Have the background check laws changed how you buy guns?

[Connor Murphy]

Why would a criminal buy a gun ... When he could steal one instead?
Why would a criminal buy a gun from a "Square John" , for market value , when he could buy one from another criminal , cheaper on the black market?

Not trying to argue here ... Just tossing out what I think.
Nor am I saying that a criminal has never bought a gun from a private sale ...
I just think that it doesn't happen enough to warrant a BGC law for every sale.
Andy

C'mon man, if it saves even one life...

 

[DirectDrive]

So, before the recent background check law, I preferred to buy any firearms I was seeking from private parties, without a background check. Even if the cost was the same as new, or slightly above, I still preferred private sales. As with others here, I preferred to not have a record of the purchase recorded with any government agency. Lately, as I peruse the classifieds, I keep wondering why I would buy used, unless the price was substantially at a discount. If I have to go through a background check anyway, why not buy new for the same, or close to the same, price. Obviously, some firearms that are out of production, or the older models are preferred for quality reasons, etc. still hold weight. But, apples to apples, why not buy new?

Also, if others feel this way also, do you think the recent law has had the affect of depressing used gun prices? I'm just curious what others think.....

For WA residents we can escape the sales tax if we buy from a private party.
A good deal plus no sales tax is my preferred firearm purchase method.
No escape on the transfer fees if you want to be legal, though.

 

[Flymph]

The only time a gun might be sold cheaper on the black market is if the seller has no idea what they're actually selling or it's hot and they want rid of it.

I guess I'm just assuming, but I have never heard of guns being cheaper on the black market.

It's also easier for most criminals to locate a gun shop, than a black market arms dealer.

Just wondering how shops could tell who was a felon or wife beater before background checks, or were they just allowed negligence and denial of responsibility?

 

[Andy54Hawken]

Criminals know other criminals ... they buy and sell between themselves... that's the black market I'm referring too.
Kinda like how illegal drug users find pushers etc ...

It is not up to me what someone does with something after I sell it to them.
Why should I be responsible for their choice or actions with it ?

Most of the guys I know who did a lot of buying , selling and trading pre-BGC , did a pretty good job of weeding out the shady guys.
Again not saying that someone , somewhere , who was not allowed a gun , never bought one from a private sale.
Just saying that it did not happen enough to warrant a BGC on every private sale.
Andy

 

[Alexx1401]

Glad to have it, but should be no cost to buyer/seller, we pay taxes, the government already has my finger prints (birth record LoL)

I feel like it is better than doing nothing, or denying accountability due to ignorance. Takes more to buy a car than a gun a lot of places, granted cars kill more people than guns. Of course crooks will always find a way around it, doesn't mean we should make it easier on them.

I would say no, not really. Except that I would prefer to buy milsurp, but choose to go with the new route instead... seeing as a new rifle is cheaper than most milsurp now days.
It makes me cry a little inside, until I pick up my AR or the MK25.

There is a VERY simple way to deal with "gun crime". Old cartoon one day, Wizard of ID.King was getting ready to execute a criminal. "Any last words" he asked. Criminal tells him capitol punishment is proven to not lower crime. King said, "really, tell me that the next time you stand before me."
The vast majority of major crimes done with guns are done by criminals who have a LONG history. If when it's 100% sure one of these clowns is guilty and they were shot in a matter of months it would not take long. There would still be gun crime but it would be so low as to be rare compared with now. This is what liberals dance all around and avoid at all costs. Blaming the criminal. Criminals don't buy guns the way any of us do. The BGC does statistically nothing. If the justice system did not just keep letting them out on the public over and over this kind of crime could not keep happening. It does not have to cost anywhere near what it does to keep them locked up. Criminals should be housed just like we house our troops. The living conditions we expect troops to live in would be pennies on the dollar to what we pay now. Good enough for troops, good enough for criminals. The criminals who choose to kill, should be killed.

 

[awshoot]

So, before the recent background check law, I preferred to buy any firearms I was seeking from private parties, without a background check. ... I keep wondering why I would buy used, unless the price was substantially at a discount. If I have to go through a background check anyway, why not buy new for the same, or close to the same, price. ...

I feel the same way. If I'm going to have to swallow the poison, might as well be for something brand new.

In the mid-90s I sold off my entire collection which had never been the subject of any checks (and a motorcycle) to pay for a wedding. That was a huge mistake (we got divorced a few years later). Moral of the story, never sell guns/motorcycles to pay for a wedding -- you end up with nothing.

 

[awshoot]

Why would a criminal buy a gun from a "Square John" , for market value , when he could buy one from another criminal , cheaper on the black market?

Like all black market products, a black market gun will be more expensive than its new equivalent -- unless it has been used in a crime in which case it is probably exported to Mexico and thus not so readily available at reduced prices in the US.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

In my little experience in dealing with criminal types who have bought items illegally ... the items to include firearms were cheaper to buy from another criminal.
The thought being is the criminal wants a fast buck , not current market value , for a item he stole in the first place or obtained illegally.
Andy

 

[Alexx1401]

Like all black market products, a black market gun will be more expensive than its new equivalent -- unless it has been used in a crime in which case it is probably exported to Mexico and thus not so readily available at reduced prices in the US.

Must depend on where you live. From the LEO's here the criminals here get their guns far cheaper than I can. Hand guns here run 1-2 hundred. The highest end hand guns go for the same as the lower end. Criminals don't care. Top dollar are Glock due to reputation, still only fetch a couple hundred here. I don't much care for Glocks but if I could buy one for $200 I would have to have a couple.

 

[Alexx1401]

In my little experience in dealing with criminal types who have bought items illegally ... the items to include firearms were cheaper to buy from another criminal.
The thought being is the criminal wants a fast buck , not current market value , for a item he stole in the first place or obtained illegally.
Andy

Most of the stolen guns end up with drug dealers in trade. Meth heads will trade a stolen gun here for $50 worth of meth. The dealer then got that gun for about $10-20. So of course he then sells it very cheap to get a fast buck back. I don't know where people think these illegal guns are selling at premium prices at.

 

[Flymph]

i just don't see a slight inconvienence to honest people as a reason to do nothing.
Yes guns are a tool, and people are free to make choices. However enabling criminals to use the same avenues as citizens in this context is irresponsible. It's dificult for a shop or an individual to discern if somebody is unqualified to possess firearms. Probably easier for a private seller to decide if that person buying is somebody they should or should not be selling to, as they have more freedom to make that decision.

My biggest concern is without BGCs there is no way to know if the person you are selling to is allowed to legally possess firearms.

The "not my problem" bit is not a valid agreement against that, IMO.

 

[Flymph]

It definitely depends on where you live, and who you know. Obviously we're not crooks, or LEO, so we just hear off hand and rumors. Being law abiding citizens we bite the bullet and pay premium.

 

[ma96782]

i just don't see a slight inconvienence to honest people as a reason to do nothing.
Yes guns are a tool, and people are free to make choices. However enabling criminals to use the same avenues as citizens in this context is irresponsible. It's dificult for a shop or an individual to discern if somebody is unqualified to possess firearms. Probably easier for a private seller to decide if that person buying is somebody they should or should not be selling to, as they have more freedom to make that decision.

My biggest concern is without BGCs there is no way to know if the person you are selling to is allowed to legally possess firearms.

The "not my problem" bit is not a valid agreement against that, IMO.

Say that.....
I have a CCW and you have a CCW. Are you a BAD guy? Am I a BAD guy? Do I really need to have the sale recorded and blessed by the Govt? Why should a buyer (or seller) have to pay a third party for the privilege of making a sale? Humm.....paying a $35 BGC/transfer fee (I call it a tax) on the sale of a $100 rifle. Really? All in the name of safety for the general public.

If the Govt really wanted public safety....perhaps they should have made it FREE. Oh but.....they could always start charging years later. Yup, I'm still not sold on even that FREE idea.

Why not collect a fee to get a BGC/Lic. to go to church? Surely, if we prevented "extremist" from attending (radical, terrorist) churches it would go a long way towards public safety?

If they can infringe on the 2A. Then, they could surely do it to the 1st Amendment. All in the name of, "safety."

Aloha, Mark

 

[Flymph]

You should raise those points. Free would be nice, and private sales between CCW cardholders should be fine without a BGC. Can't have a CCW without being able to own guns, right?

I didn't say the current law was perfect, I just said that a BGC at POS was a good idea to verify the buyer's legitimacy to own a gun.

 

[Flymph]

Why bother to bar those listed from possessing a firearm if nobody cares to verify somebody doesn't fall into those categories?
Needs to be done, but there should be a bypass and exceptions written in. A perfect example of an exception to a BGC would be CCW owners.

 

[ma96782]

You should raise those points. Free would be nice, and private sales between CCW cardholders should be fine without a BGC. Can't have a CCW without being able to own guns, right?

I didn't say the current law was perfect, I just said that a BGC at POS was a good idea to verify the buyer's legitimacy to own a gun.

By Federal Law, FFL's have paperwork to do when making a sale.

Prior to these new state laws, I (as a private citizen) wasn't covered by BGC laws. Duh.....I wasn't engaged in the business of dealing in firearms. I could choose who I wanted to sell to. You look shady...no sale. You don't have a CCW....no sale. Then, IF I wanted a clearer conscience. Maybe, I would elect to have (on a voluntary basis) all of my transfers go through an FFL. If it makes you feel better.....go ahead and do it that way. But, why infringe on my right to sell a commodity?

A business cannot make those determinations (you look shady) off the cuff. If you're a "prohibited person by law"..........the business cannot make a sale. Course there is always that......."we reserve the right to refuse" the sale. But, as you can see......even when "cake selling," it has it's own downside.

Aloha, Mark

 

[Flymph]

... so checks were already in place for shops?
Just not at gun shows and private sales?
Which were up to seller to determine legality of the buyer possessing firearms?
I suppose not everyone is as discerning as you, if they were there would be no point in any of this. As you suggested, a shop can't afford to be so discerning based on supposition.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

The Gun Control Act of 1968 required all business sales to go thru a FFL.
Its been around for 49 years now... Not sure what good its done , but there it is.

Edit to add ... To be honest I go back and forth over the GCA of '68.
We had Lee H. Oswald mail order a rifle direct to his house and then murder the President.
On the other hand folks for decades prior , mail ordered guns without this happening...
Andy

 

[Andy54Hawken]

The "not my problem" bit is not a valid agreement against that, IMO.

What I choose to do with my gun is indeed my problem ...But why is it my problem when someone does something with their gun? ( Even if I sold / traded it to him)
I can only control my own actions ... not those of someone else.

If I sold Johnny a car and he had or caused a wreck thru his bad driving ... Should I be held accountable?
I see no difference between that and if he misused his "new to him gun"... that I sold him.

Andy

 

[Flymph]

You can't, but does selling a firearm to a person who is ineligible by law to possess firearms break any law?
Can you know for sure in every instance that the buyer is eligible?
A verification method would be the only way to know, would it not?