did I sin?

[Five Seasons]

1 hour ago, The Jerkman said:

You're trying to say that gangbangers and other scumbags are going to a gunshow and using a so called loophole. Let me tell you. I'm fairly certain that there are next to zero guns sold at any gunshows with the serials filed off. Check the FBI stats. Less than 2 percent of any illegal guns come from a so called gunshow loophole. All you're doing is proving further your FUDDINESS.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
 

so you're saying you have no issue with someone obtaining a gun without any sort of check on the legality of their ability to own it?

[Marion]

so you're saying you have no issue with someone obtaining a gun without any sort of check on the legality of their ability to own it?

I would argue that 99.9% of people would back out of a sale if they felt that the person they were selling to was not one that should have a gun. I.e. if they were acting weird, seemed like they should not/could potentially do harm with said gun, etc.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

[Rattler]

5 minutes ago, Belo said:

so you're saying you have no issue with someone obtaining a gun without any sort of check on the legality of their ability to own it?

Before the call for "Universal Background Checks", the amount of firearms bought from private sellers and used in crimes, was miniscule.  That has always been one of the points used to counter the need for it.  Most private sales were to family,  friends, people referred by friends, or people that were able to provide proper ID and convince a seller they were a responsible gun owner.

To this day, very few firearms used in crimes came from private sellers.  Even private sellers keep records of who they sold a firearm to.  Criminals want untraceable guns that cannot be connected to them in any way.  They like defaced and stolen weapons.

The biggest problem with the demand for "Universal Background Checks" is the FACT that it cannot work unless every single gun sold is subsequently REGISTERED!  Do you want every single firearm you own registered?  We can already see how registration TRULY leads to confiscation.  That's the reason anti gun elected hacks want a "Universal Background Check" system installed.  They never claim it will ever have any effect on the crime figures we see today, because they know criminals can always get a gun, and a huge black market will form,  and no background check system will ever work when the criminals are not going to be using it.

 

[steve863]

3 minutes ago, The Jerkman said:

I would argue that 99.9% of people would back out of a sale if they felt that the person they were selling to was not one that should have a gun. I.e. if they were acting weird, seemed like they should not/could potentially do harm with said gun, etc.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
 

I don't know, I'm hoping most gun owners would back out, but I somehow feel more than .1% WOULD sell to ANY buyer if the buyer was giving them more than they were figuring they'd sell the gun for.   There are hundreds of gun shows all over the country each year,  many in poor and desperate areas, too, so I am far from convinced that some of those gun owners wouldn't make a nice quick deal with someone in the parking lot of the gun show without asking any questions of the buyer.  There is no gun registrations in this country, so how would anyone even know in most cases who the original owner of the gun was if it was later found to be used in a crime?  In many cases it's impossible to trace the gun back very far. 

 

 

[steve863]

22 minutes ago, Rattler said:

 

To this day, very few firearms used in crimes came from private sellers.  Even private sellers keep records of who they sold a firearm to.  Criminals want untraceable guns that cannot be connected to them in any way.  They like defaced and stolen weapons.

 

 

Of all the guns that are privately sold in this country, what percentage of private sellers do you think actually keep records of who they sold to?  I bet it's not very many.  Most are just glad they got a few bucks for the gun and go off on there merry way!   

Why would a criminal need to buy an untraceable gun?  If a criminal buys a gun privately with a serial # on it, how hard would it be for him to scratch the # off himself?   Isn't the gun pretty much untraceable at that point? 

I've always been of the opinion that not very many guns fall into criminals hands out the back doors of the Ruger, S&W, Beretta or Glock manufacturing plants.  They enter circulation by being sold to legal buyers, but then the legal original buyers in certain instances, whether knowingly or unknowingly will sell to others who just may be up to no good.  I think anyone who would deny that this doesn't happen is honestly keeping their head in the sand.

Edited February 1, 2019 by steve863

[Rattler]

Why do you say there are no gun registrations in this country?  There are plenty of them.  The states have been requiring certain firearms be registered for some time.  Look at your NY pistol permit.

Private sellers who don't keep a record of who they sold a firearm to are foolish, because they are the ones who cops will come to if the gun is used in a crime but can't be connected to a shooter.

Ballistics can prove a gun has been used to kill someone, even when a serial number has been defaced.  Criminals don't want to buy a firearm with "a body on it" unless they have to.

Very, very, very few legal gun buyers are selling to criminals, because they can get caught doing that and be prosecuted.  Straw buying is also a felony.  Criminals get their guns from thieves and felonious sellers on the black market.  If you doubt it, look at FBI stats that prove it.   Criminal demand for firearms is far too great for a few stupid legal gun buyers to supply.

Edited February 1, 2019 by Rattler

[Five Seasons]

49 minutes ago, The Jerkman said:

I would argue that 99.9% of people would back out of a sale if they felt that the person they were selling to was not one that should have a gun. I.e. if they were acting weird, seemed like they should not/could potentially do harm with said gun, etc.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
 

so we're using our feel and sense detectors? I'm not sure you really answered my question either.

[Five Seasons]

10 minutes ago, Rattler said:

 

Private sellers who don't keep a record of who they sold a firearm to are foolish, because they are the ones who cops will come to if the gun is used in a crime but can't be connected to a shooter.

 

so what do you do, ask for a drivers license and social copy before sale? Would you hand that info to someone you're buying a gun from in a parking lot?

[steve863]

16 minutes ago, Rattler said:

Why do you say there are no gun registrations in this country?  There are plenty of them.  The states have been requiring certain firearms be registered for some time.  Look at your NY pistol permit.

Private sellers who don't keep a record of who they sold a firearm to are foolish, because they are the ones who cops will come to if the gun is used in a crime but can't be connected to a shooter.

Ballistics can prove a gun has been used to kill someone, even when a serial number has been defaced.  criminals don't want to buy a firearm with "a body on it" unless they have to.

Very, very, very few legal gun buyers are selling to criminals, because they can get caught doing that and be prosecuted.  Straw buying is also a felony.  Criminals get their guns from thieves and felonious sellers on the black market.  If you doubt it, look at FBI stats that prove it.   Criminal demand for firearms is far too great for a few stupid legal gun buyers to supply.

You are only pointing to NY,  but go elsewhere in this country and there is a BIG difference.

You may think that it's foolish not to keep records of who you sold a gun to, but I can assure you plenty of others don't give it a minutes thought.   Just think for a minute of all the guns that get sold privately in this country.  We are talking millions of transactions.  Many sales just face to face without the need of any gun show.

Look, I am not calling for stricter laws or banning gun shows.  I am only looking at this and realizing what could happen in the life of a gun.   I know many here might think that ALL gun owners are these upstanding citizens, but I have a skeptical enough opinion of ALL humanity to know that this is probably not the case.

 

 

Edited February 1, 2019 by steve863

[Culvercreek hunt club]

Watch how ineffective the NY Red Flag law will be because there is no way to know what someone really owns now. The next battle cry in NY will be for registration of all firearms. 

[Rattler]

46 minutes ago, Belo said:

so what do you do, ask for a drivers license and social copy before sale? Would you hand that info to someone you're buying a gun from in a parking lot?

I would expect to show my DL and have the info recorded.  SS card would not be part of the transaction as it has no bearing on your identity outside of taxes and retirement.  Like I said, if you sell a firearm privately, anywhere in the country, and you can't direct police to the buyer if need be, you are gonna be in trouble unless they can find the guy without your help.

Many states issue people firearms ID cards that allow them to buy firearms.  If they show that, they're golden, and none of their purchases ever need to be registered.  Sounds to me like that's all we need.  You get one after a complete background check and unless it's taken by a judge in a due process legal trail, you never need another NICS check for anything you want to buy.  it works like a driver's license.  Good anywhere and in any vehicle, but nothing needs to be registered.  Anti-gun folks flat out reject the idea?  Why?  Because they want to know what you own!!!

[Five Seasons]

13 minutes ago, Rattler said:

I would expect to show my DL and have the info recorded.  SS card would not be part of the transaction as it has no bearing on your identity outside of taxes and retirement.  Like I said, if you sell a firearm privately, anywhere in the country, and you can't direct police to the buyer if need be, you are gonna be in trouble unless they can find the guy without your help.

Many states issue people firearms ID cards that allow them to buy firearms.  If they show that, they're golden, and none of their purchases ever need to be registered.  Sounds to me like that's all we need.  You get one after a complete background check and unless it's taken by a judge in a due process legal trail, you never need another NICS check for anything you want to buy.  it works like a driver's license.  Good anywhere and in any vehicle, but nothing needs to be registered.  Anti-gun folks flat out reject the idea?  Why?  Because they want to know what you own!!!

however, your thought is that it shouldn't be a law. Just that citizens should do their best to record the info of the buyer and then of course hope he doesn't sell that firearm himself?

[Hunter007]

1 hour ago, Belo said:

so what do you do, ask for a drivers license and social copy before sale? Would you hand that info to someone you're buying a gun from in a parking lot?

I think he means we already have enough regulation on the books  about guns,   why more just so some scumbag politician can try and make a name for himself ? And take away are  rights  for nothing 

[Rattler]

1 hour ago, Belo said:

however, your thought is that it shouldn't be a law. Just that citizens should do their best to record the info of the buyer and then of course hope he doesn't sell that firearm himself?

Laws should be directed at crime.  Gun control laws are what's know as "preventative laws".  Let me explain why those are bad.

The government may not descend to the evil of preventive law. The government cannot treat men as guilty until they have proven themselves to be, for the moment, innocent. No law can require the individual to prove that he won't violate another's rights, in the absence of evidence that he is going to.

But this is precisely what gun control laws do. Gun control laws use force against the individual in the absence of any specific evidence that he is about to commit a crime. They say to the rational, responsible gun owner: you may not have or carry a gun because others have used them irrationally or irresponsibly. Thus, preventive law sacrifices the rational and responsible to the irrational and irresponsible. This is unjust and intolerable.

The government may coercively intervene only when there is an objective threat that someone is going to use force. 

Gun control laws are unconstitutional for this very reason.

[Five Seasons]

Can one of you just answer my question.

Are you ok with being able to legally sell your guns to whoever you want? 

[Culvercreek hunt club]

1 hour ago, Rattler said:

 If they show that, they're golden, and none of their purchases ever need to be registered.  Sounds to me like that's all we need.  You get one after a complete background check and unless it's taken by a judge in a due process legal trail, you never need another NICS check for anything you want to buy.  it works like a driver's license.  Good anywhere and in any vehicle, but nothing needs to be registered.  Anti-gun folks flat out reject the idea?  Why?  Because they want to know what you own!!!

I've said it many times that my NY State concealed carry should act in the same way. If I present it I should be able to purchase immediately. I already jumped through their hoops. 

[Culvercreek hunt club]

6 minutes ago, Belo said:

Can one of you just answer my question.

Are you ok with being able to legally sell your guns to whoever you want? 

yes

[moog5050]

10 minutes ago, Belo said:

Can one of you just answer my question.

Are you ok with being able to legally sell your guns to whoever you want? 

This was OK only 8 or 9 years ago.  I recall buying and selling used guns on one of the sites.  No FFL needed. 

[Rattler]

A couple of good factual reads regarding the evils of "universal background checks".  If you are a 2nd A supporter and think this should be supported, you need to look at the other side of the issue and realize you are buying their lies.

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20190201/congress-to-take-up-gun-control-next-week

https://www.nraila.org/campaigns/2019/2019-universal-background-check-legislation/universal-background-checks/

Traps for Law-Abiding Gun Owners

Both bills would make it a crime, subject to certain exceptions, to simply hand a firearm to another person. Any time gun owners carry out this simple act, they would potentially be exposing themselves to criminal penalties. While the bills do create some exceptions, they are overly complicated and create many traps for unwary gun owners. Accidental violations of these complicated provisions are not excused under the proposed legislation.  

In 2013, the Department of Justice’s National Institute of Justice researched so-called “universal” background checks and determined that they would be not be effective without further harsh firearms restrictions and efforts to combat straw purchasing.

Criminals are not deterred by background checks. ATF has reported, “[t]he most frequent type of trafficking channel identified in ATF investigations is straw purchasing from federally licensed firearms dealers. Nearly 50 percent ... .” A Chicago-area inmate explained this reality to researchers from the University of Chicago in relation to Illinois’s stringent firearm licensing regime for a 2015 study, stating, “All they need is one person who got a gun card in the ‘hood’ and everybody got one.”

A 2016 Department of Justice survey of “state and federal prisoners who had possessed a firearm during the offense for which they were serving” found that the most common source of prisoner firearms was “Off the street/underground market.” This was defined as “Illegal sources of firearms that include markets for stolen goods, middlemen for stolen goods, criminals or criminal enterprises, or individuals or groups involved in sales of illegal drugs.” Less than one percent had obtained their firearm from a gun show.

H.R. 8 and S. 42 language states that participation by dealers in private party transfers would be voluntary. Because of the legal conflict and uncertainty, many dealers might refuse to run these checks. Those dealers that are willing, must agree to assume the risk and uncertainty and are likely to demand costly fees for the service.  The language states that the dealer may charge a reasonable fee, but it does not cap or otherwise limit the dealer's discretion in this regard.

Even transfers that do not result in a change of ownership would presumptively have to go through H.R. 8/S. 42 formalities. Thus, dealers would potentially have multiple records of the same firearm changing hands again-and-again, essentially creating a paper trail of everybody who handled the firearm.  The record-keeping burdens on the dealer would be considerable, and the records generated could form the basis for a later registry not just of those who own firearms, but those who merely took possession of one, for any purpose or length of time.

As an advisor to the Obama administration wrote, the effectiveness of a universal background regime "depends on … requiring gun registration…;" this bill weakens protections against using NICS checks to create a registry and sets the stage for future firearm registration requirements.

[Rattler]

11 hours ago, Belo said:

Can one of you just answer my question.

Are you ok with being able to legally sell your guns to whoever you want? 

Yes.  As a free man with no desire to be a subject of a police state,  I am perfectly capable of determining who is worthy of buying a firearm from me.  The government should not be given the power to say I cannot sell a hunting rifle to a friend or relative, because it deems them to be unworthy, based on the government's desire to limit firearm ownership as much as possible, using various arbitrary barriers that it deems to be crucial to eliminating gun rights altogether.

[Five Seasons]

On 2/2/2019 at 1:45 AM, Rattler said:

Yes.  As a free man with no desire to be a subject of a police state,  I am perfectly capable of determining who is worthy of buying a firearm from me.  The government should not be given the power to say I cannot sell a hunting rifle to a friend or relative, because it deems them to be unworthy, based on the government's desire to limit firearm ownership as much as possible, using various arbitrary barriers that it deems to be crucial to eliminating gun rights altogether.

However, that ability to freely sell your firearms to your buddy also would allow you to sell it to some gang banger. I agree with your ideas in theory, but that's not how the legal system works my friend. Private party is private party and the government has yet to define "friend". 

I honestly think as gun owners we need to do our part to prevent them from getting into the wrong hands too. As someone mentioned earlier, guns aren't being stolen from manufacturers. They generally start in the hands of a good law abiding citizen like you and I, and then somehow they make their way into the hands of criminals. And honestly, if your guns are stolen because your house was broken into and you don't keep your guns in a safe, that's on you too.

[WNYBuckHunter]

13 minutes ago, Belo said:

However, that ability to freely sell your firearms to your buddy also would allow you to sell it to some gang banger. I agree with your ideas in theory, but that's not how the legal system works my friend. Private party is private party and the government has yet to define "friend". 

I honestly think as gun owners we need to do our part to prevent them from getting into the wrong hands too. As someone mentioned earlier, guns aren't being stolen from manufacturers. They generally start in the hands of a good law abiding citizen like you and I, and then somehow they make their way into the hands of criminals. And honestly, if your guns are stolen because your house was broken into and you don't keep your guns in a safe, that's on you too.

I dont understand this thinking at all. As long as my guns are in my house or vehicle, they are secure as far as Im concerned. Once someone breaks into my house or vehicle, they have committed a crime, and what they do with the possessions of mine that they stole, is on them, not me. It is completely unreasonable to think that some criminal's future actions are my fault.

[Rattler]

39 minutes ago, Belo said:

However, that ability to freely sell your firearms to your buddy also would allow you to sell it to some gang banger.

Perhaps you are not aware the law says you cannot sell a firearm to a convicted felon, and there are very few gang bangers that aren't already felons.  So, if you sell to one and they commit a crime with it, and it can be traced to you, you are in deep sheet.

BTW, if he's not a convicted felon, he could buy from any FFL because he will pass a NICS check.

Edited February 4, 2019 by Rattler

[Five Seasons]

28 minutes ago, WNYBuckHunter said:

I dont understand this thinking at all. As long as my guns are in my house or vehicle, they are secure as far as Im concerned. Once someone breaks into my house or vehicle, they have committed a crime, and what they do with the possessions of mine that they stole, is on them, not me. It is completely unreasonable to think that some criminal's future actions are my fault.

legally you're not responsible no. As a gun owner you should do the best you can to prevent them from falling into the wrong hands. And if that still doesn't do it for you, you'd think that protecting your kids and the valuables that have sentimental value would. 

Don't we constantly hang our hat on the ideae that criminals don't follow laws? So why not prepare and store your guns with this idea in mind?

https://www.nssf.org/safety/

https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/09/the-gun-lobbying-group-you-dont-hear-about/279616/

https://gunsafetyrules.nra.org/

https://www.nrafamily.org/articles/2016/4/14/6-ways-to-safely-store-your-firearms/

7 minutes ago, Rattler said:

Perhaps you are not aware the law says you cannot sell a firearm to a convicted felon, and there are very few gang bangers that aren't already felons.  So, if you sell to one and they commit a crime with it, and it can be traced to you, you are in deep sheet.

BTW, if he's not a convicted felon, he could buy from any FFL because he will pass a NICS check.

there is no requirement on the seller to ask about a criminal record, you're only in trouble if you knowingly sell to a felon, for example the lady who bought the gun for the guy who shot the webster firefighters. Otherwise, you're just judging a book by its cover if you assume a guy with lots of tats is a convicted felon.  And billy bob at the gun show could be a felon too. I think you're missing the point about a convicted felon not passing a nics check. That's exactly why he would buy privately and bypass the check through the legal loophole.

You're not going to win this one.

[WNYBuckHunter]

3 minutes ago, Belo said:

legally you're not responsible no. As a gun owner you should do the best you can to prevent them from falling into the wrong hands. And if that still doesn't do it for you, you'd think that protecting your kids and the valuables that have sentimental value would. 

Don't we constantly hang our hat on the ideae that criminals don't follow laws? So why not prepare and store your guns with this idea in mind?

https://www.nssf.org/safety/

https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/09/the-gun-lobbying-group-you-dont-hear-about/279616/

https://gunsafetyrules.nra.org/

https://www.nrafamily.org/articles/2016/4/14/6-ways-to-safely-store-your-firearms/

there is no requirement on the seller to ask about a criminal record, you're only in trouble if you knowingly sell to a felon, for example the lady who bought the gun for the guy who shot the webster firefighters. Otherwise, you're just judging a book by its cover if you assume a guy with lots of tats is a convicted felon.  And billy bob at the gun show could be a felon too. I think you're missing the point about a convicted felon not passing a nics check. That's exactly why he would buy privately and bypass the check through the legal loophole.

You're not going to win this one.

My kids have been taught from a young age that guns are not toys. Even at 14, my daughter wont touch one unless Im there or know about it. The rest of the kids refuse to touch them unless I am right there with them. There are few guns I have sentimental attachment to, I mainly keep them in a cabinet/safe to make sure they stay clean and are out of the way. Regular gun safes are easily broken into for anyone that wants to get into them. Trigger locks can be removed pretty easily. The only way to truly secure them is to have close to the equivalent of a vault, everything else is really a half-measure or feel good type thing.

As far as responsibility goes though, there are things in my house that can be used to kill just as easily as any gun I have. Should I be responsible if say, someone steals my ATV and runs it down the road and causes a fatal crash?