Universal background checks

[Aguila Blanca]

i want to see the document and write down nothing. The name of the person goes in the Disposition column of my spreadsheet.

That counts as "writing it down," in my view. It's a record of who bought the gun. You are essentially keeping your own, personal version of an FFL's bound book, so there is a trail. It's not a "paper" trail unless and until it's printed on paper, but it's a trail.

I understand why you do it. I also understand why some buyers balk at having the seller keep a record of the sale.

 

[BBarn]

I would be unable to provide any of those four documents, yet I have passed numerous background checks at several gun stores when buying guns. I never realized I was such a bad risk.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

You are only a bad risk to a private seller who can't run a NICS check and who wants to protect himself by having evidence that you aren't a prohibited person. The law doesn't require postitive proof that you're not -- the law only says that we can't sell a firearm to someone we have reason to believe is a prohibited person -- but a risk-aversive seller can't be blamed for wanting to cover his own posterior.

 

[BBarn]

I realize all of that. It's just that the whole senario smells of guilty before proven innocent.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

I realize all of that. It's just that the whole senario smells of guilty before proven innocent.

Not really. Put yourself in the seller's position. Maybe you bought the gun new, or at least through an FFL, so there's a 4473 out there that points to you. You sell the gun. A couple or few years later there's a knock on the door. It's the BATFE. "Your" gun was just recovered at a murder scene. They want to know how it got there.

You tell them that two (or a few) years ago you sold it to some dude at a yard sale. No, you don't know who he was, but he didn't look like a gang banger and he paid in cash, so you had no reason to think he was prohibited. Perfectly legal -- but if the authorities can't come up with any leads to other suspects, you will remain a suspect in that murder. If you don't have a good alibi for the time of the crime, you might even be arrested and have to lawyer up.

From the seller's perspective, knowing it's hard to prove a negative, it's much safer to ask for (and write down) some sort of documentation that shows he (the seller) did his due diligence and made an effort to assure himself that the buyer wasn't a prohibited person. I don't like it, but I understand it. I certainly don't regard it as the seller accusing me of being a felon.

 

[BBarn]

Regardless of the reasoning, the seller is assuming that the buyer is a prohibited person. And he's asking for documentation that suggests to himself that the buyer isn't a prohibited person (even though the things the seller is asking for do not prove the buyer isn't a prohibited person).

If someone is concerned about being a future suspect and being arrested, they should go to an FFL so there is an official record of the firearm transfer. Asking for documentation and taking names on their own proves nothing.

 

[Lohman446]

There is a major difference between a seller requiring verification of identity and a record of sale for his or her own reasons and the same being required by law. If you are uncomfortable with a sellers terms you need not purchase from that seller.

 

[peterg7]

You are only a bad risk to a private seller who can't run a NICS check and who wants to protect himself by having evidence that you aren't a prohibited person. The law doesn't require postitive proof that you're not -- the law only says that we can't sell a firearm to someone we have reason to believe is a prohibited person -- but a risk-aversive seller can't be blamed for wanting to cover his own posterior.

Yes they can, because their actions provide fuel for the gun grabbers.

If the gentleman with the collection is uncomfortable selling private he can just send the collection to auction and let the ffl deal with legalities.

My concern with a UBC is when I want to gift my guns to my family we shouldn’t have to incur any expenses.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Lohman446]

Yes they can, because their actions provide fuel for the gun grabbers.

You don't think that those arguing for and demanding the ability to anonymously buy a firearm do the same in providing fuel?

In this thread we have devolved from opposing universal background checks to objecting to private sellers who want to copy down information from individuals they are selling a firearm to because IT MIGHT lead to UBC. Yes I am going to have the information of anyone I sell a firearm to and I am going to have reason to believe they are not a prohibited person. Granted this is why I generally go through an FFL but I don't think anyone asking to record where a firearm went is a problem.

 

[thallub]

If the gentleman with the collection is uncomfortable selling private he can just send the collection to auction and let the ffl deal with legalities.

Why in hades should i pay to sell my private property?

Yep, i could sell them to an FFL or pawnshop for 30-50 percent of their value. i could sell them at a gun buyback extravaganza.

Yep, i choose to simply record the buyers name in my database. That's all, just the buyers name; no address, no phone number, no type of identification or anything else.

The man i sold my Luger collection to has a C&R license. The man is a serious collector who never haggled over the price.

i've not always required that type of identification. Then a young man reeking of meth showed up to purchase a handgun. There was no sale.

One could be sued into bankruptcy because of a gun sale.

 

[BBarn]

Why does the government need to know every gun that is legally transferred to a non- prohibited person?

And is it unreasonable for a non-prohibited person to want to purchase a firearm for legal purposes without the government's knowledge?

Is the desire for a undocumented transfer to be considered an indication of guilt or criminal intent on the part of the purchaser?

 

[Lohman446]

Why does the government need to know every gun that is legally transferred to a non- prohibited person?

And is it unreasonable for a non-prohibited person to want to purchase a firearm for legal purposes without the government's knowledge?

Is the desire for a undocumented transfer to be considered an indication of guilt or criminal intent on the part of the purchaser?

There are two separate issues at play here. One issue is the reporting of every sale to the government either through a reporting system or through UBC. The other issue is the seller keeping records (but not automatically reporting). Those are issues that are very separate.

Documenting a sale (having a record of who I sold a firearm to and when) is not the same as reporting of the sale to the government or a UBC.

 

[BBarn]

OK, but you didn't attempt to answer even one of my questions you quoted.

 

[Lohman446]

Why does the government need to know every gun that is legally transferred to a non- prohibited person?

And is it unreasonable for a non-prohibited person to want to purchase a firearm for legal purposes without the government's knowledge?

Is the desire for a undocumented transfer to be considered an indication of guilt or criminal intent on the part of the purchaser?

First question: I'm not making the argument they do need to know.

Second question: I'm not going to judge reasonable vs not reasonable. I don't care if the government knows if I purchased a firearm

Third: It depends what documented means. I am not selling a firearm to someone who refuses to let me record who I am selling a firearm to and when. I'm not calling the police though to report a suspected crime either.

 

[BBarn]

Thanks.

 

[peterg7]

You don't think that those arguing for and demanding the ability to anonymously buy a firearm do the same in providing fuel?

In this thread we have devolved from opposing universal background checks to objecting to private sellers who want to copy down information from individuals they are selling a firearm to because IT MIGHT lead to UBC. Yes I am going to have the information of anyone I sell a firearm to and I am going to have reason to believe they are not a prohibited person. Granted this is why I generally go through an FFL but I don't think anyone asking to record where a firearm went is a problem.

Who thought the freedom fighting Greatness Generation would allow the GCA of 68 but they did. The camel’s nose is under the tent and the only question is how long till the rest follows.

I’m no lawyer but if my state law says I need to sell to a state resident who can legally own a handgun that’s the two questions I ask. If they lie that’s their crime not mine.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[peterg7]

Why in hades should i pay to sell my private property?



Yep, i could sell them to an FFL or pawnshop for 30-50 percent of their value. i could sell them at a gun buyback extravaganza.



Yep, i choose to simply record the buyers name in my database. That's all, just the buyers name; no address, no phone number, no type of identification or anything else.



The man i sold my Luger collection to has a C&R license. The man is a serious collector who never haggled over the price.



i've not always required that type of identification. Then a young man reeking of meth showed up to purchase a handgun. There was no sale.



One could be sued into bankruptcy because of a gun sale.

Would you require the same information in selling a chainsaw, push mower or compound bow? You’re correct it’s all chattels and should treated the same unless state law says different, then go only far enough to meet the law.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Lohman446]

Would you require the same information in selling a chainsaw, push mower or compound bow? You’re correct it’s all chattels and should treated the same unless state law says different, then go only far enough to meet the law

The potential civil liability, not even considering the potential criminal liability, are FAR different with a firearm.

I'm hoping that I am reading an aggressive hostility against those who seek to have some record of the transaction incorrectly. Just because others seek to do it in a different way than you do does not make them wrong.

 

[peterg7]

So there’s documented cases of prosecution?

Not hostility just concern that anything less than a unified front will lead to stricter laws.

It also a bit disconcerting that gun owners feel that more of what doesn’t work is what’s needed.

Self inflicted wounds bleed the same as wounds from the enemy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Lohman446]

You know how you want me to ignore how you buy and sell your private property and if you keep records or not? How you don't want more laws around it?

Why should you get that courtesy when you are so concerned about what records of transactions I keep? You don't want me to be involved in how you decide to sell or buy private property between individuals than you really should not be concerned with how I do. The only time any concern should be expressed is if I am selling to you and if I cannot, by your choice, keep a record of who I sell an item to than we won't come to an agreement on selling and we will both move on.

I'm not being part of a unified front that demands there will be no record keeping by private individuals of private sales. I'm not willing to take on the chance of any liability in regards to that when avoiding it seems so simple.