Thoughts on Background Checks for private sales?


PDA






Sgt.Murtaugh
December 14, 2012, 11:45 AM
I'd like to hear everyone's opinion on laws that may require private gun sales to be contingent upon background checks of the buyer. In other words, if I - a private seller - were to sell a gun to a friend/acquaintance, I would have to have a background check run on that person before the sale could be completed. I have no idea if laws like this are being proposed (I'm sure they have been) but I do know that I don't want any guns winding up in the hands of someone who shouldn't legally own one. The reason I bring this up is because of this story (linked below) where the Brady Campaign is suing Armslist.com because a gun was illegally purchased on that website and was later used in a murder.

What are your thoughts on this and what does this lawsuit potentially mean for gun owners?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/12/13/armslist-lawsuit-seeks-to-punish-online-gun-seller-narrow-loophoole-in-law.html

If you enjoyed reading about "Thoughts on Background Checks for private sales?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
mcdonl
December 14, 2012, 11:51 AM
They are proposed all the time. They call this the gunshow loophole....

FTF sales in Maine are off the books and that is how I prefer to buy my guns.

USAF_Vet
December 14, 2012, 11:55 AM
The lawsuit itself is frivolous. The seller violated Armslist terms of use, so Armslist itself is not liable for any damages that incurred from the unlawful sale.

Regarding back ground checks on private sales: NO!
I am free to sell my private property, be it a gun, a car, or my old underwear. The onus is on the buyer. I am under no obligation to sell my property to anyone. Forcing background checks on private sales will force buyers and sellers to incur additional costs (I don't exactly have the information to call in a NICS report myself), so it wod have to be done via FFL. No FFL is going to do that for free, so they charge an FFL transfer fee.

More infringement is not what we need for our already overly infringed right to keep and bear arms.

Shadow 7D
December 14, 2012, 11:59 AM
Um, the brady bunch has a MAJOR clue,
the do crap like that as a fundraising scheme
Armalist will be out to defend themselves (and hopefully can recoup the cost from the gun grabbers in the end)

It's a harassment tactic
it's fundraising for them to plea for more cash so they can 'keep important cases going'
it's fodder for their newsletter (if you don't mind your info being sold...)

Sgt.Murtaugh
December 14, 2012, 12:01 PM
yes I realize the brady campaign has not a leg to stand on and the onus is on the buyer, but some of it is on the seller, too, in my opinion. If these sellers are knowingly selling to a felon/mentally ill person, I have a problem with that.

mgkdrgn
December 14, 2012, 12:04 PM
The background check system can =barely= keep up with the demands from FFL's ... that "allegedly" know how to use it.

Setting every Tom Dick and Harry on that system would bring it to it's knees (for EVERYBODY) in an instant.

NavyLCDR
December 14, 2012, 12:05 PM
I'd like to hear everyone's opinion on laws that may require private gun sales to be contingent upon background checks of the buyer. In other words, if I - a private seller - were to sell a gun to a friend/acquaintance, I would have to have a background check run on that person before the sale could be completed. I have no idea if laws like this are being proposed (I'm sure they have been) but I do know that I don't want any guns winding up in the hands of someone who shouldn't legally own one. The reason I bring this up is because of this story (linked below) where the Brady Campaign is suing Armslist.com because a gun was illegally purchased on that website and was later used in a murder.

What are your thoughts on this and what does this lawsuit potentially mean for gun owners?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/12/13/armslist-lawsuit-seeks-to-punish-online-gun-seller-narrow-loophoole-in-law.html
Why limit it to guns? Why not any object that can be used as a weapon? Knives? Baseball bats? Pointed sticks? Walking canes? Vehicles? How about ammunition?

How about instead of regulating the seller of the item, instead we make it a crime to use a firearm to commit a criminal act with and make it a crime to knowingly conspire to enable a person to commit a criminal act with a gun.

mgkdrgn
December 14, 2012, 12:07 PM
yes I realize the brady campaign has not a leg to stand on and the onus is on the buyer, but some of it is on the seller, too, in my opinion. If these sellers are knowingly selling to a felon/mentally ill person, I have a problem with that.
And making a -new- law that makes that illegal, on top of the -current- laws that make that illegal, will help the situation how, exactly?

Time that people come to the earth shattering realization that laws DEFINE crimes, they do not PREVENT them.

Plus ... according to FBI stats ... you know what was (and has been for some time) the most used weapon in murders and assaults?

A baseball bat.

Want to save lives? Ban baseball bats.

Sgt.Murtaugh
December 14, 2012, 12:09 PM
Would anyone in here honestly sell a gun to someone they knew to be a felon? how 'bout if the guy was your friend and you know he's a good guy but had a felony drug charge on his record?

I don't think anyone here would do that.

Sgt.Murtaugh
December 14, 2012, 12:10 PM
And making a -new- law that makes that illegal, on top of the -current- laws that make that illegal, will help the situation how, exactly?

Time that people come to the earth shattering realization that laws DEFINE crimes, they do not PREVENT them.

Plus ... according to FBI stats ... you know what was (and has been for some time) the most used weapon in murders and assaults?

A baseball bat.

Want to save lives? Ban baseball bats.

link to FBI stats?

Skribs
December 14, 2012, 12:11 PM
I used to think they were a good idea. Then I asked this question here and changed my mind. I can't remember which mod it was (maybe Art?) but there was a very good argument for why background checks AT ALL are a bad idea.

Basically, it boils down to these issues:
1) There is literally NO WAY to enforce regulations on FTF sales, meaning criminals will still be able to get guns that way.
2) Most mass shootings are done by people with no prior criminal record.
3) We are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. So why do we have to prove our innocence every time we buy a constitutionally-guaranteed weapon? Do we have to prove our innocence to prevent search & seizure? Do we have to prove our innocence to write a newspaper article?
4) As with all gun control, block access to guns and they'll use other weapons of opportunity.
5) People who really shouldn't have weapons shouldn't be allowed in public. That's why we have prisons. Stop filling the prisons with people who were arrested for victimless crimes, and start filling them with violent offenders.

Leanwolf
December 14, 2012, 12:14 PM
California passed a law requiring not only background checks for all private sales and transfers, but the gun had to go through a licenced gun store/dealer. This was about 18 or so years ago. (I lived there at that time.)

So far, it has not reduced violent crime at all. But it has made it much harder and expensive for honest citizens to sell their firearms, or to buy from a private party. Plus it costs them money to do background checks and transfers.

For some strange reason, the criminals haven't bothered to obey the law.

But, it made all the left liberal gun grabbers happy and they felt sooooooo good. You know, wallowing in all their "good intentions." Nevermind it was ineffective and just a burden on honest citizens.

L.W.

NavyLCDR
December 14, 2012, 12:15 PM
link to FBI stats?

Sure :D

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl08.xls

About 67% of murders are committed with firearms.

Blunt objects such as clubs and hammers runs about 5%

But I still do not agree with background checks required for private sales.

BaltimoreBoy
December 14, 2012, 12:15 PM
Sgt.: Consider - do you want to have to do a background check when transferring a firearm to your son, daughter, or brother? And rest assured every transfer would be deemed subject to the requirement.

The real purpose of any such law is not to prevent the 'unfit' from getting hold of guns. It is to systematically build a registration database through the back door.

Also: the trick here is to offer 'enhanced safety' in exchange for a loss of privacy. But--there is no enhanced safety. Surely the repetitive shootings in places with 'excellent' gun control laws have demonstrated this fact beyond all possible dispute.

Sgt.Murtaugh
December 14, 2012, 12:15 PM
Basically, it boils down to these issues:
1) There is literally NO WAY to enforce regulations on FTF sales, meaning criminals will still be able to get guns that way.
2) Most mass shootings are done by people with no prior criminal record.
3) We are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. So why do we have to prove our innocence every time we buy a constitutionally-guaranteed weapon? Do we have to prove our innocence to prevent search & seizure? Do we have to prove our innocence to write a newspaper article?
4) As with all gun control, block access to guns and they'll use other weapons of opportunity.
5) People who really shouldn't have weapons shouldn't be allowed in public. That's why we have prisons. Stop filling the prisons with people who were arrested for victimless crimes, and start filling them with violent offenders.

of all those things listed, #3 is the best one, and all I really need to combat the argument. I do however, fear that this lawsuit will set a horrible precedent and I won't be able to use the gun sites I love to shop on because of it. that's what i am afraid of

Sgt.Murtaugh
December 14, 2012, 12:18 PM
Sure :D

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl08.xls

About 67% of murders are committed with firearms.

Blunt objects such as clubs and hammers runs about 5%

But I still do not agree with background checks required for private sales.
so according the FBI stats, bats do not account for most murders and assaults like mgkdrgn claims

NavyLCDR
December 14, 2012, 12:21 PM
The real purpose of any such law is not to prevent the 'unfit' from getting hold of guns. It is to systematically build a registration database through the back door.

I disagree. I think the real purpose of any such law is so that a politician can stand up and declare that they are doing something to keed the sheep safe and the majority of people who vote will believe them. In reality it is insane to think that a law prohibiting a person from possessing a certain type of firearm is going to be obeyed by the same person who will take that same firearm to the mall and shoot strangers with it.

In reality, the only thing that such a law will accomplish is to keep the law abiding citizen from using the banned firearm for legal and enjoyable sporting and self defense purposes.

CoRoMo
December 14, 2012, 12:23 PM
...I don't want any guns winding up in the hands of someone who shouldn't legally own one.
I suggest that you only transfer firearms to private buyers through a licensed dealer. But please don't force that protocol upon your fellow gun owners by supporting legislation that would require so.
...sellers are knowingly selling to a felon/mentally ill person, I have a problem with that.
Me too, but that is already against the law and they can be punished for it. Tis a good example of a gun law that only controlled those who would obey it, but the criminals never gave a moment's thought to abiding by it. So please don't support gun control laws that would hinder the law abiding gun owners just because of the non-law abiding gun owners. Those non-law abiding gun owners won't follow any new law that would require background checks in private sales if they are the type to knowingly sell to a felon in the first place.
Would anyone in here honestly sell a gun to someone they knew to be a felon?
Nope. You are amongst law abiding gun owners here. If it were required by law to jump through the NICS/4473 hoop for private sells, we'd all do that, but those criminals who would knowingly sell a gun to a felon would not follow that law, thus it would have prevented jack squat.

Please do not support such legislation.

Coop45
December 14, 2012, 12:24 PM
After "Fast and Furious", maybe the seller should have to go through the background check.

NavyLCDR
December 14, 2012, 12:24 PM
so according the FBI stats, bats do not account for most murders and assaults like mgkdrgn claims
And only a small percentage of murders are committed using "assault weapons" opposite of what the anti-gun crowd claims. Most are committed with your average, ordinary standard capacity, standard caliber handgun with less than 10 shots fired.

Heck in 2010 there were only 358 murders committed with any type of rifle....

and since 2006 the number of murders committed with any type of rifle has gone down every year, except there were 7 more in 2010 compared to 2009. But we need an assault weapon ban why? Background checks on private sales would be just as useless as an assault weapon ban.

Sgt.Murtaugh
December 14, 2012, 12:36 PM
And only a small percentage of murders are committed using "assault weapons" opposite of what the anti-gun crowd claims. Most are committed with your average, ordinary standard capacity, standard caliber handgun with less than 10 shots fired.

Heck in 2010 there were only 358 murders committed with any type of rifle....

and since 2006 the number of murders committed with any type of rifle has gone down every year, except there were 7 more in 2010 compared to 2009. But we need an assault weapon ban why? Background checks on private sales would be just as useless as an assault weapon ban.
word.

I would like to make it clear that I do not support these legislative actions, but that I fear they may be coming because of cases like the one I linked. I was just hoping to get some perspective on where my fellow gun owners stand on this.

As I said before, the seller in the story is in jail so *** else could they possibly want? the law did it's job in that case.

medalguy
December 14, 2012, 12:41 PM
Listening to the local blood and gore report at 10, it seems that more people are killed with pool sticks and broken beer bottles than anything else. Details at 10, tune in.

Maybe requiring a NICS type check when selling a car would reduce the number of DUI murders too.....

mg.mikael
December 14, 2012, 12:45 PM
The real purpose of any such law is not to prevent the 'unfit' from getting hold of guns. It is to systematically build a registration database through the back door.


Somebody's tin-foil hat is abit too tight.

Skribs
December 14, 2012, 12:48 PM
One good thing I can say about the NICS/4473 process is that it was a wake-up call. See, every time I bought a new gun, I would have to put a different number in one specific field, and I'm not talking about the date or serial number. So, thanks to the federal requirements and my gun purchases, I have finally decided to cut 95% of the fast food from my diet and start going to the gym more. Maybe next time I can put a SMALLER number in that field!

Ryanxia
December 14, 2012, 12:51 PM
Making private sales require a background check = gun registration.

Also, the current system should be a background check to buy from an FFL but without the particular gun information attached, if they pass they pass.

razorback2003
December 14, 2012, 12:57 PM
Why not a background check for people buying cars to see if they are repeat DWI offenders? What about a background check for people buying beer and whiskey to see if they have been convicted of public intox or DWI?

thump_rrr
December 14, 2012, 01:09 PM
In Canada we do not have the 2nd Amendment as you do in the USA so we don't have a "right" to bear arms.

Handguns are considered restricted class firearms so you must have a restricted class license.
You first take a course and complete a written and practical test which affirms that you know how to load, secure, transport and store your handgun.

Once you pass the test you send in your application for your restricted license which includes your photo and the names and phone numbers of two of your friends who will act as character witnesses.

Within 28 days a background check is done your character witnesses are called and if all goes well you now have your restricted permit.
The cost is $80 for 5 years.

The fun part is that if I want to purchase or sell a handgun from or to anyone in Canada all I have to do is call in with my name and permit number. There is a file generated and then the second part calls to complete the transfer.
Once the transfer is complete I can drop the handgun off at the post office and ship it Canada Post with signature confirmation. No FFL no fees no nothing.

It's not a perfect system and not anonymous but you are sure you are selling to someone who is not a prohibited person, that the gun is not stolen, and there is no cost to either party.

Skribs
December 14, 2012, 01:24 PM
So, Thump, if you wanted to buy a handgun from me, what's to keep me from saying "sure, I think you look like a trustworthy guy, let's just cut through that red tape and I'll sell it to you now."

thump_rrr
December 14, 2012, 03:48 PM
So, Thump, if you wanted to buy a handgun from me, what's to keep me from saying "sure, I think you look like a trustworthy guy, let's just cut through that red tape and I'll sell it to you now."
Other than it being illegal there would be a handgun out there floating around with your name connected to the serial number.
You would have a lot of explaining to do if it was used in the comission of a crime.

I'm not saying illegal guns aren't floating around out there but I can't see them previously being registered in Canada unless they were stolen.

EDIT I live very close to Vermont and I am a member at a gun club in the state.
Vermont has some of the least restrictive gun laws in the USA.
There doesn't seem to be a lot of gun violence in Vermont.
This would lead me to believe that there is no correlation between the availability of firearms and violence.

jim243
December 14, 2012, 04:20 PM
I am all for your right to own and keep a handgun or rifle, but in reading the posts on this topic I am starting to wonder "what are you afraid of or hiding"!!!!

If I want to drive a car, I have to get a drivers lic, if I want to fly a personal aircraft, I have to get a pilot's lic, if I want to run a business, I have to get a business lic, if I want to cut hair and charge for it, I have to get a beautician's Lic.

If you want to go shoot up a Church, Movie theater or shopping center, you think you should not need to get a background check????

I don't mind you being pro-gun, just don't be pro-ostrich and say it is none of your concern.

Maybe we would have fewer gun laws if we started taking resonsibilty for the people that we sold our firearms to. Yes, it is a pain to have a 5 min background check done by computer, but it takes me longer to pour a cup of coffee then it does to get a background check done.

Jim

Ryanxia
December 14, 2012, 04:30 PM
Jim243 Yes, it is a pain to have a 5 min background check done by computer

Problem is most places aren't 5 minutes. Several gunshops take 1hour + (as I discovered recently at a shop I don't usually go to).

The focus should be on gun free zones, they don't work and make criminals the only ones with guns.
The Oregon shooting was with a stolen gun, but if just one citizen carrying a gun had seen him in the parking lot and taken him out there wouldn't be such a loss of life.

alsaqr
December 14, 2012, 04:35 PM
I am all for your right to own and keep a handgun or rifle, but in reading the posts on this topic I am starting to wonder "what are you afraid of or hiding"!!!!


Thanks for the insinuation.

Why should i jump through hoops in order to sell my legally owned private property to a person who can legally buy my property?

Last time this "gunshow loophole" stuff was proposed in congress it was draconaian gun control at its finest.

Skribs
December 14, 2012, 04:41 PM
Jim, I don't have ostrichitis even though I do take the attitude of "not my problem."

The reason is that there are so many ways around "the system", including other weapons not covered under gun control laws and other ways to get weapons, as well as ways simply through the system for people who are not yet convicted of a violent offense, that we're making the vast majority of gun owners (legal owners) have to prove themselves innocent every time they want to buy another tool.

I realize that that mass murderer can buy a can of gas and a lighter. That domestic abuser can grab a bat or a kitchen knife instead of a gun. That mugger can use a tire iron or a switchblade. And yet, when there is an arson, I don't see people trying to regulate gas. When there is a stabbing, I don't see people trying to regulate cutlery. When there is a bludgeoning, people don't try and ban baseball or have the FBI regulate automotive shops. When there is a drunk driver convicted of vehicular manslaughter, people don't try to ban alcohol OR require the populace to use bicycles. Shootings are the ONLY crimes where the tool is blamed.

USAF_Vet
December 14, 2012, 04:44 PM
Jim, one can legally own and operate a motor vehicle without a license.

One can legally own and operate a personal aircraft without a license.


In any case, background checks are one of those feel good laws that really have not made a whole lot of difference.

If a person wants to shoot up a school, church, shopping mall, etc it really isn't that hard. Guns can be purchased illegally and the seller may be none the wiser. In my state, I can buy any long gun from a private party, no questions asked, no paperwork or registration. The seller might not know me from Adam, and might not know or ask if I am a prohibited person. Guns can be stolen. Guns can be borrowed from a friend or relative.

Guns can be acquired, illegally, in many ways. But to punish the masses for the sins of the few is wrong. Legislating to the lowest common denominator is how slaves are made. My sig line translates 'I prefer liberty with danger to peace through slavery.' Freedom is not peaceful or is it easy. Liberty comes with a price, and that price is dealing with those who want to restrict your liberty. We can give up our freedom and liberty to appease the loud minority, or we can stick up for ourselves and for what we know is right. Peace and safety can not legislated into being.

jim243
December 14, 2012, 04:45 PM
Why should i jump through hoops in order to sell my legally owned private property to a person who can legally buy my property?

Have you ever tried to sell a house, now there is red tape by the truck load. (LOL)

These laws are for public safety, when they do not work the only thing they can do is pass more laws that don't work. It is each of our responsibility to make sure we do the right thing and sell to the right person, that is what FFL's try to do, why shouldn't we.

Jim

Guy de Loimbard
December 14, 2012, 04:47 PM
I used to have to deal with background checks for FTF sales. It was not enjoyable in the least. I moved to Arkansas from Michigan earlier this year. In MI, in order to buy a handgun (did not matter if you were buying FTF or from an FFL), you had to go to the police station, have a background check run, answer a "safety questionnaire", and if you passed they gave you a purchase permit. You had to fill this out with all the personal details of the buyer and the gun, in quadruplicate. Then you went and bought the gun. Then you took the gun and the completed purchase permit to the police station to have the gun registered, and they gave you your green card. (We called them green cards, I think the official title was "Safety Inspection Certificate") After all that, you were good to go.

Rifles and shotguns were not subject to the Safety Inspection and Registration.

If you had a CPL you got to skip going to the police station to get the pistol purchase permit, but you still had to register a pistol after you bought it. Eventually they made it so you could mail in the paperwork instead of having to bring the gun to the police station.

I'm glad I don't have to deal with that anymore.

jim243
December 14, 2012, 04:48 PM
Jim, one can legally own and operate a motor vehicle without a license.

One can legally own and operate a personal aircraft without a license.


Can not operate either with out a license for the car or the plane on public roads or above 1,000 feet. Even need a lic for your boat, unless using a row boat or canoe . As to the plane, yes you can fly it but only under 1,000 feet otherwise you need a pilot's lic.

Jim

I'm glad I don't have to deal with that anymore.

I totally do not agree with the way MI handles (handled past tense) handgun sales.

Jim

gym
December 14, 2012, 04:51 PM
This topic is one which you can take either side of an make great points for both, But what it comes down to would make it harder to exercise your rights under the constitution.
There is nothing in there about a background check . If you give them an arm, they will take everything away. unfortunatelly there is never a piece of legislation passed that is just straight forward, it always has 20 different concesions made before it gets passed.
Today background checks, tomorrow, magazine limits, then no, auto pistols over 10 rounds, then no guns, they already are calling a rifle and 2 pistols, a weapons cache. The man had an arsonal, 2 pistols and a rifle.

USAF_Vet
December 14, 2012, 04:53 PM
Tell that to the multitude of farmers who learn how to drive an unlicensed, unregistered and uninsured cehicle at the age of 12. The only thig these licenses are required for is operating on a public road.

An ultralight aircraft is an aircraft, and while there are certain restrictions (weight and altitude) it is still an aircraft and it can still be operated without a license.

If you want to have a license to own, buy, sell, trade or carry a gun, there are states out there that are more than happy to abide.

The laws we have don't work, you said so yourself. Why pass more laws that won't work?

Shadow 7D
December 14, 2012, 04:56 PM
I'll be happy to do backgound checks
just as soon as the governments finds a way to keep ILLEGAL drivers OFF the road

when they can keep the guys with 12 DUI's, no licence no insurance people off the roads
and they do a good job of it, I'm open to discuss how to do a good job with guns

until then.....

k_dawg
December 14, 2012, 04:58 PM
The legal requirements to excercise your 2nd amendment rights should be absolutely identical to the legal requirements to excercise your 1st amendment rights.

Such as buying today's copy of your favorite newspaper.

buckhorn_cortez
December 14, 2012, 05:05 PM
Can not operate either with out a license for the car or the plane on public roads or above 1,000 feet. Even need a lic for your boat, unless using a row boat or canoe .

As to the plane, yes you can fly it but only under 1,000 feet otherwise you need a pilot's lic.

I see you missed the point completely. You certainly can operate a car on a public road and a plane above 1,000 feet without a license - it's not a illegal until you get caught.

We have lots of people driving around New Mexico on suspended driver's licenses - usually from DWI. They still get picked up again, and again, etc. drunk and without a driver's license.

If you're intent on not following the law - then laws don't apply to you. In the case of killing someone with a gun - the first law you're broken is killing someone. In my mind - after that, "how" is a moot point.

Onward Allusion
December 14, 2012, 05:05 PM
I'm for transferring via a FFL on any of my gun sales. However, I am not for it as a mandatory requirement. I think it should strictly be up to the individual on how they sell their firearm. I do it 'cause I'm too lazy to box it up and pay triple in overnight shipping because I don't have a FFL.

kingvillien
December 14, 2012, 05:06 PM
I don't think this case will change anything, corrupt is corrupt. To modify a quote Hunter S. Thompson..."I feel the same way about background checks on private transfers as I do about Herpes." I think that they are a violation of my right to privacy to a certain extent. I DON'T think criminals should have guns, and the way to get around them procuring guns thru private transactions would be for the government to require excons to have a large stamp on their Drivers licenses or I.D.'s. Just My thoughts.

mgkdrgn
December 14, 2012, 05:07 PM
Making private sales require a background check = gun registration.

Also, the current system should be a background check to buy from an FFL but without the particular gun information attached, if they pass they pass.
Ummm, the only "gun information" attached to NICS check now is "HANDGUN LONGGUN OTHER"

mgkdrgn
December 14, 2012, 05:09 PM
If I want to drive a car, I have to get a drivers lic, if I want to fly a personal aircraft, I have to get a pilot's lic, if I want to run a business, I have to get a business lic, if I want to cut hair and charge for it, I have to get a beautician's Lic.


Where are any of those activities specifically mentioned in the US Constitution, the "Law of the Land", as rights?

Where has any of the existing gun laws, background checks, databases, shell casing databases, yadda yadda yadda done =anything= to reduce crime, while they punish law abiding citizens?

Laws do not PREVENT crimes! They DEFINE crimes.

NoirFan
December 14, 2012, 05:14 PM
I don't expect any support from this forum, but I am in favor of required background checks on private sales. If selling a gun to a stranger I would be content to pay a fee and meet at a licensed dealer's location to ensure that I am not selling to a prohibited person.

A gun is not a car, knife, screwdriver, wiffle bat, or other item that can be pressed into service as a weapon. A gun can be easily concealed, carried almost anywhere, and kill out to a distance beyond what most people can see. I would at least like to know the history of the buyer before selling him an item with these capabilities.

I've heard many private gun sellers say ridiculous things like, "well I'll just go by my gut" or "I'm a good judge of character". Guess what, NO ONE thinks that he, himself is a bad judge of character, but obviously many of us are. Can you pick out the repeat sex offender who is an expert at projecting a trustworthy image? How about the sociopath who has a lifetime of experience concealing his lack of empathy?

For these reasons I am in support of background checks IN PRINCIPLE.

IN PRACTICE, as seen on this very thread, there would be massive non-compliance so the measure would fail. But that's not the fault of the idea itself.

NavyLCDR
December 14, 2012, 05:23 PM
http://www.duifoundation.org/drunkdriving/accidents/vehicularhomocide/

The only difference between a vehicular homicide and other homicides is the use of a motor vehicle as the weapon, instead of a gun or a knife. While automobiles are not intended or designed to be used as murder weapons, when used improperly, automobiles can become deadly.

Statistics show that almost twice as many people die in vehicle crashes per year than by any other form of homicide. Also, more people are murdered in crashes where alcohol is involved per year than are killed by guns.

So, what have we done in America about vehicular homicide? Where is all the talk about background checks required to buy cars? Where is all the talk about only being able to buy a car from a same state resident? Where are the car free zones? Where is the Federal Automobile Dealer's License? Where are the medical records checks and having to have a number of references required to get a driver's license like some states have for a concealed weapons permit? WHY IS NOBODY TALKING ABOUT MORE REGULATIONS REGARDING THE SALE AND POSSESSION OF VEHICLES?!?

But what have we done? I remember 30 years ago drunk drivers weren't handled much differently than speeders. Now look at what drunk driving will cost you. How about if we punish criminal BEHAVIOR instead of trying to regulate the tool? Would anybody vote for the same regulations regarding the possession and sales of vehicles that we are talking about and already have for guns? And yet more people die every year from CRIMINAL ACTS committed with vehicles than criminal acts committed with guns....

ApacheCoTodd
December 14, 2012, 05:23 PM
My problem isn't in whether of not private parties can or should have to run checks - I'm not too concerned with them ever being required.

My problem would be in the manipulated bureaucracy and how they would -as they currently do - be able to slow, deny, record, tax and track sales beyond the soft sell issue of enabling a seller to feel confident that the entirety of the action is devoted to denying firearms to miscreants.

alsaqr
December 14, 2012, 05:34 PM
Have you ever tried to sell a house, now there is red tape by the truck load. (LOL)

Sold one last month. Took about 20 minutes of my time at the title closers.

Shadow 7D
December 14, 2012, 05:51 PM
yeah, and that 20 minutes is signing, notary notarizing and counter signing a LARGE ream of papers.

And it's not ignorance, you check the licence, you ask if they can buy the gun, and you have complied with the law, unless something tells you not to, then you don't pretty easy.

that you aren't checking out the buyer and finding out who his 3rd grade teacher is, well, that's NOT what the law says.

gym
December 14, 2012, 07:55 PM
In Fl you ask for id, if theyhave a FL license and say they aren't a felon, and are allowed to own a gun, that's it. How would you know if someone was lying or telling the truth, there is no way to check. I don't think felons have something on their ID that says they are felons do they?
Obviouslly if a felon wants a gun, he can buy one from the fl gun trader, they almost never even ask for ID. I have posted in their announcements sections, that the only reason someone would pay more for a used gun is that they can't legally buy one in a gun store. It dosen't seem to stop anyone, that site is busier than ever. I actually bought a gun form a very nice guy, near me. He invited me to go shooting with his family who had a 15 acre place near where I live,
He had ID and his wife Kids and several expensive long guns with him, They were going shooting for the weekend on the property. But some of these guys are sleeze bags.
I met one guy who would not even speak, he was head to toe cameo and very shady, no ID. I walked away, I wasted 2 hours driving for nothing, so it's up to you to make the call.

suemarkp
December 14, 2012, 11:49 PM
I think that is the best solution. There are things other than gun sales where people want to know your background. Instead of having to pay for a background check every time you're involved in various transactions, it would be better to have a (scarlet) letter on your drivers license or state ID. You have to get a new drivers license if you're convicted of a "Letter" offense.

For gun sales, an F or DV indicator would be sufficient (covers felons, misdemeanor DV convicts, and shows residency). Some other things that could be helpful on the ID would be: DUI (multiple drunk driving convictions), $ (theft/embezzlement convictions), R (rapists), C (crimes against children), etc.

The do gooders would say this violates their privacy. But all these things are public record. Be glad we don't tattoo the letters on their forehead...

I'm sure fake ID's would sprout up though, so the tattoo solution is really better.

USAF_Vet
December 15, 2012, 01:14 AM
Mark, I really hope you aren't being serious. Hard to tell with it being the Internet and all.

steelerdude99
December 15, 2012, 08:51 AM
Too many complicated issues come about just from requiring a background check. A background check on the surface is viewed a as way to prevent firearms from falling into the hands of prohibited persons. However, requiring a background check implies that some person be held accountable for a specific serial number (s/n for now on) until it’s reported stolen or re-registered. A national database would be needed that can a track firearm’s s/n to a specific living person. Without such a s/n to person and person to s/n relationship, a background check is unenforceable. Said differently, if authorities can’t determine who owns a specific firearm, there is no way to know who needed to get a background check. A whole new crime can come from not having a background check done for anyone that has access to one’s registered firearms even if the person who accesses them is not prohibited. No exceptions for spouse, children, mother, father, etc. Upon the death a registered firearm holder, the firearms would need to be re-transferred or turned in. Background checks may even trigger periodic firearms inspections to make sure a person did not illegally sell a firearm under the table.

Just my opinion,
chuck

oneounceload
December 15, 2012, 09:23 AM
Should we also require a background check on someone we wish to sell a car to to make sure they have a clean record and no DUI?
After all, drunk drivers kill more people than guns

mgkdrgn
December 15, 2012, 10:19 AM
However, requiring a background check implies that some person be held accountable for a specific serial number (s/n for now on) until it’s reported stolen or re-registered.

Current background checks now =do not= (at least the national NICS check, I can't speak for the states that roll their own) record any information about the gun beyond "Handgun, longgun, other". No make, model or serial number info is presented to NICS.
Another TV myth.

And of course, we all know that criminals would instantly start following this law ...

greenlion
December 15, 2012, 10:31 AM
Here is the problem with any registration law beyond an instant check:

Case in point: The Newtown Conn. School Shooting

The shooter/murderer had a diagnosed mental condition. The guns he used: A SIG, a GLOCK, And an AR15. All of those were registered to his Mother. She had doubtlessly bought them for her son, because his mental condition precluded his purchasing them. I highly doubt substitute-teacher-mom purchased those for herself, and kept them properly locked away from her mentally unstable son. No improved background check would have changed the outcome in any way. She would have passed all the background checks.

steelerdude99
December 15, 2012, 10:36 AM
Current background checks now =do not= (at least the national NICS check, I can't speak for the states that roll their own) record any information about the gun beyond "Handgun, longgun, other". No make, model or serial number info is presented to NICS.
Another TV myth.


mgkdrgn,
Exactly my point. Without a registration database, how do we know if a check was performed when the firearm is obtained?

chuck

jim243
December 15, 2012, 11:02 AM
Should we also require a background check on someone we wish to sell a car to

No we should not, but on each car sale a background check is actually run by the dealership on the buyer for new or used car sales. It is required by law for them to do so.

On private personal sales there is no requirement for this. Should there be one, in my opinion YES. Keep all unlicensed drivers off the road, then maybe there would fewer deaths from auto crashes.

On a personal point, my dad at age 82 had his driver lic suppended because of blackout spells and drove his car into oncoming traffic causing a crash. After that he would go out and buy junkers and fix them up to drive. My brother and I for the next 2 years had to go to his house and steal his "car" to keep him off the roads. We had to do this like 4 or 5 times before he passed away. It was a real pain in the backside doing this.

My dad was a good man never in trouble, but even good people do bad things depending on circumstances.

Jim

we are not amused
December 15, 2012, 11:03 AM
I used to think they were a good idea. Then I asked this question here and changed my mind. I can't remember which mod it was (maybe Art?) but there was a very good argument for why background checks AT ALL are a bad idea.

Basically, it boils down to these issues:
1) There is literally NO WAY to enforce regulations on FTF sales, meaning criminals will still be able to get guns that way.
2) Most mass shootings are done by people with no prior criminal record.
3) We are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. So why do we have to prove our innocence every time we buy a constitutionally-guaranteed weapon? Do we have to prove our innocence to prevent search & seizure? Do we have to prove our innocence to write a newspaper article?
4) As with all gun control, block access to guns and they'll use other weapons of opportunity.
5) People who really shouldn't have weapons shouldn't be allowed in public. That's why we have prisons. Stop filling the prisons with people who were arrested for victimless crimes, and start filling them with violent offenders.

I agree with the above comments - TOTALLY!

No further comment is needed.

suemarkp
December 15, 2012, 03:25 PM
Mark, I really hope you aren't being serious. Hard to tell with it being the Internet and all.

Actually, I'm mostly serious. I'd give in on the tattoo part, but having a card that indicates your potential disqualifications seems a lot easier than having to check people through a service.

I'm tired of the background check hassles whenever I want to help at school, want to rent something, buy a gun (because I always get a NICS delay), etc. This would be an instant check. All the other checks take time, and some require fingerprints. I've been finger printed so many times I'm getting tired of doing it. Will reduce the pool of "good people" willing to help when they subject you to inconvenient the microscope so often.

Sellers/landlords/schools could then look at the menu of "badness" presented on the card and decide if they want to go through with the transaction.

NavyLCDR
December 15, 2012, 05:41 PM
Actually, I'm mostly serious. I'd give in on the tattoo part, but having a card that indicates your potential disqualifications seems a lot easier than having to check people through a service.

I'm tired of the background check hassles whenever I want to help at school, want to rent something, buy a gun (because I always get a NICS delay), etc. This would be an instant check. All the other checks take time, and some require fingerprints. I've been finger printed so many times I'm getting tired of doing it. Will reduce the pool of "good people" willing to help when they subject you to inconvenient the microscope so often.

Sellers/landlords/schools could then look at the menu of "badness" presented on the card and decide if they want to go through with the transaction.
Well, heck.....

My new computer has a little fingerprint scanner on it. It enters my passwords for me with a quick swipe of a finger. The government could do the same thing - they attach your criminal record to a database that stores your fingerprints and then any instant background check could come up based on a swipe of the finger, just like my passwords do on my computer. Shoot, let's attach your credit report, driver's license numbers, etc... to it too, how convenient that would be!

Or, let's implant a micro-RFID chip under the skin in the back of the hand and one wave of the hand across a scanner could call up your information. Let's make it even power enough that a police officer could carry a scanner that would alert them of the presence of criminal record hits nearby them and during traffic stops before they even get out of the car. Let's expand that so that post mounted scanners on the street could detect the identify of everyone walking by and alert police to the location of those with warrants. Imagine how safe that would make society!

(I am NOT a supporter of any of that.... just sayin' though).

coalman
December 15, 2012, 07:28 PM
If you buy the gun retail, or completed transfer paperwork when purchased, your name will be the last documented owner forever, unless paperwork is completed when you sell it or for a transfer (unknown to you) sometime down the road, or it's reported stolen. If you sell without a transfer or bill of sale there is a gun in your name that you don't have in your possession. There is little incentive for a current undocumented owner to require transfer documentation upon a FTF sale. And, no telling how many times the gun will change hands and what hands it changes into. But, your door will be the one knocked on if the gun is used in a crime and you'll be the one that will need to point the finger elsewhere. And, absent documentation that redirection of an LE investigation will be based on your word. This all matters to some, not others.

Shadow 7D
December 15, 2012, 07:44 PM
Coalman
um, not really, many many documented cases reported RIGHT HERE
were the ATF called on a trace, and guess what, they took the name and general description and that was that....

you can take your tinfoil hat off now.....

Sam1911
December 15, 2012, 08:03 PM
But, your door will be the one knocked on if the gun is used in a crime and you'll be the one that will need to point the finger elsewhere. And, absent documentation that redirection of an LE investigation will be based on your word. This all matters to some, not others.Which is all deliciously worrisome until you realize that absent any PROOF that you were present at or had anything to do with a crime, you're completely clear of any risk.

All you ever need to say is "I sold it." You can add, "...to So-And-So, of Such-And-Such City" if you remember the details. But you really can't be put in jeopardy simply because you once owned a particular gun.

MachIVshooter
December 15, 2012, 10:22 PM
This would lead me to believe that there is no correlation between the availability of firearms and violence.

Ding! Ding! Ding! Winner!

The only correlation is that where there are more guns, guns are the more common choice of weapon. The USA has the highest firearm suicide rate in the world, but not the highest overall suicide rate; That title belongs to Japan, IIRC. Mexico has 4 times the murder rate of the USA (and theirs is probably underreported at that), but knives and bludgeon-type weapons are most often used.

Violent crime is primarily a socio-economic product. Availability of weapon types only affects what is used, not what is done.

Thylacine
December 15, 2012, 11:10 PM
Regarding back ground checks on private sales: NO!

J_A_C
December 15, 2012, 11:14 PM
I never require anyone to fill out paperwork when I sale them a gun, and I have sold many, many guns FTF. If someone wants me to fill out a piece of paperwork or snap a pic of my CHL, I don't mind them wanting to cover their butts if its stolen. My .02

22-rimfire
December 15, 2012, 11:19 PM
I would favor the availability of access to the NICs or some equivalent state data base to do a quick background check on a potential buyer if you choose to on a voluntary basis. In many cases, it would end that sale before it happened simply because it is not required. But as a seller if you feel strongly about it, then you accept the consequences.

Some rebel even with something as simple as a receipt to document a face to face transaction or asking someone to see their ID.

The kid in CT was 20 years old. He could not legally purchase a handgun in my state other than face to face. Makes me even more wary. But to be rather blunt about it, I would not sell any of my firearms to anyone that is not 21 years old or older unless I know them pretty well.

I think there is likely a correlation between firearms and the type of violence committed. Certainly, this guy in CT would find it rather difficult to kill 20 6 and 7 year old children and 6 adults with anything other than a firearm in under 30 minutes.

nazshooter
December 15, 2012, 11:27 PM
Somebody's tin-foil hat is abit too tight.

A few years ago the administration proposed "sharing" background check info with other law enforcement agencies. Do you think this would make it more or less likely that it would end up being stored permanently?

Sent from my ADR6425LVW using Tapatalk 2

nazshooter
December 15, 2012, 11:37 PM
22-rimfire: We already have access to the NICS db. It's called going to an ffl and doing the transaction through them. Also, in CT you need to get some sort of foid card in order to purchase (posses?) a handgun and that requires you to be 21.

Sent from my ADR6425LVW using Tapatalk 2

gym
December 15, 2012, 11:57 PM
Criminals don't care about ID. They just pay more money for the gun, eventually, someone will sell it to them on a local gun trader site.Greed rules, when you see a used glock going for $650.00-$700,with ammo, and it's 10 years old, you have to know the guy is not asking for ID. Why would anyone pay 150 over retail, for anything used. Or these old revolvers all pitted and rusted, for 6 or 7 hundred. They are just throw aways. A charter arms, or rossi revolver for $550, is quite common on FL guntrader. These guys are making a living selling crap to anyone who has the cash.

MachIVshooter
December 16, 2012, 12:09 AM
If someone wants me to fill out a piece of paperwork or snap a pic of my CHL, I don't mind them wanting to cover their butts if its stolen.

This is important.

There is no requirement in most states to document private sales, and I personally do not for the most part.

However......

If you get the feeling that the person wanting to buy may be prohibited or have nefarious intentions (don't ignore your gut instincts!), there is nothing wrong with telling them you require a bill of sale and/or ID. If they have no problem with that, you can reasonably deduce that they're probably OK. If they balk big time, maybe you ought to reconsider selling.

If you are personally uncomfortable selling a gun without a BG check on the buyer, then put them on consignment at the LGS or pawn shop.

I don't support background checks on private sales in any way, shape or form. But I DO support exercising good judgement. I certainly don't want to be responsible for arming a criminal. Sure, they'll get a gun one way or another. That's a given. I don't want it to be one I sold, though!

gfanikf
December 16, 2012, 12:35 AM
Honestly if I could just do the search on my own and not have to pay an FFL a transfer fee I would do it every time. I'd honestly been fine with that. Let private citizens been able to run a check via NICS or in PA PICS, yeah that's not going to be easy to setup at first, but it would be worth it. This isn't about registering transfers or anything like that its about having peace of mind that you know that person isn't prohibited.

Texan Scott
December 16, 2012, 01:24 AM
We all have a right to free speech. When a person abuses that right, eg slander, sedition, inciting violence, etc., they commit a crime... but who would suggest curtailing everyone's free speech to make it "harder to abuse"?

We would respond that our 1A rights are not a matter of society's convenience, nor are our freedoms violable just because others have (or potentially could) criminally abuse theirs.

Now take out 1A and insert 2A (or 5A) and explain how my RKBA or right to property (or privacy, slap the 10th in there) should be infringed because of the actions of others, or for the comfort of others?

Just because some people don't like guns is NOT valid reason I should need anyone's PERMISSION to give one of MY guns to a friend or family member.

Fortunately, I live in a state where that is understood and respected.

4473s and NICS checks are mandated with FFLs on the specious theory that the Feds regulate INTERSTATE commerce; what authority could they possibly claim to regulate a transaction between two residents of the same state?

gfanikf
December 16, 2012, 02:46 AM
4473s and NICS checks are mandated with FFLs on the specious theory that the Feds regulate INTERSTATE commerce; what authority could they possibly claim to regulate a transaction between two residents of the same state?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

Apachedriver
December 16, 2012, 02:58 AM
mgkdrgn,
Exactly my point. Without a registration database, how do we know if a check was performed when the firearm is obtained?

chuck

FFL Holders are required to maintain the Form 4473s in their records for every firearm they transfer along with a log of firearms they in take as part of their business. BATFE comes down on occasion to inspect those records. If the records don't match, they drop a hammer on the dealer. Those 4473s have all the data needed to track the firearm to its original owner.

And yes they do inspect. I don't know what drives the decisions on whom to inspect when but I do know of a couple of local dealers some years back that got spanked.

Texan Scott
December 16, 2012, 03:06 AM
I'll stick to my use of the word "specious"... not that I put it past them to try, but even if they got it past the House, they'd have to argue it in the context of regulating a Constitutionally protected individual right.... a far cry from medical marijuana.

If you enjoyed reading about "Thoughts on Background Checks for private sales?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!