An experiment worth trying?

[capdek]

When talking with friends or colleagues who think background checks are "common-sense" solutions to gun violence that everyone can support - even gun owners - relate to them the following scenario.

I bring my .22 caliber lever action rifle over to my friend's house one Sunday evening to show him the new engraving I just had done on the receiver.

During our visit, I suddenly remember I need to stop into work right away so I can start a test that runs overnight and must be completed by Monday morning.

Since taking my rifle home before heading into work would jeopardize getting my test completed on-time, and since my Company does not allow firearms on site - even if they are locked-up in the employee's vehicle, and since my friend has a valid concealed handgun license - meaning he has gone through a thorough background check, I decide to temporarily leave my rifle at my friend's house while I go to work for half an hour to start my test.

Do you think what I've done is illegal?

If not, then you are in disagreement with the Democrats that wrote the background check law here in Oregon.

While I'm gone, my friend calls the police to report that I have transferred my firearm to him without doing a background check.

Do you think I'll be arrested?

If not, do you think my friend and I should play out this scenario to find out?

Read More

 

[edslhead]

Don't tell anybody and you'll be fine.

 

[Member 34319]

I don't understand the scenario. Why the hell would your friend call the cops?

Try a better experiment. Sell your friend a gun without BCG. See if anything happens. Nothing will. The law is never going to be able to be enforced.

 

[rick benjamin]

Get a new friend, ditch the old one...

 

[capdek]

The scenario is simply to show that a so-called "common-sense" law like universal background checks is actually written in a way that defies common-sense.
I've discussed this topic with colleagues who see no problem with universal background checks - even existing gun owners. What I'm trying to demonstrate is that the laws that actually get written make the common sense scenario I've described illegal.
My colleagues will then respond by claiming that "they would never actually arrest you for the scenario you've described". And I will respond by saying, "Well, what if my friend actually called the police to report this? Do you think he and I should try and find out?" At that point, they have second thoughts.
My friend - to the best of my knowledge - would never actually call the police. It's simply a what-if scenario that gets people second guessing their claim that getting arrested for this would never actually happen.
Quite frankly, given the wording of SB941, I would never even bring my firearm to my friend's house if I thought there was the slightest chance I might be forced to temporarily leave it with him. That would be illegal now, and as ridiculous as SB941 is, I am a law-abiding gun owner.
The key is to get people to distrust the "common-sense" claims made by politicians so as to prevent these outrageous laws from getting enacted in the first place.

 

[Just Jim]

I thought this was a test and my answer was "find a better place to work"

 

[Member 5605]

Anyone I would leave a firearm with is already in my Trust.


Play out the idea. See how well it goes. I think actually you should wait for a friend who is hardup to borrow a car. Then state that before they borrow it they will need to transfer the title at the DMV with you as a lien holder, then verify that they also have insurance on said vehicle before they get to have the keys.
$.02

 

[capdek]

Ironically, I have actually tried the car comparison you mention. But that often takes my more anti-gun colleagues down the path of licensing, insurance and registration of firearms which is not the direction I'm trying to go with this.

 

[bakersman345]

I don't understand the scenario. Why the hell would your friend call the cops?

Try a better experiment. Sell your friend a gun without BCG. See if anything happens. Nothing will. The law is never going to be able to be enforced.

In WA we are forced to register our pistols when selling the in accordance with i594. As time goes on guns with pre 594 dates become rarer and rarer because law abiding citizens do bgc when they sell, or they bought it after. Now most pistols are registered To owners Post 594. You say they can't enforce it. "My friend isn't gonna go out and murder anyone sio I'm good". The trick is what if he gets pulled over, cops come to his house, uses it in self defense bla bla bla. Cop checks the serial says your name=Big fines/win for the anti's. We just need to get a new rule the supercedes these dumb azz hurt no one laws

 

[Just Jim]

Point A... if the gun isn't in your name would any of this matter?

 

[41Slinger]

Common sense gun laws are a fabrication of the liberal politic and is not what the liberal politico want. They are liars and you cannot make a deal with a liar. They want confiscation, from registration, from common sense gun laws. They want power, they don't care about you or me or anyone else, want proof, Chicago, Detroit, 25,000 gun laws already on the books, etc. etc. etc. It's all about control. If you trust them you'll lose. They are liars.

 

[Mikej]

If I'm not mistaken, there was a provision in SB 941 that allowed you to leave your firearms with a friend/neighbor for safe keeping/hunting for a period of time.

 

[mjbskwim]

In WA we are forced to register our pistols when selling the in accordance with i594. As time goes on guns with pre 594 dates become rarer and rarer because law abiding citizens do bgc when they sell, or they bought it after. Now most pistols are registered To owners Post 594. You say they can't enforce it. "My friend isn't gonna go out and murder anyone sio I'm good". The trick is what if he gets pulled over, cops come to his house, uses it in self defense bla bla bla. Cop checks the serial says your name=Big fines/win for the anti's. We just need to get a new rule the supercedes these dumb azz hurt no one laws

Well with your logic here,you and your friend need to get in trouble
First,why did the cop run a serial number on the gun when he pulled your friend over? The friend would have had to done something bad,and you had poor judgement lending or selling him the gun.Or was he stupid enough to show the gun to the cop?
IF they came to his house and got hold of the gun,the same logic applies. Why would they get their hands on said gun?
And for the self defense issue also.Doesn't he have another gun for that?
Plus,your friend wasn't smart enough to say you had left it there by mistake (unloaded in a case) and it was on him because he used it without your permission?
The whole idea is if you aren't going to follow the law and do the transfers,you had better have very good judgement on your friends or the person you sell to.
The only way those laws will work is if the person who bought the gun does something bad enough to get arrested with the gun.
If it was 1 of my trusted friends I 'loaned ' the gun to I wouldn't much care.They would have had a very good reason for using it.

 

[bakersman345]

Im not saying its likely but, what if he gets in a car wreck. The police search his car for his info and happen across the firearm, what if it gets stolen?

- one time I had just finished shooting with my buddys. The neighbor's saw him with his ar-15 in his open garage and called the cops because the neighbor was scared for the kids playing in the area. As I put my cased rifles in the trunk of my car the swat team rushed in and I was on my knees in a flash. (They turned out to be nice guys and gals) they cuffed me, asked questions, and low an behold they ran the serial number on everyone one of my guns. (They had "probable cause" but I was friendly and cooperative.)
After a while of questioning me and stuffing my buddy into a cop car (he was bing a duck) they let us go.
Long story short they ran the numbers on my guns and with this b.s law we have they would have seen I wasn't the registered owner and may have been charged with a crime.

 

[Member 5605]

Ironically, I have actually tried the car comparison you mention. But that often takes my more anti-gun colleagues down the path of licensing, insurance and registration of firearms which is not the direction I'm trying to go with this.

Valid point.
Then how do we rationalize?

Speech. You just have a speech card. To have said card you must show that you are emotionally stable, a pussycat that won't say anything offensive to anyone, anything or speak out against policies of elected officials. You must take a required class on public oritation, be fluent in popular vernacular and hold a masters in English and Latin.

If Any of these no-no's are crossed then you revoke your right to speak freely in a public forum. Your rights to write letters to the editor, use Internet chat rooms, Internet forums will be denied.

Every place of expression will be tied to your "SID" card upon logging in. Any and all past, present and future ramblings will be logged under your SID account and traceable back to you for life. Daily your SID account will be monitored for foul language, improper use of vowels, adjectives and anything else deemed unfit.

Your SID will also be linked to you by your drivers license number and your license plate. You cannot gesture to anyone, have any bit of road rage that may induce the occasional flipping of the bird. Any and all interaction with you and the rest of the 7.3Billion idiots on planet earth will be under review. Failure to obey the SID rules will mean immediate jail time and a lifetime loss of any and all rights to speak freely without pre-authorized approval.

@acp ....

 

[capdek]

If I'm not mistaken, there was a provision in SB 941 that allowed you to leave your firearms with a friend/neighbor for safe keeping/hunting for a period of time.

Unfortunately, you're mistaken. I believe Brian Clemm agreed to support SB941 if he could get this provision added afterwards. However, once they started working on it, it pretty much fell by the wayside and never got added. There's still talk about adding something like this in the next legislative session, but I wouldn't hold my breath on that.
In any event, as we all know now, universal background checks are really about putting up roadblocks to legal gun ownership and registering current and future gun owners and their guns. As someone already mentioned, the whole mantra about respecting the second amendment and not harassing law-abiding gun owners is a complete lie. We know it, but the key is to get the rest of the public to know it too.

 

[Sstrand]

Clemm is a liar . . .
How do you spell liar? Well, it ends with "rat"!!!!!!!!

Sheldon

 

[rdb241]

The Boeing Company has a very strict rule about firearms on there property. They call it a "condition of employment". Meaning if you are caught with a firearm on company property you will be terminated. The corporate office has made statement to the employees about this. The company has also stated that they are not denying the right to protect yourself. Just not on company property. That rule has been in effect for 50 years. It has got much more serious since 9/11. Prior to 9/11, I personally knew of people bringing firearms to work. Most common was the Friday before opening day of hunting. Guys would pack all week and leave after work on Friday for the woods. Those guys all had the firearms packed and ready to go hunting. Back then even Security had a good idea that was happening but as long as nothing was out in the open, everything was fine. I even know supervisors that carry everyday when they go to work. Now on the other hand, here is a sad story. About 15-16 years ago. A vendor came in and was taking down old lighting to remodel some offices. A Boeing employee asked the vendor what the were going to do with the ballasts from the lighting. He was told they were going to throw them away in the garbage. He asked the vendor if he could have a couple and the vendor said fine. He grabbed a couple and went out to the parking lot and put them in his car. Somebody in the parking lot saw him and thought he was stealing something and called Boeing Security. He and security went out to his car and got the ballasts. Then for some reason, about 30 min later, security felt they effed up and did not search his car. He got the ballasts out and gave them to security. So security went back out to his car with him there and searched his car. During the search the found a handgun under the seat. He had a legal permit to carry but that did not matter. After 20 some years he was fire on the spot. So if they don't see it and do not know it is there. ?????????????????

 

[Caveman Jim]

Im not saying its likely but, what if he gets in a car wreck. The police search his car for his info and happen across the firearm, what if it gets stolen?

- one time I had just finished shooting with my buddys. The neighbor's saw him with his ar-15 in his open garage and called the cops because the neighbor was scared for the kids playing in the area. As I put my cased rifles in the trunk of my car the swat team rushed in and I was on my knees in a flash. (They turned out to be nice guys and gals) they cuffed me, asked questions, and low an behold they ran the serial number on everyone one of my guns. (They had "probable cause" but I was friendly and cooperative.)
After a while of questioning me and stuffing my buddy into a cop car (he was bing a duck) they let us go.
Long story short they ran the numbers on my guns and with this b.s law we have they would have seen I wasn't the registered owner and may have been charged with a crime.

I would be so friggin pi$$ed and make life pure HeII for those "Swatters"!!!!

 

[Heywood]

Ironically, I have actually tried the car comparison you mention. But that often takes my more anti-gun colleagues down the path of licensing, insurance and registration of firearms which is not the direction I'm trying to go with this.

In that scenario explain to them that the licensing requirements for guns and cars are
very close actually.