Universal background checks

[BBarn]

Why does the government need to know every gun that is legally transferred to a non- prohibited person?

And is it unreasonable for a non-prohibited person to want to purchase a firearm for legal purposes without the government's knowledge?

Is the desire for a undocumented transfer to be considered an indication of guilt or criminal intent on the part of the purchaser?

[Lohman446]

Why does the government need to know every gun that is legally transferred to a non- prohibited person?

And is it unreasonable for a non-prohibited person to want to purchase a firearm for legal purposes without the government's knowledge?

Is the desire for a undocumented transfer to be considered an indication of guilt or criminal intent on the part of the purchaser?

There are two separate issues at play here. One issue is the reporting of every sale to the government either through a reporting system or through UBC. The other issue is the seller keeping records (but not automatically reporting). Those are issues that are very separate.

Documenting a sale (having a record of who I sold a firearm to and when) is not the same as reporting of the sale to the government or a UBC.

[BBarn]

OK, but you didn't attempt to answer even one of my questions you quoted.

[Lohman446]

Why does the government need to know every gun that is legally transferred to a non- prohibited person?

And is it unreasonable for a non-prohibited person to want to purchase a firearm for legal purposes without the government's knowledge?

Is the desire for a undocumented transfer to be considered an indication of guilt or criminal intent on the part of the purchaser?

First question: I'm not making the argument they do need to know.

Second question: I'm not going to judge reasonable vs not reasonable. I don't care if the government knows if I purchased a firearm

Third: It depends what documented means. I am not selling a firearm to someone who refuses to let me record who I am selling a firearm to and when. I'm not calling the police though to report a suspected crime either.

[BBarn]

Thanks.

[peterg7]

Originally Posted by Lohman446

You don't think that those arguing for and demanding the ability to anonymously buy a firearm do the same in providing fuel?

In this thread we have devolved from opposing universal background checks to objecting to private sellers who want to copy down information from individuals they are selling a firearm to because IT MIGHT lead to UBC. Yes I am going to have the information of anyone I sell a firearm to and I am going to have reason to believe they are not a prohibited person. Granted this is why I generally go through an FFL but I don't think anyone asking to record where a firearm went is a problem.

Who thought the freedom fighting Greatness Generation would allow the GCA of 68 but they did. The camel’s nose is under the tent and the only question is how long till the rest follows.

I’m no lawyer but if my state law says I need to sell to a state resident who can legally own a handgun that’s the two questions I ask. If they lie that’s their crime not mine.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[peterg7]

Originally Posted by thallub

Why in hades should i pay to sell my private property?



Yep, i could sell them to an FFL or pawnshop for 30-50 percent of their value. i could sell them at a gun buyback extravaganza.



Yep, i choose to simply record the buyers name in my database. That's all, just the buyers name; no address, no phone number, no type of identification or anything else.



The man i sold my Luger collection to has a C&R license. The man is a serious collector who never haggled over the price.



i've not always required that type of identification. Then a young man reeking of meth showed up to purchase a handgun. There was no sale.



One could be sued into bankruptcy because of a gun sale.

Would you require the same information in selling a chainsaw, push mower or compound bow? You’re correct it’s all chattels and should treated the same unless state law says different, then go only far enough to meet the law.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Lohman446]

Would you require the same information in selling a chainsaw, push mower or compound bow? You’re correct it’s all chattels and should treated the same unless state law says different, then go only far enough to meet the law

The potential civil liability, not even considering the potential criminal liability, are FAR different with a firearm.

I'm hoping that I am reading an aggressive hostility against those who seek to have some record of the transaction incorrectly. Just because others seek to do it in a different way than you do does not make them wrong.

[peterg7]

So there’s documented cases of prosecution?

Not hostility just concern that anything less than a unified front will lead to stricter laws.

It also a bit disconcerting that gun owners feel that more of what doesn’t work is what’s needed.

Self inflicted wounds bleed the same as wounds from the enemy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Lohman446]

You know how you want me to ignore how you buy and sell your private property and if you keep records or not? How you don't want more laws around it?

Why should you get that courtesy when you are so concerned about what records of transactions I keep? You don't want me to be involved in how you decide to sell or buy private property between individuals than you really should not be concerned with how I do. The only time any concern should be expressed is if I am selling to you and if I cannot, by your choice, keep a record of who I sell an item to than we won't come to an agreement on selling and we will both move on.

I'm not being part of a unified front that demands there will be no record keeping by private individuals of private sales. I'm not willing to take on the chance of any liability in regards to that when avoiding it seems so simple.

[TXAZ]

Wow guys, as the OP, I'm impressed! This thread has pretty much stayed on topic, and provided some very significant details on the issues of universal background checks.

Do we want the guys that did 'cash for clunkers' to be the ones 'revamping' NICS, I think not.

[thallub]

Sell your chainsaws, barbecue grills and guns any way you desire: i don't care.

IMO: Selling a chainsaw can't come back to haunt you. Sell a firearm to a convicted felon; prepare to be haunted. i became concerned after an acquaintance sold a gun later used in a violent crime.

Don't like my method, i could care less.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by BBarn

Regardless of the reasoning, the seller is assuming that the buyer is a prohibited person. And he's asking for documentation that suggests to himself that the buyer isn't a prohibited person (even though the things the seller is asking for do not prove the buyer isn't a prohibited person).

I disagree that the seller is assuming the buyer is a prohibited person. The seller is just seeking to protect himself.

[BBarn]

I find this all interesting because I, like many others, am not a prohibited person. But I also have no way to prove to a private seller that I am not a prohibited person. I can't even provide any of the above mentioned documents (that don't actually prove a person isn't prohibited).

[44 AMP]

While most of the discussion is centering about background checks and prohibited persons, I notice that their is something not being mentioned, and its the one piece of "Paperwork" you most need to see. And, it has NOTHING to do with the criminal status of the prospective purchaser!!!

Proof of residency. Aside from what ever additional State requirements there are, this one is Federal, and its a minimum. If you and the buyer are not residents of the same state, that's a deal breaker, for a completely private transaction. If you reside in different states (and this applies even if you can see his house from yours), if his residence is in a different state, you MUST go through an FFL (at least one, and possibly two) dealer(s) to make the sale, legally.

Now, current law does not specify that you have to physically see a certain piece of paper, it (still) allows you to use your own judgement as to what satisfies you. Just the same way it USED to do about the buyer's status as a prohibited person, BUT NO LONGER DOES...

It used to be that the law prevented you from selling to anyone you "know or suspect" to be prohibited from having the gun. What met those standards was up to YOU, and I.

Yes, there was always an element of risk in that. But there is always an element of risk if you are involved in an investigation run by lazy, ignorant, or incompetent cops. A bill of sale, or whatever other record you have is not a guarantee to keep you off their suspect list. Sure, it goes a long way, but its no guarantee.

Another of the things all the current private sale background check laws/proposals do that really irritates me, is requiring the check, and forcing me to pay a 3rd party to have it done. Buy from and FFL, he runs the check (and does not charge you separately), he's required to, as one of the conditions of his license.

And I'm fine with the fact that the FFL should be fairly compensated for his work processing a transfer when he's not making a gun sale, but I don't think that I should be the one paying for that.

If the law requires me to do it, then the law should pay for it. Just my opinion, though. I feel the same way about auto insurance, but that goes no where, either...

back to being allowed to use one's own judgement...currently I can still do that, about what I accept as proving a potential buyer is a state resident. But I can't do that about someone I know is NOT a prohibited person, the law doesn't allow for that anymore, it only accepts the check run by an FFL as proof of innocence. And the system used is flawed, and has been since its creation. yet its the only thing that satisfies the law.

The idea of being able to know if the person buying a gun is legal to do so, is a good one. The way the law(s) were/are written and the system used to satisfy those laws are not so good.

[peterg7]

Originally Posted by Lohman446

You know how you want me to ignore how you buy and sell your private property and if you keep records or not? How you don't want more laws around it?



Why should you get that courtesy when you are so concerned about what records of transactions I keep? You don't want me to be involved in how you decide to sell or buy private property between individuals than you really should not be concerned with how I do. The only time any concern should be expressed is if I am selling to you and if I cannot, by your choice, keep a record of who I sell an item to than we won't come to an agreement on selling and we will both move on.



I'm not being part of a unified front that demands there will be no record keeping by private individuals of private sales. I'm not willing to take on the chance of any liability in regards to that when avoiding it seems so simple.

There’s no assurance that taking names or checking ID indemnifies you from anything, by requiring special treatment for firearms you ad weight to the gun grabber claim that guns kill people and need to be regulated.

I’m old enough to remember life before the GCA. Even after the attitude about buying/selling firearms was casual.

You are correct Sir it’s your game to play win or loose.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[thallub]

Yep, proof of residency is extremely important. Most of the people i have dealt with have OK concealed carry permits.

[TXAZ]

Originally Posted by BBarn

I find this all interesting because I, like many others, am not a prohibited person. But I also have no way to prove to a private seller that I am not a prohibited person. I can't even provide any of the above mentioned documents (that don't actually prove a person isn't prohibited).

At least in Texas there's a relatively safe and easy way to (almost know) you're not selling to a prohibited person, and that's to request their CHL / LTC ID. If they have an unexpired card, then they were OK on the date of issue.

[44 AMP]

Why does the government need to know every gun that is legally transferred to a non- prohibited person?

they don't need it. But, they do want it...

And is it unreasonable for a non-prohibited person to want to purchase a firearm for legal purposes without the government's knowledge?

I don't think its unreasonable at all. I think its prudent.

Is the desire for a undocumented transfer to be considered an indication of guilt or criminal intent on the part of the purchaser?

That's what they want you to think, after all, the only reason you would want to hide is because you are doing something wrong, right??

or, maybe, you don't want to be on a govt list as owning a gun because you have studied enough history to know that registration is a necessary prerequisite to confiscation.

With a list, they don't need to do house to house sweeps, they just need to go to J. Smith, 842 Maple st, and break down his door at 2am. No need to roust the entire neighborhood....at this time....

Don't think that can happen in the good ol USA?? think again.

[BBarn]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

Now, current law does not specify that you have to physically see a certain piece of paper, it (still) allows you to use your own judgement as to what satisfies you [(regarding residency status) - added by BBarn for quote clarification]. Just the same way it USED to do about the buyer's status as a prohibited person, BUT NO LONGER DOES...

It used to be that the law prevented you from selling to anyone you "know or suspect" to be prohibited from having the gun. What met those standards was up to YOU, and I.

18 usc 922 d says “It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person— “ and then goes on to list acts that would make them a prohibited person.

So what has happened to suggest to you that the burden on the seller regarding prohibited persons has changed?

[Don P]

Universal background checks
Why not?

A can of worms that we will never be able to close and the worms will keep coming and coming and coming.
I'll pose this question, when was the last time the circus we call "the federal government" got it right??? When was the last time they didn't OVER REACH ??

[USAFNoDak]

First of all, I have never sold a firearm to someone I didn't personally know. But that's just me. I realize that people may wish to sell a firearm and are willing to sell to potential buyers outside of their "personal recognition" circles.

Will UBC's allow sales to family members with no FFL being involved? How long will that be allowed after somebody claims that he "legally" sold a gun to his brother whom he didn't know to be a criminal? For people who live in rural areas of the country, it could be a real hassle to get to a FFL if you want to sell a firearm to a family member or a friend whom you know very well. I see UBC's as mainly being a "want" by those in government and the general public who want to see firearms eliminated from citizens possession, at least specific types of firearms such as AR-15's, AK-47's, and Semiauto handguns. UBC's will require full registration, and that will facilitate a much easier program to collect guns once they have been banned.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by USAFNoDak

Will UBC's allow sales to family members with no FFL being involved?

According to Washington state, the answer is no. "All" apparently means "all" in Washington state.

[44 AMP]

Will UBC's allow sales to family members with no FFL being involved?

It doesn't have to be a sale, it can merely be a "transfer" of possession/control.

According to Washington state, the answer is no. "All" apparently means "all" in Washington state.

That's the problem. The law uses the term "transfer" and could be interpreted to cover sales, gifts, loans, handing someone a gun to look at, or even "transferring" all your guns at home to your wife, the minute you step out the door to go to work.

The law does exempts transfers while hunting, and shooting at a "licensed shooting range" (without defining that), as exceptions where an FFL conducted background check is NOT required.

However, since the law does list exceptions, one must assume everything not listed as an exception is covered under the law. Nicht Wahr?

SO, suppose you head off for work, wife stays home, and wife has the keys or the combination to your gun safe. Or she knows where you have the combination written down....she now has legal possession/control of the firearms. That's a transfer...

And not a listed exception to the law. SO, potentially, you've both broken the law. Now, this hasn't been tested in court yet. Neither have any of the other common situations that people do every day, which could also be violating the letter of the law.

So far, WA law enforcement is refusing to enforce the law, absent further clarification of what is, and is not a covered transfer. To date, as far as I know, such clarification has not been provided by the state.

The potential for abuse is really scary.

Voter Initiative is not always a good thing.

[peterg7]

^ it’s death by a thousand cuts, when every transfer is changed a fee it effects behavior.

We can claim they’ll never take our guns but bureaucrats have away of grinding you down.

the showdown may never come because technically guns will not be banned, just cost prohibitive and regulated to the point that the common man won’t bother with ownership anymore.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk