selling a gun - any feelings of responsibility?

[tuj]

thanks for your responses, even those of you who decided to flame me.

we're all fellow shooters here, let's just remember that.

 

[gym]

Warp do a search on how CC info gets sold online than come back and tell me if you understand it or not. There are hundreds of sites that sell "packages" for as little as $5 dollars, online. Just because you don't know about it doesn't make it less true. Ask a Fed or a cop in the fraud division , "if you know one".
Onnceoflead is back holding on to the bumpers of passing cars as usual.
The trade of stolen ID is a huge multi billion dollar business, How did you think it worked. Better yet ask your banker next time you are in the bank. I had a 3d party added to my bank accounts with no notification until I got a 15 dollar charge for a new cc. Upon looking at my transactions there was a posted charge to Wall-mart in Nebraska for $18,500, and 2000 in Chicago, before you start smelling fish, go educate yourself on how identity fraud works. Anyone who knows a bit about hacking can get every piece of Id you have.
If they have the stones to walk into a bank in another state posing as you, knowing that they are on camera, and also in Wall-Mart, do you really think that giving you phony documents for a simple no check pistol transaction is beyond the reach of organized gangs who do this all over the world.
Here is the first one that came up, do a search if you don't know what's going on.
http://krebsonsecurity.com/2013/10/experian-sold-consumer-data-to-id-theft-service/
An identity theft service that sold Social Security and drivers license numbers — as well as bank account and credit card data on millions of Americans — purchased much of its data from Experian, one of the three major credit bureaus, according to a lengthy investigation by KrebsOnSecurity.Sorry Sam didn't see that till afterwards. Just astounds me how naïve some folks are.

 

[DammitBoy]

I believe this is a bit of an exaggeration

You are correct. It takes at least $100 to get an entire set of fake ID and about two days wait time on average.

I've seen hundreds of Latinos do it for several decades..

 

[Warp]

I'd rather listen to the moderators and not continue the discussion.

If it's that important to you, PM me

 

[benEzra]

.22 pistols, and shotguns, are used in a whole lot more robberies and murders than AK's and AR's are.

 

[tarosean]

I prefer trades to outright sales, so I know they already have a firearm (legal or not)

 

[texasgun]

I ONLY sell to folks who have a concealed license and can show a DL ...
I've sold 2 guns so far to nice guys, met in a public place, chatted a bit and they showed me their concealed licenses and DL and handed over the $.

the whole "a handshake is all I need" mentality drives me nuts :banghead:
way to go and make it easier for bad guys to get guns...

the car analogy is stupid because a car needs to be registered which requires proof of insurance etc. I certainly would NOT sell my car to person Y if I had the feeling he's an alcoholic and will drive my car without insurance through my neighborhood on a daily basis....

 

[tarosean]

the car analogy is stupid because a car needs to be registered which requires proof of insurance etc.

your incorrect... The only reason a vehicle needs to be registered and have insurance is if your going to operate it on a public road.

 

[theotherwaldo]

Forget the car analogy. The first car that I drove by myself had a shiny green 1924 California plate and hadn't been registered since Coolidge was president.

That first drive was in 1964.

Selling and registering are two different things.

 

[Warp]

I ONLY sell to folks who have a concealed license and can show a DL ...
I've sold 2 guns so far to nice guys, met in a public place, chatted a bit and they showed me their concealed licenses and DL and handed over the $.

the whole "a handshake is all I need" mentality drives me nuts :banghead:
way to go and make it easier for bad guys to get guns...

the car analogy is stupid because a car needs to be registered which requires proof of insurance etc. I certainly would NOT sell my car to person Y if I had the feeling he's an alcoholic and will drive my car without insurance through my neighborhood on a daily basis....

Not all cars have to be registered

Criminals don't always register cars even if they are supposed to.

 

[JRWhit]

What timing. I walked from a sale yesterday as alarm bells were going off in my head and my gut was screaming. It's a shame too. I already had a replacement picked out, but if you had the feeling I had, you wouldn't have sold either.

 

[jim243]

The only sales I make are to friends that I have known for many, many years. All other sales are done to a FFL dealer. So no I have no guilt about selling a firearm.

Jim

 

[76shuvlinoff]

I only have sold/bought guns privately a couple ways. Sold a revolver thru THR here that shipped to an FFL in another state. Background check or no it's not on me. Once I bought a sweet lever carbine here from a guy and his wife and we met in a very public place.

All other sales and horse trading have been to long time friends that know guns and know what they are getting. As far as I am concerned those sales are no more different than me selling a hammer.

Me selling FTF to a complete stranger is not likely to happen, if it does it will follow the letter of law then I am done with it.

Edit to add: Not that I would do it but if I sold someone a dog with a personality disorder and a history of bad behavior I would have some weight on my conscious. If I sell an inanimate object to what appears to be a responsible adult the world keeps turning along fine. We just had a local cop busted for selling drugs, he showed up to the sale in uniform and armed. I bet he passed the background check.


.

 

[The Lone Haranguer]

I follow the law when I sell a firearm. I don't have to sell to someone I'm not comfortable with, I guess, but just how do you expect me, a private citizen without a FFL, to run a background check? NICS isn't available to me.

 

[itsa pain]

I can see that gun owners have bought into the myth created by the antis where getting killed or wounded by a gun is much worse and put into a special class then getting run over by a train, electrocuted, drowning, falling 30 floors, tortured to death, dying from rat poison, getting torn to shreds from farm implements etc. Putting guns in a class of suitcase nukes is falling for the trap they have set. Cars kill 38000 people yet now one here would care if they sold a car to a guy who ran into a school bus full of kids forcing it of an embankment. A gun owner would say it is not my responsibility what happened after I sold the car and would be right

 

[gdcpony]

I feel the same thing I feel when I sell a car or motorcycle or even chainsaw. I once sold a car to a guy who couldn't drive stick. I spent hours teaching him, riding around with him, and even drove it 2 hours to his place so he wouldn't wreck it on the way. I have done the same with a saw too (personally a lot more dangerous than a gun if you ask me). I keep my bikes, but I tend to be involved in other sales. There I have been known to use my own bikes to teach the new guy who has only BRC to keep him alive on the road.

A firearm is the same to me. My responsibility is simply to be sure the guy knows what he is buying and the risks associated with it. That is my chief concern.

I am not responsible for criminal acts afterwards. I cannot stop that. If I have a hint that their intentions are such, I will not sell. That is the most I can do.

I think that we all have our personal views on our level and type of responsibility. I won't call foul on how others feel on the issue. So long as you are not intentionally supplying criminals that is.

 

[Ivy Mike]

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.

This is where the universal background check should come in. The DMV in your state should put a simple indicator on your drivers license or other state ID that says either FIREARMS OK or NO FIREARMS. The DMV will perform the background check with the current NICS system.

This would have the background check performed every time the license comes up for renewal so the status of a person could be updated. Should someone commit a crime worthy of stripping their right to own guns, the old license would be confiscated and when the person gets out of jail or completes their punishment, a new license with the NO FIREARMS tag would be issued.

The only requirement on the part of the seller is to simply ask to see ID. No need to call NICS or the cops or appear somewhere in person. No need to record a transaction.

Check ID
See FIREARMS OK
Complete sale

Sure a few people would subvert the law but they do that now anyway. You're never going to get rid of a black market.
This would at least serve to catch a few more and prevent sales without any real burden on the part of the private seller.

 

[Warp]

This is where the universal background check should come in. The DMV in your state should put a simple indicator on your drivers license or other state ID that says either FIREARMS OK or NO FIREARMS. The DMV will perform the background check with the current NICS system.

This would have the background check performed every time the license comes up for renewal so the status of a person could be updated. Should someone commit a crime worthy of stripping their right to own guns, the old license would be confiscated and when the person gets out of jail or completes their punishment, a new license with the NO FIREARMS tag would be issued.

The only requirement on the part of the seller is to simply ask to see ID. No need to call NICS or the cops or appear somewhere in person. No need to record a transaction.

Check ID
See FIREARMS OK
Complete sale

Sure a few people would subvert the law but they do that now anyway. You're never going to get rid of a black market.
This would at least serve to catch a few more and prevent sales without any real burden on the part of the private seller.

So now you can't buy a gun privately unless you hold a valid driver license?

 

[Ivy Mike]

So now you can't buy a gun privately unless you hold a valid driver license?

or some other state issued ID.

 

[oneounceload]

This is where the universal background check should come in. The DMV in your state should put a simple indicator on your drivers license or other state ID that says either FIREARMS OK or NO FIREARMS. The DMV will perform the background check with the current NICS system.

This would have the background check performed every time the license comes up for renewal so the status of a person could be updated. Should someone commit a crime worthy of stripping their right to own guns, the old license would be confiscated and when the person gets out of jail or completes their punishment, a new license with the NO FIREARMS tag would be issued.

Why do you want even MORE gov't intrusion into your private life by some anti-gun desk jockey from the feds? SERIOUSLY?

Man you have a LOT to learn about freedom and responsibility

 

[Ivy Mike]

Why do you want even MORE gov't intrusion into your private life by some anti-gun desk jockey from the feds? SERIOUSLY?

Man you have a LOT to learn about freedom and responsibility

What are you talking about? The proposal I outlined would utilize existing systems. That is part of the attraction is that the only government agency that actually has to do anything new is the DMV and they aren't the decision maker. The FBI with NICS is still the go/no-go agency. The DMV is simply responsible for checking before they put the OK or NOT OK on your ID or DL card. In theory, it wouldn't even cost any more.

There is nothing new here and I manage to do it with no extra burden on the seller. It costs them nothing to ask for ID nor does it require they go anywhere or meet any government agency.

-edit- in fact, this kind of pisses me off.

As it stands now, you can completely avoid any kind of background check by buying privately. Not ideal when we task our government with the job of keeping guns away from those deemed (by due process mind you) unfit.
You have to pass a background check to buy from a dealer. Why not when buying from a private citizen?
The systems used to perform these checks have been in place for decades. They are paid for so to speak. They work.
Why not automate the process a bit? Without any extra money spent, you could speed the process up for buying at a dealer and at the same time subject private sales to the same scrutiny.
AND you need only ask the seller to say "let me see your ID."
Nothing else is different at the point of sale and the check is already done. Most importantly, this gives the anti-gun folks a concession they can be proud of without actually screwing with law abiding gun owners. They get their universal checks. You get no additional intrusion. There is no difference in your experience other than having to pull your drivers license out along with the cash instead of just pulling out the cash.

 

[jerkface11]

How about we keep the people who shouldn't have guns locked up? Then you know the guy you're selling to can't be prohibited.

 

[DammitBoy]

Not ideal when we task our government with the job of keeping guns away from those deemed (by due process mind you) unfit.
You have to pass a background check to buy from a dealer. Why not when buying from a private citizen?

Why do you find that acceptable? Our founders did not find it acceptable. I task my government with adhering to the constitution.

Not with ignoring it for efficiencies sake.

 

[Warp]

What are you talking about? The proposal I outlined would utilize existing systems.

So what if it uses existing systems?

It's still more federal government involvement in your personal life and private transactions. It using existing systems does not in any way contradict what he said.

That is part of the attraction is that the only government agency that actually has to do anything new is the DMV

And I would argue it goes beyond using existing systems if the DMV has to get involved with a new-to-them system.

-edit- in fact, this kind of pisses me off.

As it stands now, you can completely avoid any kind of background check by buying privately.

Yup!

Not ideal when we task our government with the job of keeping guns away from those deemed (by due process mind you) unfit.

This is an impossibility in real life. Period.

You have to pass a background check to buy from a dealer. Why not when buying from a private citizen?

Because the federal government does not belong in our private transactions or in our lives at this level.

The systems used to perform these checks have been in place for decades. They are paid for so to speak. They work.

They cost money to maintain, man, and run every day. And the more load you put on it, the more it is going to cost to run it. Period.

Why not automate the process a bit? Without any extra money spent

Fantasy land. That's not real life.

you could speed the process up for buying at a dealer and at the same time subject private sales to the same scrutiny.

I don't see how the process could be sped up at the dealer. Especially for people like me where no phone call even has to be made, since I havea state issue carry license and no NICS check needs to be done just because I am buying an addition gun.

AND you need only ask the seller to say "let me see your ID."

If you really want to, you can do that right now by asking for a carry license or FOID or whatever you want. You can even stipulate that you only sell to people who will go to an FFL and complete the transaction with a 4473 and NICS check if you want. Your choice/buyer's choice.

Nothing else is different at the point of sale

For a private sale mandating this extra step of government is a difference in the point of sale.

Most importantly, this gives the anti-gun folks a concession they can be proud of without actually screwing with law abiding gun owners.

The anti-gun folks cannot be appeased, and donig something to make them happy is IMO stupid.

They get their universal checks. You get no additional intrusion.

OBJECTION! Statement is not factual.

There is no difference in your experience other than having to pull your drivers license out along with the cash instead of just pulling out the cash.

So there is a difference.

 

[Ivy Mike]

How about we keep the people who shouldn't have guns locked up? Then you know the guy you're selling to can't be prohibited.

How long do you think you should lock up someone for insurance fraud? How about the guy who gets caught with just a little too much weed?