Should Private Transactions involve Background checks

Turkey Creek - your answer reacts to what you perceive to the the status quo within the legal system. But what if that was NOT the legal status? What if firearms were treated no differently within the legal system (criminal and civil) than cars or kitchen knives or any other inanimate object with the POTENTIAL to cause bodily harm if misused? How would that change your view of things?

No, background checks should not be mandated for FTF firearms sales. Hell, they shouldn't be mandated for any firearms sales. In all honesty, however, the Brady Bill, to me, is the least bothersome of the current gun control laws (I'd still like to see it disappear, though. It's just pretty far down on list. 922(r) and the "sporting purposes" clause need to die first).

When some of you start to talk about abrogating the BoR, sorry, it just toasts my buns. I think if yall wanna go around showing each other your merit badges and watching each other on .gov's closed circuit TV, then have at it.

Just please leave me the heck out.

I sell very few guns but those that I have sold have all been after the buyer has been cleared by the Feds- If the buyer didn't like it he was shown the door- It's called CYA!

Click to expand...

I wouldn't call you a liberal. I'd think more in terms of what rubs up against your leg and purrs. Or maybe an authoritarian.

Just a hunch, but I'll bet you have some really nice duck guns.

Whataya suppose would be the result if this bassackward proposal got instituted and you called up to check on W or Hillary?

Ok for thee, but not for she.

No option for 'don't care.'

It's neither an issue worth pursuing nor an issue that amounts to violation of the Second (less of one than prohibitions on felons owning weapons).

I voted "no" simply because I don't want more useless restrictions placed on us.

However, I do things a little differently.

For private sales, I don't sell to anyone that I wouldn't trust my life with. That means close friends and family only. Even then, I have a receipt and so do they.
For stuff I can't sell to close friends or family, I sell them on consignment with a local FFL. It's my way of saying "thanks" for some good deals that he gets me. He gets a percentage from the sale, and I get the knowledge that I didn't sell my guns to a felon, and if there ever is a trace on something I sold, it stops at the FFL who did the background check.

pax:

Robert Hairless,

That's twice in one week one of your posts has me cheering.

Be afraid, be very afraid.

pax

Click to expand...

I caught a cold and just haven't been myself all week.

Lets say your nieghbor ran an add in the paper, and sold a firearm to a total stranger. What would your oppinion be on that transaction; do you believe they should have a background check ran on the purchaser?

Click to expand...

That's entirely up to the neighbor and is none of my business. Big Government does NOT NEED TO GET INVOLVED IN MEDDLING.

Lets say your nieghbor ran an add in the paper, and sold a firearm to a total stranger. What would your oppinion be on that transaction; do you believe they should have a background check ran on the purchaser?

Click to expand...

My opinion is no, because I believe that we fundamentally should not treat firearms purchases any differently than we treat the sale of used cars or yard-sale kitchen knives. Who here runs a check on the purchaser of their used car, to make sure that the purchaser has a valid drivers license and is legally and morally suitable to drive that car away? Do you open the mental health records of that individual, to ensure that they're not likely to mow down some innocent bystander in a fit of rage? Probably not. So why is that yardstick held up against firearms?

We run background checks on the purchase of firearms because we, as a society, insist on blaming objects for their misuse rather than dealing with the abberant behavior that misused 'em. In short - rather than lock up folks for gun violations, we try to make obtaining the gun more difficult in the first place.

Encouraging that thought process cannot be a good thing for us. We need to teach folks to deal with root causes and not symptoms, and the debate here should help arm you to do that.

Henry Bowman:

Mr. Hairless, you think like I do.

That should scare you.

Click to expand...

I'm not scared by no Cincinnati lawyer. Anyone from Columbus scares hell out of me though, especially the guys who wear plaid wool caps and look straight ahead no matter where they're drivng. But we stopped going to Ohio or even attending business meetings there when Columbus, Toledo, and some other places created laws that turned law-abiding people who drive with semi-automatic pistols for self-defense on long trips into criminals as soon as they enter the city limits.

I'd thought of putting mine in a paper bag with my name on it, leaving the bag on the side of the road just before entering such cities, and picking it up again a few days later. My wife convinced me that it was not a good idea because I might be arrested for littering. All those contradictory laws confuse me: I'm just a grumpy old rural white male who finds it hard to retain two ideas at the same time. If I ever figure out how to resolve the problem, I might return to Ohio. I like the German restaurants. Or maybe Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid will solve the problem for me: no guns, no gun ownership, no gun problems.

And then we can turn our attention to those idiots who put yellow type on a black background. Next, though, we need to ban death and disease. A few good laws are all that should be necessary.

I've never had anyone come close to hurting me with a gun. I've had som many close calls with cars I can't count them anymore. If you don't need a background check for a car, why for a gun? If you'll sell a freshly released felon a car the next day he gets out of jail why the big deal about guns?

Guns work really well for self defense. If you're out to hurt someone there's so many ways to get them a gun isn't a real advantage.

Those kids that shot up Columbine tried to rig a 20lb propane tank to blow, it failed to work as planned, otherwise there would be no HS there at all now. A guy in lakewood leaked about 8 ounces of propane from his camper and destroyed his garage. You could level a High School five times over with 20lbs of propane.

They don't do background checks for propane. Either they're just plain negligent, or background checks aren't really worth the bother. So, by extension, gun background checks are worthless or the government is being criminally negligent with gasoline, propane, acetlyene, oxygen, automobiles, kerosene, salts of nitrogen......

Wouldn't McVeigh (sp?) have passed a background check? I don't recall that he had any criminal record prior to his act of murder. And wasn't the rental truck just as necessary for his plan to work as the explosive? Why then does the government allow convicted felons to have a driver's license?

No all illegal private weapon transfers the government is not privy to should be dealt with this way: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2TflddFKg0
How is our government going to be able to track and disarm the population's weapons if they can trade privately?! How can you attempt a gun ban if many of the guns were legaly traded to people not on the 4473 forms that are used for a database?

No.

We have that law in California. Of course everyone follows it, just like speed limits and the laws prohibiting smoking in the park, leaving a child in a child car seat while going to the ATM 10 feet away, and having your dog safely restrained on the porch for a short time (it's also illegal to have the dog running loose).

It's just another tax on guns, no more, no less. That's true about all background checks. Hell, since I bought a slough of milsurps when they flooded the market last year, I already have more guns than I will ever bother to use. The state has no compelling need to check me out and charge me a fee to get one more gun -- they just want the money.

First off, there should be no checks. Guns should be sold like power saws, cars, lawnmowers, chainsaws, butcher knives, axes, baseball bats, lighter fluid, and every other dangerous thing you can buy at your local store.

That said, it's only the law-abiding citizen who will follow the law anyway. I'm sure that criminals DO buy firearms private-party. The black market IS a "private party" market.

The only thing this could accomplish is to add to the incentive to steal firearms. That endangers all of us.

A dangerous career criminal should be in jail. That's a solution that works, even here in California. It makes liberals and libertarians cringe, but that's where I depart from libertarian orthodoxy. The Three Strikes law works here, plain and simple.

who corrects

how someone spells their own name on THR?

lame

It's supposed to be "High Plains Drifter."

You'd make a great regulator by the way. Anyway...no I wouldnt use background checks....unless I felt a need to do so. I wouldnt' want to be forced to do it because it would be easy to track, and if i bought and sold much I be a giant red flag for someone.

st

I voted no also because if there was such a law, all a person would have to do is sell the gun to someone and say it was stolen. Would have to make sure it was not to a undercover LEO.

I think a background check should be required in order to STEAL firearms. that's how all the badguys get them anyway.

After that, we should put all the badguys in jail and tell all the tyrants to stop being mean. Then the wars would stop, flowers would grow everywhere, we could cure all diseases and everyone could have a nice job and a landrover and two ponies. Money would grow on hackberry trees, and no one would worry about the right to keep and bear arms any longer.

From the idealist side of my personality I say no. Its none of the governments business what goods I purchase and trade with others. To me it also opens the door to possible government abuse via paper trail.

From the practical standpoint, I also say no. Criminals steal. I know, its a shocker we all thought they'd rob your house but pay a guy for a gun, but they don't. This type of law is already in place in several places in the US and hasn't solved any problems. There's no need to ponder if it might help any more than there is need to ponder if concealed carry will lead to blood in the streets. We have decades of evidence from several portions of the US for each.

Backround checks supported by gun owners gains political capital for things like national reciprocity. I agree lets keep BG checks out of FTF transfers. Also I am in favor or revamping the whole idea of felon's dont get guns. Lots of things that are felonies have nothing to do with hurting someone or imparing their liberty and lots of things that are not felonies do.

As far as licensed dealers go, I say their check is there reputaion. Its bad business to sell a glock to a known gangmember. Just like its bad business to buy auto parts from a "shady friend". You do these things and your business will dry up real fast.

Backround checks supported by gun owners gains political capital for things like national reciprocity.

Click to expand...

There's no such thing. It's like saying that appeasing Islamist fanatics will curry favor with them so they won't be as likely to kill you.

It's just not true. You'd think the 1986 "compromise" would be proof of that.

Yes, and I should hafta register with the government to buy wheat flour and car tires.

I voted no.
I do not own any guns, though I would like to.
I do not sell any guns, none to sell.
I would not try to buy a gun from anyone privately because I don't want to cause them any problems.
The laws suck, but they are the laws, so I live with it.
That said, if SHTF the rules change. My rules change.
The laws need to change first, to prevent the second.

Background checks supported by gun owners gains political capital for things like national reciprocity.

Click to expand...

I wish it were so, but it just ain't. The folks that don't like guns and don't like people to own guns do so regardless of how reasonable you may try to be. There is no appeasing these folk - they're rabid and they're committed.

Those folks in the middle of the debate with no strong feelings one way or another aren't likely to be brought into the fold based upon a voluntary background check mandate, and their support will be tenuous at best if/when they throw in with you. They can't be counted on in the lurch, and making compromises to gain their support has the nasty side effect of simply encouraging the true gun haters to try even harder. You want this camp on your side? Don't make appeasements based upon how the opposition frames the debate - frame the debate in your terms instead.

Who are the other 16 that voted yes. Please grow some and support your position.

Sorry hit wrong key
I had a 19 month old pulling on my leg and I hit the wrong key, I do not believe you should have to have a background check.

When selling a firearm to someone who's not a friend that I know and trust, I run the background check.

When trading/selling to friends it's a non-issue.
Y'all can do whatever you want but I sleep well at night.