Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by Darth-Vang, Mar 29, 2020.
I know, it was a bad attempt at being funny
Any police officer in Texas that asks for "paperwork and registration" on your firearm needs to have his supervisor called immediately....there is no such thing federally or in Texas.
Nanny states, TV and Hollywood, yes.....not Texas.
Here’s a sample statistic and facts if you are really afraid or paranoid about someone wanting to steal from you: https://www.alarms.org/burglary-statistics/
Only imagine what would have happened? Dude, you TOLD US WHAT DID HAPPEN!
Your receipt didn't magically end the trace, the pawn shop did. If you had lost the receipt the result would have been the same.
Well, thats what happens when the registered owner commits a crime with a firearm.
Does your state have a law that requires:
1. Firearm registration?
2. Firearm sellers having documentation of disposition?
If so then your clients should have followed state law. In Free America we don't have such nanny state laws.
That's a valid point. However, a bill of sale gives the buyer a claim of ownership as against the seller (the person who signed the bill of sale). This is analogous to a quitclaim deed in real estate. If, indeed, the gun was stolen, the true owner would have a superior claim.
In real estate, the typical sale involves a full warranty deed, backed up by a title search and title insurance. That's only possible because there's a searchable central registry of deeds. That doesn't exist in the gun world. Lacking a central registry, the best we can do in the gun world is document party-to-party transactions, leaving open the possibility of a previous break in the chain of title (such as a theft, loss, etc.).
A bill of sale gives some degree of protection, which is better than no protection at all. Ultimately you have to rely on the reputation of the seller. Is he the type who would be dealing in stolen property? If you suspect that he might be, it would be best to avoid the transaction.
As a footnote, some buyers might want a completely undocumented purchase, thinking they would thus have a gun "off the books." OK, but realize that in such a transaction, you have no recourse whatsoever.
This pretty much sums it up for me:
Was that Michael Bloomberg?
That was painful to watch, I kept waiting for something informative....didn't happen.
Nitwit videos like this are the bread and butter of those that push for "common sense gun laws" and universal background checks.
They point out this murderer bought his gun from a private sale but conveniently forget the murderers who bought their guns from licensed dealers and passed an FBI NICS check: Sutherland Springs, Charleston, Las Vegas, Ft Hood, Orlando........all from licensed dealers.
How will a bill of sale protect you or CYA from such a nutjob?
I've been doing some searching on this guy and all the articles cite him being turned down for a gun purchase due to a metal health problem. That was in 2014, the shooting happened in 2019, five years later. Was the mental health problem still listed in the data base? Seems like no one even looked to see if he was still prohibited.
No can do. Most Law Enforcement Agency have local and state laws that prevent them from profiting from seized property. Right now my department is trying to work out a deal with some companies to destroy firearms. Their are parts of the firearms that are required to be destroyed other then the frame. Most of the companies that destroy firearms do it at little to no cost and sell the parts to make money. We have not found one that is willing to destroy the required parts mandated in our department policy.
Here’s a short story about transferring a firearm. Last year I picked up a hand gun from Evidence. I test fired it and entered it into NIBIN. The gun was returned to Evidence. Earlier this month we had an attempt murder where several cartridge cases were recovered at the scene. I entered them into NIBIN and matched them to the gun I had test fired. I contacted Evidence to find out the status of the handgun and was told that it had been picked up by the owner a few months ago. This information was given to the Detective working the attempt murder. The Detective contacted the owner of the gun who stated that he sold the gun shortly after getting it back from of Evidence office. When asked who he sold it to, he stated he did not know the person or have the person’s information.
No laws were broken and there was nothing the Detective could do but write a supplement report and continue his investigation.
No harm, no foul.
So, you are willing to give up your 2A rights over some BS like this? WOW, maybe guns are not for you..................
I prefer freedom over this BS..........Guess I am old enough to remember when Americans had freedom
Never said that but I believe AlxanderA pretty much nail it. I suggest you reread his reply. Food for thought.
Exactly, Criminals don't determine our rights. Since he was dangerous those that knew him should have done something about him.
The guy in the video is someone that thinks he knows a lot about something he knows very little about. The article on his computer is from NBC, which is very liberal and has proven over the last few years to put out fake news. And if they are not reporting out right lies then they are just twisting the truth.
The guy making the video knows nothing about Texas state laws on guns seems to think the anti 2A laws in his state are what keeps guns out of the hands of criminals.
He pointed out that the gunman in Texas failed a background check due to mental conditions. He bases this on the article written by NBC. Little does he know that Texas doesn’t have a separate state background check. They used the standard government background check, which does not go into one’s health issues because it’s against the HIPAA laws.
Some states have their own background check that the buyer has to pay for. Not all those states are able to go into medical records due to federal law, ie, HIPAA. The only ones that can are the ones that have you sign a form the grants the state access to your medical records. They get away with this by making it a requirement to be able to purchase a firearm.
So whoever wrote the NBC article lied about the gunman failing a background check due to his mental health.
The guy that made the video did not check the facts in the article and so, knows very little about what he is talking about.
I make it a habit of not selling guns to people I don’t know, unless a friend of can vouch for them. I also don’t sell many guns, and that is also why I have so many.
When it comes right down to it, know your state laws, look them up, it’s easy. And then it’s up to you on how you sell your own guns. As long as you follow your state laws, do what makes you comfortable.
It's been my experience that official agencies do not divest themselves of information once it's gathered, regardless of laws against it.
Every time there's a questionable police shooting, everything the defendant ever did in his life is somehow leaked to the press to show what a mutt he was. This includes arrests but not convictions, juvenile cases, and other records which were supposed to have been sealed or disposed of but somehow still remained in the custody of the police.
Call me paranoid, but I don't doubt some segment of the gov't. is retaining all info on gun sales through FFL's request for background checks. Wouldn't be too hard to match a request made on a certain day to records kept by FFL's to show disposal of guns in their possession. That record includes all info on the gun, including who it was sold to.
As far as private sales, it's a two way street. You don't want to show me ID, that's your prerogative. It's also mine not to sell to you. As little as some think a bill of sale is worth, I'd still rather have that in my possession should the police come knocking.
Call me names, accuse me of anything you want, I can handle it, but these are my thoughts.
This whole discussion seems to ignore two things: there are both criminal AND civil divisions of the courts, and that the jury will be comprised of a cross section of society, not exclusively 2A supporters. Legal requirements for a transfer notwithstanding, to say that the appearance of prudence in conducting a transaction, on the part of both the seller and the buyer, will have no influence on the attitudes of LEO's, prosecutors, juries and families of the aggrieved, is the ultimate act of putting you head in the sand. Maybe in the perfect world appearance would matter not, but that - unfortunately - is not the society in which we live.
Where do people come up with this kind of stuff. How many people do you know that have been dragged into court because they sold a gun to someone?
Now if you were to knowingly sell a gun to someone that is not able to own a gun, that would be another story.
Separate names with a comma.