There goes private transfers...

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.
giphy.gif
 
The simple fact is private gun sales have been legal in this country since 1791 when the US Constitution was ratified and we became a country.

I want to be clear that I don't support forcing background checks for private sales of personal property. If we were to have BGCs forced down our throats, aside from the antis' "gun registry" agenda, there would be no functional difference between performing the background check at a licensed dealer and having a system available for the seller to conduct a required check themselves. In both cases, the enforcement mechanism would be the same. Local, state, and federal law enforcement would need to conduct stings to catch people circumventing the system.
 
41E374B0-A813-4E10-9CDC-116D5DF5B7B9.png https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/suficspi16.pdf

Where prisoners got their guns - ~90% not anywhere there might have been a Background Check. Scratch Walmart and Kroeger now so that number will probably go >95% shortly.
 
The last time we "compromised" Mitt Romney Stuck a rake where the sun didn't shine.
I'll pass on compromise, especially if "it won't solve it"

I was speaking perfect scenario. X for Y. I laid out X and Y. I'm not talking about pretend compromises. Obviously that's dumb as shit.
 
OK, the following idea was mentioned to me.
I don't have the ability, by law, to run a NICS as a private seller.
So if I'm selling a gun to a guy I don't know I have created a bill of sale. On that document I record the date, serial number, etc, and also record at least two forms of ID, preferably photo ID:
an LTC (if a handgun), a driver's license with name, address, DOB, DL license number etc and another confirming ID. I would then have a record of the buyer. If the buyer is reluctant, alarm bells go off and I refuse to sell. Thoughts? Is this a good practice in general? Does this cover my butt (more than not doing it)?

If I sell a vehicle there is a documented record through the state, DMV, etc., but it's not demanded that I run a BGC to see his DUI, reckless driving record first and if he is not a "prohibited driver".
you have pretty much everything you need to steal his identity right now. No farking way you are getting all that out of me.
 
By law, You are not required to know if said buyer is a felon. By law you are not required to do any sort of a background check or "homework" on the buyer. You just better be able to prove you didn't know him as a felon before you made the sale.
Thats it, end of story. That's called freedom.
Selling to an unknown person is a risk we all take, whether we are selling a firearm or a dinning room table.
But just remember, your not liable for anything done with either after that person walks away, unless you sell with a warranty on used furniture.
I assume you mean under federal law, state laws differ.
 
I'm amazed, and disappointed, at the number of knee-jerk reactions to my post by people who clearly didn't bother to read its plain language. Some guys on our side are as obstinately emotionally driven as the antis.
 
I'm amazed, and disappointed, at the number of knee-jerk reactions to my post by people who clearly didn't bother to read its plain language. Some guys on our side are as obstinately emotionally driven as the antis.

I do see and understand your point. Two levels of personal scrutiny involved: 1) What *do* I know about a person that would legally require me to *not* transfer a gun to them, and 2) What *should* I know about a person that, having passed the minimum legal requirement, would lead to to chose to transfer a gun to a person.

The latter is the “reasonable man” kind of idea, but society is in great disagreement as to what is reasonable. Aside from a “needs” based approach, some states add that level of discretion to local authorities above and beyond a NICS check. That being, to know that if there was something to know about the transfer recipient, that there is nothing known “of concern.” A local law enforcement agency would know if there had been calls, visits, etc., suggesting there may be a “concern” that *might* be amplified with a gun involved. Once civil rights are allowed to be exercised based on arbitrary discretion, they are not rights. Some States, like MA, add more extensive checks with local mental heath authorities to see if a name is in their database, and why.

Private transfers to someone you personally know give you the greatest information upon which to base your choice. But even those range from the guys you’ve met at a club, sports, etc., and exchanged some words with, to a lifelong friend. The opposite extreme is somebody you’ve never met who drives up in a car. How did they connect? Usually answering an advertisement of “gun for sale.” Maybe they drive up, out-of-state license plates, buddies in the car, face tattoos, and you make some assumptions. Maybe it’s a Ronnie Howard young adult driving up in a Honda Civic, having told you he lives three towns over in Mayberry. Who’s a gang member, who’s a straw purchaser, who’s a regular Joe buying a used gun? You’ve read that former drug dealers are now running guns as MJ is legal? What does a gunrunner’s strawmen and mules look like? You just cannot know.

I usually indicate in a “Gun for Sale” ad that I’ll ask to see a NH-DL and NH Pistol & Revolver License, just so people know the qualifications. I’ve never had to ask to see them - they’ve been offered. Maybe forged - dunno. I don’t make copies or asked signed receipts, etc. I just log that gun sold with date and valid NH-DL/PRL checked in my records - no name. My choice to know (or think I know) beyond what is required by law.

The gap between legal and moral/ethical is almost imperceptibly narrowed by NICS background checks, and would not practically differ if made Universal. *You* might not sell a gun to someone on a list, but *they* would almost never come to buy your gun anyway.

Upwards of 400 million guns in the USA. About 40,000 firearms death in the USA annually. That’s 1 in 10,000 guns at most at the other end of a lethal bullet. For you manufacturing folks, that’s 100 in a million - better than 5 Sigma “defects” which is 230 defects per million. These aren’t airsoft or BB guns - if they cannot kill they are not firearms. It’s amazing something designed to kill is *so* defective that, handed out wildly nilly to anyone who wants one, only 1 in 10,000 kills someone!
 
Last edited:
Private sales will be illegal within 6 mos I bet. Sucks but I've never seen such a furor before. Republicans are running scared.
Who exactly are they running scared from? Their constituents dont want any new gun laws passed and the people who do arent voting for them anyway.
 
I'm aware of all that, my point was that they should fix the system, not pass more laws. They had the opportunity to make minor improvements to NICS (small incremental improvements, followed by observing the results, is how you fix a system), and they linked reciprocity, but the GOP dropped it when they had the votes and President to make it happen. I don't think they want it to work.
The GOP demonstrated in the first two years of Trump that outside of a few outliers they are loyal members of the uniparty
 
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[/QUOTE

Currently, the only Republican I know in office that is for us is Dean Tran. I can call Markey and Warren and even Faker, but you're just talking to the snowflakes as politicians "filter".
 
I was speaking perfect scenario. X for Y. I laid out X and Y. I'm not talking about pretend compromises. Obviously that's dumb as shit.
The left’s version of “compromise” is a the distance that they shove their crap up our collective arses.

The Republicans are pussies and will cave in the wake of all of the emotions with the hopes that they media and the left will not criticize them.

That won’t happen and these dumb laws that they pass will only serve to further infringe upon the rights of free people and not do a f***ing thing to stop or prevent a single crime. Same shit as the past 80+ years of gun control

The clinical insanity of the left continues as this continual belief that the next law (that 25,001st law) will be the one that stops a crime. Textbook Einstein insanity. Keep doing the same things and expect different results
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom