A background check process that I wouldn't mind so much...

[spyder]

I've been thinking about this whole background check thing, and the solution really isn't that hard (read all the way through the post please)... Would a simple, easy to use process benefit us? Well... ya. I'm not talking about all of the in depth crap you have to go through to get a gun from an FFL, I'm talking about an interface that is easily used by the individual via computer/cell/or other portable device when selling a firearm to someone. I mean something that needs as little information as possible to try to determine if the individual in question is able to legally purchase a firearm like your name, and address, or whatever would be the bare minimum for the interface to connect to CBI or whatever database would need be to either say pass/fail/and even "more info" if more information about the person you are trying to sell a firearm to is needed to cypher through the similarly named people that live in your area. The first little bit of information might only need to be your name, and city, and if no one in your city with your name has any felonies, it's an immediate pass (everyone's information would have to be up to date of course, and you would have to verify their I.D. to make sure). If there is another person in your city with your exact name that has felonies, the system would ask for more info. Then you could supply your age, if that doesn't push it through, your last known address. Or you could just enter your name, age, and address all at one time to skip the delay if someone who shares your name is a felon. You wouldn't provide any more information than that, it's the bare essentials needed to do a check. Now before you go and get all upset about the idea of a BGC, this information about you is already out there, and is public knowledge (name address and so on), and it is all people need to search you out, and do a check on you with the internet. Nothing new to the public would be provided. This interface wouldn't ask about the gun in any way, all it would be is a simple interface that interacts with the local agency, CBI, or whoever to determine if the individual is able to purchase a firearm, that's it. It should be a simple short thing that wouldn't waste time as it would all be computer operated.

Now, if the government wanted to do this right, this would be a free interface, as it would cost a whole lot less than their policies now with all of the people needed to conduct them. As I see it, we all ask to see I.D., we all say "no felons", and try to do our best to pick out the "bad guys" when selling privately. Well, this would take care of all of that with no worries. It would also be so simple, and so noninvasive that I think most people would use it. If something like this came out instead of their "all must go out of their way to FFL's and pay extra money" crap, I think things would have gone a lot smoother....

I've passed this by a few people already, and the one thing they have come up with is that random people, or your friends, ex's, or whoever could run your information to see if you could pass a check... My answer is a very simple one: Who cares? Now I say that because they can already do that. I can look up my neighbors, and you can too. We can look anyone up right now online that we want to with the basic information (and find out a whole lot more than a pass/fail that the interface would have simply provided), so... that's not a valid argument. The other argument that I can't get around (not that it matters much though), is that the government would know that you are looking at buying a gun... I wouldn't really worry about it since you know the interface would be used by random people doing random searches (but like I said already... who cares?), and that there would be so many other names in the data base that they couldn't pick and choose who the real majority of firearm owners actually were. So in the end, the gov. would have your name in a data base, but it would have many many others as well, including non firearm owners (because of the random searches), so if anything, it would look as if everyone in America was a firearm owner to the database making it unreliable, and in the end, unusable for any kind of conspiracy theory type agenda... As far as one theory (the one that matters to me) which is the start up of a registration to make sure that BGC's are being done, well, all of the random checks done by stupid people would make it look like this new system was a hit, and they would have no reason to even mention registration (so in a way, the stupid people help out a lot).

Thoughts? Comments? Fu-Q's?

[ChunkyMonkey]

In the mortgage/banking world, we have a 'criminal check.' Instead of running a background check against all parties in the transaction (selling, purchase agent, broker, processor, and so on), we simply look at the same old list of 20 some odd names that is banned from doing loans in Colorado. If he/she aint on it, he/she is good to go. Similar concept as yours. I take that over what we have now.. but I surely will take no background check over anything.

[buffalobo]

It is still asking permission and negates the right.

Sent from my electronic ball and chain.

[brutal]

Beyond infringement of a right, it's a huge invasion of privacy.

As you indicated, you can already pay for half-assed background checks online. That's already pushing the envelope. If you're not an employer, you have no right to invade my privacy and depend on less than accurate information collected in a bunch of outdated databases.

[davsel]

Why not just allow CCW permit holders to purchase without a BGC?
Some states allow this already.

I do like ChunkyMonkey's idea of having a public list of anyone not allowed to purchase. Innocents stay off the list, and sales remain private.

[BushMasterBoy]

You mean like giving government back to the people?

[DavieD55]

There is no accountability, yet, people want to give them more leverage on the rkab.

[KevDen2005]

You mean like giving government back to the people?

Hey, let's not get crazy here!

[Hound]

I think anything stated here is better than where we are at now.