Background Checks for Private Party Sales: How?

[MJY65]

Why couldn't they just allow NICS to be used by private sellers directly? I wouldn't mind being able to call in a buyer I don't personally know.

The major issue, as I see it, is that that kind of access would allow possible access of private data to anyone who calls. I'm not sure what would stop someone from calling in checks on anyone for any arbitrary reason. There is a big difference between checking someone's history through public court records, and allowing access to a database that may contain non-public criminal data or health data. I know that there is limited info available currently, but even that is only given to licensed dealers, so there is some recourse if abuse is found to be happening. I wouldn't want just anyone to be able to call in a check on me.

Not necessarily. The response from the database would only need to be "approved" or "denied". The caller wouldn't need to know the reason why.

[BigBlue]

The current bills being proposed would do exactly that.

OTOH, our current PTP/PTC system allows a seller to determine that a buyer has passed a background check, without creating a paper trail.

Making a PTP or PTC mandatory for all private firearms transactions would accomplish what they claim to want, without creating the paper trail that is the source of most of the opposition to the universal background check proposals. If the antis were to offer it, they'd see far less opposition, and they'd be almost certain to get it passed. And they know that.

That they aren't offering it is, in my mind, proof that they care more about establishing the paper trail than they do about the background checks.

The problem isn't that we don't have a way to do background checks, it is that fundamentally the concept of a mandatory background check MUST necessarily be tied to a paper trail - gun registration. You can't say "every sale must have a background check" and then not have a requirement to prove one was done. I started a thread on this very topic either here somewhere or over at CarryForum. In order to prove you legally possess a weapon, which means a background check was done at time of transfer, someone has to keep the paper trail.

Today's system, where most private party sales involve the seller asking to see the buyer's PTC or PTP (and often taking a picture of it) takes care of the underlying intent of a background check (well, the logical intent, not the real intent of those proposing it). But it can't be proven. And the buyer has nothing to prove that the seller checked their PTC/PTP.

Ultimately the real solution is to leave things alone and as they are. Prosecute people who knowingly transfer a firearm to a prohibited person and follow the laws we currently have.

BB

[jdege]

The problem isn't that we don't have a way to do background checks, it is that fundamentally the concept of a mandatory background check MUST necessarily be tied to a paper trail - gun registration. You can't say "every sale must have a background check" and then not have a requirement to prove one was done. I started a thread on this very topic either here somewhere or over at CarryForum. In order to prove you legally possess a weapon, which means a background check was done at time of transfer, someone has to keep the paper trail.

That idea is so fundamentally reversed from the principles of a free society it's absurd.
(Which doesn't mean that it's not what what the antis are thinking.)

Remember that bit about presumption of innocence? No one should every even think about having to prove that they legally possess a weapon - the presumption must be that every possession is legal, unless clearly proven otherwise.

It's that presumption that the antis are trying to eliminate, and its that presumption on which we cannot give an inch.

[MJY65]

The problem isn't that we don't have a way to do background checks, it is that fundamentally the concept of a mandatory background check MUST necessarily be tied to a paper trail - gun registration. You can't say "every sale must have a background check" and then not have a requirement to prove one was done. I started a thread on this very topic either here somewhere or over at CarryForum. In order to prove you legally possess a weapon, which means a background check was done at time of transfer, someone has to keep the paper trail.
BB

Don't get me wrong. I hope none of these new laws pass and I'm certainly no fan of more background checks. However, I do think it could be done without a registration of the firearm in gov't hands. If the background check were tied to an approval number, the buyer and seller could maintain their own records. If questioned, the new gun owner could produce a bill of sale from the seller bearing that number and a check of the NICS system would confirm that that number was associated with a check having been done. The NICS system would not need to know the serial number of the firearm.

Of course, this assumes that the true goal is effective background checks. I tend to believe that the ultimate goal is for the "Universal Background Checks" to fail and the Anti's will then call for registration as a necessary element. They won't be satisfied with the solution I have proposed.

[MJY65]

As a follow up to my previous post, I think we are sometimes a bit too quick to view our political opponents on this issue as naive or stupid because their proposals would be ineffective or not address the real issues. I tend to think that while the author of a bill or even some of the spokesmen may be uninformed, there are people behind the scenes that know EXACTLY what they are proposing, including its limitations. They have a long term plan in place.

[matthew.allen]

Why couldn't they just allow NICS to be used by private sellers directly? I wouldn't mind being able to call in a buyer I don't personally know.

The major issue, as I see it, is that that kind of access would allow possible access of private data to anyone who calls. I'm not sure what would stop someone from calling in checks on anyone for any arbitrary reason. There is a big difference between checking someone's history through public court records, and allowing access to a database that may contain non-public criminal data or health data. I know that there is limited info available currently, but even that is only given to licensed dealers, so there is some recourse if abuse is found to be happening. I wouldn't want just anyone to be able to call in a check on me.

Not necessarily. The response from the database would only need to be "approved" or "denied". The caller wouldn't need to know the reason why.

While I don't disagree, that there is a possibility that someone could find out that there is a reason at all, based on potentially private information, is what would bother me about public access to ANY type of the data, no matter how generalized it is. The opportunity for abuse in such a system is huge. Imagine landlords, neighbors, potential employers all having the ability to call in a crim history/mental health background check on anyone they wanted, without that person's consent, and there being no recourse available fro that person. When you buy gun from a dealer, you give them consent for this, same goes for when you apply for a permit to carry/purchase, you give them consent to do a non-criminal investigation of you. Access to theses kinds of records, even if the only response is yes/no/delayed, is and should be controlled by consent or allowable uses under the law (criminal investigations, etc.). The major issue of course, is that to increase accountability in such a system, documentation is a must, and that of course, is one the major issues regarding background checks.

[jdege]

If the background check were tied to an approval number, the buyer and seller could maintain their own records. If questioned, the new gun owner could produce a bill of sale from the seller bearing that number and a check of the NICS system would confirm that that number was associated with a check having been done.

That still results in a system in which the presumption is that the possession of a firearm is illegal, unless shown to be legal.

That's simply unacceptable.

[farmerj]

You'd do it the same way you are supposed to do it now.

https://dps.mn.gov/divisions/bca/bca-di ... nsfer.aspx


Oh wait. The only REQUIRED it for handguns and "assault weapons".


But you CAN still do it for long guns if you really want to.


So the provisions ARE already there for this to be done.

[farmerj]

The current bills being proposed would do exactly that.

OTOH, our current PTP/PTC system allows a seller to determine that a buyer has passed a background check, without creating a paper trail.

Making a PTP or PTC mandatory for all private firearms transactions would accomplish what they claim to want, without creating the paper trail that is the source of most of the opposition to the universal background check proposals. If the antis were to offer it, they'd see far less opposition, and they'd be almost certain to get it passed. And they know that.

That they aren't offering it is, in my mind, proof that they care more about establishing the paper trail than they do about the background checks.

The problem isn't that we don't have a way to do background checks, it is that fundamentally the concept of a mandatory background check MUST necessarily be tied to a paper trail - gun registration. You can't say "every sale must have a background check" and then not have a requirement to prove one was done. I started a thread on this very topic either here somewhere or over at CarryForum. In order to prove you legally possess a weapon, which means a background check was done at time of transfer, someone has to keep the paper trail.

Today's system, where most private party sales involve the seller asking to see the buyer's PTC or PTP (and often taking a picture of it) takes care of the underlying intent of a background check (well, the logical intent, not the real intent of those proposing it). But it can't be proven. And the buyer has nothing to prove that the seller checked their PTC/PTP.

Ultimately the real solution is to leave things alone and as they are. Prosecute people who knowingly transfer a firearm to a prohibited person and follow the laws we currently have.

BB

******** a private party CAN'T create a paper trail.


I can and do require a copy of your permit to carry or permit to purchase. I now have a paper trail AND proof that I checked it. How hard is that.

[LePetomane]

The "No Tax Left Behind" state of Minnesota will find a way to generate revenue from this.

[george]

While I don't disagree, that there is a possibility that someone could find out that there is a reason at all, based on potentially private information, is what would bother me about public access to ANY type of the data, no matter how generalized it is. The opportunity for abuse in such a system is huge. Imagine landlords, neighbors, potential employers all having the ability to call in a crim history/mental health background check on anyone they wanted, without that person's consent, and there being no recourse available fro that person. When you buy gun from a dealer, you give them consent for this, same goes for when you apply for a permit to carry/purchase, you give them consent to do a non-criminal investigation of you. Access to theses kinds of records, even if the only response is yes/no/delayed, is and should be controlled by consent or allowable uses under the law (criminal investigations, etc.). The major issue of course, is that to increase accountability in such a system, documentation is a must, and that of course, is one the major issues regarding background checks.

This may concern some but when a person is called in the only response is Proceed, Delay or Denied, not even the applicant can find out why, they will have to
file a form to find out why the response was whatever it was and proceed from there.
I personally think the largest abuse will come from the state as time goes on and they keep adding more hoops to jump.
This is a wolf in sheep's clothing.

[BigBlue]

The problem isn't that we don't have a way to do background checks, it is that fundamentally the concept of a mandatory background check MUST necessarily be tied to a paper trail - gun registration. You can't say "every sale must have a background check" and then not have a requirement to prove one was done. I started a thread on this very topic either here somewhere or over at CarryForum. In order to prove you legally possess a weapon, which means a background check was done at time of transfer, someone has to keep the paper trail.

That idea is so fundamentally reversed from the principles of a free society it's absurd.
(Which doesn't mean that it's not what what the antis are thinking.)

Remember that bit about presumption of innocence? No one should every even think about having to prove that they legally possess a weapon - the presumption must be that every possession is legal, unless clearly proven otherwise.

It's that presumption that the antis are trying to eliminate, and its that presumption on which we cannot give an inch.

Which idea is absurd? That a registration system would necessarily follow a requirement for a background check? My whole point is that once the antis get this 'reasonable' background check put in place it will immediately be a next step to 'fix' the problem of lack of trackability and proof that you followed the law by implementing a registration system. You have to look deeper than what the antis are saying into the depths of their true plan. They know they must work incrementally and slowly in order to reach their goal. The forces truly behind these anti-gun pushes have been building their plans for literally decades. And I'm not talking about the Heathers or most of the current state legislators.

And I'm on the same page... do not give an inch.

[jdege]

I can and do require a copy of your permit to carry or permit to purchase. I now have a paper trail AND proof that I checked it. How hard is that.

It's not hard at all. And I have no problem at all should you choose to do so.

What I have a problem with is the idea of allowing the government to decide that your not being able to produce the paperwork is evidence of a crime.