What is the argument against PPT requiring BG check in other states?

[caliguy93]

In states where no ffl is needed to conduct a PPT transfer, what are the arguments against supporting a push to require all transfers to undergo a background check?

I’m posting this because it is my weakest area when having gun debates and feel like I could use some help

[rugershooter]

Freedom.

[97F1504RAD]

Freedom.

End of thread

[Cokebottle]

Freedom.

Bingo.

Beyond that, some states actually recognize laws against "unfunded mandates"

California only recognizes it when the Federal Government demands that California do something without funding it... but California has no problem requiring us to buy insurance, pay an FFL for transfers, etc....

[Danodog]

Freedom.

This is just about the most detailed and concise response that could ever be written.

[SkyHawk]

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

[Josh3239]

• Requires registration to enforce.
• Criminalizes giving a gun to a family member or friend for immediate protection, gifts, or if the giving party is too old or sick to go to a gun store to conduct the transfer.
• Transfers like these are statistically not a significant way that the criminals get guns nor are these gun owners using the guns in disproportionately high numbers of crime. So what problem is being solved?
• This is really just a tax in sheep's skin that disproportionately hurts poor people (DC's transfer fee is $200 and $80 in NY).
• Knowingly transferring a gun to a prohibited person is already illegal and the government doesn't prosecute people who get denied anyway.
• It leads to more frivolous laws such as illegal transfers without a background check in the case of loaning a firearms for purposes such as a competition or a hunt.

In short, it adds unnecessary burdens to otherwise legal transfers, often between family or friends, that are insignificant compared to the number of guns sold through gun shop sales for the purposes of eliminating a method of how criminals get guns which is statistically insignificant. Moreover, it is unenforceable as a law alone and requires more laws to enforce, these laws will inevitably snowball. There is ZERO data to support that these laws reduce crimes or criminals access to guns.

Freedom.

Just because it is true, doesn't mean you are going to convince anyone. It is fine for an echo chamber, but unfortunately this country isn't and if we want to win we need to make intelligent arguments that make antis look dumb.

[zinfull]

Because else where it is a tool of personal property.

[rugershooter]

[LIST]

Just because it is true, doesn't mean you are going to convince anyone. It is fine for an echo chamber, but unfortunately this country isn't and if we want to win we need to make intelligent arguments that make antis look dumb.

I agree, to a point. All the other arguments against compulsory background checks for private sales essentially boil down to "it won't stop crime and it is an undue burden on freedom". Freedom is the foundation. Anything else builds off of that foundation. Two free, consenting adults should be able to exchange money for goods or services without any government interference, regardless of the goods or services exchanged, provided that doing so doesn't infringe on anyone's rights. People who fail to grasp that concept fail to understand what freedom is and cannot be convinced to support private sales. It always comes down to freedom.

[caliguy93]

Freedom.

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

So you guys have no issue with felons, suicidal, or mentally ill/unstable people having unfettered access to firearms.

All of our fundamental rights are not without limitation. You can’t incite imminent violence even though you have a freedom of speech, your right against self incrimination and to an attorney only begins when you are detained or in custody, etc...

We have agreed as a society that the right to bear arms can be limited to people who respect the moral turpitudes of our society. Some burdens to help ensure violent people/felons/mentally unstable people should not have access to firearms although sometimes the system fails.

• Requires registration to enforce.
• Criminalizes giving a gun to a family member or friend for immediate protection, gifts, or if the giving party is too old or sick to go to a gun store to conduct the transfer.
• Transfers like these are statistically not a significant way that the criminals get guns nor are these gun owners using the guns in disproportionately high numbers of crime. So what problem is being solved?
• This is really just a tax in sheep's skin that disproportionately hurts poor people (DC's transfer fee is $200 and $80 in NY).
• Knowingly transferring a gun to a prohibited person is already illegal and the government doesn't prosecute people who get denied anyway.
• It leads to more frivolous laws such as illegal transfers without a background check in the case of loaning a firearms for purposes such as a competition or a hunt.

In short, it adds unnecessary burdens to otherwise legal transfers, often between family or friends, that are insignificant compared to the number of guns sold through gun shop sales for the purposes of eliminating a method of how criminals get guns which is statistically insignificant. Moreover, it is unenforceable as a law alone and requires more laws to enforce, these laws will inevitably snowball. There is ZERO data to support that these laws reduce crimes or criminals access to guns.



Just because it is true, doesn't mean you are going to convince anyone. It is fine for an echo chamber, but unfortunately this country isn't and if we want to win we need to make intelligent arguments that make antis look dumb.

Thanks for the thorough response. I agree, the firearm type is not important information needed to conduct a background check, though it does assist a law enforcement agency in tracing a firearm to determine if more criminals are in conspiracy of certain crimes or not or if the firearm has been stolen. The family member part is a good point but requiring all transfers to undergo a background check might help deter straw purchases for boyfriends/ girlfriends or abusive husband/wives and other relationships. I agree 100% the fee should be proportionate to the actual cost to conduct the background check or to be appropriate to fund the system and not a penny more

As for the statistics, no argument there I guess, but can we really deny that it has prevented violent or unstable people from Obtaining firearms? Or even underage who look older? The person who has had a 5150 hold and is denied from purchasing a gun from a dealer could/would be able to obtain one via PPT and the seller might never know. The statistics don’t account for the people who know they can’t obtain a firearm and therefor never try and live knowing that they are too unstable to own a firearm. My roommate has a nephew who has attempted auicide once before and is on anti depressants now and functions just fine day to day. He is educated and smart enough to know that he shouldn’t be anywhere near knives or firearms alone or within immediate unfettered control of knives or firearms. Can’t afford a permeant residency in an institution and the system only holds him for a short period. He’s not ambitious enough to go looking for ways to obtain a weapon but if it’s easy enough to obtain he would.

How many more people like that out there are there?

[caliguy93]

I agree, to a point. All the other arguments against compulsory background checks for private sales essentially boil down to "it won't stop crime and it is an undue burden on freedom". Freedom is the foundation. Anything else builds off of that foundation. Two free, consenting adults should be able to exchange money for goods or services without any government interference, regardless of the goods or services exchanged, provided that doing so doesn't infringe on anyone's rights. People who fail to grasp that concept fail to understand what freedom is and cannot be convinced to support private sales. It always comes down to freedom.

Is there two consenting adults if buyer has malicious intent but does not disclose it to the seller? People lie and it would not be consent if the seller would not consent if they knew the true intent of the malicious buyer or If they were a felon or had mental illness

The only real Issue is if background checks stop enough bad people from Obtaining firearms

[rugershooter]

Is there two consenting adults if buyer has malicious intent but does not disclose it to the seller? People lie and it would not be consent if the seller would not consent if they knew the true intent of the malicious buyer or If they were a felon or had mental illness

The only real Issue is if background checks stop enough bad people from Obtaining firearms

I would say yes, they're both still consenting adults as long as they're not being forced to participate.
My point still stands. Freedom is the foundation and freedom is dangerous.

[caliguy93]

I would say yes, they're both still consenting adults as long as they're not being forced to participate.
My point still stands. Freedom is the foundation and freedom is dangerous.

So you Think people should be able to sell firearms to illegal immigrants or felons so long as they both consent to the agreement?

[rugershooter]

So you Think people should be able to sell firearms to illegal immigrants or felons so long as they both consent to the agreement?

No, because it's illegal. But you don't need to conduct a background check to sell a knife. Nor should you need to conduct a background check to sell a gun. It's not some special or magical object.

[MosinVirus]

I am actually getting pretty tired of seeing people say that background checks are actually a solution.