Universal background checks
- Thread starter TXAZ
- Start date
Sell your chainsaws, barbecue grills and guns any way you desire: i don't care.
IMO: Selling a chainsaw can't come back to haunt you. Sell a firearm to a convicted felon; prepare to be haunted. i became concerned after an acquaintance sold a gun later used in a violent crime.
Don't like my method, i could care less.
IMO: Selling a chainsaw can't come back to haunt you. Sell a firearm to a convicted felon; prepare to be haunted. i became concerned after an acquaintance sold a gun later used in a violent crime.
Don't like my method, i could care less.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
I disagree that the seller is assuming the buyer is a prohibited person. The seller is just seeking to protect himself.BBarn said:
I find this all interesting because I, like many others, am not a prohibited person. But I also have no way to prove to a private seller that I am not a prohibited person. I can't even provide any of the above mentioned documents (that don't actually prove a person isn't prohibited).
While most of the discussion is centering about background checks and prohibited persons, I notice that their is something not being mentioned, and its the one piece of "Paperwork" you most need to see. And, it has NOTHING to do with the criminal status of the prospective purchaser!!!
Proof of residency. Aside from what ever additional State requirements there are, this one is Federal, and its a minimum. If you and the buyer are not residents of the same state, that's a deal breaker, for a completely private transaction. If you reside in different states (and this applies even if you can see his house from yours), if his residence is in a different state, you MUST go through an FFL (at least one, and possibly two) dealer(s) to make the sale, legally.
Now, current law does not specify that you have to physically see a certain piece of paper, it (still) allows you to use your own judgement as to what satisfies you. Just the same way it USED to do about the buyer's status as a prohibited person, BUT NO LONGER DOES...
It used to be that the law prevented you from selling to anyone you "know or suspect" to be prohibited from having the gun. What met those standards was up to YOU, and I.
Yes, there was always an element of risk in that. But there is always an element of risk if you are involved in an investigation run by lazy, ignorant, or incompetent cops. A bill of sale, or whatever other record you have is not a guarantee to keep you off their suspect list. Sure, it goes a long way, but its no guarantee.
Another of the things all the current private sale background check laws/proposals do that really irritates me, is requiring the check, and forcing me to pay a 3rd party to have it done. Buy from and FFL, he runs the check (and does not charge you separately), he's required to, as one of the conditions of his license.
And I'm fine with the fact that the FFL should be fairly compensated for his work processing a transfer when he's not making a gun sale, but I don't think that I should be the one paying for that.
If the law requires me to do it, then the law should pay for it. Just my opinion, though. I feel the same way about auto insurance, but that goes no where, either...
back to being allowed to use one's own judgement...currently I can still do that, about what I accept as proving a potential buyer is a state resident. But I can't do that about someone I know is NOT a prohibited person, the law doesn't allow for that anymore, it only accepts the check run by an FFL as proof of innocence. And the system used is flawed, and has been since its creation. yet its the only thing that satisfies the law.
The idea of being able to know if the person buying a gun is legal to do so, is a good one. The way the law(s) were/are written and the system used to satisfy those laws are not so good.
Proof of residency. Aside from what ever additional State requirements there are, this one is Federal, and its a minimum. If you and the buyer are not residents of the same state, that's a deal breaker, for a completely private transaction. If you reside in different states (and this applies even if you can see his house from yours), if his residence is in a different state, you MUST go through an FFL (at least one, and possibly two) dealer(s) to make the sale, legally.
Now, current law does not specify that you have to physically see a certain piece of paper, it (still) allows you to use your own judgement as to what satisfies you. Just the same way it USED to do about the buyer's status as a prohibited person, BUT NO LONGER DOES...
It used to be that the law prevented you from selling to anyone you "know or suspect" to be prohibited from having the gun. What met those standards was up to YOU, and I.
Yes, there was always an element of risk in that. But there is always an element of risk if you are involved in an investigation run by lazy, ignorant, or incompetent cops. A bill of sale, or whatever other record you have is not a guarantee to keep you off their suspect list. Sure, it goes a long way, but its no guarantee.
Another of the things all the current private sale background check laws/proposals do that really irritates me, is requiring the check, and forcing me to pay a 3rd party to have it done. Buy from and FFL, he runs the check (and does not charge you separately), he's required to, as one of the conditions of his license.
And I'm fine with the fact that the FFL should be fairly compensated for his work processing a transfer when he's not making a gun sale, but I don't think that I should be the one paying for that.
If the law requires me to do it, then the law should pay for it. Just my opinion, though. I feel the same way about auto insurance, but that goes no where, either...
back to being allowed to use one's own judgement...currently I can still do that, about what I accept as proving a potential buyer is a state resident. But I can't do that about someone I know is NOT a prohibited person, the law doesn't allow for that anymore, it only accepts the check run by an FFL as proof of innocence. And the system used is flawed, and has been since its creation. yet its the only thing that satisfies the law.
The idea of being able to know if the person buying a gun is legal to do so, is a good one. The way the law(s) were/are written and the system used to satisfy those laws are not so good.
There’s no assurance that taking names or checking ID indemnifies you from anything, by requiring special treatment for firearms you ad weight to the gun grabber claim that guns kill people and need to be regulated.
I’m old enough to remember life before the GCA. Even after the attitude about buying/selling firearms was casual.
You are correct Sir it’s your game to play win or loose.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
At least in Texas there's a relatively safe and easy way to (almost know) you're not selling to a prohibited person, and that's to request their CHL / LTC ID. If they have an unexpired card, then they were OK on the date of issue.
they don't need it. But, they do want it...
I don't think its unreasonable at all. I think its prudent.
That's what they want you to think, after all, the only reason you would want to hide is because you are doing something wrong, right??
or, maybe, you don't want to be on a govt list as owning a gun because you have studied enough history to know that registration is a necessary prerequisite to confiscation.
With a list, they don't need to do house to house sweeps, they just need to go to J. Smith, 842 Maple st, and break down his door at 2am. No need to roust the entire neighborhood....at this time....
Don't think that can happen in the good ol USA?? think again.
18 usc 922 d says “It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person— “ and then goes on to list acts that would make them a prohibited person.
So what has happened to suggest to you that the burden on the seller regarding prohibited persons has changed?
First of all, I have never sold a firearm to someone I didn't personally know. But that's just me. I realize that people may wish to sell a firearm and are willing to sell to potential buyers outside of their "personal recognition" circles.
Will UBC's allow sales to family members with no FFL being involved? How long will that be allowed after somebody claims that he "legally" sold a gun to his brother whom he didn't know to be a criminal? For people who live in rural areas of the country, it could be a real hassle to get to a FFL if you want to sell a firearm to a family member or a friend whom you know very well. I see UBC's as mainly being a "want" by those in government and the general public who want to see firearms eliminated from citizens possession, at least specific types of firearms such as AR-15's, AK-47's, and Semiauto handguns. UBC's will require full registration, and that will facilitate a much easier program to collect guns once they have been banned.
Will UBC's allow sales to family members with no FFL being involved? How long will that be allowed after somebody claims that he "legally" sold a gun to his brother whom he didn't know to be a criminal? For people who live in rural areas of the country, it could be a real hassle to get to a FFL if you want to sell a firearm to a family member or a friend whom you know very well. I see UBC's as mainly being a "want" by those in government and the general public who want to see firearms eliminated from citizens possession, at least specific types of firearms such as AR-15's, AK-47's, and Semiauto handguns. UBC's will require full registration, and that will facilitate a much easier program to collect guns once they have been banned.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
According to Washington state, the answer is no. "All" apparently means "all" in Washington state.USAFNoDak said:
It doesn't have to be a sale, it can merely be a "transfer" of possession/control.
That's the problem. The law uses the term "transfer" and could be interpreted to cover sales, gifts, loans, handing someone a gun to look at, or even "transferring" all your guns at home to your wife, the minute you step out the door to go to work.
The law does exempts transfers while hunting, and shooting at a "licensed shooting range" (without defining that), as exceptions where an FFL conducted background check is NOT required.
However, since the law does list exceptions, one must assume everything not listed as an exception is covered under the law. Nicht Wahr?
SO, suppose you head off for work, wife stays home, and wife has the keys or the combination to your gun safe. Or she knows where you have the combination written down....she now has legal possession/control of the firearms. That's a transfer...
And not a listed exception to the law. SO, potentially, you've both broken the law. Now, this hasn't been tested in court yet. Neither have any of the other common situations that people do every day, which could also be violating the letter of the law.
So far, WA law enforcement is refusing to enforce the law, absent further clarification of what is, and is not a covered transfer. To date, as far as I know, such clarification has not been provided by the state.
The potential for abuse is really scary.
Voter Initiative is not always a good thing.
^ it’s death by a thousand cuts, when every transfer is changed a fee it effects behavior.
We can claim they’ll never take our guns but bureaucrats have away of grinding you down.
the showdown may never come because technically guns will not be banned, just cost prohibitive and regulated to the point that the common man won’t bother with ownership anymore.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
We can claim they’ll never take our guns but bureaucrats have away of grinding you down.
the showdown may never come because technically guns will not be banned, just cost prohibitive and regulated to the point that the common man won’t bother with ownership anymore.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
True. I think before it becomes cost prohibitive to the point where ownership of guns is largely by just the elite, the U.S. will look more like the U.K. in the terms of gun laws. Stuff like no semi-auto rifles and ridiculous sized barrels/stocks on handguns to meet a certain overall length, etc. And before all of that, I think there will have to be some kind of national gun registry to purge the nation of all these dangerous weapons with flash hiders and whatnot in private hands.
armoredman
New member
SonOfScubaDiver said:
No, heck no, and stay away from my state with your ideas. Arizona is handling things JUST fine without this idiocy. Private transfers of private property is wisely left to the individual with the caveat that if you found to have broken the law you will be prosecuted. We have Constitutional Carry and are quite happy with it - do NOT force any type of "requirement" on ME to pay for someone else's crime.
The crimes of the few do not outweigh the rights of the many.
Many people forget the fallacy of the actual law - the Brady Act was started for Mr Brady being shot by the failed Reagan assassin, who bought his firearms legally with no criminal record 4 months prior to the attempted assassination. Another case of a Leftist bad idea so firmly rooted in peoples minds that they cannot conceive of a time without it. We did, AND WE GOT ALONG JUST FINE.
So to answer the original poster's question - why not? Because it is completely unnecessary and contradictory to the concept of innocent until proven guilty. It is an unreasonable intrusion by government into our private lives and Constitutionally protected possessions.
Then comes the reality - the practice will simply continue underground. The omnipotent "government" cannot monitor the millions of unregistered firearms in circulation today, and transfers between people will continue, regardless whether they like it or not. The "slippery slope" argument has a collary - the straw that broke the camel's back.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
We already have nationwide carry rights. It's called the Second Amendment to the Constitution. IMHO we should not be giving away more of the RKBA than has already been taken from us, we should be focusing on getting back the RKBA ... without infringement. Regulation IS infringement.SonOfScubaDiver said:
When you really parse the issue to its essence, the concept of requiring a permit in order to exercise a right supposedly guaranteed by the Constitution is untenable.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
That is a point argued by some gun rights organizations when they opposed shall issue laws. However, without such laws (which may not meet ideological purity tests), millions of people would not have the legally safe ability to carry a handgun and perhaps thousands of them would have become victims of crime.
One can work for ideological purity if you want. It won't happen in real time. In fact, the success of concealed carry laws and the low crime rates and positive outcomes of these laws help argue for more practical expansion of the RKBA, in spite of purity objections.
It may be untenable but which situation to you prefer? No shall issue laws and waiting for the Pure 2nd Amend. Messiah to arrive or having the legally safe option to carry?
A carry law that allows folks who pass a criminal background check or reasonable mental health check (devil in the details of that - the NICS standards seem appropriate and not ones like SAFE) to carry is a real world good thing.
One can work for ideological purity if you want. It won't happen in real time. In fact, the success of concealed carry laws and the low crime rates and positive outcomes of these laws help argue for more practical expansion of the RKBA, in spite of purity objections.
It may be untenable but which situation to you prefer? No shall issue laws and waiting for the Pure 2nd Amend. Messiah to arrive or having the legally safe option to carry?
A carry law that allows folks who pass a criminal background check or reasonable mental health check (devil in the details of that - the NICS standards seem appropriate and not ones like SAFE) to carry is a real world good thing.