• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Alternative to 4473s.

Maccabee

Maccabee

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 7, 2016
Messages
6,642
Reaction score
2,054
Location
Florida.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
As a lot of you know, I'm against background checks to purchase a firearm. They are unconstitutional and have not been proven to work anyway. I've proposed instead that we harshly punish crinimals who use firearms in crimes and that those who serve their time and finished parol/probation and are considered safe enough to walk the streets should have their rights restored. However (and this idea was stolen by another member either here or another forum) I was thinking of a compromise as the next step to not requiring background checks at all. That being having the background check consolidated with your driver's license. Basically, whenever you go to apply for you license or renew it, a background check is attached to the license. Color codes will indicate whether or not you're eligible to purchase a firearm. Red can be for prohibited, yellow for old enough for long guns but not handguns, and green for handguns and NFA items. This system will still have the same problems as what we have now (not preventing criminals from obtaining guns either by straw purchase or black market) but it's a step in the right direction in my opinion. As far as I can see there is no constitutional issues with this system but I'm willing hear any flaws with the system.
 
Why wouldn't it have the same constitutional problems that you identify for the way background checks are handled now?
 
Maccabee said:
As a lot of you know, I'm against background checks to purchase a firearm. They are unconstitutional and have not been proven to work anyway. I've proposed instead that we harshly punish crinimals who use firearms in crimes and that those who serve their time and finished parol/probation and are considered safe enough to walk the streets should have their rights restored. However (and this idea was stolen by another member either here or another forum) I was thinking of a compromise as the next step to not requiring background checks at all. That being having the background check consolidated with your driver's license. Basically, whenever you go to apply for you license or renew it, a background check is attached to the license. Color codes will indicate whether or not you're eligible to purchase a firearm. Red can be for prohibited, yellow for old enough for long guns but not handguns, and green for handguns and NFA items. This system will still have the same problems as what we have now (not preventing criminals from obtaining guns either by straw purchase or black market) but it's a step in the right direction in my opinion. As far as I can see there is no constitutional issues with this system but I'm willing hear any flaws with the system.
Click to expand...

DL are used as identification in all sorts of places. Now you would make that information available to a wide variety of employers, banks and such.
Is that not an invasion of privacy?
 
JANFU said:
DL are used as identification in all sorts of places. Now you would make that information available to a wide variety of employers, banks and such.
Is that not an invasion of privacy?
Click to expand...

Do prohibited persons have a right to privacy regarding their 18 USC 922g status?
 
Harshaw said:
Why wouldn't it have the same constitutional problems that you identify for the way background checks are handled now?
Click to expand...

Because it's applied to DLs which can be used for anything rather than a specific reason such as purchasing a firearm.
 
Maccabee said:
Because it's applied to DLs which can be used for anything rather than a specific reason such as purchasing a firearm.
Click to expand...

But the marking you have in mind is specifically geared toward the reason of purchasing a firearm. What's the difference if it's done when you get a drivers license, or when you wish to buy the gun?
 
Harshaw said:
But the marking you have in mind is specifically geared toward the reason of purchasing a firearm. What's the difference if it's done when you get a drivers license, or when you wish to buy the gun?
Click to expand...

The cost is less when done only when a DL (or state photo ID) is issued/renewed as opposed to doing it for each gun/ammo purchase. It also allows private sellers (any non-FFL dealer) to know their potential customer's 2A status - in that respect it is also much closer to a universal BGC.
 
And if you lose the privilege of driving, either temporarily or permanently? Your 2ndA right becomes affected?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
The cost is less when done only when a DL (or state photo ID) is issued/renewed as opposed to doing it for each gun/ammo purchase. It also allows private sellers (any non-FFL dealer) to know their potential customer's 2A status - in that respect it is also much closer to a universal BGC.
Click to expand...

I'm not worried about the cost. I was asking about the constitutionality.
 
Harshaw said:
But the marking you have in mind is specifically geared toward the reason of purchasing a firearm. What's the difference if it's done when you get a drivers license, or when you wish to buy the gun?
Click to expand...

That maybe so but I did said that this would be a step towards not requiring background checks at all. Since I haven't seen anyone object to showing your DL as part of the purchasing process in the first place, I'd figure why not add a marking indicating your 2a status. I don't think it's unconstitutional to look at a certain aspect of a DL like a marking.
 
Chomsky said:
And if you lose the privilege of driving, either temporarily or permanently? Your 2ndA right becomes affected?
Click to expand...
Then if your state has one, the same can be applied to state ID cards.

EDIT: I found out that each state issues a non driver's license. So while you may not be able to drive, you still can purchase a firearm provided that you're not prohibited under this hypothetical system.
 
Last edited:
Maccabee said:
That maybe so but I did said that this would be a step towards not requiring background checks at all. Since I haven't seen anyone object to showing your DL as part of the purchasing process in the first place, I'd figure why not add a marking indicating your 2a status. I don't think it's unconstitutional to look at a certain aspect of a DL like a marking.
Click to expand...

But you're running a background check for gun-purchase eligibility either way. If one doesn't pass constitutional muster, I don't see how the other does.
 
Harshaw said:
I'm not worried about the cost. I was asking about the constitutionality.
Click to expand...

What difference would that make? Since BGC's have not been deemed unconstitutional then when they are done should make no difference.
 
Maccabee said:
Then if your state has one, the same can be applied to state ID cards.

EDIT: I found out that each state issues a non driver's license. So while you may not be able to drive, you still can purchase a firearm provided that you're not prohibited under this hypothetical system.
Click to expand...
Yes, but now you're requiring a government I.D. to buy a gun. You're back where you started from, having to get a background check and a government I.D.

The flaw in your proposal, is assuming everyone has a driver's license.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
What difference would that make? Since BGC's have not been deemed unconstitutional then when they are done should make no difference.
Click to expand...

The OP said he believes background checks to be unconstitutional.
 
Harshaw said:
The OP said he believes background checks to be unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

Yep, I found that to be odd as well. But it makes more sense to have one's 2A status available as easily as checking a valid, state issued, photo ID.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Yep, I found that to be odd as well. But it makes more sense to have one's 2A status available as easily as checking a valid, state issued, photo ID.
Click to expand...

Maybe, but if you don't think background checks are constitutional, then that wouldn't be, either.
 
Rucker61 said:
Do prohibited persons have a right to privacy regarding their 18 USC 922g status?
Click to expand...

I do not know. but outing them on a DL, is that legal?
You have a no fly list, yet the NRA supports there 2A rights. Is that correct?
 
Maccabee said:
That maybe so but I did said that this would be a step towards not requiring background checks at all. Since I haven't seen anyone object to showing your DL as part of the purchasing process in the first place, I'd figure why not add a marking indicating your 2a status. I don't think it's unconstitutional to look at a certain aspect of a DL like a marking.
Click to expand...
I agree to a point...BCs are useless and should be done away with. But to go with the DL marking it would pretty much have to be a national thing. And yes people do show their DL for about everything.Everything they do legally. Would a criminal go into a gun store and show his DL with a red mark? Probably not. Would he show it for a private sale? Maybe yes maybe no but as the saying goes "money talks". Also somewhere a BC happens when you get your new DL. It would be fun though to hear the anti gun people yell though because they had to pay extra for that mark. And I would imagine DMV would rake it in on renewals since a BC would have to be conducted each time. And DMV don't do nothing free.
 
zsu2357 said:
I agree to a point...BCs are useless and should be done away with. But to go with the DL marking it would pretty much have to be a national thing. And yes people do show their DL for about everything.Everything they do legally. Would a criminal go into a gun store and show his DL with a red mark? Probably not. Would he show it for a private sale? Maybe yes maybe no but as the saying goes "money talks". Also somewhere a BC happens when you get your new DL. It would be fun though to hear the anti gun people yell though because they had to pay extra for that mark. And I would imagine DMV would rake it in on renewals since a BC would have to be conducted each time. And DMV don't do nothing free.
Click to expand...

This would be a temporary fix. Eventually there will be no required background checks. Any BCs will be done at the discretion of the dealer. And you're right, criminals will find a way around it and obtain guns anyway. It'll just save time, money, and hassle with the hypothetical system for law abiding citizens. The only point of contention raised so far is whether addibg a background check to your DL is constitutional or not.
 
Maccabee said:
That maybe so but I did said that this would be a step towards not requiring background checks at all. Since I haven't seen anyone object to showing your DL as part of the purchasing process in the first place, I'd figure why not add a marking indicating your 2a status. I don't think it's unconstitutional to look at a certain aspect of a DL like a marking.
Click to expand...


I'm still a little fuzzy on this idea. You say you are against background checks for weapons, then come up with elaborate plan to do background checks for weaoons.

It's like the Obama care mandate that wasn't called a tax but was only considered legal because it was ultemiltly interpreted as a tax. You're just calling the background check a New name.
In your version background checks are preformed on everyone not just those wanting to own a weapon. It would raise more legal concerns over privacy IMO than the current system of checking only those who wish to exercise their 2nd amendment.

I do like the idea of passing a background check and it being good for a set amount of time. No doubt I'll be waiting longer than normal Black Friday to purchase a few new firearms
 
Chillfolks said:
I'm still a little fuzzy on this idea. You say you are against background checks for weapons, then come up with elaborate plan to do background checks for weaoons.

It's like the Obama care mandate that wasn't called a tax but was only considered legal because it was ultemiltly interpreted as a tax. You're just calling the background check a New name.
In your version background checks are preformed on everyone not just those wanting to own a weapon. It would raise more legal concerns over privacy IMO than the current system of checking only those who wish to exercise their 2nd amendment.

I do like the idea of passing a background check and it being good for a set amount of time. No doubt I'll be waiting longer than normal Black Friday to purchase a few new firearms
Click to expand...

Basically I'm saying that if we're going to have bavkground checks, I think this will be a better system.
 
Maccabee said:
Basically I'm saying that if we're going to have bavkground checks, I think this will be a better system.
Click to expand...

Ok why is it a better system? To me it seems like a shell game. It's basically the same system with a new name
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom