What's the argument against background checks for private gun sales?

The best "bang" for the buck with regards to private sales is to open up the NICS system and the stolen gun database to public use. Most every private seller would VOLUNTARILY use them when selling a firearm to be sure that they are not selling to a prohibited person. Most every BUYER would VOLUNTARILY use it to be sure the firearm they are buying is coming from a legitimate seller, and that the gun is not stolen. The only people who would NOT voluntarily use it, are criminals conducting transactions amongst themselves.

No data about the buyer or seller needs to be collected, and it could be used anonymously and instantly. This would cover the vast majority of private sales, and put a serious kink in the criminal buyer's ability to purchase firearms from the private seller.

 

It's because they don't know what they're talking about.

 

Even though that it the name the press has given it, and it's probably too late to teach the public any better, it has nothing whatsoever to do with gunshows. It's about private person to person sales in between two parties who live in the same State that do not require a bgc. The problematic aspects are that it's expensive, especially if your State requires both people to show up in person at an FFL to do the exchange, and they live 400 miles away from each other. Note that it is legal to ship a firearm to another resident of your own State. It's time consuming, and 99.99% of the time (an estimate, but a completely reasonable one) the would be buyer would pass it anyway.

At the risk of sounding paranoid as well, some of us just don't want Uncle to know what, if any, firearms we own. I'm not going to say how many we own, but with the exception of one, they were all purchased privately and inherited from my father, which came as somewhat of a surprise to me. In California, my little collection would be called an arsenal, at least by the press and politicians, whereas in Texas, I'd probably be called an amateur lol...

And it's not just worrying about Uncle knowing how many of what I have, in some States, those records are considered public, and I definitely don't want some stranger with evil intent to just login to some publicly accessible database and finding out what may exist to be stolen at my address. There's already too much info publicly available, especially if you own your home.

 

Stolen gun database is fine, but I wouldn't want some stranger, especially someone with whom I am not planning a firearm transaction, to be able to run a NICS check on me. Not because there is anything to find, just that it's private info that I don't want made public.

 

I think there are two primary issues. One, are you willing to allow private citizens direct access to the FBI database? Two, are you sure you want private owners this kind of access to this most sensitive information?

A better question is whether the FBI et all would allow you to have access to their data, even though it is essentially our data.

The other obvious question is who funds it.

 

Good points.

 

It could be done online, and completely anonymously for both the buyer and the seller, returning nothing to them but a simple GO/NO-GO indicator. Regardless, I believe that if solving the perceived problems caused by the "gun show loophole" is really what they want, this is the only way to get 90% there without the impossible necessity of creating an accurate and complete database of firearms.

Of course, they will insist that there be some penalty for the SELLER for not using such a system, but making it 100% anonymous, voluntary, and secure would be the best way to gain wide acceptance amongst the law-abiding and actually achieve some good from it.

 

State I'm in requires a gun license. There is a criminal and mental health background check done in order to get the license. I had no criminal or mental health records and therefore received my LTC. I didn't think it was the end of the world to go through that process.

 

I see. And why is that?

 

Because absent a registry, there would be no way to know that a transaction has taken place, and who the previous owner was. Compiling such a registry would be both unconstitutional and impractical/impossible, and the resultant law would be unenforceable.

 

So previous owner details are compiled currently in states with private sale background checks?

 

I don't know what they compile. I do know they would have to compile ownership data if they hope to enforce compliance with any mandatory private sale background checks.

 

Why the need for registry? There is no registry now, and vast majority o of sales include background check. Law abiding citizens would complete their transaction at a gun store where they can run a background check.

 

Because without the registry, there is no enforceable compliance. And without enforceable compliance, there is no need for the law. Please provide a source for your assertion that the vast majority of sales include a background check.

 

I have bought several weapons at gun shows and not once have I ever bought one without them running a background check on the spot.
I have no idea what this loophole they are discussing is all about.
If a gun dealer at a gun show decides to sell you something under the table, he risk huge federal penalties including a lot of jail time.
I have never seen this so called gun show loop hole they keep talking about.

 

So you acknowledge that private gun sale background checks CAN happen without compiling owner details?

 

Then background checks for sales at licensed dealers should end?

 

Again, law-abiding citizens are called "law-abiding" because they follow the law. At the moment criminals buy guns from law abiding private citizens because there is no need for the seller to run a background check. If a law calls for them to complete the sale at a gun store, then they will do that. Why would they not? Some might violate the law, in which case they are NOT law-abiding gun owners.

You think manufacturers sell them under the table to private buyers? Yea, pretty much all new guns are sold at dealers. Some, but not many, are made from kits and sold privately.

 

I think we need to prioritize the problems and this would be low on the list. Private sellers are usually not equipped to run a background check and not trained in how to do it. I don't recall any mass shootings committed by someone who bought a gun at a gun show and didn't do a background check and most mass shooters either already owned the gun or passed a background check. That being said I think many states have tougher background check laws than federal and if you want to somehow require them for even private sales at gun shows, which means paying for a means to do so, I don't really have a problem. But I would rather concentrate on making our schools and other places more secure, investigating what we can do on the mental health issue and for MOST of the mass shootings keep the criminals how commit them in jail.

 

The idea has been that they complete the sale at a dealer who would run the check for the seller.

 

Why did you cut out the below from my post in your quote of it?

 

Why would that happen as a result of private gun sale background checks?

 

Because I was responding only to your claim about the presumed assumption.

 

Is there even a way to be "equipped" to run a background check and be trained in how to do it?

Note how I didn't mention mass shootings in my post.

I totally agree that this is the priority.

 

The liberal concept of "the gunshow loophole" does in fact assume that all gunshot gun sales do not require background checks. Of course, both you and I know that this is false.