Private Gun Show FFL transfer...would you use one?

[Pizzapinochle]

Look at 10 years of AWB - no measurable effect.

Agreed, but that was because there was very little to effect. "Assault weapons" were not being used in very many crimes before the ban, they still aren't being used in very many crimes. I think the AWB was stupid in the first place.

See, here is my idea of a compromise proposal. It contains "cookies" (things they like) for each side.

Pro-control cookies:

-Nationwide, 100% UBC on all gun transfers going forward.
-Traceable database that allows police to track the sales history of a gun used in a crime. This trace can be used to convicted individuals who sell without a background check, deterring people from circulating guns into the unregulated market
-Mandatory reporting of lost/stolen guns

Pro-gun cookies:

-Removal of suppressors from NFA regulations.
-Removal of SBR from NFA regulations (these have been circumvented with "rifle caliber pistols" already, just make it official)
-Allow the manufacture of new full auto firearms, still under NFA tax stamp regulations
-Prohibit the banning of firearms on the basis of type or feature (including magazine capacity (Goodbye ridiculous california laws)
-Increased autonomy for localities to make determinations about gun free zones (repeal of gun free act of 1990). If a state/city wants to make their schools "gun free," let them, but don't make it federal. (BTW, on this point i fall into both camps. I don't think we should have armed teachers. I do think having armed staff is ok, but it would be much better for it to be a janitor or administrator. I have been a teacher, classroom dynamics for the teacher make CC impractical, CC for a janitor or principal is a lot more feasible.)
-Weaken the ability of localities (cities/states) to force additional requirements (like FOID) on citizens. If they want to have IDs of some sort, great, but force them to make the process quick (1 month) and easy (low/no cost/shall issue) so that law abiding folk can possess guns without having to hire a lawyer.
-Something about nationwide reciprocity for CCW or just a national CHL that works everywhere. Just something so that when you travel from state to state the laws stay more uniform.

Cookies for either side:
-Reform criminal justice system (Dave, we may disagree on the particulars, but the whole thing is definitely a mess)

I know I would be happy with this. Gets rid of a lot of the stupid, pointless stuff like magazine limits and overbearing restrictions on legal gun owners (like New York and CA), but the consistent NATIONAL background check requirements and ability to trace guns to their source would make it a lot more difficult for guns to reach the criminal markets.

So... what would you think of that?

 

[Warp]

SBR regulations have not been effectively circumvented by rifle caliber pistols. A pistol is still a pistol, and you can't do things with or to it that you can with an SBR or a standard rifle.

No, we don't want increased autonomy for localities to determine gun free zones. That just leads to a giant cluster where it is impossible to determine whether or not you are legal when you travel, even if you are only traveling to the next county.

 

[bigfatdave]

So, what would we get?

Repeal NFA34.
National constitutional carry, no GFZ's that don't have effective (by MY standards) security that carries full liability for anything that occurs within.
Tax incentive for supressors (to encourage you to not bother the neighbors).
Disband BATFE.
Repeal all state and federal gun laws that constitute an infringement (by my standards).
Ban future infringements.
Add a penalty clause to 2a for politicians that violate it.
Minimum magazine capacity law.

 

[itsa pain]

Why would you need the proof? Gee, Officer, I sold it at a garage sale to someone with cash. Think his first name was Fred (or whatever)

To me that is very silly. If some one gets shot with a gun you sold how would they put you at the scene which probably is very far from your house and you would have an alibi any way to explain to police who would never bother with it anyway

 

[Pizzapinochle]

No, we don't want increased autonomy for localities to determine gun free zones. That just leads to a giant cluster where it is impossible to determine whether or not you are legal when you travel, even if you are only traveling to the next county.

Ok...which do you prefer:

Option #1: Federal law stating that ALL school zones are "gun free zones"
Option #2: State/County/City determines what their laws regarding gun free zones are

 

[Pizzapinochle]

Minimum magazine capacity law.

I hope you are joking....

 

[Ryanxia]

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?

The UBC would have to include private individuals keeping their own records. For example:

Scenario #2:
Gun shows up in a crime.
ATF: "You filled out the form"
Original purchaser: "Yes, and I sold it."
ATF: "Who to?"
OP: "Don't remember."
ATF: "Did you transfer it through a dealer?"
OP: "Yes. I complied with the law to transfer it through an FFL."
ATF: "Which one?"
OP: "Don't remember. It MIGHT have been a shop in this state, or it could have been when I was vacationing. Have fun."

Doesn't really solve anything, but it DOES create a national registry which is illegal.

 

[itsa pain]

"And for those sellers requiring to see a carry permit in order to conduct a private firearms sale. WHY? "

Why?

1: It's proof positive of the buyer being from my own state.

2: It's fair assurance that he's not a prohibited person. A corollary is that it lessens the chance that I'm being set up for being robbed in a face to face meeting.

3: It's some small comfort to know that they are probably "gun people" and not likely to shoot themselves in the leg.

4: It gives me a point to talk to encourage people to go get a CCW.


"Suppose the buyer doesn't have (or want) a carry permit?"

Tough noogies.


"You won't sell to him/her?"

Nope. It's a private sale and private busienss is done when both seller and buyer agree to terms. These are my terms. Don't like them? "Oh well"... : See "tough noogies" above.

I've never had a problem selling anything I ever wanted to sell, and sleep well at night.


One thing that I do not do though is ask for a bill of sale. Show your CCW, hand over your cash, and walk away. I only buy things in private sales under the same conditions.



Willie

.

Hey you can finally get that job at BATF that you always wanted. To you if some one does not have a CCW they are beneath you. If they have a 22 rifle and a shotgun they are peasants. I will get ripped for this but I think all these CCW's they have given out is really bad for the cause. It has created a bunch, not all, of elitists who jump thru govt hoops to get it ,think they are special force commandos and look down on people that do not have one. To these elitists a guy wanting to buy a gun without CCW is a potential criminal

 

[Pizzapinochle]

Repeal NFA34.
National constitutional carry, no GFZ's that don't have effective (by MY standards) security that carries full liability for anything that occurs within.
Tax incentive for supressors (to encourage you to not bother the neighbors).
Disband BATFE.
Repeal all state and federal gun laws that constitute an infringement (by my standards).
Ban future infringements.
Add a penalty clause to 2a for politicians that violate it.
Minimum magazine capacity law.

Well, that looks like the "Pro gun gets everything"/"Big Dave runs the government" proposal since, I assume, by YOUR standards all three of my proposals would be infringements and you would repeal them immediately.

Obviously not realistic or feasible.

How about a response to my set of proposals?
Is my proposal a legitimate compromise?
Are both sides giving some things up to get other things they want?
Would you prefer that situation to the current situation?

 

[Warp]

A national registry is a no-go. There is nothing that can balance that level of infringement.

Even if there was, a compromise is by its very nature and infringement and thus not Constitutional.

If you want a compromise, get a new amendment passed. At least that way it would be legal. It wouldn't be Right, but it would be legal.

 

[NoVA Shooter]

Here’s another perspective on UBC that its supporters are failing to consider. Who controls the standards on which a pass or fail is based on? UBC would be a mechanism to introduce backdoor gun control much in the same way the government used the 1986 NFA to backdoor a ‘ban’ on machine guns and such. As soon as there’s a UBC, gun control advocates will certainly make every effort to raise the bar on what is considered a qualifying check. All of the sudden, talking to a counselor disqualifies you from passing a background check, or maybe a speeding ticket, or maybe just voicing a negative opinion of the current regime.

I’ll go out on a limb here, but I think it’s safe to say that no law abiding citizen wants a violent criminal to have a gun. But attacking the freedoms of the law abiding citizen is not only counter intuitive to that goal, it is an abomination to a free society.

 

[Warp]

Here’s another perspective on UBC that its supporters are failing to consider. Who controls the standards on which a pass or fail is based on? UBC would be a mechanism to introduce backdoor gun control much in the same way the government used the 1986 NFA to backdoor a ‘ban’ on machine guns and such. As soon as there’s a UBC, gun control advocates will certainly make every effort to raise the bar on what is considered a qualifying check. All of the sudden, talking to a counselor disqualifies you from passing a background check, or maybe a speeding ticket, or maybe just voicing a negative opinion of the current regime.

I’ll go out on a limb here, but I think it’s safe to say that no law abiding citizen wants a violent criminal to have a gun. But attacking the freedoms of the law abiding citizen is not only counter intuitive to that goal, it is an abomination to a free society.

Excellent post.

 

[bigfatdave]

Minimum magazine capacity law.

I hope you are joking....

Why is that funny? We'll compromise on a number everyone can agree on, for instance 7. Even New York likes 7x mags!

And in a few years, after a tragedy in the national news, we can take advantage and ram through an increased capacity minimum, perhaps 10 or 15 rounds. And we'll really screw over everyone that bought the 7x mags special to comply with the law before, and eliminate grandfathering.

Eventually, guns will become too large and unwieldy for criminals to carry, and crime will go down. It might take 50 years to have a measurable effect, though.

 

[bigfatdave]

Is my proposal a legitimate compromise?

Not with registration in it.
Not with free citizens assumed to be guilty rather than presumed innocent.

Well, that looks like the "Pro gun gets everything"/"Big Dave runs the government" proposal since, I assume, by YOUR standards all three of my proposals would be infringements and you would repeal them immediately.

Also, Larry Corriea as president with Massad Ayoob as VP.

Give me your government and all power over who does/doesn't get RKBA. I promise I'll never abuse it or push my own agenda.

(If you're uncomfortable about that statement, you're starting to understand why I refuse to give power to the government, and am actively working to neuter it wherever I can)

 

[Pizzapinochle]

Not with free citizens assumed to be guilty rather than presumed innocent.

Please clarify this.

Also, Larry Corriea as president with Massad Ayoob as VP.

If larry and Massad want to run for Pres/VP, all power to them. No chance in heck they get elected, but that is how democracy works.

Give me your government and all power over who does/doesn't get RKBA. I promise I'll never abuse it or push my own agenda.

(If you're uncomfortable about that statement, you're starting to understand why I refuse to give power to the government, and am actively working to neuter it wherever I can)

Uh... because I am uncomfortable with a dictatorship of YOU, just as I would be uncomfortable with any dictator?

How does that relate to a democratically elected legislative body that is subject to periodic re-election from a diverse population across the country?

Regardless, I guess you've made your choice.

You prefer the status quo to my proposed compromise.

So, you prefer NY SAFE act, CA "ban lists," and IL FOID's to a national database of sales accessible only to trace a gun used in crime.

I don't. I live in an urban area that has high gun crime, I could easily see NY style gun control migrating here, something I don't want. I would rather pass a national law (that I think would actually work and would have little to no impact on me) and at the same time prevent NY style laws from being enacted locally.

 

[Spats McGee]

The OP started by asking:

Private Gun Show FFL transfer...would you use one?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

First... I'm not advocating that private sales should be regulated as I enjoy the freedom of being able to buy and sell as I please.

My question is that would you use a dealers services if he offered a relatively low cost service $10.00 to facilitate a transfer for "peace of mind"?

My simple answer: No.

Why would I spend an extra $10 if I don't have to? As a seller, would I ask to see a DL or CCL? You bet. As a buyer, would I show one of the aforementioned to the seller? Absolutely.

It stops there, though. I'm not jotting down numbers, I'm not copying those documents, and neither is the other party. If a buyer gives me the heebie-jeebies for any reason, the sale is off. At that point, I've gone above and beyond what is required by the law.

As a practical matter, I want my $10. As a philosophical matter, I have some basic objections to asking governmental permission before exercising a fundamental, individual right, protected by the US Constitution. (Not granted by it, protected by it.)

This thread has then turned to the question of UBCs. I consider them both a monumentally bad idea and an unwarranted governmental intrustion, for a variety of reasons. I'm a little short on time right now, but I'll submit these as the basic points of my views on UBCs:
1) It won't work without some kind of registration.
2) It has to operate either with gun registration, or gun owner registration.
3) Historically, registration has been bad news for gun owners.
4) Based on my reading of Haynes v. US, a 1968 case, I do not believe that violations of a UBC law will be enforceable against convicted felons, as such would violate the Fifth Amendment. Accordingly, UBCs violate my "Bad Guys First" rule.
5) I don't care about the statistics or the percentages. This is a fundamental, individual right at stake here. The Bill of Rights is about as undemocratic a document as you're likely to find, and it is intended to protect the individual from being overrun by the majority.

 

[bigfatdave]

You prefer the status quo to my proposed compromise.

Wrong.

I've been actively pushing for more liberal laws for years. And it is working.

And your compromise is as likely as mine - real politicians aren't trying to repeal anything at a national level.

 

[bigfatdave]

If a buyer gives me the heebie-jeebies for any reason, the sale is off. At that point, I've gone above and beyond what is required by the law.

Damn right. Using your own judgment is entirely appropriate.

I wouldn't sell to someone I thought was scummy. (not just guns)
I wouldn't sell to someone I thought was a blithering idiot. (not just guns)
I wouldn't sell a gun to someone I got the impression was buying it for someone else, except as a gift. ("Bob has been looking for one of these for years!" is OK, someone just working off a sticky note or asking obvious no-knowledge questions is not)

 

[Pizzapinochle]

So you would prefer my compromise proposal to the status quo?

 

[bigfatdave]

I already told you that registration was a deal-breaker.

I'd rather have national FOID than registration (and I don't really want FOID)

Do YOU prefer the status quo to simply not giving people that wouldn't pass a NICS check normal ID? Because that could actually get rammed through, possibly.

Not with free citizens assumed to be guilty rather than presumed innocent.

Please clarify this.

I already did. You feel that there are enough people trying to buy guns from private sellers that we need some kind of mandatory BGC with every sale of a gun. I have pointed out multiple times that The State created these classes of prohibited persons and did NOTHING to differentiate them from the population.

I even suggested two simple ways to identify these "prohibited persons":
1- incarceration
or
2- a really obviously different ID card issued to them when they're convicted of a crime or released from incarceration

I think such a law could really pass, at a state level - I'm going to consult a few people and do some research, and I may then actually start harassing my legislators about it if I can get some basic legalese text thrown together (you know, lots of whereas and upon judgment). And I'll push it right alongside carry reform, removing mag restrictions*, and backing off of BS victimless crimes.

Because I'm interested in actually reducing violent crime, and the broken NICS system isn't doing it, UBGC's won't do it, and not many laws other than removing/eliminating repeat-offender violent criminals will do it.
Simple answer, make it illegal for a violent criminal to have normal ID that isn't marked with 1" red letters stating "PROHIBITED FROM ARMS"

That will at least shut up the "herpaderp the crooks will just go to a gunshop" as well as the "derpaherp the criminals get their guns from gunshows" nonsense.
Known criminals don't have normal ID, but DO have the blatantly obvious ones instead - a polite flash of ID becomes enough to determine if the guy in front of you is a prohibited person or not ... ... well, it moves the burden back to The State, anyway.

*(we have a really dumb unenforced one here in OH)

 

[Pizzapinochle]

Alright, let me rephrase my question...

Status quo

Or

My complete proposal

Which would you prefer?

 

[Warp]

So you would prefer my compromise proposal to the status quo?

Negative.

 

[bigfatdave]

Your false dichotomy is pretty obvious.
I don't really feel like fisking your entire proposal at the moment*, I'll say it is more good than bad, but the bad is REALLY BAD, because registration is unacceptable, as is treating free adults like potential criminals as the default setting.

I choose neither. I'll keep ramming through my state's carry reform with a chaser of constitutional carry, and being a big thorn in the side of the national guncontrol effort.


*(maybe tomorrow, if I'm bored, I can go through and color-code the whole thing, with notations and refutations where needed ... start with Haynes v. US ... Spats McGee brought it up, I hadn't thought of it, but it is probably the biggest, dirtiest, most unwanted finger in the eye of UBGC, it tanks the whole concept before it can even get started)

 

[Midwest]

The UBC would have to include private individuals keeping their own records.
Doesn't really solve anything, but it DOES create a national registry which is illegal.

Right and Canada which has a much smaller population and consequently less firearms could not sustain a National Firearms Registry. It was a failed idea. But unfortunately in Canada they have owner licensing and with that database and with the database of what was left of the old National Firearms Registry was used to compile "lists" and thus help enable CONFISCATION of law abiding owners firearms during a flood up in Calgary fairly recently.

 

[Pizzapinochle]

Not really a false dichotomy. i know there are other options, just not asking about them for now.

I am just trying to figure out what ppl really find important. Saying you won't choose... Well, doesn't work in the world i am from (speech and debate background) where you have to evaluate and decide the merits of positions.

But, of are not willing to express an opinion, i guess that is your option.