A question to the members

D

Don P

New member
My question is this,

Would you support legislation that requires all firearms transactions to go through a FFL?
My reason for supporting this is as follows,
Where have all the illegal guns in the hands of criminals come from?
What percentage of guns have been stolen from homes or gun shops?
What percentage have been bought and sold over and over again without the paper trail?
I sold a gun at a show here in FLA. Licensed CCW holder buys said gun and receipts signed by buyer and seller. Gun is used in a robbery in NJ.
How did this occur? Through the serial # and 4473 the sheriff is at my front door.
Just MY OPINION
Whats the thoughts of the members?
 
Not as a requirement on personal property

Would you support legislation that requires all firearms transactions to go through a FFL?
Click to expand...
I would not but have bought guns from private sellers that requested that is be done in such a manner. On all occasions, the seller paid for the transaction. I had no problem with this. ... :)

If it comes to this; so be it !!

Be Safe !!!
 
I believe that the government shouldn't contract that out to third parties. If they want to monitor and oversee the transaction in the same manner as the NICS check, that's fine, but not at the expense of paying a third party for their overhead, FFL aquisition, etc. It's one thing when that "fee" is part and parcel of a business transaction with the FFL holder, either as they wholesale and then retail the gun, or as an intermediary for someone else who does.

I have no intention of buying a gun at a gun show, not the least reason is to do so around here you have to be a member of the group that hosts the gunshow, and I'm not particularly impressed with the group. I have no doubt that if this were the case they would require using their FFL who would have a monopoly, and be able to set outrageously inflated fees. Additionally, I don't particularly like the level of information required for a 4473 form being in the hands of an FFL you don't "know" where they "live". When/If I buy one on the 'net and have it shipped to Local Gun Store, they have a brick and mortar location. I'm comfortable enough in knowing who/where they are if I end up with identity theft issues traceable to a 4473 form.

If, however, local law enforcement were required to do these checks for private buyers for the cost of the check, I have no issues.
 
Would you support legislation that requires all firearms transactions to go through a FFL
Click to expand...
No.
There's no interstate commerce involved, therefore I don't want the federal goverment to open that Pandora's box.

Even this unholy alliance of anti gun senators understands the importance of the interstate commerce clause:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:S.35:


And you want to hand that to them on a platter?
(The ability to regulate intrastate commerece)
 
I don't support the idea of going through FFL's or NICS for legal face to face purchases. I don't have to when I buy a car, furnace, stove, etc. I han even buy an axe or knife with no government interaction. Why should I endorse more government involvement?

Rick
 
There's no interstate commerce involved, therefore I don't want the federal goverment to open that Pandora's box.
Click to expand...

Understood, now the gun I sold locally used 1,000+ miles away illegally owned and used in commission of a crime. Somewhere along the line interstate commerce comes into play.
 
Do debates !!!

Don P
Mr. Hal has answered your question and then some. Anything beyond this point, will turn into a spitting contest. We accept your post and reasoning and you should respect that. ...... ;)

Respectfully yours and;
Be Safe !!!
 
So in other words. your all for just handing over federal control of everything that goes on in your state w/out so much as a whimper...
 
FFL's are already required for in-state purchases on the basis that they MIGHT have been shipped interstate. There's a lot of dancing required to get there, but the Fed has gotten there before.

Even if they do want to follow the spirit AND the letter of the law, they can incentivize the States to enact a law requiring it, and throwing access open to state LEO's to do the check. He said legislation, not federal legislation. There are already locals that require some approximation of this.

Beyond that, I'm not sure interstate smuggling = interstate commerce.

Finally I would ask him to offer more options...

Support

Tolerate

Oppose

Civilly disobey...
 
Enforce, to the fullest, all the gun and violence laws we already allowed to be put on the books for ten years then come talk to me about what more is needed...

Until then, I am not for new gun laws...

Brent
 
FFL's are already required for in-state purchases on the basis that they MIGHT have been shipped interstate. There's a lot of dancing required to get there, but the Fed has gotten there before.
Click to expand...
That's not at all the same thing.
Did you bother to read the link I posted above?

That's "the enemy" going to great lengths to justify how they can apply interstate commerce to any private intrastate gun sales.
They know that's going to be the single biggest hurdle for them to overcome.

And here,,,,so many are ready to just give them a free pass on that?
 
Hal said:
No.
There's no interstate commerce involved, therefore I don't want the federal goverment to open that Pandora's box.
Click to expand...

Indeed.

JimDandy said:
FFL's are already required for in-state purchases
Click to expand...

Just to clarify, an in-state transaction need not be performed through an FFL as a matter of federal regulation. I understand some states may have a different law.
 
I guess I have no quarrel with the NICS check per se, what bothers me about the whole scenario, and frankly I would have thought would bother the OP, is that the NICS call data may or may not be retained for an unspecified period of time, and the 4473 is retained forever, resulting in "The sherriff showing up at your door" weeks, months or even years later.

I don't believe there is, ever has been, or ever will be a legitimate law enforcement interest in any sort of tracking/registration/whatever.
 
Do they charge you for a NICS check? If you go in, try and buy a gun, fill out a 4473 form, and get rejected, do you get a bil?
 
hogdogs said:
Enforce, to the fullest, all the gun and violence laws we already allowed to be put on the books for ten years then come talk to me about what more is needed...

Until then, I am not for new gun laws...
Click to expand...

Exactly.

We also have to recognize that such enforcement will require additional funding for both state and federal authorities, if they're actually going to be able to do this -- as well some serious negotiating to balance privacy rights and the public interest. Lack of funding and conflicting privacy laws are the main reasons many states currently don't report the basic info that's required for the current background check system, for example, to work the way it's supposed to.

But talking about taxes... negotiating in good faith... they're just not as sexy as pontificating about so-called "assault weapons," or the Constitution, or the way kids are drugged nowadays. No fun at all. Darn. :cool:
 
Aside from the really big one of interstate commerce, there's the smaller issue of participation. Not all otherwise law abiding citizens will participate, either through ignorance or otherwise.

A good example is California, since 1991(maybe 92?) they have required all transfers(very few exceptions) to go through FFLs, but there are still guns in the hands of criminals there. So either all the guns get stolen, or no matter what the rules some people don't know them or don't care about them even if they are otherwise law abiding.
 
No support here either….
So, you covered your self with a receipt. Paper trail on your end established.
"ultimately" You stop nothing…
"Straw purchases" That's one huge problem around here!!
I see it happen, I watch it, I know its going down and can't do a thing about it!!
You simply can't prove it.. And I Know more than likely you have seen it go down as well.
 
When they stop charging me for a NICS check, we'll talk.
Click to expand...

This unfortunately is not the Fed's doing. That's the state because they've chosen to act as point-of-contact(middleman) instead of allowing FFLs to deal directly with the free NICS service.
 
Don P said:
. . . .Would you support legislation that requires all firearms transactions to go through a FFL? . . . .
Click to expand...
For reasons already adequately expressed by others, no.

Hal said:
Even this unholy alliance of anti gun senators understands the importance of the interstate commerce clause:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:S.35:
Click to expand...
From the link quoted by Hal:
`(38) GUN SHOW VENDOR- The term `gun show vendor' means any person who exhibits, sells, offers for sale, transfers, or exchanges 1 or more firearms at a gun show, regardless of whether or not the person arranges with the gun show promoter for a fixed location from which to exhibit, sell, offer for sale, transfer, or exchange 1 or more firearms.'.
Click to expand...
By my reading of hte plain text of this paragraph, every person who takes a gun to a show, even if only to show it off, will be deemed a "gun show vendor."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top