Please do not support ending private sales

[GunLawyer001]

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?

I believe that what you're skipping over are all the steps between "letting sellers do a check on the buyers before handing over guns" and "JBT's kicking in doors and seizing all the guns".

As some of us have carefully pointed out in detail, there is no necessary linkage between (a) weeding out all the criminals and loonies who are perusing the classifieds looking to buy long guns, and (b) creating a record of who owns which guns that can be used by tyrants to collect all the guns.

Your response seems to be more than a little emotional, and not based in details or reality. Frankly, it's not helping the discussion.

[Mosinshooter762]

Ed Rendells' proposed Lost and Stolen reporting requirements were vehemently opposed here but some are now supporting a private sales registry?

While PICS or NICS could be made available for private use with no records being kept by any individual, it would have to be voluntary to use. Thus, it wouldn't legally be required to do. In order to legally enforce private background checks someone would have to maintain a registry (ie. individuals, FFL's, or the government).

I'm against any more legislation that will control law abiding people, and the right to possess firearms. While I see the interest of some in complicating what is already a plethroa of firearm laws, I do not see it paying its way in improving public safety. Further, in order to have any type of enforceable system of private background checks there would have to be some type of registry system. This would at least have to take the form of a 'decentralized' system of various government entities (like the PSP Sales Registry), FFL's, and now even individuals retaining records, just in the way there is the ATF FFL 'decentralized' manufacturing and transfer registry, and what is supposed to be the legally 'decentralized' Pennsylvania Handgun Record of Sale registry (that is in fact been centralized by the PSP). Under a Private Sales background check law, if someone cannot account for firearms that are listed along the chain of the 'decentralized' registry system, than they can face punishment. A centralized registry system could much more easily be formed from this, and inevitably this information would probably be used for it.

In short, I'm opposed to placing any more burdens on law abiding people, and any additional registries of firearms. Criminals will by and large be unaffected by it.

[GunLawyer001]

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.

Hell, if we get to the point where all "gun buyers" are being rounded up and put in camps, then the game was lost a long time before that.

The thing to avoid is a list of 95% of all handguns and long guns, by make and model and serial number. That list could be used by a tyrant (through executive orders or other unconstitutional means) to go door to door and pick up specific guns, while arresting the resident for any that can't be accounted for. That's a threshold for implementing total gun banning, the ability to know where all the guns are.

But if all they need is a list of "gun owners and other dissidents", as the Khmer Rouge rounded up teachers and mayors and those who were overly-influenced by outsiders, then we went far past the point of no return.

The reality is that most of the people who shouldn't have guns are walking around free. Even with a million prisoners locked up at any given time, that leaves millions more felons, dangerously unstable loonies, disgruntled stalkers, illegal aliens, and others who can get their hands on a few hundred bucks more easily than they could pass PICS or NICS. Plenty of folks, even some here, have zero interest in refusing to sell rifles or shotguns to such people, and they flaunt their refusal to investigate. That will hurt us. Every bad guy who gets a gun is a bullet aimed right at the rest of us. That's what they use to trample our rights. And that's what's in our own interests to minimize.

If you want to preserve private sales, the dumbest thing you can demand is that private sales have no safeguards at all.

[minarchist]

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.

My point is actually about how one would not be able to still maintain plausible deniability even with the supposedly benign proposal outlined in this thread. If your firearms are buried, and then JBT comes along and asks you where they are, and you say "private sale" then they will almost certainly ask you the name of the buyer, the date and location of the transfer. Since the buyer information has been recorded, even if the seller information is not recorded, they can still demand that you provide information that matches some entry in their database. Since there was in fact never a private sale, how would one do that? Obviously, you wouldn't be able to do so. Therefore, this longstanding viable "out" would be eliminated, unless of course you stated that you did a private transfer before the new system went into effect (which you obviously could not do for any guns purchased through a FFL after that point).

[GunLawyer001]

It appears that I was correct about the perjury.

[minarchist]

I believe that what you're skipping over are all the steps between "letting sellers do a check on the buyers before handing over guns" and "JBT's kicking in doors and seizing all the guns".

As some of us have carefully pointed out in detail, there is no necessary linkage between (a) weeding out all the criminals and loonies who are perusing the classifieds looking to buy long guns, and (b) creating a record of who owns which guns that can be used by tyrants to collect all the guns.

Your response seems to be more than a little emotional, and not based in details or reality. Frankly, it's not helping the discussion.

Point out the flaw in my explanation:

(1) Person X has guns that were bought after the new system went into effect, thereby making it impossible to claim that a private sale sans background check was done on those particular guns.

(2) A confiscation law is passed.

(3) Person X buries these guns.

(4) JBT comes to Person X's residence and demands the guns based on the 4473 forms filled out by Person X when Person X bought said guns.

(5) Person X says "private sale".

(6) JBT asks "What was the buyer's name, and when and where did the transaction take place?" We will then take the information that you give us and look for a matching entry in the buyer database that we maintain.

(7) Person X is unable to provide any such information, and gets horribly abused.

List the number(s) where either you don't follow what I'm saying or where you disagree.

[minarchist]

While PICS or NICS could be made available for private use with no records being kept by any individual, it would have to be voluntary to use.

Even in that case, the federal computer could and would still have a record of being queried for a particular individual.

[minarchist]

Hell, if we get to the point where all "gun buyers" are being rounded up and put in camps, then the game was lost a long time before that.

The thing to avoid is a list of 95% of all handguns and long guns, by make and model and serial number. That list could be used by a tyrant (through executive orders or other unconstitutional means) to go door to door and pick up specific guns, while arresting the resident for any that can't be accounted for. That's a threshold for implementing total gun banning, the ability to know where all the guns are.

But if all they need is a list of "gun owners and other dissidents", as the Khmer Rouge rounded up teachers and mayors and those who were overly-influenced by outsiders, then we went far past the point of no return.

The reality is that most of the people who shouldn't have guns are walking around free. Even with a million prisoners locked up at any given time, that leaves millions more felons, dangerously unstable loonies, disgruntled stalkers, illegal aliens, and others who can get their hands on a few hundred bucks more easily than they could pass PICS or NICS. Plenty of folks, even some here, have zero interest in refusing to sell rifles or shotguns to such people, and they flaunt their refusal to investigate. That will hurt us. Every bad guy who gets a gun is a bullet aimed right at the rest of us. That's what they use to trample our rights. And that's what's in our own interests to minimize.

If you want to preserve private sales, the dumbest thing you can demand is that private sales have no safeguards at all.

Any record keeping (even if it's only for the buyer, as I have repeatedly explained in detail), which is impossible to avoid when a computer is being queried, is bad for the individual who wants to have a viable way to resist gun confiscation.

[Dogue]

Can anyone here name another god given right enumerated in the united states constitution that requires a background check to be exercised?We have been incrementally conditioned to accept tyranny.The GCA of 1968 and the NFA of 1934 are both an infringement of or rights.Most of us here were not alive or old enough to buy a gun when these laws took effect so we just accept these laws as the way things should be done.
There will always be assholes out there and some people that are pure evil.That will never change.That is the price we must accept if we want to live in a free society.Asking the government to solve your problems for you will eventually leave you living in a totalitarian state.I'm sorry about the one posters neighbour but maybe if she had completely free access to guns the story could have had a happy ending.Criminals will always find a way to get a gun to do evil.

[minarchist]

It appears that I was correct about the perjury.

(1) Is lying to JBT perjury?

(2) Why should one care about following a tyrant's laws when doing so would be detrimental to the cause of liberty? Should the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto have refrained from resistance because doing so was a violation of the law?