before.. pipoman Dec 2012 #24

Used gun sales should be through real "bricks and mortars" stores... Kolesar Dec 2012 #27

that is not what SCOTUS says the commerece clause says dsc Dec 2012 #31

The difference, of coarse, pipoman Dec 2012 #33

Don't disagree. But gun owners can go to FFL right now, most choose to take fistful of cash Hoyt Dec 2012 #32

"Most"...Yeah, most FFLs are not interested in doing inhouse transfers.. pipoman Dec 2012 #34

Good excuse to sell to unknown for cash. That is what irresponsible gun owners do. Hoyt Dec 2012 #36

Some will always prefer to be part of the problem.. pipoman Dec 2012 #37

Dont be so sure... Spryguy Dec 2012 #38

Help yourself..insure nothing happens.. pipoman Dec 2012 #39