I am not suggesting a background check card, or extending background checks to private sales. What I posted is part of my usual remark to people who feel that doing so would make them safer. A more complete version would be;Aggie_engr wrote: ↑Wed Sep 04, 2019 11:03 pmWe must have a troll posting under multiple different user names. I’m noticing some consistencies between posts, namely by user “ralewis” over on page 6 of the Walmart has fallen thread. Here’s his post:Boxerrider wrote: ↑Wed Sep 04, 2019 7:06 am I am against "universal background checks". Even if they worked perfectly, which they don't, they won't prevent these acts of violence. Perpetrators will simply switch from one tool to another.
If states want to do something to keep prohibited people from owning firearms, then add a box to the state issued ID stating they are prohibited. It can be easily verified by a private seller.
yeah so how about a background check card. Or maybe check a box on your drivers license renewal to request a background check. As long as you have an active valid background check you can possess or receive a firearm. Tie the background check to the individual not the firearm.
Why implement a complicated and expensive system requiring free and responsible citizens to spend their personal time and money proving they are "eligible" to buy a firearm? A simpler and less expensive option would be to mark the state ID of a person who commits an act that makes them ineligible.
Some other things I frequently say to these, possibly well-meaning, but misguided sheeple;
So, you want to protect the privacy of convicted felons, but keep detailed records on everyone who is not?
How is obtaining a state ID to vote an unnecessary and unconstitutional hardship, but scheduling time and paying money for a third-party to complete a background check and paperwork for the government anytime one person sells a firearm to another acceptable?