Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: So it turns out that pro-gun proponents don't really support background checks after all [View all]krispos42
(49,445 posts)119. Here it is.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2301318
The first half of my post is a rant on the politics of it, the idea is the second half.
[div class=excerpt style=background:#AFEEEE]1) Universal background checks. The ATF should create a special kind of license. This license, which I'll call "Firearms Transfer Agent License" or FTAL, would be issued by the ATF to people that would make money acting as a transfer agent from a private seller to a private buyer. An FTAL would not be a stocking firearms dealer, but would have access to the NICS system and would have all the appropriate forms to purchase a firearm. The fee the FTAL could charge would be no more than 3x the federal minimum wage (currently, $21.45) to transfer a gun.
I think that there would be a lot of people that would make some extra money on the side by doing these transfers. A nice little kitchen-table business. Currently, only federal firearm licensees (FFLs) can access NICS.
I guess we could call the permit "FaTAL", too...
2) A purchase limit of 12 guns a year. After your 12th gun is purchased in a calender year, the NICS system will not approve any more transfers until January 1st of the next year. If you want to buy more guns than that, get a permit.
I'll even go lower, down to 10. I based the "12" on the fact that some states have a one-gun-a-month policy, or 12 per year total.
This should cut down on trafficking.
3) A sale limit of 12 guns per year, unless the sales are to a federally licensed dealer. Again, after you sell your 12th gun, the NICS system refuses to approve any more transfers until January 1st, unless you're selling them to an FFL.
Again, if you're selling this many guns to private individuals, you're really a dealer and should be licensed as such.. This also should cut down on trafficking.
4) The ATF should keep records of what guns are sold by who. Not bought; that would be national registration, which I am not for. But if the ATF knew a gun's sale history, they could track down the last owner of a gun recovered in a crime by paying a visit to the last seller of the gun. This would keep the DoJ and the various police forces from trolling through databases (or the newspapers from printing lists of gun owners), yet still provide them with the ability to quickly find the owner of a gun. And if the last seller didn't know... then they've collared a guy feeding guns illegal to criminals.
5) Start denying transportation funds to states that are not in compliance with reporting mental-health and criminal records to NICS. If you don't want to spend the money to keep NICS current, you can maintain your own damn highways. Give the money as a bonus to states that ARE compliant!
The first half of my post is a rant on the politics of it, the idea is the second half.
[div class=excerpt style=background:#AFEEEE]1) Universal background checks. The ATF should create a special kind of license. This license, which I'll call "Firearms Transfer Agent License" or FTAL, would be issued by the ATF to people that would make money acting as a transfer agent from a private seller to a private buyer. An FTAL would not be a stocking firearms dealer, but would have access to the NICS system and would have all the appropriate forms to purchase a firearm. The fee the FTAL could charge would be no more than 3x the federal minimum wage (currently, $21.45) to transfer a gun.
I think that there would be a lot of people that would make some extra money on the side by doing these transfers. A nice little kitchen-table business. Currently, only federal firearm licensees (FFLs) can access NICS.
I guess we could call the permit "FaTAL", too...
2) A purchase limit of 12 guns a year. After your 12th gun is purchased in a calender year, the NICS system will not approve any more transfers until January 1st of the next year. If you want to buy more guns than that, get a permit.
I'll even go lower, down to 10. I based the "12" on the fact that some states have a one-gun-a-month policy, or 12 per year total.
This should cut down on trafficking.
3) A sale limit of 12 guns per year, unless the sales are to a federally licensed dealer. Again, after you sell your 12th gun, the NICS system refuses to approve any more transfers until January 1st, unless you're selling them to an FFL.
Again, if you're selling this many guns to private individuals, you're really a dealer and should be licensed as such.. This also should cut down on trafficking.
4) The ATF should keep records of what guns are sold by who. Not bought; that would be national registration, which I am not for. But if the ATF knew a gun's sale history, they could track down the last owner of a gun recovered in a crime by paying a visit to the last seller of the gun. This would keep the DoJ and the various police forces from trolling through databases (or the newspapers from printing lists of gun owners), yet still provide them with the ability to quickly find the owner of a gun. And if the last seller didn't know... then they've collared a guy feeding guns illegal to criminals.
5) Start denying transportation funds to states that are not in compliance with reporting mental-health and criminal records to NICS. If you don't want to spend the money to keep NICS current, you can maintain your own damn highways. Give the money as a bonus to states that ARE compliant!
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
130 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
So it turns out that pro-gun proponents don't really support background checks after all [View all]
BainsBane
Sep 2013
OP
I've heard these pro-gun folks claim that most states require background checks.........
rdharma
Sep 2013
#1
Yes. Can you explain it in you own words because it is not clear you understand it.
hack89
Sep 2013
#25
But they can also do that in the parking lot, or in their driveway, or in their house
hack89
Sep 2013
#79
You have the figure of private sales vs. FFL dealer sales that take place at gun shows?
rdharma
Sep 2013
#113
It gives you an idea of the ratio of professional to private sales in the show. nt
Mojorabbit
Sep 2013
#120
And how about the parking lot? And those guys walking aroung with a gun that has a price tag on it
rdharma
Sep 2013
#124
Why go to a show when there's even more guns in Uncle Henry's weekly swap-and-sell paper?
sir pball
Sep 2013
#127
We all know that there is one type of sale that does not require a background check
hack89
Sep 2013
#12
Only 99.2% or so are law abiding, but folks love them some bias, unless of course
The Straight Story
Sep 2013
#23
I've been to enough gun shows to know that those selling don't give a shit about background checks.
Gravitycollapse
Sep 2013
#28
It is virtually impossible to convict someone of illegal sale of a firearm...
Gravitycollapse
Sep 2013
#32
How would you prosecute an illegal transfer to a felon without chain of custody documentation? nt
rrneck
Sep 2013
#39
"What you are really saying is that the lives that could be saved aren't worth the bother."
rrneck
Sep 2013
#86
You specifically said the declining crime rate made expanded checks unnecessary
BainsBane
Sep 2013
#89
I don't care what the other two threads say. You made a blanket statement. It was wrong.
cherokeeprogressive
Sep 2013
#48
So you read that to mean cherokeeprogressive doesn't support background checks
BainsBane
Sep 2013
#49
"pro-gun proponents don't really support background checks after all"
cherokeeprogressive
Sep 2013
#50
I don't speak for anyone else. You made a blanket indictment. It was wrong.
cherokeeprogressive
Sep 2013
#52
"...the man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest" - P. Simon
Eleanors38
Sep 2013
#121
I have engaged them on the "grassroots" argument, too. But the NRA label is there
CTyankee
Sep 2013
#101
Just because I support something doesn't mean I'll give it away for nothing.
badtoworse
Sep 2013
#80