back ground check for private sales


PDA

answerguy
January 28, 2003, 09:40 AM
Would anyone here like the ability to do a background check before selling a gun to a person you don't know?

I know the main arguement against it would be if there were a law allowing it, then there would probably be a law requiring it a short time later.

But wouldn't it be nice to able to verify that the person you are selling the gun to isn't a felon?

If you enjoyed reading about "back ground check for private sales" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
2nd Amendment
January 28, 2003, 10:13 AM
No. I don't need to know the background of anyone to whom I sell a car or a house or a set of tools. A firearm is just another tool. As for liabilities, I'll take my chances.

cslinger
January 28, 2003, 10:20 AM
Valid drivers license in the state of sale showing that that person is legally of age to purchase a firearm and is a resident of that state and didn't cross state lines.

I also have a standard contract that basically needs to be signed by both the seller and the buyer, who both get copies that reads that neither is a fellon and both can legally transer and receive a firearm and that the receiver isn't going to go knock over a 7-11 after purchasing etc.....pretty much the same contract I use for other stuff as well. You know I am not liable if you shoot yourself or somebody else, no warrantees express or implied, same stuff for a car really. I am not liable if you run over a bus load of nuns etc.

Chris

MitchSchaft
January 28, 2003, 10:20 AM
Definately NOT :banghead:

MitchSchaft
January 28, 2003, 10:21 AM
Those contracts wont hold up in court and remind me not to buy anything from you :neener: .

rock jock
January 28, 2003, 11:03 AM
But wouldn't it be nice to able to verify that the person you are selling the gun to isn't a felon?
Yes it would. I guess I have a different opinion from many on this board. I certainly don't think it should be the law, but as a matter of personal responsibility I only sell handguns to people I know or those holding concealed carry licenses. I would in fact feel partially responsible if I sold a gun to a felon who then used it to commit a crime. It is also my understanding that it is in fact a violation of the law to sell a handgun to someone from out of state without going through a FFL.

oldfart
January 28, 2003, 12:59 PM
Baaaaaaa... Baaaaaaaa.

Sorry folks, but with painfully rare exceptions, you guys are sounding like that's your native tongue.

What's happened to all the tough talk about keeping the government out of your personal business? Isn't the sale of personal property ALSO personal business? Can anyone point out the part of the Second Amendment that says people who have been convicted of a crime, gone to prison and been released are precluded from owning guns? While I can see why we might not allow those currently in prison to possess guns, what part of the Constitution gives government the power to deny anyone the means and tools for self-protection?

I rarely ever sell a gun, but when I do, I do it the old-fashioned way-- with a handshake and cold cash. That's the way I'd sell a generator or a refrigerator or any other piece of my personal property and that's the same way I buy.

Some of you guys need to check the water temperature.

answerguy
January 28, 2003, 01:10 PM
- do you have the balls to do what you say? I assume you CCW without a permit, are you willing to tell the next cop who pulls you over about it? Why not?

Let me add that the constitution doesn't say I don't have the right to decide who I sell the gun to. And since felony convictions should be public record why not let me see them?

TallPine
January 28, 2003, 01:14 PM
oldfart got it right IMO

MitchSchaft
January 28, 2003, 01:32 PM
I love you, oldfart. Being born in 1934, I'm sure he knows a thing 'r 2 about a thing 'r 2.

10-Ring
January 28, 2003, 01:36 PM
Not an issue in CA because ALL firearm sales...new, used, private party, pawn shop etal...require background check & 10 waiting period.

oldfart
January 28, 2003, 01:46 PM
Answerguy:
If a cop_should pull me over, it would probably be for driving in a way that he thought was unsafe or illegal. I ouldn't bother to tell him I was carrying for the same reason I wouldn't tell the driver of the next car stopped at the light--- IT ISN'T ANY OF HIS BUSINESS!!!

Now, if the cop were to take issue with me because I just happened to shoot that driver of the next car--- well, then my gun might be relevant to the discussion.

And, yes you do have the right to do business with whomever you wish, basing your decision on whatever information you want. The fact that you feel you need to protect your butt from an over-intrusive government is a symptom of a much larger problem. If you feel (and you have every right to do so) that once a_person has stepped beyond the limit of the law he (or she, we must be PC here) will never again be trustworthy enough to be allowed to defend himself with a gun, then I submit you have been thoroughly and probably irreversibly indoctrinated by twelve or more years of Gov-Speak administered by Big Brother's public schools.

Now then, this isn't meant to be a flame. You're nowhere near alone in your views. Actually, I'm probably the one holding an outside view of the issue. My words are meant more as a commentary on how our views have changed over the years due to the incessant publicity about the evil of guns and gun ownership. I AM an oldfart, and I remember days when I could buy a gun at a general store without paperwork; When I rode my bike to that same store and bought twelve sticks of dynamite for my neighbor to blow some stumps with; When a distant relative got out of prison and wasn't forced to register with the local police or report his every move.

Whether we like it or not and regardless of whatever excuses we might use to justify our actions, we are gradually being boiled. The water may only be moderately warm now, but next year? Or the next?

Tim Schlosser
January 28, 2003, 02:16 PM
While I am horrified by California and the hoops they make you jump through, I tend to enjoy knowing that whoever I sell to has been checked out. While I'm smart enough to realize that background checks are laughable at best, the fact that a person is willing to subject themselves to it tells me they have no major skeletons. I've pretty much quit selling guns and just buy as many as I can, but I do think it's a pretty good idea to cover your butt and have a dealer do the transfers.

Southla1
January 28, 2003, 02:47 PM
I look at it this way...............right now I have a 3/4 quarter horse 1/4 Welsh crossbreed horse to sell 6 years old. the first $650 CASH takes him home. To who I don't care.....figure it from there! If he looks over 21 thats good enough for me. By the way Louisiana had no laws concerning private sales.

MitchSchaft
January 28, 2003, 02:57 PM
It's like the antis blaming the gun. I'm not blaming myself for something somebody else does.

spacemanspiff
January 28, 2003, 03:10 PM
well since i dont anticipate ever selling any of my guns, its not really an issue to me. however, i myself wouldnt sell a firearm to someone i didnt know. that way, i can always track that guy down to see if he'll let me buy it back.

and i'd also like to have a paper trail of some sort, a simple bill of sale would suffice for my records and his. say for example you sell a gun to someone else and theres no trail, a crime is commited with the firearm you sold, and the gun goes back to the 4473 and is linked to you. at the very least you should expect some headaches if there is no evidence that you sold the firearm in the first place.
its called Cover Your Posterior.

P12
January 28, 2003, 03:21 PM
If someone wants to do a background check before selling someone a gun that's fine. It's their gun and their sale.

I have a problem with the gov. mandating a background check.

It's no different than smoking bans in restaurants. I can comment on this topic with authority since I now own one.

If I wanted to serve the smoking only public, I'd be out of luck. That should be my choice and the owner, not big brother's. Same goes for the sale of a gun, or any other personal property.

P.S. If you come into my restaurant you can pack heat. Of course I don't think you will have to much trouble from the patrons of a tea room.

oldfart
January 28, 2003, 03:34 PM
Thanks for the vote of confidence, MitchSchaft. Would you mind relaying those remarks to my wife?

To revisit an issue: Back in '99, when I was a mere 65 yrs old, my wife was working one night and our daughter was gone somewhere else. I decided to go down to the local park to watch a baseball game. The game finally finished well after dark and I pushed my bike towards the street to head home.
All of a sudden, I was jerked into a patch of bushes and three young Hispanic Gentlemen proceeded to kick the livin' dog***** out of me. I was completely defensive, rolling into a ball and trying to protect myself as much as possible while screaming at the top of my lungs. One of the fine young fellows kept trying to grab me by the hair to pull my head up, but I was able to resist that.
After what seemed like several days, some of the ballplayers came running over with their bats, chasing my new acquaintances away. Someone brought a flashlight and we found my glasses, still intact, and one more little surprise-- an open knife! At least one of those guys wanted to cut my throat!
After that, I chose to stay home a lot, unconsciously choosing safety rather than freedom. But about a year later,_I bought a .380 pistol and began carrying it everywhere I went. As you may have figured out, I didn't bother the 'authorities' with all the paperwork they would have had to fill out to "grant"_me permission to carry concealed.
I don't know if I ever ran into those guys again or not. If I had, I wouldn't have been able to recognise them since about all I had seen of them originally was their shoes. But I started going out again.
Eventually though, my shirt rode up at the wrong time and one day, as I stood by my car waiting for my wife, I suddenly had three burly men dressed in blue pointing guns at me. They arrested me for carrying without a permit and eventually (9 hours later) released me.
When everything finally came to court, it was duly pointed out that my gun wasn't concealed-- they could see it-- and Oregon specifically states that a gun worn openly on the belt shall never be considered 'concealed'. But the City of Portland has a rule against carrying a loaded gun in public unless you're going to or coming from a shooting range. They got me on that one.
The judge asked my why I felt I needed to carry a gun, so I told him about my little frolic in the park. He listened and then sentenced me to a two-hour gun safety course and probation that would end when I had completed the safety course. Just as the judge was signing the papers, he asked me if I was going to go back to carrying a gun again. I looked him straight in the eye and told him simply that the police had kept my gun. He paused, looked down and said, "Yes."
I now have a court order in my possession stating that I AM allowed to possess firearms. So sometimes things do work out.

JohnBT
January 28, 2003, 03:36 PM
Southla1 -

Is your state one of the ones that has made it a crime to sell a horse to someone who intends to export the meat for human consumption? (It is typically sent to France, England and Belgium if anybody cares.)

You better be careful :) :) :)

John

matis
January 28, 2003, 03:41 PM
I'm with Oldfart and Southla1.

Running a nics on a private sale only adds the parties to the government computers. Why on earth would you VOLUNTEER to do that?

Should be up to the seller, but since we haven't killed all the lawyers, yet, as some ancient Roman advised --

(don't get excited -- I'm just kidding -- what I'd really do is stop them from advertising and make 50% --make that 75% of their schooling be about the history of freedom and liberty and I'd make them memorize the constitution forwards AND backwards and then in German, french, Italian and Hebrew),


-- check the buyers drivers license to be sure they're over 21 and not out of state -- not because either criteria helps at all, but just to CYA.



By the way, Oldfart, what say we go into business, you and I?

People buy what they're familiar with, right? So let's sell 'em bottled water -- just past luke warm. We'll outsell Cocola!


Confuscious say that sheep are for shearing. Until you eat 'em, what the h-ll else you gonna do with 'em?


Matis

rock jock
January 28, 2003, 03:50 PM
While I can see why we might not allow those currently in prison to possess guns, what part of the Constitution gives government the power to deny anyone the means and tools for self-protection?
Well, if you're going to be perfectly consistent in your views, this should not be an allowable exception, either. After all, prisoners have a right to free speech and freedom of religion. Where in the Constitution does the govt. have the right to deny RKBA to prisoners?

BTW, oldfart, your ramblings don't impress me. I never said I think the govt. should be involved in a private sale. I only said that I, as a matter of personal responsibility, do my best to make sure I am not aiding and assisting a criminal by personally checking on a potential buyer. If you choose not to exercise that precaution, that is entirely up to you.

oldfart
January 28, 2003, 03:57 PM
Spacemanspiff:
You certainly have a valid point regarding a possible future crime with a gun you sell. I could be traced to you via the 4473 and you'd have to do some tall explaining.
But what if you'd never filled out the form? What if you hadn't bought that gun from a dealer? No 4473-- no trail-- no problem.
I've never bought a gun from a dealer since about 1970 (more or less). I don't have anything against them, but I'm sorry, I can't support them this way. I buy accessories from them. I buy ammo from them. But I won't buy guns from them unless the gun is pre-1898.
Now, I admit, I don't own the latest ultra-whammy boom-boom out of Ruger or Remington or whomever, but my old '93 Mauser will do in an elk just as well the latest brain-fart out of Winchester. As a matter of fact, the latest brain-fart out of Winchester IS a '93 Mauser. It's just polished better.
Sorry for all the words, but I've watched to damned much of this country go down the "politically correct" drain or the "for our own good" hole or "for the children" pit. The government may get a piece of my a$$ for something they think I'm doing wrong but they won't get my cherry and they damned sure won't get my pride.

ReadyontheRight
January 28, 2003, 04:03 PM
If you really want to check out someone's background, can't you just do it through an FFL with the current system? You'll have to pay for it, but are you thinking that government involvement will somehow make it cheaper? If you really want to CYA, hire a Lawyer or a Private Eye, but don't make the rest of us pay for it with our tax money.

If I buy or sell a gee-tar, automobile, boat, or anything over $300 or so, I would expect each of us to sign a receipt and write down some sort of ID number to CYA in case it's reported stolen or if it's a stolen item. Same for guns.

Or...just never sell any of your guns.

As Jeff Cooper says: "A moral man may give away his treasures, but probably he should not sell them...The Queen is not for sale."

matis
January 28, 2003, 04:12 PM
Nothing at all personal,

but I AM impressed with Oldfarts "ramblings".

And while we're on ramblings, the oldest, most time-tested and and best way to teach wisdom is through stories, just plain stories -- and not just for children.

The listener is entertained, wants to hear the ending, and the wisdom goes right in -- no resistance -- and takes residence in the listener's psyche.

That's how it was done in pre-literate times, that's how it's still done -- every culture has this tradition.


(One thing, though, Oldfart -- at 69 you STILL have your cherry?)

Matis

Peetmoss
January 28, 2003, 04:17 PM
I would use my own senses to decied weather or not to sell a gun to someone. The same as I would with anything else.

MitchSchaft
January 28, 2003, 04:19 PM
I , too, am impressed by oldfart's speech. There's nothing more inspiring than to hear from someone who's been there and done that and has some stories to tell.

larry_minn
January 28, 2003, 04:27 PM
I know a gent who sold a handgun and a few yrs later wound up being dragged out of his bed half asleep near naked (he had a pair of underwar on) and cuffed in hallway before he knew what happened. Neighbors walked by and his GF was only wearing a robe. Seems he sold a gun about 4yrs before and it was used in a robbery/shooting and dropped.
He was hauled in with only sweat pants on and tennis shoes no socks. About 5 hrs later released with no ride back to his apt or even a apoligy.

TallPine
January 28, 2003, 04:28 PM
oldfart, you can move over here and be my neighbor any old time :)

Then there would be two "old farts" :D

And ... wasn't it a bunch of "old white farts" that wrote the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution ? ;)


And I always wondered about that "concealed" thing ... if it's concealed, nobody sees it, and if somebody sees it, it's not concealed. :confused:

rock jock
January 28, 2003, 04:29 PM
I wasn't referring to oldfart's story, but rather to the tone of his first post. Sorry, but I get a little tired of the "high and mighty" attitude of those who profess to rise above constraints of tyranny and look down with derision on those who don't conform to their standards of liberty. Oh sure, they don't openly carry guns in a prohibited area or on airplanes (seems they have a convenient excuse for avoiding direct confrontation with those JBT nasties), or perhaps they avoid air travel altogether (as if this were any different because they are still allowing the govt. to dictate the restrictions on their lives), but they are quick to look down on you because you are nothing but a sheeple for filling out a 4473. Not impressed at all.

spacemanspiff
January 28, 2003, 04:32 PM
well if the firearm didnt get logged on the 4473 when you came into possession of it, thats one thing, oldfart. but all but one of mine is logged with the 4473, so in the unlikely event that i do sell any of my guns, i'll be drawing up a bill of sale just to cover my end.

oldfart
January 28, 2003, 04:46 PM
rock_jock:

Where, in any of my posts, have I indicated a desire to impress you? I've simply given my thoughts on a subject-- same as you have. If you don't like my thoughts you should skip over to the next post and find something you like better.

And Matis, what I was imperfectly trying to point out is the fact that I lost it a long time ago.

As for the rest of you: Thank you for your comments. I wish I were worthy of them. More, I wish my wife held your views too.

As an aside, there used to be a gunshop just down the street from me. The owner was somewhat less than personable, usually downright nasty, but when he died suddenly and all his records were tossed into a drop-box and hauled off to a paper mill, many of us gun owners in the neighborhood somehow forgot to tell the people cleaning the place up that those yellow sheets were supposed to be sent to the government.

A terrible slip of our collective memories, that.

DCR
January 28, 2003, 04:55 PM
I wouldn't want the ability to do a background check as a private citizen selling to another. Once it's available, it becomes twisted into something a "reasonable and prudent" person would do, so failure to get a background check on your prospective buyer becomes negligent, and YOU are named as a defendant in a victim lawsuit, just like the gun stores, pawn shops, etc. are. Kiss your savings, and maybe car, house, retirement, and a large percentage of your future earnings goodbye - attorneys fees and, God forbid, satisfaction of an adverse judgment, will blow right through them.

MitchSchaft
January 28, 2003, 05:48 PM
many of us gun owners in the neighborhood somehow forgot to tell the people cleaning the place up that those yellow sheets were supposed to be sent to the government.

:D You da man!

Southla1
January 28, 2003, 07:28 PM
Well OldFart and Tall Pine I may move by y'all then there will be 3 "Old Farts". I guess the older ya get the less horse stuff you are inclined to take.............no matter who it comes from...............the government or otherwise.

CAP
January 28, 2003, 08:43 PM
What private sale? I keep 'em all. :D

Beav
January 28, 2003, 09:05 PM
:D

HSMITH
January 28, 2003, 09:18 PM
I agree with oldfart.

Harold Mayo
January 28, 2003, 09:23 PM
Nah, no background checks. I could care less. If I don't feel like selling to someone, then I don't...if I do, I do. That's that.

People can tell all the horror stories that they want about being dragged out of bed, etc., etc. but the fact of the matter is that giving the government MORE influence over your life and decisions instead of making sure that it has LESS will eventually lead a society down the ugly road that countries like Germany, the Soviet Union, and China (and many others) have trodden or are tredding. We are, too. I keep hearing "It would never happen here"...but it will. That's what they say before it gets bad.

mjustice
January 29, 2003, 10:38 AM
I agree with Oldfart. But, unfortunately, I was born 40 years too late, and so my name and vitals are all over my guns.

I tend to only buy and sell guns from people who I know personally or know enough about to be reasonably certain that the guns was not knowingly stolen.

New York requires all handguns to be registered, and so when I buy or sell a handgun I have to provide a reciept or bill of sale in the case of a private-party transaction. Since I do this for handguns, I see no reason not to do it for longarm transactions. If I don't know the buyer personally, I take their details and DL/Pistol License number.

If the police ever do have a reason to knock on my door asking about a gun that I sold, I'd like to have something to send them on their merry way with.

MJ

Sam Adams
January 29, 2003, 11:02 AM
I once sold a gun to someone at a gun show - for cash. He was obviously over 21, so I didn't ask for his license. In retrospect, I should've asked to see it, and written down his name and the license number. If I sell another gun (and that's fairly unlikely - I'm in buying mode), I would never reveal that info to anyone UNLESS the boys in blue showed up at my door and asked why a gun that I had purchased was used in a crime. That's just sensible CYA.

I am totally against the idea of the government being involved with my private business. If a crime is involved (a real, immoral, crime like robbery, murder, etc., not some crime created by the stroke of a pen), then the government has a right (and a duty) to make inquiries. Otherwise, MYOB is the order of the day.

As to ex-cons owning firearms, here's my philosophy: If they are so dangerous that society doesn't want them to own guns, why were they released? And if they're not that dangerous and have "paid their debt to society," then why have they suddenly lost the right to protect themselves and their families? Also, does anyone seriously believe that an ex-con couldn't obtain some weapon with which to hurt others? I seem to remember from my readings of history that there were plenty of crimes of violence committed prior to the invention of firearms - it ain't the weapon you should worry about, its the person.

Oldfart - thanks for your musings. It is always nice to hear from those who remember how things were pre-'68 GCA. People like you are much better equipped to comment about things as they are now, since you have different circumstances to compare today's BS against.

Sam Adams
January 29, 2003, 11:39 AM
DCR said: "I wouldn't want the ability to do a background check as a private citizen selling to another. Once it's available, it becomes twisted into something a "reasonable and prudent" person would do, so failure to get a background check on your prospective buyer becomes negligent, and YOU are named as a defendant in a victim lawsuit, just like the gun stores, pawn shops, etc. are. Kiss your savings, and maybe car, house, retirement, and a large percentage of your future earnings goodbye - attorneys fees and, God forbid, satisfaction of an adverse judgment, will blow right through them."

You had all better believe that this is the truth. I'm a lawyer (Estates & Trusts - I don't sue people, just try to save them trouble and money), and I know that the out-of-control tort lawyers will do exactly what DCR said. Just keep your own private records, just for CYA if a gun you sell is later used in a crime.

Southla1
January 29, 2003, 02:27 PM
"YOU are named as a defendant in a victim lawsuit, just like the gun stores, pawn shops, etc. are. Kiss your savings, and maybe car, house, retirement, and a large percentage of your future earnings goodbye - attorneys fees and, God forbid, satisfaction of an adverse judgment, will blow right through them."


Thats EXACTLY one of the reasons I own! Let em come. See my earlier post about old and ornery.

PATH
January 29, 2003, 02:37 PM
If you don't buy on paper you don't sell on paper. One less thing that the government knows about. God knows they are into everything else. I don't as a rule sell my guns though. I guess CYA does make sense in terms of a bill of sale.

answerguy
January 29, 2003, 02:47 PM
Thats EXACTLY one of the reasons I own! Let em come. See my earlier post about old and ornery.

Do I understand you correctly? If the police trace a gun to you because you were the retail buyer, even though you since have sold it, you're going to meet the police at your door with guns blazing? It's been nice knowing you.

Harold Mayo
January 29, 2003, 03:05 PM
Just for the sake of argument...

Let's say that I keep meticulous records of my gun sales. I'm as good (or better) as any gun store at it (like I said...or better). A gun I sold is used in a murder. It is traced to me and I have records that I sold it to the murderer. What does this get me? I am basically like a gun store owner then...there are written records in my possession that I sold the guy the gun.

On the other hand, I sell a guy a gun and don't even get his last name (or his first, for that matter). It is used in a murder and is traced back to me. I honestly answer that I sold it to someone but don't know who he was. From there, I can either say that it wasn't the guy or that I don't recognize him but it could be or whatever. Doesn't any sort of burden of proof that I even sold it to a particular person rest on the prosecutor (if a criminal charge is brought up)? Civil proceedings would likely be murkier but wouldn't there still be a burden of proof on someone OTHER than me?

It doesn't really matter to me what someone does with a gun I sell. Callous? I guess, but I can't be someone else's keeper. If I sell a car and the guy kills someone with it, is it my fault because I sold it to him? Not in my mind and ONLY in the mind of some crawling tort lawyer...and maybe not then.

I trade around A LOT. I have guns that I keep and guns that I try. I mostly try and then get rid of them to try something else. I can honestly say that I know the names of only three people (other than friends and family) to whom I have sold guns and I will soon forget one of them because I have no reason to hang onto the memory or the e-mails. I have probably sold fifty guns over the past several years and that is all that I remember and then only because the two that will stick with me are unusual (one is a child psychologist with an unusual name in Las Vegas and the other is a member and moderator of a couple of forums who wrongly believes that I screwed up a trigger job on a custom gun I sold him). If approached by someone that I have sold a gun to in person at a gun show, I doubt that I could tell you that I've even seen the person before.

Ah, well...everyone has their opinions. I will NOT stick my nose into someone else's life because it is none of my business.

oldfart
January 29, 2003, 03:42 PM
In the "sue happy" climate we now live, perhaps CYA is a reasonable step. But let's look at another facet of this issue.

As I understand it, terrorism is force used against citizens to make a government change its ways. But, as we all know, governments can make citizens change their ways through similar tactics. Scarcely a month goes by without a report here or on another forum about some gun owner or collector being arrested or killed in a sudden midnight raid. All too frequently his original 'offence' was some simple paperwork error, but by the time the raid is publicized, his stash of surplus ammo and collection of classic firearms has been transformed into an "arsenal" and he is painted as a terrorist. We read these accounts, gulp, look over our shoulders and tell ourselves something like "they'll never do that to me."

So, instead, we rush to cover our posteriors! Which is what they want us to do. They want us to keep records of everything we buy, sell, eat, drink, use or misuse. That way, they can keep us so busy with trivia that we don't have time to address the larger picture. Instead of finding ways to avoid or throw off the bureaucratic tyranny, we cover our butts with bureaucratic paperwork. We don't beat 'em, we join 'em!

I'm in a better position than some of you. I don't own a business or a ranch or even a car, so I don't have much to lose. Those of you with more property will have to decide for yourselves how to act. But when you're dead, will it make a difference if you died in a soft, warm bed or a hole in the ground? Do you want to leave your kids money and property or freedom?

Somebody is reading this right now and getting ready to explode all over me with a claim that being cautious isn't an infringement on freedom. But being FORCED to be cautious is!!! It absolutely is! If a government can make you fearful enough to change the way you do things- that government has infringed upon your freedom to make a choice! I remember when things were done differently and I've watched our government terrorize us until we changed our way of doing things. Many of you-- perhaps most of you-- can't remember those days because you weren't alive then, but things really were better then than they are now.

Sure, cars go faster now than they did then, but we weren't in a hurry. We have tv and computers now, but we didn't need them then. Diseases killed more people then than now, but wars kill more now than then. Best of all, people were more self-reliant then-- even in the cities.

You guys do what you feel you need to do. Cover your fannies with bills of sale, background checks or whatever. Just remember, when you do so, you become part of the problem, part of the Matrix, and eventually the time may come when you will have to be disconnected from the Matrix. That could be painful.

biere
January 29, 2003, 05:27 PM
I also agree with a lot that oldfart said. I really agree about fearing the government. They are to be an entity doing things that protect the country. When they make you afraid, the problem is the gov. and nothing else.

I follow the laws of the state and the federal laws as well. I do tend to ask for id, I have been offered ccws as well and that is fine by me. But a fake id would not be noticed by me unless it really sucked.

I am not expected to know a fake id, I am not expected to run a back ground check, I am not expected to keep records. The state and fed laws tell me so.

For those who keep records, are they in your safe? On your computer? In a notebook? What you most likely have is enough to send a burglar to someones house since they bought or sold you a gun. What you have is possably enough to start identity theft. What happens if a fire destroys the records? You are now back where some of us feel you should be. What if the records are stolen or erased, you know there is a problem but have no way to contact someone to tell them YOU messed up.

I do not buy or sell from or to someone I do not trust. My choice.

I sure as heck do not trust anyone who wants my info to keep records on me.

For those who are worried about a gun you sold leading police to your place where they will drag you out of bed and take you to their station, I would have to say we need a lawyer's opinion about circumstantial evidence.

The problem with them dragging someone downtown in warm up pants and not offering a ride home is a problem with the police and how they do things these days. In my opinion, the fear of retaliation for doing what is legal to do would prove the terrorist tactics concept.

Drjones
January 29, 2003, 05:43 PM
1) I'm totally with oldfart.

2) answerguy, since you would feel in some way responsible for a criminal act committed by someone else with the gun you sold them, would you be willing to serve time alongside the person who ACTUALLY committed the crime?

Why or why not?

(Again, you feel partly responsible...)

answerguy
January 29, 2003, 05:54 PM
2) answerguy, since you would feel in some way responsible for a criminal act committed by someone else with the gun you sold them, would you be willing to serve time alongside the person who ACTUALLY committed the crime?

There is a big difference between being legally responsible and morally responsible. I'm of course reffering to being morally responsible. So to directly answer your question; no I would not expect someone to spend time in jail for selling UNKNOWINGLY to a prohibited person.

So if it is agreed that selling to a felon is a bad idea ( I know, I know, some of you here have no problem with selling to a felon)and NICS checks weed out sales to felons why not let private individuals do NICS checks too?

Drjones
January 29, 2003, 05:57 PM
So if it is agreed that selling to a felon is a bad idea ( I know, I know, some of you here have no problem with selling to a felon)and NICS checks weed out sales to felons why not let private individuals do NICS checks too?

Because that guy with the "clean" record could be buying for his felon buddy you just turned down. (Straw purchase.)

Oh, and also the fact that black market firearms are almost invariably cheaper than legally-purchased guns.

Does anyone know why? :confused:

I still don't understand your rationale behind denying felons firearms.

If they are so dangerous that you don't trust them with guns, why are they out on the street in the first place?

oldfart
January 29, 2003, 06:12 PM
Answerguy:
As I understand the NICS BS, it's set up_for FFLs & LEOs (how's that for a bunch of alphabet soup?). Just as there are ways around other laws, I suppose-- if you wanted to-- you could call the local cop shop, explain what you wanted to do and they'd run a check for you. These days though, with the budgets of every city and state already in the tank, you might have to wait a few days for an answer.

If you were a personal friend of one of the people who have access to the system, you could make an even better deal-- maybe. You might also make a deal with a local dealer to have him do it for a fee. That's essentially what you're doing when you buy a gun from someone out-of-state except in the latter case, the dealer actually handles the gun and enters it into his records.

answerguy
January 29, 2003, 06:14 PM
I still don't understand your rationale behind denying felons firearms.

Well first of all it only need apply to violent criminals. White collar, a guy with too much pot on him aren't really a threat after they get out of jail.

Jail is punishment not rehabilitation. No one expects a rapist to be reformed when they get out of jail.

Oh, and also the fact that black market firearms are almost invariably cheaper than legally-purchased guns. Does anyone know why?

My guess is low overhead. If you steal a gun your profit margin is very high. If there are people who buy guns and re-sell them to prohibited persons they must have a mark-up. So those black market guns must be priced higher than you or I would pay.

A question back at ya. Would you be more nervous about selling a gun to someone you don't know or buying a gun from someone you don't know?

Drjones
January 29, 2003, 06:16 PM
A question back at ya. Would you be more nervous about selling a gun to someone you don't know or buying a gun from someone you don't know?

Probably be more nervous about selling to someone I don't know.

Point?

thumbtack
January 29, 2003, 06:30 PM
I will only sell a gun to someone that has a CHL, and that is the background check I use.

answerguy
January 29, 2003, 08:13 PM
Probably be more nervous about selling to someone I don't know.

My point was in reference to the possibility of buying a stolen gun.
It would be kind of embarssing to bring it to a gun shop for repairs and have them report it to the police.

Drjones
January 29, 2003, 08:26 PM
Ooohhh...ya got me there, answerguy!

:rolleyes:


Now, if guns didn't have SERIAL NUMBERS, we wouldn't have to worry about what you pointed out, eh? :evil:

oldfart
January 30, 2003, 05:17 PM
As far as taking a gun to a gunsmith for epairs, why not repair it yourself?

On the possibly stolen gun issue-- If someone came to you with a gun to sell and you thought it might be stolen, would it be better to go ahead an buy it, thereby keeping it out tof the hands of some gangbanger or pass and take your chances? Let's face it, calling the police to come check it out would probably be an exercise in futility-- unless you first ordered a pizza!

There are all sorts of 'what ifs' that yiou can come up with and very few real answers. Each person has to make up his/her own mind on what to do and when to do it. Sitting at a keyboard, trying to envision situations is another exercise in futility.

But have fun!

If you enjoyed reading about "back ground check for private sales" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!