Private Gun Show FFL transfer...would you use one?
- Thread starter Redlg155
- Start date
- Status
NavyLCDR
member
A pig in a chiffon dress is still a pig. You can dress up "all sales through FFLs" as "good P.R." but that doesn't change what it really is - MORE GOVERNMENT GUN CONTROL AND REGULATION.
Just say no.
Your "good P.R." is doing nothing other than giving the anti-gun politicians more control and regulation and the pro-gun crowd gets absolutely NOTHING in return. Instead we give up more rights and freedoms. That is not compromise in any way, shape, or form. You call it "good P.R.", I call it appeasement. And the problem with appeasement is that what appeases the beast today, will only satisfy the beast today, and tomorrow that beast is only going to want more.
Nom de Forum
Member
Really it will not "accomplish anything......."? Firstly, how does mandatory FFL transfers have anything to do with banning personal manufacture of arms. Of course mandatory FFL transfers will not be a cure all for preventing the wrong people from getting guns, but it will certainly help. You are right; it will "not stop the anti-rights politicians" because nothing will except convincing the majority of voters not to support extremists. You don't do that by showing yourself to be an extremist with constant headbutting attacks on every issue. That plays right in to the hands of the "Antis". They want us to appear to be unhinged idiots who want to carry "dangerous" weapons.
Pizzapinochle
member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2013
- Messages
- 570
Because background checks prevent straw purchases.
Scenario #1: Current system:
I buy a gun and sell it to someone who is prohibited in a private sale with no background check. Gun gets used in a crime and picked up by police. Police come and ask me about it, I say "I sold it at a gun show and met the requirements of the law." No punishment, straw sale successfully executed with no repercussions.
Scenario #2: Under UBC with Traceable sales:
I buy a gun and sell it to someone who is prohibited in a private sale with no background check. Gun gets used in a crime and picked up by police. Gun is tied to my name, police come and arrest me for an illegal sale. I get charged with a felony and spend a year or two in jail.
Would people be as willing to facilitate straw sales under Scenario #2 as they are under Scenario #1?
Or do you think that the real threat of a felony conviction MIGHT deter people from making straw sales?
Pizzapinochle
member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2013
- Messages
- 570
BTW, I have heard a lot of you talk about "All we have to do is educate people and they will come to our side!"
This is one area you MAY want to avoid talking about. People don't know that there is basically NO regulation of private sales and that you can sell to convicted felons, as long as they lie to you and say they are not prohibited, with no repercussions. When I tell people, they are generally very very surprised to learn that there are effectively NO controls on the sales of weapons in many states.
This is one area you MAY want to avoid talking about. People don't know that there is basically NO regulation of private sales and that you can sell to convicted felons, as long as they lie to you and say they are not prohibited, with no repercussions. When I tell people, they are generally very very surprised to learn that there are effectively NO controls on the sales of weapons in many states.
Nom de Forum
Member
Pizzapinochle
member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2013
- Messages
- 570
Lets see... if I can do 4 transfers in an hour for $25 a pop... $100 an hour, 40 hours a week...
I can make $200,000 a year doing nothing but transfers!
I think your "lines will be out the doors and it will takes days just to do a transfer" is a bit unrealistic. If there is THAT much demand, businesses will find a way to make money off of it.
Bubbles
Member
An easy transfer takes longer than 15 minutes of your time. A problem transfer takes much, much longer.
Nom de Forum
Member
Of course it is more government control, but it is the right type of control as opposed to the wrong kind: gun bans.
Gee, I hope no one will start posting Munich references and comparing our Antigun opponents to Hitler and the Nazis. That would also be exactly what they want to demonstrate that we are frightening fanatics.
We should pick our battles carefully because you cannot win them all. We only need to win the ones that lead to strategic victory. We should fight laws that restrict not ones that regulate. Regulations mean tax revenues for the government, something it likes and it is likely to support.
Last edited:
Pizzapinochle
member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2013
- Messages
- 570
Gee, ok, 2 transfers an hour, so only $50 an hour and I only make $100,000 a year. Still a raise over my current job and pretty easy work.
Nom de Forum
Member
In my experience the percentage of "problem transfers" is low. Once there is money to be made, a way to make the transfer process as quickly profitable as possible will not so amazingly be found.
oneounceload
member
You can, it is done legally, all the time...........for long guns
oneounceload
member
No different than selling your car to a drunk driver who then takes it and kills someone; maybe we should have background checks on car sales? How about checks at Home Depot on hammers, axes, blunt objects?? How about at Macy's on Henkels knives??
You could at least admit you admire the Brady Bunch
BTW, criminals do not buy guns from law-abiding citizens - they either steal them or buy from someone who stole it
Pizzapinochle
member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2013
- Messages
- 570
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=689728
Guns are used in nearly 70% of murders (almost three times as frequently as all other weapons combined) and 40% of robberies (twice as frequently as all other weapons combined).
It is unreasonable to act like a gun is no different from a hammer or a kitchen knife. Guns have capabilities for damage that those other objects cannot approach. You know it, that is why you want one for SD/HD. Criminals know it, that is why they want it for crime.
I agree with a lot of what they say, I disagree with a lot of what they say.
Please provide proof of this claim.
None of these people/studies list theft as the primary means of obtaining a gun for criminals and most of the information I have seen indicates that straw purchases are the primary source of guns.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html
http://policeissues.com/Sources.pdf
I think the federal government has absolutely no business, and no right, and no authority, to force itself into a transaction between two sovereign citizens.
I think that requiring federal government permission, and tracking, and registration of all firearms transfers is a massive infringement of our Rights and Liberties and a serious violation of the Constitution.
I think that signing up for what amounts to a federal registration of firearms is incredibly stupid and can only go badly.
I think that a law preventing me from loaning, gifting, bartering, or selling a firearm to or from my neighbor is asinine.
I do not think that making up a few hypothetical scenarios, even if they are theoretically possible, where a restrictive law might be useful, can even begin to justify it.
But I'm not a pro gun control poster trolling on a gun forum
Pizzapinochle
member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2013
- Messages
- 570
Ok, those are all nice thoughts.
Didn't really answer the question:
Would people be as willing to facilitate straw sales under Scenario #2 as they are under Scenario #1?
Or do you think that the real threat of a felony conviction MIGHT deter people from making straw sales?
Didn't really answer the question:
Would people be as willing to facilitate straw sales under Scenario #2 as they are under Scenario #1?
Or do you think that the real threat of a felony conviction MIGHT deter people from making straw sales?
There is already a real threat of a felony conviction for straw purchases.
Perhaps you should read up on the current laws.
jimmyraythomason
Member
Divide an conquer, an effective tactic of the gun-grabbers and it is at play right here. They walk among us.
Nom de Forum
Member
I support your right to think whatever you want.
I even support your right to imply that anyone who disagrees with you on the topic of this thread is "a pro gun control poster trolling on a gun forum".
I hope you support my right to laugh at your asinine implication.
Pizzapinochle
member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2013
- Messages
- 570
I know the laws quite well and I know that CONVICTION for a straw sale is a felony.
I also know that every time I read about straw sales, the police/prosecutors point out that it is very difficult to actually get convictions.
And in my home state of FL where private sales are free flowing and common, even seemingly clear cut cases don't get prosecuted because a straw sale is just a private sale unless you can PROVE that the seller KNEW the person was prohibited from buying the gun themselves.
So, I can buy a gun, decide I don't want it a week later and sell it to a friend who I "didn't know" was prohibited from owning a gun.
The statute says "knowingly" so it is now dependent on the police/prosecutor to PROVE in court that I KNEW the buyer was prohibited.
Contrast to UBC, where all that has to be proved is that a sale without a background check took place.
I also know that every time I read about straw sales, the police/prosecutors point out that it is very difficult to actually get convictions.
And in my home state of FL where private sales are free flowing and common, even seemingly clear cut cases don't get prosecuted because a straw sale is just a private sale unless you can PROVE that the seller KNEW the person was prohibited from buying the gun themselves.
So, I can buy a gun, decide I don't want it a week later and sell it to a friend who I "didn't know" was prohibited from owning a gun.
The statute says "knowingly" so it is now dependent on the police/prosecutor to PROVE in court that I KNEW the buyer was prohibited.
Contrast to UBC, where all that has to be proved is that a sale without a background check took place.
Nom de Forum
Member
Pet peeves;"If you don't carry your gun like I do you're irresponsible","if you don't use the lube,cleaner and preservative that I do...you don't know guns","if you don't agree with my favorite gun scribe/guru,you are obviously uninformed".....just to name a few
Jimmyraythomason, here are some of of my Pet Peeves:
People who think that if you do not completely agree with their tactics against an opponent you are a nefarious Fifth Columnist.
People who are too uninformed or willfully ignorant of the fact that there are people and organizations supporting gun rights that have a monetary interest in keeping the debate as acrimonious as possible.
Pizzapinochle
member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2013
- Messages
- 570
And, just for clarification, I am NOT trolling.
I have been trying to find the reasoning behind some aspects of the pro-gun thinking. Most notably, the idea that "no gun law will do anything to prevent crime/criminals from getting guns"
I ask questions like the ones I asked above with clearly laid out, simple real life implications of a possible law and ask for an explanation as to why the impact that I see is somehow incorrect.
And I ALWAYS get a reply like the one Warp gave.
Full of ideas and thoughts, but never a real answer to the question I gave.
Three laws (UBC, traceable database of sales, and mandatory reporting of lost/stolen guns) makes a felony conviction MUCH MORE LIKELY for anyone committing a straw sale.
With a felony conviction much more likely, the number of people willing to participate in straw sales and provide guns to nefarious folk will decrease.
If I am incorrect, please explain the flaw in my logic.
Saying that the gov't has no business, it is an infringement of rights, it is stupid, or it is asinine is not an explanation of how the reasoning is incorrect.
I have been trying to find the reasoning behind some aspects of the pro-gun thinking. Most notably, the idea that "no gun law will do anything to prevent crime/criminals from getting guns"
I ask questions like the ones I asked above with clearly laid out, simple real life implications of a possible law and ask for an explanation as to why the impact that I see is somehow incorrect.
And I ALWAYS get a reply like the one Warp gave.
Full of ideas and thoughts, but never a real answer to the question I gave.
Three laws (UBC, traceable database of sales, and mandatory reporting of lost/stolen guns) makes a felony conviction MUCH MORE LIKELY for anyone committing a straw sale.
With a felony conviction much more likely, the number of people willing to participate in straw sales and provide guns to nefarious folk will decrease.
If I am incorrect, please explain the flaw in my logic.
Saying that the gov't has no business, it is an infringement of rights, it is stupid, or it is asinine is not an explanation of how the reasoning is incorrect.
jerkface11
Member
You're not trolling? So you are honestly trying to sell us on firearms registration?
Pizzapinocle said:
I'm not sure that you know the law as well as you think. There is no stipulation in the straw purchase law that states that anyone involved in the transaction be prohibited from owning a firearm. The issue arises from the person filling out the 4473 lying on the form. See post #23.
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=700331
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
