There goes private transfers...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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 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?
 
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.
 
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).
 
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?
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
Yes, I figured some people would misread what I wrote. I didn't blame the seller, so don't lie about what I wrote. I did say, and do say, that what he did was recklessly stupid. I provided an example of "reasonable investigation" by describing how sellers on the VA gun board handle the due diligence question, without being required to by law but out of respect for their own reputations.

Since when did "following the law", the lowest possible standard of good conduct, become the gold standard of decent behavior among men? Or is it so merely among men of low standards?
 
Tell that to the gun hating DA when your gun is used to shoot up a room full of school kids. They won’t care if you get convicted or not, bankrupting you with legal bills achieves the same goals as prison.

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.
 
Yes, I figured some people would misread what I wrote. I didn't blame the seller, so don't lie about what I wrote. I did say, and do say, that what he did was recklessly stupid. I provided an example of "reasonable investigation" by describing how sellers on the VA gun board handle the due diligence question, without being required to by law but out of respect for their own reputations.

Since when did "following the law", the lowest possible standard of good conduct, become the gold standard of decent behavior among men? Or is it so merely among men of low standards?
In TX the only law to sell privately would be the federal law which requires you be resident of the same state. But I don't know of any "standard of investigation" to ensure that is the case. If I meet someone at a range and we start talking. Maybe next week I see that person again and we talk about selling a gun. A week later we get in touch and he rides up in a car with a TX license plate. I sell him the gun. Was I reckless? Should I have "done more due diligence?" If you think that something should be required of me as a private seller than you can try and change the law but don't expect me to go beyond the letter of the law so that you "feel " better about private sales.

Different states have different laws. NH says you must personally know the person or see a P&R for them. But what if I personally know you but don't know you are a felon? What if you used to live in MA and had a DUI 10 years ago? Why would I be required to know that makes you a PP while you are living in NH now?
 
In TX the only law to sell privately would be the federal law which requires you be resident of the same state. But I don't know of any "standard of investigation" to ensure that is the case. If I meet someone at a range and we start talking. Maybe next week I see that person again and we talk about selling a gun. A week later we get in touch and he rides up in a car with a TX license plate. I sell him the gun. Was I reckless? Should I have "done more due diligence?" If you think that something should be required of me as a private seller than you can try and change the law but don't expect me to go beyond the letter of the law so that you "feel " better about private sales.

Different states have different laws. NH says you must personally know the person or see a P&R for them. But what if I personally know you but don't know you are a felon? What if you used to live in MA and had a DUI 10 years ago? Why would I be required to know that makes you a PP while you are living in NH now?

If you are too dangerous to own a gun, you should not be walking around the street. Either arrest the guy or let him have his constitutional rights.
 
In TX the only law to sell privately would be the federal law which requires you be resident of the same state. But I don't know of any "standard of investigation" to ensure that is the case. If I meet someone at a range and we start talking. Maybe next week I see that person again and we talk about selling a gun. A week later we get in touch and he rides up in a car with a TX license plate. I sell him the gun. Was I reckless? Should I have "done more due diligence?" If you think that something should be required of me as a private seller than you can try and change the law but don't expect me to go beyond the letter of the law so that you "feel " better about private sales.

Different states have different laws. NH says you must personally know the person or see a P&R for them. But what if I personally know you but don't know you are a felon? What if you used to live in MA and had a DUI 10 years ago? Why would I be required to know that makes you a PP while you are living in NH now?

To be accurate NH says that for handguns, all other guns is moot, ie legal for private sale provided you do not know something to the contrary about such person.
 
Back
Top Bottom