PDA

View Full Version : Should all firearms sales require a background check poll


Pages : [1] 2 3 4

brianm767
01-06-2013, 9:58 AM
Personally and this is just my opinion, I can't believe that in other parts of the, US you can buy a firearm without going through a background check. As some have suggested maybe this is because I'm a life long Cali resident.

When I travel for work, I ask the guys I'm working with in the other states, how do go about selling your guns here? They always give me that blank look and then say some one gives me cash, I give them the gun, no background check, no I'd check, just cash for gun and walk.

I know there's lots of debate on people being able to sale their own private property without Goverment involvement, but once again, IMOP I think there should be "some type of check" to make sure the buyer is not flagged in the system, just as they have to with a new firearm, but maybe that's just me?

For the purpose of this poll, C&R will stay as it is. Just want to know about the selling of modern firearms without some type of background check.

I edited my post since many of you are just debating that there is no gun show loophole, or are thinking I'm just specifically asking about guns sold at a gun show.

I now see and agree it was a very poor choice of words,I didn't want a debate if there is or is not a loophole, and I am not asking about gun shows.

I don't know how to edit the poll question so please just disregard the loophole part,

The question is simple, should firearm sales require a background check? (C&R excluded)
Yes or No

Choptop
01-06-2013, 10:06 AM
There are federal requirements for being able to purchase a firearm... checking to see if a person meets those requirements is not out of line.

Trojan Bayonet
01-06-2013, 10:08 AM
It's already illegal for a felons and those deemed mentally incompetent to possess a firearm. It is also illegal for a person to sell to anyone who fits the definition of one of those categories.

If someone who fits at least one of those categories is intent on purchasing a firearm, he will get one regardless of what the law may say. Adam Lanza is a perfect example.

RRangel
01-06-2013, 10:09 AM
Does that mean you want to restrict the whole nation because "you can't believe" that Americans have the freedom of commerce in the United States? More likely it's that you haven't tasted freedom that you're comfortable being treated as a serf in California.

12voltguy
01-06-2013, 10:10 AM
you can buy a 50 year old rifle right here in calif cash, no BC checks

Choptop
01-06-2013, 10:13 AM
It's already illegal for a felons and those deemed mentally incompetent to possess a firearm. It is also illegal for a person to sell to anyone who fits the definition of one of those categories.

If someone who fits at least one of those categories is intent on purchasing a firearm, he will get one regardless of what the law may say. Adam Lanza is a perfect example.

true enough, criminals will indeed break the law.... that is not a reason to not have the law. The law allows for enforcement and punishment.

as you stated, if it is illegal for one to sell to a felon or some other person restricted from having firearms that it would seem as a law abiding citizen that you would indeed run a background check on every firearm you sell so you do not break the law. So even on that level a background check is "required" lest you break the law as well.

spetsnaz
01-06-2013, 10:20 AM
no such thing as a "gun show loophole" its bull****

CessnaDriver
01-06-2013, 10:21 AM
Where is the compelling evidence that gun show guns have been mis-used to an extent by criminals that it's even an issue?

Of course we are way passed needing compelling evidence for those wishing to limit core liberties.

CSACANNONEER
01-06-2013, 10:22 AM
There is no such thing as a "gunshow loophole". Guess what, even in CA it is legal to buy certain firearms without a background check. Many of us grew up in CA when it was 100% legal to buy and sell personal property without checking with multiple government agencies first. Too bad there are certain individuals who prefer to let the government run their lives than live free. I'm extremely sorry that a long time calgunner started such a thread. At least he has shown his true colors. Maybe he will decide to go live in a country that has enough government regulation for him to be the loyal subject he wants to be.

Note: he appears to be in the heart of RED California. I hope he can find a few local individuals to help him forget whatever he learned in Obama's re education camps.

tcrpe
01-06-2013, 10:27 AM
OP used quotes around "gun show loophole" to denote irony.

Why are you guys beating the **** out of him?

LibertyDeath
01-06-2013, 10:29 AM
When I sold my M&P9 I just required to see his ID and CCW. We met at the parking lot of Cabela's did the swap and I went inside to pick out my new gun. Then I realized Cabela's sucked for gun prices and went to a local Glock Blue Label dealer and 20 minutes later I was out the door with a new Gen4 17 and DeSantis Scorpion IWB holster without spending an extra dime.

Choptop
01-06-2013, 10:33 AM
There is no such thing as a "gunshow loophole". Guess what, even in CA it is legal to buy certain firearms without a background check. Many of us grew up in CA when it was 100% legal to buy and sell personal property without checking with multiple government agencies first. Too bad there are certain individuals who prefer to let the government run their lives than live free. I'm extremely sorry that a long time calgunner started such a thread. At least he has shown his true colors. Maybe he will decide to go live in a country that has enough government regulation for him to be the loyal subject he wants to be.

Note: he appears to be in the heart of RED California. I hope he can find a few local individuals to help him forget whatever he learned in Obama's re education camps.

lighten up francis.

there is indeed a "loophole" in that there is no requirement in some states to have a background check for private party firearm sales even though there is a set of federal requirements to be able to purchase a firearm. Colloquially known as "the gunshow loophole" I'm sure you know this, but are just being trollish. If you didnt know this, now you do. Go in peace and sin no more my son :D

LoneYote
01-06-2013, 10:48 AM
OP I don't see the concern really.
There are prohibited persons and(to the best of my knowledge) selling to them is a crime so there isn't any such loophole or anything else.
Either people are not committing a crime or they are. If you don't want to risk committing a crime be careful to whom you sell. If you don't know if they are prohibited don't sell.
Although, I would support a law that gave citizens access to the check FOR FREE if they so choose.

SanPedroShooter
01-06-2013, 10:56 AM
lighten up francis.

there is indeed a "loophole" in that there is no requirement in some states to have a background check for private party firearm sales even though there is a set of federal requirements to be able to purchase a firearm. Colloquially known as "the gunshow loophole" I'm sure you know this, but are just being trollish. If you didnt know this, now you do. Go in peace and sin no more my son :D

Disposing of my private property with asking or checking with the government first is not a 'loop hole'.

This shock at the freedoms people in the rest of America enjoy seems to be rampant in California.

12voltguy
01-06-2013, 10:56 AM
OP used quotes around "gun show loophole" to denote irony.

Why are you guys beating the **** out of him?

read the 1st sentence of his post,that could be why

SanPedroShooter
01-06-2013, 11:00 AM
I do my due diligence when I sell a gun privately.

If I could access NICS for a private sale, would I? I'd have to think about it.

People are al for closing the 'gun show loophole' until they will be forced to run their private sales through an FFL, with all the atendent paperwork, waiting periods and other useless bull****...

Turns out to be not such a hot idea after all...

How could NICS be opened to the public without major privacy/abuse issues?

Choptop
01-06-2013, 11:01 AM
Disposing of my private property with asking or checking with the government first is not a 'loop hole'.

This shock at the freedoms people in the rest of America enjoy seems to be rampant in California.

there being a requirement to be met for ownership, but no mandated check to see if you meet the requirements is indeed a "loophole"...

its very obvious... please

do we REALLY have to get down to the definition of "loophole"? I would have thought that its obvious... but I guess not...

"A loophole is an ambiguity in a system, such as a law or security, which can be used to circumvent or otherwise avoid the intent, implied or explicitly stated, of the system"

Exile Machine
01-06-2013, 11:04 AM
"Shall Not Be Infringed." <--- Words to live by.

-Mark

fizux
01-06-2013, 11:05 AM
There are federal requirements for being able to purchase a firearm... checking to see if a person meets those requirements is not out of line.

I hereby incorporate my response to your identical post in
this thread (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=670262).

Choptop
01-06-2013, 11:06 AM
but your rights CAN be infringed... as has been established over and over again.

you dont get to own a gun while in prison. You dont get to vote under certain circumstances... so your rights can indeed be infringed. Please...

SanPedroShooter
01-06-2013, 11:07 AM
there being a requirement to be met for ownership, but no mandated check to see if you meet the requirements is indeed a "loophole"...

its very obvious... please

do we REALLY have to get down to the definition of "loophole"? I would have thought that its obvious... but I guess not...

"A loophole is an ambiguity in a system, such as a law or security, which can be used to circumvent or otherwise avoid the intent, implied or explicitly stated, of the system"

Its not 'obvious'. When I selll a gun privately I do my best to ensure the buyer complies with federal law. I dont need to involve the government.

If someone is breaking the law by exploting my right to dispose of my property, then they are committing a crime (a crime that seem to never be prosecuted)
There is no 'loophole'. The law states dealers must run background checks. And they do. I am not a dealer.

What you are suggesting is like saying killing someone is a 'loophole' around laws against murder.

Where is the loophole?

Jeepers
01-06-2013, 11:11 AM
just because we have these restrictions and live with them fine i would not want to impose it on others, last thing the gun community need is to give in to more GOV regulation like the great voter of cali have long ago ...

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

SilverTauron
01-06-2013, 11:13 AM
What makes you think bad guys can't get guns at the point of sale at your local FFL?

The Brady system isn't omnipotent.Court documents and mental health forms have to be sent to the NICS or state background check office and processed.That takes time even if the police department and court staff DON'T have a backlog. The Illinois State Police testified in Congress that as of 2005 they had a five year backlog in accumulated papers waiting to be sent to the FBI.

Bottom line, the Brady System ain't stopping anyone but law abiding in owners with troubled youths.Hardcore bad guys with a yen for a gun at an FFL just send in their girlfriend who straw purchases the weapon. The bad guys who recently committed crimes realistically can buy guns like everyone else for up to a week after the incident, assuming their police department has the time and staff to send in the paperwork.Many do not.

SilverTauron
01-06-2013, 11:13 AM
What makes you think bad guys can't get guns at the point of sale at your local FFL?

The Brady system isn't omnipotent.Court documents and mental health forms have to be sent to the NICS or state background check office and processed.That takes time even if the police department and court staff DON'T have a backlog. The Illinois State Police testified in Congress that as of 2005 they had a five year backlog in accumulated papers waiting to be sent to the FBI.

Bottom line, the Brady System ain't stopping anyone but law abiding gun owners with names similar to hardcore felons.Hardcore bad guys with a yen for a gun at an FFL just send in their girlfriend who straw purchases the weapon. The bad guys who recently committed crimes realistically can buy guns like everyone else for up to a week after the incident, assuming their police department has the time and staff to send in the paperwork.Many do not.

Choptop
01-06-2013, 11:14 AM
Where is the loophole?

are you really going to have this decend into a semantic game?

2nd time...

"A loophole is an ambiguity in a system, such as a law or security, which can be used to circumvent or otherwise avoid the intent, implied or explicitly stated, of the system"


there is a requirement for owning a firearm, there is no mandated check to see if you meet those requirements... that is a "loophole" in the law. By not requiring a background check it circumvents the intent of the law which is to restrict firearm ownership by certain individuals. It is indeed obvious.

saying its a "loophole" is not an indictment of the people involved in the transaction, its a failure in the legislation.

CSACANNONEER
01-06-2013, 11:14 AM
lighten up francis.

there is indeed a "loophole" in that there is no requirement in some states to have a background check for private party firearm sales even though there is a set of federal requirements to be able to purchase a firearm. Colloquially known as "the gunshow loophole" I'm sure you know this, but are just being trollish. If you didnt know this, now you do. Go in peace and sin no more my son :D

Sorry, I guess you just do not understand. I'll try again. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A "GUNSHOW LOOPHOLE". There are no laws preventing individuals from selling their private property to other residents of their state whether at a gun show or through the local newpaper. So, there is NO LOOPHOLE in laws that do not exist in the first place. California is the ONLY state that has gone further and requires that SOME, NOT ALL, firearms be transfered through a FFL AND Ca also requires that all background checks be made through the state instead of straight through the Federal government. There are Federal laws requiring FFL holders to do a NICS check before selling a firearm to an individual in their state. That is part of the requirement for a Federal license. However, the way this country is structured, each state still has it's own set of laws. If a state decides to pass a law requiring a NICS check when a firearm is not being sold through a FFL, it's that state's business and not a concern of residents of any other state. Who are we to try to impose our draconian transfer laws on 49 other states? Sorry, if you don't agree with me an/or are not capable of understanding the way that federal laws and state laws work. Maybe you could take a few law classes or, at least, a few US history classes.

SanPedroShooter
01-06-2013, 11:18 AM
are you really going to have this decend into a semantic game?

2nd time...

"A loophole is an ambiguity in a system, such as a law or security, which can be used to circumvent or otherwise avoid the intent, implied or explicitly stated, of the system"


there is a requirement for owning a firearm, there is no mandated check to see if you meet those requirements... that is a "loophole" in the law. By not requiring a background check it circumvents the intent of the law which is to restrict firearm ownership by certain individuals. It is indeed obvious.

saying its a "loophole" is not an indictment of the people involved in the transaction, its a failure in the legislation.

You mean the law tha requires dealers to run background checks?

How does that apply to me again?

If you think that private indivduals should be forced to comply with the same requirements as an FFL dealer, then fine. But dont tell me my private sale is a 'loophole'.

Choptop
01-06-2013, 11:19 AM
holy mother or pearl ...

the intent of the law is that people that are in certain classifications cant own/buy firearms.
there is a weakness in the law that does not require a check to see if you meet those requirements hence circumventing the intent of the law

hence, there is a "loophole" in the law


its worthless to try and converse with people that dont understand the basic principle of the topic at hand.

REH
01-06-2013, 11:19 AM
There was a time in California, when you could go to a person’s house, from an ad in the paper, and buy any firearm. There was a time in California, when you could go to K Mart and buy a long gun without a back ground check or waiting period. Once the mandatory check was place, was there an effect on gun violence? As stated in other post, it’s illegal for a felon to possess and illegal to sell to a felon. So what will the back ground check accomplish?

REH
01-06-2013, 11:19 AM
There was a time in California, when you could go to a personís house, from an ad in the paper, and buy any firearm. There was a time in California, when you could go to K Mart and buy a long gun without a back ground check or waiting period. Once the mandatory check was place, was there an effect on gun violence? As stated in other post, itís illegal for a felon to possess and illegal to sell to a felon. So what will the back ground check accomplish?

Choptop
01-06-2013, 11:21 AM
You mean the law tha requires dealers to run background checks?

How does that apply to me again?

because the doesnt JSUT state the dealers must run a check, it states the anyone buying must meet the requirements... however it does not require a check in private transfers, hence a "loophole" around the requirements in the case of private transfers.

SanPedroShooter
01-06-2013, 11:22 AM
holy mother or pearl ...

the intent of the law is that people that are in certain classifications cant own firearms.
there is a weakness in the law that does not require a check to see if you meet those requirements hence circumventing the intent of the law

hence, there is a "loophole" in the law


its worthless to try and converse with people that dont understand the basic principle of the topic at hand.

I absolutely get what you are saying. I am sick of hearing about 'loopholes'.

What you call a 'weakness' or a loophole most states call freedom.


Call it whatever you want.

Dantedamean
01-06-2013, 11:22 AM
There is no "Gun show loophole". Depending on state law a person to person transfer doesn't need to go through a FFL, regardless if your at a gun show or not.

brianm767
01-06-2013, 11:26 AM
Does that mean you want to restrict the whole nation because "you can't believe" that Americans have the freedom of commerce in the United States? More likely it's that you haven't tasted freedom that you're comfortable being treated as a serf in California.

I do agree that Americans should have freedom of commerce, and I believe every one who is legal to own a firearm must have that right, that wasn't my decision, it was the founders of our nation who gave us that right. I just don't think that it is unreasonable to to make sure a firearm is not being sold to some one who is flagged in the system. To me it's common sense. But like I've said, these are just my honest opinions,

And yes I have tasted the freedom of no background checks.

I'll put you down as a "no" and I totally respect your opinion , that's one thing I'm capable of, differing in ones opinion, but still respecting others.

Choptop
01-06-2013, 11:26 AM
What you call a 'weakness' most states call freedom.

Call it whatever you want.


yeah.. it would be "Freedom" to sell alcohol to 10 year olds.

you know... if there were a law on the books that said you have to be 21 to buy but no requirement to check ID. That wouldnt be a "loophole" either, or a "weakness" in the law... pick yer own name for it.


amazing really that some people really dont understand

angry
01-06-2013, 11:27 AM
so will I need a ffl to sell a hammer in a yard sale last time I checked they killed more people than a ar15

No1Smitty
01-06-2013, 11:28 AM
All these rules and regulations purposed for safety. Are simply an ulterior motive for monetary collection and control. Wake up people !

brianm767
01-06-2013, 11:28 AM
no such thing as a "gun show loophole" its bull****

For the sake of the poll, I referred to it as it is commonly called, but the poll question is accurate.

SanPedroShooter
01-06-2013, 11:28 AM
yeah.. it would be "Freedom" to sell alcohol to 10 year olds.

you know... if there were a law on the books that said you have to be 21 to buy but no requirement to check ID.


amazing really

That would be up to seller, or the parents I suppose. Not the feds.

Choptop
01-06-2013, 11:29 AM
I just don't think that it is unreasonable to to make sure a firearm is not being sold to some one who is flagged in the system. To me it's common sense. But like I've said, these are just my honest opinions,




this

SilverTauron
01-06-2013, 11:29 AM
holy mother or pearl ...

the intent of the law is that people that are in certain classifications cant own/buy firearms.
there is a weakness in the law that does not require a check to see if you meet those requirements hence circumventing the intent of the law

hence, there is a "loophole" in the law


its worthless to try and converse with people that dont understand the basic principle of the topic at hand.

Lets indulge this viewpoint. Assuming private sale of firearms represents a loophole in the national background check process, we have to assume the Brady Law is actually effective at stopping criminals from getting guns. History and time has proven that its not.How can there be a loophole for a law which is factually ineffective?

fizux
01-06-2013, 11:30 AM
there being a requirement to be met for ownership, but no mandated check to see if you meet the requirements is indeed a "loophole"...

its very obvious... please

do we REALLY have to get down to the definition of "loophole"? I would have thought that its obvious... but I guess not...

"A loophole is an ambiguity in a system, such as a law or security, which can be used to circumvent or otherwise avoid the intent, implied or explicitly stated, of the system"

It's not ambiguous at all. The Feds can regulate interstate commerce. The stream of commerce ends upon transfer to the first consumer. Asahi Metal Indus. Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., 480 U.S. 102 (1987); World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (1980).

Private sales between consumers that are residents of the same state are not interstate commerce. The right to regulate those transactions is reserved to the States, or the people. See, U.S. Const. Amend. X.

Yes, the Feds may very well try to use the logic in Wickard v. Filburn, or Gonzales v. Raich (both of which I think went too far), but as of today, Congress has deliberately chosen to exempt same-state PPTs from Brady background checks. I know it is intentional and not an oversight because they wrote this phrase:
"... who the transferor knows or has reasonable cause to believe does not reside in ... the State in which the transferor resides ...." 18 USC ß 922(a)(5).

So don't get high and mighty about schooling someone on the definition of a "loophole," when the federal PPT rule is exactly what was intended by the law.

Choptop
01-06-2013, 11:30 AM
You've been in California to long.


no I havent been in CA too long. you know nothing of where or when I've been.

since I can see that this is going off topic and descending into personal assumptions I'm out.

211275
01-06-2013, 11:31 AM
The people stupid enough to want this to stay open where anyone can grab a gun without a background check are the same stupid people who are going to get guns banned for everyone. Close the thing and make everyone go thru a check. You shouldnt be against it if you have nothing to hide.

SilverTauron
01-06-2013, 11:32 AM
no I havent been in CA too long. you know nothing of where or when I've been.

I'm waiting for a logical response to my question.

SanPedroShooter
01-06-2013, 11:32 AM
Lets indulge this viewpoint. Assuming private sale of firearms represents a loophole in the national background check process, we have to assume the Brady Law is actually effective at stopping criminals from getting guns. History and time has proven that its not.How can there be a loophole for a law which is factually ineffective?

As we see time and time again. We should just do something,anything whether it works or not. Whether it makes sense, or is Constitutional...

Thank god for California myriad of arbitrary and byzantine gun laws.

Some unscrupulous fellow might sell a gun to drunk ten year old...

LoneYote
01-06-2013, 11:34 AM
2nd time...

"A loophole is an ambiguity in a system, such as a law or security, which can be used to circumvent or otherwise avoid the intent, implied or explicitly stated, of the system"


there is a requirement for owning a firearm , there is no mandated check to see if you meet those requirements... that is a "loophole" in the law. By not requiring a background check it circumvents the intent of the law which is to restrict firearm ownership by certain individuals. It is indeed obvious.

There is your problem me thinks.... There are prohibitions to owning a firearm under certain articulated circumstances. There does not need to be a mandate but there is a law. Like most laws people either choose to follow it(know the buyer and sell responsibly) or they do not(and commit a crime).

Eldraque
01-06-2013, 11:36 AM
We need less gun restrictions. not more. period.

SanPedroShooter
01-06-2013, 11:36 AM
The people stupid enough to want this to stay open where anyone can grab a gun without a background check are the same stupid people who are going to get guns banned for everyone. Close the thing and make everyone go thru a check. You shouldnt be against it if you have nothing to hide.

Are there any other restrictions free people should submit to to exercise a fundemental right? You know, cause they have nothing to hide?

Explain it to me slowly, coming from a free state has made me kind of stupid.

bill_k_lopez
01-06-2013, 11:39 AM
holy mother or pearl ...

the intent of the law is that people that are in certain classifications cant own/buy firearms.
there is a weakness in the law that does not require a check to see if you meet those requirements hence circumventing the intent of the law

hence, there is a "loophole" in the law


its worthless to try and converse with people that dont understand the basic principle of the topic at hand.

You are exactly right! Since you obviously don't understand, maybe you shouldn't be having conversations about such topics.

5thgen4runner
01-06-2013, 11:40 AM
"Shall Not Be Infringed." <--- Words to live by.

-Mark

This. And that simple phrase should squash all known gun debate. End of story.

SilverTauron
01-06-2013, 11:40 AM
The people stupid enough to want this to stay open where anyone can grab a gun without a background check are the same stupid people who are going to get guns banned for everyone. Close the thing and make everyone go thru a check. You shouldnt be against it if you have nothing to hide.

The faith you have in our national background check system is severely misplaced.This post is as ridiculous as me saying the PIN # on my ATM card protects me from ID theft, so we should ban cash sales nationwide. If you're not an ID theif, you have nothing to hide anyway.

SanPedroShooter
01-06-2013, 11:40 AM
no I havent been in CA too long. you know nothing of where or when I've been.

since I can see that this is going off topic and descending into personal assumptions I'm out.

I deleted that bit. I apologize.

Hearing people from one of the most restrictive states in the nation call for everyone to exist under the same garbage laws they do is hard to get used to. No matter how many times you hear it. Which is suprisingly large amount.

Stockholm syndrome.

LoneYote
01-06-2013, 11:41 AM
You shouldnt be against it if you have nothing to hide.

Register your sexual habits with the government... I mean if you have nothing to hide then the government should know EVERYTHING right?

Skidmark
01-06-2013, 11:42 AM
There are federal requirements for being able to purchase a firearm... checking to see if a person meets those requirements is not out of line.

The "gunshow loophole" is a BS term, we all know that. But equally BS is that in some states, a person can buy a gun from a stranger without scrutiny. I have no problem requiring a Fed background check for purchase or transfer of any firearm in U.S.

SanPedroShooter
01-06-2013, 11:44 AM
The "gunshow loophole" is a BS term, we all know that. But equally BS is that in some states, a person can buy a gun from a stranger without scrutiny. I have no problem requiring a Fed background check for purchase or transfer of any firearm in U.S.

I would love to hear how that would work.

Would people be forced to use an FFL? Could the NICS system be made semi-public? I assume family would be exempt.

I am seriously asking.

SilverTauron
01-06-2013, 11:45 AM
The "gunshow loophole" is a BS term, we all know that. But equally BS is that in some states, a person can buy a gun from a stranger without scrutiny. I have no problem requiring a Fed background check for purchase or transfer of any firearm in U.S.

I have a big problem with what you propose.

The Brady System hasn't stopped anyone from committing a crime. We should therefore spend billions to expand the national background check system to private sales ? ?????

Please explain the logic, my South Dakota self is confused.

steve91104
01-06-2013, 11:45 AM
Man, I hate the word "loophole". Something is either illegal or it isn't.

RRangel
01-06-2013, 11:48 AM
It's as if the gun control advocates plan is being unfurled in front of our eyes. They make hefty claims to stir up the ignorant, and as reality sets in, they promptly change the subject to the "gun show loophole" and evil "high-capacity" magazines. For the children. The ignorant not realizing, that they never had to be content, with compromising away their rights.

No1Smitty
01-06-2013, 11:51 AM
The people stupid enough to want this to stay open where anyone can grab a gun without a background check are the same stupid people who are going to get guns banned for everyone. Close the thing and make everyone go thru a check. You shouldnt be against it if you have nothing to hide.

I am guessing you consent to a search of your vehicle with a smile every traffic
stop. Since you have nothing to hide. Spoken like a cop.

brianm767
01-06-2013, 11:55 AM
There is no such thing as a "gunshow loophole". Guess what, even in CA it is legal to buy certain firearms without a background check. Many of us grew up in CA when it was 100% legal to buy and sell personal property without checking with multiple government agencies first. Too bad there are certain individuals who prefer to let the government run their lives than live free. I'm extremely sorry that a long time calgunner started such a thread. At least he has shown his true colors. Maybe he will decide to go live in a country that has enough government regulation for him to be the loyal subject he wants to be.

Note: he appears to be in the heart of RED California. I hope he can find a few local individuals to help him forget whatever he learned in Obama's re education camps.

Are you serious? "Shown my true colors" yah you caught me, darn my secret anti gun liberal self as been outed, what shall I do.

Yes, I am a firm believer in the second amendment, I live in the heart of Republican Califorina and wouldn't have it any other way, I do cling to my guns and my bible here and we have statues of baby Jesus and sing Christian songs during our Christmas parades and no one files a law suit to have it stopped.

No one shall infringe on our right to own firearms, but sorry, i don't see the big deal of having some type of system where if I sell a gun, I could verify in some quick and easy way( if its possible) that the buyer is not already flagged .

And I do remember the no background check days.

I can totally respect your opinion, sorry you can't respect mine.

And you can keep personally attacking me if it makes you feel better. Glad I could be of some service to you, have a wonderful day Sir.

fizux
01-06-2013, 11:58 AM
The people stupid enough to want this to stay open where anyone can grab a gun without a background check are the same stupid people who are going to get guns banned for everyone. Close the thing and make everyone go thru a check. You shouldnt be against it if you have nothing to hide.

Let's rephrase. Suppose I can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that I can pass a background check this instant, should I have to get one and pay a fee? What if the fee goes up by a factor of 100 times overnight, do you think we have no right to complain, since we have nothing to hide?

Most of us are actually not against a background check. We are against the attendant bureaucracy and administrivia that will be justified under the guise of background checks.

Personally, I don't have any problems with registration itself. I have a problem when they start publishing registration info in an interactive google map, or using registration info as a path to confiscation.

SilverTauron
01-06-2013, 11:59 AM
The "gunshow loophole" is a BS term, we all know that. But equally BS is that in some states, a person can buy a gun from a stranger without scrutiny. I have no problem requiring a Fed background check for purchase or transfer of any firearm in U.S.

Are you serious? "Shown my true colors" yah you caught me, darn my secret anti gun liberal self as been outed, what shall I do.

Yes, I am a firm believer in the second amendment, I live in the heart of Republican Califorina and wouldn't have it any other way, I do cling to my guns and my bible here and we have statues of baby Jesus and sing Christian songs during our Christmas parades and no one files a law suit to have it stopped.

No one shall infringe on our right to own firearms, but sorry, i don't see the big deal of having some type of system where if I sell a gun, I could verify in some quick and easy way( if its possible) that the buyer is not already flagged .

And I do remember the no background check days.

I can totally respect your opinion, sorry you can't respect mine.

And you can keep personally attacking me if it makes you feel better. Glad I could be of some service to you, have a wonderful day Sir.

In the real world, background check databases cost money. So do phone operators,data entry clerks,and building space.Remember that the system has to be open 24 /7 ,because bad guys don't break the law on business days from 9-5 either. Sice you proposed this abominable plan, its up to you to prove how this system will work. If you can't do it, what makes you think Congress can?

SanPedroShooter
01-06-2013, 12:02 PM
I heard someone propose that you would get a certificate from NICS for yourself for a certian period of time.

You could present that cert with ID to any seller and vice versa.

Seems a little complicated to me and stil based on the honor system.

Anyone else seen this?

GrizzlyGuy
01-06-2013, 12:03 PM
I do my due diligence when I sell a gun privately.

If I could access NICS for a private sale, would I? I'd have to think about it.

People are al for closing the 'gun show loophole' until they will be forced to run their private sales through an FFL, with all the atendent paperwork, waiting periods and other useless bull****...

Turns out to be not such a hot idea after all...

How could NICS be opened to the public without major privacy/abuse issues?

Here is one of many possible ways that it could be done to minimize the hassle for buyers and sellers, minimize privacy violations, not require FFLs or transfer fees, and prevent the system from being used as a de facto gun registration system:

A person interested in buying a gun from a private party would open an online account with ATF. Private party sellers would do the same. If someone finds a gun they are interested in buying, they login to their account and get a one-time-use sequence of seemingly random characters that identify them (to the ATF, not anyone else).

The prospective buyer then provides this code to the seller, the seller enters the code via their own ATF account, and a GO/NO-GO result is returned regarding the prospective buyer's firearm purchasing status. If GO then make the sale, if NO-GO then don't. Pretty simple, and would only take a minute or two to perform the check.

The only information that ATF has as a result is:

1) Person Bob was contemplating buying a gun because he logged in and got a one-time-use code.
2) Person Mary was contemplating selling a gun to Bob because she logged in and provided Bob's one-time-use code.

The ATF does not know anything about what gun was sold, and doesn't even know that a gun was actually sold (Bob and Mary could have called off the transaction for any number of reasons). This means that such a system is incapable of being used as the basis for registration.

Privacy concerns are largely addressed because Bob is the only one that can allow anyone to run a check on him. Even if Mary had given Bob's code to someone else, that code can only be used once and never again.

railroader
01-06-2013, 12:03 PM
How would background checks be enforced without some form of firearm registration? I would like to see guns kept away from nut cases but also think the government shouldn't know where every firearm is.

CSACANNONEER
01-06-2013, 12:10 PM
Are you serious? "Shown my true colors" yah you caught me, darn my secret anti gun liberal self as been outed, what shall I do.

Yes, I am a firm believer in the second amendment, I live in the heart of Republican Califorina and wouldn't have it any other way, I do cling to my guns and my bible here and we have statues of baby Jesus and sing Christian songs during our Christmas parades and no one files a law suit to have it stopped.

No one shall infringe on our right to own firearms, but sorry, i don't see the big deal of having some type of system where if I sell a gun, I could verify in some quick and easy way( if its possible) that the buyer is not already flagged .

And I do remember the no background check days.

I can totally respect your opinion, sorry you can't respect mine.

And you can keep personally attacking me if it makes you feel better. Glad I could be of some service to you, have a wonderful day Sir.

Do you understand that only 2% of the states in the US make most (not even all) private sales of firearms go through a FFL and a background check? That means 98% of the states have decided not to follow California's anamoly of forcing private citizens to get the state's permission to dispose of personal property? "Loopholes" are supposed to be the exception yet, in this case, the exception is a state which mandates that it will only allow the privete transfer if the state wants to allow it. There are many example of California not allowing non restricted persons from completing legal transfers because of idiotic reasons. This is currently happening all over the state. At least, in 49 other states, US citizens are not subject to this type of random discretion by over paid government cubical workers.

Please, explain to me just how 98% of the states allow something, the othe 2% allow it with certain resrictions and yet, it's still considered a "loophole"? Better yet, please explain to me why anyone would want more government intrusion into their lives?

No1Smitty
01-06-2013, 12:15 PM
Here is one of many possible ways that it could be done to minimize the hassle for buyers and sellers, minimize privacy violations, not require FFLs or transfer fees, and prevent the system from being used as a de facto gun registration system:

A person interested in buying a gun from a private party would open an online account with ATF. Private party sellers would do the same. If someone finds a gun they are interested in buying, they login to their account and get a one-time-use sequence of seemingly random characters that identify them (to the ATF, not anyone else).

The prospective buyer then provides this code to the seller, the seller enters the code via their own ATF account, and a GO/NO-GO result is returned regarding the prospective buyer's firearm purchasing status. If GO then make the sale, if NO-GO then don't. Pretty simple, and would only take a minute or two to perform the check.

The only information that ATF has as a result is:

1) Person Bob was contemplating buying a gun because he logged in and got a one-time-use code.
2) Person Mary was contemplating selling a gun to Bob because she logged in and provided Bob's one-time-use code.

The ATF does not know anything about what gun was sold, and doesn't even know that a gun was actually sold (Bob and Mary could have called off the transaction for any number of reasons). This means that such a system is incapable of being used as the basis for registration.

Privacy concerns are largely addressed because Bob is the only one that can allow anyone to run a check on him. Even if Mary had given Bob's code to someone else, that code can only be used once and never again.

Could be as simple as there's an app for that. This sounds good. I think what everyone is missing is the lack of knowledge and control this gives to the government. Something this logical is only beneficial for the citizens and that is not what is "safe" for us.

brianm767
01-06-2013, 12:19 PM
We need less gun restrictions. not more. period.
Great response, clear,to the point and no attacks against other calgunners.

12voltguy
01-06-2013, 12:19 PM
if it's a "gunshow loop hole" then Obama was elected on a "VOTE LOOP HOLE"
enough voters were stupid enough to vote him in.........twice!
Close the loop hole, no stupid voters

SanPedroShooter
01-06-2013, 12:20 PM
Here is one of many possible ways that it could be done to minimize the hassle for buyers and sellers, minimize privacy violations, not require FFLs or transfer fees, and prevent the system from being used as a de facto gun registration system:

A person interested in buying a gun from a private party would open an online account with ATF. Private party sellers would do the same. If someone finds a gun they are interested in buying, they login to their account and get a one-time-use sequence of seemingly random characters that identify them (to the ATF, not anyone else).

The prospective buyer then provides this code to the seller, the seller enters the code via their own ATF account, and a GO/NO-GO result is returned regarding the prospective buyer's firearm purchasing status. If GO then make the sale, if NO-GO then don't. Pretty simple, and would only take a minute or two to perform the check.

The only information that ATF has as a result is:

1) Person Bob was contemplating buying a gun because he logged in and got a one-time-use code.
2) Person Mary was contemplating selling a gun to Bob because she logged in and provided Bob's one-time-use code.

The ATF does not know anything about what gun was sold, and doesn't even know that a gun was actually sold (Bob and Mary could have called off the transaction for any number of reasons). This means that such a system is incapable of being used as the basis for registration.

Privacy concerns are largely addressed because Bob is the only one that can allow anyone to run a check on him. Even if Mary had given Bob's code to someone else, that code can only be used once and never again.

Interesting.

I wouldnt have a problem running a check on some buyers if it was private, painless, free, not tied to registration.

I dont buy and sell guns for a living or ever really. I dont have an 01FFL. Plus I live in California so its a moot point in most cases.

I go with my gut in buyers and I assume sellers do the same. I have an 03 FFL so sometimes I have to gather information for the ATF after the fact.

I think my point is, I dont know that I see the problem in opening the NICS system to private sellers if it worked like you say.

Are private sellers really supplying the criminal market? It seems like it might be another focus on 'low hanging fruit' instead of issues that matter.

Do FFL's pay for the NICS serivce?

SilverTauron
01-06-2013, 12:20 PM
GrizzlyGuy, personal information would be required for that system to work.Name,address,and phone number would be required -otherwise a Latin King will just ask his girlfriend to fill in the blanks to get an ATF authorization and were back to square 1.

otalps
01-06-2013, 12:21 PM
The people stupid enough to want this to stay open where anyone can grab a gun without a background check are the same stupid people who are going to get guns banned for everyone. Close the thing and make everyone go thru a check. You shouldnt be against it if you have nothing to hide.

That's impressive, advocating for needing permission from mommy and daddy government to sell or buy private property and using the "if you have nothing to hide" line all while calling others stupid.:facepalm:

SanPedroShooter
01-06-2013, 12:24 PM
GrizzlyGuy, personal information would be required for that system to work.Name,address,and phone number would be required -otherwise a Latin King will just ask his girlfriend to fill in the blanks to get an ATF authorization and were back to square 1.

I am guessing that when you open your account with the ATF, you would have to provide that info.

How would they verify it though?

Jeepers
01-06-2013, 12:24 PM
:lurk5: waiting for those voting yes for this to say i should also have a background check before buy and completing 80% or 100% scratch builds ..... why stop there hell there should be a background check for every round of ammo we buy or any part that could be used in a firearm :rolleyes:

12voltguy
01-06-2013, 12:28 PM
That's impressive, advocating for needing permission from mommy and daddy government to sell or buy private property and using the "if you have nothing to hide" line all while calling others stupid.:facepalm:

using his logic, we don't need the 4th either, no loger do we need search warrents,
"if you have nothing to hide"
that logic brings so much WIN..............

SilverTauron
01-06-2013, 12:37 PM
I am guessing that when you open your account with the ATF, you would have to provide that info.

How would they verify it though?

Exactly . A private sale BG check system would have to be as complex and thorough as a Department of Defense Top Secret clearance investigation to weed out people associated with gang bangers.Such investigations take months to accomplish at grave expense to us taxpayers: nevertheless multiple folks with Top Secret clearance have sold out this country , despite the invasiveness of the security procedure.

It's folly to think that a magic ATF web portals going to accomplish what a 6 month Federal investigation cannot.

SanPedroShooter
01-06-2013, 12:47 PM
Exactly . A private sale BG check system would have to be as complex and thorough as a Department of Defense Top Secret clearance investigation to weed out people associated with gang bangers.Such investigations take months to accomplish at grave expense to us taxpayers: nevertheless multiple folks with Top Secret clearance have sold out this country , despite the invasiveness of the security procedure.

It's folly to think that a magic ATF web portals going to accomplish what a 6 month Federal investigation cannot.

Ha ha, I had one of those once.

Do they expire? Obviously they do, I was thinking about it the other day...

But I cant carry a gun to protect my family or my property and I have to wait ten days to pick up an AR lower.

The arbitrary levels of 'trust' the government bestows on gun owners speaks volumes. Private disposals of firearms between two indivduals is the last little 'loophole' to be brought under the federal bootheel. With a seemgly large number of Calgunners willing to go along. Why not? I cant get much worse for us here right...? Might as well spread the misery around a bit.

BzpqGdZ_ygU

fizux
01-06-2013, 12:50 PM
How would background checks be enforced without some form of firearm registration? I would like to see guns kept away from nut cases but also think the government shouldn't know where every firearm is.

Each owner keeps a transaction log, just like FFLs/C&Rs do today. They will become more common than notary journals. That log contains the one-use code referenced above. ATF can trace through Manufacturer-Dealer-Owners.

To deter govt BS, if an owner is queried about a transaction where the recipient's record is over three years old, ATF must pay the value of the admin time (say $2-$10) to the former owner. It won't deter legit inquiries or reward people for supplying guns to be used immediately in crimes, but it will deter wide-scale trolling.

Serious do-gooders may optionally register transactions online in the one-time code system, so that ATF can shorten its query routine. For any transaction where the person elects to use the online system, that person is relieved from the additional paper requirement.

If either house of Congress passes a bill to require use of the online registration system or any other registration scheme, use of individual records to facilitate confiscation from otherwise law abiding citizens, payment of an excessive use fee (detail to be added), or modifies this section, transaction records holders may immediately destroy all transaction records.

The thought being the ex-post facto law thing will deter attempts to do a late night end-run. It doesn't prevent them from requiring a new registration system later, but it does prevent them from using today's records to initiate widespread confiscation.

If anyone dies in a fiery plane crash with their records, and ATF really needs a gun that traces to the decedent, they have a list of prospective purchasers whose one-use codes were run by the decedent.

If anyone becomes a prohibited possessor and refuses to provide records, ATF knows which prospective sellers ran the felon's one-time codes. Sellers should only have to answer this type of query ATF supplies a certified copy of the final adjudication (a public record, so no privacy issues).

nothinghere2c
01-06-2013, 12:52 PM
option 3 - create MORE mundane loopholes to distract anti-gun advocates so they keep busy closing loopholes

SanPedroShooter
01-06-2013, 12:56 PM
That BATFE seems to have zero problem tracking guns they want without an official federal database and private sales.

And criminals and the insane seem to have zero problem getting guns.

So what is the issue here again?

1859sharps
01-06-2013, 12:58 PM
Just want to know about the "gun show loophole"

Since there is no loophole, we shouldn't be legitimizing the term.

When the law does NOT try and prevent an action, it is by definition legal. hence NO loophole.

If the law tries to stop and action and there is still a way to ignore the law, that is a loophole.

Right now, there is NO "gun show loophole".

Should there be background checks on all firearms transactions? it's a question worth exploring, and maybe a "compromise" point. Provided we get something in return...which would be the definition of compromise. Loose nothing by considering the pros and cons, and talking.

food for thought. BUT a separate discussion as there is...NO gun show loophole. it's made up. let me say that again for those who aren't listening....there is NO gun show loophole. There is NOTHING in the federal law that requires private sales to be anything other than cash or carry. hence....NO gun show loophole.

surplus-addict
01-06-2013, 1:01 PM
Really? REALLY? Some of you guys think that selling your OWN property should require regulations? Some of you guys think that regulating a right in anyway possible is good?

REALLY?!?!? How can you call yourselves Americans? :mad:

Anchors
01-06-2013, 1:01 PM
but your rights CAN be infringed... as has been established over and over again.

you dont get to own a gun while in prison. You dont get to vote under certain circumstances... so your rights can indeed be infringed. Please...

Actually that is a common misconception.
Only two states completely bar felons from voting. Seven states require that you petition the court, but it is usually granted.
All other states allow felons to vote freely after completion of their sentences (including parole).
That is the point of rehabilitation. You get to be a citizen again afterwards. Not some second class citizen.

If you can honestly say that a kid who steal a car when he's 18. Does his time. Gets a good job. And hasn't even gotten a speeding ticket since shouldn't be able to vote and buy a gun when he's 40 to protect his family, then I don't know what to tell you.

I do not think all felonies should be automatic lifetime bans. Maybe a short period of years, but not life.
Also, many crimes are felonies that should not be. IMO.
And it is ironic that some white collar felonies are not lifetime gun bans (because those are crimes politicians are most likely to commit).

There is no "loop hole", only the law in black and white.

guns4life
01-06-2013, 1:04 PM
Wow, 28. That is depressing...talk about sleeping with the enemy.

fizux
01-06-2013, 1:04 PM
Do they expire?

Yes, you have to renew every 5 years.

And no, it is not good enough to exempt you from the background and waiting period to buy a bolt action .22 in CA (although it is good enough to get issued a fully automatic weapon while getting on an international flight).

repubconserv
01-06-2013, 1:09 PM
It is not a loophole. Nor is it a game of semantics.

There is no federal law pertaining to private sales of firearms (in regards to this discussion). If there was a way in which a person could buy a gun from a dealer with no background check... that would be a loop hole.

Criminals can buy guns from unknowing law abiding citizens, this is true. But they can also buy them from other criminals if mandatory BG check laws were put in place. Meaning even if this were a "loophole," closing it would only affect law abiding citizens. Meaning you have just restricted the freedoms of law abiding citizens without affecting law breakers in the least.

If someone is unfit to own a gun, they should not be in society. they should be in an institution or prison. Conversely if you deem them fit to be in a society where you can buy (without a background check): cars (http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/1300026--7-pedestrians-hit-within-45-minutes-this-morning), knives (http://shanghaiist.com/2012/12/14/yet_another_knife_rampage_leaves_22.php), baseball bats (http://www.wmbfnews.com/story/16397367/man-in-custody-after-leading-deputies-to-body), poison (http://articles.cnn.com/2007-01-30/justice/arsenic.murder_1_todd-sommer-cynthia-sommer-arsenic-poisoning?_s=PM:LAW), axes (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/25/tyree-smith-axe-murder-cannibal-connecticut_n_1232067.html), hatchets (http://www.inquisitr.com/340342/teens-charged-with-hatchet-hammer-murder-of-great-grandmother/), or any other tool or weapon that can be used to kill large numbers of people quickly, why put background checks on only guns? Better yet, if you deem them safe to be in a society full of this, why restrict them at all? they have paid the price for their actions, they are deemed safe for society. If they can not be trusted with guns, then why trust them in society at all? Lock them up and throw away the key.

choprzrul
01-06-2013, 1:13 PM
Constitutionally, how can the federal government insert itself into a personal transaction that doesn't cross state lines?

.

surplus-addict
01-06-2013, 1:20 PM
Constitutionally, how can the federal government insert itself into a personal transaction that doesn't cross state lines?

.

Constitutionally, how can the federal government touch firearms regulation AT ALL unless it is to protect complete ownership of all types of firearms?

Ninety
01-06-2013, 1:21 PM
I think a few of you have made great points. Some really good stats and anyone who feels we need more laws , fed regulation of Private property sales of anything has truly been brainwashed or has not read the constitution in a really long time.

These laws prevent nothing. If a seller wants to run a backround check on someone to clear their conscience or b/c they have a bad feeling.. then they should/can be able to do so with minimal cost. I don't however think that it should be mandatory or administrated by the government. But some of you think that your fellow Americans are so dumb that they would sell guns to drunk 11 year olds...

I think most of the people who want more gov control just don't understand the rights that they are giving up.. but what makes me upset is they have no problem giving up their rights but more importantly they have no problem giving up MY rights.

Misery loves company... they have been in CA far too long.





on a side not.. Choptop, you seem to think that your process of thought or understanding of the issue is the only one. Open your mind and the rest will follow. and I too am waiting for a response to the question.

CenterX
01-06-2013, 1:23 PM
There was a time in California, when you could go to a personís house, from an ad in the paper, and buy any firearm. There was a time in California, when you could go to K Mart and buy a long gun without a back ground check or waiting period. Once the mandatory check was place, was there an effect on gun violence? As stated in other post, itís illegal for a felon to possess and illegal to sell to a felon. So what will the back ground check accomplish?

There was a time in California when nobody needed a "LTC" or "CCW" to pack any gun for self defense.

Goodness - The law is specific in each state, and there is not a loophole in any state as one would read the law. Inconsistency, Yes, loophole, No.
At a gunshow in CA everyone has to pass the background check to buy any forearm.
In Nevada and elsewhere at a gunshow, an FFL must run a background check, but John and Jane Doe sellers do not. Walk 200 yards down the street and John and Jane Doe can still sell to anyone without a background check. That is not a loophole, it is the law.

Yikes - how many self appointed super smart people does it take to mix up the facts?

fizux
01-06-2013, 1:29 PM
In the real world, background check databases cost money. So do phone operators,data entry clerks,and building space.Remember that the system has to be open 24 /7 ,because bad guys don't break the law on business days from 9-5 either. Sice you proposed this abominable plan, its up to you to prove how this system will work. If you can't do it, what makes you think Congress can?

NICS costs less than $2 per check, all input clerks and research staff included. I'm okay with that.

I am not okay with $35 per gun, even if purchased on the same day from the same seller, requiring a FFL when we are at the capital of the internet, or the prohibition on buying non-C&R guns if I am in another state and not on active duty, or the requirement to pay a $19 fee to register C&R handguns when I return home.

Data entry staff to process paper forms? That's only because I can't do it myself online.

Price out 5 redundent servers, licenses for 2008R2 & SQL, ISP service, and 5 full time IT guys to run it. Add 10 more clerks to chase down mismatches/hits. Ignore that you can probably use the same hardware and software next year. Divide by the number of transactions per year. I don't see how it could cost anywhere near $35, or require a FFL.

If someone can't use the internet, they can use a FFL. What they can't do is flame me for this post.

Meplat
01-06-2013, 1:34 PM
There is no loophole. It is already illegal for an individual to sell to a person not known to them. That would include knowing if they are a prohibited. If you know they are prohibited it is illegal to sell to them. The government makes little effort to enforce these provisions and makes it difficult for individuals to practice due diligence by not letting them use the NIC system.

Thus we see that government is creating its own artificial, nonexistent loophole as an excuse to further tighten the noose around our necks.

choprzrul
01-06-2013, 1:37 PM
Constitutionally, how can the federal government touch firearms regulation AT ALL unless it is to protect complete ownership of all types of firearms?

They use the Commerce clause.

I seem to remember some threads here that talked about states (Montana for 1 I believe ) that are allowing in-state manufacture of firearms that are to be sold exclusively to state residents and will be outside of the control of the feds.

.

surplus-addict
01-06-2013, 1:39 PM
They use the Commerce clause.

I seem to remember some threads here that talked about states (Montana for 1 I believe ) that are allowing in-state manufacture of firearms that are to be sold exclusively to state residents and will be outside of the control of the feds.

.

Commerce Clause can't regulate rights. NOTHING can regulate rights.

And if the feds didn't have their ATF jackboot thugs, I'd totally move to Montana and start making machineguns.

Jeepers
01-06-2013, 1:40 PM
this all makes me frown as we use a mag locks for our own "loophole" to circumvent the "spirit of the law" , there are no loopholes only laws followed and 50% here seem to favor more gun laws.. no wonder cali is F'ed up the way it is :facepalm: :rolleyes:

Packy14
01-06-2013, 1:44 PM
There was a time in California, when you could go to a personís house, from an ad in the paper, and buy any firearm. There was a time in California, when you could go to K Mart and buy a long gun without a back ground check or waiting period. Once the mandatory check was place, was there an effect on gun violence? As stated in other post, itís illegal for a felon to possess and illegal to sell to a felon. So what will the back ground check accomplish?

So you are able to, by looking at someone, tell if they are a felon? Wow, you sir have a genuinely amazing ability. Me personally, I can't do that, so I would never sell a gun to anyone without a background check unless they were a close friend who I knew for a fact due to other reasons to not have a felony (i.e. they are a MD or other licensed professional who I know could not practice without an in-depth background check). Sorry, I wouldn't open myself up to liability or prosecution for anyone.

SilverTauron
01-06-2013, 1:46 PM
NICS costs less than $2 per check, all input clerks and research staff included. I'm okay with that.

I am not okay with $35 per gun, even if purchased on the same day from the same seller, requiring a FFL when we are at the capital of the internet, or the prohibition on buying non-C&R guns if I am in another state and not on active duty, or the requirement to pay a $19 fee to register C&R handguns when I return home.

Data entry staff to process paper forms? That's only because I can't do it myself online.

Price out 5 redundent servers, licenses for 2008R2 & SQL, ISP service, and 5 full time IT guys to run it. Add 10 more clerks to chase down mismatches/hits. Ignore that you can probably use the same hardware and software next year. Divide by the number of transactions per year. I don't see how it could cost anywhere near $35, or require a FFL.

If someone can't use the internet, they can use a FFL. What they can't do is flame me for this post.

That's just one component.There are THOUSANDS of people who get arrested per day for disqualifying offenses. Just waiting for the data to come to you isn't good enough, as the current Brady system demonstrates.The goblins know they've got a at least a full business day to tool up before they're flagged.

To truly have a comprehensive background check system, you'll need to actively call every LE agent and court jurisdiction it the county for a daily total of prohibited people. Just like military roll call, your imaginary agency would need to account for the number of prohibited people. Make 1 mistake and the bad guys could get armed.

Think you're done yet? Not by a long shot.Youll need another army of employees calling those same offices daily to see who got AQUITTED. Wrongly deny someone who got arrested and beat the charges, and you're looking at an expensive court settlement.

The course of action you seek would require the creation of a modern day KGB, a bureaucracy tasked with the job of monitoring every individual in the country to ensure they don't break bad without Government knowing about it.

fizux
01-06-2013, 1:57 PM
I seem to remember some threads here that talked about states (Montana for 1 I believe ) that are allowing in-state manufacture of firearms that are to be sold exclusively to state residents and will be outside of the control of the feds.

And if the feds didn't have their ATF jackboot thugs, I'd totally move to Montana and start making machineguns.

FYI, Montana Firearms Freedom Act does not exempt machine guns. As much as it pains me to admit, I do not think that we can sufficiently distinguish Gonzales v. Raich.

Commerce Clause can't regulate rights. NOTHING can regulate rights.

I disagree. Does my freedom of speech allow me to stand on the sidewalk outside your house with a megaphone and call you bad names all night so you can't sleep?

GrizzlyGuy
01-06-2013, 2:00 PM
I am guessing that when you open your account with the ATF, you would have to provide that info.

How would they verify it though?

It's actually not that hard to do a solid identity verification. You open your account, put in your name/address/age, and you enter your SSN for verification purposes (this is all info that the federal government already has in one database or another, so you aren't telling them anything new). Once your SSN and the other info is verified against your info in the Social Security or IRS databases, your account exists but can't yet be used.

The ATF then sends a letter to your mailing address and the letter contains a printed code. You login to the system again, enter the code, and that completes the identity verification process. You can then use the system as I described above.

For someone else to sign up as you, they would need to:

1) Know your name/address/age/SSN
2) Commit a federal felony by stealing your mail to get the code out of the ATF letter.

I think that's plenty good enough in terms of identity verification and fraud prevention.

Marcus von W.
01-06-2013, 2:18 PM
Commerce Clause can't regulate rights. NOTHING can regulate rights.

And if the feds didn't have their ATF jackboot thugs, I'd totally move to Montana and start making machineguns.



That silly talk about people having these mythical, unicorn-like things called rights occurs only in the Constitutional La-La Land where people smoke the Bill of Rights fairy dust out of the red white and blue pipe.

In the real Rooseveltian neo-Stalinist world, the Commerce Clause allows the federal government to regulate everything that could through the wildest stretch of your imagination in the remotest way make its way from one state to anyother, or could be purchased in one state by a resident of another.

Remember your Con Law classes from Law School:

The government can tell a farmer not to grow feed for his own cows because then he's not buying commercial feed that MAY have originated out of state and is thus engaged in interstate commerce by chosing not to engage in interstate commerce.

The Heart of Atlanta Motel is engaged in interstate commerce because people traveling on the interstate freeway can see their sign and might pull off to spend the night there.

Ollie's Barbeque is engaged in interstate commerce because some of the meat Ollie buys might have come from out of state.

The guy with the gun is engaged in interstate commerce and thus violated the Federal Omnibus Anti-Crime Act because even though the gun was made in the same state as he lived in and had never left that state, the gun could have been taken out of state had anyone wanted to do so.

Hell, the dirt in your yard under your house subjects you federal subjugation under the Commerce Clause, because if you owned a bull dozer and a dump truck you could load up that dirt and move it to another state.

warbird
01-06-2013, 2:28 PM
I doubt there are significant problems except for gang bangers buying guns to use on each other. However, it would not be hard for the feds to flood gunshows and stop anyone caught buying or selling guns so they can run them through the NCIS system to see if they violated federal law. Then just bust the seller and the buyer and send both to jail if either one is prohibted. Until you remove the restrictions in federal law to selling to the mentally ill and ex-convicts you are going to have federal trouble even if the state does not care. It is just life in America now under federal law.

surplus-addict
01-06-2013, 2:32 PM
That silly talk about people having these mythical, unicorn-like things called rights occurs only in the Constitutional La-La Land where people smoke the Bill of Rights fairy dust out of the red white and blue pipe.

In the real Rooseveltian neo-Stalinist world, the Commerce Clause allows the federal government to regulate everything that could through the wildest stretch of your imagination in the remotest way make its way from one state to anyother, or could be purchased in one state by a resident of another.

Remember your Con Law classes from Law School:

The government can tell a farmer not to grow feed for his own cows because then he's not buying commercial feed that MAY have originated out of state and is thus engaged in interstate commerce by chosing not to engage in interstate commerce.

The Heart of Atlanta Motel is engaged in interstate commerce because people traveling on the interstate freeway can see their sign and might pull off to spend the night there.

Ollie's Barbeque is engaged in interstate commerce because some of the meat Ollie buys might have come from out of state.

The guy with the gun is engaged in interstate commerce and thus violated the Federal Omnibus Anti-Crime Act because even though the gun was made in the same state as he lived in and had never left that state, the gun could have been taken out of state had anyone wanted to do so.

Hell, the dirt in your yard under your house subjects you federal subjugation under the Commerce Clause, because if you owned a bull dozer and a dump truck you could load up that dirt and move it to another state.

That's the thing though: we DO have unalienable rights, but they are being infringed upon. Our rights are absolute, and until the standing government recognizes that then they are violating my rights.

rob1105
01-06-2013, 2:33 PM
There is no such thing as a "GUN SHOW LOOPHOLE" Someone shut this thread down already *&%^*&^%

Marcus von W.
01-06-2013, 2:33 PM
Yes, the "automobile loop hole" needs to be closed too. The idea that someone can just walk up to another person, hand him cash, and drive away with a car that could be used for crimes like drunk driving, armed robbery, carrying concealed weapons, transporting drugs, driving minors across state lines for immoral purposes, transporting cow feed and beef to the Heart of Atlanta Motel, etc., is just shocking.

We must end the "automobile loop hole". People should only be allowed to buy one car per year (more upon a showing of good cause, such as the previous car broke down and is not repairable, got stolen, or something like that...after all, we are not unreasonable) and should have to pass an extensive and expensive background check before taking possession of that car. And their should be strict liability - if your teenage son uses that car to commit drunk driving, you should spend the next several years in prison.

It's a known fact that batterers and perpetrators of other forms of domestic violence often use cars to get to or from the scene of their crimes and often carry guns in these cars, so anyone that is subject to a domestic violence restraining order (where a commissioner in an "ex-parte" hearing - that no notice of was ever served but a fraudulent "proof of service" was filed - just tore up the Constitution and Bill of Rights as far as that person is concerned, on the word of a lying crank whore and her scumbag tweaker girlfriend - ask me how I know) or has been in the past 10 years should not be allowed to own, purchase, or ride in a car.

And "assault cars" with V8 engines? Nobody needs that many cylinders with that much displacement. 4 cylinders with 30 cubic inches maximum each is fine for any legitimate automotive sporting use. Let's face it - in Freudian terms, "big cylinders" with "lots of inches" is a penis envy substitution that car owners use to cover their own feelings of inadequacy. These 120 cubic inch 4 cylinders should also have mandatory governors (with it being a crime to tamper with them) that limit top speed of everything except police cars and military vehicles to 45 miles per hour. If it saves the life of just one child, it will be worth it.

OneAvgWhiteGuy
01-06-2013, 2:34 PM
I don't see any problem with a background check that verifies whether or not an individual is able to purchase a firearm.

It doesn't have to include gun type or even if a sale was made, just a simple yes or no answer on eligibility.

tcrpe
01-06-2013, 2:34 PM
A lot of deaths are caused by stupidity. Are we going to outlaw stupidity?


Come to think of it, not a bad idea, but what would the Democrats do then?

Eldraque
01-06-2013, 2:36 PM
^^^^ Car Control makes more sense than Gun Control. At least its our RIGHT to defend ourselves....driving is a PRIVILEGE

surplus-addict
01-06-2013, 2:36 PM
I disagree. Does my freedom of speech allow me to stand on the sidewalk outside your house with a megaphone and call you bad names all night so you can't sleep?


Nope. That would violate my God given right to the pursuit of happiness.

You also don't have the constitutional right to single out one person and harass them: the 1st Amendment doesn't let you do that.

fizux
01-06-2013, 2:38 PM
That's just one component.There are THOUSANDS of people who get arrested per day for disqualifying offenses. Just waiting for the data to come to you isn't good enough, as the current Brady system demonstrates.The goblins know they've got a at least a full business day to tool up before they're flagged.

So you're saying they can have their fingerprints taken, finish booking, run prints through NCIC in order to have prior convictions available for bail hearing, wait for court the next business day, have bail set, make bail, and do all the paperwork to get released from the can before the booking clerk can submit the fact that they were arrested?

Either way, it is safer, cheaper, more reliable, and easier to use than the system we have now. That will promote compliance, which is better for everyone.

The arrest data gets entered into a computer at booking and reported to NCIC, regardless of whether there is a firearms background check system in place or not. I am not advocating that background check fees pay for the salaries of arresting officers while they are rolling prints, because that expense is there no matter what. If anything, the criminals should be paying an assessment upon receiving a disqualifying conviction to subsidize the background system that is only necessary to prevent them from buying a firearm.

To truly have a comprehensive background check system, you'll need to actively call every LE agent and court jurisdiction it the county for a daily total of prohibited people. Just like military roll call, your imaginary agency would need to account for the number of prohibited people. Make 1 mistake and the bad guys could get armed.

No calls are necessary. The imaginary agency is called the FBI, and they already perform that function using your tax dollars. That's how they generate those UCRs that tell people like us that more hammers than rifles are used to commit murder every year.

Yes, a new system will have flaws; it can't be perfect. The current system has the exact same flaws in spades, and many more. We can't get perfect be the enemy of good enough here, just like we can't ban AR-15's because someone got ahold of one and made the news.

Think you're done yet? Not by a long shot.Youll need another army of employees calling those same offices daily to see who got AQUITTED. Wrongly deny someone who got arrested and beat the charges, and you're looking at an expensive court settlement.

Again, disposition records are already reported to NCIC by the reporting agency. No additional cost there. Wrongful denials that are mere administrative error don't result in expensive court settlements today, so why would that create additional expense under a new system? An acquitted person can ask the arresting agency to fix the entry; if they don't, then yes I think the agency should get sued. Alternately, an acquitted person can send a certified copy of the judgment of acquittal to a P.O. Box checked by one of the 10 clerks that I proposed in the annual budget.

The course of action you seek would require the creation of a modern day KGB, a bureaucracy tasked with the job of monitoring every individual in the country to ensure they don't break bad without Government knowing about it.

Aren't we already there? When you DROS and they check DMV for delinquent parking tickets on vehicles registered to you, isn't that a bit too much?

In San Francisco, I can't ask if the person is a convicted felon on an employment application, even if that person would have access to confidential client information and would likely have opportunities to steal client trust account checks. Yet, the same people who advocate for that rule want me to undergo a background and 10-day "cooling off" period so that I can buy another .22 plinker ... really?

I am advocating a system whereby you can get rid of California's requirement to use a FFL for PPTs, can freely cross state lines and PPT to residents of other states, and ideally be able to mail order stuff. The deterrent to registration/confiscation is that by trying, banners lose all of the records. Is that too much of a KGB state?

fizux
01-06-2013, 2:48 PM
Nope. That would violate my God given right to the pursuit of happiness.

And when your pursuit of happiness conflicts with my right of free speech, which right wins? When a criminal's pursuit of happiness entails breaking into my house, can I interfere with his "God given right"?

You also don't have the constitutional right to single out one person and harass them: the 1st Amendment doesn't let you do that.

I do it every day for a living.

surplus-addict
01-06-2013, 2:58 PM
And when your pursuit of happiness conflicts with my right of free speech, which right wins? When a criminal's pursuit of happiness entails breaking into my house, can I interfere with his "God given right"?

Okay, for one, both rights can co-exist juuuuuust fine. And if we had a giant disagreement: take it to the courts. Let a jury of our peers decide.

And someone breaking into your house isn't exercising their rights, only a moron would believe that. They are giving up their rights, and you have a right to stop them if you so choose.



I do it every day for a living.
What living would that be? Talk show host? :p

luvtolean
01-06-2013, 3:04 PM
In a fight, never, EVER give an inch for free.

These people are out to take every inch of your RKBA that is politically feasible.

Remember, every bill you are going to see coming forward is to that aim. So, no, I don't support. Not one inch.

Besides, it is up to them to demonstrate, to the standard of strict scrutiny, that this will improve public safety. With easy availability of firearms to any criminal, it doesn't meet the standard. When you start hearing "them" trying to keep guns away from terrorists realize how lame that sounds; it is certainly easier for a criminal to buy a firearm than it is to illegally get into the US.

But if after a long bloody fight that ended with a certain Senator from California having a heart attack from overwork, those without a CCW or LEO credentials have to have FREE NICS checks at a gun show and nothing else passed, I would consider it a worthwhile trade.

aklover_91
01-06-2013, 3:05 PM
Unless you can prove private party sales cause real problems, you're advocating for a bunch of malarkey.

fizux
01-06-2013, 3:14 PM
Okay, for one, both rights can co-exist juuuuuust fine. And if we had a giant disagreement: take it to the courts. Let a jury of our peers decide.
Yup, hence the balancing of rights.

And someone breaking into your house isn't exercising their rights, only a moron would believe that. They are giving up their rights, and you have a right to stop them if you so choose.
I don't think the guy that broke into my house would agree with you. You're probably right about the moron thing, but Democrats have a supermajority now.

What living would that be? Talk show host? :p
Worse.

fizux
01-06-2013, 3:16 PM
Unless you can prove private party sales cause real problems, you're advocating for a bunch of malarkey.

They do pose a problem in California. They are a complete pain in the @$$.

Skidmark
01-06-2013, 3:18 PM
Not just Democratic lawmakers agitating to strengthen background checks, Republicans are staking this out, too:

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) said Sunday that the government's background-check system for gun purchases is flawed and needs strengthening.

The Texas Republican, a strong backer of the National Rifle Association, said the Democrats' push for new gun restrictions is misguided, but he emphasized that there's plenty of room for Congress to make it tougher for those barred from owning guns from buying them.

"Are there things we can do? Sure. One of the things we could do is we could improve the quality of the federal database," Cruz said in an interview on "Fox News Sunday." "Right now a lot of states, a lot of local jurisdictions, are not reporting criminal convictions, not reporting mental health barriers to ownership. And so the federal database is not nearly as good as it should be. That would be a common-sense improvement."

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/275809-gop-sen-cruz-calls-for-strengthening-background-check-system-for-gun-sales

Milsurp Collector
01-06-2013, 3:21 PM
Just want to know about the "gun show loophole"



First, you need to answer three questions:


Are gun shows a significant source of guns used by criminals? Would requiring background checks for all sales at gun shows significantly impact crime? We know it will definitely add additional expense and inconvenience for gun owners, so are there any benefits that would make it worthwhile?
A broader questions is, are background checks effective at preventing criminals, particularly those who commit mass shootings, from obtaining firearms?
What would be required to enforce such a law if it was national?


1. Very few criminals obtain guns at gun shows. Only 0.7% of criminals reported that they obtained their gun at a gun show (http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf). New guns sold at gun shows are generally sold by licensed dealers who are required to perform background checks anyway, even in free states. Criminals aren't interested in the old deer rifles, shotguns, and revolvers that Grandpa and Uncle Bob are trying to sell as private sellers at gun shows.

You could close and ban all gun shows in the United States tomorrow and it would have negligible effects on criminals. The "gun show loophole" is a red herring and much ado about nothing. But it is something that sounds "reasonable" to non-gun owners - and, surprisingly, to many California gun owners - so the anti-gun rights groups liked to beat their drums about it. It was a gun control law that they could possibly get passed, and until last month's tragedy they were desperate for any kind of victory. But it really is a non-issue in terms of crime.

2. Do background checks keep "bad people" from getting guns?

What do the following individuals have in common, besides being mass murderers?


Seung-hui Cho (Virginia Tech - 32 killed, 17 wounded)
Maj. Nidal Hasan (Ft. Hood - 13 killed, 29 wounded)
Jared Loughner (Tucson - 6 killed, 13 wounded)
James Holmes (Aurora - 12 killed, 58 wounded)
Wade Michael Page (Sikh Temple - 6 killed, 4 wounded)


Answer: all of them passed background checks when they bought guns. How many lives did those background checks save? Zero.

99.36% of the 140,882,399 background checks performed between 1998 and 2011 were approved. (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/reports/2011-operations-report/operations-report-2011) 100% of the buyers in those 140,882,399 transactions went through the expense and inconvenience of the background check, and for what? Just to stop 0.64% of those sales by licensed dealers. It is an extremely inefficient and low-yield process. If you started pulling over 100% of the drivers on the Santa Monica Freeway on a Friday afternoon to do Breathalyzer tests, would you catch a few drunk drivers? Probably. But how about the inconvenience for all the drivers who aren't drunk?

All that background checks have accomplished is to force prohibited persons to get guns some other way than buying from a licensed dealer - which most of them were already doing before there were background checks - and to add expense and inconvenience for millions of law-abiding gun owners. Background checks certainly didn't prevent some horrific mass shootings. Background checks are placebos to make non-gun owners (and some California gun owners) feel good, without actually doing much. Why would any American gun owner want to expand such an inefficient and ineffective program?

And those 0.64% of sales that were denied, did that mean the denied person didn't get a gun elsewhere? 78.8% of criminals obtained guns from family, friends, or "on the street" (http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf) in 1997. The number is probably closer to 100% now. Bad guys still get guns. Ah, you say, but if we require a background check for all sales, like in California (with few exceptions), that would stop. Which leads to enforcement.

3. How can you enforce a law requiring a background check for all gun sales? Can you have a cop in every parking lot and home in America, watching to see if a gun sale is taking place? The government would have to have some way of knowing that a gun sale had taken place. That would require mandatory gun registration on a national level. Without gun registration, a law requiring background checks for all gun sales is unenforceable. How else could the government know that a gun had been sold without a background check?

When anti-gun activists demand universal background checks, it is a Trojan Horse to obtain national gun registration. If you support universal background checks for all sales nationally, then logically you should also support national gun registration to make the law enforceable. Do you?

I live in a (currently) free state. Last May I saw an ad in a local gun forum For Sale section for a Colt 1902 Sporting pistol. It was just before lunchtime. I called the owner and arranged to meet him. I went to the bank and withdrew some money. I met him in the parking lot at a local Baja Fresh and bought it. The whole transaction took place during my lunch hour and yes, I took it home with me the same day.

http://i625.photobucket.com/albums/tt337/milsurp_collector/Colt/1902%20Sporting/DSC05444.jpg

I have purchased several guns in similar fashion. Although there were no background checks, somehow I haven't killed anyone or committed any crimes.

TATER313
01-06-2013, 3:34 PM
no such thing as a "gun show loophole" its bull****
Agreed, no such thing as gun show loop hole. The government has been misusing there power far to long we need to back our rights and fight harder to get the ones we lost back. Obama is working on the means to take our freedoms from us. It is illegal that they are trying to take our firearms and also the taxes that they rob us of. They use threats and scare tactics to take our money, but they fail to represent us Americans, instead they line the pockets and stroke the backs of big corporations. We are over taxed and they want to take as much money from us to control us like sheep. Fear is used to attack our constitutional rights.

aklover_91
01-06-2013, 3:40 PM
They do pose a problem in California. They are a complete pain in the @$$.

Because of the mandated background check.

If I wasn't entirely clear, unless anyone can prove that cash and carry private sales (and they don't seem to, in the vast majority of country) cause problems, you're advocating to have a law merely for the sake of having a law.

That's nothing more than a waste of energy, funds, and resources, and all else aside isn't supportable on that basis alone.

fizux
01-06-2013, 4:11 PM
Because of the mandated background check.

If I wasn't entirely clear, unless anyone can prove that cash and carry private sales (and they don't seem to, in the vast majority of country) cause problems, you're advocating to have a law merely for the sake of having a law.

That's nothing more than a waste of energy, funds, and resources, and all else aside isn't supportable on that basis alone.

I think the 10-day wait and $35 to PPT is a bigger waste than perhaps a $2 fee to do so privately without a FFL. What is unsupportable is having to go to a FFL and pay $35 per gun, every time, like it is now. I am for a cash and carry PPT alternative in California, exactly because I don't think PPTs are the problem.

If there is a national mandate for background checks on PPTs, then yes, I am guilty of preferring to have the option to not use a dealer. Read the earlier posts -- someone asked how to implement nationwide federal background checks without creating a gun registry. I provided what I thought was a reasonable answer to that question, including getting rid of all this interstate nanny crap. If you don't like it, come up with another way to implement federal background checks on everyone with less of an imposition on your rights.

Would I be heartbroken if free states didn't have to deal with PPT backgrounds? Not at all.

aklover_91
01-06-2013, 4:16 PM
I think the 10-day wait and $35 to PPT is a bigger waste than perhaps a $2 fee to do so privately without a FFL. What is unsupportable is having to go to a FFL and pay $35 per gun, every time, like it is now. I am for a cash and carry PPT alternative in California, exactly because I don't think PPTs are the problem.

If there is a national mandate for background checks on PPTs, then yes, I am guilty of preferring to have the option to not use a dealer. Read the earlier posts -- someone asked how to implement nationwide federal background checks without creating a gun registry. I provided what I thought was a reasonable answer to that question, including getting rid of all this interstate nanny crap. If you don't like it, come up with another way to implement federal background checks on everyone with less of an imposition on your rights.

Would I be heartbroken if free states didn't have to deal with PPT backgrounds? Not at all.

How do suppose the mechanics of that would work? Without a witness from the State (as we do it, this role is filled by the FFL or one of his employees) to certify that yes, these were the people the transfer was between, and yes they did a background check, what's effectively being policed?

As it stands, having to go to a dealer to do the check is literally the only way you can be sure any checks occur at all.

Spending the money on a program you can't enforce even that little bit is nothing but wasted effort.

12voltguy
01-06-2013, 4:18 PM
I think the 10-day wait and $35 to PPT is a bigger waste than perhaps a $2 fee to do so privately without a FFL. What is unsupportable is having to go to a FFL and pay $35 per gun, every time, like it is now. I am for a cash and carry PPT alternative in California, exactly because I don't think PPTs are the problem.

If there is a national mandate for background checks on PPTs, then yes, I am guilty of preferring to have the option to not use a dealer. Read the earlier posts -- someone asked how to implement nationwide federal background checks without creating a gun registry. I provided what I thought was a reasonable answer to that question, including getting rid of all this interstate nanny crap. If you don't like it, come up with another way to implement federal background checks on everyone with less of an imposition on your rights.Would I be heartbroken if free states didn't have to deal with PPT backgrounds? Not at all.


how about NO, no checks.
no need to to, it's not a problem.
I don't need to come up with a infringing plan:oji:

everytime you give an inch, you give in.

fizux
01-06-2013, 4:28 PM
how about NO, no checks.
no need to to, it's not a problem.
I don't need to come up with a infringing plan:oji:

everytime you give an inch, you give in.

Because that contradicted the premise of the question I was answering:
How would background checks be enforced without some form of firearm registration? I would like to see guns kept away from nut cases but also think the government shouldn't know where every firearm is.
Let me know how far you get in Sacramento this year repealing backgrounds for PPTs. Until then, I think your plan of maintaining the status quo by requiring a FFL for every PPT is far more of an infringement.

Tarn_Helm
01-06-2013, 4:32 PM
but your rights CAN be infringed... as has been established over and over again.

you dont get to own a gun while in prison. You dont get to vote under certain circumstances... so your rights can indeed be infringed. Please...

You are confused because you are failing to make critical, real-world, terminological distinctions here.

FORFEITURE
A prisoner cannot own a firearm in prison because he has "forfeited" certain freedoms through previous illegal acts.

INFRINGEMENT
An otherwise law-abiding citizen from whom the government has used the law to obliterate, in whole or in part, his pre-existing rights to keep and carry certain arms has undergone "infringement" based on no actual wrongdoing on his part.

Get it?

There is a world of difference between the two.

Think about it.

Until it sinks in.

:cool:

fizux
01-06-2013, 4:33 PM
How do suppose the mechanics of that would work? Without a witness from the State (as we do it, this role is filled by the FFL or one of his employees) to certify that yes, these were the people the transfer was between, and yes they did a background check, what's effectively being policed?

As it stands, having to go to a dealer to do the check is literally the only way you can be sure any checks occur at all.

Spending the money on a program you can't enforce even that little bit is nothing but wasted effort.

Why do we need a "witness from the State" to certify anything? What's wrong with the buyer and seller doing it? What magical powers does a FFL have that the rest of us don't?

What are you referring to by "spending the money"? Do you seriously think that it is cheaper to go to a FFL? Do you seriously think that it is less effort to go through a FFL?

SilverTauron
01-06-2013, 4:42 PM
So you're saying they can have their fingerprints taken, finish booking, run prints through NCIC in order to have prior convictions available for bail hearing, wait for court the next business day, have bail set, make bail, and do all the paperwork to get released from the can before the booking clerk can submit the fact that they were arrested?

Either way, it is safer, cheaper, more reliable, and easier to use than the system we have now. That will promote compliance, which is better for everyone.

The arrest data gets entered into a computer at booking and reported to NCIC, regardless of whether there is a firearms background check system in place or not. I am not advocating that background check fees pay for the salaries of arresting officers while they are rolling prints, because that expense is there no matter what. If anything, the criminals should be paying an assessment upon receiving a disqualifying conviction to subsidize the background system that is only necessary to prevent them from buying a firearm.



No calls are necessary. The imaginary agency is called the FBI, and they already perform that function using your tax dollars. That's how they generate those UCRs that tell people like us that more hammers than rifles are used to commit murder every year.

Yes, a new system will have flaws; it can't be perfect. The current system has the exact same flaws in spades, and many more. We can't get perfect be the enemy of good enough here, just like we can't ban AR-15's because someone got ahold of one and made the news.



Again, disposition records are already reported to NCIC by the reporting agency. No additional cost there. Wrongful denials that are mere administrative error don't result in expensive court settlements today, so why would that create additional expense under a new system? An acquitted person can ask the arresting agency to fix the entry; if they don't, then yes I think the agency should get sued. Alternately, an acquitted person can send a certified copy of the judgment of acquittal to a P.O. Box checked by one of the 10 clerks that I proposed in the annual budget.



Aren't we already there? When you DROS and they check DMV for delinquent parking tickets on vehicles registered to you, isn't that a bit too much?

In San Francisco, I can't ask if the person is a convicted felon on an employment application, even if that person would have access to confidential client information and would likely have opportunities to steal client trust account checks. Yet, the same people who advocate for that rule want me to undergo a background and 10-day "cooling off" period so that I can buy another .22 plinker ... really?

I am advocating a system whereby you can get rid of California's requirement to use a FFL for PPTs, can freely cross state lines and PPT to residents of other states, and ideally be able to mail order stuff. The deterrent to registration/confiscation is that by trying, banners lose all of the records. Is that too much of a KGB state?

Yes.

My point is simple: your system will be no more effective then the ones that come before it . Yes, bad guys will get booked,make bail, and still be able to buy guns before their disposition paperwork makes it to the NICS.As I said above, the ISP testified in front if Congress that their backlog was running 5 years.The BRady System doesn't work. Period. If it did VT, Columbine, North Hollywood,Seal Beach, the Empire State Shooting, and Newtown wouldn't have happened.

For even more proof that your plan is garbage, I present New York State. They've done exactly what the Brady's want .No weapon can legally change owners without involving an FFL. In NYS there are no private gun sales or "gun show loophole".

Yet there is gun violence, and no shortage of it either.

By comparison I sit safe in a state where I can sell my guns the same way I can sell my TV. Explain how the imposition of your proposal benefits me up here in South Dakota.

donny douchebag
01-06-2013, 4:55 PM
Yet another thread that proves we're our own worst enemy.

fizux
01-06-2013, 4:58 PM
Yes.

My point is simple: your system will be no more effective then the ones that come before it . Yes, bad guys will get booked,make bail, and still be able to buy guns before their disposition paperwork makes it to the NICS.As I said above, the ISP testified in front if Congress that their backlog was running 5 years.The BRady System doesn't work. Period. If it did VT, Columbine, North Hollywood,Seal Beach, the Empire State Shooting, and Newtown wouldn't have happened.

For even more proof that your plan is garbage, I present New York State. They've done exactly what the Brady's want .No weapon can legally change owners without involving an FFL. In NYS there are no private gun sales or "gun show loophole".

Yet there is gun violence, and no shortage of it either.

By comparison I sit safe in a state where I can sell my guns the same way I can sell my TV. Explain how the imposition of your proposal benefits me up here in South Dakota.

I would much prefer it your way, but the premise of the question was how to implement federal background checks on PPTs for everyone without creating a gun registry. Yes, the current system in NY and CA are garbage -- that is exactly what I'm trying to avoid. The data isn't any better, but it is cheaper and less of an imposition than going to a FFL for every PPT.

dfletcher
01-06-2013, 5:08 PM
First, you need to answer three questions:


Are gun shows a significant source of guns used by criminals? Would requiring background checks for all sales at gun shows significantly impact crime? We know it will definitely add additional expense and inconvenience for gun owners, so are there any benefits that would make it worthwhile?
A broader questions is, are background checks effective at preventing criminals, particularly those who commit mass shootings, from obtaining firearms?
What would be required to enforce such a law if it was national?


1. Very few criminals obtain guns at gun shows. Only 0.7% of criminals reported that they obtained their gun at a gun show (http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf). New guns sold at gun shows are generally sold by licensed dealers who are required to perform background checks anyway, even in free states. Criminals aren't interested in the old deer rifles, shotguns, and revolvers that Grandpa and Uncle Bob are trying to sell as private sellers at gun shows.

You could close and ban all gun shows in the United States tomorrow and it would have negligible effects on criminals. The "gun show loophole" is a red herring and much ado about nothing. But it is something that sounds "reasonable" to non-gun owners - and, surprisingly, to many California gun owners - so the anti-gun rights groups liked to beat their drums about it. It was a gun control law that they could possibly get passed, and until last month's tragedy they were desperate for any kind of victory. But it really is a non-issue in terms of crime.

2. Do background checks keep "bad people" from getting guns?

What do the following individuals have in common, besides being mass murderers?


Seung-hui Cho (Virginia Tech - 32 killed, 17 wounded)
Maj. Nidal Hasan (Ft. Hood - 13 killed, 29 wounded)
Jared Loughner (Tucson - 6 killed, 13 wounded)
James Holmes (Aurora - 12 killed, 58 wounded)
Wade Michael Page (Sikh Temple - 6 killed, 4 wounded)


Answer: all of them passed background checks when they bought guns. How many lives did those background checks save? Zero.

99.36% of the 140,882,399 background checks performed between 1998 and 2011 were approved. (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/reports/2011-operations-report/operations-report-2011) 100% of the buyers in those 140,882,399 transactions went through the expense and inconvenience of the background check, and for what? Just to stop 0.64% of those sales by licensed dealers. It is an extremely inefficient and low-yield process. If you started pulling over 100% of the drivers on the Santa Monica Freeway on a Friday afternoon to do Breathalyzer tests, would you catch a few drunk drivers? Probably. But how about the inconvenience for all the drivers who aren't drunk?

All that background checks have accomplished is to force prohibited persons to get guns some other way than buying from a licensed dealer - which most of them were already doing before there were background checks - and to add expense and inconvenience for millions of law-abiding gun owners. Background checks certainly didn't prevent some horrific mass shootings. Background checks are placebos to make non-gun owners (and some California gun owners) feel good, without actually doing much. Why would any American gun owner want to expand such an inefficient and ineffective program?

And those 0.64% of sales that were denied, did that mean the denied person didn't get a gun elsewhere? 78.8% of criminals obtained guns from family, friends, or "on the street" (http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf) in 1997. The number is probably closer to 100% now. Bad guys still get guns. Ah, you say, but if we require a background check for all sales, like in California (with few exceptions), that would stop. Which leads to enforcement.

3. How can you enforce a law requiring a background check for all gun sales? Can you have a cop in every parking lot and home in America, watching to see if a gun sale is taking place? The government would have to have some way of knowing that a gun sale had taken place. That would require mandatory gun registration on a national level. Without gun registration, a law requiring background checks for all gun sales is unenforceable. How else could the government know that a gun had been sold without a background check?

When anti-gun activists demand universal background checks, it is a Trojan Horse to obtain national gun registration. If you support universal background checks for all sales nationally, then logically you should also support national gun registration to make the law enforceable. Do you?

I live in a (currently) free state. Last May I saw an ad in a local gun forum For Sale section for a Colt 1902 Sporting pistol. It was just before lunchtime. I called the owner and arranged to meet him. I went to the bank and withdrew some money. I met him in the parking lot at a local Baja Fresh and bought it. The whole transaction took place during my lunch hour and yes, I took it home with me the same day.

http://i625.photobucket.com/albums/tt337/milsurp_collector/Colt/1902%20Sporting/DSC05444.jpg

I have purchased several guns in similar fashion. Although there were no background checks, somehow I haven't killed anyone or committed any crimes.

Thank you for the post. That a need for results should be demonstrated before a law is considered seems to rarely enter the conversation.

Rather than a loophole it ought to be called what it is - the law and an exemption. I suppose some folks prefer loophole because it speaks to an oversight rather than a deliberate act and the requirement to demonstrate need is diminished. Correcting an oversight is probably easier to accept than willfully reversing previous legislation and enacting stricter gun control.

BTW, if you haven't seen his YouTube videos "MrColt45ACP" presents good work on the 1902s.

dfletcher
01-06-2013, 5:13 PM
Yet another thread that proves we're our own worst enemy.

Yep, especially out here. Can you imagine civil rights workers in the 60's publicly saying "a little segregation is OK" or the old folks going with "don't touch Social Security. Well, not too much ..." :facepalm:

Meplat
01-06-2013, 5:33 PM
This used to be a fare place to hang out, but the Brady moles have made it almost intolerable. It must jibe a sad thing to have nothing Better to do than to live to piss Jin in other people's lives.

Marcus von W.
01-06-2013, 5:36 PM
I don't think current gun laws are intrusive and offensive enough. We need higher fees, longer waiting periods, and anal probes. Yeah, that will save lives!

Hogstir
01-06-2013, 5:47 PM
Personally I would not sell a firearm to someone I did not know very well, but that's a personal choice. The NICS system is flawed. A number of states do include mental health info. Calif's waiting period is a total load of crap. It's just there to make it as difficult as they can.

not-fishing
01-06-2013, 5:49 PM
People have forgotten that for hundreds of years there was no background check and the firearm murder / violence rates were lower.

I listened to Professor Lott's reasoned opinion that he could see no evidence that the NICS check has provided any reduction and I have to agree.

Even though it sounds unreasonable I just keep reminding myself an old saying from my college days.

Every thing you know is wrong.

Sgt Raven
01-06-2013, 6:25 PM
The people stupid enough to want this to stay open where anyone can grab a gun without a background check are the same stupid people who are going to get guns banned for everyone. Close the thing and make everyone go thru a check. You shouldnt be against it if you have nothing to hide.

You shouldn't be against Law Enforcement coming to your House and searching it unannounced, If you have nothing to hide, why would you complain? No warrant, PC, or anything except they want to. :eek: :oji:

dfletcher
01-06-2013, 6:31 PM
The people stupid enough to want this to stay open where anyone can grab a gun without a background check are the same stupid people who are going to get guns banned for everyone. Close the thing and make everyone go thru a check. You shouldnt be against it if you have nothing to hide.

If the best you can do is insult people who disagree, why bother posting?

Do you have any facts to support that prohibiting all private sales will produce results?

So far as the "nothing to hide" approach, let's apply the same to women who buy birth control or folks who buy porn - just to make sure it doesn't fall into the hands of kids. After all, it's OK if one has "nothing to hide".

BTW, I recall when Glocks first came to the US. They were described by anti-gunners as able to be taken through airport security and bypass metal detectors. Numerous deaths and shootings, high jackings were predicted. Anyone who wanted one, anyone who allowed that Glocks were OK was pilloried as asking for trouble, not caring about human life. Things didn't quite work out that way, fear and supposition doesn't translate to reality.

brianm767
01-06-2013, 7:00 PM
Questions, if I lived in a free state, and I sold a gun to some one, how do I know if they are prohibited, what is required by me to assure the buyer is good to go?

Also what liability is there for me if I sell to some one who is prohibited, can the PoPo come back on me if he's caught with the gun and he tells them I sold it to him? Or worse yet he uses it to kill some one, would I be held liable?

Hdawg
01-06-2013, 7:21 PM
The people stupid enough to want this to stay open where anyone can grab a gun without a background check are the same stupid people who are going to get guns banned for everyone. Close the thing and make everyone go thru a check. You shouldnt be against it if you have nothing to hide.

By that logic, the fourth amendment is a loophole. After all, why not let a police officer search your car and your house if you have nothing to hide?

I don't claim to speak for anyone else, but here is my opinion. The United States is supposed to be a constitutional republic, not a democracy. The constitution provides for a federal government of limited, enumerated, and specific powers. Intervening in the private sale of an object that is legal to own by both the buyer and the seller is not one of those specific, enumerated powers. That means that the federal government does not have the power to dictate the process of selling said legal object by one private person to another. The commerce clause (arguably) grants the federal government the power to require FFL's to use the instant background check.

However while the federal government has no general police power, state governments do. That means that individual states can require people to submit every thing they sale to one another to state agencies for approval before the sale (this ignores the second amendment for the sake of argument). So California has the authority to make us take all of our private firearms transactions to an FFL for a background check and waiting period. While I am still against requiring private transactions to go through FFL's, that is on policy grounds at the state level. At the federal level, the government does not have the power to require this (at least not without creative and dishonest application of the commerce clause).

nicki
01-06-2013, 7:25 PM
Background checks fail on a cost benefit analysis, but unfortunately that isn't the real issue.

The real intent of shutting down gun shows was to shut down gun activism. Back in the day with the first Brady bill they wanted a 7 day waiting period with background checks.

That waiting period is now moot because we now have the NICS system.

Still, the perception that our opponents are pushing is that the gun shows are arms bazaars where criminals go and buy guns.

When I take the position that I am against mandatory background checks across the board, that puts me in the situation of having to defend idiots who will sell their guns to anyone.

Sorry, but that is an argument I don't want to have to defend.

If the antis want to have background checks at gun shows, I could live with that provided I get a few tings in return.

1. I can buy guns in any state as long as I pass the NICS
2. My CCW permit is recognized in all 50 states
3. Repeal of Hughes amendment, a 200 dollar transfer tax on a new FA is something I will pay.
4. Castle doctrine is a recognized and protected civil right.
5. Stolen firearms are returned to owners, if not, triple damages.
6. Reform of Lautenburg amendment on domestic violence..

A friend of mine who lives in Washington State says that the way they run gun shows is when you enter, if you wanna buy guns, you get screened and then tagged and that way all sellers know buyers have been screened. It isn't a big deal. People with valid CCW permits just get the bands so that they can buy.

Public opinion supports BG checks at gun shows, we can fight it or we can use it.

Key people on this board say that we are in a "chess game". Would I sacrifice a pawn to get my one of my "opponents" knights or even a rook, of course I would.

Making strategic retreats so that you can achieve greater victories is what is called winning.

The other side is so paranoid, so secretive that by default, they are going to make serious mistakes that we can take advantage of.

Nicki

SilverTauron
01-07-2013, 5:03 AM
Background checks fail on a cost benefit analysis, but unfortunately that isn't the real issue.

The real intent of shutting down gun shows was to shut down gun activism. Back in the day with the first Brady bill they wanted a 7 day waiting period with background checks.

That waiting period is now moot because we now have the NICS system.

Still, the perception that our opponents are pushing is that the gun shows are arms bazaars where criminals go and buy guns.

When I take the position that I am against mandatory background checks across the board, that puts me in the situation of having to defend idiots who will sell their guns to anyone.

Sorry, but that is an argument I don't want to have to defend.

If the antis want to have background checks at gun shows, I could live with that provided I get a few tings in return.

1. I can buy guns in any state as long as I pass the NICS
2. My CCW permit is recognized in all 50 states
3. Repeal of Hughes amendment, a 200 dollar transfer tax on a new FA is something I will pay.
4. Castle doctrine is a recognized and protected civil right.
5. Stolen firearms are returned to owners, if not, triple damages.
6. Reform of Lautenburg amendment on domestic violence..

A friend of mine who lives in Washington State says that the way they run gun shows is when you enter, if you wanna buy guns, you get screened and then tagged and that way all sellers know buyers have been screened. It isn't a big deal. People with valid CCW permits just get the bands so that they can buy.

Public opinion supports BG checks at gun shows, we can fight it or we can use it.

Key people on this board say that we are in a "chess game". Would I sacrifice a pawn to get my one of my "opponents" knights or even a rook, of course I would.

Making strategic retreats so that you can achieve greater victories is what is called winning.

The other side is so paranoid, so secretive that by default, they are going to make serious mistakes that we can take advantage of.

Nicki

Ah, but the terms of our chess game are not equal!

To use that analogy, we of the pro gun side are playing against an opponent with two Queens on the board. In that situation victory is still possible ,but every piece is valuable-including our pawns.And ever since 1968 we've been losing pieces slowly.

You don't win a game like that by sacrificing your pieces .You win by going for the king by any means necessary as quickly as possible.The time for discussion is over.

Sandy Hook for us is like losing a valuable piece mid-game. What we do from here will put us on a path to victory or defeat from this point forward.

Bobio
01-07-2013, 6:02 AM
I support background checks for all firearm sales in the US. I want to make it harder for criminals and unstable people to get their hands on firearms.

SilverTauron
01-07-2013, 6:16 AM
I support background checks for all firearm sales in the US. .


Why?





I want to make it harder for criminals and unstable people to get their hands on firearms.

Good. So do I. Now lets start a campaign to repeal the Brady Law. If we REALLy want to prevent bad guys from getting armed, the best way to do that is to ensure their potential victims shoot back. Dead criminals and crazy people can't get guns.

5thgen4runner
01-07-2013, 6:18 AM
I support background checks for all firearm sales in the US. I want to make it harder for criminals and unstable people to get their hands on firearms.

I support hearing a explanation of how any law, restriction, ban, etc slows a criminals from getting a weapon.

Ill help you out. IT DOESN'T! Proven time and time and time again. Yet people like you still want to push for more bull**** hoops to jump through.

I don't effing get it!!!!!!!!!

Nothing! Again nothing! Will stop a criminal from doing what they want to except jail or never breathing again. That's it, no law, ban, check will save anyone.

Any more restriction of the 2nd A and the constitution is a direct **** you to every person that has ever served for this country and or died for this country.

You choose.

the86d
01-07-2013, 6:26 AM
Again:
...All they really need to do is issue a card for people "kosher" to own a firearm, each with a unique number.
The number could be looked up for currency on the Internet to see if it has been revoked, and if not, then buy and sell freely, paperless, and just verify ID against said card...

This (two sentence PERFECT) solution is WAY too complicated for fool-politicians like Feinstein, Pelosi, Obama, and Boxer... as the only reason to register is for future confiscation, period.

Background check would already be done... upon card issue, and revoked number=no-go...

Bobio
01-07-2013, 6:30 AM
Without background checks a criminal can go to a private party buy a firearm. No way to prevent it. If you require background checks a criminal has to buy the firearm on the black market. This creates the possibility he can be caught and arrested just trying to buy the weapon. If he is on parole the mere act of buying the firearm could land him in jail.

the86d
01-07-2013, 6:40 AM
Without background checks a criminal can go to a private party buy a firearm. No way to prevent it. If you require background checks a criminal has to buy the firearm on the black market. This creates the possibility he can be caught and arrested just trying to buy the weapon. If he is on parole the mere act of buying the firearm could land him in jail.

I would guess that black-market purchases are WAY more prevalent than "stings"...

http://i472.photobucket.com/albums/rr90/perfect668/my-hat-is-bread-your-argument-is-invalid.jpg

Even if firearms were outlawed here completely, "criminals" would still purchase them, just like Africa, the UK, and Australia.

Moonshine
01-07-2013, 6:42 AM
No background checks = Adam Lanza can buy a gun. He would have failed a California background check. I'm a believer in background checks by let's toss out the 10 day waiting period, its just not logical on any level.

5thgen4runner
01-07-2013, 6:47 AM
No background checks = Adam Lanza can buy a gun. He would have failed a California background check. I'm a believer in background checks by let's toss out the 10 day waiting period, its just not logical on any level.

Adam Lanza Stole his guns. How did any background check stop that?

If let's say his mom didn't have guns at home he would have went and stole from his neighbor, again no check would have stopped him.

All we are doing with new laws that deal with the "gun" instead of the psychotic people, is creating easy targets for them.

Milsurp Collector
01-07-2013, 10:38 AM
No background checks = Adam Lanza can buy a gun.

Anyone can buy a gun even in states where background checks are supposed to be performed. Do you seriously believe California's background check law prevents prohibited people from obtaining a gun? If California's background check law is so effective, how was this ex-felon able to get a gun and kill four Oakland police officers in 2009 (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/25/us/25parolee.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0)?

He would have failed a California background check.

You don't know that. There is no evidence that Adam Lanza was in any database of prohibited persons.


I'm a believer in background checks by let's toss out the 10 day waiting period, its just not logical on any level.

You can "believe" in background checks the same way children believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, but 99.36% of background checks result in only inconvenience and expense for law-abiding and sane gun owners.

140.8 million background checks from 1998 to 2011, and an additional 16.8 million background checks in 2012 = 157.6 million background checks since 1998. If you assume an average fee of $10 per background check it means American gun owners spent $1.576 billion on background checks since 1998 to prevent 0.64% of gun sales by licensed dealers.

12voltguy
01-07-2013, 10:53 AM
bc check this !
need BC check on sales of steel aluminum & wood/plastic
http://www.weaponeer.net/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=8035&PN=2&TPN=2
http://www.weaponeer.net/forum/uploads/orionshammer/images/2008-10-04_184519_06_cracked4.jpg
http://www.ftfindustries.com/arblanklower2.jpg
http://www.weaponeer.net/forum/uploads/orionshammer/images/2008-10-28_020933_7_holes.jpg

CBruce
01-07-2013, 11:00 AM
Yes, but with a big but.

I'm for closing the so-called 'loophole' because we live in a society where we've identified some people living amongst us being too dangerous to have a gun. Viloent felons, mentally unstable people, etc. So for as long as we allow these people to move about freely in society, it's only logical that check for this before selling them a firearm.

The major but is, it's a right. An inalienable right. And restricting that right should be literally the last solution we try to the problem. So I think we need to be very, very exclusive about who goes on the list of 'prohibited' people. Not just any felony, violent felony with a history of assault. Not just any mental illness, a mental illness that carries a high risk of danger for other people.

Further, adding any kind of fee to these background checks should be forbidden. It should be the burden of the state to prove that a person shouldn't be allowed to exercise their right, not the responsibility of the individual to prove that they should.

audiophil2
01-07-2013, 11:08 AM
Questions, if I lived in a free state, and I sold a gun to some one, how do I know if they are prohibited, what is required by me to assure the buyer is good to go?

Also what liability is there for me if I sell to some one who is prohibited, can the PoPo come back on me if he's caught with the gun and he tells them I sold it to him? Or worse yet he uses it to kill some one, would I be held liable?

When I sell a gun to someone I request an AZ DL and AZ CCW permit. The buyer usually asks to see the same IDs from me. This ensures the buyer/seller is a resident of the state and has gone through a background check. This is pretty much the same when buying a gun from an FFL. The CCW permit drops the NICS phone call requirement and just a 4473 is filled out.

If I am suspicious I request a meet at the police station. Out here the police will run the serial number for free up to about $5 depending on the station. Mine is so friendly I just call ahead to let them know I am bringing in a firearm and they are ready to run it for free.

Liability is going to be tough to pinpoint. Guns are traded so often out here the original owner would be hard pressed to track down.

Fatgunman
01-07-2013, 11:10 AM
"Shall Not Be Infringed." <--- Words to live by.

-Mark

Yup

Choptop
01-07-2013, 11:35 AM
Adam Lanza Stole his guns. How did any background check stop that? .

it didnt... no one has ever claimed it would... no one has ever put forth the idea that a background check for purchasing a firearm would stop someone from stealing a firearm.

LibertyDeath
01-07-2013, 12:32 PM
The people stupid enough to want this to stay open where anyone can grab a gun without a background check are the same stupid people who are going to get guns banned for everyone. Close the thing and make everyone go thru a check. You shouldnt be against it if you have nothing to hide.

Then the police should be able to search your house at any time. You shouldn't be against it if you have nothing to hide.

...All they really need to do is issue a card for people "kosher" to own a firearm, each with a unique number.
The number could be looked up for currency on the Internet to see if it has been revoked, and if not, then buy and sell freely, paperless, and just verify ID against said card...

Or just link the drivers license number. It is already linked to a criminal database anyway.

stix213
01-07-2013, 12:35 PM
Poll question is the opposite of the thread title question. Somewhat confusing

stix213
01-07-2013, 12:39 PM
I think a system should be created where a buyer can run a background check online, and get a background check verification code that they can print out. Then they go to any individual seller, and the seller just verifies online that the code is valid and the name matches their ID.

No information sent to the government on if a purchase actually took place, or what was purchased. No FFL involved. Pretty simple, and would work for both gun dealers and individual private sellers.

64physhy
01-07-2013, 12:41 PM
I say yes (as in require background checks on everyone) because I've seen some shady acting characters in gun stores, and the level of shadiness goes up a lot at the gun shows. There have been several times that I've seen someone inquiring about a gun, and I was thinking "there's no way I'd sell that guy a gun."

But, I also think that once you buy a gun from a store and do a background check through them, you shouldn't have to do a new one every time you go back to the same place and buy a weapon. Maybe if it has been more than a year or three since your last background check, but not every time.

M. D. Van Norman
01-07-2013, 12:51 PM
The question is simple, should firearm sales require a background check? (C&R excluded)
Yes or No

If youíre excluding C&R, why not exclude other types of firearms? Or include cars and booze?

Actually, set up a voluntary system, and I expect that youíll narrow the unscrupulous transactions more significantly than in any mandatory scheme.

donny douchebag
01-07-2013, 12:57 PM
Lmao. There's no way I'd sell a gun to half the people on this forum even though they're very likely not prohibited.

Bottom line is this: instead of sniveling here about it write your reps and tell them what you want to see happen. Thats what I've done.

211275
01-07-2013, 1:09 PM
By that logic, the fourth amendment is a loophole. After all, why not let a police officer search your car and your house if you have nothing to hide?

Two VERY different things. Letting any guy with cash buy and take home a gun within minutes is just ridiculous. Thats how people get killed. A criminal isnt going to go thru a background check and its these criminals that are taking away OUR freedoms! Why would you want to let them continue to obtain weapons this way? You want an all out gun ban where no one will be able to own one? Cause thats where its headed and guess what? Its not the law abiding citizens causing it, its the criminals. I dont see anyone crying about having to pass a background check to get a passport, anyone should be allowed to travel without a background check too right?

guns4life
01-07-2013, 1:27 PM
Mind bottling

donny douchebag
01-07-2013, 1:33 PM
^ Oh the irony.

dfletcher
01-07-2013, 1:44 PM
Without background checks a criminal can go to a private party buy a firearm. No way to prevent it. If you require background checks a criminal has to buy the firearm on the black market. This creates the possibility he can be caught and arrested just trying to buy the weapon. If he is on parole the mere act of buying the firearm could land him in jail.

It is just as illegal for that person to buy from a "good guy" private party seller. Being a prohibited person is what gets the guy in trouble, not from whom they are buying. The only thing being accomplished is the prohibited person will switch buying from a "good guy" private seller - who may record name & date info - to a black market seller who will do neither.

dfletcher
01-07-2013, 1:52 PM
Two VERY different things. Letting any guy with cash buy and take home a gun within minutes is just ridiculous. Thats how people get killed. A criminal isnt going to go thru a background check and its these criminals that are taking away OUR freedoms! Why would you want to let them continue to obtain weapons this way? You want an all out gun ban where no one will be able to own one? Cause thats where its headed and guess what? Its not the law abiding citizens causing it, its the criminals. I dont see anyone crying about having to pass a background check to get a passport, anyone should be allowed to travel without a background check too right?

I'll ask again.

I already own quite a few guns. I have 4 non-resident CCWs. I have a CA COE and a C & R FFL. Why shouldn't I be allowed to buy a modern gun from whoever I please and take it home straight away? What compelling government interest is served by requiring me to wait and submit to a background check? What public safety interest is served by the restriction?

Rusty_Rebar
01-07-2013, 2:07 PM
This is a question that I find myself waffling on.

On the one hand, by my reading of the 2A it seems clear that I (as a responsible adult, with no criminal history) should be able to keep and bear whatever kind of small arms I desire (this includes things like M60's and M-16's). The 2nd amendment is about allowing the citizenry to be armed in a like manor as the police and military.

On the other hand. If I were selling a firearm to someone, I would want to be as sure as I could be that they were responsible adults as well. I don't think anyone wants to sell a firearm to a person who is going to do something illegal with it. It does not seem like a huge burden to run a simple background check (instant check), should not take more then 5-20 minutes.

But I must ask myself. To what end? Would this kind of thing really prevent any crime? Statistics I have recently seen (on this board) indicate that 80% of firearms in criminal hands were not acquired through means that would facilitate a background check (stolen, borrowed form family etc...) It is like less then 15% that are purchased legally.

I think I would like to actually see a national standard regarding firearms. One that takes into account recent SCOTUS cases. Then we would not have all this weird: if you are in California you cant, but if you are in Arizona you can unless you are in Illinois etc... One nationwide standard, that lays out things like how purchases are done, CCW, restricted places, whatever. Then when you get your CCW, it is good nationwide. You could buy a firearm in any state (legally). It would make sense for everyone, there would not be a bunch of competing laws. Of course this does take some discretion away from states, but that is not really unheard of when we are talking about fundamental rights. There is not a different 1A or 4A standard depending on what state you are in.

Just my $.02

LibertyDeath
01-07-2013, 2:17 PM
That would violate my God given right to the pursuit of happiness.


Just to reinforce you.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness

211275
01-07-2013, 2:17 PM
I'll ask again.

I already own quite a few guns. I have 4 non-resident CCWs. I have a CA COE and a C & R FFL. Why shouldn't I be allowed to buy a modern gun from whoever I please and take it home straight away? What compelling government interest is served by requiring me to wait and submit to a background check? What public safety interest is served by the restriction?

What if you had committed a felony after owning those and didnt want to use a gun registered to you to commit a crime? Just buy one at a gun show, walk out with it and you are good to go! Most criminals start out as law abiding citizens...How would you feel if your next door neighbor who was a convicted felon went to a gun show, pulled out some cash, bought a gun and then broke into your home and used that gun? What if he would have been denied access to a gun because he had to go thru a check to get one. How would you feel about that? You would still be all for anyone being able to walk up at a gun show and buy a gun? I highly doubt that.

bohoki
01-07-2013, 2:26 PM
i dont understand how the government is fine with people walking the streets that they deem too dangerous to own a gun

why are they not in jail or mental hospitals

Rusty_Rebar
01-07-2013, 2:31 PM
How would you feel if your next door neighbor who was a convicted felon went to a gun show, pulled out some cash, bought a gun and then broke into your home and used that gun?

So what is to stop the felon from getting it through other means? I still don't see how doing a background check on mostly law abiding people would stop criminals from gaining access to guns. I really don't much care if they gun a felon uses to kill my family was legally bought or stolen, they are just as dead.

Also, the whole felons should not have firearms is problematic for me. I can see if they are in prison, but once they have served their time they should have all rights returned, else they should not be out of prison yet. Also, this seems like a bit of a red herring. I suspect that those guys would not live too long if they were doing stupid (criminal) things with guns in a well armed society.

211275
01-07-2013, 2:32 PM
i dont understand how the government is fine with people walking the streets that they deem too dangerous to own a gun

why are they not in jail or mental hospitals

Because not every felon is a threat to society. My cousin did some dumb **** when he was like 19. Spray painted some federal buildings in Yuma, AZ and did some jail time. Hes a felon and can't own a handgun but hes not a threat to society who should be in jail or a mental hospital.

211275
01-07-2013, 2:35 PM
So what is to stop the felon from getting it through other means?

Because its closing down one less way for a criminal to easily obtain a gun. Why are you against closing down easy ways for criminals to get guns? Would you rather an all out ban and have to turn yours in instead?

LibertyDeath
01-07-2013, 2:37 PM
How would you feel if your next door neighbor who was a convicted felon went to a gun show, pulled out some cash, bought a gun and then broke into your home and used that gun? What if he would have been denied access to a gun because he had to go thru a check to get one. How would you feel about that? You would still be all for anyone being able to walk up at a gun show and buy a gun? I highly doubt that.


I would be pissed that I had to clean his blood off of my stuff. He could have stolen one just as easily.

211275
01-07-2013, 2:39 PM
I would be pissed that I had to clean his blood off of my stuff. He could have stolen one just as easily.

Stealing a gun is a HELL of a lot more work then going to a gun show and buying one...far more risky too.

bohoki
01-07-2013, 2:41 PM
Because not every felon is a threat to society. My cousin did some dumb **** when he was like 19. Spray painted some federal buildings in Yuma, AZ and did some jail time. Hes a felon and can't own a handgun but hes not a threat to society who should be in jail or a mental hospital.

this is my point why should he not be able to buy a gun if he is no threat

OneAvgWhiteGuy
01-07-2013, 2:51 PM
Don't do dumb **** that will get you a felony record and the problem ceases to exist.

Rusty_Rebar
01-07-2013, 3:06 PM
Because its closing down one less way for a criminal to easily obtain a gun. Why are you against closing down easy ways for criminals to get guns? Would you rather an all out ban and have to turn yours in instead?

As I stated earlier, I waffle on this issue a bit. I think there is merit in requiring a background check, and so long as that check is quick (under an hour) I don't think it represents a substantial burden.

I guess the point I am making is that I don't think it does much good. Most guns in the possession of criminals are stolen or taken from friends / family. That accounts for something like 80% of guns in criminal hands. So I fail to see how requiring a background check on people that are not likely to do evil things with guns is helpful.

Ok, be forewarned.. I am about to use some logic here:

1. 80% of guns in criminal hands are either stolen or borrowed from friends / family members.

2. In many states, private party sales are legal without a background check.

So, this begs the question. If it is so much harder to steal / borrow a gun from someone then to go get one from a private party sale, then why are 80% of guns in criminal hands stolen or borrowed? According to your logic, 80% of the guns in criminal hands should be from private party (no background check) sales.

MadMax
01-07-2013, 3:22 PM
It is not a loophole:mad:

aca
01-07-2013, 3:40 PM
People with AIDS and STDs are allowed to have sex without a background check.
More Americans are killed annually by sexually transmitted AIDS than by guns.

When the sanctimonious hypocrites start demanding that gay men undergo background checks, health checks, registration, fingerprinting, safety certificates, and 10 day cooling-off periods before having sex, then I'll be impressed with their demands for gun background checks for other law abiding citizens.

Milsurp Collector
01-07-2013, 3:42 PM
Because its closing down one less way for a criminal to easily obtain a gun. Why are you against closing down easy ways for criminals to get guns?

Less than 1% of criminals get guns at gun shows (http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf), even with the so-called "gun show loophole". You want to close down a way for criminals to get guns that they almost never use anyway. Most criminals get guns from friends, family, or "on the street", and that won't change even if you require full body cavity searches and polygraph tests for all gun show purchases. So you are causing expense and inconvenience for law-abiding gun buyers with no impact on criminals, which is typical of most gun control laws.

Would you rather an all out ban and have to turn yours in instead?

You sound like an appeaser. You appear to think that if gun owners don't give in on this or other proposals then we face an "all out ban", but if we do agree to their demands we will appease the anti-gun activists and they will leave us alone. Is that what happened in California? California has all the things on the anti-gun activists' wish list: closed "gun show loophole", universal background checks, waiting period, gun registration, "assault weapon" ban, magazine capacity limit, handgun roster, "may (but probably won't) issue" concealed carry, etc. etc. Has that appeased the anti-gun activists and legislators in California? Have they stopped introducing new gun control laws? Or do they continue to pile on more and more and more?

Rusty_Rebar
01-07-2013, 3:49 PM
Milsurp, thanks for that link.

Brianguy
01-07-2013, 3:52 PM
I vote for no background checks.
Execute violent criminals.

warbird
01-07-2013, 3:54 PM
There are certain groups that are excluded from owning guns legally. Whether that is appropriate or not is another issue and fight. But we have to have a way of checking to make sure these guns do not get into the hands of those legally excluded at this point. And it should not cost the taxpayer because we have already paid taxes for this service and it is not our fault if our congress people and state people have not set aside enough money to do it. And if they refuse then they are the ones causing the law to fail not us. However, we also have to protect our rights and the right to individual commerce in this area under the second amendment and so far the stats do not support a gun show loophole of any real measureable size.

myk
01-07-2013, 3:58 PM
People with AIDS and STDs are allowed to have sex without a background check.
More Americans are killed annually by sexually transmitted AIDS than by guns.

When the sanctimonious hypocrites start demanding that gay men undergo background checks, health checks, registration, fingerprinting, safety certificates, and 10 day cooling-off periods before having sex, then I'll be impressed with their demands for gun background checks for other law abiding citizens.

Lol, post of the day....

skyking13
01-07-2013, 3:58 PM
I see that the poll shows that more than 40% of respondents agree that background checks should be conducted. And that's polling from the membership of CG! What do you think that the poll result would be if this were not polling only those of us with an invested interest in our firearms.

5thgen4runner
01-07-2013, 4:18 PM
I vote for no background checks.
Execute violent criminals.

Here here!

OneAvgWhiteGuy
01-07-2013, 4:27 PM
I see that the poll shows that more than 40% of respondents agree that background checks should be conducted. And that's polling from the membership of CG! What do you think that the poll result would be if this were not polling only those of us with an invested interest in our firearms.

They would overwhelmingly support it. Then they'd be instantaneously accused of being closed minded and not willing to budge on their beliefs by people on the other side who are equally closed minded and not willing to budge on their beliefs.

SilverTauron
01-07-2013, 4:32 PM
I see that the poll shows that more than 40% of respondents agree that background checks should be conducted. And that's polling from the membership of CG! What do you think that the poll result would be if this were not polling only those of us with an invested interest in our firearms.

Yet I'm called a defeatist when I point out the realistic probability of adverse Federal gun control after Newtown.

Funny how the loudmouths on Calguns talking about how more gun control is impossible conveniently ignore the actual polls and attitudes of gun owners.Realistically, gun owners are no more of a united political block then Camaro Z28 owners.

The fact that gun owners would honestly subject themselves to pointless restrictions on their right should stand as evidence of why were in the legal predicament of today. I await the sycophantic posts to come after Bidens committee is finished. "Why can't gun owners agree to having thier left nut /ovaries clipped for the greater good?" and other nonsense.

sandman21
01-07-2013, 4:42 PM
This is Calguns, go ask the question on arf and see what happens.

SunTzu
01-07-2013, 5:07 PM
Could somebody point me to the statistics that show how many crimes are stopped by background checks. Not gun purchases but actual crimes. How much money are we spending and for what result?

Dragunov
01-07-2013, 5:08 PM
Personally and this is just my opinion, I can't believe that in other parts of the, US you can buy a firearm without going through a background check. As some have suggested maybe this is because I'm a life long Cali resident.

When I travel for work, I ask the guys I'm working with in the other states, how do go about selling your guns here? They always give me that blank look and then say some one gives me cash, I give them the gun, no background check, no I'd check, just cash for gun and walk.

I know there's lots of debate on people being able to sale their own private property without Goverment involvement, but once again, IMOP I think there should be "some type of check" to make sure the buyer is not flagged in the system, just as they have to with a new firearm, but maybe that's just me?

For the purpose of this poll, C&R will stay as it is. Just want to know about the selling of modern firearms without some type of background check.

I edited my post since many of you are just debating that there is no gun show loophole, or are thinking I'm just specifically asking about guns sold at a gun show.

I now see and agree it was a very poor choice of words,I didn't want a debate if there is or is not a loophole, and I am not asking about gun shows.

I don't know how to edit the poll question so please just disregard the loophole part,

The question is simple, should firearm sales require a background check? (C&R excluded)
Yes or NoI'm on the opposite end of the spectrum....... I don't think there should be ANY background check for ANY firearm period. At MOST, a check should only be to determine one thing.... Felon, or not.

Why? Because background checks have been abused in the PRK, excuses to hold someone up, etc.

Dragunov
01-07-2013, 5:11 PM
Yet I'm called a defeatist when I point out the realistic probability of adverse Federal gun control after Newtown.

Funny how the loudmouths on Calguns talking about how more gun control is impossible conveniently ignore the actual polls and attitudes of gun owners.Realistically, gun owners are no more of a united political block then Camaro Z28 owners.

The fact that gun owners would honestly subject themselves to pointless restrictions on their right should stand as evidence of why were in the legal predicament of today. I await the sycophantic posts to come after Bidens committee is finished. "Why can't gun owners agree to having thier left nut /ovaries clipped for the greater good?" and other nonsense.I REALLY, really....... REALLYwish we had a "like" button here, because this is the most useful post in this thread.

Bobio
01-07-2013, 5:20 PM
Background checks are a good idea. 40% of us think it s a good idea. Thanks for the great poll.

hatidua
01-07-2013, 5:24 PM
Background checks are a good idea. 40% of us think it s a good idea. Thanks for the great poll.

I suspect you are all for a national registry as well. Maybe an annual tax for each firearm you own. Let's just keep tacking on new gun laws every year, the several THOUSAND already on the books are apparently not enough...

When you have gun owners divided 60/40, we as a whole are screwed. Divided we fall. 'Shall not be infringed' means nothing anymore.

skyscraper
01-07-2013, 5:28 PM
It doesn't affect California residents so I don't see how polling Californians is relevant.

GrizzlyGuy
01-07-2013, 5:30 PM
Could somebody point me to the statistics that show how many crimes are stopped by background checks. Not gun purchases but actual crimes. How much money are we spending and for what result?

If you want to bolster the antis' argument, ask that question. You're tossing them a fat fastball right down the middle that they will swat out into McCovey Cove every single time.

'He winds, he throws and...'

Every time a prohibited person purchases a firearm, they commit a felony. The NICS system alone (not counting state-level denials such as via our DROS) has prevented 987,578 such felonies since 1998 (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/reports/20130102_denials.pdf).

'Out of the dugout comes the manager, motioning toward the bullpen'...

SunTzu
01-07-2013, 5:38 PM
I think you missed my statement 'not gun purchases but actual crimes'. How many criminals decided not to commit a crime because nics turned them down? I'm willing to bet its less than 0.01%. How many billions of dollars wasted for what?

North Bay Guy
01-07-2013, 5:40 PM
Just No! Nothing else

SilverTauron
01-07-2013, 5:40 PM
It doesn't affect California residents so I don't see how polling Californians is relevant.

Lets cut the bullsh***t people.

What affects us "free staters" affects CA, and vice versa. Sacramento would take it as a personal insult if DC passed stricter or equally strict laws nationwide as they already have. California's the light of the progressive world, remember. If DC bans evil rifles, CAs gotta be more extreme to show everyone else how it's done.

In plainer English if I'm being forced to use an FFl to sell my guns you guys won't have firearms period, legally speaking anyways.

GrizzlyGuy
01-07-2013, 5:51 PM
I think you missed my statement 'not gun purchases but actual crimes'. How many criminals decided not to commit a crime because nics turned them down? I'm willing to bet its less than 0.01%. How many billions of dollars wasted for what?

I didn't miss your statement. When a prohibited person buys a firearm they commit an actual crime (a felony). If you want to continue down the path of helping the antis win the argument, note that 94,478 of the denials were for fugitives from justice. Those aren't just people who committed some crime in the past, they are people who are committing a crime at that very instant. In addition to that, 10,180 of the denials were for people who had been adjudicated mentally defective, and the recent mass shootings were all perpetrated by mentally ill people.

See why this is a loser argument and why you don't even want to ask that question?

skyscraper
01-07-2013, 5:52 PM
Lets cut the bullsh***t people.

What affects us "free staters" affects CA, and vice versa. Sacramento would take it as a personal insult if DC passed stricter or equally strict laws nationwide as they already have. California's the light of the progressive world, remember. If DC bans evil rifles, CAs gotta be more extreme to show everyone else how it's done.

In plainer English if I'm being forced to use an FFl to sell my guns you guys won't have firearms period, legally speaking anyways.

Silvertauron didn't understand the post.
How do you expect Californians to react to a poll when it is something that doesn't affect them? See poll results for answer.

Ron-Solo
01-07-2013, 5:53 PM
When I sold my M&P9 I just required to see his ID and CCW. We met at the parking lot of Cabela's did the swap and I went inside to pick out my new gun. Then I realized Cabela's sucked for gun prices and went to a local Glock Blue Label dealer and 20 minutes later I was out the door with a new Gen4 17 and DeSantis Scorpion IWB holster without spending an extra dime.

Hopefully this transaction was outside of California and you were a resident of the state the transcaction occurred in, or you just violated a bunch of laws.

skyscraper
01-07-2013, 5:55 PM
Hopefully this transaction was outside of California and you were a resident of the state the transcaction occurred in, or you just violated a bunch of laws.

Ron it must have been. I don't think there are any cabelas stores in ca

jrett
01-08-2013, 12:33 AM
There was a time in California, when you could go to a personís house, from an ad in the paper, and buy any firearm. There was a time in California, when you could go to K Mart and buy a long gun without a back ground check or waiting period. Once the mandatory check was place, was there an effect on gun violence? As stated in other post, itís illegal for a felon to possess and illegal to sell to a felon. So what will the back ground check accomplish?

Let's see.
Without the background check, the felon easily buys a gun, shoots and kills a bunch of innocent people. He then goes to prison for murder, and for illegal possession of a firearm. The seller, if identified, could also go to prison.

With the background check, the felon doesn't get the gun, and a bunch of people survive.

Yeah, that's a tough one...

And now the loophole. Call it what you want, the fact is that in some states where people need to get a background check to buy a gun, do not need a background check to buy a gun at a gun show. Sounds like a loophole to me, but whatever you call it, it allows circumventing the required background check.

Its not a bad idea to try to deny gun purchases by people who should not have guns. I would think that encouraging smart legislation is better than having senseless laws that end up sucking more.

jrett
01-08-2013, 12:52 AM
So what is to stop the felon from getting it through other means? I still don't see how doing a background check on mostly law abiding people would stop criminals from gaining access to guns. I really don't much care if they gun a felon uses to kill my family was legally bought or stolen, they are just as dead.

Also, the whole felons should not have firearms is problematic for me. I can see if they are in prison, but once they have served their time they should have all rights returned, else they should not be out of prison yet. Also, this seems like a bit of a red herring. I suspect that those guys would not live too long if they were doing stupid (criminal) things with guns in a well armed society.

how easy should it be for a felon or mentally I'll person to get a gun? Security isn't an "all or nothing" deal. Guns are dangerous, especially in the hands of felons or crazy people. I want these felons and crazy people to get denied as much as possible. I don't mind the background checks.
Are you a crazy person or felon?

jrett
01-08-2013, 1:00 AM
People with AIDS and STDs are allowed to have sex without a background check.
More Americans are killed annually by sexually transmitted AIDS than by guns.

When the sanctimonious hypocrites start demanding that gay men undergo background checks, health checks, registration, fingerprinting, safety certificates, and 10 day cooling-off periods before having sex, then I'll be impressed with their demands for gun background checks for other law abiding citizens.

Tell that to the 20 or so kids in Connecticut, who are too young to even be interested in sex. I can't believe you're making this comparison.

safewaysecurity
01-08-2013, 1:03 AM
Holy crap this is VERY disheartening. Seems many people here don't care about the 4th or 2nd amendment and actually think Background checks are effective. I'm willing to bet many of the people who voted FOR background checks on all firearm purchases also argue that "if you outlaw guns criminals will still get guns because they don't follow laws" if that's the case then what's the point of background checks? Criminal get guns anyways. 99% of background check denials are FALSE-POSITIVES which means they are only initially put on hold because of identification or something confusing on the 4473. Virtually no one is ever prosecuted either. Unless they have a reason to believe I'm a danger to society or something like that than what right do they have to DEMAND that I subject myself to a search of my papers and effects in order to exercise my constitutionally protected right? Cmon people let's think about this for one second.

safewaysecurity
01-08-2013, 1:05 AM
Tell that to the 20 or so kids in Connecticut, who are too young to even be interested in sex. I can't believe you're making this comparison.

Because you know... background checks would have stopped the massacre at Sandy Hook.... oh wait, he stole the guns from his mom and BROKE THE LAW, shot his mom and BROKE THE LAW, drove a car with his brother's drivers license and BROKE THE LAW, and brought a gun to school and BROKE THE LAW and shot teachers and school children and BROKE THE LAW. Clearly we need more laws.. :facepalm:

CityHunt3r
01-08-2013, 1:11 AM
How about we do away with DROs fees and just do general background checks for any type of gun sale. WHy do we have to pay a fee to get a background check from the state or gov. I mean in Ca we are already paying alot in taxes.. seems like the middle and lower class is always paying a price for everything.....

jrett
01-08-2013, 1:21 AM
Because you know... background checks would have stopped the massacre at Sandy Hook.... oh wait, he stole the guns from his mom and BROKE THE LAW, shot his mom and BROKE THE LAW, drove a car with his brother's drivers license and BROKE THE LAW, and brought a gun to school and BROKE THE LAW and shot teachers and school children and BROKE THE LAW. Clearly we need more laws.. :facepalm:

I haven't heard anyone claim that background checks would have prevented the sandy hook tragedy.
I don't know what would have prevented that. however, it is conceivable that making it more difficult for a nut job to get guns would surely improved the odds of those kids. That is exactly what background checks do, they make it more difficult for felons and nut cases to get guns.

If that nut bag in sandy hook had to have a background check to steal his moms guns, and there was no massacre, would we even know about it? its kinda hard to quantify things that didn't happen. you have to figure that into the stats as well.

safewaysecurity
01-08-2013, 1:52 AM
I haven't heard anyone claim that background checks would have prevented the sandy hook tragedy.
I don't know what would have prevented that. however, it is conceivable that making it more difficult for a nut job to get guns would surely improved the odds of those kids. That is exactly what background checks do, they make it more difficult for felons and nut cases to get guns.

If that nut bag in sandy hook had to have a background check to steal his moms guns, and there was no massacre, would we even know about it? its kinda hard to quantify things that didn't happen. you have to figure that into the stats as well.

Your "logic" leads down the path to gun bans. Because it makes it "harder" for these kinds of things to happen. They really don't. Where there's a will there's a way. We just need to realize that these kinds of things happen instead of trying to pretend that we can control the means by which they choose to execute their attacks. We can help reduce the number of copycats by demanding the media stop with the constant, in your face reporting of these tragedies. These kinds of things really shouldn't even be national news, these things only started happening more often when national news covered it wall to wall. Often these kinds of stories were just covered by local news. Also what Wayne LaPierre says is right, the best thing to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

CDFingers
01-08-2013, 6:57 AM
Those who oppose background checks actually support gun ownership by violent felons and the mentally ill. And politicians. Mustn't forget them...

That's a very hard set of premises to support. I don't think it will stand the scrutiny of those with level heads.

CDFingers

SilverTauron
01-08-2013, 7:08 AM
Those who oppose background checks actually support gun ownership by violent felons and the mentally ill. And politicians. Mustn't forget them...

That's a very hard set of premises to support. I don't think it will stand the scrutiny of those with level heads.

CDFingers

Guess what, politicians, criminals, and the mentally ill will get guns no matter how stringent the background check process is.

For the same of argument, lets assume we pass gun control laws so stringent they're equal to the UK. Forget gun show loophole, lets outlaw the whole kit and caboodle. If the only guns Americans can own are two shot shotguns and bolt action rifles -after a 6 month Federal investigation- that ought to take care of the armed bad guy problem no?

Except it wouldn't. The UK did exactly what half you guys wanted-and yet fugitive Raoul Moat got a shotgun 48 hours after getting out of jail. Private sale of firearms is also illegal in Norway, not that it mattered for nearly 100 kids killed by that madman Brevik.

CDfingers, others have tried it your way. They've failed, and so will we if we repeat their mistakes.

CDFingers
01-08-2013, 7:32 AM
Tell me all about how California is going to the dogs because we all have to pass a back ground check to get a gun.

I prefer to make it more difficult for the mentally ill and for violent felons to get legal guns. Certainly most violent felons will try and get illegal guns. But the mentally ill do not need an easier path to get guns.

Support for felons and the mentally ill to get guns easily will end up in the minority at the Fed level.

Any gun laws passed at the Fed level will fall only under two categories: background checks for all gun purchases or magazine size. Nothing else will pass. Whether I support those laws is irrelevant.

I predict that if any gun laws pass, and I'm not saying any will, they will only fall under those two categories because the votes don't exist for any others. Weak Repub pols whose seats are threatened will find it easy to support those two categories of law.

Just watch. Either nothing will pass, or what does pass will be of those two categories.

CDFingers

SilverTauron
01-08-2013, 7:54 AM
Tell me all about how California is going to the dogs because we all have to pass a back ground check to get a gun.

I prefer to make it more difficult for the mentally ill and for violent felons to get legal guns. Certainly most violent felons will try and get illegal guns. But the mentally ill do not need an easier path to get guns.

Support for felons and the mentally ill to get guns easily will end up in the minority at the Fed level.

Any gun laws passed at the Fed level will fall only under two categories: background checks for all gun purchases or magazine size. Nothing else will pass. Whether I support those laws is irrelevant.

I predict that if any gun laws pass, and I'm not saying any will, they will only fall under those two categories because the votes don't exist for any others. Weak Repub pols whose seats are threatened will find it easy to support those two categories of law.

Just watch. Either nothing will pass, or what does pass will be of those two categories.

CDFingers

To stop the mentally ill from buying guns, we must first determine a realistic means to accomplish this. A background check is a proven failure, as evidenced by the fact of multiple spree shootings and crime committed by people who possessed firearms despite it being illegal for the to do so. This is true of California and it is true of every society with " strict gun laws"


I live in a state which is one of the safest in America, even though South Dakota is awash in firearms. I can walk into a hardware store, plunk down money for a 19 round Springfield XDm, and walk out the door 10 minutes later. It's legal in this state to buy and sell arms face to face- your so called "loophole". Guess what,we don't have outbreaks of mental patients and criminals shooting up the city on a nightly basis.

Your assumption that a gun show loophole= armed bad guys is false. I don't buy guns face to face because I like to know the history of my firearm. No gun owner I've known in this state sells their property to strangers. We , the people of South Dakota, have our own background check process. It's called "If I don't know you, I'm not selling you my valuable firearm".

It would seem you have much to learn about life outside of the Socialist Federation of California.

Rusty_Rebar
01-08-2013, 8:03 AM
Let's see.
Without the background check, the felon easily buys a gun, shoots and kills a bunch of innocent people. He then goes to prison for murder, and for illegal possession of a firearm. The seller, if identified, could also go to prison.

With the background check, the felon doesn't get the gun, and a bunch of people survive.

Yeah, that's a tough one...

And now the loophole. Call it what you want, the fact is that in some states where people need to get a background check to buy a gun, do not need a background check to buy a gun at a gun show. Sounds like a loophole to me, but whatever you call it, it allows circumventing the required background check.

Its not a bad idea to try to deny gun purchases by people who should not have guns. I would think that encouraging smart legislation is better than having senseless laws that end up sucking more.

If it were not for facts, your logic would be impeccable. But Sadly there are facts out there. 80% of guns in criminal hands are acquired through means that preclude a background check (Stolen / Borrowed / Black Market). So when you say "With the background check, the felon doesn't get the gun, and a bunch of people survive." you fail to realize that the felon does get a gun, just not from a gun store, but they mostly don't get them from a gun store now anyway.

Damn True
01-08-2013, 8:11 AM
I'm not arguing one way or the other on the matter of background checks because honestly, I'm undecided on the matter. But does not the existence of stringent background check system not allow us, from the standpoint of argument against the anti's, to clearly delineate guns that were legally attained from guns that are criminally attained?

Does it not enforce our position that "legally owned weapons represent a statistically irrelevant percentage of weapons used in crime" to be able to say that nobody with a criminal past or that has been adjudicated mentally ill can legally attain a firearm?

Rusty_Rebar
01-08-2013, 8:25 AM
Damn True,

While I agree that a quick background check does not represent (on its face) a burden to lawful ownership of firearms, I also want to point out that it seems pointless from the standpoint of keeping guns out of criminal hands.

We have background checks (and waiting periods) in California, and have for years, yet a criminal in California does not have a hard time getting a gun. Mostly because they are not getting them from sources that can / will do a background check.

I think that we can now tell if a firearm used in a crime was purchased legally or not.

As far as the anti-gun crowd goes. Like this crowd, facts are cherry picked. So they would not care that most of the guns used in crimes are attained illegally (they already are, and that is provable) So we can already make the argument that legally owned weapons are a low percentage, but that does not change the anti gun argument.

Also, it seems inadvisable to give in to this madness just to have the possibility of making an argument that we already have the facts to make today.

SilverTauron
01-08-2013, 8:27 AM
I'm not arguing one way or the other on the matter of background checks because honestly, I'm undecided on the matter. But does not the existence of stringent background check system not allow us, from the standpoint of argument against the anti's, to clearly delineate guns that were legally attained from guns that are criminally attained?

Does it not enforce our position that "legally owned weapons represent a statistically irrelevant percentage of weapons used in crime" to be able to say that nobody with a criminal past or that has been adjudicated mentally ill can legally attain a firearm?

No.

Much like a Carfax report doesn't disclose unreported accidents, mental patients and lawbreakers who haven't been caught AND DOCUMENTED wont show up on any database .Its a claim we could never make in good faith , any more then Carfax can materially guarantee you won't buy a lemon.

The bottom line is this: background checks don't stop criminals. There are millions of guns in circulation on the black market. If we banned civil gun ownership and possession of guns tomorrow and magically erased every civil firearm from existence, there would be enough weapons on the underground market to last the bad guys decades.Add in the occasional LEO selling guns out of the public armory, and the criminals don't need an FFL or a gun show to get arms. Hell they don't need them now.

Uxi
01-08-2013, 8:29 AM
Lunacy. Bad guys aren't going to do them so what's the point? Feel good? If it's about safety, it's about arming the law abiding, not putting up roadblocks. The mentally ill should be in asylums if they're not safe enough to be on the streets.

Ultimately it's about the basic right to private property. The left has always hated it, subconsciously if not overtly, and chips away at it in the name of regulation, fairness, etc.

Rusty_Rebar
01-08-2013, 8:31 AM
Uxi,

In fairness, the right is pretty bad about the right to private property as well. War on drugs anyone?

TeddyBallgame
01-08-2013, 9:05 AM
well, I can see both sides of the freeway on this issue

all I can say, with certainty, is, that if we DON'T figure out a way to better police our gun transactions, the government will have no problem stepping in and doing it for us :) they don't care whether there is a link to ppt cash and carry transactions, and crime, or not...its a hotplate of debate, so they will get involved...they won't care if you feel its an infringement on your freedom

i don't think THEIR way will make anyone happy

the ability to show we are not selling our firearms to a prohibited person would be a plus, for us...how to go about doing that will only bring further dissention between the ranks...due to that, I smell all around FAIL

Skidmark
01-08-2013, 9:08 AM
Uxi,

In fairness, the right is pretty bad about the right to private property as well. War on drugs anyone?

If selling pot were made legal in California, at least 78.35% of "gun violence" would disappear.

vincewarde
01-08-2013, 9:14 AM
I have not problem with this, but I think - as a matter of principle - we should not simply give this to the other side without getting something in return. Maybe nation wide "shall issue".

Damn True
01-08-2013, 9:15 AM
If selling pot were made legal in California, at least 78.35% of "gun violence" would disappear.

Are you sure about that given that 77.48% of statistics are made up on the spot?

CDFingers
01-08-2013, 9:25 AM
SilverTauron writes that, "we must first determine a realistic means to accomplish this."

This is very true. Unless we want to increase the cost of any gun so the .gov can afford to give us all mental screenings, the only thing we can do is to correlate known dangerous insane people with gun purchases. With software, I see that as affordable.

Good point, Silver.

CDFingers

jonzer77
01-08-2013, 10:42 AM
Tell me all about how California is going to the dogs because we all have to pass a back ground check to get a gun.

I prefer to make it more difficult for the mentally ill and for violent felons to get legal guns. Certainly most violent felons will try and get illegal guns. But the mentally ill do not need an easier path to get guns.

Support for felons and the mentally ill to get guns easily will end up in the minority at the Fed level.

Any gun laws passed at the Fed level will fall only under two categories: background checks for all gun purchases or magazine size. Nothing else will pass. Whether I support those laws is irrelevant.

I predict that if any gun laws pass, and I'm not saying any will, they will only fall under those two categories because the votes don't exist for any others. Weak Repub pols whose seats are threatened will find it easy to support those two categories of law.

Just watch. Either nothing will pass, or what does pass will be of those two categories.

CDFingers

The majority of guns acquired by criminals is through straw purchases and from shady FFL's, so how would a background check help? Please enlighten us.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html

Damn True
01-08-2013, 11:38 AM
The majority of guns acquired by criminals is through straw purchases and from shady FFL's, so how would a background check help? Please enlighten us.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html

That's what I was getting at above.

As it stands now when something bad happens the restriction discussion is framed around "THE GUNS" to include those that are legal and not. Now because you and I are not reactionary, ignorant, mouth-breathing morons we know that the oft illegally obtained or grey marketed guns involved in crime are a teeny-tiny subset of "THE GUNS" the majority being yours and mine which have never and will never kill someone at the corner of Meth Ave and Crack Blvd and have not and will not spray down a busload of nuns. But the opposition doesn't see it that way because they only see "THE GUNS" they see them as bad and since they don't have/want them they see no reason to demarcate between you and your guns and the illegally obtained guns of a criminal.

The point I was trying to make, and I may not have done a very good job, is that if we can more clearly delineate the legal from the illegal by eliminating or mitigating as best we can, the grey area be it real or imagined. It gives us the upper hand in the argument. No longer can the anti hold up the grey area or the loophole (which BTW they have no f-ing idea how it works they just "know" it exists and therefore must be at fault) as justification to restrict "THE GUNS" since clearly the discussion necessarily must be framed not around "THE GUNS" but instead they are forced to talk about the criminal, the crazy, the individual who chose to ignore the law by the possession and or use of a firearm. The discussion then is about addressing the act, not the tool.

tuolumnejim
01-08-2013, 11:47 AM
Anyone that voted yes is no supporter of the BOR, please feel free to find any other Country and leave mine alone.

MXRider
01-08-2013, 11:49 AM
Yesterday I bought a gun off a friend of mine. I gave him cash, he gave me the gun, we then drank beer. Anyone who wants to limit this right for me can go **** themselves.

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk 2

jwkincal
01-08-2013, 11:57 AM
Tell that to the 20 or so kids in Connecticut, who are too young to even be interested in sex. I can't believe you're making this comparison.

Why? Because some peoples lives are worth more? Because the media coverage makes them more valuable? Because people killed with guns are "more dead" than people dying of AIDS?

His point is based in fact, it at least represents some forensically valuable data point (although it is difficult to establish the "sexually transmitted" part and as such is a weak position). The forensic value of your response is exactly nothing.

If background checks should be law, then those proposing thier codification as such are under the burden of proof to show that they ACTUALLY WORK. Making laws based on how people feel about things is how prejudice and tyranny are legally enshrined, it is bad news and it should be avoided on its face. I realize a lot of folks in this thread whom are opposed to the universal NICS/registration policies are not equipped with the appropriate loquacity to make the above point, but that is what they are trying to convey and it is pretty much airtight from a logical perspective.

safewaysecurity
01-08-2013, 12:28 PM
How about we propose somethinglike this. Universal background checks BUT in reurn we get national cconstitutional carry and mail order full autos and all other guns without any need for an FFL. That's the only way I could even consider it. Background checks are "feel good" measures and do nothing to make us safer.

SilverTauron
01-08-2013, 12:43 PM
SilverTauron writes that, "we must first determine a realistic means to accomplish this."

This is very true. Unless we want to increase the cost of any gun so the .gov can afford to give us all mental screenings, the only thing we can do is to correlate known dangerous insane people with gun purchases. With software, I see that as affordable.

Good point, Silver.

CDFingers

Alright genius, lets get something straight. If you own a bolt action gun, some consider you insane. If you own an airsoft gun, some people consider you nuts.Certain people consider you nuts for even wanting a gun. Fortunately law is not decided on feelings....usually.

Want a practical solution to gun violence? Here it is: repeal gun free zones.No taxes or extra bureaucracy necessary.

SilverTauron
01-08-2013, 12:46 PM
How about we propose somethinglike this. Universal background checks BUT in reurn we get national cconstitutional carry and mail order full autos and all other guns without any need for an FFL. That's the only way I could even consider it. Background checks are "feel good" measures and do nothing to make us safer.

This is a non-starter.We may as well negotiate with a scorpion.

M. D. Van Norman
01-08-2013, 12:58 PM
Federal background checks on commercial sales are going to pass constitutional muster. That’s the bottom line. What we need to protect are private transfers—or push for checks on all exchanges of property.

Politically, we can accomplish this by advocating for a voluntary background-check system in exchange for reforms on interstate transactions. If a private seller (or a licensed dealer for that matter) in Vermont can verify my non-prohibited status, there’s no reason he should be disallowed from sending me a gun in California.

dfletcher
01-08-2013, 1:07 PM
What if you had committed a felony after owning those and didnt want to use a gun registered to you to commit a crime? Just buy one at a gun show, walk out with it and you are good to go! Most criminals start out as law abiding citizens...How would you feel if your next door neighbor who was a convicted felon went to a gun show, pulled out some cash, bought a gun and then broke into your home and used that gun? What if he would have been denied access to a gun because he had to go thru a check to get one. How would you feel about that? You would still be all for anyone being able to walk up at a gun show and buy a gun? I highly doubt that.

You didn't answer my question - what compelling government interest, what public safety issue is served by requiring a present owner of guns to submit to a background check?

Your scenario is strained. In it, I commit a felony, am caught and convicted but somehow get to keep the guns registered to me - but I don't want to use them in a follow up crime so I go to a gun show? That's quite a convoluted journey and outside the initial supposition. Were I really that determined I'd go to a "black market" seller to get what I want, why fool around with a "good duy" seller who might be willing to deal with the police?

Just a polite request regarding "the neighbor" and his gun. I won't ascribe state of mind to you and (I hope) you'll do the same for me, deal? How a person feels about a certain issue based on emotional personal experience isn't at all important.

MXRider
01-08-2013, 1:57 PM
What if you had committed a felony after owning those and didnt want to use a gun registered to you to commit a crime? Just buy one at a gun show, walk out with it and you are good to go! Most criminals start out as law abiding citizens...How would you feel if your next door neighbor who was a convicted felon went to a gun show, pulled out some cash, bought a gun and then broke into your home and used that gun? What if he would have been denied access to a gun because he had to go thru a check to get one. How would you feel about that? You would still be all for anyone being able to walk up at a gun show and buy a gun? I highly doubt that.

This post right here illustrates the stupidity and misinformation that gets pushed on people.

There is no "gun show loophole". You go to a show, an FFL has what you want, you fill out a 4473 and go through the NICS check.

What you are talking about is a private face to face sale. Two completely different things. Perhaps you should pass a backgrounds check prior to buying a baseball bat at a friends yard sale as well. I mean, its for the children.

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk 2

brianm767
01-08-2013, 3:44 PM
I'm on the opposite end of the spectrum....... I don't think there should be ANY background check for ANY firearm period. At MOST, a check should only be to determine one thing.... Felon, or not.

Why? Because background checks have been abused in the PRK, excuses to hold someone up, etc.

You have pointed out to me thats my choice of words may not be the best again, I really dont want my background or any ones backgrounds checked, what I'm saying is I do think there should be some type of quick and easy check if it is possible, and not necessarly in the form we currently have it in Cali, to check if the buyer is felon or not, or is mentaly flagged or not. I also do not agreee with any type of gun registration, such as long guns are currently handled in Cali now, there is no record of the gun in your name other than the DROS paperwork in the FFL's office, and I think once the transfer has been approved, that paperwork should go by by.

As much as I dont want bad guys getting guns, I am not stupid to think this would prevent it from happening, of course it's going to happen, no matter what laws and checks we pass, but it would illimnate one potentilal way, and just as important my biggest concern is for my liabillity, by going through a DROS, or some type of quick ck on a buyer, such as flagged Yes or No, I've done every thing I can to make sure I'm not selling a gun to a bad guy.








One part of it that most are not considering, every one is concentrating on the bad guys getting guns, but what about the sellers liabillity?????


Without access to some type of system where the bad guy info is flagged, how does one make sure the person is not restricted, to protect themself from being liable?

smokehammer
01-08-2013, 4:03 PM
Dont sell any guns privately if you're going to have nightmares about what theyre going to be used for after they leave your hands.

The NFA seemed like a really good idea at the time guys. It was BAD. It opened the door to all this. Stop being cowards. Just stop it. You cant have the land of the free, unless its the home of the brave.

Cobrafreak
01-08-2013, 4:20 PM
As someone who has had a personal friend succumb to Mental illness, I think it is a good idea. My old friend has owned guns in the past when he was normal. He got rid of them years ago. If I had one to sell and he wanted it there is no chance possible I would sell it to him. If he went to someone who didn't know him personally they would, because they would have no idea of his condition. So Yes , if repeated background checks would call his bluff, I'm all for it.

tommyid1
01-08-2013, 4:23 PM
i dont think it should be codified in law as a requirement. but i do think that if a quick nics check was available for individuals to do prior to ppt's i think a good number of people would use it. nobody wants to give guns to bad people but nobody wants to be registered like a god damn sex offender either. anyways its not even a real problem only something like 15% of legally purchased guns are used in crime. the rest are stolen or are black market or whatever.

sandman21
01-08-2013, 4:32 PM
Let's not forget a background check for ammo, magazines, targets, cleaning supplies, renting, lending.

Anyone else think of things we need a background check for after all we don't want anything bad to ever happen. If you don't agree clearly you want mass murders to happen

:rolleyes:

jonzer77
01-08-2013, 4:36 PM
i dont think it should be codified in law as a requirement. but i do think that if a quick nics check was available for individuals to do prior to ppt's i think a good number of people would use it. nobody wants to give guns to bad people but nobody wants to be registered like a god damn sex offender either. anyways its not even a real problem only something like 15% of legally purchased guns are used in crime. the rest are stolen or are black market or whatever.

Actually the majority of illegally acquired guns are from straw purchases. A background would have zero impact on preventing this but background checks make people "feel good."

Skidmark
01-08-2013, 4:51 PM
43% and climbing.

Skidmark
01-08-2013, 4:52 PM
43% and climbing.

jonzer77
01-08-2013, 5:03 PM
43% and climbing.

Just shows that the Brady goons make it in here.

SickofSoCal
01-08-2013, 5:10 PM
Sale or transfer of all "dangerous" private property, should require a background check with the Federal government.

This is the only safe, sane, common sense thing to do people!

jonzer77
01-08-2013, 5:16 PM
Sale or transfer of all "dangerous" private property, should require a background check with the Federal government.

This is the only safe, sane, common sense thing to do people!

Like cars? More people are killed by cars so why isn't a background check required when you sell a car?

SickofSoCal
01-08-2013, 5:22 PM
Like cars? More people are killed by cars so why isn't a background check required when you sell a car?

Yes, cars are lethal terrorist weapons. Just think: they are rolling bombs!

But, more the point, I was thinking about how horrible it is that kitchen knives are sold at garage sales. Anyone who would DARE sell a kitchen knife at a garage sale, should be hauled off to jail for at least a 5 year sentence.