Private sale background check - an app for that?

[RWBlue01]

First, Please give me your Name, address and SSN and tell me you want to see how much harm I can do with it in a week.

Second, running a check is a back end way to get registration.

Registration leads to confiscation.

[VBshooter]

Add their moms maiden name and its like the holy grail of ID theft, Paper trippers are always out there.

[Palladin]

Private MEANS private,,, No interference,,BS papers ,Nobodies damn busienss what you do wether buying or selling.

+1

+2

[Mindflayer]

Think proactive. The demand for private sales to end is coming. If WE control that, we negate the argument.

Anyway, it's just a thought. I guess whining and not thinking is more fun.

[gunderwood]

Think proactive. The demand for private sales to end is coming. If WE control that, we negate the argument.

Anyway, it's just a thought. I guess whining and not thinking is more fun.

He would WE control that under your proposal. The reality is that the app really is just an interface to the background check system. It's no different than an FFL using a software application to enter your info and get a result.

[GettingOld]

... I have said twice now that the person selling is using it for their own peace of mind.....

While the concept is well meaning, the potential for abuse is vast. Unlike a business, which has a vested interest in maintaining their integrity, an individual(s) has no such restriction against gaming the system.Over and above the risk of giving me your personal information and my using it for other purposes, off the top of my head, the following possibilities occur:

I could run gun checks on all my neighbors and associates. A rejection might lead to leverage or extortion capabilities.

Conversely, I could have a gazillion other people (or Bots) run an individual's background check, creating a flag in the federal database about a person who appears to be trying to buy a huge number of guns.

The solution such a system would provide could easily be far worse than the problem.

[Mindflayer]

Yup, there is the potential for abuse. We'd have to build a system that addresses those.

I'm just trying to think ahead of the curve. I know there are issues - I do large scale enterprise system operations and architecture for a living, and have done so for places where security was of grave concern.

[Wallace]

Why cant I have access to NICS? Why cant I go to the post office (dmv, State police w/e), ask for a print out of my background check, that will be valid for X amount of days, that has a validation code on it that the seller could check on line, if they wish? That way only the buyer has a record of having their background checked for the purpose of buying a firearm, applying for a government job, part time babysitting or whatever.
So it could look something like this

This Government Agency X
Validates Person A
Has no prior felonies, is not very mentally ill.
Can lawfully:
Purchase firearm
Work for the tsa
drive a bus
ect
ect
ect
Validation code can be checked on line at www.
Good for 48 hours.
Notarized


Forgive the sentence fragments, my english permit expired yesterday.

[FiremanBob]

The mechanics are not the issue for me. The fact that lawful, private transactions are none of the .gov's G-D business is.

[GeneFrenkle]

IMO, this is solving a non-problem. The current laws are sufficient, and the common practice of showing a CHP or voter registration card satisfies needs.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[mtbinva]

I had to wait 4 weeks for mine to clear. Picked up my Glock 30 Saturday. Took a LONG time with NO explanation other than ramped up sales. It had been suggested (no facts to back it up) the VA SP are purposely slowing the purchases down by extending the clearance timeframe.

I do computer forensics for a living, and I can tell you, private citizens having that info would be a Charlie Foxtrot of the biggest kind !! Now I mean no insult to the members here, because we are law abiding citizens, but again, criminals will be criminals, and they're proposing to give criminals and yet another way to harm us, the innocent.

And if I recall, FFL's are bonded.

[arab1302]

Why not just make everyone sell through an FFL? AM I missing something? So the buyer pays an extra $25. I get peace of mind, and the buyer does the same as going to a dealer. I don't see that as an erosion of rights.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[GeneFrenkle]

There ia nothing prohibiting you from doing that now. If you want to buy/sell via ffl, then do so. Making it manditory or asking an agency for permission doesn't solve any tangible problem. Please demonstrate that it will imhibit felons from having access, please. I'd love to see an actual citation.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[FiremanBob]

Why not just make everyone sell through an FFL? AM I missing something? So the buyer pays an extra $25. I get peace of mind, and the buyer does the same as going to a dealer. I don't see that as an erosion of rights.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

Why on earth would you think that is a good idea? This is America, not England.

[mtbinva]

The issue is a weak double edged sword. By this I mean the spirit by which they want the background checks is to keep guns from criminals. I also know that if ALL sales are done through FFL’s, all handguns would therefore be registered.

First side of the sword, the argument is week since criminals will by-pass the whole purchase with a background check. This idea holds no water.

Other side of the sword; my personal identifiable information (PII) could be subject to public record, and as in the case of NY, be published without my consent?

Also, can you imagine, some dumb a$$ politician, to generate revenue, could purpose to have a personal property tax on all gun owners firearms, much the way they do cars?

I know the last ones a stretch, but hey, it COULD happen.

[allingeneral]

Why not just make everyone sell through an FFL? AM I missing something? So the buyer pays an extra $25. I get peace of mind, and the buyer does the same as going to a dealer. I don't see that as an erosion of rights.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

In that case, if I want to buy my wife a pistol for her birthday or if I want to give my son a 20 gauge shotgun for Christmas, I have to go through an FFL to transfer the weapon to my family member? That seems a bit ridiculous, doesn't it? What if my grandfather passes away and leaves his collection to someone...let's say he has 30 firearms... so, you want to pay $25 for each of them to perform an FFL transfer just so that the government can have tabs on them? (no other good reason that I can think of)

[allingeneral]

Why not just make everyone sell through an FFL? AM I missing something? So the buyer pays an extra $25. I get peace of mind, and the buyer does the same as going to a dealer. I don't see that as an erosion of rights.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

In that case, if I want to buy my wife a pistol for her birthday or if I want to give my son a 20 gauge shotgun for Christmas, I have to go through an FFL to transfer the weapon to my family member? That seems a bit ridiculous, doesn't it? What if my grandfather passes away and leaves his collection to someone...let's say he has 30 firearms... so, you want to pay $25 for each of them to perform an FFL transfer just so that the government can have tabs on them? (no other good reason that I can think of)

And I don't want to hear any crap about a "straw purchase". If I buy a pistol, and a couple of months later I give to to someone as a gift, then I am doing what I want to do with my own property and the government can stay out of it. What if I bought a TV at the same time and decided to give that to someone for their birthday? or an axe, or a knife, or a baseball bat...it's my property, and I'll dispose of it however, to whomever I like. In the case of a firearm, I'll not give it to someone not legally allowed to possess, but either way, it's my property to handle as I please.

[dorminWS]

I don't see the point. So rather than criticize or argue, I'll ask questions designed to help a feeble-minded old f@rt like me understand:

What is it this proposed legislation is supoosed to accomplish?

Why do you want to do whatever it is you're trying to do?

Whose interest does it serve, and how?

[Mindflayer]

dorminWS, my idea was that it's not legislation. Basically, it's non-mandatory blind citizen access to NICS. Take a picture of an ID, database check, spits back OK or NOT OK. That's it. Just to make someone that wants to sell a gun feel better.

Now, I hypothetically sell to just friends or people with a CHL, so I don't worry too much.

[GeneFrenkle]

>> Just to make someone that wants to sell a gun feel better.

Read more: http://vagunforum.net/national-politics ... z2IiqKe8fC

I suspect that's what folks are suggesting and "feel better" stuff is easily satisfied by looking at a CHP or voter registration card. Neither or which a prohibited person would have.

Technology is supposed to solve business problems. Automating something doesn't necessarily make anything better. Presuming an app already exists adds culpable deniability due to software defects, frustration due to system delays (no signal, hosts down, etc.), adds cost (who pays for the app development/maintenance/charges, "guarantee" correct results), equal access (Section 508/ADD), how to handle "in research", "delay" or other results, what to do with the photo (you have a copy of someone's DL now), etc..... Technology isn't everything. Sometimes a good ole manual process is most cost effective and straightforward; just because one can doesn't mean one should.