There goes private transfers...

GomerPile

NES Member
Rating - 100%
13   0   0
Joined
Nov 18, 2008
Messages
4,332
Likes
1,420
The way to solve this is to allow private citizens to voluntarily call a number just like an FFL and perform a background check. The premise is that no one wants to sell a gun to someone who will use it for illegal activity. Many would use this service as a CYA.

1) If a private citizen performs a voluntary BG check and gets a confirmation code they are given legal immunity to anything bad that happens with the gun they sold. To encourage participation have monthly drawings for guns/gear etc.

2) Even people who would never use the service would benefit by telling their customer that a voluntary BG check will be performed. Anyone who balks at that notion or asks that the BG check not be performed is a huge red flag that no sane person would ignore.

The only risk is that in the future the anti's could make the service mandatory. I think the law could be written so that any modifications automatically sunset the law and a brand new law would need to be passed. The only thing you give the anti's is data on how many gun owners are responsible and use the service.
 

SpaceCritter

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jan 15, 2013
Messages
12,942
Likes
6,445
Location
In Orbit
The way to solve this is to allow private citizens to voluntarily call a number just like an FFL and perform a background check. The premise is that no one wants to sell a gun to someone who will use it for illegal activity. Many would use this service as a CYA.

1) If a private citizen performs a voluntary BG check and gets a confirmation code they are given legal immunity to anything bad that happens with the gun they sold. To encourage participation have monthly drawings for guns/gear etc.

2) Even people who would never use the service would benefit by telling their customer that a voluntary BG check will be performed. Anyone who balks at that notion or asks that the BG check not be performed is a huge red flag that no sane person would ignore.

The only risk is that in the future the anti's could make the service mandatory. I think the law could be written so that any modifications automatically sunset the law and a brand new law would need to be passed. The only thing you give the anti's is data on how many gun owners are responsible and use the service.
We know who commits the lion's share of violent crimes (with or without a firearm). I somehow doubt they'll be partaking in any sort of background check program, voluntary or otherwise.
 

SKumar

NES Member
Rating - 100%
11   0   0
Joined
Jan 19, 2017
Messages
3,305
Likes
3,850
Location
Middlesex
There is no "loophole". Background checks only apply to FFL transfers, per law.

If you don't have a pen, and I hand you my pen, now you have a pen in your possession. What background check will prevent that from happening?

Sooner or later, Americans will open their ears and eyes and realize that crazy people exist and you must protect yourself from them. Hopefully, they will vote accordingly.
 

jpk

Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2013
Messages
15,402
Likes
9,234
The way to solve this is to allow private citizens to voluntarily call a number just like an FFL and perform a background check. The premise is that no one wants to sell a gun to someone who will use it for illegal activity. Many would use this service as a CYA.

1) If a private citizen performs a voluntary BG check and gets a confirmation code they are given legal immunity to anything bad that happens with the gun they sold. To encourage participation have monthly drawings for guns/gear etc.

2) Even people who would never use the service would benefit by telling their customer that a voluntary BG check will be performed. Anyone who balks at that notion or asks that the BG check not be performed is a huge red flag that no sane person would ignore.

The only risk is that in the future the anti's could make the service mandatory. I think the law could be written so that any modifications automatically sunset the law and a brand new law would need to be passed. The only thing you give the anti's is data on how many gun owners are responsible and use the service.
No, thats not the solution.....its the problem

Government shouldnt be involved in the equasion at all

The second amendment is all about ensuring that individuals have the tools to resist an unresponsive/tyrannical central government.......you know this if you have had ANY education on early american history

Ponder whats going on in Hong Kong right now.......

Ponder the statements of leftists running for all levels of political office on how they would abuse government to punish their political enemies

How exactly are these leftists any different than how HK Gov and Chinese Communist Gov would and HAS used any and all information they have on protesters in HK to persecute people who just want to be free/not live under all powerful/arbitrary central government?
 

Dennis in MA

NES Member
Rating - 100%
24   0   0
Joined
Feb 12, 2007
Messages
17,377
Likes
8,687
So, how do you enforce a 100% background check system?
With a registry perhaps? Even a backdoor one like MA
I know this is MA and I probably should, but my backdoor isn't registered yet. ;)



As we all know, more laws won't save anyone. There will still be 330+ murders in Chicago guns or no guns. Background checks or not. ERPO or not.
 

GomerPile

NES Member
Rating - 100%
13   0   0
Joined
Nov 18, 2008
Messages
4,332
Likes
1,420
There are people like you who feel that involving the government in ANY way will lead to problems. I actually agree with that, but the BG check system is what it is and there is probably no changing it.

The problem is that the government has unlimited resources to destroy your life for unknowingly selling a gun to a PP. Some people want a measure of protection from that. Here in MA that protection is built into the system for better or worse. A voluntary system solves this problem and shows that gun owners care about who ends up with their guns.

It's not my responsibility to sell you a gun in a manner that the government won't find out about it. A gun store purchase is not private. If privacy is an issue for a gun buyer then they are not buying guns from people or FFL's they are buying 80% lowers and parts.

I don't see how a voluntary system is any worse than buying from an FFL. The purpose of this is not to provide BG checks....its to protect the seller! And the optics of it are generally positive.

No, thats not the solution.....its the problem

Government shouldnt be involved in the equasion at all

The second amendment is all about ensuring that individuals have the tools to resist an unresponsive/tyrannical central government.......you know this if you have had ANY education on early american history

Ponder whats going on in Hong Kong right now.......

Ponder the statements of leftists running for all levels of political office on how they would abuse government to punish their political enemies

How exactly are these leftists any different than how HK Gov and Chinese Communist Gov would and HAS used any and all information they have on protesters in HK to persecute people who just want to be free/not live under all powerful/arbitrary central government?
 

jpk

Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2013
Messages
15,402
Likes
9,234
There are people like you who feel that involving the government in ANY way will lead to problems. I actually agree with that, but the BG check system is what it is and there is probably no changing it.

The problem is that the government has unlimited resources to destroy your life for unknowingly selling a gun to a PP. Some people want a measure of protection from that. Here in MA that protection is built into the system for better or worse. A voluntary system solves this problem and shows that gun owners care about who ends up with their guns.

It's not my responsibility to sell you a gun in a manner that the government won't find out about it. A gun store purchase is not private. If privacy is an issue for a gun buyer then they are not buying guns from people or FFL's they are buying 80% lowers and parts.

I don't see how a voluntary system is any worse than buying from an FFL. The purpose of this is not to provide BG checks....its to protect the seller! And the optics of it are generally positive.
Its not about feelings.....its about the history of human history

Show me a strong central government that HASNT used information it collected AGAINST its political opponents?
 

wahsben

NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 100%
33   0   0
Joined
May 20, 2005
Messages
10,561
Likes
3,389
Location
Ma.
The 2nd amendment supports no gun control. The BOR is a restriction on government not on the people. Putting the government in charge of the peoples right to keep and bear arms is like putting the fox in charge of the hen-house. That's why the founders put the RKBA shall not be infringed so that the power remains in the hands of the people where it belongs.
 

jpk

Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2013
Messages
15,402
Likes
9,234
The 2nd amendment supports no gun control. The BOR is a restriction on government not on the people. Putting the government in charge of the peoples right to keep and bear arms is like putting the fox in charge of the hen-house. That's why the founders put the RKBA shall not be infringed so that the power remains in the hands of the people where it belongs.
This

The 2nd Amendment is a restriction on Gov.......not citizens
 

GomerPile

NES Member
Rating - 100%
13   0   0
Joined
Nov 18, 2008
Messages
4,332
Likes
1,420
This information is ALREADY BEING COLLECTED on the 4473 form when you buy from an FFL! I don't agree with collecting it, but the deed is done. I live in the real world where

Giving citizens the ability to do the SAME BG check as an FFL does not alter the information collected by the government. It puts the government on notice that is any bad shit happens with this gun...I'm not responsible from this point on. The government knows you have the gun....do you want them to think you still have it when some douchebag shoots up a walmart?

Its not about feelings.....its about the history of human history

Show me a strong central government that HASNT used information it collected AGAINST its political opponents?
 

wahsben

NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 100%
33   0   0
Joined
May 20, 2005
Messages
10,561
Likes
3,389
Location
Ma.
FFL only transfers means the end of transferring off-list handguns in MA! A wet dream for our AG, legistraitors, and EOPS!
Of course criminals will still transfer whatever guns and other weapons they choose to since they won't abide by the law. The Supreme court even ruled that they don't have to register their guns since it violates their 5th amendment rights. Haynes v. United States - Wikipedia Government sure seems more concerned about the constitutional rights of criminals instead of the innocent.
 

jpk

Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2013
Messages
15,402
Likes
9,234
This information is ALREADY BEING COLLECTED on the 4473 form when you buy from an FFL! I don't agree with collecting it, but the deed is done. I live in the real world where

Giving citizens the ability to do the SAME BG check as an FFL does not alter the information collected by the government. It puts the government on notice that is any bad shit happens with this gun...I'm not responsible from this point on. The government knows you have the gun....do you want them to think you still have it when some douchebag shoots up a walmart?
Make/Model/Serial number is in fact on the 4473 but that resides with the FFL and its a fairly tortuous process for the fed gov to collect that information.

The ATF is in point of fact prohibited by law from creating any database/info retention/accessibility schemes to track purchases.....its a poor firewall but it does in point of fact currently exist.

That only applies to commercial sales and private transactions/personal builds are obviously not included in the above.

The deed is not in point of fact done as you assert
 

jpk

Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2013
Messages
15,402
Likes
9,234
Private sales will be illegal within 6 mos I bet. Sucks but I've never seen such a furor before. Republicans are running scared.
Some republicans are scared because most of us are sitting on our hands complaining instead of calling them to let them know we the majority oppose gun control

If anything is in fact passed it will purely be a function of people not getting off their arses and making their voices heard to trump and congress
 

jpk

Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2013
Messages
15,402
Likes
9,234
Here is a very cool debate point from Denninger (And There You Are... No Laws Would Change This) when confronted by the anti's:

This guy tried to buy a gun in 2014 and was denied due to mental health issues. That means he lied on the 4473 form but was never prosecuted...why not?

Texas shooter got gun at private sale; denied in 2014 check
As stated previously the gov is the problem......

Parkland was a massive gov fail.....dozens of popo interactions with the douche not to mention FBI failing to track down his threats online

Shooter in Tx that shot up the church was a function of Air Force fail to report prohibited person status

Pulse night club was a fail of the FBI despite report from parent and multiple FBI interviews with the shitbag

We could go on and on and on about the so called mass shootings that would have been NOT happened if gov had done its job

If gov isnt going to do its part then how can it blame the rest of us let alone advocate for more control....which it will inevitably f*** up

Gov has an important job to do but that doesnt include exceeding the powers granted to it in the constitution
 

cathouse01

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
May 10, 2018
Messages
57
Likes
59
FFL only transfers means the end of transferring off-list handguns in MA! A wet dream for our AG, legistraitors, and EOPS!
And since most FFLs live in fear of Maura’s 2/20/2016 enforcement notice, no post 1994 ban AR/AK clones either (even ones that actually meet the letter of the law).
 

Roadglide

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Aug 12, 2008
Messages
479
Likes
365
I’m confused (which is Not untypical) but if this guy was prohibited it would have meant he wouldn’t have had any type of license, correct?
 

rkwjunior

NES Member
Rating - 100%
34   0   0
Joined
Jan 9, 2012
Messages
2,673
Likes
350
I don't see how a voluntary system is any worse than buying from an FFL. The purpose of this is not to provide BG checks....its to protect the seller! And the optics of it are generally positive.
You are protected by the law that already exists. It is 100% legal to sell privately, provided you don't know they are a felon. You are not required to know they are a felon.
 

HorizontalHunter

NES Member
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Jun 23, 2009
Messages
4,655
Likes
2,521
Location
Western Massachusetts
I’m confused (which is Not untypical) but if this guy was prohibited it would have meant he wouldn’t have had any type of license, correct?
The requirement to have a license to buy a long gun is a northeast thing. In free America there is no license required purchase or possess one.

Bob
 

FiremanBob

NES Member
Rating - 100%
4   0   0
Joined
Jan 22, 2009
Messages
3,396
Likes
6,111
I really hate to write this. The guy who sold him the firearm may not have committed a crime, but was reckless in making the sale to someone he did not know. ATF rules say you can make the sale UNLESS you have reason to believe the buyer is prohibited by law from possessing firearms. From the standpoint of our rights, that's the correct legal policy. Maximum freedom, presumption of innocence.

Morally, the seller deserves a severe beating. You have to be an idiot to sell a firearm to someone you don't know without doing a reasonable investigation of him. In VA, where private sales are commonplace and the state's gun trading website for private sales is very active, the standard proviso in FS ads is "VA license and CHP" (also known as "good guy papers") required.

None of this should be interpreted as interpreting more .gov action. If an armed citizen had been at the right place at the right time, the murderer would have been stopped. If enough people can be expected to be carrying in any given place, the perps might realize the odds are heavily against them and not try at all. So part of the solution to the problem of mass murders is more widespread bearing of arms by our citizens. An armed society is a polite society.
 

KBCraig

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Dec 29, 2009
Messages
10,434
Likes
5,156
Location
Granite State of Mind
I have seen numerous articles claim this, but none have confirmed it.

I call BS.

The claim that he had been denied in 2014 all seems to come back to this one anonymous TxDPS official. Here's the problem with that: Texas is not a NICS point-of-contact state. Texas DPS has no role in NICS, and does not see the results. If a dealer showed DPS a 4473 where the shooter was denied, it would only say "DENY"; no reason would be given. DPS has no (legal) access to any other information. If he lied on the 4473 about having been adjudicated mentally defective, that is a federal matter; no Texas statutes were broken, so Texas LE authorities would have nothing to pursue and no reason to even know.

Pardon my skepticism, but: sorry, not sorry.
 

HorizontalHunter

NES Member
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Jun 23, 2009
Messages
4,655
Likes
2,521
Location
Western Massachusetts
I really hate to write this. The guy who sold him the firearm may not have committed a crime, but was reckless in making the sale to someone he did not know. ATF rules say you can make the sale UNLESS you have reason to believe the buyer is prohibited by law from possessing firearms. From the standpoint of our rights, that's the correct legal policy. Maximum freedom, presumption of innocence.

Morally, the seller deserves a severe beating. You have to be an idiot to sell a firearm to someone you don't know without doing a reasonable investigation of him. In VA, where private sales are commonplace and the state's gun trading website for private sales is very active, the standard proviso in FS ads is "VA license and CHP" (also known as "good guy papers") required.

None of this should be interpreted as interpreting more .gov action. If an armed citizen had been at the right place at the right time, the murderer would have been stopped. If enough people can be expected to be carrying in any given place, the perps might realize the odds are heavily against them and not try at all. So part of the solution to the problem of mass murders is more widespread bearing of arms by our citizens. An armed society is a polite society.
Really....... it’s the sellers fault?

The seller was reckless.
The seller should have done a “reasonable investigation of him”. What is that?

Morally the seller deserves a severe beating? What for? Following the law?

It’s not the sellers fault. It’s not the guns fault. It’s not the bullets fault. It’s not the rifles fault.

It’s the shooters fault. Period. End of story.

Bob
 
Top Bottom