If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS February Giveaway ***Canik TP9SF Elite***
How perfectly convenient. Great timing all around.
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.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.
So, how do you enforce a 100% background check system?
With a registry perhaps? Even a backdoor one like MA
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?
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?
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!
How perfectly convenient. Great timing all around.
FFL only transfers means the end of transferring off-list handguns in MA! A wet dream for our AG, legistraitors, and EOPS!
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.
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 have seen numerous articles claim this, but none have confirmed it.
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.
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.
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.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?