How do you know a citizen is law-abiding if you don't run a background check?

[Joe Link]

How do you know a citizen is law-abiding if you don't run a background check?

Discuss

Read More

 

[aflineman]

How do you know a citizen is law-abiding if you don't run a background check?

Discuss

Not my job, I'm not a cop. I don't need to do it when I sell a car to someone, and they are used to kill many more people than guns are.
BTW, I thought you were going camping).:wink:

 

[finch6013]

make them sign a paper saying they can legally own so your butt is covered and dont worry about it. If you do worry about it go through an ffl or get a background check

 

[Joe Link]

BTW, I thought you were going camping).:wink:

I was supposed to but we decided to put it off until the weekend after next

Instead I'm going to sit here and create threads about common anti-gun arguments so we have them on file for people to study

 

[ZeroRing]

I was supposed to but we decided to put it off until the weekend after next

Instead I'm going to sit here and create threads about common anti-gun arguments so we have them on file for people to study

Otherwise known as "stirring the pot".

 

[wayoutwest]

You can ask to see their CHL, if they are in possession of it they should clear though NCIC....you could also ask for and note their ODL for your records, it wont verify anything but will act as a record of sorts down the road if need be... then there is a record if purchase or possession of firearms/ammo is a violation of probation or an RO.

My last FTF the seller and I each shared our CHL's and I was comfortable with it...my first FTF I offered my ODL/CHL and the seller said no thanks I will trust you.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

Not my job, I'm not a cop.

And AFAIK, Oregon does not require you to.
Haven't you learned that arguing the Anti's arguments is a loosing proposition? (As in "He who frames the debate wins the argument")
JMHO, (and I know you and I disagree on this point ) the proper response to an Anti that ask you that question is to wish them a joys act of self fornication. I don't suffer kindly, fools.

 

[jordanvraptor]

Its a legal theory called presumption of innocence.

 

[McLovin]

I would not sell a weapon to someone I couldnt check on. To me, I am the owner of the weapon and it is my responsability to make sure before any type of sale. I dont want to be the guy that sold a weapon to a felon and then he or she used it to kill someone. Not knowing the law on this I would think they would try to come back on you or the family of the person that was killled would sue you. Not worth it to me.

 

[Generator]

Instead I'm going to sit here and create threads about common anti-gun arguments so we have them on file for people to study

So you must have created the controversial
http://www.northwestfirearms.com/forum/showthread.php?t=12242
discussion.

anyways,
If you selling FTF, I refer back to a quote on a gun ad at superoregon.com (not pushing it, just referencing) something to the effect of;
"if you look like a methhead, illegal immigrant or 16 dont bother emailing me!"

Its your private FTF sale, profiling is your first line of defense(not trying to be close-minded, but if it doesn't feel right, walk away, 2nd, seeing their CHL - of course I still don't have mine but have plenty of guns, 3rd, do your deal at an FFL and decide who tosses in the cash for their services.

even when a background check is run, and comes out clean, you can't predict the future (the VAtech shootings) and I remember at the times there was an issue of suing the FFl that sold him the guns - Legally.

My answer to the question is you can't Always judge someones future on their past , people go good and people go bad. We live in a society where if you can't buy a gun legally you can go to 7-11 (not here in C.Oregon i hope but in Buffalo my Aunt works in rough public schools and the convince stores sell guns under the table, as she has been told by her students, and thats obviously not unique) so I hopewe can excuse those who are caught at the raw end of a deal, and use our LEO hours to stop those who's business is to sell to the criminal element.

 

[Jamie6.5]

I think we first need to better establish the grounds for prohibition of ownership first.
Not throw them out mind you, just revisit and refine them. Some should maybe be temporary. Ie, there should be circumstances where the right to own can be restored. And without a conviction they shouldn't apply at all.
The felony conviction prohibition for instance, is problematic. A person convicted of a white collar crime like embezzlement, probably shouldn't be restricted, or at least have the chance to get it back. Any violent crime felony no doubt should, and for life.
I am basing this on the premise that a convicted felon had little regard for the law they violated, but that doesn't mean they have a tendency towards violent behavior.

I don't see background checks as a regulation of firearms, as much as they are a regulation of persons. Certain individuals shouldn't have the right to own. There are certain lines one shouldn't cross in life. Restrictions that regulate those individuals can be a good thing.

Given today's societal issues I can see a reason to require background checks. Reasonably done for logical reasons, like I stated above, I think they can be a good thing.
I have an unusual perspective on this issue as I have a close relative that is a convicted felon. A background check would stop the purchase.
And it should!

I am afraid of this single issue:
If we don't provide for the ability to restrict those who demonstrate reckless and/or violent behavior, then gun owners everywhere are at risk of losing all of our gun rights. If, God forbid, the 2ndA is repealed it will be for not regulating those reckless and violent types.

And the gun will get the blame.

 

[aflineman]

And AFAIK, Oregon does not require you to.
Haven't you learned that arguing the Anti's arguments is a loosing proposition? (As in "He who frames the debate wins the argument")
JMHO, (and I know you and I disagree on this point ) the proper response to an Anti that ask you that question is to wish them a joys act of self fornication. I don't suffer kindly, fools.

<--Laughing with you, not at you.

 

[Trlsmn]

Originally Posted by VinnieBoomBah View Post
And AFAIK, Oregon does not require you to.
Haven't you learned that arguing the Anti's arguments is a loosing proposition? (As in "He who frames the debate wins the argument")
JMHO, (and I know you and I disagree on this point ) the proper response to an Anti that ask you that question is to wish them a joys act of self fornication. I don't suffer kindly, fools.

If you know Vinnie, you know that truer words have never been spoken!

<--Laughing with you, not at you.

This time!

 

[Joe Link]

 

[Armsdealer]

Not my job, I'm not a cop. I don't need to do it when I sell a car to someone, and they are used to kill many more people than guns are.
BTW, I thought you were going camping).:wink:

Correct, current law does require private sales to include a background check. Federal law (Title 18, Chapter 44, Section 922(a)(5) prohibits private sellers from selling firearms to individuals who you know or have reasonable cause to know does not reside in the same State. Also prohibited is the selling of firearms to people you know or have reasonable cause to know are disqualified from buying a firearm (Title 18, Chapter 44, Section 922(d).

I do NOT want to argue or engage in a debate. However, responsible gun owners should be aware who they are selling firearms to. You don't need to call OSP for a background check. Just ask a few questions.

I suggest a bill of sale be executed also. It saved my butt one time. I bought a pistol from a gal and then she reported it stolen. Once I showed the police the bill of sale with her signature on it the problem became her's. I believe she ended up defending an insurance fraud case.

 

[Trlsmn]

Correct, current law does require private sales to include a background check. Federal law (Title 18, Chapter 44, Section 922(a)(5) prohibits private sellers from selling firearms to individuals who you know or have reasonable cause to know does not reside in the same State. Also prohibited is the selling of firearms to people you know or have reasonable cause to know are disqualified from buying a firearm (Title 18, Chapter 44, Section 922(d).

I do NOT want to argue or engage in a debate. However, responsible gun owners should be aware who they are selling firearms to. You don't need to call OSP for a background check. Just ask a few questions.

I suggest a bill of sale be executed also. It saved my butt one time. I bought a pistol from a gal and then she reported it stolen. Once I showed the police the bill of sale with her signature on it the problem became her's. I believe she ended up defending an insurance fraud case.

Good advice!

I always make it a point to have the person call me so I can get the phone number and name from caller ID and I copy down their license plate number.

I would never want to be a a position answering these questions to a Police officer:

Who did you buy the gun from?
A guy named Psycokiller on ar15.com

What's his real name?
I don't know

Where does he live?
I don't know

What's his phone number?
I don't know

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

 

[Joe Link]

I'm 99.9% positive he meant to include a 'not' in there. If he really didn't know that he would have learned it from the post he quoted

 

[CEF1959]

How do you know a citizen is law-abiding if you don't run a background check?
Discuss

Of course, a background check doesn't tell you if someone is law-abiding either. It just tells you if he's been convicted of a crime or adjudicated insane. It will catch the upstanding family man who sold a bag of pot in college 20 years ago, but it won't catch the crafty unconvicted drug dealer, his wife who buys his guns for him, or the untreated alcoholic psycho wife-beater who just got laid off at work and wants to get even with the world.

So what's the point of that background check again? I forget.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

I'm 99.9% positive he meant to include a 'not' in there. If he really didn't know that he would have learned it from the post he quoted

Well, cool. If so, than my last post becomes a field of happy faces, but untill then . . . :huh: