A workable compromise on "universal" firearm background checks.

[Daniel Martinovich]

All gun sales by licensed dealers including at gun shows are background checked. There are no loopholes. That is a Democrat party lie. When they talk about "universal " background checks. They are talking about an individual not being allowed to sell his gun to another individual without a background check. I have an idea for a workable compromise. Tell me what you think.

There are major constitutional and dangers associated with background checks for an individual to sell a firearm to another individual. Aside from the whole idea that the government should have any say in this at all. The danger is there is really no way to accomplish this without the government being able to compile a defacto firearms registration. Which is what the NRA and almost all gun owners are 100% against. Right now licensed Gun dealers are required to keep the paper copies of sales, serial numbers and background check documents. That way if a crime is committed with a firearm. Law enforcement can get a warrant for that paper record to see who the original purchaser was so they might track the fire arm to the perp. Those records at gun stores are not in government hands because that would create a defato gun registration data base. But how can a private seller sell a firearm to another individual if they have conduct a back ground check? The government has no power, nor will it be given the power for an individual keep a paper record forever. They cannot be required to notify the government of their location so that paper record can be accessed by law enforcement if that gun is ever used in a crime. The only way, on practical level is for the government to keep a data base on firearm arm sales from and to individuals which is inherently dangerous.
.
So here is my compromise. Individuals who want to purchase firearms purchase a yearly background check ID card from the government. Like $50 per year. Now this would have to be voluntary to be constitutional. So there would have to be incentive to get people to voluntarily get an ID and private sellers to only sell their firearms to a person who has the ID. The incentive would be sellers, by law, would receive greatly decreased civil liabilities, if the person they sell a gun to commits a crime with the gun. Right now as it stands. Private sellers can be subjected to all kinds of civil liabilities if the gun they sold to an individual is used in the commission of a crime. If sued they basically have to prove they are not guilty of knowingly selling a firearm to an individual who was going to use it in the commission of a crime. This is wrong and unconstitutional but it is the way it is now. Changing the civil law to: Now the one filing the lawsuit against the seller has to prove the seller is guilty of selling the gun to someone they know would use it to commit a crime if that person who committed the crime had the background check ID. That would kill to birds with one stone. It would bring civil law back under constitutional guidelines of innocent until proven guilty and it would be the defacto enactment of much needed tort reform. Criminal liabilities would remain about the same.
So that would be a great incentive for legal, private gun sales from one individual to another to use a background check system. The government would have no knowledge of the private transfer of a firearm from one individual to another. Which is the way it should be. There would be and could not be a data base compiled by the government with this system. Persons selling a firearm could not be held civilly liable for a crime committed by the buyer who used the gun unless the government or greedy lawyer could prove to a jury from a criminal law standard that they are guilty of knowingly selling the firearm to an individual who would commit a crime with it. Civil law would remain the same for individuals who sold the firearm to a non-card carrying individuals. If dragged into court they would have to basically prove they are innocent. Wrong but that is the standard for civil law.

Why not just make individuals do the same background check as a licensed gun dealer and put within the law that the government cannot keep a record of the transaction? Are you freaking kidding me? Trusting government to keep a law like that? Basically giving it the power to create a national gun registration data base and trusting them to not do it? When the NRA created sponsored background checks that we currently have on the books was signed into law by the Clinton's. That law specifically states no federal, state or local government agency is allowed to keep records of the background checks and sales. Those records are only allowed to be kept by the licensed gun dealer. The very first thing the Clinton justice dept. did was to commission software that could be distributed to local and state authorities that would collect the records of sales through the background check system and then forward the records to a national database. They planned on blackmailing local and state authorities by cutting of federal aid unless they complied. Luckily the conservative led Republican congress got wind of the scheme and stopped them. The wicked will always seek to create a national firearm registration whether the law forbids them from doing it or not. A long those lines. Do you think for a single minute that the Democrat party or the lawyers would vote for something like this that will do a little bit of good but won't stop 90% of the firearm related crime we are seeing? I say heck no they will not. They want a national firearm registration, that is their goal. They could care less about background checking people. And the lawyers want to be able to sue people and force them to prove they are nor guilty. That way they are guaranteed a huge income from these bogus law suits.

So tell me what you think about this. Since I just thought of it last night. There must be pitfalls I don't see in it.

 

[Hank77]

All gun sales by licensed dealers including at gun shows are background checked. There are no loopholes. That is a Democrat party lie. When they talk about "universal " background checks.

You are correct about what the gun show loophole is.
What lie did Dems. tell about it? Source

I'm not a Democrat but I am sick of people from both sides slipping in accusations and innuendos into this issue, making it so partisan that sensible laws can't be made. It is much too serious and we all need to work together to do all we can to end so many deaths using guns.

 

[iluvatar5150]

All gun sales by licensed dealers including at gun shows are background checked. There are no loopholes. That is a Democrat party lie. When they talk about "universal " background checks. They are talking about an individual not being allowed to sell his gun to another individual without a background check. I have an idea for a workable compromise. Tell me what you think.

What I think is that you ought to drop the ridiculous assertion that this constitutes a lie. Is the term "gunshow loophole" something of a misnomer? Perhaps. But as you point out, there is still a loophole that allows guns to be transferred without background checks, whether or not that has to do with gun shows per se.

There are major constitutional and dangers associated with background checks for an individual to sell a firearm to another individual.

Yeah, that danger is that the checks don't get conducted.

Aside from the whole idea that the government should have any say in this at all. The danger is there is really no way to accomplish this without the government being able to compile a defacto firearms registration.

That would be tragic, being able to trace all the guns and all. It's terrible when the government can trace things like motor vehicles and food.

Which is what the NRA and almost all gun owners are 100% against. Right now licensed Gun dealers are required to keep the paper copies of sales, serial numbers and background check documents. That way if a crime is committed with a firearm. Law enforcement can get a warrant for that paper record to see who the original purchaser was so they might track the fire arm to the perp. Those records at gun stores are not in government hands because that would create a defato gun registration data base.

How about we skip the de facto database and just build a real one?

But how can a private seller sell a firearm to another individual if they have conduct a back ground check?

Pay a dealer to do it.

The government has no power, nor will it be given the power for an individual keep a paper record forever. They cannot be required to notify the government of their location so that paper record can be accessed by law enforcement if that gun is ever used in a crime. The only way, on practical level is for the government to keep a data base on firearm arm sales from and to individuals which is inherently dangerous.

That's likely less dangerous than the current system of not having a database.

So here is my compromise. Individuals who want to purchase firearms purchase a yearly background check ID card from the government. Like $50 per year. Now this would have to be voluntary to be constitutional.

It being voluntary would also mean it's unlikely to be effective.

So there would have to be incentive to get people to voluntarily get an ID and private sellers to only sell their firearms to a person who has the ID. The incentive would be sellers, by law, would receive greatly decreased civil liabilities, if the person they sell a gun to commits a crime with the gun. Right now as it stands. Private sellers can be subjected to all kinds of civil liabilities if the gun they sold to an individual is used in the commission of a crime. If sued they basically have to prove they are not guilty of knowingly selling a firearm to an individual who was going to use it in the commission of a crime. This is wrong and unconstitutional but it is the way it is now. Changing the civil law to: Now the one filing the lawsuit against the seller has to prove the seller is guilty of selling the gun to someone they know would use it to commit a crime if that person who committed the crime had the background check ID. That would kill to birds with one stone. It would bring civil law back under constitutional guidelines of innocent until proven guilty and it would be the defacto enactment of much needed tort reform. Criminal liabilities would remain about the same.

I don't think we need to give gun sellers any less liability than they have now. God forbid they express caution when selling weapons.

 

[Hank77]

how can a private seller sell a firearm to another individual if they have conduct a back ground check? The government has no power, nor will it be given the power for an individual keep a paper record forever. They cannot be required to notify the government of their location so that paper record can be accessed by law enforcement if that gun is ever used in a crime. The only way, on practical level is for the government to keep a data base on firearm arm sales from and to individuals which is inherently dangerous.

My state law does require universal background checks and I have seen how it is done.
All background checks are done through a licensed dealer just as if the gun was being bought in the store from the dealer. Owner and buyer ask the licensed dealer to run a background check. The buyer gives his information to the licensed dealer. The dealer runs him/her through the data base. If they are cleared than the actual sale can take place.
I would always want to do this if I were to sell one of my guns. That gun is no longer recorded as belonging to me. If in the future that gun is used in a crime, law enforcement isn't going to be suspecting me and searching my house for that gun.

It's important to me to know that I didn't sell a gun to a killer without doing everything I could to keep it from happening.

 

[Daniel Martinovich]

You are correct about what the gun show loophole is.
What lie did Dems. tell about it? Source

I'm not a Democrat but I am sick of people from both sides slipping in accusations and innuendos into this issue, making it so partisan that sensible laws can't be made. It is much too serious and we all need to work together to do all we can to end so many deaths using guns.

The lie is: What the gun show loophole actually is is never mentioned by the MSM or politicians who use the phrase "gun show loop hole." With the design to get the gullible to think that the gun show itself is one giant loophole with which anyone can buy a firearm without a background check.
So it we call this political "spin" rather than a lie. Would that make you happy?

 

[eleos1954]

All gun sales by licensed dealers including at gun shows are background checked. There are no loopholes. That is a Democrat party lie. When they talk about "universal " background checks. They are talking about an individual not being allowed to sell his gun to another individual without a background check. I have an idea for a workable compromise. Tell me what you think.

There are major constitutional and dangers associated with background checks for an individual to sell a firearm to another individual. Aside from the whole idea that the government should have any say in this at all. The danger is there is really no way to accomplish this without the government being able to compile a defacto firearms registration. Which is what the NRA and almost all gun owners are 100% against. Right now licensed Gun dealers are required to keep the paper copies of sales, serial numbers and background check documents. That way if a crime is committed with a firearm. Law enforcement can get a warrant for that paper record to see who the original purchaser was so they might track the fire arm to the perp. Those records at gun stores are not in government hands because that would create a defato gun registration data base. But how can a private seller sell a firearm to another individual if they have conduct a back ground check? The government has no power, nor will it be given the power for an individual keep a paper record forever. They cannot be required to notify the government of their location so that paper record can be accessed by law enforcement if that gun is ever used in a crime. The only way, on practical level is for the government to keep a data base on firearm arm sales from and to individuals which is inherently dangerous.
.
So here is my compromise. Individuals who want to purchase firearms purchase a yearly background check ID card from the government. Like $50 per year. Now this would have to be voluntary to be constitutional. So there would have to be incentive to get people to voluntarily get an ID and private sellers to only sell their firearms to a person who has the ID. The incentive would be sellers, by law, would receive greatly decreased civil liabilities, if the person they sell a gun to commits a crime with the gun. Right now as it stands. Private sellers can be subjected to all kinds of civil liabilities if the gun they sold to an individual is used in the commission of a crime. If sued they basically have to prove they are not guilty of knowingly selling a firearm to an individual who was going to use it in the commission of a crime. This is wrong and unconstitutional but it is the way it is now. Changing the civil law to: Now the one filing the lawsuit against the seller has to prove the seller is guilty of selling the gun to someone they know would use it to commit a crime if that person who committed the crime had the background check ID. That would kill to birds with one stone. It would bring civil law back under constitutional guidelines of innocent until proven guilty and it would be the defacto enactment of much needed tort reform. Criminal liabilities would remain about the same.
So that would be a great incentive for legal, private gun sales from one individual to another to use a background check system. The government would have no knowledge of the private transfer of a firearm from one individual to another. Which is the way it should be. There would be and could not be a data base compiled by the government with this system. Persons selling a firearm could not be held civilly liable for a crime committed by the buyer who used the gun unless the government or greedy lawyer could prove to a jury from a criminal law standard that they are guilty of knowingly selling the firearm to an individual who would commit a crime with it. Civil law would remain the same for individuals who sold the firearm to a non-card carrying individuals. If dragged into court they would have to basically prove they are innocent. Wrong but that is the standard for civil law.

Why not just make individuals do the same background check as a licensed gun dealer and put within the law that the government cannot keep a record of the transaction? Are you freaking kidding me? Trusting government to keep a law like that? Basically giving it the power to create a national gun registration data base and trusting them to not do it? When the NRA created sponsored background checks that we currently have on the books was signed into law by the Clinton's. That law specifically states no federal, state or local government agency is allowed to keep records of the background checks and sales. Those records are only allowed to be kept by the licensed gun dealer. The very first thing the Clinton justice dept. did was to commission software that could be distributed to local and state authorities that would collect the records of sales through the background check system and then forward the records to a national database. They planned on blackmailing local and state authorities by cutting of federal aid unless they complied. Luckily the conservative led Republican congress got wind of the scheme and stopped them. The wicked will always seek to create a national firearm registration whether the law forbids them from doing it or not. A long those lines. Do you think for a single minute that the Democrat party or the lawyers would vote for something like this that will do a little bit of good but won't stop 90% of the firearm related crime we are seeing? I say heck no they will not. They want a national firearm registration, that is their goal. They could care less about background checking people. And the lawyers want to be able to sue people and force them to prove they are nor guilty. That way they are guaranteed a huge income from these bogus law suits.

So tell me what you think about this. Since I just thought of it last night. There must be pitfalls I don't see in it.

I'm for not changing anything ... we already have processes in place ... it's not perfect but nothing put in place would be perfect. Some states, such as mine, now if you sell to a private individual, we have to go to a gun dealer and have them run the background check before the purchased can be completed ... same with giving a gun as a gift.

 

[iluvatar5150]

The lie is: What the gun show loophole actually is is never mentioned by the MSM or politicians who use the phrase "gun show loop hole." With the design to get the gullible to think that the gun show itself is one giant loophole with which anyone can buy a firearm without a background check.
So it we call this political "spin" rather than a lie. Would that make you happy?

I'm getting rather tired of conservatives quibbling over a colloquialism in a manner that obfuscates the reality of the issue. This whole argument from your side is far more dishonest than the use of the word "gunshow".

 

[Silverback]

All gun sales by licensed dealers including at gun shows are background checked. There are no loopholes. That is a Democrat party lie. When they talk about "universal " background checks. They are talking about an individual not being allowed to sell his gun to another individual without a background check. I have an idea for a workable compromise. Tell me what you think.

There are major constitutional and dangers associated with background checks for an individual to sell a firearm to another individual. Aside from the whole idea that the government should have any say in this at all. The danger is there is really no way to accomplish this without the government being able to compile a defacto firearms registration. Which is what the NRA and almost all gun owners are 100% against. Right now licensed Gun dealers are required to keep the paper copies of sales, serial numbers and background check documents. That way if a crime is committed with a firearm. Law enforcement can get a warrant for that paper record to see who the original purchaser was so they might track the fire arm to the perp. Those records at gun stores are not in government hands because that would create a defato gun registration data base. But how can a private seller sell a firearm to another individual if they have conduct a back ground check? The government has no power, nor will it be given the power for an individual keep a paper record forever. They cannot be required to notify the government of their location so that paper record can be accessed by law enforcement if that gun is ever used in a crime. The only way, on practical level is for the government to keep a data base on firearm arm sales from and to individuals which is inherently dangerous.
.
So here is my compromise. Individuals who want to purchase firearms purchase a yearly background check ID card from the government. Like $50 per year. Now this would have to be voluntary to be constitutional. So there would have to be incentive to get people to voluntarily get an ID and private sellers to only sell their firearms to a person who has the ID. The incentive would be sellers, by law, would receive greatly decreased civil liabilities, if the person they sell a gun to commits a crime with the gun. Right now as it stands. Private sellers can be subjected to all kinds of civil liabilities if the gun they sold to an individual is used in the commission of a crime. If sued they basically have to prove they are not guilty of knowingly selling a firearm to an individual who was going to use it in the commission of a crime. This is wrong and unconstitutional but it is the way it is now. Changing the civil law to: Now the one filing the lawsuit against the seller has to prove the seller is guilty of selling the gun to someone they know would use it to commit a crime if that person who committed the crime had the background check ID. That would kill to birds with one stone. It would bring civil law back under constitutional guidelines of innocent until proven guilty and it would be the defacto enactment of much needed tort reform. Criminal liabilities would remain about the same.
So that would be a great incentive for legal, private gun sales from one individual to another to use a background check system. The government would have no knowledge of the private transfer of a firearm from one individual to another. Which is the way it should be. There would be and could not be a data base compiled by the government with this system. Persons selling a firearm could not be held civilly liable for a crime committed by the buyer who used the gun unless the government or greedy lawyer could prove to a jury from a criminal law standard that they are guilty of knowingly selling the firearm to an individual who would commit a crime with it. Civil law would remain the same for individuals who sold the firearm to a non-card carrying individuals. If dragged into court they would have to basically prove they are innocent. Wrong but that is the standard for civil law.

Why not just make individuals do the same background check as a licensed gun dealer and put within the law that the government cannot keep a record of the transaction? Are you freaking kidding me? Trusting government to keep a law like that? Basically giving it the power to create a national gun registration data base and trusting them to not do it? When the NRA created sponsored background checks that we currently have on the books was signed into law by the Clinton's. That law specifically states no federal, state or local government agency is allowed to keep records of the background checks and sales. Those records are only allowed to be kept by the licensed gun dealer. The very first thing the Clinton justice dept. did was to commission software that could be distributed to local and state authorities that would collect the records of sales through the background check system and then forward the records to a national database. They planned on blackmailing local and state authorities by cutting of federal aid unless they complied. Luckily the conservative led Republican congress got wind of the scheme and stopped them. The wicked will always seek to create a national firearm registration whether the law forbids them from doing it or not. A long those lines. Do you think for a single minute that the Democrat party or the lawyers would vote for something like this that will do a little bit of good but won't stop 90% of the firearm related crime we are seeing? I say heck no they will not. They want a national firearm registration, that is their goal. They could care less about background checking people. And the lawyers want to be able to sue people and force them to prove they are nor guilty. That way they are guaranteed a huge income from these bogus law suits.

So tell me what you think about this. Since I just thought of it last night. There must be pitfalls I don't see in it.

I don't think anything being proposed by the Democratic contenders is unconstitutional. I don't like it, but I think most of it will pass constitutional muster. The background check is simple, you surrender the weapon to an FFL, he collects a fee, and does the check on you first, If it's Ok, then he collects a fee from the buyer, and runs a check on him. If everything checks out, then the buyer pays you, and it's done.

There are other things much more concerning than background checks. The ability to file a law suit against gun makers will force everyone out of business. The other is $1 Million in liability insurance per gun...it's in the works.

but it goes deeper still:

- Democrats are opposed to voter IF
- Democrats got bilingual voting ballots
- Democrats want open borders
- Democrats want to end the filibuster (which is the only way the minority party can affect legislation)
- Democrats want to end the electoral college

I really am not a conspiracy theorist, but this is obvious.

The two truths are:

- A disarmed population is there goal.
- None of them care about any deaths by firearms, or any other way. It is about them, everything that comes after that, comes after that.

If they succeed, you will never see a conservative President again, and they will turn you into a slave.

 

[Daniel Martinovich]

My state law does require universal background checks and I have seen how it is done.
All background checks are done through a licensed dealer just as if the gun was being bought in the store from the dealer. Owner and buyer ask the licensed dealer to run a background check. The buyer gives his information to the licensed dealer. The dealer runs him/her through the data base. If they are cleared than the actual sale can take place.
I would always want to do this if I were to sell one of my guns. That gun is no longer recorded as belonging to me. If in the future that gun is used in a crime, law enforcement isn't going to be suspecting me and searching my house for that gun.

It's important to me to know that I didn't sell a gun to a killer without doing everything I could to keep it from happening.

Well you say some things that are to obvious. Why would anyone sell their firearms to a total stranger? That is not how most responsible firearm owners conduct life. And they get signed receipts for the sale so that if it were ever necessary. Law enforcement can trace the firearm to the person who purchased it. I'm not for what your state requires though unless I were selling firearms to strangers. Everyone already has to go that route when purchasing over he internet. Its costly and I have never liked the idea of the dealers records being available for seizing by a lawless administration. Had Hillary been elected in 2016 and then again in 2000. We may have gotten to that point. Outside of Roosevelt\Truman. Our nation has never had back to back Democrat presidents like that since the civil war. And for good reasons.

 

[Daniel Martinovich]

What I think is that you ought to drop the ridiculous assertion that this constitutes a lie. Is the term "gunshow loophole" something of a misnomer? Perhaps. But as you point out, there is still a loophole that allows guns to be transferred without background checks, whether or not that has to do with gun shows per se.



Yeah, that danger is that the checks don't get conducted.



That would be tragic, being able to trace all the guns and all. It's terrible when the government can trace things like motor vehicles and food.



How about we skip the de facto database and just build a real one?



Pay a dealer to do it.



That's likely less dangerous than the current system of not having a database.



It being voluntary would also mean it's unlikely to be effective.



I don't think we need to give gun sellers any less liability than they have now. God forbid they express caution when selling weapons.

So my compromise is out of the question for you. You reject the idea of limited human government and the inherent dangers of human government having the power to do what it wants.

 

[iluvatar5150]

So my compromise is out of the question for you. You reject the idea of limited human government and the inherent dangers of human government having the power to do what it wants.

Not at all. I just don't believe the threat of human government vs the threat of human randos in their garages with weapons to be as one-sided as you seem to.

 

[Daniel Martinovich]

I'm getting rather tired of conservatives quibbling over a colloquialism in a manner that obfuscates the reality of the issue. This whole argument from your side is far more dishonest than the use of the word "gunshow".

So another that compromise is not in the cards. You also reject the idea of the dangers of unlimited government power?

 

[iluvatar5150]

So another that compromise is not in the cards. You also reject the idea of the dangers of unlimited government power?

Did you get that conclusion from your mat?

 

[Hank77]

The lie is: What the gun show loophole actually is is never mentioned by the MSM or politicians who use the phrase "gun show loop hole." With the design to get the gullible to think that the gun show itself is one giant loophole with which anyone can buy a firearm without a background check.
So it we call this political "spin" rather than a lie. Would that make you happy?

Why was it blamed on Dems.? When Reps. and others speak about it they use the same verbiage.
Should there be an explanation every time of what is being referred to or should we expect adults to do their homework?

This reminds me of a video of an interviewer asking voters if they preferred Obamacare or the ACA. The voters didn't know they were the same thing. These were voters on both sides of the fence. Some of them elaborated on why one was better than the other.

 

[Daniel Martinovich]

I'm for not changing anything ... we already have processes in place ... it's not perfect but nothing put in place would be perfect. Some states, such as mine, now if you sell to a private individual, we have to go to a gun dealer and have them run the background check before the purchased can be completed ... same with giving a gun as a gift.

If we are going to be constitutional purists. Then the states are the ones with the right to regulate firearms or not. The federal government is not. Not how it is panning out though. Even conservatives sue state governments to get the federal government to impose gun rights on the states.
What do you think of my idea though? If WE MUST pass legislation?

 

[Daniel Martinovich]

Not at all. I just don't believe the threat of human government vs the threat of human randos in their garages with weapons to be as one-sided as you seem to.

Really? Your fears and apprehension of Rambo living next store to you aside. You actually think individuals are more responsible for more murders than human government has?

 

[Daniel Martinovich]

Why was it blamed on Dems.? When Reps. and others speak about it they use the same verbiage.
Should there be an explanation every time of what is being referred to or should we expect adults to do their homework?

This reminds me of a video of an interviewer asking voters if they preferred Obamacare or the ACA. The voters didn't know they were the same thing. These were voters on both sides of the fence. Some of them elaborated on why one was better than the other.

Becasue the Dems really on their voters not knowing and the GOP really on their voters knowing.

 

[Daniel Martinovich]

Did you get that conclusion from your mat?

No I got it from your first comment. You advocated and national gun registry. You just gave the government the power confiscate firearms but are "trusting" that they would not do it.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Really? Your fears and apprehension of Rambo living next store to you aside. You actually think individuals are more responsible for more murders than human government has?

In the US, over the last several decades, yes.

 

[iluvatar5150]

No I got it from your first comment. You advocated and national gun registry. You just gave the government the power confiscate firearms but are "trusting" that they would not do it.

No, you didn't get it from my comment. Contrary to your suggestion, a gun registry does not constitute "unlimited government power".