Gun laws in the US

I don't think gun shows should be able to sell guns without a background check first!

Click to expand...

The last time I bought a gun at a gun show, I had to fill out the exact same paperwork and have the same background check as when I buy in a store.

I don't think personal sales should be legal without a background check. I called a store here and they will do a transfer for $30.00. If people want to buy guns privately without that background check it's placing a risk for the seller since the gun remains registered to them and it creates a risk of the person buying the gun again doing so because they cannot pass a background check.

Click to expand...

First of all, in most states, guns aren't "registered" to people. I live in Florida. I own many guns. The government does not know what guns I own, even though I bought almost all of them at a gunshop, having passed a background check. They do not keep records...not in this state, and not in most states.

I have sold guns to individuals. It is of no concern to me who they are or what they do as long as I verify that they are a citizen of my state. I am not liable for what they may or may not do. The LAW states that I may sell guns to individuals, and I can and will exercise that right.

My Uncle also had applied for a concealed carry license here and got declined because of his insane (dangerous) history. The fact he applied was just as scary as the fact some people want anybody to be able to have one. I don't want people who are bad or dangerous to have these concealed carry permits legally.

Click to expand...

Um...nothing "scary" occured at all. Quite obviously, you just proved the system worked. He tried to apply for a CCW and was declined. A criminal didn't get a CCW. Where's the issue? Link to people saying they want felons to have CCWs?

You're clearly not very old, and you're lacking some basic logic.

People at gun shows have to follow the same state and federal laws that everyone else does.

People doing "personal sales", as you call it, must follow state and federal laws also. Every state that I am aware of has a law that says you can't sell a gun to a person who you believe has a felony record or is a drug or alcohol abuser.

Violation of these laws is a felony.

If you are convicted of a felony, in most cases, you can never buy a gun again; if you do it is another felony.

Think about this: The shooter at Virginia Tech, I won't use his name to give any notoriety, bought his guns legally. He PASSED the background check.

To get guns, people who can't pass a background check either steal them or buy them on the black market from other felons. Most black market guns are stolen from people who purchased them legally.

A background check will never stop a criminal from getting gun.

Laws don't stop people from doing bad things. They never have and they never will. A law is a piece of paper with words on it. It has no force.

The people enforce the laws when they are on juries and convict criminals and when they elect judges and prosecutors and when they pay taxes to hire police officers. The law decides what the punishment will be, but the law can't force a punishment on a criminal - the people do when they hire police officers to guard the jail.

Personally I hope that all the criminals try to buy guns at gun shows. That's because gun shows are surveillanced by large numbers of both undercover and uniformed police officers. They expect criminals to try, and spot them when they do.

While it is possible to require all LEGAL firearms buyers to go through a background check, it would do little to deter ILLEGAL criminal buyers because they buy guns off of a black market or steal what they want. Trying to stop illegal gun sales has proven to be about as successful as stopping illegal drug sales.

Incidentally, individual gun sellers cannot make background checks even if they want too. Only federally licensed gun dealers can do that. It says so in the law.

Gun control advocates would like to close what they call the “gun show loophole” because they would like to be able to have a paper trail on all gun transactions. When they get what they want they can start enacting all kinds of other restrictions and conditions until no one can continue to own guns. Meanwhile criminals will go they’re marry way. Laws may ultimately punish a criminal for committing illegal acts, but they do not control or restrain a criminal’s behavior before they are caught – if ever.

You might also be interested in the following link:

http://www.ns.umich.edu/htdocs/releases/story.php?id=6759

Oh, and feel free to use anything in this post so long as you don't change the meaning or wording, or take things out of context.

One more thought...

Let's just say that a law is passed that requires everyone that buys any gun anywhere must pass a background check.

Now there's no way a criminal can get a gun, right?

Why do you think a criminal is going to obey THAT law, when he didn't obey the last one?

Its funny, most liberals are for amnesty/decriminalization for laws that don't work (immigration/illicit drugs)... with the one exception of (failed) Gun Control laws, they redouble their efforts.

My family does a lot of shooting here and while writing a paper on gun buying and such this is what I came up with (so far).

I don't think gun shows should be able to sell guns without a background check first! I mean my uncle was a real bad guy and he could buy guns there where he would otherwise be declined with a background check. I understand that has changed now and you have to have the background check.

I don't think personal sales should be legal without a background check. I called a store here and they will do a transfer for $30.00. If people want to buy guns privately without that background check it's placing a risk for the seller since the gun remains registered to them and it creates a risk of the person buying the gun again doing so because they cannot pass a background check.

My Uncle also had applied for a concealed carry license here and got declined because of his insane (dangerous) history. The fact he applied was just as scary as the fact some people want anybody to be able to have one. I don't want people who are bad or dangerous to have these concealed carry permits legally.

Click to expand...

hmmm, very first post, anti-ideals? Anyone smell something funny here besides me?

I suspect this is a driveby posting, but I'll respond anyways.

I don't think gun shows should be able to sell guns without a background check first!

Click to expand...

First, you do realize that the 'gun show' itself sells nothing but maybe floor space and entrance tickets? It's no different than other swap meets. They have them for jewelry, farm equipment, produce, etc...

So the 'Gun Show' doesn't actually sell guns. For that matter, often less than 50% of the tables at a gun show are actually selling guns. You get people selling food, hunting supplies, knives, sausage making supplies, memorabilia, safes, and firing supplies other than guns such as magazines, stocks, reloading supplies. Some will even buy space just to show off their collection.

I understand that has changed now and you have to have the background check.

Click to expand...

Not really. There's two types of firearm sales - I'll call them commercial and private. Commercial sales, by a professional gun dealer who's required to have a Federal Firearms License, is required to have the background check. If you are a FFL, it doesn't matter if you're selling a firearm in your place of business, at your home, in a gunshow, or out the back of a truck. ALL need the background check, entry into bound book, and 4473.

Private Sales - this is Grandpa selling a shotgun he's used for years to somebody else. Grandpa can't even perform a FFL background check, he has no access. Sometimes somebody will go to a gun show to find potential buyers, somebody looking to dispose of a collection will sometimes rent a table.

I don't think personal sales should be legal without a background check. I called a store here and they will do a transfer for $30.00.

Click to expand...

Does that $30 price sound reasonable when you realize that some guns go for less than $100?

If people want to buy guns privately without that background check it's placing a risk for the seller since the gun remains registered to them and it creates a risk of the person buying the gun again doing so because they cannot pass a background check.

Click to expand...

As others have noted, most states don't register firearms, so that's not an issue. At most the gun can be traced back to the purchaser. But the same 'problem' exists for stolen guns.

Most private purchases are simply people looking for a deal, not because they can't pass a background check.

Thing is, the 'gunshow loophole' debate is something of a solution looking for a problem. An insignificant number of guns are traced to gun shows, private sales period, for that matter. The largest percentage of crime guns are stolen, and private sale guns are outnumbered by legal FFL purchases.

My Uncle also had applied for a concealed carry license here and got declined because of his insane (dangerous) history.

Click to expand...

That his application failed means the system worked. Most of us that want legal guns to be easier to obtain is due to a saying: 'Outlaw guns and only Outlaws will have them'. Basically, the illegal gun market is such that criminals get guns anyways - through theft, through smuggling, through illegal purchases. We believe law abiding citizens should be able to defend themselves.

Trusttheman

I assume your problem has to do with criminal misuse of arms. If those who commit violent crimes were to be kept locked up - if not executed - until they could be trusted with arms(probably never), the adjudicated dangerously insane institutionalized until safe, and minors and other immature individuals under full time guardianship(such as with parents) until mature/trustworthy, then the vast remainder of us would not need to be treated like a criminal every time we wished to buy an arm.

All those with a background indicating they cannot be trusted with arms who are let loose upon society will continue their criminal acts upon us regardless of whether they can buy a gun legally or not.

The attempt to keep arms out of the hands of those who are untrustworthy simply with a background check on everyone is futile.

If it is terrorists you are worried about, we have sufficient laws governing who is allowed into the country, and a whole big bureaucracy that includes border guards to keep such undesirables out of the country. All that is necessary is for those immigration laws to be enforced. As an added plus, there is no reason our military and active militia(the National Guard) could not guard our borders as well. In fact, that is one of their primary duties.

Those are the gaping maws that needs to be plugged. Those are real loopholes, whereas the supposed gun show loophole is merely a tiny window exposing the gigantic failure of those running the judicial system to keep violent criminals, and the adjudicated mentally dangerous with arms, off the streets. On the streets they steal the guns they want, or buy guns someone else has stolen, or make straw purchases; all in a total disregard for the law.

The answer is not the futile attempt to keep arms out of criminal hands, but to keep the criminal hands locked up and out of the reach of arms. This is a much simpler solution, with no Fourth Amendment violating intrusion upon the law abiding, and no infringement upon our Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Yes, this "lock them up" approach is actually constitutional.

You may put that in your paper.

Woody

trust the man, and do background checks on everybody? Considering state records are about 40-60% accurate, that won't work too well. Restricting private sales of a totally legal product between two law abiding citizens? No point- selling a firearm to a criminal is ALREADY against the law. Fed time on that one, plus state time.
Sorry, can't agree with the drive by poster. I won't call him a troll yet, IF he replies.

That's because gun shows are surveilled by large numbers of both undercover and uniformed police officers.

Click to expand...

Old Fuff - just in case he wants to use some of your words I wanted him to have the correct spelling and usage. Sorry for the nit pick.

ConstitutionCowboy eloquently typed
I assume your problem has to do with criminal misuse of arms. If those who commit violent crimes were to be kept locked up - if not executed - until they could be trusted with arms(probably never), the adjudicated dangerously insane institutionalized until safe, and minors and other immature individuals under full time guardianship(such as with parents) until mature/trustworthy, then the vast remainder of us would not need to be treated like a criminal every time we wished to buy an arm.

All those with a background indicating they cannot be trusted with arms who are let loose upon society will continue their criminal acts upon us regardless of whether they can buy a gun legally or not.

The attempt to keep arms out of the hands of those who are untrustworthy simply with a background check on everyone is futile.

If it is terrorists you are worried about, we have sufficient laws governing who is allowed into the country, and a whole big bureaucracy that includes border guards to keep such undesirables out of the country. All that is necessary is for those immigration laws to be enforced. As an added plus, there is no reason our military and active militia(the National Guard) could not guard our borders as well. In fact, that is one of their primary duties.

Those are the gaping maws that needs to be plugged. Those are real loopholes, whereas the supposed gun show loophole is merely a tiny window exposing the gigantic failure of those running the judicial system to keep violent criminals, and the adjudicated mentally dangerous with arms, off the streets. On the streets they steal the guns they want, or buy guns someone else has stolen, or make straw purchases; all in a total disregard for the law.

The answer is not the futile attempt to keep arms out of criminal hands, but to keep the criminal hands locked up and out of the reach of arms. This is a much simpler solution, with no Fourth Amendment violating intrusion upon the law abiding, and no infringement upon our Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Yes, this "lock them up" approach is actually constitutional.

You may put that in your paper.

Woody

Click to expand...

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation under God, indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for all

Amen

Please do not feed the trolls

Ok, I'll play 'devil's advocate' here. Because it's important to play the other role every now and then.

I've bought/sold a few firearms from in-state residents. The best I could do was ask for their DL and CC permit if they had one.

I don't want to sell to a felon any more than you guys. How can we be SURE that doesn't happen in a FTF transaction?

I don't mean to sound like a dick, but the original poster sounds like the quintessential example of a troll.

Try Gunlaws.us

Learn about the subject before you put pen to paper.

also; who is your intended audience?

I don't think gun shows should be able to sell guns without a background check first! I mean my uncle was a real bad guy and he could buy guns there where he would otherwise be declined with a background check.

Click to expand...

So...by your logic, you feel that the majority should have a Constitutional right infringed because of the 1-percenters.

Correct?

Interesting...

Maybe we should raise the legal drinking and driving age to 30 because the majority of traffic fatalities involving alcohol occur in the under-30 age group.

Or...Maybe requiring a background check before allowing anyone to buy a Harley-Davidson because they might be one of them fearsome gang-bangin' outlaw bikers.

Or...How about allowing search and siezure without due process on a suspicion? Just think of all the fun you could have with the guy who stole your gal away at the church picnic. Big Brother is just a phone call away.

Can I get a "Sieg Heil?"

When we start skirting the Bill of Rights on technicalities because of the actions of a few...we climb a slippery slope. If one right can be infringed at whim...they all can.

Not only that, but once FTF transfers are illegal, do you think that:

1 A FFL will still do a transfer for only $30? With nowhere else to go, these prices can easily hit $100. The FFL in my town charges the greater of $100 or 1% of the value of the firearm, and the next closet dealer (20 miles further) is $50. Once this government mandated monopoly in place, how much will they charge then?

2 Criminals will still buy and sell without background checks because CRIMINALS DO NOT OBEY THE LAW, which is why we call them criminals.

Methinks...

I SMELL TROLL!

kludge:

That's because gun shows are surveilled by large numbers of both undercover and uniformed police officers.

Old Fuff - just in case he wants to use some of your words I wanted him to have the correct spelling and usage. Sorry for the nit pick.

Click to expand...

I know, my spelling checker agrees with you…

But the English language is far from perfect, and sometimes one has to be inventive…

Sam Colt was… well the kindest thing to say would be a “phonetic speller,” but just sort of. His style was sort of unique.

Someone suggested that he needed to get one of Mr. Webster’s Dictionaries.

Sam replied that he would do so, as soon as Mr. Webster demonstrated the ability to make a decent revolver…

But I stand corrected…

Folks, I don’t know if the original post came from a troll, or a student with a paper to write.

And I couldn’t care less.

Regardless of his motives he has given us an opportunity to present our side, and a number of subsequent posters have done an excellent job of it. Because this thread was started I suspect some people who are following along and aren’t necessarily members are thinking to themselves, “Gee, I never thought about it that way. Now I can see that maybe the gun show loophole business wasn’t what I thought it was, maybe fixing it isn’t such a good idea.”

Read the thread and ask yourself, “Who’s winning?”

With a name like "trusttheman," I can't help but wonder...