Here's a reason to ask to see an LTCF.....

[39flathead]

My question is who is going to pay for this expanded PICS?

Answer the tax payers of this state.

How are you going to be sure the request are not logged. AKA the current PICS registry.

WE DO NOT WANT MORE GOVERMENT!!!!!!!

This is why PICS needs abolished.

There is no fee to use NICS (unless something has changed since I was a FFL)

As for the requests, so what if they are logged?
You could be checking on a guy for employment reasons.
You could be checking on a guy/gal that may be potentially hired to babysit your kids.

If you provided no information as to who the seller is, their "registry" would be an utter waste for them to keep.
Even if "they" knew I bought 50 guns in a year, "they" wouldn't know if or to whom I sold them if I didn't have to provide my information as a seller.


This is the only way I'd ever support UC, and even then, I think they should just make it available as a voluntary thing, I'd bet it would be used by many sellers.

[BobGun]

If the system was set up to simply check a person with no firearms info attached, I wouldn't worry about it being logged.

Would it really be a PICS expansion, or would it be a way to reduce our dependency on Federal Licensees?

What do you not understand about it is not the Goverments business who I sell my firearm to. After they do background checks on long arms maybe we can do background checks on knives, hammers and baseball bats. We do not enforce the laws against a bad guy trying to purchase firearms so why create more laws so they cannot be enforced either.

[BobGun]

This is why PICS needs abolished.

There is no fee to use NICS (unless something has changed since I was a FFL)

As for the requests, so what if they are logged?
You could be checking on a guy for employment reasons.
You could be checking on a guy/gal that may be potentially hired to babysit your kids.

If you provided no information as to who the seller is, their "registry" would be an utter waste for them to keep.
Even if "they" knew I bought 50 guns in a year, "they" wouldn't know if or to whom I sold them if I didn't have to provide my information as a seller.


This is the only way I'd ever support UC, and even then, I think they should just make it available as a voluntary thing, I'd bet it would be used by many sellers.

Who is going to pay for all of this. Why should I as a buyer have my name added to a watch list.

[phillyd2]

So, if Seller Sam meets this Kenneth Philipp the day before he whacks his wife and sells him his old shotgun, exactly what legal jeopardy is Sam exposed to?

Assuming of course that Kenneth Philipp did not go off on a rant during the sale how he can't wait to shoot the bitch. Suppose it was just the usual FTF sale, they exchange pleasantries and Kenneth Philipp seem like your average guy - paid Sam's price and off he went.

[mosseater]

After reading most of the previous statements, it occurs to me we have been painted into a corner of sorts. We are seen as objecting to "the bill at hand", and most times, that's a valid objection, as they are written by ignorant, handwringing, do-gooders bent on saving us from ourselves. Fear and ignorance is a devastating weapon to defend against, even with facts.

Personally speaking, I think the notion that we are against "the bill" isn't as accurate as saying we are against ANY bill, simply because we know from past experience that "this bill" (whichever iteration of stupidity it currently is) is not anything useful, and is but a stepping stone to the "next bill", which there will surely be. They will not stop. They refuse to be educated. They refuse to use common sense. Everything the anti-s do is for effect. I don't believe for one nano second that they actually want "this bill" because they think it will bring meaningful change. It's all so disingenuous, one can see right through it.

It is on these grounds that I will pull the plug every time from here on out. I don't care if I believe in what they are proposing or not. I am conceding no further. We have soon reached a point where these clueless idiots (clinically speaking) need to be not only dismissed out of hand, but driven back into their collective holes with a pointy stick and a slap with an open hand. If they need more than that (and that day just as surely approaches) we should ablige them with more when needed.

Make no mistake, I believe (begrudgingly) that we need to make our rights known, the history of it, the law of it, the common sense of it, but when we appear to be open to negotiation, it weakens our point. It then become more about how much we are willing to give rather than how much they can take. We know from every angle that practically nothing they are/have proposed will have any measurable effect on crime or safety. It's not even a guess. The law of diminishing returns kicks in pretty hard when the line will only be crossed at the expense of our God-given rights. The truth is, we need to be accepting of some danger, some crime, if we are going to be allowed to live in a free society. There always has to be a balance, but when tip-toeing the boundary, we should recognize where we are and allow no further advance.

Commentary is capitulation. In their minds, if they can get us to the table, they can enact their agenda. I say push away from the table. Nancy Reagan said, "...just say 'no' !". Works for me. I don't want to sell a gun to someone who isn't of lawful intent, and I won't. I simply don't like being told not to or penalized by actions of others I didn't take.

You can't make criminals abide the law by treating the law-abiding like criminals.

[GunLawyer001]

So, if Seller Sam meets this Kenneth Philipp the day before he whacks his wife and sells him his old shotgun, exactly what legal jeopardy is Sam exposed to?

Assuming of course that Kenneth Philipp did not go off on a rant during the sale how he can't wait to shoot the bitch. Suppose it was just the usual FTF sale, they exchange pleasantries and Kenneth Philipp seem like your average guy - paid Sam's price and off he went.

You might want to Google "Oliver Wendell Holmes' bad man theory of the law". It deals with amoral folks who are only concerned about the legal penalty for their misdeeds, and not with whether what they've done was right or wrong, or helped to get someone killed.

[Fujisawa-sensai]

I've suggested exactly that, if the system were designed to allow pretty much anybody to plug in a name and get an approved or denied response, without details. There's no need to even use an FFL's A&D book, just expand access to PICS, maybe slap it on a website. You can already validate that an FFL is real with the ATF website, why not allow it to check people?

Look at how cashiers check bills for counterfeits, they swipe a pen, they get some confidence that the bill is real. No records kept by the evil govt. It deters some counterfeiting.

But in that scenario it would be impossible for ATF to do a forward trace on the chain of ownership of a firearm. I don't see how you could possibly hope to enforce a UBC law when you have no idea where the last FFL to do a transfer was.

One idea I've heard is to have the FFL enter partial information about the potential transferee into the NICS system, and the system would return a list of all prohibited persons matching that info. The FFL would then just verify that the transferee is not one of those people. In this system you would still have forward trace capability, while producing a registry would be impossible.

[GunLawyer001]

But in that scenario it would be impossible for ATF to do a forward trace on the chain of ownership of a firearm. I don't see how you could possibly hope to enforce a UBC law when you have no idea where the last FFL to do a transfer was.

One idea I've heard is to have the FFL enter partial information about the potential transferee into the NICS system, and the system would return a list of all prohibited persons matching that info. The FFL would then just verify that the transferee is not one of those people. In this system you would still have forward trace capability, while producing a registry would be impossible.

I don't care all that much about forward tracing, it's my impression that most crime guns are not being used by the last person to legally buy them anyway. I could be wrong on that.

What I'd LIKE to see in the way of enforcement of a "universal" background check would be the police and the courts crucifying anyone who sold a gun to a perp without doing the due diligence, IF the perp then committed a crime with it. In other words, if you sell to your cousin Leroy without a check, nobody cares, unless Leroy shoots up a school with it. So you have an interest in to whom you sell.

The current system allows the greedy and the uncaring to sell shotguns and rifles for inflated prices to prohibited person, as long as the seller has no reason to believe that the buyer is prohibited. We should switch that burden, prohibit sales of guns unless the seller has some reason to believe the buyer is NOT prohibited, and we provide a clear safe harbor. Set up a website, you punch in the buyer's name and DL #, or the last 4 digits of his SSN, or some other identifier, and get a quick, no-questions-asked approval or denial.

This does nothing to infringe the rights of the law-abiding, there's zero chance of "registration", all it does is what the NRA asks the govt to do now, "enforce the existing laws", by creating disincentives for sellers to profit by selling to buyers who can't buy from an FFL.

[Fujisawa-sensai]

I don't care all that much about forward tracing, it's my impression that most crime guns are not being used by the last person to legally buy them anyway. I could be wrong on that.

What I'd LIKE to see in the way of enforcement of a "universal" background check would be the police and the courts crucifying anyone who sold a gun to a perp without doing the due diligence, IF the perp then committed a crime with it. In other words, if you sell to your cousin Leroy without a check, nobody cares, unless Leroy shoots up a school with it. So you have an interest in to whom you sell.

But how do the authorities figure out who sold Leroy the gun? Particularly if he kills himself after his spree is over (like the guy in Webster, NY who shot at firefighters last Christmas) there will be absolutely no way without a forward trace.

[mpan72]

if he can't be trusted with a gun, he can not be trusted period. if he couldent get a gun, he would have used a knife again. the tool makes no difference.

I have to agree with gunlawyer on at least one point. I would feel pretty dam bad if I sold a shot gun to someone and he used it to commit murder.

I understand someone can kill with a variety of objects. I do not wanty to be the one who supplied it.