Private Sales of Non-regulated Arms.

[Pinecone]

What would have been nice would be for anyone to have access to the NICS sysyem to voluntarily run a check on someone before selling to them.

For free.

And then people would use it for other purposes. Check on kids boy/girl friends. Checking on neighbors. People at work.

 

[lazarus]

And then people would use it for other purposes. Check on kids boy/girl friends. Checking on neighbors. People at work.

Hence the idea that the buyer inputs their info and gets a unique code to give to the seller. Enter the code and it spits out the buyer name and a yes or no.

Then people can’t be randomly running people. Unless they happen to have that persons entire set of personally identifiable info. And if they have that, you can do a pretty detailed criminal background check anyway. The vast majority of the info is public records.

 

[Malleovic]

What would have been nice would be for anyone to have access to the NICS system to voluntarily run a check on someone before selling to them.

For free.

I agree. And as key as NICS has been to preserving the status quo for the last 20+ years, it is going to need to evolve if we want it to be part of the solution to protecting civilian ownership and transfer of arms in the future. I'd strongly support a mandated system of checks via a privacy-oriented system open to everyone so long as abuse of said system can be effectively discouraged.

And then people would use it for other purposes. Check on kids boy/girl friends. Checking on neighbors. People at work.

It's tough, but there are ways to do it. Requiring of proper, anonymized consent of the other person to do the check is one way.

 

[Biggfoot44]

But the very extensive Maryland Judiciary Case Search is already available to the Public w/o consent of the Malfactors . Public Records and all that .

 

[Kharn]

Or brand the front side of every driver's license "Not valid for firearms" for those who cannot possess one.

 

[lazarus]

Or brand the front side of every driver's license "Not valid for firearms" for those who cannot possess one.

You’d need a way to check real-time. Driver’s licenses aren’t that hard to forge. Especially if it just needs to pass average joe scrutiny. Or do we all need UV black lights? Or were they prohibited a few days ago? Or are driver’s licenses subject to immediate confiscation and reissue?

Even if we separated it and issued FOIDs, you’d still need a way to check that it is still valid and not forged.

The chance of NICS or something like it going away is just about 0. We can push back on universal background checks, but odds are eventually everyone who isn’t a licensee will be subject to them (possibly with some exceptions like family transfers). Or we can help design the least intrusive, lowest burden means of complying with the intent. Which is that when anyone buys a gun, the seller knows the person buying it is not prohibited. Hopefully in real-time and not something that takes days or weeks.

Of all of the various restrictions that have been imposed on the second amendment, background checks are probably the least violating.

 

[rbird7282]

You’d need a way to check real-time. Driver’s licenses aren’t that hard to forge. Especially if it just needs to pass average joe scrutiny. Or do we all need UV black lights? Or were they prohibited a few days ago? Or are driver’s licenses subject to immediate confiscation and reissue?

Even if we separated it and issued FOIDs, you’d still need a way to check that it is still valid and not forged.

The chance of NICS or something like it going away is just about 0. We can push back on universal background checks, but odds are eventually everyone who isn’t a licensee will be subject to them (possibly with some exceptions like family transfers). Or we can help design the least intrusive, lowest burden means of complying with the intent. Which is that when anyone buys a gun, the seller knows the person buying it is not prohibited. Hopefully in real-time and not something that takes days or weeks.

Of all of the various restrictions that have been imposed on the second amendment, background checks are probably the least violating.

Yeah the least violating until you have a registry and they start to confiscate them.....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[robmints]

I think background checks are coming, like it or not. IMO we have a country that needs them. I know this is not a popular view. But we have an extremely lax cj system and no immigration system at all. So the identity of those out here in the wild need to be determined before a legal firearm purchase can happen.

IMO there are several key considerations. Speed. They need to be done instantly (including nfa items), if there is a reason this can’t take place the govt does need time to complete the check. But they need a verifiable set of reasons to inflict a delay and there should be a time limit, like 24 hours. Next IMO is cost. All taxes and fees involving firearms are infringements by definition. Any check, including nfa, items needs to be without cost to buyer or seller. The third IMO is mandatory sentencing for certain firearm crimes like theft, criminal use and prohibited possession. Fourth is privacy. No record kept by govt except for those declined.

 

[Don H]

I think background checks are coming, like it or not. IMO we have a country that needs them. I know this is not a popular view. But we have an extremely lax cj system and no immigration system at all.

Gun owners are not the ones responsible for the lax laws and illegal immigration. Maybe the lawmakers could enforce the laws they make. And enforce it equally so that when your son lies on a 4473 you don't get to send the Secret Service in to cover up the crime just because you're President.

 

[JamesDong]

Does Virginia have face to face xfers with regulated like Georgia does?

 

[303_enfield]

I'm dealing with this right now. I have an adult son who wants to get his own pistol for personal protection - he's getting ready to move into an apartment in the city because his GF is a bougie airhead and thinks she needs to be within walking distance of Fells and such. (He's currently living in the burbs) He basically wants a nightstand gun.

We've been shopping pistols and found a great deal. Unfortunately he's still in the process of getting his HQL, so I'm going to have to buy the pistol so that we don't miss out on the deal, and I'll have to transfer it to him once he finally gets his HQL, which is going to cost him a fair amount of bucks on top of the cost of the gun.

Of course none of this is new - we've all known about this ******** since it was passed in 2013, but it was different for me - I already had guns and I have more financial means than he does, so it pisses me off that this young kid has to go through this just to exercise what should be a fundamental right.

Can't you gift it to your son without a HQL? Just the MD 77r an $10 (or it's free ICR).

 

[trickg]

Can't you gift it to your son without a HQL? Just the MD 77r an $10 (or it's free ICR).

IANAL, but it seems to me that the HQL precludes all else - he's never owned a pistol of his own, so I think the HQL is probably going to be necessary regardless.

 

[JohnC]

Hate to dig up and old-ish thread, and I think I know the answer to this question:

I checked the language of the bill, and all rifle transfers between un-related individuals need to pass through MDSP for a background check. Antique rifles included flint locks are not covered by this, correct? We can still face to face long guns that fall under this "antique" category?

I ask because I'm thinking about selling a flint lock I made from a kit I never use, need some more space in the safe

 

[smkranz]

See below...

Hate to dig up and old-ish thread, and I think I know the answer to this question:

I checked the language of the bill, and all rifle transfers between un-related individuals need to pass through M̶D̶S̶P̶ FFL for a background check. Antique rifles included flint locks are not covered by this, correct? We can still face to face long guns that fall under this "antique" category? only between C&R collector license holders

I ask because I'm thinking about selling a flint lock I made from a kit I never use, need some more space in the safe

 

[ShafTed]

Clarification: C&R Relic qualification = anything >50 years old.

Antique is anything before 1898 or replicas thereof. Black powder, flintlock, muzzle loader is not considered a firearm as far as ATF/MSP is concerned and can be freely bought/sold/traded even among subjects of the Free State without involvement of the Crown.

 

[dblas]

See below...

Antiques are NOT C&R, nor are replicas of them, a flintlock is classified as an antique and thus the law does not apply.

 

[lazarus]

Clarification: C&R Relic qualification = anything >50 years old.

Antique is anything before 1898 or replicas thereof. Black powder, flintlock, muzzle loader is not considered a firearm as far as ATF/MSP is concerned and can be freely bought/sold/traded even among subjects of the Free State without involvement of the Crown.

This. In Maryland and most states and pet the feds, a muzzleloader, modern or antique is not considered a firearm. A 12 year old can buy one across state lines if they wanted too.

PS that said, there are a tiny number of states that do prohibited felons/other prohibited people’s from possessing muzzleloader and antiques. Maryland keeps trying to do that every year or two (Shyda’s law). Because one member’s constituent was killed by a felon with a cap and ball revolver years ago. So since one person was murdered once in like the last century with one, all felons must be banned from touching them! To be clear, it is not the law. Just a windmill that legislator tilts at every year or two.

 

[Allen65]

Antique is anything before 1898 or replicas thereof. Black powder, flintlock, muzzle loader is not considered a firearm as far as ATF/MSP is concerned and can be freely bought/sold/traded even among subjects of the Free State without involvement of the Crown.

Sort of. For Federal purposes, that's true, except for pre-1898 cartridge-loaded guns that qualify as machine guns or destructive devices. NFA has a different definition of antique vs the definition in GCA '68. You need to make sure you're compliant with both.

With MD law, you need to look at the definition used for the specific law in question. Some sections of law exclude antiques from the definition of "firearm", some don't. In the original wording of the long gun background check bill two years ago, pre-1898 cartridge guns wouldn't have been excepted, which would have created a real problem in that you can't run a NICS check on something that is an antique, and therefore a non-firearm, under Federal law.

 

[dblas]

Sort of. For Federal purposes, that's true, except for pre-1898 cartridge-loaded guns that qualify as machine guns or destructive devices. NFA has a different definition of antique vs the definition in GCA '68. You need to make sure you're compliant with both.

With MD law, you need to look at the definition used for the specific law in question. Some sections of law exclude antiques from the definition of "firearm", some don't. In the original wording of the long gun background check bill two years ago, pre-1898 cartridge guns wouldn't have been excepted, which would have created a real problem in that you can't run a NICS check on something that is an antique, and therefore a non-firearm, under Federal law.

We've read the law, have you? Antiques are not mentioned, nor are they a part of the definition of rifle/shotgun in the state statute.

 

[Melnic]

careful about "replicas of antiques" There are plenty of modern reproductions of antique designs that are still firearms and need to go through an FFL now even face to face sales.
sharps etc, rolling block modern reproductions for example in 45-70
An original Sharps or rolling block would be antique (pre 1898) and GTG face to face cash and carry.

Muzzle loaders shooting black powder or BP substitute are not considered firearms and that's what his flintlock will be.