GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.
 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
Old 01-14-2013, 18:04   #11
vettely
Senior Member
 
vettely's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: TX
Posts: 1,246
Quote:
Originally Posted by TeoK View Post
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.
Sir, if you don't get it, you are never going to get it.
__________________
N.R.A. Life Member
vettely is online now   Reply With Quote
 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 14:27.



Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 1,046
331 Members
715 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 11:42