Please do not support ending private sales

[c_brutsche]

A nation who trades its freedom for safety is neither free nor safe. Anybody remember that one? I'm sure obama does. That's why hes pushing for safety. By 2016 I'm sure well get taxed for the psi of air we breathe in as well.

[GunLawyer001]

Let's be honest here. Although the gun haters will certainly push gun registration as a part of every "reasonable gun control" scheme, it's certainly POSSIBLE to require every seller to check the status of the buyer in a private sale, without creating a gun registry.

Here's an example: I have a shotgun that I want to sell to some total stranger who responded to an ad. I have no knowledge of this person at all.

So I could (if the statutes were appropriately modified) take that seller to an FFL or Sheriff, and we could both request a "private sale PICS check". We enter his info, we get an approval number, I write that number down on my 8.5 X 11" sheet of lined paper that has the make, model and serial number of the gun, with his name and Driver's License #. Or maybe there's a new form that I keep. Maybe we don't need to go to an FFL or sheriff, we just have an 800 number we can call.

Maybe we don't get an approval number, maybe we get a disapproval and I don't hand him my shotgun.

So I lose the ability to sell a gun to a prohibited person. Joe Blow loses deniability if the gun ends up at a crime scene and I claim that I sold it to Joe Blow. That approval number is only linked to that gun if I need to defend myself. No widespread "registration", just a record that comes out if I need to prove the truth.

As long as there's no automatic transfer of the paper with the name of the buyer and the gun specifics, from me to the government, all this does is make it harder for prohibited persons to buy guns.

[minarchist]

Let's be honest here. Although the gun haters will certainly push gun registration as a part of every "reasonable gun control" scheme, it's certainly POSSIBLE to require every seller to check the status of the buyer in a private sale, without creating a gun registry.

Here's an example: I have a shotgun that I want to sell to some total stranger who responded to an ad. I have no knowledge of this person at all.

So I could (if the statutes were appropriately modified) take that seller to an FFL or Sheriff, and we could both request a "private sale PICS check". We enter his info, we get an approval number, I write that number down on my 8.5 X 11" sheet of lined paper that has the make, model and serial number of the gun, with his name and Driver's License #. Or maybe there's a new form that I keep. Maybe we don't need to go to an FFL or sheriff, we just have an 800 number we can call.

Maybe we don't get an approval number, maybe we get a disapproval and I don't hand him my shotgun.

So I lose the ability to sell a gun to a prohibited person. Joe Blow loses deniability if the gun ends up at a crime scene and I claim that I sold it to Joe Blow. That approval number is only linked to that gun if I need to defend myself. No widespread "registration", just a record that comes out if I need to prove the truth.

As long as there's no automatic transfer of the paper with the name of the buyer and the gun specifics, from me to the government, all this does is make it harder for prohibited persons to buy guns.

As I pointed out in my last post, even if there is no record on the seller's side, there is certainly a record on the buyer's side by definition. So if someone wants to keep his or her guns and claim private sale, he could be told to provide information that matches whatever is in the federal database. Obviously, this would be impossible is no such sale(s) ever took place, and the agents would call b.s. on your private sale claim, and then who knows that would happen. Ergo, this would still be backdoor registration.

[Emptymag]

Let's be honest here. Although the gun haters will certainly push gun registration as a part of every "reasonable gun control" scheme, it's certainly POSSIBLE to require every seller to check the status of the buyer in a private sale, without creating a gun registry.

Here's an example: I have a shotgun that I want to sell to some total stranger who responded to an ad. I have no knowledge of this person at all.

So I could (if the statutes were appropriately modified) take that seller to an FFL or Sheriff, and we could both request a "private sale PICS check". We enter his info, we get an approval number, I write that number down on my 8.5 X 11" sheet of lined paper that has the make, model and serial number of the gun, with his name and Driver's License #. Or maybe there's a new form that I keep. Maybe we don't need to go to an FFL or sheriff, we just have an 800 number we can call.

Maybe we don't get an approval number, maybe we get a disapproval and I don't hand him my shotgun.

So I lose the ability to sell a gun to a prohibited person. Joe Blow loses deniability if the gun ends up at a crime scene and I claim that I sold it to Joe Blow. That approval number is only linked to that gun if I need to defend myself. No widespread "registration", just a record that comes out if I need to prove the truth.

As long as there's no automatic transfer of the paper with the name of the buyer and the gun specifics, from me to the government, all this does is make it harder for prohibited persons to buy guns.

I would be OK with that.

The problem with it is that it's got about as much of a chance working the way you propose as world peace happening if guns were banned.

There's not supposed to be a record kept of sales as it is - yet they do it.
There's a reason they do it. Because they WANT to know WHO has WHAT.
There's no way that lawmakers would agree to anonymous purchases.
I do not see it happening.

Ever.

[cigarmanpa]

sorry, I have no problem with requiring all sales requiring a check. with the thousands of dealers in the country do you really thing a government agency...you know the same fucknuts that deal with your mail...are going to be able to dig through all that paperwork and actually track every sale.


that being said, those who want guns without a check will find a way to get them

[minarchist]

The problem with it is that it's got about as much of a chance working the way you propose as world peace happening if guns were banned.

There's not supposed to be a record kept of sales as it is - yet they do it.
There's a reason they do it. Because they WANT to know WHO has WHAT.
There's no way that lawmakers would agree to anonymous purchases.
I do not see it happening.

Ever.

True, and as I stated, even if the background check process was anonymous on the seller side, this would still be backdoor registration because there would be a record associated with the buyer.

[minarchist]

sorry, I have no problem with requiring all sales requiring a check. with the thousands of dealers in the country do you really thing a government agency...you know the same fucknuts that deal with your mail...are going to be able to dig through all that paperwork and actually track every sale.

It will be computerized (e.g., whenever the database of prohibited persons is queried, a computer record of that query can and would be kept).

[GunLawyer001]

As I pointed out in my last post, even if there is no record on the seller's side, there is certainly a record on the buyer's side by definition. So if someone wants to keep his or her guns and claim private sale, he could be told to provide information that matches whatever is in the federal database. Obviously, this would be impossible is no such sale(s) ever took place, and the agents would call b.s. on your private sale claim, and then who knows that would happen. Ergo, this would still be backdoor registration.

I'm having a hard time following you, because it sounds like your argument against any sort of background check on the buyer, is that it will make it difficult for the seller to commit perjury without being caught.

[minarchist]

I'm having a hard time following you, because it sounds like your argument against any sort of background check on the buyer, is that it will make it difficult for the seller to commit perjury without being caught.

What are you not following? Putting the armed population into a position whereby they can be easily disarmed is not good. Is there something particularly wrong with me and others defending the status quo on the grounds that firearms owners should always have a viable way of resisting an immoral, unconstitutional law that almost certainly leads to confiscation?

[Emptymag]

GL, I read his explanation as "even if "anonymously" called in, there WILL be a record of that call kept somewhere (even if they say it won't be) and the mere fact that a background check was performed for Mr. Smith means that he bought a firearm."
Maybe they don't know WHAT firearm, but that one was purchased.
Mr. Smith is now "registered" in a database.

At least that's the way I took it to mean.