Quantcast
  1. Sign up now and join over 35,000 northwest gun owners. It's quick, easy, and 100% free!

Hypocrisy? Or just double standards?

Discussion in 'Legal & Political Archive' started by IronMonster, Sep 13, 2014.

  1. IronMonster

    IronMonster Washington Opinionated Member Diamond Supporter

    Messages:
    4,187
    Likes Received:
    6,676
    I assume this will start a lively discussion and I in no way mean for it to be anything but informative and constructive but I think its a topic worth exploring.

    I would assume everyone on this site is against I-594. I have tried to stay up on progress of the initiative, I have donated to the "Yes on I-591" campaign. My personal feeling is that I-594 which has a pretty good chance of passing is some of the worst gun control legislation that has been crafted to seem innocuous. It is promoted in such a way as to seem that its reasonable when in fact it is de facto registration and unconstitutional. The core of the legislation is private individuals must pass a background check to purchase a firearm no matter what the circumstances.

    So... No one here thinks this is a good idea. Yet almost everyone on this site and any other online market place requires that a person pass a background check prior to selling them a firearm. (What?) You just about have to have a CPL in order to buy a firearm face to face. I understand that this is a far cry mandating a FFL transfer for a private sale yet we have amongst ourselves created a system where an anonymous ( legal!!) face to face transaction is all but impossible. By mandating that the buyer have a CPL you are in effect saying the buyer must pass a background check prior to being able to purchase a gun.


    Why is it "just good sense" and CYOA when its you, but when the state requires it then its the worst idea ever?

    I know there is a lot more to I-594 than that. It does not change the fact that I see some hypocrisy or at the very least a double standard. I think the whole "good guy card" is a load. There is nothing about a CPL that guarantees you are a good guy. Its a government ID, that's it. Another form of gun control which seems to be well tolerated or even adored & embraced by most of the gun owning public.

    In my view a CPL is simply "people registration" rather than gun registration yet it gives most gun owners some kind of empowerment because there government has granted them a privilege that in my view the government had no right to regulate in the first place.

    "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" There is no clause in there that states "but we reserve the right to make it a crime unless you have a little piece of paper that says we allow it and say its ok" Yet somehow a CPL has become something that gun owners are proud of.


    I am a little bitter (in case you couldn't tell) that my fellow gun owners have forced my hand at getting a CPL, I don't want one and I am against it in principal yet without it you are basically shut out because your not a member of the supposed "good guy" club.

    For the last few weeks every time I have seen a "Must have CPL" in a listing I think, well there is one gun owner who is already on board with background checks. Who doesn't think he has the ability to make up his mind who is a "good guy" on his own but needs the government to tell him.

    Ok now keep it civil :) We are all adults and can have a theoretical discussion without calling each other names. I have accepted this is the way of the world (thus applying for a CPL and subjecting myself to people registration) but I am not happy about it.
     
    jim97701 likes this.
  2. Martini_Up

    Martini_Up NW USA Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,633
    Likes Received:
    1,736
    we should have background checks to post on the internet.
     
    44mag2ndamend likes this.
  3. pakrat57

    pakrat57 Reedsport Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    152
    Likes Received:
    62
    To me it should be an individual choice. The .gov shouldn't have the authority to mandate who I sell to or if I decide to check ID or do a background check. Just like they shouldn't have the right to tell me how much soda to drink (not that I drink any).
     
  4. IronMonster

    IronMonster Washington Opinionated Member Diamond Supporter

    Messages:
    4,187
    Likes Received:
    6,676
    I agree, And even though it sounds like I am coming down on people who require a CPL for a face to face transaction I don't have any animosity towards them. They have a right to require what ever they want. If they will only sell to someone with a green Ford pickup that was born before 1964 and only after 8:25 PM on a Tuesday they can make that stipulation. They have that right, its their property. They should also have the right to give it to there kid or brother or sell it to the guy at the end of the block without any paperwork should they choose to. Again, its their property.

    My whole feeling on the matter is that over the last 20 years we have slowly been changed, we have been subjected to propaganda that makes people think "yeah, we are less free but its for our own good" and some of that has carried over into the firearms community. 20 years ago no one would ask you for a CPL, Hell hardly anyone had a CPL. I bought and sold lots of guns in the Thrifty Nickel with nothing more than a handshake. Nothing has changed between now and then.

    It all comes down to the same "If you got nothing to hide then why are you complaining?" Its no different in my book than warrantless searches, Complete digital surveillance and militarized police. Its all for your own good. If you complain you must have something to hide. Well I call BS, I got nothing to hide but that does not give you the right to oversee every aspect of my existence.

    I think as the gun community we have bought into "its for your own good" And since we are for the most part law abiding people sometimes we don't question if the law is just. I am against gun registration, If you are too how can you be for "people with guns" registration? Yet most are and have never even given any thought to the fact they have willingly subjected themselves to the very registration they oppose
     
    Last edited: Sep 14, 2014
    jim97701 and ZA_Survivalist like this.
  5. ZA_Survivalist

    ZA_Survivalist Oregon AK's all day.

    Messages:
    4,653
    Likes Received:
    5,766
    I really don't like when a private sale mandates that I must have a CHL..

    The biggest scam and slant against the Second Amendment is the fact that we allowed them to put restrictions (amendments) on our rights to not only keep and bear arms but acquire them.
    Why is a bgc not free? In todays technological world why is it not nearly instantaneous? Why can I not sell across state lines? Why can I not conceal carry in every state if my state "allows" me to?

    All slants against our rights.
    But again, with generation after generation undergoing pussification
    it would seem as if we keep allowing the weak and tarded to pass laws of which they do not understand about subjects to which they know nothing.. I.e... Firearms.
     
    jim97701, Koda, WilliamIV and 2 others like this.
  6. FortRock

    FortRock Bend/Salem, OR Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    480
    Likes Received:
    313
    Interesting discussion. Yes, it is hypocrisy. Of course. Our Constitution is in jeopardy every day now. We narrowly escaped a Senatorial back door rush on the First Amendment just last week. The Second Amendment has been so perverted ("it's for our own good") it is almost unrecognizable. That being said, although CHL may be the lesser of two evils, the CHL program has broadly allowed, encouraged, and enabled probably millions of gun owners in many States to carry without fear of arrest. Prior to the spreading pressure on States to enact lawful concealed carry, free Americans risked felony convictions for exercising their supposed rights under 2A. Talk about upside down, huh? Currently, a licensed Pennsylvanian wondered into NJ with a weapon, and may end up spending several years behind bars. Obviously, according to the Second Amendment, her rights should not end at State lines. But here we are. We are behind in some ways, and ahead in others. I oppose I-594. As I oppose Oregon's pending attempts to mimick California by introducing California condors here and then banning lead ammo while increasing hunting and fishing fees. We are under attack by our pussified "law-makers" every day. Geez....I think I'll go burn off some ammo! Semper Fi.
     
    IronMonster likes this.
  7. IronMonster

    IronMonster Washington Opinionated Member Diamond Supporter

    Messages:
    4,187
    Likes Received:
    6,676
    Its a good point. There is no doubt that the carry population has increased dramatically in the last 30 years. I have had a CCW in Idaho many years ago when I was a resident there and never really gave it much thought. Of course I was in my early 20's when I got it, I actually carried occasionally and did not think much then about politics nor did I have much of a concept of the role of government.

    My animosity towards the whole "Must have CPL" thing started because when I came here I did not own a handgun, had no particular interest in owning one at the time or carrying one yet someone was mandating that I subject myself to fingerprinting and registration in order to "qualify" to buy a long gun from them privately .

    I understand if a guy has a pistol that he wants to make sure he is not selling it to someone who is prohibited or likely to use it in a crime. I dont think its necessary but its a reasonable request.

    But when I want to buy a $1000 .22LR rifle and the guy says "Nope, not without a CPL" Its like, are you kidding me? What kind of criminal is dropping a grand on a bolt action .22 with the nefarious intent?
     
    Last edited: Sep 13, 2014
  8. Just Jim

    Just Jim Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    6,828
    Likes Received:
    6,267
    First off my opinion is that it's all about tax money. The left is all about regulations and how much money they can steal from the people. Whatever the cost is today for a background check the state will raise the fee in the future.

    The way it should be is if you have a CCW you should not have to pay a background check. They should fill out paperwork in the store and you should be able to walk out with the gun. Deal is how are they going to steal more of your money if they do things the right way.

    I like selling to a CCW because I am sure they are not a criminal. I don't want to arm the bad guys.
     
  9. IronMonster

    IronMonster Washington Opinionated Member Diamond Supporter

    Messages:
    4,187
    Likes Received:
    6,676
    Actually you have no idea if they are a criminal. All you know is that up to this point they have not got caught if they are or if they where caught they had enough money for a good lawyer.

    A piece of paper does not make you a good person. There are plenty of bad guys who can pass a background check
     
  10. Just Jim

    Just Jim Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    6,828
    Likes Received:
    6,267
    Once I get the number off the permit if the gun is used in a crime then they will have to come back on the state. Just like a background check, once the state says the person is legal to own they can't come back on you if the gun is used in a crime. Most guns used in crime are stolen but no sense in selling criminals guns.
     
  11. rick benjamin

    rick benjamin USA, Or, Damascus Secure the drama Silver Supporter 2016 Volunteer

    Messages:
    2,438
    Likes Received:
    2,777
    Used to be, machine guns and silencers weren't illegal to possess. Could be bought over-the-counter at a gun store. Cost prevented most Ordinary Decent Folks from buying them. As a result of sensational criminal shoot-outs, Gov made the National Firearms Act of 1934.
    Only AUTHORIZED law-abiding folks (or a criminal) could possess one. Sellers had to have a FFL

    "almost everyone on this site and any other online market place requires that a person pass a background check prior to selling them a firearm."

    When RF Kennedy was assassinated, Gov made the Gun Control Act of 1968.
    Form 4473 made it possible to trace a firearm's path (among the law-abiding).

    Since AlGore invented the internet, we have almost instant access to crime news and other such hyperbole.

    "By mandating that the buyer have a CPL you are in effect saying the buyer must pass a background check prior to being able to purchase a gun."


    Yes, ordinary decent sellers worry that the gun they sell will end up on the news, and them in trouble with the Gov.
    Sellers that worried could sell their gun through an FFL dealer, but there's that Gov form 4473...

    CPL is their only other assurance the unknown buyer was vetted as an ordinary decent citizen.

    You got a CPL?
    Congrats!
    The Gov is not aware you are an illegal alien - mentally defective - convicted felon.

    I figure there isn't a chance in a zillion that my carry will be used to reduce a crime-in-progress.
    I got my CC because of the spread of mass-shootings (Clackamas Town Center).
    But, stranger things have happened...
     
  12. IronMonster

    IronMonster Washington Opinionated Member Diamond Supporter

    Messages:
    4,187
    Likes Received:
    6,676

    Unless you know the person to be restricted from owning a firearm and you sell it to them anyway they can not come back on you. If you acted in good faith and follow the law, which currently does not require you to do a background check, you are doing your part and not responsible for actions after the sale.

    If you knowingly sell a gun to a criminal, or if you know they have criminal intent, then you are an accessory to that crime or at the very least a criminal yourself.

    You should make a judgment call on if this person should have a gun, I just think you can make that call without a piece of paper from the government. I have refused to sell a gun to a person. A kid shows up to make this transaction that gives you a bad feeling. I simply said, "You know what, I have sellers remorse, sorry for your trouble but I think I'm going to keep it"

    I know, "Better safe than sorry"

    But really if you really want to make sure your guns are not used in a criminal way, Best thing to do is just melt them down when your tired of them, I mean, Better safe than sorry right? :p
     
  13. Mark W.

    Mark W. Silverton, OR Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    5,778
    Likes Received:
    4,970
    I've bought almost a dozen firearms through the ads here on NWFA and I have never been asked to show my CHL. I have been asked for my Drivers License which I gladly showed with the number covered. As it shows that I am a resident of the State of Oregon.

    And the big problem with I594 is as they say in the details. Its not that you are required to do a BGC before selling someone a firearm. It is that you are required to involve a FFL who will charge on average 25.00 to transfer the gun to their books and then back out. Or the silly crap about loaning a firearm to a friend or even family member.
     
  14. IronMonster

    IronMonster Washington Opinionated Member Diamond Supporter

    Messages:
    4,187
    Likes Received:
    6,676
    My whole point of this thread is not to try and change anyone's mind about requiring a CPL. Its beyond that. Its pretty much accepted practice now and no amount of arguing about it will make any difference. If you want to play you have to comply.

    My hope was some people would look at it though fresh eyes.

    When the anti gunners are supporting I-594 they are using the very same rational.

    "If you got nothing to hide it shouldn't matter, Its just common sense, Its better safe than sorry, If we save just one person it will be worth it."

    You and I both know that this legislation will do next to nothing to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Really the point of the law is to make as many criminals out of law abiding gun owners as possible and make it as hard to own a gun legally as possible.

    Requiring a CPL for a private transaction is a gun owner making it as hard as possible for someone to own a gun. It is saying the buyer is guilty unless proven innocent (or at least as guiltless as the state thinks he is )

    There are almost 7 million people in Washington around 400,000 have a CPL

    So 6.6 million folks are not "good enough" to own a gun, at least one of your guns, by that criteria and its our very gun culture that is perpetuating this
     
    Last edited: Sep 13, 2014
  15. IronMonster

    IronMonster Washington Opinionated Member Diamond Supporter

    Messages:
    4,187
    Likes Received:
    6,676
    I remember 25 years ago it being common to see guns & ammo at a yard sale.... Ahhh, simpler times.
     
  16. Just Jim

    Just Jim Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    6,828
    Likes Received:
    6,267
    Again it's all about tax money. When you sell through a dealer someone is going to pay the dealer fee and "sales tax". None of this would be happening if people voted in conservatives but ya know it feels kinda good watching people get the government they voted for.

    I wonder if the tax paid will be out of the blue book of values?
     
  17. Just Jim

    Just Jim Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    6,828
    Likes Received:
    6,267

    You buy an AR then sell it without paper work to someone, then he sells it to a mass killer. It's registered in your name but no paper trail to protect you. Government may not go after you but some rectum lawyer will try. It's better to keep a paper trail in today's world.

    What happens to my guns after I am dead is someone else's worry:p
     
    rick benjamin likes this.
  18. IronMonster

    IronMonster Washington Opinionated Member Diamond Supporter

    Messages:
    4,187
    Likes Received:
    6,676
    I have no doubt of that, That same lawyer is going to come after you no matter what paperwork you have. You might be in a better position if you have some paperwork but you might not. It might depend entirely on how good of lawyer you can afford to hire.


    Filling out a bill of sale and showing ID is part of many transactions and something that seems reasonable as you can not lawfully sell to someone from out of state. However there is no such law prohibiting you from selling to a law abiding citizen without a CPL that is totally self imposed and I bet there is no legal president to show there is protection for the seller by asking for it. (Anyone? That would be interesting to know)

    I have always ask "Are you legally able to posses a firearm?" I dont do that to cover my butt, I do it to see their response. (I suppose its a bit to cover my butt as anything but a solid "yes" wont do) No one wants to sell a gun to a bad guy. I have had one of my stolen guns used in the course of a crime. It was stolen from a locked gun safe (they stole the whole safe, I did not have it bolted down) It is an awful thing to learn that something you cherished was turned against someone and I wouldn't wish that on anyone.
     
  19. Just Jim

    Just Jim Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    6,828
    Likes Received:
    6,267
    None of this would be a problem if people would learn how to vote for smart people. It isn't going to happen so the best anyone can do is learn to live with idiots:D
     
  20. FortRock

    FortRock Bend/Salem, OR Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    480
    Likes Received:
    313
    Sorry that happened to you. I had my first .22 rifle arrive at my folks' door by the local mailman!
     
    IronMonster likes this.