Change background check requirements.

[USAF Medic]

The government should allow firearms trades without a FFL and or background check.
In a trade situation, both parties already have a gun. So, why do both have to get a background check?
If I trade my Colt SAA for your Winchester model 94, we both have to get a background check and pay an FFL to do the transfer, plus two background check fees.
Why?

Read More

 

[jayR]

duh.. how else are they going to know what to confiscate when the time is right ?
Remember this whole thing isn't being orchestrated by misguided well meaning souls..

 

[PORSCHE928S4]

Exactly same thing if you trade in a gun on a new one geeze you already have a gun and they are still going to make you wait lol

 

[raftman]

In essence you're asking why the system doesn't make more sense. At best because they don't care whether or not it makes sense, and at worst, it's not actually supposed to.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

I have no doubt that the requirement / law of a BGC for private party transfers for either trades or sales....
Has created more "criminals" out of folks by them , simply ignoring the law and quietly doing the sale or trade.

I see no need or reason for a BGC for a private party transaction.

With that said...
I am not saying to ignore or not comply with any law , requirement and the like...
Do as you wish...weigh the risk versus the reward..and understand that actions have consequences.
Andy

 

[bikemutt]

The government should allow firearms trades without a FFL and or background check.
In a trade situation, both parties already have a gun. So, why do both have to get a background check?
If I trade my Colt SAA for your Winchester model 94, we both have to get a background check and pay an FFL to do the transfer, plus two background check fees.
Why?

If trades were excluded from the BG check requirement, every deal would become a "trade".

 

[Kruel J]

Been this way for over 8 years now…..

 

[wired]

If you are just looking for a reason, and you aren't, its because a lot of the people who have guns aren't allowed to own guns. Ive seen that as a dealer.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

Why...?
'Cause someone will make money from doing so.
And...
Control...control of information at the very least.
Andy

 

[Hueco]

The question that you should be asking is: what problem are we trying to solve and does the current solution solve it?

The absolute best faith interpretation of existing intent would be to keep firearms out of prohibited possession.

Does existing law work to that end? Sort of…not very well.

There are too many data issues between states and the Fed or the service branches and the Fed to successfully stop many people…

That being said, mere possession of a firearm isn't evidence of anything by way of character. You could be a gang banger who just stole that revolver from a car and is now looking to trade it for a poverty pony for your "friends" for all I know.

Some more intellectually consistent states have declared that private party transactions between concealed license holders may be conducted - and even in states where private transactions are legal I know of many who will only trade with other concealed license holders.

But what are they doing? They're using the concealed license as a defacto arms license and background check.

Always seemed odd to me - that people who don't want a national licensing scheme would then utilize such methodology. Anyway…

Seems to me, if you DO have prohibited possessors, then you need a way to make that data easily available and it has to be good data. And by easily available, I mean the average Joe should be able to know whether or not he's trading with such a person and should have the tools to conduct that search himself, without any additional red tape.

Now, since the gov requires the use of junk data systems, requires the use of a red tape service (FFL's), and is also actively reducing the number of FFL's…I can only conclude that the end goal of restricting prohibited possessors isn't actually the goal of the whole system. How else do you explain that system's failure to meet its stated goal?

So then…

The government should allow firearms trades without a FFL and or background check.

Why would I ask the advice of Uncle Sam for anything?

 

[Andy54Hawken]

A big issue I have with BGC's is.....
Why does someone need to know the make and model of the firearm that I getting...?
That is unneeded information if all you want to know is Andy54Hawken able to own firearms.

Now before someone states that the make and model can be used to see if the firearm is stolen...
Fine...then run a check on the gun to see if it is stolen....not a check on the buyer / trader.
Andy

 

[wired]

A big issue I have with BGC's is.....
Why does someone need to the make and model of the firearm that I getting...?
That is unneeded information if all you want to know is Andy54Hawken able to own firearms.

Now before someone states that the make and model can be used to see if the firearm is stolen...
Fine...then run a check on the gun to see if it is stolen....not a check on the buyer / trader.
Andy

The make and model are not part of the BGC and guns are not checked to see if they are stolen.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

The make and model are not part of the BGC and guns are not checked to see if they are stolen.

I know that....
I still don't know why it is part of the BGC on the buyer / trader....
If all the BGC is for knowing whether or not the buyer / trader is able to own firearms.
Andy

 

[wired]

I know that....
I still don't know why it is part of the BGC on the buyer / trader....
If all the BGC is for knowing whether or not the buyer / trader is able to own firearms.
Andy

Because the government prints one form and it gets used for a lot of stuff. Are you asking for it to make sense?

 

[Andy54Hawken]

Because the government prints one form and it gets used for a lot of stuff. Are you asking for it to make sense?

No I am not.
I am saying that knowing the make and model of the firearm I wish to obtain....
Is unneeded....if...all someone wants to know is whether or not I am able to own firearms.
Andy

 

[wired]

No I am not.
I am saying that knowing the make and model of the firearm I wish to obtain....
Is unneeded....if...all someone wants to know is whether or not I am able to own firearms.
Andy

Thats rue but it really boils down to the fact they have one 4473 form that wasn't tailored for background checks. It was made for dealer to buyer transfers . individual BGC's are face to face but there is no specific form for that . I haven't kept up on the WA/OR newer laws but they may even consider the ftf transfer to be a dealer proxy transfer where the dealer takes possession and it runs through his books. I have always dreaded a situation where the buyer and seller both fail a BGC as I would not be able to return their guns to them.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

I have always dreaded a situation where the buyer and seller both fail a BGC as I would not be able to return their guns to them.

That would be a bad day all around for all involved....to say the least.

As for the 4473...I understand what it is...and the 'why" behind it.
Don't necessarily agree with the what and all the "whys" behind it.
Andy

 

[slimmer13]

The government should allow firearms trades without a FFL and or background check.

The question is why do we allow the government to be in a position to allow us to do anything. I don't want a daddy. It would be nice if most people thought like that.

 

[wired]

That would be a bad day all around for all involved....to say the least.

Its worse than that. At that point Im going to pretty much have to consider anyone who does come to pick the gun up in lieu of the original owner, especially relatives, as straw purchasers.

In any case my cursory reading of the WA state statute shows its not just a BGC that the dealer is facilitating, You as the seller/trader are actually transferring the gun to the FFL and onto his books who then transfers it to the other party. Thats the law and thats why you have to do the full gun transfer 4473 bit.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

Its worse than that. At that point Im going to pretty much have to consider anyone who does come to pick the gun up in lieu of the original owner, especially relatives, as straw purchasers.

In any case my cursory reading of the WA state statute shows its not just a BGC that the dealer is facilitating, You as the seller/trader are actually transferring the gun to the FFL and onto his books who then transfers it to the other party. Thats the law and thats why you have to do the full gun transfer 4473 bit.

You are correct...and I know the law....
Just don't agree with it.
Andy