[czsmithGT]

Originally Posted by pizza_pablo

There is NO SUCH THING! Transactions, at gun shows must follow THE SAME, EXACT LAWS as anyplace else, in the country.

Not really. Different states have different laws regarding gun show transactions.

[JMarch]

Originally Posted by czsmithGT

http://civilliberty.about.com/od/gun.../Gun-Shows.htm

The seven states requiring background checks for all purchases include:

California
Colorado
Connecticut
Illinois
New York
Oregon
Rhode Island

The four states requiring background checks for only handgun purchases include:

Hawaii
Maryland
New Jersey
Pennsylvania

In Florida, private firearms purchases are subject to background checks in some jurisdictions but not across the entire state. There are no laws regulating private firearms sales at gun shows in the remaining 33 states.

FYI Michigan requires background checks on handgun purchases as well. You're exempt if you have CPL.

[czsmithGT]

Originally Posted by JMarch

FYI Michigan requires background checks on handgun purchases as well. You're exempt if you have CPL.

No wonder the math in my post didn't add up- it only totals 45 states

[JMarch]

Originally Posted by czsmithGT

No wonder the math in my post didn't add up- it only totals 45 states

Well, we have 57, dontcha know?

[PVolk]

Originally Posted by M&P15T

Let me ask another way.

Has anyone every seen a private seller, with a table set-up inside a gunshow, selling firearms without NICS checks?

Yes, I have. Dealers are allowed to sell guns from their private collection as a "no paperwork" transaction. I actually learned about this from this forum a couple years ago, then saw it first hand at a gun show in Kentucky.

Though I can say that my father bought an AK at that same show and was subject to a backround check.

[gwalchmai]

Originally Posted by gwalchmai

I understand your concern, Hen. One question - do 4473s and NICS (sorry, typo) satisfy you or would you press for more if you made all private sales go through an FFL?

Still waiting, Hen. It's a fairly simple question - since you don't trust buyers to tell the truth to private sellers I'm wondering if having them sign a 4473 and running the sale through an FFL will allay your fears.

I suspect you will not answer this question truthfully.

[Z71bill]

Originally Posted by gwalchmai

Still waiting, Hen. It's a fairly simple question - since you don't trust buyers to tell the truth to private sellers I'm wondering if having them sign a 4473 and running the sale through an FFL will allay your fears.

I suspect you will not answer this question truthfully.

Don't you know that criminals have a code - they never lie.

Do you really think a felon would ever break the law?

Maybe a law that requires criminals to fill out a 4473 and send it in to the FEDS for any gun that they steal.

[pizza_pablo]

Originally Posted by czsmithGT

Not really. Different states have different laws regarding gun show transactions.

Roger that.
My blanket statement was meant to say that Gun Shows are not exempt from any laws, currently, in existance, in any state. In other words, the same laws apply inside and outside of Gun Shows.

[czsmithGT]

Originally Posted by pizza_pablo

Roger that.
My blanket statement was meant to say that Gun Shows are not exempt from any laws, currently, in existance, in any state. In other words, the same laws apply inside and outside of Gun Shows.

In some states (for example Colorado) private sales at gun shows are prohibited while private sales outside of gun shows are not. So the law there is actually different inside and outside of gun shows.

[Henry's Dad]

Originally Posted by gwalchmai

Still waiting, Hen. It's a fairly simple question - since you don't trust buyers to tell the truth to private sellers I'm wondering if having them sign a 4473 and running the sale through an FFL will allay your fears.

I suspect you will not answer this question truthfully.

I've sold off a decent number of guns over the years. I've always done the transactions through a FFL, even though I legally didn't have to.

Why? Because I have no idea who the buyer is. I don't know his history, if he's got a record, been adjudicated mentally incompetent, illegal alien, etc. How could I possibly know these things?

Why would I want to be a party to putting a gun in his hand if any of the prohibitions in question #11 apply to him?

http://www.atf.gov/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf

I've had offers from buyers who begged me to sell without a FFL transfer, only to get angry with me when I decline.

Now, why would a law-abiding citizen with no disqualifying attributes fear getting their name run through NICS?

NICS rejected just under 900,000 transactions in 2011 (out of 141 million). That tells me 900,000 disqualified individuals didn't get a gun through legit channels.

Could they have later gone and bought from a seller who didn't demand a NICS check? Sure, and I'll bet some did.

But tell me why that makes you feel better about the state of gun ownership in America?

[certifiedfunds]

Originally Posted by Henry's Dad

I've sold off a decent number of guns over the years. I've always done the transactions through a FFL, even though I legally didn't have to.

Why? Because I have no idea who the buyer is. I don't know his history, if he's got a record, been adjudicated mentally incompetent, illegal alien, etc. How could I possibly know these things?

Why would I want to be a party to putting a gun in his hand if any of the prohibitions in question #11 apply to him?

http://www.atf.gov/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf

I've had offers from buyers who begged me to sell without a FFL transfer, only to get angry with me when I decline.

Now, why would a law-abiding citizen with no disqualifying attributes fear getting their name run through NICS?

NICS rejected just under 900,000 transactions in 2011 (out of 141 million). That tells me 900,000 disqualified individuals didn't get a gun through legit channels.

Could they have later gone and bought from a seller who didn't demand a NICS check? Sure, and I'll bet some did.

Thanks for pointing out yet again the fallacy of gun laws.

But tell me why that makes you feel better about the state of gun ownership in America?

Because it isn't the proper role of the federal government to determine who can and cannot own a firearm. "Shall not be infringed" means what it says. Likewise, it isn't the proper role of the government to determine which people may exercise their freedom of speech, assembly or who may associate freely amongst themselves.

You may currently agree with how the fedgov defines that. Tolerate it and you may one day disagree with who the fedgov feels isn't worthy of the natural God-given right to defend themselves.

[Henry's Dad]

Originally Posted by certifiedfunds

Thanks for pointing out yet again the fallacy of gun laws.



Because it isn't the proper role of the federal government to determine who can and cannot own a firearm. "Shall not be infringed" means what it says. Likewise, it isn't the proper role of the government to determine which people may exercise their freedom of speech, assembly or who may associate freely amongst themselves.

You may currently agree with how the fedgov defines that. Tolerate it and you may one day disagree with who the fedgov feels isn't worthy of the natural God-given right to defend themselves.

900,000 people were run through NICS and were found to have given up their "natural God-given right to defend themselves" with a firearm because they chose to commit a crime.

They also gave up their right to vote. Committing crime has consequences.

Don't ask me to weep for the "lost liberties" of felons. They should have thought of that before they chose to commit their crime.

Just so I'm clear: your position is that there should be no restrictions on convicted felons possessing guns?

There is no criminal act, no matter how heinous or destructive to others, that should preclude an individual from owning a firearm?

And you wonder why we're losing this debate in the public square.

[gwalchmai]

Originally Posted by Henry's Dad

Why would I want to be a party to putting a gun in his hand if any of the prohibitions in question #11 apply to him?

So you have no problem selling a gun to a drug addict as long as he's willing to lie about it to an FFL?

[certifiedfunds]

Originally Posted by Henry's Dad

900,000 people were run through NICS and were found to have given up their "natural God-given right to defend themselves" with a firearm because they chose to commit a crime.

Surely after NICS rejected them they simply went home and remained gunless, right?

They also gave up their right to vote. Committing crime has consequences.

I disagree with that as well. Being convicted of a crime does have consequences. However, once they have served their sentence their rights should be fully restored.

Don't ask me to weep for the "lost liberties" of felons. They should have thought of that before they chose to commit their crime.

I'm curious. How would you feel if gun ownership itself became a felony in the U.S.? Would you comply? Or would you be a felon?

Just so I'm clear: your position is that there should be no restrictions on convicted felons possessing guns?

Of course. No restrictions on any free man.

There is no criminal act, no matter how heinous or destructive to others, that should preclude an individual from owning a firearm?

There are lots of criminal acts which would make me personally prefer that the person not own a firearm again. Most of them would make me prefer that they remain in prison for the rest of their life. However, I'm fully aware that no matter what the law says any one of those people can get a gun. So just like stupid gun laws that prohibit carrying into a school, they really only affect those with good intentions. The evil will do it no matter what the law says.

So your no felon laws only serve to disarm those who have reformed and intend to stay out of trouble. I want those people armed just as much as I want a non-felon armed. I believe the more people we have armed the better off we are as a society.

Just another stupid gun law but apparently they give you some false sense of security.

LEO will tell you its a way to pad the charges and increase sentences when they reoffend. I say if sentences need to be increased that needs to be addressed legislatively.

And you wonder why we're losing this debate in the public square.

No I don't wonder at all. I see people just like you who are all to ready to tuck their tail between their legs and roll over for the government.

[whoflungdo]

Originally Posted by Henry's Dad

I've sold off a decent number of guns over the years. I've always done the transactions through a FFL, even though I legally didn't have to.

Why? Because I have no idea who the buyer is. I don't know his history, if he's got a record, been adjudicated mentally incompetent, illegal alien, etc. How could I possibly know these things?

Why would I want to be a party to putting a gun in his hand if any of the prohibitions in question #11 apply to him?

http://www.atf.gov/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf

I've had offers from buyers who begged me to sell without a FFL transfer, only to get angry with me when I decline.

Now, why would a law-abiding citizen with no disqualifying attributes fear getting their name run through NICS?

NICS rejected just under 900,000 transactions in 2011 (out of 141 million). That tells me 900,000 disqualified individuals didn't get a gun through legit channels.

Could they have later gone and bought from a seller who didn't demand a NICS check? Sure, and I'll bet some did.

But tell me why that makes you feel better about the state of gun ownership in America?

Impossible. That in an of itself is a crime. The 900,000 should be in jail and not able to attempt to purchase a firearm from an individual.

[gwalchmai]

Originally Posted by whoflungdo

Impossible. That in an of itself is a crime. The 900,000 should be in jail and not able to attempt to purchase a firearm from an individual.

A lot of those rejections were false positives, too.

[Bren]

Originally Posted by czsmithGT

Not really. Different states have different laws regarding gun show transactions.

Yes, really. I'm pretty sure what he meant is that every gun show transaction falls under the laws that apply to the same transaction in your living room - if your state requires all sales to go through an FFL, then they do, at a gun show or not, and if your state has no special law on private sales, it's the same at the gun show.

You are right that the law is different in some states, but the same laws still apply within that state to gun shows or anywhere else. Since federal law already limits private sales to being between residents of the same state and being conducted within that state, that's about all the variation you can have.

[gwalchmai]

Originally Posted by Henry's Dad

Just so I'm clear: your position is that there should be no restrictions on convicted felons possessing guns?

If they've served their sentence of course their rights should be reinstated. Otherwise keep them in jail.

There is no criminal act, no matter how heinous or destructive to others, that should preclude an individual from owning a firearm?

You mean "preclude an individual from owning a firearm yet still allow him to walk around free", right?

[whoflungdo]

Originally Posted by gwalchmai

A lot of those rejections were false positives, too.

I know. Just pointing out ONE of the fallacies in his statement.

[certifiedfunds]

Originally Posted by gwalchmai

If they've served their sentence of course their rights should be reinstated. Otherwise keep them in jail.

You mean "preclude an individual from owning a firearm yet still allow him to walk around free", right?

*Bingo*

[Bren]

Originally Posted by Henry's Dad

900,000 people were run through NICS and were found to have given up their "natural God-given right to defend themselves" with a firearm because they chose to commit a crime.

You don't know much about NICS do you? My background has been investigated more than most people here, for law enforcement jobs, a law license, FFL, military security clearance, CCW permit, etc. - before we were exempted from NICS checks at the time of sale, I was rejected any time I put my SSN on the form.

The gun shop about 500 yards from my house got a rejection on one of the ATF agents who inspects their shop, when he tried to buy a gun there.

Another local shop where some of my friends worked actually had a guy in handcuffs in the store, with the local police about to take him in on a robbery warrant, when it was found that NICS had IDed the wrong guy. It was only discovered because the police officer had the experience to know this didn't seem right and he continued to investigate and question the warrant.

In Kentucky, NICS will turn you down if you have been convicted of disorderly conduct, as a misdemeanor domestic violence crime against a family member, even though the victim, under out statute, is "the public."

It goes on and on.

My guess would be that only a small minority of that 900,000 was actually "prohibited."

[certifiedfunds]

I believe any individual who is issued more than one traffic ticket in any 10 year period displays a willful disregard for public safety laws and a lack of judgement and should be prohibited from owning firearms.

I have a well-funded lobby behind me.

[Bren]

Originally Posted by Henry's Dad

Just so I'm clear: your position is that there should be no restrictions on convicted felons possessing guns?

There is no criminal act, no matter how heinous or destructive to others, that should preclude an individual from owning a firearm?

And you wonder why we're losing this debate in the public square.

If that's not his position, it is sure as hell mine.

I have a combined 19 years working in law enforcement and corrections, as an officer and attorney for the departments. My opinion is, when a person leaves priosn, they should have 100% of the same rights as anyone else. If they haven't served enoutgh time, keep them in prison - if they are too dangerous to ever release, execute them. However, there is no justification for saying a person is safe to be free, living in the house beside me, but he's still too dangerous to possess a gun for self-defense.

I consider you and those like you, the ever-fearful suburban types who would gladly trade freedom for safety, to be the #1 problem destroying this country.

[Electrikkoolaid]

Originally Posted by Roger1079

Gun manufacturers, the NRA, and other such companies and organizations have deep pockets, good attorneys, and well funded lobbyists.

And Freedom Group is up for sale.

And the soccer moms are about to faint.

And a president (openly on record as anti-gun) just won a stunning reelection.

And pro-gun legislators are openly talking about supporting gun control.

And several major retails are immediately dropping selling EBRs, or even all weapons.

And the strongest supporters of gun ownership are out stripping the shelves bare in total panic buying because they know the storm is coming (which would probably be worse if people weren't already overspent for Christmas.)

And the NRA is sucking it's thumb all this week while the anti-gun forces keep scoring "open net" goals. (When has THIS ever happened before?)

Yeah, this is nothing special. We'll be fine.

[Henry's Dad]

Originally Posted by Bren

If that's not his position, it is sure as hell mine.

I have a combined 19 years working in law enforcement and corrections, as an officer and attorney for the departments. My opinion is, when a person leaves priosn, they should have 100% of the same rights as anyone else. If they haven't served enoutgh time, keep them in prison - if they are too dangerous to ever release, execute them. However, there is no justification for saying a person is safe to be free, living in the house beside me, but he's still too dangerous to possess a gun for self-defense.

I consider you and those like you, the ever-fearful suburban types who would gladly trade freedom for safety, to be the #1 problem destroying this country.

Really? So no restrictions related to their release at all? No checking in with POs? No restrictions on where they can travel, who they can see, establishments they can enter?

Recidivism rates are over 60%. 6 out of 10 seem not to appreciate their newfound opportunity to be a non-criminal member of civil society.

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire