Person-to-person gun sales


PDA






Slater
November 13, 2004, 02:22 PM
Do different states have restrictions on gun sales between private individuals? In the past most folks that I've known just met the other person at home (or wherever) and exchanged money for said weapon. End of transaction. This still happens at gunshows (at least in Arizona).

If you enjoyed reading about "Person-to-person gun sales" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
BeLikeTrey
November 13, 2004, 02:35 PM
South Carolina doesn't monitor at all. I called SLED and they wouldn't even reg in my name at my request. So... it remained unregistered ;) You would do well and it is adviseable to do like I do. make a note of DL #'s of both parties and serial number /type of gun with a copy for each of you. sign that it was sold, by both of you, and exactly when. this is standard CYA for me. and if you have one like I do, have your LEO buddy run the gun just in case it was stolen.

Majic
November 13, 2004, 03:21 PM
I think Maryland requires you to go thru a state licensed person for a private sale.

jefnvk
November 13, 2004, 06:38 PM
MI doesn't have anything for long guns. For handguns, you must still obtain the purchase permit, same as from an FFL.

Valkman
November 13, 2004, 06:40 PM
Here in NV you can do an in-state Class 3 transfer without going to a gun dealer! I thought that was cool, but when I bought my Uzi we still went through a dealer to protect everyone.

CB900F
November 13, 2004, 08:55 PM
Fella's;

Around here, if I were to buy a gun from a private party & he wanted my DL#, I'd be asking him if he really wanted to sell the gun. If he insisted, I'd keep my money & buy elsewhere.

No difference if you buy a lamp or a firearm at a garage sale. Treating the firearm differently is buying into the current politically correct way of doing things. What's so hard to understand about "Shall not be infringed"? Unless & until the law specifically addresses the issue here in Montana, I'm not willing agree with such nonsense.

900F

lwsimon
November 13, 2004, 09:51 PM
No registration, information, or complication here in AR.

Standing Wolf
November 13, 2004, 10:32 PM
Where does it say all that in the Second Amendment?

The Grand Inquisitor
November 13, 2004, 10:36 PM
In Illinois I believe you have to go through a FFL, and if you buy at a gun show you still have to do the waiting peroid, one day for rifles, three for handguns; which pretty much kills the sale of handguns at gunshows - who wants to buy a pistol and then wait three days and drive 3 or 4 hours to this guys house to pick it up when you can go to a gun shop and buy it for $50 more?

Kingcreek
November 13, 2004, 10:57 PM
Private sales are OK in Illinois but you (the seller) are supposed to maintain a record for 10 years by photocopying the buyer's FOID and recording description and ser#. Not required to file it unless on demand of the authorities.
IF I had guns (which I don't) that were purchased legally years ago and possessed legally today, and say those firearms had NO paper trail, I would deny any knowledge of such. But since I don't have any such assortment of undocumented firearms, all this is irrelevant.

BozemanMT
November 13, 2004, 11:00 PM
Fella's;

Around here, if I were to buy a gun from a private party & he wanted my DL#, I'd be asking him if he really wanted to sell the gun. If he insisted, I'd keep my money & buy elsewhere.

No difference if you buy a lamp or a firearm at a garage sale. Treating the firearm differently is buying into the current politically correct way of doing things. What's so hard to understand about "Shall not be infringed"?

900F

Exactly. i do exactly the same thing (both when I was in Montana and now in Colorado).

Telperion
November 13, 2004, 11:07 PM
Fancy that, people buying and selling personal private property without having to go through a government-mandated broker. :D

bubbygator
November 13, 2004, 11:10 PM
In Florida, it's only legal between FL residents. Most people I've done business with just look at each others Driver's License.

migoi
November 13, 2004, 11:19 PM
For long guns, the seller needs to inform HPD that the gun was sold (within 3 days, I think) and the buyer has the usual 3 working days to go down and register his new firearm. No pretense of a safety inspection for us...it's flat out registration. This of course can only happen if the buyer has a current long gun permit to acquire (good for one year). Yep, we ask permission here to exercise a limited version of our 2nd amendment rights. All firearms registration interactions have to happen at the main HPD office which is downtown with limited parking and surrounded by traffic choked streets, the hours of the office pretty much match my working hours so I have to time my firearms purchases to coincide with school breaks or take personal time off.

For hand guns, the deal is struck, the seller retains the firearm, the buyer trots down to HDP to fill out the paperwork for a permit to acquire (a new one for each hand gun purchase), after a wait of two weeks the buyer goes back to HPD to pick up the approved permit to acquire, the buyer and seller then meet again, the buyer gets the gun, papers are signed, the buyer then returns for the 3rd time with gun and paperwork to register the gun under the new owners name.

For hand guns it's always a two week wait, no matter how many times you've done it, no matter what the caliber or action. This fetish for investigating the law abiding leads to some absolutely ridiculous situations.

My father died not too long ago and one of the items I inherited was a GP100 with a 6 inch barrel. I shipped it through my favorite tabletop FFL, did the paper work, waited the 2 weeks, and when I went to pick it up my FFL had a GP100 with a 4 inch barrel (clever fellow had it laying there on the table next to mine). They looked so nice together that I decided to buy it from him. When I went down to register the one with the 6 inch barrel I filled out the paper work for the 4 inch barrel. So, the state of Hawaii spent two weeks assuring I was trustworthy enough to take possession of that firearm but felt the need to spend two more weeks checking me out to make sure I'm trustworthy enough to take possession of another firearm identical in all respects..except the barrel is 2 inches shorter.

To their credit the cops at the firearms registration office know that the rules are ridiculous and we often have a good laugh together when situations like this arise.

migoi

UberPhLuBB
November 14, 2004, 01:23 AM
California requires an 01 FFL to handle the transfer of any firearm, even C&R pistols (but not rifles). :barf: I'm not sure if there is a 10 day waiting period on person-to-person transfers since the gun originates from the "public," but there certainly is for out of state guns.

Zach S
November 14, 2004, 11:16 AM
FTF is legal here in NC for longuns and handguns. You still have to buy a pistol permit to buy a handgun though, unless you have your CHP.

I think NFA toys are legal for FTF sale as well, but of course the seller has to retain the toy untill the buyer gets his/her stamp.

JamisJockey
November 14, 2004, 11:26 AM
In Utah its no different then buying a lawn mower from someone, or maybe a fishing pole.
And if you ask for my ID I'm taking my money elsewhere.
:cuss:

Kamicosmos
November 14, 2004, 03:47 PM
MO also requires a pistol permit whenever a handgun changes hands, private or other wise. Even between family members. In Fact Technically If a husband buys a gun for his wife....that's a strawman, errr strawwife purchase. :fire:

Even now that we have CCW...we still have to get the individual pistol purchase permit and get run through NICS. :fire:

As far as the Second Admendment: Well, that's why we have state gov'ts. Each state has it's own version of the 2A. Part of the beauty of our country.
If you don't like your state's interpretation...you move, in theory.

ConcernedCitizen
November 14, 2004, 04:32 PM
Just curious, but what is everyone's opinion on getting a bill of sale for the purchase? I'm not talking ID or any form of registration, just a receipt that you bought or sold it legally? For instance, if for some reason the firearm was traced back to you, wouldn't it be better to have a bill of sale to show the authorities, rather than just say "I sold that years ago"?

I personally don't feel that it's necessary, but I can see some logic to it. Opinions, anyone?

Majic
November 14, 2004, 05:55 PM
IMO unless the receipt is witnessed by a 3rd person then it wouldn't be worth the paper you wrote it on.

dsgrntldPW
November 14, 2004, 09:06 PM
When doing a FTF I would like to see an AZ CCW or an AZ driver's license. With only a driver's license I will try to remember to ask them if they are not a convicted felon and meet federal and Arizona requirements for posessing a firearm. I do not copy down any info, just want to be sure they have at least told me they can legally own the gun here. If they lie to me then they lie to me, but at least I asked. I think of this as doing my due dilligence, acting in a responsible manner and making an effort try to protect myself from a liability standpoint. I would not sell a handgun to an out of state resident and if others do not like my requirements they can go elsewhere.

It may not be necessary to take these steps, but almost any righteous gun buyer is willing to comply. In fact most of those I have dealt with lately will offer the info up front. It's not a big deal to them, or to me when I purchase a firearm FTF.

carp killer
November 14, 2004, 09:22 PM
Some firearms don't have serial numbers. So a receipt means nothing. You could make up anything.

Eyeless
November 14, 2004, 09:34 PM
California requires an 01 FFL to handle the transfer of any firearm, even C&R pistols (but not rifles). :barf: I'm not sure if there is a 10 day waiting period on person-to-person transfers since the gun originates from the "public," but there certainly is for out of state guns.
There is a 10 day waiting period for private-party-transfers in California.

FPrice
November 14, 2004, 09:36 PM
In the People's Commonwealth of Massachusetts you can do a person-to-person transfer but Commonwealth law requires that you report the sale on the same form that an FFL uses to report sales. And this in the colony where the American Revolution (the fighting phase) began because the British attempted to confiscate firearms and ammunition from the colonists.

bubbygator
November 15, 2004, 12:06 AM
Concerned Citizen: I personally keep my own record of all serial numbers, descriptions, cost, etc. and the DL name & number. It doesn't take much time & gives me a sense of security. If one of my prior guns is ever used in a crime, I will be able to complete one link in the ownership chain for the police. Computers are wonderful for stuff like this.

gunslinger308
November 15, 2004, 12:14 AM
in Texas we can buy and sell with a handshake! Use your common sense and don't sell to KNOWN crimimals.

BeLikeTrey
November 16, 2004, 09:41 AM
I would ask you to take your money elsewhere also. This is not a regulatory thing.

ConcernedCitizen has it right


"For instance, if for some reason the firearm was traced back to you, wouldn't it be better to have a bill of sale to show the authorities, rather than just say 'I sold that years ago?'

I personally don't feel that it's necessary, but I can see some logic to it. Opinions, anyone? "

It is a CYA issue to be honest. Since that gun was purchased by me, I will make darn sure that if anything comes back on me, I have a litle more than "oh I sold that to some guy awhile back". Murder or something else happens? Say the guy that bought it from me sells it to the wrong guy or has it stolen. Guess who that comes back on? No sirree! It is for my protection and MY records. You don't have respect for my safety or need to stay away from prosecution? I'd rather not sell to you anyway. I do the same when I buy a gun too. What if the seller just killed someone or the gun has been used in a killing at some point in the past? Wouldn't that be a handy item to prove when that gun made it into your possession? I have insisted on doing this when I buy OR sell. Both party's DL#, date, and firearm desc w/ serial. both parties keep copy. Best way to avoid legal liability. As always, this is just my opinion.

EOD Guy
November 16, 2004, 10:34 AM
There is a 10 day waiting period for private-party-transfers in California.


Not for private party sales that are not required to go through a dealer, i.e., C&R rifles and shotguns that are over 50 years old.

JamisJockey
November 16, 2004, 10:36 AM
Yea, it is a CYA thing...however...I will take no part in the goverments registration scheme, and if they decide to trace a gun to me, they can deal with my lawyer.

slick6
November 16, 2004, 01:10 PM
What would the situation be in California? For example: If a Californian went to visit another State(Like Nevada, Arizona, Idaho, or Oregon)and purchased a handgun, while visiting there? And then, brought the gun back into California? Can this be legally done in **********? What proceedure would need to be followed?

Tom Servo
November 16, 2004, 01:29 PM
No hassles in Georgia. No need to record or report anything. Just be sure you know who you're selling to.

In Georgia, guns aren't registered, but the gun dealer keeps records on the original purchaser. I recently sold one of my Sigs to a coworker. Let's say he goes out and commits a crime. When the gun's recovered by LE, they'll call Sigarms with the serial #, Sig will tell them it was sold by Bubba's Guns-a-Plenty in Kennesaw, the police will go see Bubba, and he'll tell them that it was originally sold to yours truly.

From what I understand, at this point, unless they can prove that I *knew* it was going to be used in a crime, I can't be held accountable.

The real burden of record-keeping falls to the retailer, and they keep their records on-site (and presumably confidential), and it's nice to know there's no database of my guns anywhere.

cracked butt
November 16, 2004, 03:09 PM
No problems, no papertrails in Wisconsin.

71Commander
November 16, 2004, 03:24 PM
MI doesn't have anything for long guns. For handguns, you must still obtain the purchase permit, same as from an FFL.

Only if you do it within the boarders of the state. If I sell a handgun to a person in another state, I have to send it to a FFL, but I do not have to notify Michigan that I sold the weapon. No paperwork involved.

rick_reno
November 16, 2004, 03:44 PM
Fella's;

Around here, if I were to buy a gun from a private party & he wanted my DL#, I'd be asking him if he really wanted to sell the gun. If he insisted, I'd keep my money & buy elsewhere.

900F

Same here, I'm in Idaho. Here a private party transaction waiting period is measured in how long it takes to count the money.
These days, with identity theft running rampant I'd be very careful about who you give your DL too so they can record information printed on it. I show it when I write a check and sometimes I'm asked to show it for credit card purchases (my wife wrote "Ask for ID" on the back of my credit cards) - but if they get a pen and paper out to write anything down on it it gets put away fast. I have a good friend in AZ who had his identity ripped off by a convicted felon - this was 4 years ago and he's still trying to straighten it out.

Dave P
November 16, 2004, 04:04 PM
In Florida, it's only legal between FL residents. Most people I've done business with just look at each others Driver's License.

This is a new one on me. Can you point to the source Bubby?

Dave

Slater
November 16, 2004, 04:50 PM
Wonder how many people simply go over to the buyer's house (or meet somewhere), exchange money and gun, and end of transaction - in the states with laws governing this kind of thing?

OldLawman
November 16, 2004, 05:18 PM
In Maryland, you are supposed to fill out the same transfer paperwork as though you were purchasing it through a dealer for the first time. That is assuning the gun was made and sold after October 1996, I believe. Before then, private sales were unregulated.

gunslinger308
November 16, 2004, 09:29 PM
Atc1man has it right!

Yea, it is a CYA thing...however...I will take no part in the goverments registration scheme, and if they decide to trace a gun to me, they can deal with my lawyer

I plan to be law abiding until the law decides to infringe upon me!

bubbygator
November 17, 2004, 01:09 AM
Dave P: Florida Firearms, Law, Use & Ownership; Jon H. Gutmacher, 1994

Chapter 2 Residence Requirements: "Federal law strictly prohibits certain types of firearms sales to non-residents. It is a federal crime to sell, transfer, give, or receive a handgun when the person receiving the handgun is not a resident of the state in which the sale was made. This applies to purchases from dealers, and private parties alike." That's what I learned in my CCW class.

For a more authoritative take, try this BATF site (http://www.atf.treas.gov/firearms/faq/faq2.htm#b1), items B1. & B2.

Majic
November 18, 2004, 01:30 AM
Slick6,
You can not legally purchase a handgun from anyone who is not a resident of your state without transfering thru a FFL holder. If you go outside of your state to purchase a handgun then it must be shipped to a FFL holder in your home state and you take possession from there after the necessary processing.

sm
November 18, 2004, 01:54 AM
What guns?
What person?
Why do you ask if I ever been out of state?

Fl has sand, TX has BBQ, OK has quail, TN has the blues, KY has horses and great scenery....etc.

...she never even called me by my name...- David Allan Coe

patent
November 18, 2004, 01:19 PM
Around here, if I were to buy a gun from a private party & he wanted my DL#, I'd be asking him if he really wanted to sell the gun. If he insisted, I'd keep my money & buy elsewhere.

No difference if you buy a lamp or a firearm at a garage sale. Treating the firearm differently is buying into the current politically correct way of doing things.

Well, I disagree. Last time I sold a car I asked for the guy's driver's license, recorded it, and we signed a paper transfering it. I view a gun about the same. In both cases I want a record I sold it. Can't say I'll always do that, some people I know would be an exception, but to a stranger I'm probably going to do this with a gun too. You, of course, have no obligation to comply, and can take your money and walk. I'm fine with that, you make your choices and I'll make mine.

I just don't want a situation where a serious object (car, gun, boat, salad shooter) is used in a way that could cause me a headache cause people don't believe I sold it. And I do think its very different than buying a lamp for that reason.

patent

CB900F
November 18, 2004, 11:04 PM
Patent;

Automobiles & the attendant rights thereof are not specifically addressed in the constitution of the United States and the bill of rights. Firearms are.

You are eminantly within your rights to disagree with me, that's another provision that is specifically addressed in the bill of rights. Although there are now things you can't say & times when you can't say them. So, that right is eroded. Just ask Eddie Smith & Larry Rush if you don't wish to take my word for it.

If you wish to further the erosion of the meaning of the original document, shame on you. If you are simply ignorant, please educate yourself.

900F

patent
November 19, 2004, 02:24 PM
Automobiles & the attendant rights thereof are not specifically addressed in the constitution of the United States and the bill of rights. Firearms are. The Constitution of the United States does not compel me to sell you my property (even a firearm) on YOUR terms. You have a right to keep and bear arms. You do not have a right to keep and bear MY arms. If I set terms for a sale, and those terms are not acceptable to you, you have the right to walk away, just as I have the right stick to my terms. My right to name my terms for selling my property in no way erodes the right to keep and bear arms.

So many people today think that their rights should be enforced above all others, that somehow your right to keep and bear arms should trump my private property rights. It doesn't work that way, no matter what the judges today claim.

If you disagree, perhaps you could explain exactly what portion of the Constitution says I can't demand to know who my buyers are? Or that I can't insist on a written agreement rather than an oral one. I'd be interested in that theory. A mere citiation to the Constitution hardly explains how I've lost my private property rights when you want my gun, or how I'm eroding the Constitition by demanding a written agreement.

If you wish to further the erosion of the meaning of the original document, shame on you. If you are simply ignorant, please educate yourself. I suspect I'm familiar enough with the Consitution that back handed insults are no more accurate than they are appropriate in civil discourse.

patent

CB900F
November 19, 2004, 09:26 PM
Patent;

Of course I wouldn't buy from you with your record keeping. Why should I? No reason at all. I'll find it somewhere else without strings. If you are personally into the record keeping, it's hard to believe that you would then object to others doing the same. I happen to so object. Therefore, I doubt I'll be buying firearms from you.

If you can't, or won't, see the correlation between your personal convenience and that of the government's, I'm not shocked these days, just disappointed. As for me, I recognize that the burden of proof is on the state & will do nothing to ease that burden. Were you aware that at one time it was illegal for our government to keep any records of firearms transaction? Witness the manifold numbers of no serial number firearms sold during those times.

Then came the 60's, G.C.A. '68 & the slide began. Your personal ease is of course, your right. However, I have to decry the mentality that greases the slope that accountants, lawyers, & liberals use to harness the bill of rights.

900F

bpisler
November 19, 2004, 10:47 PM
If i'am selling a gun that has a 4473 in my name on it,show me your ID or keep your money.If it's a gun that i bought without secondhand without any paperwork being done,I'll take your money without question.

patent
November 21, 2004, 01:11 AM
Previously you expressed the opinion that my recordkeeping would erode the Constitution. I trust you recognize that is not the case, as you seem to have moved on from that argument. If you still make that contention, I again ask for an explanation of how that is the case.

If you can't, or won't, see the correlation between your personal convenience and that of the government's, I'm not shocked these days, just disappointed. As for me, I recognize that the burden of proof is on the state & will do nothing to ease that burden. I do recognize that my personal convience can work to the benefit of the state, but I don't chose to forgo my convenience simply because it could someday benefit the state.

To put it plainly, if my interest is in protecting myself, I will do so. I have no obligation to protect you. If you buy a gun from me, and then use it in a crime, I see no reason that I should be protecting you. More specifically, I see no reason that I should take the fall for you. The record keeping protects me from that.

You seem concerned that my personal records may benefit the state, and seem to expect that I should forgoe what you call my "personal convenience" simply because my "personal convenience" may not benefit you. Again, you seem to speak as though my rights or "conveniences" should be subordinate to your own. Obviously I disagree.

On the other hand, if confiscation becomes the state program, I will no longer have records of any sort, as I won't help with that. That day isn't yet here.

patent

CB900F
November 21, 2004, 10:30 PM
Patent;

If confiscation does indeed become the state program, one of the reasons that they'll think they can get away with it is the private records of people like yourself. You've stated here that you keep them. I would find it hard to believe that if such gun-grabber laws were enacted, you'd be allowed to destroy your records without penalty. But, do as you will.

900F

FPrice
November 22, 2004, 08:23 PM
"If confiscation does indeed become the state program, one of the reasons that they'll think they can get away with it is the private records of people like yourself. You've stated here that you keep them. I would find it hard to believe that if such gun-grabber laws were enacted, you'd be allowed to destroy your records without penalty. But, do as you will."

If "they" do enact confiscation programs, do you seriously think that destruction of said private records and any possible penalty thereto would be anything significant compared to resistance to confiscation?

I find your reasoning vaguely akin to blaming a rape victim for making her (his?) attacker think that they can get away with it.

CB900F
November 22, 2004, 09:38 PM
Fella's;

I guess it boils down to this; "Shall not be infringed". Fringe being defined as; on the outer edge, peripheral, or marginal. Infringed being defined as; to encroach or trespass. Or, in the case of the second amendment, not to permit the least limitation upon the right guaranteed by this document.

I prefer to honor what I believe to be the original meaning of the second amendment. Any records amount to some limitation. Else, why the need to keep them?

900F

patent
November 23, 2004, 01:08 PM
CB900F,

Before I argue vehemently with you, let me say that I very much respect your willingness to walk away from a gun you want if you don’t like the terms of the sale, and I very much agree that you are free to do that, and always should be free to do that. Whatever rights I have to insist on certain terms for a sale, you clearly have the same rights to refuse those terms, and I respect that you are willing to stand up that way.

I guess it boils down to this; "Shall not be infringed". Fringe being defined as; on the outer edge, peripheral, or marginal. Infringed being defined as; to encroach or trespass. Or, in the case of the second amendment, not to permit the least limitation upon the right guaranteed by this document.

First, I asked this before, but I’m not sure I’ve gotten an answer. Please explain how my keeping a record of who I sold to infringes your right to bear arms? You can still buy it and keep it, but I just know who you are. How is that a restriction on you? It appears to me that if it’s a restriction on you, it is only a restriction because you are afraid to be known, but that is more a personal issue than a Constitutional one. A government by the free for the free was not made by men with secretly owned guns, but by men who put their entire name, reputation, and prosperity forward in a very public manner, and backed that with their guns and lives.

Nothing in the Constitution states you have a right to bear arms without anyone anywhere ever knowing. Sure, you can do it that way, you can find others willing to sell to you on your terms and you can remain completely unknown, but I don’t see how you can claim that the Constitutional protections guarantee that. I don’t see how your rights are being infringed if I know who you are. So please explain exactly how you go from the Constitutional language to this claim that my keeping records infringes or limits the Constitutional right.

Second, even if you were correct that the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms is infringed by my records, you have to deal with the fact that I have private property rights (among others) that are also in play. If I can’t (or shouldn’t) keep records on sales, that is clearly an infringement on my property rights. So, if your view is correct, that limiting how you buy your guns from me is an infringement on your right, and limiting how I can sell them is an infringement on my right, we are clearly infringing on someone’s rights here. We place limits on every Constitutional right, especially when they interfere with some other right. Your right to practice your religion does not allow you to tie me up and pitch me into Mt. St. Helens to appease the volcano gods. I have a right to life, of course. Yet, that is clearly an infringement of some sort on the free practice of some religions.

Your understanding of that language in the Constitution leads to impossible conflicts. In real life we need to accept that when rights interact, there must be some flexibility in each right to achieve some sort of real world balance. In modern practice we’ve abandoned that balance in the direction of the gun grabbers, who want to put real restrictions on ownership. IMHO, you want to go to far in the other direction where a gun trumps all other rights.

Any records amount to some limitation. Else, why the need to keep them?

Third, you’ve argued that my record keeping will aid state confiscation programs. I’d guess that if the government wants to determine what guns you own, it can learn more from your postings here than it can from my records, if it can even get my records. It can clearly get your postings. Are they not records, and don’t some of your posts create records on what guns you own? If my records are an infringement because the state can find that you own the gun, how are your postings not an infringement?

patent

Old Dog
November 23, 2004, 02:35 PM
I keep private records for one reason, and one reason only: to cover my six in the event a gun that I sold is ever used (and recovered) in a crime. My records will never leave my fireproof safe and would never be provided to any authorities should ever that knock on my door come by would-be gun-grabbing government agents ... however -- should a gun that I purchased (and my name is on record on a 4473) be later used in a crime, it's only common sense that I be able to prove that I (in good faith) sold the firearm.

Personal records such as this in no way constitute infringement of any person's 2nd Amendment rights. For those who would argue that they do, how many have never filled out a 4473?

If I sell a gun to you -- I am indicating my trust that you will (1) safeguard the weapon so a criminal will not steal it, and (2) not use the gun for illegal purposes, nor provide that firearm to someone else who would. Can I not expect that you trust me to safeguard what limited personal information I'd ask from you?

I had an co-worker who went through hell when a gun he sold was used in a homicide, then recovered near the scene by police -- in a city in which he lived.

CB900F
November 23, 2004, 09:43 PM
Patent;

I've explained to my satisfaction, all the points you've raised. Since I'm not under subpoena, I'll do it one more time. But that's it. You'll either think it through for yourself, or maintain the pink glasses.

Are you seriously trying to maintain that records of firearms sales have been present since the signing of the constitution? I would hope not, but your position gives me pause to wonder. What mind set then has caused Federal records to be kept? What purpose is served? To whose benefit is it? Not mine, I assure you.

As for knowledge of my name, not fear, simply unwillingness. And for that, the constitution guarantees rights, not limitations. I do have the right to own a firearm without you, the Federal government, or my aunt Minnie, knowing about it. That may indeed change with a change in Federal law, witness the current situation in Austrailia. But a right to such knowledge of my personal property was never the intent of the framers. A study of The Federalist Papers, should make that point evident.

Then sir, I've not told you that you may not keep records & thereby infringed your 'rights'. I've simply told you that I won't buy from you. Where's the foul? Don't strain at gnats, it's a futile exercise.

The records keeping is, as I've stated before, your personal right. And, as I've stated before, indicative of a mindset that I don't participate in.

I will now terminate my subscription to this thread.

900F

900

patent
November 24, 2004, 12:56 PM
I've explained to my satisfaction, all the points you've raised. Since I'm not under subpoena, I'll do it one more time. But that's it. You'll either think it through for yourself, or maintain the pink glasses. I’m not sure that you have actually explained it, and the insults hardly help. I took a look through all your posts again, and you really only make the basic statement, you don't really explain or support it. As far as I can tell your view is based on the phrase shall not infringe, and the definition you posted on “fringe.”

You seem to think that anything at all that even comes close to the ownership or transactions for firearms is an infringement on the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. I really don’t see how you get there, it just doesn’t make any sense.

If keeping a record is an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms, your posts here on this forum have violated the Constitution far more than I ever could. Yet, I assume you don’t think that’s inconsistent with your views. Why not?

If my choosing to – as a private property owner selling his property – record a person’s name is truly an infringement - or limit - on the right to keep and bear arms, then how many other things are infringements as well? The real limit I see on firearms ownership is that they cost so da*& much. Is it a violation of my constitutional right to keep and bear arms that they charge for guns? No, of course not, but for most people, like me, that’s far more of a real world limit than that I want to see your ID before selling.

Both asking for an ID and asking for money are things a reasonable property owner can do before selling his property. Neither are unconstitutional infringements on the right to keep and bear arms. Neither are contrary to the spirt, or the original intent of the Constitition.


Are you seriously trying to maintain that records of firearms sales have been present since the signing of the constitution? I would hope not, but your position gives me pause to wonder. First, I haven't said anything of the sort, so I don't see why you question if I'm maintianing this.

Second, your statement is very unclear. Records kept by whom? Of course some records have been kept at times. If I sell you a gun I have a memory of it, which is of course a record. Receipts are not a modern invention either, as I assume you must know. You can go back quite a ways and find records of firearms sold to this or that individual. I do believe record keeping by the government is new. Other than that, the import of your comment is so vague I am not sure what the point is.

As for knowledge of my name, not fear, simply unwillingness. Then clearly, your right has not been infringed. Unwillingness to be known is hardly a substantial concern when no fear comes with it.

I do have the right to own a firearm without you, the Federal government, or my aunt Minnie, knowing about it. What is this right based on? The Constitution says you have a right to bear arms, where does it claim you have a right to bear arms without any other individual knowing about it?

A study of The Federalist Papers, should make that point evident. I’ve read nearly all of the Federalist Papers, and I have no idea what portion provides support for your anonymity “right”. Please provide a cite. This is exactly what I keep asking for, logic or citations in support of your theory. You seem unwilling to support your argument, and I suspect that you can't.

Then sir, I've not told you that you may not keep records & thereby infringed your 'rights'. I've simply told you that I won't buy from you. Where's the foul? Don't strain at gnats, it's a futile exercise.
I’ve expressly stated, in the very post you just replied to, that I respect your desire for paperless transactions, that I agree you are free to do that, and that you have the right to seek terms of sale you prefer. I have not claimed that you are infringing my rights by refusing to buy from me. Nor have I suggested that you’ve claimed I can’t keep records.

What I have taken exception to is your claim that, if I keep records, I am some how “infringing” on the right to keep and bear arms, and you did make that claim:

I guess it boils down to this; "Shall not be infringed". Fringe being defined as; on the outer edge, peripheral, or marginal. Infringed being defined as; to encroach or trespass. Or, in the case of the second amendment, not to permit the least limitation upon the right guaranteed by this document.
and:

If you wish to further the erosion of the meaning of the original document, shame on you. If you are simply ignorant, please educate yourself. What you have not done is provide any sort of a rational basis for these claims. My record keeping is hardly a violation of the Constitution, its original intent, or someone else’s right to keep and bear arms. Its an normal world thing to do, and a Constitution by the people for the people’s benefit must, above all else, benefit people in the real world.

patent

If you enjoyed reading about "Person-to-person gun sales" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!