[TeoK]

"The problem with background checks being expanded to private sales ... is that there can be no regulation of private sales without registration, either retroactive or on a rolling forward basis."

I don't understand why. Buyer and seller meet at gun shop (FFL). The FFL holder runs a NICS check on the buyer. If the buyer is legal, he pays the private seller the agreed-upon price, the cost of the background check, and a little more for the FFL holder's time: $10 for the NICS and maybe another $15 to the FFL holder. That's $25 for peace of mind, and adds considerable inconvenience to criminals and just a little inconvenience for law-abiding citizens. Also, the law could and should be written so that the FFL holder and the feds cannot retain identifying information after the transaction is complete.

[bill123]

but what's the BFD about taking a little more time to meet at an FFL to make sure we don't sell our guns to criminals or insane people?

That's funny.
Criminals get their guns from burglary. Insane people voted for Obama and don't want guns anyway. They are afraid of life

Really want to protect people ? Bring back vehicle inspection. Make sure you can't get insurance just for the day you get the license plates. Hell, abortion kills more children then anything. But, we can't talk about that, can we

[spcwes]

Originally Posted by TeoK

I couldn't agree much more except that we should not call it a "compromise." We should have gotten out ahead of the issue over the universal background check and insisted upon it as responsible gun owners. The cost and specific procedures are negotiable, but what's the BFD about taking a little more time to meet at an FFL to make sure we don't sell our guns to criminals or insane people?

"I honestly don't care about [private sales background checks]. It isn't a big deal, we do it here. Take 2 seconds and doesn't cost anything. This is a compromise we should be willing to make to avoid any awb or mag ban."

Why put this burden on gun owners though? They diagnose mental issues in pre-school now so why put this on gun owners shoulders?

This is not a "gun" issue. This is a legal system and mental health system issue. So by making it a "gun" issue and having it fail because it will due to the logistical issues surrounding the idea it will be the "guns" once again being the issue and will have our rights tarnished once again.

When they closed all the mental health (asylums if you will) that kept dangerous folks from hurting innocent folks it started there. When they thought using chemical narcotics to control dangerous folks was a great idea they failed. You can't make a grown man with mental issues take his pills unless you MAKE him take them.

Little Timmy forgets some meds and thinks his mom is giving little kids to much attention and grabs a rifle. Then it becomes a "gun" issue because folks don't want to talk about the mental issues and the fact that just talking about them costs billions vs. blaming "guns".

Allowing a new background check (even if done correctly) is a fix to a problem that does not exist. What needs to happen is simple, you need to make schools and other areas hard targets. You need to abolish gun free zones, you need to start the asylums back up for people that are dangerous and you need to get our fking economy back going right so more people can get jobs and keep them.

Lastly you need to get the standard of education and job potential up in the municipalities with 250,000 people or more to a new, higher standard. The areas in our country that are being attacked by these nut jobs are gun free zones and that **** needs to stop.

People that are attacked and or have family attacked in these areas where they are not allowed to defend themselves need to sue the holy dog****** out of the people that make those stupid rules.

[Atlas]

Originally Posted by TeoK

"I honestly don't care about [private sales background checks]. It isn't a big deal, we do it here. Take 2 seconds and doesn't cost anything. This is a compromise we should be willing to make to avoid any awb or mag ban."

I couldn't agree much more except that we should not call it a "compromise." We should have gotten out ahead of the issue over the universal background check and insisted upon it as responsible gun owners. The cost and specific procedures are negotiable, but what's the BFD about taking a little more time to meet at an FFL to make sure we don't sell our guns to criminals or insane people?

Originally Posted by TeoK

"The problem with background checks being expanded to private sales ... is that there can be no regulation of private sales without registration, either retroactive or on a rolling forward basis."

I don't understand why. Buyer and seller meet at gun shop (FFL). The FFL holder runs a NICS check on the buyer. If the buyer is legal, he pays the private seller the agreed-upon price, the cost of the background check, and a little more for the FFL holder's time: $10 for the NICS and maybe another $15 to the FFL holder. That's $25 for peace of mind, and adds considerable inconvenience to criminals and just a little inconvenience for law-abiding citizens. Also, the law could and should be written so that the FFL holder and the feds cannot retain identifying information after the transaction is complete.

If universal background checks are imposed (the requirement for background checks for ANY person-to-person transfer of a firearm) the antis will simply bide their time until a high-profile crime happens in which a firearm is used which was transfered without a check...

Then they'll use it to ram retroactive registration down our throats.

[Tippyman]

I think this private sales background check push is just a way toward complete registration of all firearms.

Step 1) Mandate universal background checks. (not so bad, right?...)
Step 2) Crimes still happen with guns sold to people privately because who the heck knows when it was actually sold?!
Step 3) Lawmakers cry for registration of guns so we can make sure none of these slippery criminals slip through the cracks ever again! Enough is enough!
Step 4) Crimes still happen... what else can we do?....

[Tippyman]

Reading back it looks like some of you thought the same thing... Doesn't take a genius to figure out that game plan.

That's what's so dangerous about "little compromises!"

[TeoK]

Criminals get their guns from burglary.

Some criminals get their guns from burglary, and some get them from private sales. Can you tell if a guy is a criminal or insane the first time you meet him? I can't.

Insane people voted for Obama

62,611,250 Americans are insane? That would be a lot of NICS denials.

Really want to protect people ? Bring back vehicle inspection.

Not a bad idea, as long as the inspections were reasonable. I'd also like to see the gov'mint ban cell phone use by drivers.

Hell, abortion kills more children then anything. But, we can't talk about that, can we

You can. I don't want to.

[cesaros]

Originally Posted by TeoK

I don't understand why. Buyer and seller meet at gun shop (FFL). The FFL holder runs a NICS check on the buyer. If the buyer is legal, he pays the private seller the agreed-upon price, the cost of the background check, and a little more for the FFL holder's time: $10 for the NICS and maybe another $15 to the FFL holder. That's $25 for peace of mind, and adds considerable inconvenience to criminals .

Considerable Inconvenience for criminals?

So this honor system, how does that stop someone from just exchanging a gun for cash in the privacy of his own residence?

[spcwes]

Originally Posted by TeoK

Criminals get their guns from burglary.

Some criminals get their guns from burglary, and some get them from private sales. Can you tell if a guy is a criminal or insane the first time you meet him? I can't.

Insane people voted for Obama

62,611,250 Americans are insane? That would be a lot of NICS denials.

Really want to protect people ? Bring back vehicle inspection.

Not a bad idea, as long as the inspections were reasonable. I'd also like to see the gov'mint ban cell phone use by drivers.

Hell, abortion kills more children then anything. But, we can't talk about that, can we

You can. I don't want to.

Ok explain how a new infringement like this will work please. Just basic no need to get into the additional billions of $ and the newly funded agency required to track this. Also how it will effect the desired outcome.

[Glock20 10mm]

Originally Posted by TeoK

Criminals get their guns from burglary.

Some criminals get their guns from burglary, and some get them from private sales. Can you tell if a guy is a criminal or insane the first time you meet him? I can't.

Insane people voted for Obama

62,611,250 Americans are insane? That would be a lot of NICS denials.

Really want to protect people ? Bring back vehicle inspection.

Not a bad idea, as long as the inspections were reasonable. I'd also like to see the gov'mint ban cell phone use by drivers.

Hell, abortion kills more children then anything. But, we can't talk about that, can we

You can. I don't want to.

If the US Navy can lay claim that their ships are extensions of the United States and therefore subject to the rule and laws of the United States then my vehicles are extensions of my home and therefore subject to the rules and laws of our land. Since we have the 4th Amendment... nope, you cannot randomly search my vehicle as I am afforded the right to security within my person from such illegal searches.

[Tippyman]

Originally Posted by TeoK

Some criminals get their guns from burglary, and some get them from private sales. Can you tell if a guy is a criminal or insane the first time you meet him? I can't.

You do realize that the main aspect making a criminal a criminal is lack of respect for the law, right?

Make private gun sales require a background check and people will still sell them, still buy them. The only thing you do is hurt law abiding citizens with more fees, paperwork, and infringement on our rights.

For the record: if I thought universal background checks would even put a dent in gun crime and deaths, I'd sign off on it in a heartbeat. That may alienate me from my peers, but I'd do it. The problem is, that it won't.

[spcwes]

Originally Posted by Tippyman

You do realize that the main aspect making a criminal a criminal is lack of respect for the law, right?

Make private gun sales require a background check and people will still sell them, still buy them. The only thing you do is hurt law abiding citizens with more fees, paperwork, and infringement on our rights.

For the record: if I thought universal background checks would even put a dent in gun crime and deaths, I'd sign off on it in a heartbeat. That may alienate me from my peers, but I'd do it. The problem is, that it won't.

Without complete registration of all firearms it won't do anything and it is pointless to even waste time pushing it. People keep thinking that this is a registration of sorts but for most states we don't register firearms and background checks only care if it is a rifle or handgun and that is it. So it won't do squat!

[TeoK]

Originally Posted by Atlas

If universal background checks are imposed (the requirement for background checks for ANY person-to-person transfer of a firearm) the antis will simply bide their time until a high-profile crime happens in which a firearm is used which was transfered without a check... Then they'll use it to ram retroactive registration down our throats.

OK, I agree that is a legitimate concern. But they're going to try that anyway. I just don't buy the logic that we can't give an inch because they'll take a mile. Instead of saying we'll give an inch, just declare that inch to be neutral ground. Then make it very clear where the real line in the sand is located. We will accept no bans, period, ever.

[VA27]

Somebody correct me here if I'm wrong, but the 'phone check' the dealer does is a check on the NAME of the buyer, not the gun he is buying. The only info on the gun is 'long gun' or 'handgun'.

If the gov wants checks on all transfers, simply publish the 800 number for the check center so the FTF seller can whip out his cell phone and make the call. Simple, right? Except for the fact that the number of calls would be ENORMOUS and would probably require that the call center have a HUGE number of people maning the phones.

The solution, of course, would be a Flat Tax. Your income tax could be done on a post card. All those IRS people who process income tax forms could now be used to man the phones for background checks.

CALL NOW! OUR OPERATORS ARE STANDING BY!

[ChuteTheMall]

Originally Posted by TeoK

OK, I agree that is a legitimate concern. But they're going to try that anyway. I just don't buy the logic that we can't give an inch because they'll take a mile. Instead of saying we'll give an inch, just declare that inch to be neutral ground. Then make it very clear where the real line in the sand is located. We will accept no bans, period, ever.

This must be your first rodeo.

[Atlas]

Originally Posted by Glock20 10mm

If the US Navy can lay claim that their ships are extensions of the United States and therefore subject to the rule and laws of the United States then my vehicles are extensions of my home and therefore subject to the rules and laws of our land. Since we have the 4th Amendment... nope, you cannot randomly search my vehicle as I am afforded the right to security within my person from such illegal searches.

The difference between your car and a Naval vessel is that you accepted a state license to hang on your car.

Take a look deep into your state's motor vehicle laws with spcecifc regard to that vehicle license before you jump on me..

I don't agree with that aspect of the law (and I think you'll find it's much the same for all states..), I'm only telling you how the state(s) see it.

[TeoK]

"Considerable Inconvenience for criminals? So this honor system, how does that stop someone from just exchanging a gun for cash in the privacy of his own residence?"

That would happen, of course, just like drug transactions. The difference is that both parties would risk getting busted in a sting. I think it's pretty easy to see that private background checks would make it harder for criminals to get guns. Not impossible, but harder.

[TeoK]

Ok explain how a new infringement like this will work please. Just basic no need to get into the additional billions of $ and the newly funded agency required to track this. Also how it will effect the desired outcome.

I can't give all the specifics, the background-check policy would have to be hashed out. But just because it would require some work to get right, doesn't mean it can't be done. This is what wrote earlier, which, to me, doesn't seem so bad:

Buyer and seller meet at gun shop (FFL). The FFL holder runs a NICS check on the buyer. If the buyer is legal, he pays the private seller the agreed-upon price, the cost of the background check, and a little more for the FFL holder's time: $10 for the NICS and maybe another $15 to the FFL holder. That's $25 for peace of mind, and adds considerable inconvenience to criminals and just a little inconvenience for law-abiding citizens. Also, the law could and should be written so that the FFL holder and the feds cannot retain identifying information after the transaction is complete.

[SpectreRider]

Originally Posted by NickC50310

I see that you quoted me. I dont want universal background checks but in the land of **** sandwiches im going to choose the smallest one. Its just the way it is. When this whole thing started i advocated that i would willingly give them the background check nugget if they would agree to let teachers that wanted to carry could do so. That in essence would reduce the chances of this ever happening again and eliminate the ammo the gun control lobby can and will use on us. If they wont agree give them nothing is my stance. Again if something has to happen (which i think it will) background checks are the best option for us.

By the way i have been pressuring every gun owner or believer in 2a rights to join the nra. I have also written a dozen emails to reps urging them to not give an inch.

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire

If you made the assertion in a different thread and used the word "unscathed" then I was quoting you. If you had said substantially the same thing earlier in this thread, I wasn't. Regardless, I maintain that the vast mass of law-abiding gun owners have done nothing wrong. We should not see an atrocity such as Sandy Hook as an event that requires new gun regulations, even as a trade off. Guns are not the culprit, evil or crazy people are responsible.

Neither the largest mass murder in the US nor the largest school murder in the US was comitted via shooting. Both involved arsons and blocked exits. Evil will find a way.

[ChuteTheMall]

Which of the most recent mass shootings would have been prevented if private sales were illegal?

[spcwes]

Originally Posted by TeoK

Ok explain how a new infringement like this will work please. Just basic no need to get into the additional billions of $ and the newly funded agency required to track this. Also how it will effect the desired outcome.

I can't give all the specifics, the background-check policy would have to be hashed out. But just because it would require some work to get right, doesn't mean it can't be done. This is what wrote earlier, which, to me, doesn't seem so bad:

Buyer and seller meet at gun shop (FFL). The FFL holder runs a NICS check on the buyer. If the buyer is legal, he pays the private seller the agreed-upon price, the cost of the background check, and a little more for the FFL holder's time: $10 for the NICS and maybe another $15 to the FFL holder. That's $25 for peace of mind, and adds considerable inconvenience to criminals and just a little inconvenience for law-abiding citizens. Also, the law could and should be written so that the FFL holder and the feds cannot retain identifying information after the transaction is complete.

I guess in theory if everyone worked using the honor system this would work. But I will be honest, yes it might help from time to time but this would not have any REAL impact because criminals would still not use it and would keep doing what they are doing.

The problem with it is there is not a checks and balancing system that could be used to keep it honest without a full registration of all weapons. So it would in all honesty do nothing.

[TeoK]

Since we have the 4th Amendment... nope, you cannot randomly search my vehicle as I am afforded the right to security within my person from such illegal searches.

I agree 100%, and I think the Supreme Court ruled wrongly when they said that random sobriety traffic stops are legal. That is a violation of the 4th in my opinion. But we were talking about scheduled (not random) safety inspections before getting our plates renewed to make sure there is tread on the tires, working turn signals, brake pads, that sort of thing – not vehicle searches.

[TeoK]

For the record: if I thought universal background checks would even put a dent in gun crime and deaths, I'd sign off on it in a heartbeat. That may alienate me from my peers, but I'd do it. The problem is, that it won't.

Fair enough. How about try it for ten years with a sunset provision similar to the original "assault weapons" ban? If it cannot be shown to put a dent on gun crime and deaths, then Congress wouldn't have to renew it.

[Glock20 10mm]

Originally Posted by Atlas

The difference between your car and a Naval vessel is that you accepted a state license to hang on your car.

Take a look deep into your state's motor vehicle laws with spcecifc regard to that vehicle license before you jump on me..

I don't agree with that aspect of the law (and I think you'll find it's much the same for all states..), I'm only telling you how the state(s) see it.

Not jumping on you, but I disagree. I Googled Motor Vehicle Exception so your prose is correct. I still don't agree with it... but

So I chased this down the rabbit hole and there is an Ace... sorta, and that would be the exclusionary rule.

[TeoK]

This must be your first rodeo.

I'm 45, been an NRA member since 1987.