selling a gun - any feelings of responsibility?

[tuj]

Not sure if this is the right sub-forum for this, but here goes:

Let's say you have a reasonably 'dangerous' weapon, ie. not a .22 bolt action single shot but say an AK or AR rifle that you want to sell. Certainly we have all seen that these guns in the wrong hands can result in tragedy.

Do you feel any sort of responsibility to get a background check on the individual you are selling to (provided you don't already know them) when dealing with a modern carbine or high capacity handgun?

I know the legal aspect in many places is face-to-face = no background check, and I respect the rights of people to conduct their business how they choose. I'm merely asking if any of you have felt a 'responsibility' above and beyond what the law requires?

I ask this because a close friend of mine just sold some of his guns, and his AK he wanted a background check on, while his .22 pistols he sold FTF.

Curious the forum's thoughts?

 

[Field Tester]

BTW,

Both weapons are "reasonably dangerous" in the wrong hands. If you're fearful you're selling to the wrong person for one, the same fear shouldn't change for the other. One is not any less deadly than the other.

 

[joeschmoe]

Cars kill a lot more people than guns. Do you feel responsible when you sell a car? How about a sports car or big truck? Are car dealers responsible for the 90,000 car deaths every year? Is Budweiser responsible for the DUI deaths? Is Home Depot responsible for the 14,000 Americans who die falling off of ladders every year?

 

[MedWheeler]

To stay on this thread by the OP (and not any others), no, I generally feel no responsibility once a gun has left my hands. To be fair, though, the only two I've ever sold were to pawnbrokers.

But, I have sold several cars. The law does not require I check the validity, or even existence of, a buyer's driver's license, before the sale, nor does it require I check a potential gun buyer. The most I've done in a car sale is have the buyer sign an "as is" agreement that includes a statement that, as of the date/time of the sale, he or she assumes all responsibility for its use or possible misuse, and that I drop all responsibility.

 

[Field Tester]

<deleted>
I agree, weapons used in war are selected for very precise reasons.
But none of that matters to a criminal buying a .22lr rifle or revolver for that matter. Nor does it to the person staring down the barrel being robbed, threatened, or shot.

Be it a dinky .22lr revolver or a fully automatic AK or AR rifle, if the deal doesn't feel good don't do it. A seller should have uniformity. Do everything necessary and required by the law. Now if you're the type of person who goes the extra mile to photo copy a ID, background check, ask further questions etc... then you should be doing it for each firearm sold. And there's a myriad of reasons for this. It's your firearm therefore you set the rules. If you don't like the situation, walk. On the flip side, the same. If you feel a person is too intrusive, you don't have to purchase. Do what feels best to your conscience as long as all legal requirements are met, and do it if it's a Derringer or a Bazooka.

 

[evan price]

All weapons are dangerous.

In the wrong hands a rock is dangerous.

I do what the law requires. I prefer my transactions be with Ohio CCW holders. I look at their CCW card, they look at mine. Then we trade my stuff for theirs.

Assigning certain guns to be "more dangerous" is a slippery slope to what the antis want anyway, demonizing certain models, to conquer by dividing.

I defy you to prove that an AR is somehow more dangerous than any other 223.

 

[guyfromohio]

I feel a Responsiblity to follow the letter of the law. No more, no less.

 

[PiratePenguin]

Here in PA, if I sell a handgun it has to go through an FFL, so there's going to be a background check.

Tempting to do the same for a long gun if it was to a stranger, both for the peace of mind of the check and because of stuff like the Armslist robbery that just came up.

 

[Ks5shooter]

Only what law requires.

 

[Pizzapinochle]

Cars kill a lot more people than guns. Do you feel responsible when you sell a car? How about a sports car or big truck? Are car dealers responsible for the 90,000 car deaths every year? Is Budweiser responsible for the DUI deaths? Is Home Depot responsible for the 14,000 Americans who die falling off of ladders every year?

Read this thread: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=689728

Also, your numbers are incredibly wrong. There are NOT 90,000 auto deaths every year. There are NOT 14,000 falling deaths from ladders every year. Please try to use remotely accurate information and please stop using the "cars kill people" analogy that two people already brought up in this thread.

As to the OPs question...

If i were to take special care in selling a particular firearm, it would NOT be an AR/AK that would concern me. Criminals are not using AR/AK style weapons in crimes, or long guns of any sort for the most part, they are using small, easily concealable, cheap handguns.

If i were to sell an AR, a mossberg 500 and a dinky .22 revolver in FTF transactions, if I had to bet on which one would end up at a crime scene 90% of my money would be on the revolver with 10% on the mossy, nine on the AR.

While I agree that an AR has a higher potential for death and destruction, the practical concerns (concealability and cost) mean that it is much less likely to be used in crime.

This is why i think assault weapon bans and such are stupid. They target the weapons used LEAST in criminal undertakings.

 

[Sam1911]

[Let's keep things focused, folks.]

 

[GBExpat]

Do you feel any sort of responsibility to get a background check on the individual you are selling to (provided you don't already know them) when dealing with a modern carbine or high capacity handgun?

No.

 

[JRWhit]

I do feel somewhat responsible. If a criminal wants a weapon, he is going to get it, but not from me. I don't do many FTF sales, but when it is to a person I do not know, I will only sell to a ccw permit holder for my own peace of mind. I feel like this is an area under attack right now and will make sure not to aid the other sides argument to restrict FTF sales.
Another option is to enter a firearm into consignment with a dealer to sell at his/her storefront where a 4473 will be completed.

 

[rockhopper46038]

No. If I clearly felt the buyer was sketchy I wouldn't sell to them; but the person misusing a firearm is responsible for their actions, not the person who sold it to them.

 

[Sam1911]

[Once more, let's keep things focused, folks. Answer the question or don't. Theorizing about the OP's politics or motives isn't on topic.]

 

[alsaqr]

i ask the purchaser if he is prohibited from owning a gun and ask to see his driver's license. If he has a concealed carry permit i want to see that too.

The buyers name is added to my Excel database. That's it.

 

[AlexanderA]

Yes. That's why I prefer to sell to a dealer (so that he can take responsibility for any background checks), even though that means less money in my pocket. I don't need the extra money that much.

If there was a mechanism with which I could run a NICS check myself, on a voluntary basis, I would use it.

 

[Constrictor]

I don't sell guns.

 

[oneounceload]

I feel a Responsiblity to follow the letter of the law. No more, no less.

Winner, winner, chicken dinner

 

[Dean1818]

I use Gunbroker in almost all cases

When I have done FTF, its a copy of DL. AND......Transaction done in a well lit, public place....
.. if the guy is flaky.... NO SALE

 

[Art Eatman]

I've only sold guns from my gun show table. If I have no reason to suspect that a would-be buyer is hinky, I have no further obligation to anybody. legal or moral.

Similarly, neither FoMoCo nor a Ford dealer is responsible if somebody buys a car to use as a getaway car from a bank robbery. No way of knowing of an intended use.

 

[ATLDave]

The law permits me to do many things that I do not do because I think they are jerk moves. The law lets me scowl at old ladies and small children, but I try not to. The law lets me waste electricity, but I try not to. The law lets me cut in line at the movies if I can manage it, but I try not to. Just because you are legally entitled to do something does not mean you should. This is especially true if the right is under attack, and a wide swath of people will be punished next time something bad happens.

I am not saying that sellers should do BGCs. But to say that they will do the bare minimum required by the law and never any more... I don't agree with that approach.

 

[guyfromohio]

Obviously, I do a gut check too. I also post "Ohio CHL Preferred". On the same token, I don't drive 50 in a 65 to be more extra careful.

 

[Pizzapinochle]

I think if MORE gun owners acted like this....

I do feel somewhat responsible. If a criminal wants a weapon, he is going to get it, but not from me. I don't do many FTF sales, but when it is to a person I do not know, I will only sell to a ccw permit holder for my own peace of mind. I feel like this is an area under attack right now and will make sure not to aid the other sides argument to restrict FTF sales.
Another option is to enter a firearm into consignment with a dealer to sell at his/her storefront where a 4473 will be completed.

and this....

The law permits me to do many things that I do not do because I think they are jerk moves. ... ... ... Just because you are legally entitled to do something does not mean you should. This is especially true if the right is under attack, and a wide swath of people will be punished next time something bad happens.

I am not saying that sellers should do BGCs. But to say that they will do the bare minimum required by the law and never any more... I don't agree with that approach.

And LESS gun owners acted like this...

I feel a Responsiblity to follow the letter of the law. No more, no less.

And this...

I've only sold guns from my gun show table. If I have no reason to suspect that a would-be buyer is hinky, I have no further obligation to anybody. legal or moral.

...then the anti's would have a lot less ammunition.

You are essentially saying:

"I don't care two bits if I sell a gun to a criminal, as long as I didn't feel uncomfortable when I did it."

People see this and decide:

"If gun owners won't be responsible enough to keep guns out of criminal hands, guns that may then be used against me or my family, then the gov't needs to do something to FORCE them to be responsible."

And along comes UBC and registration.

And STOP with the car/gun analogies. There is a whole sticky thread in legal complaining about Anti's using that analogy, truth is, it is PRO-gun people that use it first (as demonstrated in this thread) and it is a terrible analogy for either side. Cars =/= guns

 

[MachIVshooter]

Always just used my judgement. If the buyer seemed on the up and up, was friendly, had no problem showing me ID to verify age and residency, I never declined the sale. If the buyer seemed nervous, didn't have or wouldn't show ID or acted in any other manner that conveyed to me the individual shouldn't or legally couldn't own a gun, then the sale did not go through.