selling a gun - any feelings of responsibility?

[Ivy Mike]

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.



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




Yup!



This is an impossibility in real life. Period.



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


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.


Fantasy land. That's not real life.



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.



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.


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



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



OBJECTION! Statement is not factual.



So there is a difference.

Sorry man but you already deal with this kind of intrusion. Your argument holds no weight.
You are already subject to a background check for new guns unless you buy privately and there are many people who want to change that.

This plan gives them the universal check they want without making it harder on gun owners. This means the check has already been done and I could argue that at this point, you get less intrusion. If you buy more than one gun in four years (NV for example renews it's licenses every four) you get less intrusion.

 

[Sam1911]

BUT, it gives all of us the universal check they want. And that, in itself, is THE major flaw.

We're trying to work for POSITIVE change, here. Not heading farther into the hole.

When we're all pulling together on this stuff, it pays to make sure you're facing the right way...

 

[Sam1911]

You are already subject to a background check for new guns unless you buy privately and there are many people who want to change that.

Yes, there are indeed many people who want to change that. Striking down GCA '68 is the next step.

Then we'll tackle the NFA '34.


(Now, THAT's pulling in the right direction!)

 

[Deaf Smith]

selling a gun - any feelings of responsibility?

Do I feel responsible when I sell my car to another person (50,000 people killed on the roads with 'em)?

Do I feel responsible when I sell some booze to another person of legal age (booze kills lots of people, addicts them, and impairs their judgments)?

Do I feel responsible when I sell a knife (knives are used in murders)?

Do I feel responsible when I sell a law mower, drill, electric saw, etc.. even though people are hurt every year with them?

Now as long as the person is legal to own whatever I sell and does not seem to be crazy then NO the responsibility is up to the individual who BOUGHT the object, not the one who sold it.

I have no control once it is sold (just as anyone else.)

BTW.... you do NOT HAVE TO HAVE A DRIVERS LICENSE NOR PROOF OF INSURANCE NOR BACKGROUND CHECK TO BUY A CAR. And as long as you are 18 or 21 (depending on the state) you can buy booze, no license, no background check, no nothing.)

Deaf

 

[Ivy Mike]

BUT, it gives all of us the universal check they want. And that, in itself, is THE major flaw.

We're trying to work for POSITIVE change, here. Not heading farther into the hole.

When we're all pulling together on this stuff, it pays to make sure you're facing the right way...

What is the major flaw in preventing disqualified persons from buying guns? Especially when it doesn't pose any major burden on anyone involved?

 

[HexHead]

Clean97GTI sounds like a troll for the Brady bunch. He's so quick to appease and make it sound like a good thing.

 

[Sam1911]

What is the major flaw in preventing disqualified persons from buying guns? Especially when it doesn't pose any major burden on anyone involved?

A) Nothing does. Nothing can. Nothing will.

B) What is a prohibited person (rhetorical question) and why do we have them in society?

C) Why in the depths of hades do you think these things "don't pose a major burden on anyone involved?" I am philosophically opposed to tracking, tracing, linking, documenting, and otherwise making record of the possession and sale of firearms among private individuals. The fact that some records are kept by an entity of the government is an affront and a wrong, and A BURDEN on each of us as members of a society in need of re-acquiring its benighted freedoms.

That you would seek to make it more seamless -- more COMFORTABLE -- for citizens to wear this leash is simply insidious.

"By Jove, this poison does strike the palette like an exquisite vintage of wine! May we trouble you for another tipple?"

 

[tomrkba]

What is the major flaw in preventing disqualified persons from buying guns? Especially when it doesn't pose any major burden on anyone involved?

But it is a burden. It is a right and the background check is a permission slip to exercise the right. It check has a price--it is a tax on a right. DC and states including Connecticut and have enacted laws to entrap gun owners and are now expanding their registration requirements. Both sets of laws violate the Second Amendment and likely their state's right to keep and bear arms. They are using their registries to confiscate guns, force removal from the state and force further registration (magazines and certain rifles).

Additionally, we are supposed to have the right to bear arms without a goverment permission slip. Gun registries in New York have been put online for all to see. The Roanoke Times printed the name and address of all permit holders in Virginia. This resulted in a felon confronting his parole officer and several women were found by their violent ex-spouses.

So, yes, there are significant burdens with background checks and their associated databases.

 

[oneounceload]

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.

 

[Warp]

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?

What on earth are you talking about?

I must have missed where he said anything even remotely suggesting that those people shouldn't have a gun.

 

[Warp]

Sorry man but you already deal with this kind of intrusion. Your argument holds no weight.
You are already subject to a background check for new guns unless you buy privately and there are many people who want to change that.

This plan gives them the universal check they want without making it harder on gun owners. This means the check has already been done and I could argue that at this point, you get less intrusion. If you buy more than one gun in four years (NV for example renews it's licenses every four) you get less intrusion.

No. You don't. I certainly don't.

I get one background check every ~5 years when I acquire my Weapons Carry License. That's it.

 

[ChCx2744]

To answer the OP's question:

In my state of residence, the law does not require me to do a background check or whatever on the person I'm selling a gun to. I can simply do a face-to-face transaction, but I will still claim liability if I knowingly sell the gun to a prohibited person. That being said, even if I don't have to do anything, I still print out a personally-typed firearm bill of sale and record the person's information on it. If the person refuses to provide me with the information, I simply back out of the deal. Nobody has refused my bill of sale information request, though. None of my previous sales have come back to bite me in the southboudn end, either.

 

[oneounceload]

And that BOS has no legal weight or value, wet it exposes both of to identity theft.

 

[itsa pain]

Do I feel responsible when I sell my car to another person (50,000 people killed on the roads with 'em)?

Do I feel responsible when I sell some booze to another person of legal age (booze kills lots of people, addicts them, and impairs their judgments)?

Do I feel responsible when I sell a knife (knives are used in murders)?

Do I feel responsible when I sell a law mower, drill, electric saw, etc.. even though people are hurt every year with them?

Now as long as the person is legal to own whatever I sell and does not seem to be crazy then NO the responsibility is up to the individual who BOUGHT the object, not the one who sold it.

I have no control once it is sold (just as anyone else.)

BTW.... you do NOT HAVE TO HAVE A DRIVERS LICENSE NOR PROOF OF INSURANCE NOR BACKGROUND CHECK TO BUY A CAR. And as long as you are 18 or 21 (depending on the state) you can buy booze, no license, no background check, no nothing.)

Deaf

Beautiful post could not be said any better and anybody that wants a guy to jump thru hoops and prove he is Dudley Do Right to buy a gun is sadly misguided and should join sarah bradys group who started all of this background checking

 

[Ivy Mike]

What on earth are you talking about?

I must have missed where he said anything even remotely suggesting that those people shouldn't have a gun.

He said we should keep disqualified persons locked up thus eliminating the possibility of selling a weapon to such a person.

I want to know the reasoning behind keeping a non-violent felon locked up. How long? Indefinitely?

 

[Ivy Mike]

A) Nothing does. Nothing can. Nothing will.

B) What is a prohibited person (rhetorical question) and why do we have them in society?

C) Why in the depths of hades do you think these things "don't pose a major burden on anyone involved?" I am philosophically opposed to tracking, tracing, linking, documenting, and otherwise making record of the possession and sale of firearms among private individuals. The fact that some records are kept by an entity of the government is an affront and a wrong, and A BURDEN on each of us as members of a society in need of re-acquiring its benighted freedoms.

That you would seek to make it more seamless -- more COMFORTABLE -- for citizens to wear this leash is simply insidious.

"By Jove, this poison does strike the palette like an exquisite vintage of wine! May we trouble you for another tipple?"

a. Because a solution isn't perfect doesn't mean we should give up trying.

b. A prohibited person is someone who has had their right to arms stripped after due process.

c. Nobody suggested keeping track of the arms sale. In fact, the proposal I made has no provisions for such a thing. The only change is now the DMV would access your criminal record which is public record. That status would go on your license or state ID. A potential seller would simply be required to ask for ID from a buyer. No visit to a police station. No 4473 form. Nothing. The background check happens once every few years. The seller doesn't get any other personal information and is not required to keep any records. Read what I said next time.

 

[Sam1911]

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?

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.

 

[Russian Hammer]

A question for those of you who only sell to CCW permit holders. Say you were selling a handgun FTF to someone 18-20 years old who could legally purchase handguns in FTF transactions, but could not get a CCW in the state you are in, would you accept an approved form 1 in place of the carry permit? Just wondering as I've used an approved form 1 in that manner before.

 

[Ivy Mike]

But it is a burden. It is a right and the background check is a permission slip to exercise the right. It check has a price--it is a tax on a right. DC and states including Connecticut and have enacted laws to entrap gun owners and are now expanding their registration requirements. Both sets of laws violate the Second Amendment and likely their state's right to keep and bear arms. They are using their registries to confiscate guns, force removal from the state and force further registration (magazines and certain rifles).

Additionally, we are supposed to have the right to bear arms without a goverment permission slip. Gun registries in New York have been put online for all to see. The Roanoke Times printed the name and address of all permit holders in Virginia. This resulted in a felon confronting his parole officer and several women were found by their violent ex-spouses.

So, yes, there are significant burdens with background checks and their associated databases.

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.

 

[IBEWBULL]

What the heck?
Don't sell to weird people , strangers, liberals or nut cases.

There is no way you or anyone can see the future.

Look at the folks we vote into office. and went wako on a power trip then end up millionaires.

So seller or voters use your power of discernment.

 

[Ivy Mike]

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?

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.

That is an argument for a different thread. People can petition for their rights to be restored.
You are talking about a philosophical point in law but one that doesn't come into play right now. If you think full restoration of rights should occur on release, then that is fine. You can make a valid argument for that BUT that is not how things work right now.

Your other argument doesn't really follow either. It amounts to the idea that if we can't guarantee 100% compliance with the law, we shouldn't enact said law.
Well, good luck with that. Law is reactive by nature. The law exists to set a standard and carries a cooresponding punishment. The punishment is the deterrent but it doesn't always work as evidenced by all the people in prison.
What this does is set a standard for checking that prospective gun buyers meet the criteria for such a purchase. Yes I realize it isn't going to catch them all and that's OK. No law is perfect. People still speed. People still run lights and steal things.

We have punishments to try to correct those types.

 

[Sam1911]

a. Because a solution isn't perfect doesn't mean we should give up trying.

How about YOU read what I said next time? NOTHING will. That meas nothing, like not at all. Not "keep trying."

Winners never quit, and quitters never win, but if you never win and never quit, you're just an idiot ... or in this case distracting a disinterested public into endorsing bad law that further encroaches on our freedoms.

b. A prohibited person is someone who has had their right to arms stripped after due process.

As I said, a rhetorical question. And also, a pleasant fallacy we tell the good folks out in TV land so they don't mind either a) the failure of the "criminal justice" system to accomplish anything or b)the recent releasee who just moved in next door...but don't worry, he isn't allowed to own guns. <Snicker>

c. Nobody suggested keeping track of the arms sale. In fact, the proposal I made has no provisions for such a thing. The only change is now the DMV would access your criminal record which is public record. That status would go on your license or state ID. A potential seller would simply be required to ask for ID from a buyer. No visit to a police station. No 4473 form. Nothing. The background check happens once every few years. The seller doesn't get any other personal information and is not required to keep any records.

This is a pointless intrusion, and -- for all the protestations -- proves almost nothing about the buyer. You once got a clean bill-o-health? How about we go back to simple transactions unencumbered by such bureaucratic meddling? Where I'm not required to show you squat and you aren't required to prove squat to me? I don't particularly care to show my personal ID to just anyone I might be buying a gun from, thanks. And I don't want to see theirs.

 

[Sam1911]

Your other argument doesn't really follow either. It amounts to the idea that if we can't guarantee 100% compliance with the law, we shouldn't enact said law.

Actually, my point was that we shouldn't enact said law.

The fact that we can't even pretend to guarantee a modicum of compliance with it is merely something useful to point at when illustrating the practicalities to those who've not thought that hard about it before.

 

[Ivy Mike]

How about YOU read what I said next time? NOTHING will. That meas nothing, like not at all. Not "keep trying."

Winners never quit, and quitters never win, but if you never win and never quit, you're just an idiot ... or in this case distracting a disinterested public into endorsing bad law that further encroaches on our freedoms.

As I said, a rhetorical question. And also, a pleasant fallacy we tell the good folks out in TV land so they don't mind either a) the failure of the "criminal justice" system to accomplish anything or b)the recent releasee who just moved in next door...but don't worry, he isn't allowed to own guns. <Snicker>

This is a pointless intrusion, and -- for all the protestations -- proves almost nothing about the buyer. You once got a clean bill-o-health? How about we go back to simple transactions unencumbered by such bureaucratic meddling? Where I'm not required to show you squat and you aren't required to prove squat to me? I don't particularly care to show my personal ID to just anyone I might be buying a gun from, thanks. And I don't want to see theirs.

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.

 

[Ivy Mike]

Actually, my point was that we shouldn't enact said law.

The fact that we can't even pretend to guarantee a modicum of compliance with it is merely something useful to point at when illustrating the practicalities to those who've not thought that hard about it before.

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.