system for Private sale background checks

[Sigma 40 Blaster]

Didn't vote in the poll because none of the answers fit my way of thinking.

If I sell a guy to anyone that I bought, I add a $25 FFL transfer fee and get the guys at the gun shop to do a transfer from my name to the buyer's name. I wouldn't consider selling a gun without that as it's proof that the gun is no longer in my possession.

If I buy a gun from an individual I prefer this is done as well to help ensure that I'm not buying a hot gun and even if I am and the transfer goes through I have some way of proving I bought and registered the gun in a manner that should have stopped any funny business from happening.

 

[Ronnie]

I would have to agree with Edward, as to this statement:

"You have a decent idea inasmuch as we should all be careful who we sell weapons off too, but get real, doing it your way would require regulation and control. Something the governing forces always abuse to the detriment of the honest man."

The government isn't known for common sense when it comes to protecting the rights of the individual citizen. Come to think of it they aren't known for restraint when it comes to trampling on the rights of the individual either.
The current system works well enough for me, we do not need any more background checks or ID cards. We do need more common sense in government, and loosening of the laws pertaining to the regular law abiding citizen to carry firearms.

 

[JN01]

Ask to see the potential buyers CC license. If they have one, their background has already been checked.

 

[w_houle]

Every time I have went to purchase a firearm I am always delayed and end up waiting for three days to get my purchase In an optimistic setting I can see a personal sale getting the yes, no, or delayed. If a person is delayed in a private sale is the seller then obligated to be at the phone if the person is accepted or declined?
The only problem I see is progun vs. antigun, and the fact that those with guns are willing to compromise while antigunners are willing to do whatever it takes to make sure that there is no individual leagally able to own a gun.

 

[Hawg]

No a good idea. There's no way to know what anybody you sell to is going to do with it, even if they jump through all the hoops to get it. If you're worried about how you're going to feel if somebody does something bad with it then never sell one except to a licensed dealer. Let him feel bad and I assure you a dealer isn't going to worry about what gets done with it as long as he's done everything correctly. I once sold a cheap imported derringer to a bartender I'd only met a couple of times but he wanted it really bad so I sold it to him. A few days later he was closing up the bar with the gun in his shirt pocket. He bent over and it fell out and went off when it hit the floor. The bullet went through a cabinet door and hit him in the heart killing him. I felt kinda bad about it but I didn't blame myself for it.

 

[Rogueone]

so, I guess most of you would agree that just going to a FFL dealer to process the transaction would be the best option if you had concerns on a private sale??

 

[JuanCarlos]

I voted NO!!! Don't you trust your own judgement? If a prospective buyer looks hinky, don't sell to them. No police, no fees, no new regulation, and you've done your duty of caring enough for the community to be careful of who you sold it too. We must be allowed to think for ourselves without governmental interference.

You know, felon's don't always look "hinky." I've known a couple people I didn't even know were felons until it came up...they were normal, upstanding citizens (when I knew them). Had it come down to it, I'd not have had a second thought about selling to them.

Of course, those particularly guys wouldn't have tried to buy from me either. But the point is that felons don't always look like felons. In fact, if you asked me to define "looking like a felon" I'd have a hard time doing so, as any description that didn't include a prison jumpsuit would include a lot of false positives and false negatives.

 

[Edward429451]

Hmmm, apparently it is much easier to spot a bad guy than I realized. . .

Translation: I've never picked up a body language book or been to a psychology class (J/K). In fact it is easy, you just have to know what to look for. Look em in the eye and ask em questions. The eyes are the windows to the soul and tell all if you know what to look for. Just ask a cop, they may have trouble reading addresses sometimes but generally are very good at reading people and asking questions designed to make one uncomfortable. If the response is anything at all but obvious good guy, deal closed.

It is not absolutely infallible, but then again, nothing is. The first rule is do not trust anyone.

Are not there many "felons" who don't "look" like felons? or possibly they are simply persons like Cho. Would you have thought to not sell to him? (i know, it wouldn't have mattered since the system didn't have him in it, but would his being a quiet unassuming person set off your nut detector?)

Of course there are felons who don't look the part, and who even train themselves to lie effectivly. I can't say for sure about cho because I've not been in front of him or looked into his eyes etc. Probably not based on the pic of him I seen. Quiet and unassuming means nothing. In this day & age I do not trust foreigners. Call me a racist if you will but I must call it like I see it.

How about child molesters, rapists, etc. I'd say most of those people are very "normal" looking. Just look at how many ended up in the priesthood. No one suspected them until it had become catastrophic in scope. How about a guy who is everyone's best bud at work, and is the guy to hang out with at a bar, but is a wife abuser at home and gets drunk and violent at home? Are you going to know he's been convicted of something that would prevent his buying your gun?

Your first statement here I agree with. That doesn't mean that they would pass your field interrogation of them. So many pervert priests made it in because people are generally unconscious and take what they hear as fact, or just don't care. I've turned down the cool guy(s) at work for gun purchases several times. Being good or cool at work means nothing to hinkiness perception. I generally leave work at work and do not bring home the bums just because they're good at work.

Using your line of logic, you can not sell off your old silverware set in a yard sale because a buyer might go home and stab his wife with it. You can not give the man walking with a gas can a ride to the gas station for gas because you really don't know that he's not going to go torch a building with it.

What you propose is to defer the decisionmaking of the sale to somene else, instead of thinking for yourself. That is not good. What happens when some felon slips one through the system, you sell based on the approval, and he goes out and murders someone with it anyway? Oh sure, you might not be liable at that point but is that what this is about, liability only? I would hope not.

Either way, you're only going to be able to be sure of your sale 99% at best. There is no absolutes. Given the track record of the system I'd be more inclined to trust my own judgement. Why not put forth the effort and dollars towards cultivating your instinct and understanding human behavior / body language?

Making the sale go through an FFL is no guarentee of anything either. You sound like you're only worried about the potential liability. IMO, that's very wrong sir. Are you just looking for a defense, someone to point at if it goes bad and say HE SAID IT WAS OK?!

Let's not let this thread go downhill, keep it light. I've attacked no one. If I've touched a nerve, then perhaps some more thinking on the subject is in order to understand why it made you uncomfortable or mad. (You asked for my thoughts!)

 

[homefires]

:barf: It's never going to end is it? Again for the ????? Time! No Gun Controls Are Going To Stop The Bad Man From Obtaining Them!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


No One Needs To Know What I Have or What I Had! Period.s


When you submit the inquirey, what list does there name go on?

 

[Rogueone]

Edward I like that last line of responses. Just wish the anti-gun types would follow along like that Why aren't all knifes outlawed? They are extremely dangerous weapons and a hazard to peoples lives. And how about cars? Tens of thousands die each year because of the misuse of cars. But I haven't seen a cry for banning our owning cars? Yet cars are many many times more dangerous than guns. And unlike a gun, your car can't be used to save lives very often, or to prevent crime very often. You can't really stop that out of control dump truck with your car. You can stop an out of control person with your gun. hmm

 

[SecDef]

You can stop an out of control person with your gun. hmm

Of course the anti response is that you can also "stop" 10 in control people with your gun, too.

 

[Let it Bleed]

If you’re selling to a resident of another State, then you must use a federally licensed firearms dealer. If the buyer is a resident of the same State as the seller, the feds have absolutely no authority to regulate such a transaction.

The more due diligence requirements that are imposed on a seller of a firearm only increases the potential for liability. In SC, as long as I do not knowingly transfer a firearm to a prohibited person, I have no liability. Creating even a voluntary system of background checks for intrastate transactions has the potential of creating civil liability for those who opt not to use it.

If a seller chooses not to take advantage of this wonderful system set up to protect him, then he exposes himself to civil liability. As a prospective seller, you can demand all the proof you want from a prospective buyer if you have concerns about transferring your property. Creating a government licensure system simply forces everyone else to share your concerns and conform their behavior to your standards.

I realize your intent is to simplify the private transfer of firearms and provide protection for the seller, but its real effect is to burden an individual's right to dispose of personal property as he deems proper. Second, unless you believe that intrastate firearm sales between an individual seller and buyer involved in a private transaction is a substantial source of illicit firearms, then what harm are you seeking to prevent with further governmental intrusion and regulation?

“The road to ruin is paved with good intentions.”

 

[Bruxley]

"............yeah I'll sell it to you for that much money, you mind if i see your voter registration card? Just want to cover my six should you not be legally allowed to own a gun. I don't want to be a felon. Ha ha.

Oh you don't have it on you, thats OK, we can meet up later so you can get it."

In most cases the lose of civil rights that someone has been penalized with not only includes firearms but also the right to vote. There are exceptions I'm sure but I made a duly diligent effort

 

[ronl]

A National Registry of those unable to own weapons that anyone can access would seem like a better idea to me.

 

[SecDef]

A National Registry of those unable to own weapons that anyone can access would seem like a better idea to me.

As long as it also has their address so I know which house to rob.

 

[Edward429451]

Hey thanks for the kind words Rogueone.

homefires summed it all up very succinctly.

 

[bushidomosquito]

OP ain't big on personal freedom, is he?

In the great state of Missourri, we currently have the right to sell our guns to whomever we like without regards to anything but age limitations. This is as it should be. Your sugesstion that we have that right regulated makes me :barf: If you're so worried about what bad guys will do with guns, then why don't you come up with a "brilliant" plan to expand the freedoms of law abiding citizens to have a gun when they need it instead of proposing to impose more useless legislation upon them that will do nothing to deter criminals. How determined does someone have to be to walk into a (usually)gun free zone and start taking lives? How the hell can any laws ever stop them? Why don't you come over to our side instead of trying to rationalize the anti gun way of thinking (More laws! We need more laws! That'll fix everything!)

I have met many individuals who, upon finding out that I was into guns, informed me that they could get me "anything I wanted" much cheaper and without any gov. red tape. I've even had them come up to me at the range as if they were out networking that day! They are like drug pushers looking for a new customer. Think about it. Drugs are completely illegal. Almost no one is allowed to have them and yet there are many people willing to make a living by selling them. Anytime you make something harder to aquire legally, you increase the value of that item to anyone who can't aquire legally as well as the number of people willing to steal and sell that item. Tighten the restrictions on who can own and you expand the customer base for the black market. If we really ever found a system that completly prevented legal firearms sales to individuals not allowed to own one, then your guns become about as valueable to a theif as a big sack of crack. A big sack of crack that you wear on your belt, take to the range, talk about with buddies, leave in your car and leave in your nightstand when you're not home. I only have 4 big sacks of crack in my home, I think many of you have much more than that. How much incintive do we want to give someone to come after them?

 

[Rogueone]

so bushido, are you saying there should be no background checks at all? Is it not reasonable to prevent felons and mentally disturbed persons from getting guns??

As to the National Registry of those not allowed to own guns, isn't that what the NICS is? It's not a list of those allowed to own guns, that'd be stupid since that would be like 90% of the country, it's a list of those prevented from owning guns. Whether there is data collected on how many times a person's name is filtered thru, that's a valid question.

I like the voter card question. That's a good idea. If they don't vote, hence no card, they don't deserve to own my gun. And if they can't vote, well, they aren't allowed to own my gun. I like that idea. Hence why I posed this question, to find it's flaws, and see if there aren't better solutions, and/or existing solutions I and others I talk to haven't thought of.

As long as NICS is a collection of those BARRED from owning guns, I have no problem with the database. That's no different than a database of all Felons so they can't get voter registration or run for office etc., or lists of other such law breaking persons who have a track record of not being "law abiding". It's not my intent to harm us in any way, though the comment that this idea could cause more possible civil liability if NOT used was a good one I hadn't considered. Thanks Bleed.

If NICS keeps a tab on the names that are ran against it's lists, that would seem to be both unnecessary and disturbing, and I don't really know what it collects since I don't know much about it other than it tells an FFL I'm not a felon

 

[ForksLaPush]

Hmmm, apparently it is much easier to spot a bad guy than I realized. . .

Translation: I've never picked up a body language book or been to a psychology class (J/K). In fact it is easy, you just have to know what to look for. Look em in the eye and ask em questions. The eyes are the windows to the soul and tell all if you know what to look for. Just ask a cop, they may have trouble reading addresses sometimes but generally are very good at reading people and asking questions designed to make one uncomfortable. If the response is anything at all but obvious good guy, deal closed.

It is not absolutely infallible, but then again, nothing is. The first rule is do not trust anyone.

I agree with your first rule, but I have taken sworn statements of dozens of people, unknown to them I had documents to prove the answers to my questions. Conclusion: You can't tell with any consistency. Very often liars appear to be truthful, and on occasion some nervous people appear to be lying when they are not.

 

[Mr. James]

To the OP, I reject your entire statist premise.

We don't need permission to own. We don't need permission to sell. We don't need permission to buy. At least not in a free country.

NICS checks and all the other obstructions, impediments, infringements, and inconveniences may be what we have to deal with in this world. Doesn't make any of it right. And if you had any clue about just how many harmless acts can qualify you as a felon, you wouldn't be spluttering about felons with guns.