Police will consider your being in possession of a stolen gun to be much more serious than being in possession of a stolen cordless drill. Should it be so? Who cares. It WILL be so.
I don't know if it's happened, but I do know what the law is. And in general under the law one can not acquire a right of ownership of stolen property.
And I prefer to follow the law and, in addition, to understand the law and avoid, or at least ameliorate, risks that are a consequence of the law.paull said:...That remains the law, regardless of the object you may be aquiring.
As said, I follow the law....
And I prefer to follow the law and, in addition, to understand the law and avoid, or at least ameliorate, risks that are a consequence of the law.
Nope -- there's "legal" and there's "good business practice." This really has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment.paull said:...The issue to me is that this seems to twist towards "let's restrict ourselves further that legally necessary to avoid potential risk".
Isn't that what we are trying to avoid in our collective support for the 2nd A?...
Nope -- there's "legal" and there's "good business practice." This really has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment.
Nope. But good business practice, when buying a gun in a private transaction, includes both the buyer and seller properly identifying themselves to each other, providing contact information to each other, and documenting the transaction with a written bill of sale.paull said:...Does "good business practice" include background checks on all firearm transactions via FFL's?
How about limiting ammo purchases?
Is Illinois' FOID a "good business practice"?...
Nope. But good business practice, when buying a gun in a private transaction, includes both the buyer and seller properly identifying themselves to each other, providing contact information to each other, and documenting the transaction with a written bill of sale.
I might not go through that sort of rigmarole buying a card table at a garage sale. But I'd certainly be that thorough buying anything of meaningful value or something that is a popular item among thieves -- like a watch, or a piece of jewelry, or an expensive piece of art, or a computer, or a television set, or a gun.
, you would requirea watch, or a piece of jewelry, or an expensive piece of art, or a computer, or a television set, or a gun
?both the buyer and seller properly identifying themselves to each other, providing contact information to each other, and documenting the transaction with a written bill of sale.
Paull said:Really..?
If I put an add in the local paper, or website, for....
Indeed.peetzakilla said:I would require ID and a receipt, yes. If I'm spending more than $50, maybe $75, then yes, I want some assurances.Paull said:Really..?
If I put an add in the local paper, or website, for....
It's a nice, romantic idea to "return" to some mythical Good Old Days in which we all trusted each other implicitly, our word was our bond, and so forth -- but ya know what? Ever since writing was first invented, and involved a stylus and a clay tablet, sensible people have asked for receipts. Just ask any archaeologist...Paull said:I'd like to see it become common (again) for people to trade their wares without excessive restrictions.
And without a receipt, if the jewelry, art, TV, etc., were to be stolen from you, you'd have a hard time collecting from your insurance company...
I would require ID and a receipt, yes.
paull said:So why not support legislation regarding this..?
You think?paull said:Baloney.Vanya said:And without a receipt, if the jewelry, art, TV, etc., were to be stolen from you, you'd have a hard time collecting from your insurance company...
leadcounsel said:However, when I go to a yard sale and see a valuable X item marked really low, I don't question it's origination. If I want it I buy it. Some of these items could theoretically have been stolen, or heck even sold by a family member that isn't the true owner.
leadcounsel said:What if the same seller was selling the same item at a price more in line with the actual value. Would the buyer, without the benefit of the warning of a low asking price, buy the same item without worry? Stated differently, is the selling price that big of a deal?
The fact that an item is at a very public and at least mildly advertised event, not to mention at a persons house, pretty much takes care of an awful lot of questions in my mind.
If I'm buying a gun then I'm getting ID and a receipt. Period, end of story. If you refuse or seem suspect in any way, I'm gone. Price has no bearing in a firearms purchase, high or low dollar.
Sure, if you have a comprehensive, up-to-date inventory including photos or videos, along with records of serial numbers, and professional appraisals of big-ticket items like jewelry and art -- and if your guns, jewelry, or whatever, are covered by separate riders, you'll probably have given your insurance agent copies of all that before the fact. But failing that, if you want the claim settled promptly, for the full value of your property, having receipts which include the model and serial numbers is your best protection.
The insurance company isn't just gonna take your word for it as to what was stolen...
Paull said:Not sure how you rectify these two statements, PK...
It is very apparent that we will not conduct any FTF firearm transactions between ourselves.
What would that have to do with anything? I've no doubt that stolen or counterfeit (in the case of, for example, an expensive watch or painting) have been sold through newspaper or Internet advertisements.paull said:...If I put an add in the local paper, or website...
But when buying from an individual, a stranger, different types of objects may well warrant different types of due diligence. Guns, for example, are popular targets for thieves, are sometimes used in crimes and, after being used for criminal purposes, are sometimes sold as a means of disposing of them. Jewelry may be phony, and collectibles (including collectible guns) are sometimes faked. Expensive watches may be counterfeit or stolen. These are all simply objects, but the uncertainties are different.leadcounsel said:...I don't think we should fall prey to treating guns with some mystical properties like we have been brainwashed to do. Guns are purely objects...