NICS check for private sales: A simple solution.

The more I think about it, the more it makes sense: Allow civilians access to NCIS for private firearms transfers.

Any gun owner worth his/her salt will have some sort of bill of sale handy when selling a gun. This bill of sale will have the appropriate information from both parties and it serves as legal backing in case things go stupid. Adding to that sale a NICS approval number will increase the backing for both the seller and the buyer.

Most states have some sort of felon search already available via Internet such as Florida’s Department of Corrections Offender Information Search so it makes sense to do a search before selling a gun even  though it does not cover everybody in the US or covers all other prohibited persons not felons.

The result of the NICS search should only tell us if the person we are inquiring about is prohibited or not or if there is a delay plus a transaction number. No bound books or wasting of time having to go to an FFL. I don’t know, to me it makes perfect sense which maybe it is not why anybody in Washington has come up with this idea.

19 Replies to “NICS check for private sales: A simple solution.”

  1. I’ve been saying the same thing for the past couple years… If I sell a firearm to someone, it would sure be nice to be able to call a number with their SSN or DL # and make sure, at least on a state level, that they were ok… but if it was required for a transfer, I’d be against it still. Strictly voluntary by the seller.




    0



    0
  2. If they want all transfers to go through a background check, how about making an FFL easy to get again. Like they were in the 80’s. Make an FFL as easy to get as a C&R.




    0



    0
    1. I agree but still does not solve the problem of having to register your weapon in the FFL’s bound book and filing a 4473.
      Just give us the option to check the background for ourselves…hell we are paying for the damn system anyway.




      0



      0
  3. This is a fantastic solution that would solve all sorts of problems, and the only downside I can see is that it makes individuals more self-reliant and not beholden to the government, which means the Left would be all sorts of opposed to it.

    Which can itself be a good thing.




    0



    0
  4. never happen . They want the bound book and record with a home address . That is their entire point on ” background checks ” be it the existing brady check or any expanded wreck they come up with . It is not about keeping guns out of criminal hands ( another topic ) rather it is about knowing who has guns




    0



    0
    1. That’s correct. This is why it won’t fly. They could care less about the background check. What they want is registration. Forcing people to do 4473s is their way to get it down on the sly for now.




      0



      0
  5. In theory, I don’t have all that much opposition to ensuring the buyer isn’t prohibited. The sticking point for me is guilty until proven innocent when selling a gun–If I see a carry license, FOID card or similar, that’s the most I should be expected to do, I shouldn’t have to keep a record to prove I didn’t break the law.




    0



    0
  6. “Any gun owner worth his/her salt will have some sort of bill of sale handy when selling a gun.”

    Why?
    I don’t have a bill of sale to sell a toaster, lawnmower, socket set, or set of lawn darts.

    Don’t buy into the “guns are special” nonsense from the nanny state.




    0



    0
  7. The point isn’t the background check. They really don’t care about keeping the guns out of the wrong hands. The NCIS check is just “feel good”. and expanding it isn’t for the checks, it’s to require going through a FFL. Countless reports are coming out of ATF agents scanning bound volumes with portable scanners. More and more e forms are being used. There is already a de facto registry. The newest legislation is just to get more of the purchases currently out of the registry into it




    0



    0
  8. Agree. The issue that some will come up with is one of privacy where the buyer would have to provide id information to seller. The assumption is that an FFL holder would not misuse the data and an individual may not be trusted. I personally would not buy from a dealer or individual that I did not trust.




    0



    0
    1. You don’t write a bill of sale for the guns you sell to a private individual? OK, it is you choice… Oh wait, your choice is the only valid one, right?




      0



      0
        1. The left uses that same word, need, when talking about gun bans. Need has nothing to do with it. Reality is what it is and having an answer to the disposal of a firearm should the cops come asking is just common sense. I also do bills of sale when I sell most things like cars, motorcycles and the like. It’s a choice and that’s all Miguel is saying. He’s choosing to do bills of sale for firearms and so am I. If you choose differently that’s your right but to say there’s only one way to do it is being simple minded.




          0



          0
  9. I’ve been advocating this solution for over a year. I love the idea, and it gets rid of that flimsy terminology about “knowingly” selling to an ineligible buyer. If you don’t know ’em, you should be able to check ’em.




    0



    0
  10. No, if it’s that easy, the Universal Background checks will become mandatory, and with that will come a universal registry. They can only enforce universal background checks if they know where every weapon is supposed to be. As it is only one weapon in my inventory has a 4473 on it identifying me. This was not by design, but I’m glad that is how it is.

    Easing individual access to NICS, makes justifying Universal Background Checks easier, and that will quickly bring in a registry requirement.




    0



    0

Feel free to express your opinions. Trolling, overly cussing and Internet Commandos will not be tolerated .