# A modest gun control proposal (that I doubt has much support on either side) **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 15, 2019, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-modest-gun-control-proposal-that-i-doubt-has-much-support-on-either-side/840286 "2019-09-15T21:09:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2019, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-modest-gun-control-proposal-that-i-doubt-has-much-support-on-either-side/840286/21 "2019-10-01T16:49:50Z")
> [@MEBuckner](#): > > I think that something like this could actually be a useful part of a deal to get “universal background checks”. Not necessarily a “smartphone app” as such, but some kind of federal government web site (along with a toll-free phone number for people who are still marooned in the 1990s) whereby if Alice wants to sell Bob one of her guns (Sure-Fire Firearms Model X, serial number XYZ123), she can enter Bob’s info and get back a “ **YES** , you may lawfully convey a firearm to this person” or a “ **NO** , you may NOT lawfully convey a firearm to this person” message. Alice would then get some kind of receipt with all the relevant info about the transaction–along with a [fancy barcode](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PDF417) on it to prove authenticity–that she can keep to prove she did her due diligence. I suppose Bob could get a print-out too, if he wants one, but it wouldn’t be as relevant for him. > … This could work, and in general i am in favor of the idea. Better than requiring all sales go thru a dealer, who will charge big bux. As **DinoR** sez-\* The devil is in the details.\* ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2019, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-modest-gun-control-proposal-that-i-doubt-has-much-support-on-either-side/840286/22 "2019-10-01T16:52:40Z")
> [@Babale](#): > > As someone who didn’t grow up in the United States the single most mind boggling cultural adjustment has been this. Who the heck gives their child a firearm in the first place?! My Dad gave me a single shot .22 after I completed the Boy Scouts class on gun safety. It was a target gun, and I shot it in some competitions. How early do you think they start Olympic training? I imagine in other nations this is true also. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2019, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-modest-gun-control-proposal-that-i-doubt-has-much-support-on-either-side/840286/23 "2019-10-01T17:14:46Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > There’s a number McCabe leaves out of his article: how many times did the FBI delay a purchase for 3 business days for a qualified buyer? I’ll feel differently about his proposal if it was 4,000 out of 8,000 delayed purchases that were ultimately found to be prohibited persons than I will about 4,000 out of 40,000 or 400,000. Yeah, I know - gotta have that gun right here and now! I must be a big damn hero to face life’s dangers without one, for the equivalent of nearly 8000 three-day waiting periods. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2019, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-modest-gun-control-proposal-that-i-doubt-has-much-support-on-either-side/840286/24 "2019-10-01T17:18:06Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I agree with this. I think the Second Amendment is a outdated idea and it should be repealed. But as long as it’s part of the Constitution, it’s the law and we should follow it. Whatever it might mean, which of course is the very unsettled part. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2019, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-modest-gun-control-proposal-that-i-doubt-has-much-support-on-either-side/840286/25 "2019-10-01T17:29:36Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > In CA, for in state transfers, the fee is capped by law at all FFLs. $25 for the DROS, and up to $10 per firearm for the transfer. Out of state there is no cap so most FFLs will charge at least $100. DROS is still $25. Is it crazy to suggest that people with Federal Firearms Licenses who are able to perform checks on the National Instant Criminal background check system, (run by the Federal Bureau of Investigation) charge fees capped at a reasonable level by the Federal Government, rather than rely on individual states to do it? I believe that universal background checks are supported by both sides of the aisle, generally speaking, and there’s an entire industry dedicated to firearms who perform these ‘instant’ checks all the time. Is it REALLY that onerous for a FFL dealer to perform a check for a private sale, that they need to charge hundreds of dollars? The dealers can somehow survive with a $25 fee for 5 minutes of work processing and certifying the validity of a firearm transfer. ---
**Author:** ![Orwell](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/dfb087/32.png) [@Orwell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Orwell)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2019, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-modest-gun-control-proposal-that-i-doubt-has-much-support-on-either-side/840286/26 "2019-10-01T17:38:02Z")
> [@Babale](#): > > As someone who didn’t grow up in the United States the single most mind boggling cultural adjustment has been this. Who the heck gives their child a firearm in the first place?! I’m not understanding the mind being boggled. A father says to his son or daughter, who is now 18 or 21 or 30 years old, “Here. This Winchester is now yours.”. Or Pops dies, and his will indicates that his firearms are to be split up amongst his offspring (is that a better word than “child”). For all intents and purposes, my father “gave” me my first rifle and shotgun when I was 12 years old and started hunting. He kept track of them until I was 18 or so, but I could take them out shooting or hunting anytime I wanted to. I still own them and have never had to fill out any government paperwork (as it should be). In the vast majority of US states, guns are not “registered” to an owner, at least as one thinks of vehicles or houses being registered or titled to a person. On a federal level, only Class 3 firearms (machine guns) are registered to a specific person. ---
**Author:** ![Orwell](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/dfb087/32.png) [@Orwell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Orwell)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2019, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-modest-gun-control-proposal-that-i-doubt-has-much-support-on-either-side/840286/27 "2019-10-01T17:45:12Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > Is it crazy to suggest that people with Federal Firearms Licenses who are able to perform checks on the National Instant Criminal background check system, (run by the Federal Bureau of Investigation) charge fees capped at a reasonable level by the Federal Government, rather than rely on individual states to do it? > > I believe that universal background checks are supported by both sides of the aisle, generally speaking, and there’s an entire industry dedicated to firearms who perform these ‘instant’ checks all the time. Is it REALLY that onerous for a FFL dealer to perform a check for a private sale, that they need to charge hundreds of dollars? > > The dealers can somehow survive with a $25 fee for 5 minutes of work processing and certifying the validity of a firearm transfer. I am not an FFL, but my understanding is that a licensee pays nothing to the FBI for a background check. That’s ZERO. MY state has a separate state check which costs the FL $4.00. But gun stores still charge anywhere from $25 to $50 to do a background check and transfer. They are in business to make money, which I understand, but if background checks are limited to the few people who actually hold FFLs, they are free to charge for their time/inconvenience/government restriction. I have already written my legislators saying if universal background checks become a reality, the checks should be no more than $10, whether I can do it myself or have to go to a gun store. ---
**Author:** ![Abatis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d78d45/32.png) [@Abatis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Abatis)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2019, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-modest-gun-control-proposal-that-i-doubt-has-much-support-on-either-side/840286/28 "2019-10-01T21:21:55Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > . . . [Andrew McCabe recently wrote about](https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/09/opinions/congress-stop-gun-violence-andrew-mccabe/index.html) 2 potential things that could be beneficial, and I’d be in favor of one (reverting to previous interpretation of what it means to be a fugitive) , . . . As used in the Gun Control Act (as amended by Brady) , the term “fugitive from justice” has been defined in federal law since the day the Brady Act’s ink dried back in 1994, 921(A)(15): [INDENT]“The term “fugitive from justice” means any person who has fled from any State to avoid prosecution for a crime or to avoid giving testimony in any criminal proceeding.”[/INDENT] Fleeing from the state is a requirement in the law. As it was employed during the Obama years, it barred people who have not been convicted of anything. Is a gun prohibition spelled out anywhere in federal law for anyone who simply has an arrest warrant? If they wanted to, Congress could include warrants in the 922(n) prohibition. 922(n) covers people under indictment: [INDENT]“It shall be unlawful for any person who is under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce any firearm or ammunition or receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.”[/INDENT] When filling out the 4473, the transferee must answer yes or no, "Are you under indictment or information in any court for a felony, or any other crime for which the judge could imprison you for more than one year? (question 11.b). That is asked BEFORE “Have you ever been convicted in any court of a felony, or any other crime for which the judge could have imprisoned you for more than one year, even if you received a shorter sentence including probation?” (question 11.c). And that is asked BEFORE “Are you a fugitive from justice?” (question 11d). Nowhere is any question about a warrant presented. Seems to me throwing a half-million people who just had an arrest warrant into the 922(g) pool of prohibitions was just an easy (illegal) way to put a disability on those people without having any manner of due process. . [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-modest-gun-control-proposal-that-i-doubt-has-much-support-on-either-side/840286.md?page=1)