Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Thoughts on Background Checks for private sales?

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by Sgt.Murtaugh, Dec 14, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Sgt.Murtaugh

    Sgt.Murtaugh Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2010
    Messages:
    245
    I'd like to hear everyone's opinion on laws that may require private gun sales to be contingent upon background checks of the buyer. In other words, if I - a private seller - were to sell a gun to a friend/acquaintance, I would have to have a background check run on that person before the sale could be completed. I have no idea if laws like this are being proposed (I'm sure they have been) but I do know that I don't want any guns winding up in the hands of someone who shouldn't legally own one. The reason I bring this up is because of this story (linked below) where the Brady Campaign is suing Armslist.com because a gun was illegally purchased on that website and was later used in a murder.

    What are your thoughts on this and what does this lawsuit potentially mean for gun owners?

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...nline-gun-seller-narrow-loophoole-in-law.html
     
  2. mcdonl

    mcdonl Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2008
    Messages:
    3,228
    Location:
    Southern Maine
    They are proposed all the time. They call this the gunshow loophole....

    FTF sales in Maine are off the books and that is how I prefer to buy my guns.
     
  3. USAF_Vet

    USAF_Vet Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2011
    Messages:
    5,773
    Location:
    Hastings, Michigan
    The lawsuit itself is frivolous. The seller violated Armslist terms of use, so Armslist itself is not liable for any damages that incurred from the unlawful sale.

    Regarding back ground checks on private sales: NO!
    I am free to sell my private property, be it a gun, a car, or my old underwear. The onus is on the buyer. I am under no obligation to sell my property to anyone. Forcing background checks on private sales will force buyers and sellers to incur additional costs (I don't exactly have the information to call in a NICS report myself), so it wod have to be done via FFL. No FFL is going to do that for free, so they charge an FFL transfer fee.

    More infringement is not what we need for our already overly infringed right to keep and bear arms.
     
  4. Shadow 7D

    Shadow 7D Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2008
    Messages:
    7,005
    Location:
    Frozen North
    Um, the brady bunch has a MAJOR clue,
    the do crap like that as a fundraising scheme
    Armalist will be out to defend themselves (and hopefully can recoup the cost from the gun grabbers in the end)

    It's a harassment tactic
    it's fundraising for them to plea for more cash so they can 'keep important cases going'
    it's fodder for their newsletter (if you don't mind your info being sold...)
     
  5. Sgt.Murtaugh

    Sgt.Murtaugh Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2010
    Messages:
    245
    yes I realize the brady campaign has not a leg to stand on and the onus is on the buyer, but some of it is on the seller, too, in my opinion. If these sellers are knowingly selling to a felon/mentally ill person, I have a problem with that.
     
  6. mgkdrgn

    mgkdrgn Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2008
    Messages:
    3,914
    Location:
    Lexington, SC
    The background check system can =barely= keep up with the demands from FFL's ... that "allegedly" know how to use it.

    Setting every Tom Dick and Harry on that system would bring it to it's knees (for EVERYBODY) in an instant.
     
  7. NavyLCDR

    NavyLCDR member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,691
    Location:
    Stanwood, WA
    Why limit it to guns? Why not any object that can be used as a weapon? Knives? Baseball bats? Pointed sticks? Walking canes? Vehicles? How about ammunition?

    How about instead of regulating the seller of the item, instead we make it a crime to use a firearm to commit a criminal act with and make it a crime to knowingly conspire to enable a person to commit a criminal act with a gun.
     
  8. mgkdrgn

    mgkdrgn Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2008
    Messages:
    3,914
    Location:
    Lexington, SC
    And making a -new- law that makes that illegal, on top of the -current- laws that make that illegal, will help the situation how, exactly?

    Time that people come to the earth shattering realization that laws DEFINE crimes, they do not PREVENT them.

    Plus ... according to FBI stats ... you know what was (and has been for some time) the most used weapon in murders and assaults?

    A baseball bat.

    Want to save lives? Ban baseball bats.
     
  9. Sgt.Murtaugh

    Sgt.Murtaugh Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2010
    Messages:
    245
    Would anyone in here honestly sell a gun to someone they knew to be a felon? how 'bout if the guy was your friend and you know he's a good guy but had a felony drug charge on his record?

    I don't think anyone here would do that.
     
  10. Sgt.Murtaugh

    Sgt.Murtaugh Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2010
    Messages:
    245
    link to FBI stats?
     
  11. Skribs

    Skribs Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2010
    Messages:
    5,807
    Location:
    Lakewood, Washington
    I used to think they were a good idea. Then I asked this question here and changed my mind. I can't remember which mod it was (maybe Art?) but there was a very good argument for why background checks AT ALL are a bad idea.

    Basically, it boils down to these issues:
    1) There is literally NO WAY to enforce regulations on FTF sales, meaning criminals will still be able to get guns that way.
    2) Most mass shootings are done by people with no prior criminal record.
    3) We are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. So why do we have to prove our innocence every time we buy a constitutionally-guaranteed weapon? Do we have to prove our innocence to prevent search & seizure? Do we have to prove our innocence to write a newspaper article?
    4) As with all gun control, block access to guns and they'll use other weapons of opportunity.
    5) People who really shouldn't have weapons shouldn't be allowed in public. That's why we have prisons. Stop filling the prisons with people who were arrested for victimless crimes, and start filling them with violent offenders.
     
  12. Leanwolf

    Leanwolf Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2006
    Messages:
    2,115
    Location:
    Idaho
    California passed a law requiring not only background checks for all private sales and transfers, but the gun had to go through a licenced gun store/dealer. This was about 18 or so years ago. (I lived there at that time.)

    So far, it has not reduced violent crime at all. But it has made it much harder and expensive for honest citizens to sell their firearms, or to buy from a private party. Plus it costs them money to do background checks and transfers.

    For some strange reason, the criminals haven't bothered to obey the law.

    But, it made all the left liberal gun grabbers happy and they felt sooooooo good. You know, wallowing in all their "good intentions." Nevermind it was ineffective and just a burden on honest citizens.

    L.W.
     
  13. NavyLCDR

    NavyLCDR member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,691
    Location:
    Stanwood, WA
  14. BaltimoreBoy

    BaltimoreBoy Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2009
    Messages:
    246
    Sgt.: Consider - do you want to have to do a background check when transferring a firearm to your son, daughter, or brother? And rest assured every transfer would be deemed subject to the requirement.

    The real purpose of any such law is not to prevent the 'unfit' from getting hold of guns. It is to systematically build a registration database through the back door.

    Also: the trick here is to offer 'enhanced safety' in exchange for a loss of privacy. But--there is no enhanced safety. Surely the repetitive shootings in places with 'excellent' gun control laws have demonstrated this fact beyond all possible dispute.
     
  15. Sgt.Murtaugh

    Sgt.Murtaugh Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2010
    Messages:
    245
    of all those things listed, #3 is the best one, and all I really need to combat the argument. I do however, fear that this lawsuit will set a horrible precedent and I won't be able to use the gun sites I love to shop on because of it. that's what i am afraid of
     
  16. Sgt.Murtaugh

    Sgt.Murtaugh Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2010
    Messages:
    245
  17. NavyLCDR

    NavyLCDR member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,691
    Location:
    Stanwood, WA
    I disagree. I think the real purpose of any such law is so that a politician can stand up and declare that they are doing something to keed the sheep safe and the majority of people who vote will believe them. In reality it is insane to think that a law prohibiting a person from possessing a certain type of firearm is going to be obeyed by the same person who will take that same firearm to the mall and shoot strangers with it.

    In reality, the only thing that such a law will accomplish is to keep the law abiding citizen from using the banned firearm for legal and enjoyable sporting and self defense purposes.
     
  18. CoRoMo

    CoRoMo Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2007
    Messages:
    8,953
    Location:
    Californicated Colorado
    I suggest that you only transfer firearms to private buyers through a licensed dealer. But please don't force that protocol upon your fellow gun owners by supporting legislation that would require so.
    Me too, but that is already against the law and they can be punished for it. Tis a good example of a gun law that only controlled those who would obey it, but the criminals never gave a moment's thought to abiding by it. So please don't support gun control laws that would hinder the law abiding gun owners just because of the non-law abiding gun owners. Those non-law abiding gun owners won't follow any new law that would require background checks in private sales if they are the type to knowingly sell to a felon in the first place.
    Nope. You are amongst law abiding gun owners here. If it were required by law to jump through the NICS/4473 hoop for private sells, we'd all do that, but those criminals who would knowingly sell a gun to a felon would not follow that law, thus it would have prevented jack squat.

    Please do not support such legislation.
     
    Last edited: Dec 14, 2012
  19. Coop45

    Coop45 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    815
    Location:
    Texas
    After "Fast and Furious", maybe the seller should have to go through the background check.
     
  20. NavyLCDR

    NavyLCDR member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,691
    Location:
    Stanwood, WA
    And only a small percentage of murders are committed using "assault weapons" opposite of what the anti-gun crowd claims. Most are committed with your average, ordinary standard capacity, standard caliber handgun with less than 10 shots fired.

    Heck in 2010 there were only 358 murders committed with any type of rifle....

    and since 2006 the number of murders committed with any type of rifle has gone down every year, except there were 7 more in 2010 compared to 2009. But we need an assault weapon ban why? Background checks on private sales would be just as useless as an assault weapon ban.
     
    Last edited: Dec 14, 2012
  21. Sgt.Murtaugh

    Sgt.Murtaugh Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2010
    Messages:
    245
    word.

    I would like to make it clear that I do not support these legislative actions, but that I fear they may be coming because of cases like the one I linked. I was just hoping to get some perspective on where my fellow gun owners stand on this.

    As I said before, the seller in the story is in jail so *** else could they possibly want? the law did it's job in that case.
     
  22. medalguy

    medalguy Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2009
    Messages:
    3,217
    Location:
    New Mexico
    Listening to the local blood and gore report at 10, it seems that more people are killed with pool sticks and broken beer bottles than anything else. Details at 10, tune in.

    Maybe requiring a NICS type check when selling a car would reduce the number of DUI murders too.....
     
  23. mg.mikael

    mg.mikael Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2009
    Messages:
    306
    Location:
    Chicagoland
    Somebody's tin-foil hat is abit too tight.
     
  24. Skribs

    Skribs Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2010
    Messages:
    5,807
    Location:
    Lakewood, Washington
    One good thing I can say about the NICS/4473 process is that it was a wake-up call. See, every time I bought a new gun, I would have to put a different number in one specific field, and I'm not talking about the date or serial number. So, thanks to the federal requirements and my gun purchases, I have finally decided to cut 95% of the fast food from my diet and start going to the gym more. Maybe next time I can put a SMALLER number in that field!
     
  25. Ryanxia

    Ryanxia Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2010
    Messages:
    4,451
    Location:
    'MURICA!
    Making private sales require a background check = gun registration.

    Also, the current system should be a background check to buy from an FFL but without the particular gun information attached, if they pass they pass.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page