selling a gun - any feelings of responsibility?

[Ivy Mike]

And avoiding background checks is EXACTLY what I am talking about. You must be real young and have no experience with the way things were prior to 1986, let alone 1968.
Try learning about things then and then ask yourself why intrusions into your personal life is a good idea.

boy I hope you're not going to go into the good old days speech.

I remember the crack epidemic of the 90s. I'm under no illusion that gun laws stop gun crimes. I realize that crime is the real problem and guns are simply a popular tool.

Thats why I suggested the background check scheme I did. It doesn't impose any new requirements on a gun buyer. If anything it moves the background check portion into the back office where it is transparent to the buyer. The seller now need only ask for ID which already happens when buying from an FFL.

 

[tomrkba]

It isn't a right if you have been stripped of that right via due process. The background check has no price, NICS is free at point of sale.
I never once mentioned a registry.

Learn to read.

This is THR, so act like it.

Nobody suggested keeping track of the arms sale. In fact, the proposal I made has no provisions for such a thing.

First, the reality is there are registries maintained by many states. The data from the purchase is recorded in that registry.

I do not know the cost of a NICS check. I do pay $2 for every check in Virginia; perhaps that is tied to the Virginia check. Legislation can easily raise that cost to something that discourages gun purchases.

It isn't a right if you have been stripped of that right via due process.

I am not going to argue the constitutionality of that. The fact is we're currently stuck with such laws. However, your statement presumes that the buyer is a prohibited person. This violates the history and tradition of presumption of innocence. We do not need to prove we're worthy; the state needs to prove we're not worthy. The background check is a government permission slip for a right, which is beyond the authority given to the state and Federal governments.

 

[Warp]

I think you missed the point. If folks are allowed out on our streets, then they should not be prohibited from possessing weapons.

If they cannot be trusted WITH weapons, why are they safe enough to be living among us?

Bingo!

And if we're going to trust them enough to let them out in the world and ask -- like super-pretty-please-with-a-cherry-on-top -- that they don't go get weapons, why not trust that they won't hurt anyone? One is just as fantastical as the other ... probably more so.

"Awww, shucks, now that I'm out of prison, I was going to go MURDER someone. But dang it, I'm not allowed to possess a firearm, so i guess I'd better not."

There are lots of things that we tell ourselves that are simple fairy tales which, apparently, are intended to help folks sleep better at night. The idea of "prohibited persons" (cue the spooky music) is one of the more absurd and transparent.

Agree.

 

[Warp]

A. Point still stands. Just because you can't make a 100% perfect law doesn't mean you shouldn't try to curb a problem.

B. Don't get mad when I blow your sad argument to pieces like a Glock trying to contain a hot .40 S&W round.

C. There is no intrustion. Your criminal record is public record. If you don't want people seeing what crimes you commit, don't commit them. I never said it was a one-time check. You would be checked every time your license or ID renews by a background check system approved by lawmakers and constituents. You are required to show ID for gun purchases, like it or not. These are the laws of the land and have been upheld as constitutional.
You should change your name to Scarecrow 1911 because your favorite tactic appears to be the straw man.

a) It has 0% chance of curbing the problem.

b) In your dreams.

c) Yes, there is intrusion.

 

[Queen_of_Thunder]

Quote:
Originally Posted by gym View Post
Anyone can get phony ID on the internet these days. Or borrow their friends, or have their friend buy your gun. When we got our ID stolen, they even had drivers licenses with their pictures on it that the bank accepted, trying to play crime stopper is a waste of time.
Just ask any internet savvy kid to get you ID, you will see that this is a waste of time. For $25 dollars they can get your license ss card birth certificate and whatever else they need.

I believe this is a bit of an exaggeration

Yea the $25 is a tad high

 

[Welding Rod]

If someone is a know to me to be a drunk, drug user, hothead, criminal / troublemaker, mentally unstable, derelict, etc, or impresses me that they likely fall into one of those categories, I am not going to sell them one of my guns. I have seen a few instances where dealers didn't sell to someone for the same reason.

 

[danez71]

I caught your point.

The point is that requiring ID with every gun purchase gives us more chances to stop unlawful purchases instead of how it exists now where there is no framework in place to stop such purchases.

You will never stop a black market but that doesn't mean we should simply ignore what goes on.

I think Clean97GTI is on to something here......

We need to enact a new law requiring the black market to require valid I.D. with every firearms purchase.


That will certainly reduce prohibited persons from acquiring firearms.

 

[Ivy Mike]

This is THR, so act like it.



First, the reality is there are registries maintained by many states. The data from the purchase is recorded in that registry.

I do not know the cost of a NICS check. I do pay $2 for every check in Virginia; perhaps that is tied to the Virginia check. Legislation can easily raise that cost to something that discourages gun purchases.



I am not going to argue the constitutionality of that. The fact is we're currently stuck with such laws. However, your statement presumes that the buyer is a prohibited person. This violates the history and tradition of presumption of innocence. We do not need to prove we're worthy; the state needs to prove we're not worthy. The background check is a government permission slip for a right, which is beyond the authority given to the state and Federal governments.

This is THR. Calling someone out on a silly rebuttal that doesn't address the argument should be expected. If you wish to challenge anti-gun types, you need to bring your A game.

My argument has nothing to do with a state run registry. States have the right to implement their own gun laws to a certain extent The very method I am suggesting has absolutely nothing to do with states recording gun transfers. It never enters the argument. If your state has a registry, that sucks for you but it has nothing to do with what I suggested.
The NICS check is free. If your state charges a fee (like mine does) that is also a separate issue. It would also, arguably solve that problem in that the check gets done by the DMV rather than with every gun purchase.

The proposal I made assumes nothing about the person. The proposal would draw on public record about your criminal history. Like it or not, the GCA of 68 was held to be constitutional in the matter of prohibited persons. Printz v. United States determined this. We are not dealing with a presumption of innocence. These people have already been convicted and stripped of these rights. Due process has been satisfied. The constitution protects rights but it also grants our government the ability to pass law and interpret those laws.
A background check is the best method we have of ensuring that our government can enforce the laws we have tasked it with enforcing.

 

[Ivy Mike]

a) It has 0% chance of curbing the problem.

b) In your dreams.

c) Yes, there is intrusion.

A. It has more chance than doing nothing.

B. It happened. You watched it happen

C. It is not an intrusion. It is public record. Don't want people digging into your criminal history, don't commit a crime.

 

[Sam1911]

A. Point still stands. Just because you can't make a 100% perfect law doesn't mean you shouldn't try to curb a problem.

You're still holding to the idea that keeping certain people from getting guns is something that the government a) could do, and b) SHOULD do.

I disagree, completely.

B. Don't get mad when I blow your sad argument to pieces like a Glock trying to contain a hot .40 S&W round.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. But please be assured I'm not angry with you.

C. There is no intrustion. Your criminal record is public record. If you don't want people seeing what crimes you commit, don't commit them. I never said it was a one-time check. You would be checked every time your license or ID renews by a background check system approved by lawmakers and constituents. You are required to show ID for gun purchases, like it or not. These are the laws of the land and have been upheld as constitutional.

First, "... You are required to show ID for gun purchases, like it or not." No, I'm not. Not for a certain significant type of transaction I might choose to make. One bastion left of actual freedom in how we trade in weapons. All I must do is not "know or have reason to know" that the person is prohibited. That is VERY important to preserve, now, and to reestablish for all gun sales as we are able to do so.

Second, so your state-issued ID is going to declare if you're a prohibited person, and now you're required to share/check this when you sell a gun privately.

The way things stand in the great majority of states, an intrastate sale of a firearm is NO ONE's business but the buyer's and seller's. That is right and good and proper. There is no requirement that a buyer or seller DO anything specific, check anything, see anything, or know anything about the other. The law is very specific about that. That is as it should be.

You're wanting to add a legal requirement to this, put the government's nose into it, and now introduce something that -- since it is a legal requirement -- someone can break the law for NOT doing. That's WRONG and BAD. By introducing this checking requirement you're putting a stumbling block into the path of GOOD people that will trip some of them up (there will be folks who break this law even accidentally and go to jail for it) and you're not taking even a tiny step to cause more difficulty to those people who the government allows to live next door to us, but who aren't supposed to have a gun...like, pretty please with a cherry.

As I said, it is my fervent belief that no one should have to know anything about me to buy a gun from me, and vice-versa. Add anything that is legally required and you add an element of coercion (you MUST do this thing, or else) and policing and enforcement that can be used against folks.

That is bad and wrong. As I said, you're pulling in the wrong direction.

 

[Sam1911]

The point is that requiring ID with every gun purchase gives us more chances to stop unlawful purchases instead of how it exists now where there is no framework in place to stop such purchases.

Oh... gives us more chances? The net is rotten and full of holes, so what we need is more net? Right. No thanks.

You will never stop a black market but that doesn't mean we should simply ignore what goes on.

You'll never stop the black market -- the people who DON'T follow the laws we already have? -- so you'll add even more crud in the path of the people who are trying to follow all these inane laws?

So you can feel good that you "did something?" Why is this such a fetish for our society? Do something, even if it is patently ineffectual and will end up hurting some otherwise law-abiding folks in the process?

Politicians use such cheap tricks to sucker people into voting for them. We aren't electing anyone here, so we can dispense with them.

 

[Warp]

Yea the $25 is a tad high

Actually the poster in question already acknowledged that I was right and it was an exaggeration.

Don't pretend that $25 can get you good forgeries of a person's driver license, SS card, and birth certificate.

 

[Warp]

A. It has more chance than doing nothing.

B. It happened. You watched it happen

C. It is not an intrusion. It is public record. Don't want people digging into your criminal history, don't commit a crime.

A. It has a guarantee of unnecessary intrusion with no benefit.

B. lol

C. Yes, it is an intrusion. I don't know why you keep repeating this "public record" thing, or what you are trying to deceive us into believing when you talk about a criminal record existing. All that does is make it look like you have no idea what we are talking about

 

[JRWhit]

Point still stands. Just because you can't make a 100% perfect law doesn't mean you shouldn't try to curb a problem.

Why such a drive to fix what amounts to a non problem.
This is a feel good measure that does nothing but curb the emotionalism.
Can you site any crime where firearms used where obtained from a FTF transaction? Can you site any percentage of firearms used in crimes that came from a FTF sale? What exactly is it that has you so convinced that FTF sales are a problem? The only straw man I see in this is the desire to fix a non-existent issue. This is the exact reason I maintain that legislators cannot be trusted with such erosive tasks. When charged with,"doing something", the motive quickly moves to feel good solutions that have no positive impact on our safety, and add to the burden of our day to day lives.
To suggest that the Gov would do anything without added fees or taxation is absurd. Like any good bait and switch, It may start out that way and slowly climb in cost. Not to mention the zero percent chance of getting something through congress in such a clean untouched manor. You introduce something like this on the floor of the senate, and before it gets voted on it will have every ban and hidden tax imaginable added on to it. If you are so inclined to ,"Do Something.", Do it in your state and don't suggest to force it on mine.

 

[Warp]

Why such a drive to fix what amounts to a non problem.
This is a feel good measure that does nothing but curb the emotionalism.
Can you site any crime where firearms used where obtained from a FTF transaction? Can you site any percentage of firearms used in crimes that came from a FTF sale? What exactly is it that has you so convinced that FTF sales are a problem? The only straw man I see in this is the desire to fix a non-existent issue. This is the exact reason I maintain that legislators cannot be trusted with such erosive tasks. When charged with,"doing something", the motive quickly moves to feel good solutions that have no positive impact on our safety, and add to the burden of our day to day lives.
To suggest that the Gov would do anything without added fees or taxation is absurd. Like any good bait and switch, It may start out that way and slowly climb in cost. Not to mention the zero percent chance of getting something through congress in such a clean untouched manor. You introduce something like this on the floor of the senate, and before it gets voted on it will have every ban and hidden tax imaginable added on to it. If you are so inclined to ,"Do Something.", Do it in your state and don't suggest to force it on mine.

Well put

 

[ToraBoraBlues]

I wouldn't feel any special responsibility based on what weapon type it was, but I would not sell a weapon to somebody if I even had a bad feeling about it. I've sold several guns over armslist, but if they didn't have a CCW or were not current military/LE I made them do a FFL transfer.

I know there's plenty of places criminals can get guns, but I'll not be selling a gun to some gangbanger if I can help it.

 

[Ivy Mike]

A. It has a guarantee of unnecessary intrusion with no benefit.

B. lol

C. Yes, it is an intrusion. I don't know why you keep repeating this "public record" thing, or what you are trying to deceive us into believing when you talk about a criminal record existing. All that does is make it look like you have no idea what we are talking about

A. What intrusion are you suffering? The information about your criminal history is already in the hands of the FBI. That's how NICS is performed. The "intrusion" if you can call it that is already in place.

B. Deny deny deny. Works for attorneys.

C. You can call it an intrusion all you want but we have public record for a reason. If you commit a crime, the public has a right to know. Nobody is trying to deceive you into anything. You can go out and read about how NICS works, it's right on the FBI's website.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/general-information/nics-overview
The call from the FFL goes in, the NICS attempts to match the buyer with three databases containing criminal records or other disqualifying judgements. If no match is made, the FFL is given the go-ahead to make the transfer.
Your info is ALREADY in the system if a criminal record exists and would be public record in the state where the offense occurred. You are trying to claim some intrusion or offense where none exists.

 

[Sam1911]

A. What intrusion are you suffering? The information about your criminal history is already in the hands of the FBI. That's how NICS is performed. The "intrusion" if you can call it that is already in place.

The intrusion of having -- legally being required -- to perform a function in order to transfer goods between supposedly free citizens.

B. Deny deny deny. Works for attorneys.

Believe, believe, believe. Works for the UFO watchers.

C. You can call it an intrusion all you want but we have public record for a reason.

You're missing a major part of the point. If you must, by law, do this step -- THAT's an intrusion. THAT's a step backward from freedom, and into something that can be used to HURT "good" people.

Doesn't matter if you hardly notice it most of the time, or you really don't mind it usually, or if you should just shut up and do what you're told for the betterment of society.

 

[gym]

Here is a link that came up in a second after typing in "buying stolen ID online", now this is more valuable than your license, "you can get that from another site", with this stuff you are "off to the races". Purchasing tens of thousands or dollars worth of whatever interests the thieves". But phony drivers licenses and Social security cards are easy if you have a good printer, "they do" and a laminating machine. it's been going on for decades, and Target just gave 40 million sets of ID to the guys who hacked their system, so how do you ever know who anyone is, unless you know them personally.
You don't.http://www.givemebackmycredit.com/blog/2012/01/how-stolen-data-is-bought-sold-online.html
http://www.fakeidmaster.com/novelty_fake_id_pricing.html
http://www.reallygoodfakes.com/
http://jerseys4kidscom.hubpages.com/hub/photoshop-lesson3

 

[oneounceload]

ANY law, for any reason, is an encroachment on someone's freedom-it is what a law is SUPPOSED to do. The fewer we have, the better we are not the other way around.

 

[Al Thompson]

At 167 posts, I think this one is done.