Perhaps the best approach to universal background checks is

[flamin lib]

through firearms dealers. If 40% of firearms sales are through private transactions that don't currently require a background check were forced to go through a dealer for the check, traffic in gun stores would increase 40%. If a fee of $25-35 for the check were charged (the average for such requests now) it would be a boost to cash flow without inventory investment plus the buyer would likely purchase ammunition and accessories for his new toy.

A zero cost marketing device that would increase traffic 40%, provide a no-cost income stream and increase high profit accessory sales should be a no-brainer for any retailer.

[tumtum]

1. That is a well thought out plan.

Now, if only we can get the Congress on board, it would become law.

[Arctic Dave]

2. Any type of gun control is a dead issue now.

Since the NSA fiasco nobody is willing to budge on any type of gun issues.



He's dead Jim.

[tumtum]

3. Interesting thought.

I hadn't thought about that.
I think you've nailed it.

[Hoyt]

4. If gun owners were truly responsible, they could do that now. FFLs will transfer guns for a fee.

Unfortunately, too many gun owners don't care what happens to the weapons they sell, especially when it is difficult to track a gun back to them.

But, I agree your idea might be supported by gun stores -- excepting, of course, those that own or work in them are usually gun toting, 2nd Amendment, nuts themselves.

[tumtum]

5. I think most of the gun stores/FFL dealers would support this.

It would mean more business for them and, with any luck, undercut the NRA and their stooges.
Every one of my friends, even my far RW friends, want universal background checks.

So, let's get to work and get the Congress to pass this law.

[Hoyt]

6. You'd think. But a lot of gun store owners are NRA, right wing, nut jobs -- ie, stupid.

Hard to tell what folks like that would support.

[tumtum]

7. What you say may have merit,

but I think if it meant more business=money, they'd probably go along with it, of course, you'd have a hard core minority that would condemn it, but you know what?
FUCK EM, and FUCK THE NRA, POOPY TEDDY, LaPENIS, AND THE REST OF THEIR ILK.

Whew! I feel better now, glad I got that off my chest.

[sir pball]

8. If they own gun stores, they (at least superficially) support background checks. Res ipsa loquitur.

Maybe not "on principle", but by obtaining an FFL and going into legal business as a dealer, they practically must support background checks - and as RWNJs in business, Profit is probably more sacred to them than even Guns God or Country. It's an interesting take on the issue and definitely a potential leverage point for getting every sale recorded on a 4473 in a bound book.

FWIW on the rare occasions I deaccession a firearm, I do it through an FFL and eat the cost myself. Even if I bought it without a paper trail I'm sure as shit immunizing myself from what's done with it once I release it from my control.

[bobclark86]

10. Not so much...

In NY, since the SAFE Act, plenty of places refuse to do transfers.

[Glaug-Eldare]

9. How about this?

I was thinkin' about this very question a while back, and I think I've got a way to get it done with a much weaker Constitutional issue, if any. Currently, only FFLs are required by federal law to conduct background checks, and only some states have laws in place to cover private sales. That could be made universal by tweaking the current law regarding FFLs, making a state's access to NICS contingent on creating a scheme to cover private sales. That is, unless a state requires and facilitates NICS checks for private sales, FFLs in that state will be completely unable to import stock, transfer firearms, or basically do anything. There should be minimum standards for access and affordability (e.g., it would be illegal to require sellers to travel to a remote police outpost in the desert and pay a $300 fee in order to sell a gun) which the states must maintain, or else face other penalties.

I favor a scheme like Maryland's, where if you choose not to pay an FFL transfer fee of $75 or more, you can have any state police barracks run the NICS check for you for $10.

[Redneck_Dem]

11. How would the requirement be enforced?

[flamin lib]

12. I have it on good authority that gun owners are law abiding citizrns.

[Redneck_Dem]

13. Ah, sorry bout that

The idea actually has some possibilities so I was under the mistaken impression that you had given it serious thought.

My bad.

[flamin lib]

14. And I was under the impression that responders to the OP would give it serious thought

instead of tossing out gun fetishist talking points, i.e., how can it be enforced (translated: it can't be emforced).

MY bad.

[Redneck_Dem]

15. Laws mean nothing if they are not enforced

Parroting the tired "gun fetishist" mantra or being paranoid about hidden meanings behind questions does not change that fact.

The "approach" you bring up is not original. It has been discussed alot and any serious thought about such a law must include enforcement.

Such a law could be enforced to a certain point, but it will require citizen support for it to be successful. That support will be based mainly on how convienent the process is and how proof of background check is to be verified.

[Glaug-Eldare]

16. Same way it's enforced where it's already the law, I suppose.

Last edited Thu Aug 22, 2013, 07:36 PM - Edit history (1)

Some illicit transfers still occur, and that's going to be the case as long as two people can find a place with no police or informers around. Laws like this create a culture where the majority of people, who want to obey the law, simply don't violate it. They use FFLs, they use the state police (here, anyway), they get the check done and don't think any more of it. Some grumble about it, but the vast majority of sellers will ultimately comply. The enforcement isn't as difficult as you may think, because people who have to buy guns illegally are often using them to commit other crimes, or carrying them during the commission of other crimes, or otherwise drawing police attention to themselves. This law can't and won't stop gun theft and transfers among gangs or other habitual criminals, but it does create a barrier against disqualified people who don't have these contacts but want to buy a gun anyway. In the past, they may have been able to fool one of their neighbors or somebody on a message board into reasonably believing that they're legal to purchase, but they can't fool a NICS check.