Wildalaska
Moderator
You got to lighten up. Life is to short.
Then in that view, we should be bombing Mexico
WildisbillingdaytodayughhAlaska TM
Mexican Police arrested at Phoenix, Az. Gun Show on felony charges
- Thread starter LAK Supply
- Start date
You got to lighten up. Life is to short.
Then in that view, we should be bombing Mexico
WildisbillingdaytodayughhAlaska TM
and here is where I get crucified...
We as a community need to realize this face to face private person transaction business minus any checks is a load of garbage and do something about it!
Simply requiring an instacheck, over the phone, where an ID from the state in which the sale is taking place must be shown and the two call together is enough. It would have stopped this sale COLD. We KNOW others are going on to people who are prohibited from owning firearms.
Simply make the law. Make the instacheck free so as to not unreasonably hinder the excersice of one rights. We look like a bunch of morons when we say that gun shows are NOT a place where weapons are sold to criminals while requiring NO checks whatsoever for the transaction as long as it is "PRIVATE". Any other pro 2A argument we make is partially discreditted by the stupidity of the argument supporting check free private sales. If people would step back from their entrenched positions and recognize this we could close a huge hole in our position.
armoredman
New member
Musketeer, you parroting anti propaganda. Why should I, who have conducted many face to face lawful transactions in AZ, be forced to PAY extra to an FFL, (check how it is done in Kommiefornia, no matter what you say, you will pay for it!), AND let fed.gov get involved in MY lawful private business.
I say nay, keep your laws out of my state.
BTW, Wild - we paid for this land - check Gadsen. Mexico could NOT afford a refund at adjusted dollars...though I would love to see them try.
I say nay, keep your laws out of my state.
BTW, Wild - we paid for this land - check Gadsen. Mexico could NOT afford a refund at adjusted dollars...though I would love to see them try.
Because it is illegal for certain people to own firearms in this nation.
Because the SCOTUS will NEVER strike down what are considerred reasonable restrictions that still allow law abiding citizens to buy, sell and own firearms.
Because I already said the check must be free, if the gov't wishes to enact a "reasonable restriction" it is a cost all of society must bear and not a penalty to the immediate person forced to go through it. If you have a problem with paying then take it up with someone who says you should.
I know about having to go through an FFL, I live in NY. We need a permit to just touch a handgun let alone own one. I have not said you would need to.
Because your LAWFUL private business may not be lawful. How do you know the person isn't a felon, an illegal alien, from another state? Unless this is your neighbor, and you are certain he has no felony convictions from 20 years before you met him that he never told you about right?, you don't know.
I am not parrotting anti propaganda. The bottom line is you could go and sell a gun an illegal alien right now who has no ID and doesn't speak English and all you would have to say was "I thought he was legal?" Look at this with some logic and you have to admit there is a hole present in this system. Saying otherwise is simply a lie.
If you want a fool proof (meaning it could not be twisted into something more than what it was) piece of theoretical legislation that cost you nothing, only involved a phone call to an free number, and requires you to keep no written record then guess what? The knee jerk reaction from most here would be NO WAY. The rejection has nothing to do with logic, only emotion.
People do not like it but the majority of the nation is well against us on this. The antis get to paint gun shows as arms bazzarrs where criminals buy guns. We know that is not the real case but we also know there is a huge hole that allows the sale of weapons to those banned with no reprecussion to the seller.
Why wouldn't you, as a private seller, not want to know that the person you sold a gun to was not a convicted felon, illegal alien, or even fugitive. Even better why would you not want said banned person to decide not to even try buying from you because they knew they would not be approved with the call? Let them deal with other criminals who knowingly break the law to arm them. If the weapons used in crimes are linked back to a private seller the authorities simply need watch them and try to buy a weapon from them. If the seller doesn't make the call they can be arrested for selling a weapon without making the required background check. Don't even bother trying to prove anything backwards from the crime commited with the earlier weapon since NO RECORDS SHALL BE KEPT.
If gun owners choose to make their stand on this hill, refusing checks for private sales, they have no stable foundation. The fall they take on this issue may also hurt us on real issues we should be fighting against.
People need to see the forest through the trees.
Because the SCOTUS will NEVER strike down what are considerred reasonable restrictions that still allow law abiding citizens to buy, sell and own firearms.
Because I already said the check must be free, if the gov't wishes to enact a "reasonable restriction" it is a cost all of society must bear and not a penalty to the immediate person forced to go through it. If you have a problem with paying then take it up with someone who says you should.
I know about having to go through an FFL, I live in NY. We need a permit to just touch a handgun let alone own one. I have not said you would need to.
Because your LAWFUL private business may not be lawful. How do you know the person isn't a felon, an illegal alien, from another state? Unless this is your neighbor, and you are certain he has no felony convictions from 20 years before you met him that he never told you about right?, you don't know.
I am not parrotting anti propaganda. The bottom line is you could go and sell a gun an illegal alien right now who has no ID and doesn't speak English and all you would have to say was "I thought he was legal?" Look at this with some logic and you have to admit there is a hole present in this system. Saying otherwise is simply a lie.
If you want a fool proof (meaning it could not be twisted into something more than what it was) piece of theoretical legislation that cost you nothing, only involved a phone call to an free number, and requires you to keep no written record then guess what? The knee jerk reaction from most here would be NO WAY. The rejection has nothing to do with logic, only emotion.
People do not like it but the majority of the nation is well against us on this. The antis get to paint gun shows as arms bazzarrs where criminals buy guns. We know that is not the real case but we also know there is a huge hole that allows the sale of weapons to those banned with no reprecussion to the seller.
Why wouldn't you, as a private seller, not want to know that the person you sold a gun to was not a convicted felon, illegal alien, or even fugitive. Even better why would you not want said banned person to decide not to even try buying from you because they knew they would not be approved with the call? Let them deal with other criminals who knowingly break the law to arm them. If the weapons used in crimes are linked back to a private seller the authorities simply need watch them and try to buy a weapon from them. If the seller doesn't make the call they can be arrested for selling a weapon without making the required background check. Don't even bother trying to prove anything backwards from the crime commited with the earlier weapon since NO RECORDS SHALL BE KEPT.
If gun owners choose to make their stand on this hill, refusing checks for private sales, they have no stable foundation. The fall they take on this issue may also hurt us on real issues we should be fighting against.
People need to see the forest through the trees.
“Unless they purchased them from a dealer the seller did nothing wrong.”
Try again.
(B1) To whom may an unlicensed person transfer firearms under the GCA? [Back]
A person may sell a firearm to an unlicensed resident of his State, if he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law. A person may loan or rent a firearm to a resident of any State for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes, if he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law. A person may sell or transfer a firearm to a licensee in any State. However, a firearm other than a curio or relic may not be transferred interstate to a licensed collector.
[18 U.S.C. 922(a)(3) and (5), 922(d), 27 CFR 478.29 and 478.30]
http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/faq2.htm#b1
Try again.
(B1) To whom may an unlicensed person transfer firearms under the GCA? [Back]
A person may sell a firearm to an unlicensed resident of his State, if he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law. A person may loan or rent a firearm to a resident of any State for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes, if he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law. A person may sell or transfer a firearm to a licensee in any State. However, a firearm other than a curio or relic may not be transferred interstate to a licensed collector.
[18 U.S.C. 922(a)(3) and (5), 922(d), 27 CFR 478.29 and 478.30]
http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/faq2.htm#b1
I do not know you are a felon, can I sell you a gun? Certainly, even if you have served 20 years for murder since I don't know about it.
I don't know you you are an illegal alien. Certainly you appear Mexican and you only speak Spanish but we live in a nation where even looking for terrorists who wish to blow up airliners we are prohibited from using profiling! How can I, Joe citizen, profile if our own government doesn't?
Reasonable Cause to believe... so unless something JUMPS OUT at me it is a sale with no problems. It does not say I need to check ID, "he looked honest enough to me!" Unless the buyer says or does something that makes me assume he falls into the negative I have NO reasonable cause to believe he is banned.
Sorry, but that clause is big enough to drive a Kenworth through.
The BUYER can break any law he wants but can easily make the seller an accomplice in it, even if only a legal accomplice!
"A person may sell a firearm to an unlicensed resident of his State..."
Not a lot of space on that one.
You need to see a drivers license or some proof of residency.
It is not all that hard.
Winning against the feds happens, of course the legal bills are likely to destroy you anyway.
Not a lot of space on that one.
You need to see a drivers license or some proof of residency.
It is not all that hard.
Winning against the feds happens, of course the legal bills are likely to destroy you anyway.
The WHOLE section applies and without a direct requirement to show proof then it does not exist.
"Why did you sell it to him when he wasn't from AZ?"
"He said he was."
"What did his DL say?"
"Why should I doubt him, he seemed to reasonably be from AZ..."
HUGE HOLE. If there is not direct accountability then it does not exist.
You are free to enjoy your dealings with the feds and the accommodations they provide.
It is incumbent on a seller of a firearm to know and obey the rules.
You do not get to pick part of the law to obey, but must obey each part separately.
Trying to justify after the fact that you failed to verify even a simple requirement like residency is a great way to get you ass in a sling.
It is incumbent on a seller of a firearm to know and obey the rules.
You do not get to pick part of the law to obey, but must obey each part separately.
Trying to justify after the fact that you failed to verify even a simple requirement like residency is a great way to get you ass in a sling.
LAK Supply
New member
NO! You don't say....?
Is producing fake ID's one of those "jobs Americans won't do?" 
You should do a little more reading on your history.... maybe the meaning of the word purchase, and how the Mexican-American war was started. !s usual you're good for a laugh though........
I'm awaiting your usual response that I'm racist BTW......
If the Mexican government knew we were willing to do that they might just stop pawning their socio-economic problems off on us and fix their own country.
Well thanks! That's gracious of you!
Last time I checked the Constitution was written to avoid the issue of tyranny by majority.....? As long as people (Heller at this time) are willing to bring it into the light it doesn't matter what the anti's think. Giving a little here and there is what got us into this whole mess to begin with. I may be crazy though.... I also happen to think that 90% of the firearms laws on the books are unconstitutional and need to be repealed.
That's one of the reasons I moved out of CA.... well, that and the taxes, stupid laws, vehicle smog, land prices, etc etc etc. Unfortunately I feel you are correct Nate45.....
You're probably 100% on this one.... it's difficult to get anything like that done when the leaders of our country are in bed with the leaders of the offending parties' country.....
So you check the ID, debatable fut I let you have it for the sake of argument. He is a recently released rapist. How do you know? That's right, you don't! You know nothing because you have no background check to make certain lawful citizens are not selling arms to illegal buyers.
Yet a large enough majority can change ANY PORTION of the COTUS through the Amendment Process. Guess the majority can change stuff if they get big enough...
There is no way that the 2A will ever stand up in the SCOTUS to be 100% free of restrictions. We know that and the Legislative and Executive branches are not going to get together and write a new 2A that is clearly and positively free from all restrictions ever. Sorry but get over it and join the real world.
In the real world a huge hole like this can sink the ship. There is nothing wrong with admitting and plugging the hole yourself. I know the conspiracy nuts love to rally against the NRA but notice how they handled VT. They basically said "Hey guys, you had the laws and dropped the ball, now fix how they are implemented." Well we have a law about felons and illegals buying guns, now we need to figure out a way to implement it. If you remove all burden from the seller with the exception of a free phone call and looking at an ID you cannot argue an unreasonable infringement and win. If you ignore it though and let the antis choose the fight they will tie some stuff you really don't want to see to the bill. It will go before the American people and the pro 2A crowd will have to defend the position that law abiding citizens should be able to sell guns to felons... because that is exactly what the current position is. They SHOULDN'T do it but there is no way to stop it. No tool for the seller who honestly wants to be certain of the sale short of an FFL transfer.
How about this for the personal responsibility people out there. Put the free instacheck by phone system in place and make it voluntary. Then if anyone chooses to sell a gun without using it and it turns out they did sell to a person who would not have been allowed they can be charged for not taking "reasonable" precautions, even sued for the damages they facilitated the criminal to commit by ILLEGALLY selling him his weapon. This only punishes those who do not use a system and sell to those who are not allowed by law to own. If you don't want to run a check to sell to your buddy Bubba who you have known for 40 years then fine, as long as Bubba is clean. You though take the responsibility for the consequences of any illegal sale.
KenpoProfessor
New member
What I see here in AZ are a few with sympathy for the ILLEGALS , and they are willing to sell them guns regardless of the law. Just last week we had a cop die at the hands of an ILLEGAL, who had obtained a gun http://seeingredaz.wordpress.com/2007/09/19/another-phoenix-police-officer-slain/ . RIP officer Erfle
Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day
Clyde
Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day
Clyde
armoredman
New member
Musketeer, AZ law is written to put the responability where it belongs, on the seller. If I, as a seller, do not know enough about the individual I am selling to, I am not required to complete the sale! I had this happen many moons ago when trying to sell an Uzi Model B in the paper, and having a man call with heavy Spanish accent, asking to meet me at 9PM behind a Domino's Pizza! Negative, have a nice day.
I can tell you for a FACT, arrest records and criminal backgrounds are NOT complete, or even close to up to date. NICS is nice, but untrustworthy. Been there, done that.
If you like the way your laws are written in your state, I am happy for you, but do me a favor - don't trying to "improve" my state, we are just fine down here, thanks.
I can tell you for a FACT, arrest records and criminal backgrounds are NOT complete, or even close to up to date. NICS is nice, but untrustworthy. Been there, done that.
If you like the way your laws are written in your state, I am happy for you, but do me a favor - don't trying to "improve" my state, we are just fine down here, thanks.
"So you check the ID, debatable fut I let you have it for the sake of argument. He is a recently released rapist. How do you know?"
This argument seems to be heading towards the 'if it is not perfect, do nothing' train.
The law tends to be resonable (no matter what you think).
If you asked to see some proof of residnecy and were shown a forged DL (as long as it reasonably appeared real) you have fulfilled your obligation.
Simply asking if the person can legally own a firearm probably fills thew rest.
The laws may be questionable, but unless you are ready to fight them in court (and take the possible consequences) blatently ignoring them is not a good option.
This argument seems to be heading towards the 'if it is not perfect, do nothing' train.
The law tends to be resonable (no matter what you think).
If you asked to see some proof of residnecy and were shown a forged DL (as long as it reasonably appeared real) you have fulfilled your obligation.
Simply asking if the person can legally own a firearm probably fills thew rest.
The laws may be questionable, but unless you are ready to fight them in court (and take the possible consequences) blatently ignoring them is not a good option.
Nothing is perfect. It is not reasonable that we expect criminals to use the honor system and reveal their felon status when buying a firearm from an otherwise law abiding citizen. It is not reasonable that no method is in place to facilitate at least a free NICS call.
I gaurentee you this is coming. We can either be on the side that draws it up and attaches benifits to our side to it or we can let the other side once agaisnt dominate the debate.
There is no way you are going to convince the majority of America that simply asking a felon if he is a felon is a reasonable method to prevent guns from enterring their hands through law abiding citizens.