Face to face handgun purchase...legal?
- Thread starter bear71
- Start date
now thats funny I am not so afraid of what will be done with the gun but what uncle sam might do if it isnt all on the up and up, I just hate what the libs have done to honest gun ownership. And I am not paranoid at all.
For the record, I have been shot at, I do carry some fragments in my left shoulder, been stabbed too in the neck. Do I go around in constant fear of "what if"? no, not gonna let it ruin my life, wouldnt be prudent cides, I was in a much rougher line of work at that time and it was all work related injuries. And you?
22-rimfire
New member
Anyone have a link to the FL stolen gun database?
HiltonFarmer
New member
Here Here ... loudly applauding!
HiltonFarmer
HiltonFarmer
New member
Now having said that - in Canada they both have to produce their PALs in order to legally complete the transaction. Province of residence has no bearing.
Hiltonfarmer
Hiltonfarmer
dixierifleman
Moderator
any responsible seller will get the info from the buyer and keep info on the gun. that bein said, criminals will always find a way to get guns. thats why their criminals. i like knowin that i dont have to have the government lookin over my shoulder when its none of their business. its part of bein in this "free" country. as soon as we lose the right to buy from each other, the democrats/liberals have won. and then its only a matter of time before we cant have them at all.
AFShooter said:
Because I think it reasonable to require a check on any person buying a firearm Mrs. Brady loves me. There is a knee jerk reaction for you.
Nobody here wants to hear it but the Second Ammendment means absolutely nothing if the will of the people does not back it up through our elected officials (who after all appoint the judges that then decide on the matter.) The plain truth of the matter is the vast majority of people in this nations see no reason why someone buying a gun should not go through a background check. To stand against that is folly, paints our side as unreasonable and will result in losses for our side when the argument is used against us.
I would never state that requiring an instacheck for face to face purchases would eliminate all cases of criminals buying guns. As it stands though it is a very easy option that they can pursue in many states. They can pay a simple market price (not even an inflated black market price since the sale is to the seller a legal transaction of a used gun) and can use the newspaper to pick out the gun they want to buy. Just instituting the instacheck would result in them having to find an alternate method that will cost more and be more difficult (reducing the amount who can easily do so).
Will it stop all criminals? Certainly not. WIll it hinder them and result in some percentage not getting weapons that currently do? Of course it will.
If someone wants to stand against such a reasonable suggestion realize that you will be opposed by not just the left but all of the middle and a sizable portion of the right. Best to spot the weakness yourself, fix it yourself, and make the best deal possible in the process.
Because I think it reasonable to require a check on any person buying a firearm Mrs. Brady loves me. There is a knee jerk reaction for you.
Nobody here wants to hear it but the Second Ammendment means absolutely nothing if the will of the people does not back it up through our elected officials (who after all appoint the judges that then decide on the matter.) The plain truth of the matter is the vast majority of people in this nations see no reason why someone buying a gun should not go through a background check. To stand against that is folly, paints our side as unreasonable and will result in losses for our side when the argument is used against us.
I would never state that requiring an instacheck for face to face purchases would eliminate all cases of criminals buying guns. As it stands though it is a very easy option that they can pursue in many states. They can pay a simple market price (not even an inflated black market price since the sale is to the seller a legal transaction of a used gun) and can use the newspaper to pick out the gun they want to buy. Just instituting the instacheck would result in them having to find an alternate method that will cost more and be more difficult (reducing the amount who can easily do so).
Will it stop all criminals? Certainly not. WIll it hinder them and result in some percentage not getting weapons that currently do? Of course it will.
If someone wants to stand against such a reasonable suggestion realize that you will be opposed by not just the left but all of the middle and a sizable portion of the right. Best to spot the weakness yourself, fix it yourself, and make the best deal possible in the process.
I only suggested that the transaction should first be cleared via instacheck. So that this would not be an infringment of our rights the instacheck must be funded fully be the government with NO FEES to the seller or buyer. If the governement wants to insure the transaction is legal it is up to them to do so without billing the parties involved directly. It is a right possed by all citizens and exercised or nott he cost of maintaining that right should be shared by all.
You cannot buy or sell weapons grade plutonium to each other, functional surface to air missiles, chemical weapons, or a host or other objects. You are not allowed to sell a Playboy magazine or cigarettes to a minor. There are plenty of things that are regulated. It is already illegal for a felon to a weapon from you and while you may do the reasonable thing and maintain a record that in no way checks the buyer's status or is even required.
dixierifleman
Moderator
oh im sorry, i think an instacheck would be a great idea. i misunderstood what you were sayin.
as for the inflated price of weapons on the black market. stolen weapons sell for ALOT cheaper than non stolen ones.
as for the inflated price of weapons on the black market. stolen weapons sell for ALOT cheaper than non stolen ones.
Thanks dixierifleman.
I find it interseting that stolen weapons sell for less than new. I know in NYC the weapons that are sold onthe streets are often purchased in other states through straw purchases and transported to NYC where they are sold for a huge profit. (Bloomberg is right that many of these guns found in NY come from other states but he is wrong for blaming the dealers who sold them, it is the criminals who bring them to NYC and sel them on the streets that are to blame. Bloomberg is also wrong on just about every other gun related item but I digress.)
What dynamic causes a stolen weapon that is sold to a criminal illegally to be less than a new one? Perhaps it is because in the states where face to face transactions with no checks are legal the ease with which a criminal can get a gun lowers the price? I don't know but it is interesting to ponder. Logic dictates though that if one source dries up or is greatly reduced (sales from legal owners to criminals due to the institution of instachecks) then pressure will be put on the other sources increasing the price (stolen guns sold completely under the table.)
I find it interseting that stolen weapons sell for less than new. I know in NYC the weapons that are sold onthe streets are often purchased in other states through straw purchases and transported to NYC where they are sold for a huge profit. (Bloomberg is right that many of these guns found in NY come from other states but he is wrong for blaming the dealers who sold them, it is the criminals who bring them to NYC and sel them on the streets that are to blame. Bloomberg is also wrong on just about every other gun related item but I digress.)
What dynamic causes a stolen weapon that is sold to a criminal illegally to be less than a new one? Perhaps it is because in the states where face to face transactions with no checks are legal the ease with which a criminal can get a gun lowers the price? I don't know but it is interesting to ponder. Logic dictates though that if one source dries up or is greatly reduced (sales from legal owners to criminals due to the institution of instachecks) then pressure will be put on the other sources increasing the price (stolen guns sold completely under the table.)
dixierifleman
Moderator
well maybe NYC is different. but i know down here, criminals can get their hands on stolen weapons cheap. i think that the person that has it just wants to get rid of it before he is caught.
i happen to have unkowingly bought a stolen shotgun before for $50. it was just a plain pump 12 guage. i think it was a High Standard. when i went home and ran the numbers, it came back stolen. i turned it in to the police and gave them all the info on the person, including name, number, and where he can be found. it was a person i went to school with. he went to jail and was found with many stolen guns(including a full auto UZI that he was selling for $400). hes in prison now and i ate the $50 loss.
i happen to have unkowingly bought a stolen shotgun before for $50. it was just a plain pump 12 guage. i think it was a High Standard. when i went home and ran the numbers, it came back stolen. i turned it in to the police and gave them all the info on the person, including name, number, and where he can be found. it was a person i went to school with. he went to jail and was found with many stolen guns(including a full auto UZI that he was selling for $400). hes in prison now and i ate the $50 loss.
The issue is though that neither the left, the middle nor a large portion of the right see an instant background check to restrict sales of firearms to those not allowed to own them (Felons) as an abridgement or infringement of the lawful citizen's right to own one.
The "reasonable" aspect means recognizing that this isn't an infringement, accepting it, and working with it so as not to marginalize your position with the majority on the rest of the 2A issue.
That anyone should be able to pick up a telephone, dial a number, and have a government minion indicate the instantaneously provide his conclusion about my status purely for the purpose of deciding whether another citizen and I may engage in commerce is odious.
BTW, I don't believe it is only felons prohibited from buying. A misdemeanor domestic violence charge is also disqualifying. Can people with too many unpaid parking tickets be expected to exercise the degree of care we want of gun owners?
It doesn't take extra-ordianry foresight to see that the ability to regulate is the ability to abridge and prohibit.
I disupte that it is not infringement. I suggest that a right that you retain only so long as the majority wants you to have it isn't worth calling a right.
Zukiphile,
I understand your concerns about anyone checking. I would make it illegal to check for anything but a firearms transaction and the person being checked on would recieve a written notification of the notice that the check took place and who did it. If it was an illegla check it could be reproted, investigated and prosecuted as needed.
You may not agree that the law says certain individuals are banned from firearms ownership, that is your right to argue. Are you saying though that it is wrong to institute a system to guard agaisnt those persons purchasing firearms illegally? We are not argueing their right to purchase here, that is already settled in law and will take a separate debat and court case/legislation to resolve, we are agruing following the existing law.
If your argument is that the proposed instacheck system is wrong because it will prevent the sale of firearms through one channel to those banned by law because you disagree with the law then you are on very shaky ground. You need to argue for the repeal of the law banning them, not the creation of a system to punish or dissuade those who wantonly break the law.
Do you think illegal aliens should be allowed to vote? Wouldn't banning them from voting be regulation? Is regulation therefore always wrong?
There is no problem with regulation of a right so long as the purpose of said regulation is to insure those not endowed with the right do not exercise it. As long as the regulation is done in a way so it does not unreasonably hinder the lawful citizen it will ALWAYS be upheld in the courts. The "Unreasonable" aspect is where debate hits the courts and the bottom line is you will always loose an argument where one claims a free to the user instacheck system is an unreasonable regulation. It was challenged already with Brady.
That fight is lost and dead, it is only a matter of time before the face to face sale is really taken to task nation wide. Either the pro 2A people can recognize this and craft the legislation and system themselves, with as many perks as they can get in exchange, or they can wait for a truly onerous version of the legislation that has originated in the Brady camp and is accompanied by numerous side agenda items which will really hurt our side to come out. If we remove the issue from them we control the debate and the course. Sit on our hands though and we start out as the bad guys and never recover.
I understand your concerns about anyone checking. I would make it illegal to check for anything but a firearms transaction and the person being checked on would recieve a written notification of the notice that the check took place and who did it. If it was an illegla check it could be reproted, investigated and prosecuted as needed.
You may not agree that the law says certain individuals are banned from firearms ownership, that is your right to argue. Are you saying though that it is wrong to institute a system to guard agaisnt those persons purchasing firearms illegally? We are not argueing their right to purchase here, that is already settled in law and will take a separate debat and court case/legislation to resolve, we are agruing following the existing law.
If your argument is that the proposed instacheck system is wrong because it will prevent the sale of firearms through one channel to those banned by law because you disagree with the law then you are on very shaky ground. You need to argue for the repeal of the law banning them, not the creation of a system to punish or dissuade those who wantonly break the law.
Do you think illegal aliens should be allowed to vote? Wouldn't banning them from voting be regulation? Is regulation therefore always wrong?
There is no problem with regulation of a right so long as the purpose of said regulation is to insure those not endowed with the right do not exercise it. As long as the regulation is done in a way so it does not unreasonably hinder the lawful citizen it will ALWAYS be upheld in the courts. The "Unreasonable" aspect is where debate hits the courts and the bottom line is you will always loose an argument where one claims a free to the user instacheck system is an unreasonable regulation. It was challenged already with Brady.
That fight is lost and dead, it is only a matter of time before the face to face sale is really taken to task nation wide. Either the pro 2A people can recognize this and craft the legislation and system themselves, with as many perks as they can get in exchange, or they can wait for a truly onerous version of the legislation that has originated in the Brady camp and is accompanied by numerous side agenda items which will really hurt our side to come out. If we remove the issue from them we control the debate and the course. Sit on our hands though and we start out as the bad guys and never recover.
Since you do not control the political process by which the scope of individual rights would be narrowed, your assurances about how the new government power would be used give little comfort. Even in your best case scenario, you would only receive paper notification after the system had been misused. In your personal regulatory scheme, an illegal check could be reported and prosecuted. Judging from the rate of prosecution for prohibited individuals who make application wrongly with a licensee, the threat of prosecution for having made a telephone call to the government is not a likely deterrent.
No. I am saying that federal regulation of lawful owners exercising a right is not the best way to dissuade a criminal from buying a gun, and that submitting your rights to a vote is a weak position.
Indeed, we are. You propose that my neighbour and I be prohibited from transferring a firearm unless we receive a government imprimatur.
That is incorrect. Existing law permits face to face transfers between non-licensees without need of federal approval.
No.
No. Banning IIs from voting does not regulate my ability to vote.
Where it abridges a right that may not be abridged, yes.
People do terrible harm through careless speech. Some people have promisd not to communicate sensitive information by being parties to non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements with government or other parties. Others may be subject to prosecution if their words violate the espionage act.
Would you agree to be required to have all your public communication screened by a federal agent before you speak publicly so that we could have reasonable safeguards against abuse of speech?
I hope not. That regulation of speech abridges the right of free speech.
That is false as a matter of law.
Since the Brady litigation did not pertain to non-licensed transfers, your conclusion is false.
That is a political judgment, and not one with which I agree. If you've simply determined the inevitability of defeat, and are suing for surrender terms, you must know that it may not be the last defeat.
Perks? As in the Bill of Perks?
How long before your perks are argued to be unreasonable by other shooters who are just looking for the compromise that makes them look more reasonable in the next election?
Just to play Devil’s Advocate, I think I can see both sides of this discussion.
One side is arguing that we do not need more government intrusion into our rights as this can lead to undesired results. I tend to agree with this stand as no one is forcing you to sell your gun to an unknown person. If you don’t feel comfortable with it, don’t do it.
The other side is looking for some method of insuring they aren’t selling their firearm to someone who is banned from owning one. As far as I can see, there is no way of doing this without some sort of government intervention. About the best you can do is to try to CYA as well as you can.
Getting “ID” is a step in the right direction, but were I a “Bad Guy”, I would make sure I had false ID for this very reason. How many of us are experts at spotting a false ID?
If you are uncomfortable with selling without some sort of positive proof the buyer is OK, your choices seem to be don’t sell, sell only to people you know or run the sale through a FFL’s books. I suppose you could insist that the buyer fill out a 4473, but if he chose to lie on it, I don’t know if there would be any “force of law” behind it or not. (Besides it might open you to a charge of “acting like a dealer”)
One side is arguing that we do not need more government intrusion into our rights as this can lead to undesired results. I tend to agree with this stand as no one is forcing you to sell your gun to an unknown person. If you don’t feel comfortable with it, don’t do it.
The other side is looking for some method of insuring they aren’t selling their firearm to someone who is banned from owning one. As far as I can see, there is no way of doing this without some sort of government intervention. About the best you can do is to try to CYA as well as you can.
Getting “ID” is a step in the right direction, but were I a “Bad Guy”, I would make sure I had false ID for this very reason. How many of us are experts at spotting a false ID?
If you are uncomfortable with selling without some sort of positive proof the buyer is OK, your choices seem to be don’t sell, sell only to people you know or run the sale through a FFL’s books. I suppose you could insist that the buyer fill out a 4473, but if he chose to lie on it, I don’t know if there would be any “force of law” behind it or not. (Besides it might open you to a charge of “acting like a dealer”)
You have it backwards. The will of the people means nothing if it goes against the constitution.
The constitution is not a list of suggestions it is the absolute rule that the government is allowed to operate under.
The will of the people is another way of saying democracy and we are not subjected to that unjust system in America