Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by Curator, Aug 12, 2019.
That said, I applaud your approach to the challenge of being comfortable with a F2F sale, and confirming that each sale is truly intrastate.
The second is the misconception that gun-control advocates would let us have anything that does us good. Any proposed system would end up being poisoned or used against us.
Given that nobody has been able to show any kind of strong correlation between background checks and a reduction in crime, it's safe to say the original system is broken and useless. I don't understand why people would want to expand it.
Perhaps I haven't had an issue because I strictly filter who I'll reply to on Armslist. . . if you can't spell, I can't see answering you.
In my experience at Virginia gun shows, the State Police background check table is a very lonely place. There seems to be a built-in distrust of these checks. If I was selling a gun to an individual, I would probably use the service. But, that would probably lose me the customer. I would more likely just sell the gun to a dealer, and be done with it.
The State Police voluntary background check provision was part of a "grand compromise" on guns, after the state tried to severely restrict carry reciprocity with other states. Setting up this system was part of the price to get full reciprocity restored. The reason the antigunners agreed to this is that they saw it as a trial run for when the system is made mandatory. Still, if a UBC is adopted at the federal level, the state system, even if mandatory, would give Virginia residents an advantage in that: (a) it would be free, and (b) no record of the gun would be kept. That assumes that the federal UBC would be FFL-based, but that states could opt out of it if they had their own equivalent system.
AlexanderA points out a compromise - OMG!
Having sold a few guns on Armslist and at gun shows, I have noticed that when I say "I will need to see a KY driver's license or some other proof you are a resident" that I get fewer responses. To me that means I'm either driving away prohibited persons or the super-paranoid. I'm fine not selling a gun to either. Asking a guy if he's willing to let you run a background check might be a good screening question even if you don't end up actually doing it.
Just as an aside, one of the nastiest PMs I've ever received anywhere was here, and it was about the topic of asking people to see an ID when doing a private gun transaction. Some people get really torqued up about this topic.
I have no interest helping a restricted individual obtain a gun.
If the buyer doesn’t like that, so be it. Look elsewhere.
BTW, in MN, the FFL has to take possession, log it in the bound book, and hold it for 3 days before they can release it to the buyer.
My understanding is that if you use this voluntary check and you pass that by law no permanent record is allowed. The records are to be destroyed. My question is what if they don't? Who is going to enforce the law against the Virginia State Police?
Enforcement of the law is the option of the executive branch of the government. I suppose you could complain to the Governor or the Attorney General. I wonder how that would go?
In general the view of a government's executive branch toward law is much like that of a grocery shopper. You use those you like and allow the others to collect dust on the shelves. If you don't like how your government's executive branch uses or ignores a law, your solution is political and almost never civil or criminal. A bureaucracy tends to view law and its language as a thing of personal convenience, to be used, interpreted, or ignored as they see fit.
At times, even the courts have limited influence. Andrew Jackson was famous for asking after he lost his case in the Supreme Court against the Cherokee Nation, "How many troops does Justice Marshall have?"
I don't think the Virginia State Police are interested in compiling any more records than they are absolutely mandated to do. I'll give you an example. The State Police are charged with administering the Virginia Uniform Machine Gun Act, under which all machine guns in the state are required to be registered with them. A few years ago, they decided to verify their records. They sent me a letter listing all the machine guns they thought I had, asking me to verify the list. Well, it was a complete mess. They listed guns I didn't have, and failed to list guns I did have (all of which had been duly registered). I sent them the corrected list -- but never heard back from them.
Those who think the government is a well-oiled machine are greatly mistaken.
From what I see, there are a lot of super-paranoid people in the gun world (probably for good reason). The antigunners are stoking this paranoia, by constantly floating ideas such as draconian "assault weapon" bans, that would cover most semiautomatics and their magazines. Ironically, the antigunners are thus making proposals like universal background checks less likely to be enacted. They have really jumped the shark in the last year or two.
It's good to have this kind of direct information.
I've been in the background check biz--it's extreemely easy to get wrong, and if you find an error, it's Somebody Else's Problem and therefore invisible.
Even if it were just a call to the existing NICS, I wouldn't rely on that, either, not with it--presently--only being from 50-75% accurate as is.
There's an intermediate area in which a background check for FTF sales would not be mandated, but would be incentivized. (The carrot approach rather than the stick approach.) For example, if the gun was later misused, a seller who did a voluntary background check would be immune from civil liability. In addition, roadblocks such as fees would be waived.
But such creative ideas could have been proposed at an earlier stage, when the political forces surrounding guns were in closer balance. It's undoubtedly too late now, when we're about to get the worst possible system forced down our throats. (That is, an FFL-based BGC system with fees, 4473 forms, and entries in dealers' bound books.)
But only for politicians running for office in order to weed out any anti-freedom tyrants.
I'm sore afraid it's been "too late" for far too long.
And, it's equally sad that, if all we get is a limited-access phone-it-in-yourself NICS check only at gun shows, in non-POC, non-FOID States, that would have be counted as a "great victory."
Or, if it's a "toothless" all-non-FFL-trasnactions NICS check (a version of which is in the Senate, IIRC).
Now, were it politically feasible, your original idea, of a blind sign-in web access to NICS were available, I think that would get a lot of use. One that would be better if we could get the 14 States who have sent no information to NICS reduced by, oh, half.
The tech is not the problem, I could write a structured SQL query macro that would do everything the phone operator currently does--in milliseconds, not minutes. And, I'm a crusty old fart who learned fancy coding jackleg style.
The problem with that is that it would tip over a bunch of ricebowls, which makes it even less politically feaseable (Sigh). In the POC States, the tipping over ricebowls issues will delay action there, too.
Will I sign a bill of sale? Not with a straight face. A bill of sale is the buyer's proof of ownership. It is provided to the buyer by the seller. How it ever got twisted around the way it has in the gun culture baffles me.
Separate names with a comma.