Should ID Checks Be Required for Gun Sales?

Is it rabbit season or duck season? Before you purchase your next firearm, you might need to pause and make sure your driver’s license is valid. ID checks are intended to keep dangerous people from getting guns, but opponents say that these measures are ineffective and perhaps even counterproductive. In the world of gun sales, should we demand ID checks?


When fighting broke pandora charms bracelets out, oil was trading at around $84 a barrel. It quickly spiked above $93 and kept thomas sabo charms rising to a high above $110 at the end of April. Demand from emerging london sweetie bracelet markets including China was also a factor in the rise. Oil has fallen recently along with stocks tiffany bangles because of concerns about the global economy. Libya used to export about chanel earring 1.5 million barrels of oil per day.

Welcome to our Louis Vuitton Outlet. We all know that Louis Vuitton Outlet Online are very famous all over the world, for Louis Vuitton Factory fashionable design, beautiful appearance, and suitable for all ages of man and women, ladies and gentlemen. Now Louis Vuitton Sale has become the representative of wealth and taste, we can find any where that Louis Vuiton bags were take by famous stars, successful business men, or fashionable girls. Louis Vuiton bags will always in the trend and never out of fashion. And we are very dedicated to the provision of fashion Louis Vuitton bags which are all in highest quality and the most competitive of prices.

Critics say they would raise prada handbags costs unfairly for solid countries and could even deepen debt troubles. "Solving cheap prada the current crisis will not be possible with eurobonds, and so eurobonds prada shoes are not the answer," Merkel said in an interview with ZDF television. She added that prada outlet she didn't know whether things might change "in the prada sunglasses distant future.

Hell no the purchase of a gun should not require an ID check. If ID checks are not required to vote in this country why on earth would we require someone to have an ID check in order to buy a gun. We will probably need our guns in the future when the left tries to do away with the Second Amendment. Try checking the illegals!

why would ANYONE trust them or want them to have more power?

ATF abuse connected to U.S. guns "found" in Mexico.
The ATF took them there, and encourages border-area gun shops to make multiple sales to shady characters in order to pad trace statistics. In exchange, the gun shop's books won't fail to "pass inspection."

Gun control is no solution to violence . deadly violence is possible with guns , clubs, knives, fists, feet and whatever, and the more primitive the weapon, the more violence favors the physically strong and mentally brutal criminal. Violence can be lessened by universal gun ownership though. A weak or infirm person can defend himself with a gun. A woman , who has less weight and strength than a man can defend herself from rapists with a gun. By disarming the weak, gun control indirectly kills women and sick people and anyone who is not as prepared for violence as the criminal is. By favoring gun control, you are raping women and children . You are breaking into people's houses and murdering helpless old people who can't defend themselves without a firearm. You are killing children in their kindergarten classes because of gun free zones.

By owning a gun, you are preventing crime .

Guns don't kill people, people kill people. There is no evidence that ID cards would be ineffective, or counterproductive. Another ID card won't hurt, neither would ID checks.

Thank you for the education ! I did not know other States in the USA where we are fighting to protect the American people from Terrorism would even ask this question!
Everyone should give ID. If there is a question, they should go through a thorough background check. I did. I will in the future. If there is not a consistent National Law for processing to gain access to a weapon. Let's get all over this one right now !
Same rule for everyone in the USA.

Fighting to protect us from terrorist? Enough of the pansy thinking of having the goverment will only stop those who are dangerous to our country. Maybe if you don't belong to an official, police dept., military , or other goverment entity you might get rejected . Maybe you don't belong to the right political party or you haven't paid the appropiate fee to be allowed to own a firearm. None of this is covered in the constitution but as you can see they could become restrictions on your guarrented rights. As it stands now I could live with the thumbprint id system which proves, to a degree, that you aren't inelegible to purchase a firearm, the print is not tied per say to tour other personal info, most states galready get this info on paper forms, of which should be destroyed instaed of being kept on file. We must always be on the side of freedom for free men.


I promised to abide by "Civility 101" when I signed up for this site. I will keep my promise because I have integrity.
Who stopped the recent Nigerian boy from blowing up a passenger airplane on Christmas Day?
Who hunted down the domestic terrorist who executed a Seattle Police Officer ?
Who gave his life for three other Lakewood Officers who died at the hands of a domestic terrorist?
Who saved the 30 military men and women at Fort Hood while 13 died?
Who is Wasankari ?
Who is the domestic terrorist who murdered Pierce County Deputy Kent Mundell ?
What do you call a criminal who walks up and shoots a State Trooper in the back of the head ?
Where was one of the Lakewood Officers taken by his loyal friends?
You know what pal ? You wouldn't know strength from a pansy if one were standing right in front of you. My questions are not only off the top of my head, they are in chronological order. It is you who needs to begin paying attention and save the immature name calling. Oh, and one more thing, go back to school and learn how to spell before the grammar police call you on it.

Ther was no name calling, I was using a metaphor to respond to your "way" of thinking. I'm sorry you took the inference to be about "you" personally. I feel I've been down this road before, S.B. ? as to your questions such as the fort hood incident the perpatraitor would not have shot so many if the military men and woman were not stripped of the right to carry on base by civilian authorities who, in my opinion, don't trust even military personnel to be armed. What is the question of integrity have to do with a " discussion on a subject such as this, maybe I'm missing your point.Talking of going back to school do think that I should be reeducated at the hands of the Grammar police camp. A little Orwellian don't you think ?


No apology necessary Mr. American. It's a free country. Orwellian ? Are you "assuming" I like or revere this guy? Thank you for making me smile. I try not to assume. He's never been my style and I don't spend too much time "reading into" emails. I actually taught Reality Therapy and Choice Theory created by a Dr. William H. Glasser MD PS, who founded the Institute of Reality Therapy. At the time my State's Juvenile Justice system only endorsed his theory as an acceptable one to use. I like non-fiction writers the best. Ann Rule ! I have met her more than once and she is one of my my heroes. My "way" of thinking is reality based and literally "ways" of thinking "depending upon each situation." The grammar police ? Yes, they are real. Evidently, you have not learned to write police or court reports or watched anyone else learn. They are super strict and do not write like anyone else! It can be frustrating when being the teacher or the student .

I agree about American military being disarmed on base. If they cannot be trusted, they do not need to be on any American Military base in the USA or anywhere else, whether they are an officer, soldier, or citizen ! It's OK if you missed my point. It's an email between strangers. At least you had the courage to come to this website and voice your opinion.

On these emails so much of our meaning can be lost and the "context" misunderstood. We don't know one another. I am just like anyone else in the USA. I do love giving my opinion thanks to our first amendment rights. Born American, Raised American, Behave American and Blessed American!
Opposing Views has given us the forum for it. Thanks O.V.

Since there is some implied right that ID is not needed to vote , why should we need ID just to buy a gun? Lets look @ the damage thats being done from voter fraud & compare it to damage done to the nation from guns . Hands down voting fraud has caused much more national damage.

To purchase a firearm from a dealer or a pawn shop, ID checks are already required. Only private sales are exempt from this reuirement.

If you write a ck for groceries you usually need an id so what the heck is wrong with showing one to buy a gun or anything else. it makes one wonder why a person would be against showing an id..are they going to use it in a way to not want to be traced???? if you dont have a bad motive you would not care to show an id..also the nut down the street who might walk in mcdonalds and shoot a bunch of people. might have a little harder time if they gave an id.i know they will get the gun anyway but dont make it so easy for them..i am not against people having guns before anyone gets all offended but i dont see what is wrong if you have no wrong motive in showing an id.???????

they steal the gun and therefore showing ID only creates a database for later confiscation.
Not good.

This is just another attack on personal property rights!
Gun owner lists have been used in the US to do confinscations, etc. so have a basis to FIGHT the registration of gun owners!
IDs have been required for gun purchases since the GCA of 1968, so why is this question appearing? Because the gun-paranoid crowd wants to know where all guns are so they can eventually attempt to take them all.
Remember Sentor Diane Feinstein told the nation on 60-minutes after the introduction of the so-called assualt weapons ban that she wanted US troops to go door to door to collect guns! That is the real reason for these actions!!!

yes, you have rights to do so much things, but ID check not only serve as a precaution measure, prevent dangerous people from getting guns in that the owner can have a record and idea of who is purchasing the gun, and it shows responsibility, because having an ID would mean you are a legal American resident and over 18, whereas if no ID is shown then you have no idea what kind of a person he is.

It's not just a "natural" right to have guns, you have to be 18, you need a license, and you need to show who you are at the very least someone who has the sense of when to use one.

Well here is one 52 guns sold to person with a clean background, who in turn sold them to a drug dealer, so once again the bad guys are going to find a way to get what they want (even if they have to break the law )

The second amendment includes the phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed". Why should I need to have government issued identification in order to exercise my rights?

My state constitution states that "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state shall not be questioned."

These two combined *should* mean that I have an absolute right to purchase / own / carry a firearm should be free from all government intrusion. So why exactly do I have to prove who I am before I can exercise my rights?

Why is it that to speak freely on the side of a road (1st amendment), I need no identification at all, and yet to exercise the next listed right I do?

That, and those who are legally not allowed to possess a firearm buy them illegally and not through legal dealers. Why is it that I, a person legally allowed to own and carry a firearm, get hassled for the sins of others?

When I purchase tobacco or alcohol , I am required to provide identification, to prove my age. When I purchase or register a car, the car is registered to me as a person - which protects me if the car is stolen or involved in an accident, and would protect others if I were irresponsible and caused damage or injury with that car. Nobody seems to blink about being identified for those things.

When someone uses a firearm for hunting , target practice, home defense, law enforcement, or any other legitimate use, there's no problem, is there?

While ID checks are not the sole method of keeping guns out of the hands of criminals (or providing a chain of evidence), they are part of how we can do so.

And if you require people to use ID to prove they're of legal age to buy booze, how is it wrong to provide ID as part of proof of eligibility to purchase a weapon?

Providing a record of which person owns what firearm can be invaluable in investigating crimes, and establishing guilt or innocence.

Some people are afraid that providing ID allows the creation of a huge list of people who own guns, so that it will be easier to round up gun owners later and take their guns away. So stay vigilant against anti- gun laws themselves, if you are in favor of gun ownership (I am!).

I don't have a problem providing my ID when I purchase a firearm.

I'm a gun owner, strong second amendment and I say yes it may not stop evil doer's but at least they can't walk walmart and buy one,or pawn shops in a small way it does serve a good deed.

Criminals would just get their fire arms elsewhere. ID checks, like all gun control laws, only hamper honest, law -abiding people.

Criminals don't buy from gun stores anyway. They either fail the check or don't bother. Don't you have to show ID anyway at the moment? Is the question really about ID checks for private sales?
Now, being in the UK it's all a bit moot, but if I was selling a spare gun to a good friend, I'd resent having the government involved. But if it was a semi-stranger I might like the option of meeting at a gun dealer and asking them to run the check for a 'reasonable fee'. If the buyer wasn't prepared to do that, then no sale.
I know this opens up a huge can of worms, especially the 'resonable' bit, sorry.

You are partly correct, logically speaking. Of course, making personal fire arms illegal would sure simplify the matter of hampering criminals.

But its a very poor treatment of the subject, this argument.

First of all, people are not born criminals, and a lot of gun deaths are heat-of-the-moment, fit-of-rage, and otherwise impromptu incidents. Simply delaying the aquiring of a fire arm can have positive effects on the damage they cause.

Second, we have reasonable laws to limit the access to firearms by minors, non-citizens, and people with criminal records. ID's are required for those limits to work.

Third, with out gun control laws, "honest, law -abiding" people would be in their rights to distribute gun's to all the dishonest, law-disregarding types..Oh, but without gun control laws, they can get them easily anyway.

Hmm, maybe you are just completely wrong..

If firearms were illegal , then they would be imported from wherever, and there would be even more money going to the drug lords. That sounds like a backfired plan to me, friend.

I agree with you, with the poor treatment . I

Of course they aren't born violent criminals (technicalities prevent me from saying criminals, that's an entirely different debate altogether). And the heat of the moment thing is also very true. I know Nevada has a three day waiting period for the first handgun purchase. Then, if you have a previous gun registration card, you can buy your next firearm on the spot. I may not entirely agree with it, but I can't be upset that I was able to get a new gun and take it to a range the same day.

Your second point is 100% valid.

The third point I can say is logically correct. However, you forget to take into account the common sense ability that fewer and fewer people nowadays seem to have. A good portion of the time, people can sense what can best be described as an evil aura around people. Some can hide it, but not all.

I agree and disagree with you Submainer, as well as silverfang.

Well, as soon as we can enlist the aid of people that can infallibly sense evil aura's, we are going to need a more bureacratic approach.

My main question is if any objective study can show what works for gun control and what does not. It is logically and empirically plain that a complete lack of gun control does not increase safety or decrease harm.

But it is also clear that deterence and threat of "proactive defense" can be very effective crime fighting techniques. But I believe it is very situational. And no one seems to be able to get that information analyzed objectively.

to pad their stats and justify more and more regulations. Physically transported semi-autos to Mexico so they can be traced back to U.S. gun shops. Insiders confirm it.

This is very true. Everyone's so gung-ho in one direction or another.

As several someones have said before, there's three types of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.

But ask any criminal and they don't shop for gun like an honest person. An Honest person has nothing to hide.

In a perfect world. If guns were issued a, for lack of a better word, a pink slip to know the owner it then causes the clean owner (who buys the guns from the store* then sales the guns to less that reputable persons) to be accountable for the actions of the gun that is in his name. When the gun is sold to anyone else, for it to be legal , the buyer would have to go through the same background check as the original buyer. I know that the guns out there now couldn't be tracked in the exact same way, but it's a place to start.

what's next ID checks for internet accounts

Thats next so it can be charged and taxed

which can be used to verify your identity for online purchases, **logging on to your PC** and preventing anonymous posting on the Internet. An Obama administration project. It's not like we have VeriSign, Thawte or three or four private sector VOLUNTARY verification systems.
Or maybe y'all were being ironic?

Assuming the person is not under suspicion of committing a crime that injured another in some way, a citizen should never have to show ID to anyone.

A gun purchase is the same thing as a car purchase, a TV purchase, etc. It is also the same as a butcher knife purchase, which can be used for evil purposes -- with no ID required.

When I purchase a firearm, not only do I now have to provide ID, I also have to give up my social security number. In what way does my SSN have anything to do with a legal purchase?

I'm just tired of the encroaching ID requirements for all sorts of government. We are supposed to be a free people, governed by our consent. Now, Big Brother wants to know everything about us. The requirement of ID for gun purchases is just another method of data collection.

This is a poorly worded question in that it implies that ID is not currently required to purchase a gun. The truth is that under Federal law ID and a background check are required for any new gun purchase or the purchase of any firearm from a firearms dealer. So what the questioner is really asking is whether or not there should be some form of governmental interference in sales or transfers of privately owned firearms between private individuals. If a father wishes to give a gun to his son as a gift, should he be required to seek State permission first and register the transfer? That's what's really being asked in this question. I think if people realize the implications of this broadly worded question then more responses would be in the negative.

ID checks should be used to get the perspective purchasers information so that during the waiting period there can be a through background check allowing the dealer to guarantee that the person has no violent criminal background. This way it can reduce the guns that are legally sold to those who may, or may not, do illegal actions with them.

When a person purchases a gun "legally" an ID check plus a background check plus a whole list of questions being answered is already law. Even asking this question shows your total ignorance of existing laws and shows why no additional laws are needed.

..But you beat me to it.

This is already the law . All of those folks arguing in support of this are blissfully misinformed and should really learn more about the subject before opining.

This is one of the problems. Not enough people even know the facts surrounding the debate and will vote for stricter gun laws on their ballots/Congressmen who support stricter gun laws. They do this because they mistakenly think that there are no laws/insufficient laws preventing undesirables from legally purchasing guns .

Learn what the laws /actually/ say, folks. Then opine.

The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.

I know what the current gun laws are for purchase. I opined because I feel there is a need to continue to have ID checks in place. You greatly overstate that because we opined we are misinformed. That is not the case in most instances. You would be better served to argue the point and not attack the people involved.

In the 1800s in America. a released prisoner was given his gun back at the prison door.This not only acknowleged the reality that we as human beings have a right to survive, but emphasized a positive psychological dynamic. Mainly, It gave the message to the criminal that: "Go ahead and screw up, you'll be back here with us soon enough."That is much preferable to what is taking place now.It seems a plan of the Government is simply to declare most of the population criminals for violating contrived unjust laws in order to generally restrict gun ownership. Another point much ignored by the enemies of freedom is the fact that the founding fathers didn't consider the main reason citizens should be armed as pertaining to hunting or home protection, but "To overthrow the Government lest it should become corrupt.".Do you think that our present Government is corrupt?

I believe we should do everything we can to keep guns out of the hands of convicted felons. Requiring rigorous background checks is something that is fine with me and that I endorse.

Law-abiding citizens have nothing to hide on ID/background checks so they shouldn't object. I support the right to bear arms, not the right to abuse the right to bear arms.

It's not a threat, it's a thought experiment.
Do you object to doing it? Why?
Because people can then know where to come in order to f--- with you? Maybe government employees who think you have something you shouldn't? Government employees in body armor carrying submachine guns ?
NOW do you understand?

Because it is registration.

with you 100%. Why all the uproar over ID requirements. I hunt, shoot for recreation, and love to go to the gun shows and look at all the old guns . I don't see an issue with ID checks and background checks. If you are worried about failing the check, you probably don't need to have a gun any way. I'm just sayin!!!

The issue over ID checks is really an issue over the rights of the people in general. In theory, we live in a free country, able to do whatever we choose to do provided we do not infringe on the rights of others. We, again in theory, are never required to even carry ID unless we are engaging in certain activities, such as driving .

If I go out right now and buy a pair of shoes, a sandwich, etc., I don't have to show ID. Same thing with knives, sling shots, and almost all other potential deadly weapons. Requiring ID to purchase a firearm is akin to making me prove that I am not a criminal, and that is something that is very wrong . We are all innocent until proven guilty, but we don't even get that far - when I purchase a gun, I haven't even been accused of a crime , yet I am still required to prove my innocence.

So if I walk into a gun store, I'm not required to have ID. I've committed no crime, nor have I even been accused of one. Yet if I want to make a legal purchase of a firearm, I am now legally required to give up a certain type of ID, give up my Social Security number, and have to prove that I'm not a criminal without ever having been accused. It turns the idea of freedom on its head.

Rayven, you have no clue. No one is accusing you of being a criminal by requiring ID to buy a gun. Again, if you are concerned over needing to show ID, you don't need a gun anyway. If you think requiring ID to buy a gun is infringing on your rights, you are clueless.In MS, if you want to buy a knife, you better have some ID, If you want to buy a sling shot, you better have some ID. A sandwich or some shoes? Apples and oranges Rayven!! If you are carrying a firearm in the United States, you are required by law to have on your person a government issued identification. If it is concealed, you are required to have a permit as well.

ID checks for gun sales do help save lives. It is not fail proof, but it does help. I say ID checks are a great start to preventing unlawful gun sales.

Yes, I have quite a few clues.

When I am required to show ID to purchase an item, it is akin to making me prove that I am not a criminal. I am concerned over showing ID because we, as supposedly free people, shouldn't have to ever do so. The Fourth Amendment reads: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

By requiring IDs in almost every situation is a violation of the right to be secure in my person, papers, and effects - and all without probable cause. I'm not clueless at all, but rather a staunch advocate of my rights. My state constitition states that "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned. " By requiring ID to purchase, they are questioning my right.

By the way, I do carry a firearm in the United States, and I often openly carry. I need absolutely no ID to do so. There are no laws requiring me to do so in the US or my home state. I need a permit to conceal-carry.

In the end, firearms should not be subject to ID checks. If someone were to misuse their firearm, there would be a significant risk to that person that others would remove him/her from the realm of the living. ID checks do not save lives at all. They only make law -abiding people jump through more hoops than is necessary. If you disagree, go to any "bad area" of any major city. You'll find criminals there who have illegal guns - and they never had to provide any ID to get them.

With the new laws coming out are you going to turn your guns in if the government comes to your door to collect them?
And do you really thing any convicted felon buys legal guns?
Australia spent billions getting guns out of the "law abiding" citizens hands and their crime rate jumped 300%. They were easy pickin's for the illegal gun holders. Is that what you want here in the US? I sure don't.