a REAL issue

[twimc]

Interesting... you use the same Reductio ad absurdum arguments that anti's use.

It is to easy to overcome the statement "shall not be infringed"

He would even support infringing peoples rights if thy were felons

So please don't turn this into something its not.

 

[Inigoes]

So you do background checks before you sell a firearm privately ?

Yes, I do. I see it as my responsibility, not to hand a firearm to a questionable person.

Besides, I do not like answering questions from a LE agency, on why I sold whatever to so-n-so.

 

[twimc]

Yes, I do. I see it as my responsibility, not to hand a firearm to a questionable person.

Besides, I do not like answering questions from a LE agency, on why I sold whatever to so-n-so.

I respect you for taking the right (and logical) steps, but i do not believe you represent the majority.

And the bigger problem never rest with the majority, but rest with those that will use this easier transfer method to intentionally circumvent the law.

How do we stop/limit them from abusing the system while protecting our rights?

 

[Inigoes]

I respect you for taking the right (and logical) steps, but i do not believe you represent the majority.

And the bigger problem never rest with the majority, but rest with those that will use this easier transfer method to intentionally circumvent the law.

How do we stop/limit them from abusing the system while protecting our rights?

There already are laws on the books for that. You transfer a firearm to a mentally unstable person and/or convicted felon. Say hello to Bubba.

Either of those groups is a greater risk of using them in a not so legal way. Thus a greater chance of you meeting Bubba FTF.

 

[alucard0822]

Can some explain why this "loophole" shouldnt be closed.
I understand that it will cost more to go through an FFL, but it seems like the antis stand on private sales making it easier for criminals/ illegals/ etc... to get guns has more weight behind it.
While my heart tells me it shouldn't be touched, my more logical side needs some help rationalizing the benefit VS. harm argument. TIA

The issue of banning Private transfers is a tricky one, and one some gun owners even support, although as with most gun control, there are a number of alterior motives, and flaws in logic on the side of those pushing the ban.

First and formost is that the federal government does not have the constitutional authority, and regulating sales between individuals in the same state is yet a broader reach for the interstate commerce clause, that is already facing challenges in reguard to gun rights by many states that claim the constitution does not allow the federal government to regulate firearms that are manufactured and sold within a single state. It is not only an issue of weither or not private sales can be banned, but weither the federal government has the authority, or if it is a state matter. All sales of firearms between individuals across state lines already require an FFL, originally in the 68GCA they did not push it into individuals or intra-state sales because the commerce clause interpretation then was not quite the blank check the government belives it is now.

We also have to look at who this law would affect, and if it is redundant in it's purpose. The purpose is to prevent or make private sales of firearms to criminals illegal, but does this law do that? First, current law states that any "prohibited person" (felon, mental defective, domestic violence, drunkard etc.) can be charged with a felony for mere posession of a firearm. Knowingly selling a firearm to a prohibited person is also a felony under urrent law. In fact this new law really only expands the current prohibition to include honest people who are not prohibited. It also will not really effect the illicit firearm trade being most guns wind up in the hands of criminals through direct theft or robbery, illegal importation, straw purchases, sales where both parties are prohibited persons, and sales where the seller knows the buyer is a prohibited person, all of these scenarios are currently illegal, and carry severe penalties. There have also been less than a dozen cases where a felon misrepresented themselves to an honest person in order to buy a firearm privately. In these rare cases, the prohibited person could be, and many times was charged, the new law would say if the seller, who does not have any reason to belive the buyer is a felon has also comitted a crime. This law will do nothing more than continue the progression of infringement on honest people while doing nothing to stop criminals who already break at least a dozen firearms laws currently on the books to obtain a gun in the manner that this law professes to now make illegal.

There is also the issue of property rights. The freedom to buy and sell your property without governemnt interference, or in this case the ability to sell it without going through a licensed dealer, a precident that no other common household object has. There is also the issue of passing firearms down to family members, buying them as gifts for a spouse or a child, and depending on the wording, and what the definition of a "transfer" consists of, even loaning a gun to a buddy may be illegal, and renting a gun from a range may require a 4473 and background check. Even though the law may have soft language that does not seem too bad, all too many times it just takes an after-the-fact ATF policy change or executive order to make it into something far more sinister, and that would never have passed in the first place

There is also the issue of NICS itself, currently you cannot simply call NICS for a private sale, allowing the public to use the sevice annonymously for private transfers has been pushed for many years and has been rejected. There are also thousands of law abiding citizens that get delayed or denied due to paperwork errors and mistaken identities, and thousands of criminals and prohibited persons that pass the check because their information has not been uploaded into the system. In the case that precidence makes a NICS check mandatory, all the government has to do to create a de-facto ban on all gun sales is to shut down the NICS center, like the machine gun registry has been. This law would go further in establishing NICS as a requirement instead of the 3 day deadline it currently has.

You also have the strategy angle of it. Prominent anti-gun organizations and politicians are terrified, and have been fighting with everything they have in order to stay relevant, and we have been defeating them consistently for the last 10 years. The public now more than ever has seen that gun control does not lower crime, and that our inalienable right to keep and bear arms is not some outdated tradition, it applies and is more important today than ever in order to ensure a free nation. Those who wish to systematically eradicate private firearms ownership are patient, they know they have lost some ground recently as concealed carry laws have been returning to their pre-discriminatory roots, and have gained public acceptance. They also know that a win, in fact ANY win at any cost is vital for their cause to stop the bleeding, and slow the momentum we have built over years of hard work. If we give away this, they will be back for more, and stronger than they have been in years. Trying to compromise with uncompromising people has given us the sorry state of firearms rights we have now, and only recently have we turned the tide on nearly 100 years worth of unconstitutional laws, we have to keep up the pressure, figting any and all new gun control schemes, and doing what we can to overturn and repeal the 20,000 gun control laws currently on the books.

 

[oather]

It is to easy to overcome the statement "shall not be infringed"

He would even support infringing peoples rights if thy were felons.

Felons don't have the full exercise of their rights because they have demonstrated by their actions that they don't have the moral fiber to use them.

As a corallary to that, if a person cannot be trusted with the moral responsibility of owning a firearm, then that person should not be permitted to live in society without a custodian.

Owning a gun is a moral test. If you choose to threaten or hurt someone with it, then you have failed the test.

 

[twimc]

There already are laws on the books for that. You transfer a firearm to a mentally unstable person and/or convicted felon. Say hello to Bubba.

Either of those groups is a greater risk of using them in a not so legal way. Thus a greater chance of you meeting Bubba FTF.

But isnt that assuming
1.)That the firearm can be be tracked back to the last person who legally owned it.
2.) that the person it was tracked back to doesn't just lie.

It seems that by simply saying "i sold it to Joe Blow" makes convicting a person VERY unlikely. May be there are laws that require a person to keep a record of there sales and info of the buyer, but i don't think this is the case.

 

[Trapper]

There already are laws on the books for that. You transfer a firearm to a mentally unstable person and/or convicted felon. Say hello to Bubba.

Either of those groups is a greater risk of using them in a not so legal way. Thus a greater chance of you meeting Bubba FTF.

Sorry, I gotta disagree with you on this one. It is NOT my responsability to ensure that I do not sell my property to someone who is not allowed to own it. It is MY responsability to ensure that I obey the law, and the law of the land says "shall not be infringed".
And yes, that means for convicted felons too. There are MANY non-violent felonies on the books, and for MD even more misdemeanors that carry a possible sentence greater than 2 years. One foolish mistake should not cost a person their right to self-defense.

As for the crazys and violent people, in the era this law (the 2A) was written, they locked these people up or took them from the gene pool. If we stuck to that we wouldn't have as many problems. However, we'd still have some who slip through the cracks. You cannot legislate away people's rights for fear of what might happen, or even in reaction to what did happen.

If the numbers are to be believed then over 1 million people defended themselves with a firearm last year, and some (thousands?) used them to kill several thousand people (lets say 7,000, someone will provide the true number or I'll look it up when I'm home).

Given those rough estimates, the ratio of good use to bad is 1,000,000 : 7,000, or 1000:7, I'd say the "greater good" that is often talked about would be to be less restrictive (aka follow the LAW). That would serve the greatest good.

 

[Inigoes]

But isnt that assuming
1.)That the firearm can be be tracked back to the last person who legally owned it.
2.) that the person it was tracked back to doesn't just lie.

It seems that by simply saying "i sold it to Joe Blow" makes convicting a person VERY unlikely. May be there are laws that require a person to keep a record of there sales and info of the buyer, but i don't think this is the case.

In either of those cases, issuing a false statement to a LE agent, will get you the "go to jail card", they (LE agency) will follow the trail starting with the 4473; if you are a last person in line with a dead end, I do not recommend being that last person.

 

[Inigoes]

Sorry, I gotta disagree with you on this one. It is NOT my responsability to ensure that I do not sell my property to someone who is not allowed to own it. It is MY responsability to ensure that I obey the law, and the law of the land says "shall not be infringed".

Each person has the right to do whatever they may wish with their own property. I will agree with that point.

I, on the other had, exercise my conscious, so I can sleep at night. Does that mean, I have to get .gov involved, the asnwer is "NO".

 

[Trapper]

I thought they weren't supposed to keep those (the 4473)? That would be de-facto registration, and they aren't allowed to do that.

(ps - no, I'm not an idiot, I'm sure they do keep them and anything that gets entered when the dealer calls to do the NICS too.)

 

[Trapper]

Each person has the right to do whatever they may wish with their own property. I will agree with that point.

I, on the other had, exercise my conscious, so I can sleep at night. Does that mean, I have to get .gov involved, the asnwer is "NO".

Now that, I can completely agree with.

 

[Inigoes]

I thought they weren't supposed to keep those? That would be de-facto registration, and they aren't allowed to do that.

(ps - no, I'm not an idiot, I'm sure they do keep them and anything that gets entered when the dealer calls to do the NICS too.)

The FFl has a requirement to keep the 4473 on file for 20 years or something like that. If the FFl goes out of business, then the 4473s are shipped to a warehouse.

The NICS check record, is to be deleted once you have cleared.

 

[pcfixer]

The issue of banning Private transfers is a tricky one, and one some gun owners even support, although as with most gun control, there are a number of alterior motives, and flaws in logic on the side of those pushing the ban.

First and formost is that the federal government does not have the constitutional authority, and regulating sales between individuals in the same state is yet a broader reach for the interstate commerce clause, that is already facing challenges in reguard to gun rights by many states that claim the constitution does not allow the federal government to regulate firearms that are manufactured and sold within a single state. It is not only an issue of weither or not private sales can be banned, but weather the federal government has the authority, or if it is a state matter. All sales of firearms between individuals across state lines already require an FFL, originally in the 68GCA they did not push it into individuals or intra-state sales because the commerce clause interpretation then was not quite the blank check the government belives it is now.

We also have to look at who this law would affect, and if it is redundant in it's purpose. The purpose is to prevent or make private sales of firearms to criminals illegal, but does this law do that? First, current law states that any "prohibited person" (felon, mental defective, domestic violence, drunkard etc.) can be charged with a felony for mere posession of a firearm. Knowingly selling a firearm to a prohibited person is also a felony under urrent law. In fact this new law really only expands the current prohibition to include honest people who are not prohibited. It also will not really effect the illicit firearm trade being most guns wind up in the hands of criminals through direct theft or robbery, illegal importation, straw purchases, sales where both parties are prohibited persons, and sales where the seller knows the buyer is a prohibited person, all of these scenarios are currently illegal, and carry severe penalties. There have also been less than a dozen cases where a felon misrepresented themselves to an honest person in order to buy a firearm privately. In these rare cases, the prohibited person could be, and many times was charged, the new law would say if the seller, who does not have any reason to belive the buyer is a felon has also comitted a crime. This law will do nothing more than continue the progression of infringement on honest people while doing nothing to stop criminals who already break at least a dozen firearms laws currently on the books to obtain a gun in the manner that this law professes to now make illegal.

There is also the issue of property rights. The freedom to buy and sell your property without governemnt interference, or in this case the ability to sell it without going through a licensed dealer, a precident that no other common household object has. There is also the issue of passing firearms down to family members, buying them as gifts for a spouse or a child, and depending on the wording, and what the definition of a "transfer" consists of, even loaning a gun to a buddy may be illegal, and renting a gun from a range may require a 4473 and background check. Even though the law may have soft language that does not seem too bad, all too many times it just takes an after-the-fact ATF policy change or executive order to make it into something far more sinister, and that would never have passed in the first place

There is also the issue of NICS itself, currently you cannot simply call NICS for a private sale, allowing the public to use the sevice annonymously for private transfers has been pushed for many years and has been rejected. There are also thousands of law abiding citizens that get delayed or denied due to paperwork errors and mistaken identities, and thousands of criminals and prohibited persons that pass the check because their information has not been uploaded into the system. In the case that precidence makes a NICS check mandatory, all the government has to do to create a de-facto ban on all gun sales is to shut down the NICS center, like the machine gun registry has been. This law would go further in establishing NICS as a requirement instead of the 3 day deadline it currently has.

You also have the strategy angle of it. Prominent anti-gun organizations and politicians are terrified, and have been fighting with everything they have in order to stay relevant, and we have been defeating them consistently for the last 10 years. The public now more than ever has seen that gun control does not lower crime, and that our inalienable right to keep and bear arms is not some outdated tradition, it applies and is more important today than ever in order to ensure a free nation. Those who wish to systematically eradicate private firearms ownership are patient, they know they have lost some ground recently as concealed carry laws have been returning to their pre-discriminatory roots, and have gained public acceptance. They also know that a win, in fact ANY win at any cost is vital for their cause to stop the bleeding, and slow the momentum we have built over years of hard work. If we give away this, they will be back for more, and stronger than they have been in years. Trying to compromise with uncompromising people has given us the sorry state of firearms rights we have now, and only recently have we turned the tide on nearly 100 years worth of unconstitutional laws, we have to keep up the pressure, figting any and all new gun control schemes, and doing what we can to overturn and repeal the 20,000 gun control laws currently on the books.

Thank you. this is very well written and completely understandable.
Please call your Senators and tell them to get out of personal private
sales. I just did..

 

[twimc]

Sorry, I gotta disagree with you on this one. It is NOT my responsability to ensure that I do not sell my property to someone who is not allowed to own it. It is MY responsability to ensure that I obey the law, and the law of the land says "shall not be infringed".....

That's what i see as the problem.

Some guy walks up with money, and you sell him a gun because its not your responsibility whether or not hes legal. And you see nothing wrong with that.
We as gun owners should at the least maintain some level of "responsibility" for owning and selling our firearms.
But whats all this talk of "responsibility", that's what we have the gov for

 

[Patrick]

Again, you need to find the rationale in the Bill Of Rights to restrict private sales.

Keep in mind this "loophole" does not allow the transfer of any regulated weapons regardless of state. No handguns. No AR-15s (in MD and other states). No machine guns (anywhere).

This is basically a way for to people transfer long guns (mostly shotguns and hunting rifles along with a lot of antiques).

Everything else requires a NICS check.

The anti's love to bring up nukes and dynamite as examples of "reasonable restrictions" on 2A. As the argument goes, "If we can ban nukes, then we can ban Glocks."

Nukes and heavy artillery cannot be lumped into 2A due to rationale extending from 2A having to do with what the Framers envisioned when they defined the common "militia". Simply put, it covered those arms "commonly used for defense by a soldier." This was the rationale also used by the USSC in Heller three years ago.

See the Supreme Court cases 'Miller' and 'Heller' for the details there and a recent thread within this forum on the same topic.

But suffice to say, the "nuke" case is a strawman argument at best.

 

[twimc]

Again, you need to find the rationale in the Bill Of Rights to restrict private sales.

restrictions are very common, some good, some bad, and some unneeded, its our job to make sure we get it right

Keep in mind this "loophole" does not allow the transfer of any regulated weapons regardless of state. No handguns. No AR-15s (in MD and other states). No machine guns (anywhere).

This is basically a way for to people transfer long guns (mostly shotguns and hunting rifles along with a lot of antiques).

Everything else requires a NICS check.

Then closing the "loophole" would do virtually nothing in preventing illegals from obtaining guns commonly used in crimes. A perfect and reasonable defense of the current system.

The anti's love to bring up nukes and dynamite as examples of "reasonable restrictions" on 2A. As the argument goes, "If we can ban nukes, then we can ban Glocks."

First.. i brought this up and im not an "anti".
Secondly.. I only brought that up to show the flaws in peoples all or nothing view points. Saying there should be no 2A laws, is the same as saying we should be able to have nukes.
Both statements are absurd when we come back to reality.
But it does force people that hold these all or nothing type views to realize there is such a thing as "reasonable restrictions".

Nukes and heavy artillery cannot be lumped into 2A due to rationale extending from 2A having to do with what the Framers envisioned when they defined the common "militia". Simply put, it covered those arms "commonly used for defense by a soldier." This was the rationale also used by the USSC in Heller three years ago.

See the Supreme Court cases 'Miller' and 'Heller' for the details there and a recent thread within this forum on the same topic.

But you could still argue "commonly used for defense by a soldier." would include missiles, rocket launchers, etc... The founding fathers had a great deal of common sense, we should too.

But suffice to say, the "nuke" case is a strawman argument at best.

Exactly my point.

 

[kalister1]

Lets face it, GUNS do NOT kill people, the bullets do. Why not serialize every bullet and record who buys it? Make everyone wait the 8 days that Maryland makes us wait for a handgun so a thorough background check can be performed. Someone could be in the middle of a crime spree and the NICS check might not find it. We could have the MSP stalk your residence for 4 or 5 of those 8 days to make sure you are OK. They could talk to your employer and make sure you did not just get laid-off, everyone knows buying a gun after you get laid-off is grounds for confiscation. Why let us have bullets after we get laid-off?
Maybe some marriage counseling should be in order before being able to buy bullets, you might want to shoot your spouse?

I could go on and on for hours.

 

[HardHatMan]

Lets face it, GUNS do NOT kill people, the bullets do. Why not serialize every bullet and record who buys it? Make everyone wait the 8 days that Maryland makes us wait for a handgun so a thorough background check can be performed. Someone could be in the middle of a crime spree and the NICS check might not find it. We could have the MSP stalk your residence for 4 or 5 of those 8 days to make sure you are OK. They could talk to your employer and make sure you did not just get laid-off, everyone knows buying a gun after you get laid-off is grounds for confiscation. Why let us have bullets after we get laid-off?
Maybe some marriage counseling should be in order before being able to buy bullets, you might want to shoot your spouse?

I could go on and on for hours.

But what about reloads?!?!?!

 

[Patrick]

First.. i brought this up and im not an "anti".

Secondly.. I only brought that up to show the flaws in peoples all or nothing view points. Saying there should be no 2A laws, is the same as saying we should be able to have nukes.

...

But you could still argue "commonly used for defense by a soldier." would include missiles, rocket launchers, etc... The founding fathers had a great deal of common sense, we should too.

Not implying you are an anti, but you are playing Devil's Advocate with their arguments, at the least. Fair game.

And just to close out a thought without belaboring it in its own thread, comparing guns to nukes is like comparing guns to apples. There is no (that means zero) rationale within 2A or its historical foundations or applications that suggest anything other than weapons traditionally operated for personal defense, as commonly owned by the "unregulated militia" (read: US Person).

The founders expected that this militia would be composed of all able bodied men who would bring their own weapons of war with them when they fought. General Washington was not going to hand out rifles as people showed up. This is generally how it worked until we built a larger standing, professional army.

So 2A (per Heller) generally covers the intersection of "commonly used by a soldier" and "commonly owned by/available to a citizen". See how that works? Rocket launchers and nukes need not apply.

True, there are grey areas: the 1934 NFA outlawed specific types of weapons (short barrels, for instance) and laws since then have restricted what was once available for open purchase (machine guns, etc.).

These might be fought again if the USSC pushed a strict interpretation of 2A. The Miller case I initially referenced was fought after someone was arrested for having a short-barreled shotgun. Miller was decided before 2A was deemed a fundamental right or incorporated against the states.

So far, though, the Court has hinted it will take a circuitous and convenient course to prevent that from happening: because previous bans have diminished the commonality of machine guns, said machine guns no longer qualify for 2A protection as "commonly available". Nothing is sacred.

But it does force people that hold these all or nothing type views to realize there is such a thing as "reasonable restrictions".

Absolutely. I see the debate as shades of grey (as you obviously do as well), and in my mind we're arguing in the margins. I am no absolutist in my 2A reading, but I do tend to view it to be as fundamental as 1A. Many here have expressed the same belief, so I think that mindset needs to be understood to understand the thrust of the arguments against laws preventing private sales between individuals. To borrow a loaded term, it's "religion" (or at least on par with religion in terms of protection).

Then closing the "loophole" would do virtually nothing in preventing illegals from obtaining guns commonly used in crimes. A perfect and reasonable defense of the current system.

Actually...I left something out of that remark (it was late): "Straw Purchases"

This is when Joe Legal purchases 20 guns and then sells them/delivers them to people otherwise prevented form acquiring one themselves (felons). Arguments vary as to the extent of the problem, but it is a problem all the same.

Straw purchases are the genesis behind "One A Month" gun laws (like VA and MD have in various forms).

The Brady crowd does have a point when they say straw purchases need to be prevented; but restricting private sales is not really going to help for two reasons: most private sales are not going to involve such heavy volumes; and the guns most commonly sought by felons (handguns) are already regulated by Federal Law.

VA took a middle road on this. They said no more than one a month unless you pass a background check (get your CCW). Statistically, people who get a CCW are not doing straw purchases.

So far, it seems to be working in VA.


We're all watching the Court right now. We'll see how it all shakes out over the next few years.

Regards, Patrick