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

Obviously not anti-gun, but am for private sale backround checks. Talk me out of it.

Discussion in 'Legal & Political Archive' started by Phillyfan, Apr 9, 2015.

  1. Phillyfan

    Phillyfan Oregon City, Oregon Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    1,351
    Likes Received:
    336
    Ex-military, member of the NRA, and a gun club, and I see no reason for not having background checks for private sales. I have sold around 15 guns in the past (one last week, in fact), and was always sure to see the license to make sure they were a resident to comply with the law, but was always a little worried about whether or not the people I was selling to were legally allowed to own the gun. Even turned down a few buyers because it just didn't feel right (if you know what I mean).

    My worst nightmare would be selling a firearm to a felon who went on to use that gun to harm innocent people. I realize that can happen either way, but why not have the extra sense of security of knowing that the individual can legally own a firearm? $30 for a background check seems like a bargain for the piece of mind.

    I know this will be a very unpopular opinion, so lets skip the "libtard", "you are anti-gun", "anti-2nd", BS attacks and just give me real, honest, thought out reasons why you are against it.

    Attacks against me for thinking this way will only show that you don't have the intellect to defend your opinion, so, please, show me the other side of the coin. I am not above admitting I was wrong and changing my mind.
     
  2. Dyjital

    Dyjital Albany, Ore Flavorite Member Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    4,902
    Likes Received:
    5,853
    I've always had the view: that If i'm in doubt of somebody status (without CHL) then I can run a check.

    I shouldn't be FORCED to do one on my father in law, a buddy or a cousin (actually cousin's son/daughter).

    The key word is FORCED. There is no freedom when forced.
     
    orygun, 3MTA3, justint and 4 others like this.
  3. Phillyfan

    Phillyfan Oregon City, Oregon Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    1,351
    Likes Received:
    336
    I can see that, but what about sales to people you don't know? Not all of us have the scruples to run a check on someone we question. Cash is king. Some of us will sell to anyone with the money to buy.
     
  4. Ben Beckerich

    Ben Beckerich NW Oregon Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    3,917
    Likes Received:
    2,339
    You'd have to convince me it makes a difference...

    You'd also have to convince me there are free men who should be denied their Constitutionally-protected natural rights....

    Then you'd have to convince me it wouldn't be used as a back-door registration.

    So I will not convince you... but if you can answer these questions, perhaps you'll convince yourself.
     
    SheepDog223, decklin, orygun and 13 others like this.
  5. Phillyfan

    Phillyfan Oregon City, Oregon Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    1,351
    Likes Received:
    336
    Totally agree on the "back-door registration" angle. It's the very reason many law abiding citizens buy only through private parties.

    I think there are "free men" out there, however, that should never be allowed to own a firearm.

    Whether or not it makes a difference for me is a mute point. It tells me that I did everything I could to make sure my gun doesn't end up in the hands of a criminal (at least directly from me).
     
  6. Ben Beckerich

    Ben Beckerich NW Oregon Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    3,917
    Likes Received:
    2,339
    It tells you that you did everything you were willing to do to ensure a gun didn't end up in a hands of a criminal. You drew a line, and didn't cross it. You can draw that line anywhere you want, but the only legitimate way to honestly make that claim is to never sell a gun in the first place.
     
  7. OLDNEWBIE

    OLDNEWBIE State of Flux Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,827
    Likes Received:
    3,957
    Phillyfan,
    Are you for, against or neutral on Registration? Eventual registration is where this is going most of us feel.
    A BG check in some cases might be O.K./needed but it should be your choice.
    I also feel I should be
    able to lend a gun, trade a gun or give a gun to a pal/girlfriend without asking permission from Big Brother Prozanski and his gang.

    If they want to pass a law making it illegal to transfer a gun to a mental patient or a Felon and put the burden on you to find out then that would be better than what they are trying to shove down our throats.

    Now ask me about the gun safe Bill:D
     
    ZigZagZeke, Slobray and sailorfej like this.
  8. Dyjital

    Dyjital Albany, Ore Flavorite Member Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    4,902
    Likes Received:
    5,853
    The vast majority of people I have sold to have a CHL. That's almost a standard. Very, very few that I have sold to haven't and of those I've never sold to anyone who gave me any reason to back out. Everyone I've sold to has been primarily from this board or there has been one/two degrees of separation between us. I know somebody who knows their friends who know their status.

    If you've been around people (who shouldn't own) a lot you can notice that lingo that's used when somebody has spent time in the slammer/big house etc. I worked with quite a few and there is a distinct sub culture there we won't experience.
     
  9. Phillyfan

    Phillyfan Oregon City, Oregon Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    1,351
    Likes Received:
    336
    Also, on the "making a difference" side. I'm an industrial engineer, and I realize how data can be manipulated to say whatever you want it to. I don't trust anything I hear from either side of the gun argument. I listen to NPR for an hour, then the Right side channel (can't think of it, but they carry Rush Limbough). I figure the truth is somewhere in-between.
     
    shootnscoot and ZigZagZeke like this.
  10. ZA_Survivalist

    ZA_Survivalist Oregon AK's all day.

    Messages:
    4,653
    Likes Received:
    5,766
    With a mentality like that YOU ARE NOT a liberty loving, patriotic firearms/ 2A rights advocate.

    You posted your opinion and wanted to know ours.. You get what you get. While I wont get too crass I will let you know how flawed your logic is.

    Look how many sales go on here and on AL as well as ODT (when it existed).. And seriously.. With our type of community we essentially govern ourselves. If that isnt proof enough I dont know what is, you are too far down the antis rabit hole to not see that.

    I mean seriously, did/do we ACTUALLY need government getting their fingers into this as well? They mess EVERYTHING up they lay their hands on.. This is just one more nightmare to add to the list.. Oh and it gets better.. Wait until transfer and BGC prices go up because there isnt a "cap" or the system goes "down" either from an "overload" or for "maintenance" and sales are 100% unavailable.. Essentially denying EVERYONE from their constitutional right to purchase a firearm wherever and whenever they so choose.

    CLEARLY this was a flawed bill, as ALL that are RUSHED THROUGH are..
    Had they "actually cared" they could have written this bill a hell of a lot better and it could have appealed to more on the fence voters.

    Ask yourself, $30 here $30 there.. Perhaps $10 more ontop of the $30 the year after that, so $40 here, $40 there..another $10 after that.. Where does it stop? You think all FFLs will take a "moral stance" when they see the big bucks in extortion.. 'Er I mean "transfers".. But more than that, read the bill, there is so much grey area its disgustingly laughable.

    In the end, Is it "really" that reasonable? This is the same mentality pussified "subjects" have when their masters have beaten them down or brainwashed them into thinking insanity is the "norm".

    May god have mercy on your soul. o_O
     
    oknow, RB87, Riot and 9 others like this.
  11. Phillyfan

    Phillyfan Oregon City, Oregon Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    1,351
    Likes Received:
    336
    I am totally against registration, and, in theory, background checks are not supposed to be used as such, but I definitely get your point. As far as making it our responsibility to not sell to mental patients or felons, how do you do that without a background check?
     
  12. OLDNEWBIE

    OLDNEWBIE State of Flux Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,827
    Likes Received:
    3,957
    Look, you can do a B.G. on someone, he passes and then after a time he irresponsibly sells or gives the gun to a prohibited person who does bad things with it.
    Even with registration the evil gun seller who wants to sell to Felons could file/alter serial numbers.
     
    jbett98 likes this.
  13. Phillyfan

    Phillyfan Oregon City, Oregon Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    1,351
    Likes Received:
    336
    "Look how many sales go on here and on AL as well as ODT (when it existed).. And seriously.. With our type of community we essentially govern ourselves. If that isnt proof enough I dont know what is, you are too far down the antis rabit hole to not see that."

    Yeah, this is the kind of response that make people on the fence go the other way. Is there any logic here? "With our type of community we essentially govern ourselves." Um, OK. Nobody here knows a damned thing about me other than what I tell them. I could be a member of ISIS for all you know. Not sure what "proof" you are talking about.
     
  14. Caveman Jim

    Caveman Jim West of Oly Springer Slayer 2016 Volunteer

    Messages:
    5,265
    Likes Received:
    8,942
    PF, do you actually believe felons will tell the truth (using their real names, address and real ID) on federal forms? Are you that naive?

    I for one am against any form of infringement on the 2A because those in power don't care what the minions (us) think because we (us) cannot live without British rule (governance for political gain)....
     
  15. Phillyfan

    Phillyfan Oregon City, Oregon Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    1,351
    Likes Received:
    336
    But then it is on them, and you have proof of it.
     
  16. Ben Beckerich

    Ben Beckerich NW Oregon Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    3,917
    Likes Received:
    2,339
    So it's just about dodging liability, then? You accept it's ineffective... but at least you won't be held responsible..?
     
    oknow, no time, justint and 3 others like this.
  17. Phillyfan

    Phillyfan Oregon City, Oregon Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    1,351
    Likes Received:
    336
    To me it is about taking one further step in doing what we can to keep guns out of the hands of those who should not have them. Will it keep criminals from getting guns, no, but it may prove to some anti-gunners that we are serious about doing what we can in that effort. For me it isn't liability as much as conscience.
     
  18. meener777

    meener777 King County Active Member

    Messages:
    191
    Likes Received:
    139
    The main problems are:

    1. It's not just bc's - it's actually putting data into a big computer database. Some argue that's a good thing, to help police. I haven't been able to find any information to back that up though. e.g. How many times it's accessed per year, percentage of times that these accesses are while an officer is on a call, a potentially dangerous call, or are used successfully in other police work is unknown as far as I know. But there is another great use for them - if they ever want to come collect them.

    Also, it's not just a list. They can pretty much connect the data into a social network and figure out who are the main hubs of activity, keeping a tight eye on who is selling what to whom, from where to where, and when. That can be analyzed in lots of creative ways.

    Another important point is that this data is often publicly accessible to anyone and can therefore be misused in a number of ways. A newspaper in NY posted a map of gun owners houses on the Internet! (see http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/0...papers-gun-map-wouldve-made-job-easier-safer/)

    2. Language in BC bills aren't about changes in *ownership*. The WA bill says it's illegal to hand the rifle to someone else without a background check unless you are at a shooting spot designated by the local government (a term which is not defined in 594...). This seems a bit excessive. Additionally it says that if you inherit a firearm and fail to realize it and register it within (i think) 90 days then you will be violating the law for a gun you didn't even know you had. You could lose your firearms rights for some violations!

    3. The goal is to save lives but there doesn't seem to be any strong evidence that they do. They certainly have nothing to do with stopping suicides - many suicides are by people who easily pass a background check (not to mention the fact that there numerous other methods available for offing oneself). Given the number of unregistered guns in this country it seems unlikely that the bill would effect criminals much - they don't need to get a gun at a dealer or through the gun boards. They will have their own gun shows if it gets bad - even full prohibition does not stop the willful as we learned in the early 20th century. The antis might tell you how fewer women were killed and fewer cops were killed after background checks were passed in California (at least that's what they said in the Seattle televised debates). As far as I know, no data was supplied so this cannot be verified. But you can easily check that homicide rates went down by 50% (and are still dropping) since 1990 all over the country. So even if the drop in those numbers were true, concluding that the supposed drop was caused by background checks alone would seem more than a little bit dubious to the scientifically minded. Also, they don't stop crazy mass shooters like the guy in Santa Barbara. He passed the BC, killed four people with a knife, and then went on his little shooting spree. In fact it seems like none of CA's impressive array of firearms laws seemed to really hinder him in his intended form of mayhem.

    4. BC's are not free. It costs a lot of money to implement the computer systems and run the phones etc. NY state budget debates indicate that they have allocated about $7m so far ($3.6m/year) for technical implementation of the SAFE act. Not sure what the WA budget numbers are for 594. You pay $x for a NICS check now, could they crank that up at some point? At 16.8M checks per year nationwide, at a reasonable $25 per check, we the buyers spend about $500M for the privilege per year. Canada had a full registration system for a while and they canned it because it was expensive and not that useful.

    5. There is an better way to do this which is to publish a government web page that allows us to determine if someone is on the bad list, but do it *anonymously*. This can be done using math/cryptography. So, in this scenario, you would download the list, the buyer would show his drivers license and you would punch in his id number and, without talking to the Feds, you just verified that they are not on the list. This could be for almost free since there is no FFL and no person on the phone. No records are kept. It's just a tool you could use (could be required to use) to privately determine if the person in front of you was not allowed. It would bother people a lot less since they wouldn't be being tracked. You could still get a bill of sale of you were interested in being able to prove that you sold it.

    6. Last but not least its pretty inconvenient.

    So if you are okay with an expensive and inconvenient system that doesn't seem to do much to stop gun violence and is an inferior technical solution that stores everything in a big tracking database and a bill that contains some very dubious language and odd restrictions, then be my guest and vote for it.

    [Edited: Fixed some typos, added links, some additional info]
     
    Last edited: Apr 11, 2015
  19. Eludnu

    Eludnu Oregon Member

    Messages:
    72
    Likes Received:
    47
    I've only ever come close to backing out of a sale once. And I was the buyer! The seller was a very vocal card holder who was also very pro-gun. Kinda torn on that one. One or the other in my book. I should have bought every gun in the house, just to secure them.

    For those I've sold too, they either have a CHL, NRA stamp, or are former members of the military who served for us overseas.

    I would not have a problem with a bill that required us to run the buyer. No serial numbers involved. Potential buyer gets fully prosecuted along with all those that already do under the current background system for failing a background check. (Regrettable Sarcasm) Let's be consistent, after all.
     
    Last edited: Apr 9, 2015
    ZigZagZeke likes this.
  20. Phillyfan

    Phillyfan Oregon City, Oregon Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    1,351
    Likes Received:
    336
    Awesome! This give me, and hopefully others something to consider. Nice reply.