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

Wouldn't it make sense?

Discussion in 'Legal' started by Whitman31, Jan 22, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Whitman31

    Whitman31 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2007
    Messages:
    413
    Location:
    Minnesota
    This may not be popular here at THR, but what are the arguments against making all gun transfers go through a NICS check? This would be a hassle for those of us who like to buy and sell from people we know, but it might help keep guns out of the hands of the guys who aren't supposed to have them.

    Sure the criminals can still buy from each other, but if a gun is recovered from a crime they would actually know who is supposed to own it.

    The one downside I see is that the government would know what your keeping in your safe, at least the guns you purchased after something like this took effect.

    It just seems like a law like this would be a good thing for gun owners. I don't feel particularly strong about this, so please let me know where the flaws are...
     
  2. calaverasslim

    calaverasslim Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,006
    Location:
    San Antonio de Bejar
    The check does nothing except let the dealer(seller) know that the buyer has no reason to refuse to sell.

    What your suggesting is a mass registration. That is against federal law at this time. Now states can mandate registration but the federal govt. can't.


    Germany mandated mass registration and if you think about it, you'll know what happened.

    We don't want that here
     
  3. highorder

    highorder Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,349
    Location:
    Cincinnati
    No.

    I don't need to involve anyone in the sale of private property.
     
  4. subknave

    subknave Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2005
    Messages:
    135
    Another problem is implementation. Some gun dealers charge 50-75 dollars for a transfer. If I am selling a 75 dollar .22 to my neighbor why would I want to spend more for a dealer to make a phone call. I think the law would be widely ignored and very dificult to enforce creating a whole new class of "criminals". Its only use would be as a bludgeon on those people whose guns are recovered in a crime. The DA would say how did this person get your gun? Either they stole it or you didn't do the proper paperwork to transfer it so now you go to jail as well. God forbid someone doesn't file a theft report or doesn't realize that the gun they put in the closet X number of years ago is gone because your sons friend took it. While it may seem like a good idea on the surface the unintended consequences could be very bad.
    Now it would be a good idea to have a number or way for the private citizen to do a NICS check voluntarily. If you could just call up and say I want to transfer a gun to (this person) and make sure they are okay but again we would run into problems of privacy and how would you prevent someone from calling up saying they were doing a transfer just to check out their daughters new boyfriend or a coworker or employers checking on prospective employees? Still the bottom line is how would anyone know if you didn't do the check? Most crimes have a complainant such as the victim. Who would be the victim here? Victimless crimes are pretty much crimes just to make lawyers money IMHO and useless.
     
  5. Jim K

    Jim K Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2002
    Messages:
    17,566
    The current check does not involve firearms model or serial number data, only long gun or handgun.

    I agree that an NICS check on private sales would be widely ignored or violated, and could easily be abused by individuals or by the government.

    For example, letting your son use your shotgun without a NICS check would be a felony, with imprisonment and confiscation of your guns.

    Of course if some in Congress and the new administration get their way, there will be no need to worry, since there won't be any privately owned firearms.

    Jim
     
  6. ConstitutionCowboy

    ConstitutionCowboy member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2006
    Messages:
    3,230
    Location:
    Oklahoma
    The popular answer is to keep the criminals who cannot be trusted with arms locked up until they can be trusted - if ever. That would make all the rest moot and negate any "reason" for the NICS to exist at all.

    Get a clue: It isn't about crime control. It's about eventually disarming everyone and making us dependent upon government and slaves to it.

    From the movie "V":

    "I want everyone to remember WHY THEY NEED US!"

    Woody

    "Charge the Court, Congress, and the several state legislatures with what to do with all the violent criminals who cannot be trusted with arms. We law abiding citizens shouldn't be burdened with having to prove we are not one of the untrustworthy just because those in government don't want to stop crime by keeping violent criminals locked up." B.E. Wood
     
  7. gc70

    gc70 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Messages:
    2,980
    Location:
    North Carolina
    It might help, but show some proof that it would help to any significant degree. Is there even any statistical evidence that the requirement for dealers to run NICS checks helps?

    As long as guns exist (and they are not going away), bad guys will be able to get guns. The only real question is whether good guys will also be able to get guns.
     
  8. twoclones

    twoclones Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2008
    Messages:
    513
    Location:
    Washington State
    Another way, when selling to a stranger, is to only sell to those with concealed carry permits.
     
  9. Grey54956

    Grey54956 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2003
    Messages:
    632
    Location:
    IN
    I've been thinking about the same thing as of late.

    I hate the idea of registration, but the gov't and the liberal elite seem to think that their going to legislate us to death. And while we appear unwilling to compromise, we seem more obstinant, crazed, and paranoid to fence sitters and the non-gunning crowd. Perhaps we need to embrace registration in some form, claim its our idea, and push it through under our power as opposed to having it imposed on us. As long as the gunner world goes and hammers it through, we can push for free background checks, class III registrations, etc, etc...

    If we wait for it to be pushed on us, then we end up getting what we get.

    Maybe we need a title system similar to automotive titles, i.e. pink slips as a legal bill of sale.
     
  10. ConstitutionCowboy

    ConstitutionCowboy member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2006
    Messages:
    3,230
    Location:
    Oklahoma
    Why don't you push for keeping those who cannot be trusted with arms locked up? It solves ALL the problems associated with criminals loose on the streets with guns, and the rest of us won't have our rights infringed as the Second Amendment says the government shouldn't do in the first place!

    The Constitution still means something to most of us, and locking up dangerous criminals is perfectly constitutional. Just think: Keeping dangerous criminals locked up will keep us safer, and our Right to Keep and Bear Arms won't be infringed! That makes it a two-fer at the very least!

    Tell the liberal elite to legislate the criminals to death! This is supposed to be a free society, and the quickest way to serfdom is to allow the "liberal elite" to disarm us, and the quickest way for the "liberal elite" to disarm us is to tell them who has all the guns and where they live.

    As an added solution, you can vote for conservative constitutional originalist. Whether they like guns or not doesn't matter. They'll abide the Constitution and leave you and your guns alone.

    Got that? ...........................Good!

    Woody

    Our government was designed by our Founding Fathers to fit within the framework of our rights and not vise versa. Any other "interpretation" of the Constitution is either through ignorance or is deliberately subversive. B.E. Wood
     
  11. ozarkhillbilly

    ozarkhillbilly Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2005
    Messages:
    492
    Location:
    mo
    Compromise, I thought we had been compromising; we have thousands of gun laws on the books.

    We can't own full auto, we can't import full auto, we can't own certain calibers, we can't own certain sizes, we can't carry without permission, we can't mail order, and we can't buy from a dealer without permission. Now you want to say we can't pass on or give or sell without permission.

    Anybody who thinks that, this will satisfy the gun grabbers does not understand what is going on. That would be just a good first start at common senses gun laws for them that ends in the total ban of firearms.
     
  12. gc70

    gc70 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Messages:
    2,980
    Location:
    North Carolina
    I am all for compromise and we can show the anti-gunners that giving up on some of their unreasonable positions does not result in blood on the streets or more crime. Reopening the NFA registry might be a good place to start.....
     
  13. Grey54956

    Grey54956 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2003
    Messages:
    632
    Location:
    IN
    I'm just thinking that we need to be proactive in securing our rights.

    We all know that straw buying occurs with some regularity. We all know that stolen guns make it into the wrong hands. And we all know that both phenomena are used to mislead the public into supporting anti-2A politicians. Their point of argument is exactly that "as long as there are weapons available, criminals will have weapons." So, their solution is the long term elimination of all personal arms. While we know that this is a statistical impossibility, to the common man, the logic is hard to argue with. Certainly, if guns are eliminated, gun crime will also be eliminated. If guns are significantly reduced in number, then surely gun crime must follow. While we know this is falacious, it does make some sense on the surface. The reason it doesn't work, of course, is that arms will go underground, with criminals largely ignoring any prohibitions. But again, common folk don't typically give this any thought. They merely blindly follow whatever line of chum the media has thrown to them.

    Maybe we need to start appearing reasonable and cooperative. If we're driving the bus, then we drive it wherever we want, as opposed to just going along for the ride.

    Registration, if it ever should come to that, should be free, easy to complete, and should come with legal guarantees.

    A title, or proof of ownership should be available, that makes provisions for sale to other individuals. This should also be free.

    The gov't might know who has arms, but if they decide to round folks up, then we'll all know that it's time for a new gov't. They can't round up 100 million folks all at once. Nor can they round up 50 miilion, 20 million, or so on.

    But, we need to drive the bus where we want it. Otherwise, we will inevitably find ourselves run over by it.
     
  14. Titan6

    Titan6 member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,745
    Location:
    Gillikin Country
    It might if this were how criminals got guns. Since they don't it will do two things that are helpful: Diddly and squat.

    It will also do many things that are not helpful. I don't want to do things that aren't helpful.
     
  15. gc70

    gc70 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Messages:
    2,980
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Let me see if I understand this idea. Since anti-2A politicians mislead the public, we should agree to something (registration) that does not prevent bad guys from getting guns. I think that falls into the "two wrongs does not make a right" category.

    How about being proactive by selling the concept that more guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens does not increase crime. We have had a renaissance in concealed carry over the last couple of decades and the dire predictions of the nay-sayers have not come true. Since the anti-gun folks were wrong about concealed carry, that should be a fair indication to the average citizen that they might also be wrong about their other paranoid fears about guns.
     
  16. twoclones

    twoclones Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2008
    Messages:
    513
    Location:
    Washington State
    We don't all know that.

    Sorry but I do not know that and have no reason to believe that straw buying occurs with any regularity at all.
     
  17. Grey54956

    Grey54956 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2003
    Messages:
    632
    Location:
    IN
    We haven't been compromising. We've been letting ourselves get run down by standing tall in the middle of the street.

    We've been saddled with restrictions because people demanded a solution, and we failed to provide anything other than braying about how our rights are absolute. Someone else offered a solution that seemed "reasonable" to a large segment of the population. Registration doesn't necessarily mean permission. It should work like the title on a car. You sign the title, the buyer signs the title. You keep a copy, he takes his copy to get a new title. This service should be free. If he instead goes and gets caught in a crack house/gang shootout/bank robbery/etc with the firearm, its not the original sellers problem. If the gun ends up in someone else's hands, and they can't show proof of ownership, drop the hammer on them and off to jail. Title should also be proof of ownership for purposes of retreiving stolen or lost property from impound. If you car gets stolen, then turns up later, the cops don't melt it down. You get it back. The same should work for arms.

    Exactly. If we're going to get stuck with registration someday, and it will happen, let's do it on our terms. Registration is free. Registration is open to all firearms and other personal arms (machine guns, SBRs, anti-tank rifles, silencers, imports, mail order, etc.) Registration or title does not expire. Re-registration is not necessary.

    If we look like the reasonable, logical, respectable, and reponsible side of the argument, our position will be much more secure and popular. This leaves the liberal elites standing in the middle of the road.
     
  18. Whitman31

    Whitman31 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2007
    Messages:
    413
    Location:
    Minnesota
    I guess the whole "lead the compromise" trail was the one I was trying to go down. I agree that we've fought hard to keep our rights, and that many of them have been trampled terribly. We all know that we're in for changes, and those changes will most likely be pushed upon us as in the past.

    The current NICS check doesn't register the s/n of the gun, but the S/N is logged on the 4473 form. I used to work behind a counter and more than a couple times a year we poured over old 4473's because the local cops wanted to know who purchase a weapon that was used in a crime.

    When working behind the counter of a large sporting goods store, we regularly had small groups of thugs (every race) come in and look at guns. You knew they were trouble, but couldn't "profile" them. They would pick out a gun and one would produce a permit to purchase. The NICS check would clear, and thug would walk out with a shiny new piece. Was this a straw purchase? His argument was that he wanted his buddies to help him pick out a gun. I guess my thoughts on the registration are, that guy had a clean record, he'd done a decent job of staying out of trouble (or at least a good job of not getting caught). If that gun he just bought came with permanent responsibility he might not sell it to his lifelong buddy who couldn't get a permit because of a felony, knowing any crime committed with it would be directly tied to him.

    Registration right or wrong, I don't think anyone should be able to acquire a gun who doesn't meet the requirements. Being able to sell private, without record, leaves a huge hole in the system.
     
  19. ozarkhillbilly

    ozarkhillbilly Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2005
    Messages:
    492
    Location:
    mo
    Maybe, we should be reasonable and give up our AR-15s and semi shotguns and regular capacity mags for handguns. Maybe we should be reasonable and not let people in big cities have handguns, because we all know that big cities have higher crime rate and need more protection. Also does anyone really need more than one gun a month?

    If we as gun owners jump out in front and do this ourselves then maybe we can appear reasonable. Then maybe if we are really nice they will let us keep a few of our guns at least for a while.
     
  20. Whitman31

    Whitman31 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2007
    Messages:
    413
    Location:
    Minnesota
    If I'm reading this right, and I'm probabaly not, it looks like Minnesota already requires a form of government approval before a private party transaction.

    A person without a transferee permit or carry permit must utilize a transfer report in order to purchase a handgun or semiautomatic military-style assault weapon. The transfer report contains the identification information and statement attesting qualification as required in the transferee permit, and must be signed by the transferor and the proposed recipient. The transferor must deliver the report to the police chief or sheriff no later than three (3) days after the date of the agreement to transfer, excluding weekends and legal holidays. No fee is charged for the transfer report. Upon receipt of a transfer report, the police chief or sheriff investigates the potential recipient. A handgun or assault weapon cannot be delivered until five (5) days until after the agreement to transfer is delivered to the police chief sheriff. The police may waive all or part of the seven (7) day waiting period. At the end of five (5) days, the handgun or assault weapon may be transferred if the transferor hears nothing unfavorable from the police. There is no restriction on the number of handguns or assault weapons a person may acquire as part of a single transfer report.
    Once a police determination has been made that a handgun or assault weapon recipient is not prohibited from possessing a handgun or assault weapon, the recipient may, within 30 days after the determination, apply to the police chief or sheriff for a handgun or assault weapon transferee permit, and the permit shall be issued.
    A person transferring a handgun or assault weapon to a person exhibiting a transferee permit or carry permit is not required to file a handgun or assault weapon transfer report.
    After a determination has been made that the person receiving a handgun or assault weapon is not precluded from possessing one, the person may request that no record be kept of the fact that he is the recipient of a handgun or assault weapon. The police chief or sheriff shall sign the transfer report and return it to the person receiving the handgun or assault weapon. Thereafter, no government employee or agency shall maintain a record of the transfer that identifies the person who received the
    handgun or assault weapon.
    The requirements of a transferee permit, permit to carry, or report of transfer and a seven (7) day waiting period do not apply to transfers between federally licensed firearm dealers or transfers of antique firearms acquired as curiosities or for their historical significance or value.
    No person shall transfer a handgun or assault weapon to another who is not personally known to the transferor unless the proposed recipient presents evidence of his identity.


    Taken from: http://www.nraila.org/statelawpdfs/MNSL.pdf
     
  21. Ohio Gun Guy

    Ohio Gun Guy Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2008
    Messages:
    2,460
    Location:
    Central Ohio
    No F-in way. Not registering my guns.

    Not yours, cant have.
     
  22. gc70

    gc70 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Messages:
    2,980
    Location:
    North Carolina
    We are already there. So let's reach a compromise with the anti-gun forces; they can give up on some of their unreasonable, illogical, and irresponsible positions.

    There is a difference between appeasement and compromise. It is not a compromise when one side is always giving and the other side is always taking. The anti-gun forces have been taking, and taking, and taking, for years. It IS time for a compromise, but they are the ones that need to give rather than take.
     
  23. Prince Yamato

    Prince Yamato Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2006
    Messages:
    4,409
    Location:
    Texas
    Registration is worthless and does nothing positive. It would also be prohibitively expensive (ex. Canadian gun registry). The background check doesn't bug me, because at least when I go to a dealer, I know he's not selling to criminals. I think NICS should be open to all who would like to do a FTF transfer and free-of-charge. I do not think it should be mandatory though.

    He wouldn't sell it. He'd buy a bunch of guns and then one day report them "stolen".
     
  24. TX1911fan

    TX1911fan Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2006
    Messages:
    2,013
    Again, what makes you think criminals are going to perform a background check to sell or give a gun to their buddy? There is no hole in the system! Guns are private property and should be treated as such. If I want to sell my car, I do it, even though it is capable of being used in crimes and of killing people. I don't have to perform a background check on the guy buying it, and if he chooses not to register it, that is not my problem either. If he uses it in a crime, and the cops come after me, I tell them I sold it and that's that. Same thing goes for knives, bats, clubs, swords, scissors, rat poison, chemicals and a whole host of other dangerous items I have laying around my house.

    YOU guys are the problem, thinking that by appeasing anti-gunners they will eventually leave us alone. They won't. They'll gladly accept your "reasonable" regulations, and then push them farther and farther. If you start with this compromise crap and think you are "driving the bus", you are deluded. You'll drive your bus to your destination and they will promptly kick you off and drive it to where they want to go, all the while being smug and happy that they got you to do some of the driving.

    I am NOT ashamed of standing up for my Constitutional rights. You should be ashamed that you are.
     
  25. Whitman31

    Whitman31 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2007
    Messages:
    413
    Location:
    Minnesota
    TX1911fan
    So you're saying I should be ashamed for standing of for my Constitutional rights, not really following you on that one...

    Things are gonna change, you can stand on your soapbox all day/night shouting "Viva 2A", but it might be smart to have a back-up plan. Is registration it, probably not, but a number of points of view were expressed in this thread that made me more informed, and since that was the purpose, I'm satisfied...

    Nothing like being open minded...
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page