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

[Joe13]

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.

Didn't read any of the responses...

Criminals don't get guns from private sales - they buy black market guns that have been stolen; end of story.

 

[OLDNEWBIE]

Problem is that if such a law is passed, cash will still be king and there will always be someone willing to sell to anyone with the money to buy.

As has been said, If the check is to check out the buyer, why is the firearm information even included?

So, you have a law that does nothing, really, to keep handguns out of the hands of bad guys, and also creates a registration scheme on any firearm that transfers. That's enough for me.

Some Law makers want to eliminate Cash as well! Possibilities of illegal gun transactions gives them another argument. But now I'm straying from the topic. Yes, drugs, prostitution, bribing legislators and illegal gun sales all are a Cash Only business. And they will exist as long as Cash exists.

 

[Mikej]

I would find it hard to believe there are many, if any, "Fence Sitters" that participate on a regular basis on the forum.

Thanks for this Phillyfan.

 

[Classic]

Life in the world of guns would be so much easier if all gun owners would get a concealed license. This should be proof enough that the individual can/has passed a background check! If they chose not to then let them be limited to buying from dealers/stores/FFL's while all the peeps with good guy cards can keep their sales off the radar - no gun registry!

 

[IronMonster]

I am in a rush this morning and only read the first few posts so if my comments are not in tune with the current conversation that is why.

The reason why you should not promote universal background checks is simply this.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It does not say "as long as some ruling overlord party says otherwise" It does not say unless you have broken some rule, it says "Shall not be infringed"

Granted there are reasons why a person should not have a firearm, those people will be able to procure one no matter what kind of laws are passed. A criminal by definition is someone who does not adhere to law.

Background checks only affect law abiding citizens, the goal of background checks is to control and restrict the movement of legal firearms of lawful citizens

The highest gun crime rates anywhere in the country are those places with the strictest gun control, why? because only the criminals have guns.

Passing gun control laws only truly affect those who follow the law, they have little to no effect on crime.

That is the long and short of it. Background checks sound like a reasonable solution to a reasonable person. The truth is it mostly is a feel good measure that does nothing to help but does a considerable amount of damage to your second amendment right.

You think a law will keep a criminal from getting a gun?

How many hundreds of tons of pot is consumed in the 48 states where it is still a crime. Did a law stop that?

Its a law that you cannot enter into the US without a visa, yet somehow we have 11,500,000 people in the US without one.

How many millions of people every day drive faster than the speed limit. Did a law stop that?

Laws are just words, They stop nothing. The only people they affect are the ones who are not a problem to begin with, law abiding citizens.

As far as you being worried about selling a firearm to the wrong person. The best you can do is use the gray gook between your ears. You can talk to someone for 30 minutes and determine an opinion of them. If they seem sane and level headed that's about the best you can do. You are not and can not be responsible for anothers actions. You need to show a good faith effort at what is required. If its the law to sell to only a resident then require ID and make a judgement call.

There is no law that will ever stop a bad guy from getting a gun. The only possible way is to get all the guns from everyone, the anti-gun crowd knows this and everything they do is a step on the way to this goal. Anything we give up is a victory for them no matter how trivial or reasonable it may seem.

Their goal is to deprive the 99.99998% of lawful gun owners their second amendment right to protect us from that .000001% and to do so in a way that is "common sense" (code for utter bullshyte)

 

[etrain16]

Life in the world of guns would be so much easier if all gun owners would get a concealed license. This should be proof enough that the individual can/has passed a background check! If they chose not to then let them be limited to buying from dealers/stores/FFL's while all the peeps with good guy cards can keep their sales off the radar - no gun registry!

I don't think the 'constitutional carry' crowd would agree with you on that. As for me, I partially agree, but if, and only if, they make my CHL a de facto BGC on all future purchases, whether private, FFL or gun show. In other words, I don't have to pass another BGC so long as I keep my CHL current. And while we're at it, get rid of the requirement for recording my serial numbers when I do buy from a dealer.

Unfortunately, you have to consider one big thing when it comes to the CHL - even if you did away with gun registration/lists, you do have a gun owner registry, which is close to the same thing.

 

[OLDNEWBIE]

I would find it hard to believe there are many, if any, "Fence Sitters" that participate on a regular basis on the forum.

Thanks for this Phillyfan.

Probably a "few" fence sitting paralyzed with indecision types here.
Many, many more lurkers I imagine. Guys who don't participate in the political aspects of this forum or politics in general and feel fate controls their lives and everything that happens to them, including new gun laws. If these "life is predestined types" could get a little "Free Will" infused into them we could turn this thing around.
O.K. that's tooooo optimistic. We could slow things up a bit and throw a wrench in their registration plans though.

 

[Gator Monroe]

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).

Do you feel a late third trimester abortion ( At point of Pregnancy that if Woman having it was driving to the Clinic for it and was in a Car Accident the baby Could/Would pop out (Crash induced birth) and cry and not need an incubator to survive that that Late third Trimester Abortion she was driving to get should be outlawed ? ( And if no Should She be allowed to end the life of her Newborn (Promptly After the Birth ) because her legitimate Late Third Trimester Abortion was thwarted/interrupted by the unfortunate car accident thus she has special rights to seek a solution other than having the Child and not be offered a post birth Abortion solution ?

 

[pokerace]

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?

Next year they will come back with registration!! They will need it to make sure everybody is complying with this law!!!

 

[GunnyG]

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.

If you look at I-594, they used that line of thinking to criminalize my storing my adult son's firearms in my gun safe, while he's out on deployment, if he doesn't either (a) "bona fide gift" them to me or (b) I get a background check run in order to be able to legally accept custody of his stuff. And I can't return those same firearms to him on his return, without him getting a background check run again, or I find an appropriate Hallmark card to accompany my gifting him an AR carbine a second time, etc..

All of the while, the state is compiling records of what personal property we have. If it actually was done for a good reason, why aren't they doing that with my TV, jewelry, cameras, computers, etc too?

 

[Phillyfan]

Phillyfan,
Don' know if you've decided to write your Senator or House member yet opposing these Bills but thanks for the thread! It's allowing a last minute discussion/clearing house for any fence sitters in our little Forum to get informed opinions on why these Bills stink. These Laws if passed might not matter to you or your children today or next year but one day sooner than you think it will matter.

The thing I like most about it is most of the posters are making valid points, rather than just beating their chests, calling the other side names, and giving the lame old "take it from my cold dead hand" crap that turns fence sitters off. This is kind of what I was going for.

 

[crankshaft]

If it were simply a background check, it wouldn't be such a big deal. The problem is, there is a serial number of the firearm attached to the check. Background checks don't lead to registration. They ARE registration.

Finally , someone gets it. If you think that the O.S.P gets rid of that data, I have a really nice bridge that I want to sell you!

 

[BlindedByScience]

Next year they will come back with registration!! They will need it to make sure everybody is complying with this law!!!

Make no mistake - this IS registration.......

If it were a simple background check of the potential owner, why is the firearm information needed at all?

 

[sdlsaginaw]

The minute they include language to STOP requiring serial numbers with the background check we'll talk. That will never happen. As long as OSP keeps collecting serial numbers, this is a gun registration scheme plain and simple. Yes they are SUPPOSED to destroy records after, I believe, 5 years but as OFF states there is no penalty for them NOT complying with this and no evidence they do.

 

[Gator Monroe]

Jews were registered in Socialist Nazi Germany ...

 

[GunnyG]

Didn't read any of the responses...

Criminals don't get guns from private sales - they buy black market guns that have been stolen; end of story.

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2014/04/heroin_use_in_oregon_portlands.html
... And if not stolen, has anyone found the source of what must surely be domestically-grown heroin that is feeding the habits of 8000+ Oregonians every year?

 

[Member 5605]

The thing I like most about it is most of the posters are making valid points, rather than just beating their chests, calling the other side names, and giving the lame old "take it from my cold dead hand" crap that turns fence sitters off. This is kind of what I was going for.

Believe it or not we are a fair representation of firearm owners.

Reality though I bet the selling to a restricted person is .05% when selling from a law abiding citizen. Now when the seller is a criminal it's 99%+. I've seen it happen with people I know are restricted from owning firearms. I've seen idiots that I worked with pass around a drilled out serial numbered gun. I saw it, realized and called them idiots and walked away mentioning that they should not let me see it again. All parties involved were prohibited persons. I'm positive somebody else walked away with that gun.

There IS a reoccurring theme here and I hope you see it. Law abiding citizens aren't the problem and they are the ones who get punished here.

 

[solv3nt]

I sent this to my state legislators after having a brief discussion with their advisers.


According to the OSP, last summer the OSP ran 37,631 background checks, of those checks only 331 (0.88%) were denied. Of the 331, only four were arrested. Of the 331, 40 denials were because the firearm came up as stolen, leaving 291 individuals being barred from owning firearms. According to ORS 166.250, a felon, mental health patient, etc, is not allowed to own/purchase firearms, yet only four criminals were arrested last summer.

http://media.oregonlive.com/mapes/other/FICS-Denials-Executive-Summary.pdf
<broken link removed>


Assuming that the two months of FICS information is consistent with the rest of the year, approximately 222,000 background checks were run in the state of Oregon. Everytown for Gun safety estimates that 25,000 guns are sold second hand without background checks each year in Oregon. The last time that I did a background check in Oregon, it took over two hours of standing there waiting for the State Police to complete a check. By law, I am not allowed to walk away while the check is being completed, because the OSP is supposed to show up at the gun store for every denial, in order to make an arrest. The OSP is already overburdened, so an 11% increase on an overly burdened system is only going to make wait times longer.

http://media.oregonlive.com/mapes/other/EGS-022_Oregon_10c_040215-FINAL.pdf


The law as it is written is impossible to enforce unless the OSP starts to make a gun registry. The OSP runs the serial on every gun sold through a background check, and keeps those records for five years. The OSP is legally required to delete the files after five years. The only way to enforce this law is to start a gun registry. The police must prove that the gun was purchased without a background check, which they can't do unless they have a record of who owns it.


If preventing felons from getting firearms is the end goal, please take into consideration the following suggestions.
1) Take the OSP out of the picture, let individuals call NICS directly.
2) Make an exemption for CHL holders, as they're legally allowed to purchase firearms.
3) Make an exemption for FFL 03 holders; the whole reason to get an FFL 03 license is to be able to skip having to complete a background check at an FFL 01 for every firearm purchased.
4) Increase the OSP budget to allow for arresting criminals that aren't allowed to own firearms.

 

[Gunguy45]

Phillyfan:

I do not accept the premise of your question.

You are assuming that criminals/mentally ill people are getting guns through private sales that are otherwise legit, so adding BGC will stop those sales because a legit seller won't do them.

That's a false premise. There's a DOJ report out there on where people got the guns they committed crimes with. It's virtually all stolen, bought from a "street"/illicit source, taken from a family member or "borrowed"/stolen from a friend. The number of guns that go to prohibited persons through a legit private sale is miniscule.

There are 300 million+ guns in this country. If the "problem" that UBCs are supposed to solve NEEDS solving, there should be overwhelming data to show said "problem" exists. There is no such data.

UBCs propose to institute what amounts to a tax on a fundamental right explicitly guaranteed under the constitution. Poll taxes are unconstitutional. You can't even demand a state-supplied, FREE ID. But somehow this fundamental right, it's perfectly ok to tax it, regulate it etc. to the point where only the solidly middle-class and up can afford all the legal/financial hurdles.

This has nothing to do with keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous people. That's what you have to keep in mind. If that WERE the goal, there are dozens of better ways to address the issues of bad-guys with guns that would actually solve a real, verifiable and creditable problem. This is nothing but one more attempt to give our rights the "death of a thousand cuts." It's always put forward by the same people who will tell you straight up that they want to ban ALL gun ownership anytime there isn't a microphone around. -Don't be fooled. This isn't about violence or harm reduction. It's about making it more difficult to exercise a fundamental right. Make it enough hassle, fewer people will exercise that right.

 

[etrain16]

I sent this to my state legislators after having a brief discussion with their advisers.


According to the OSP, last summer the OSP ran 37,631 background checks, of those checks only 331 (0.88%) were denied. Of the 331, only four were arrested. Of the 331, 40 denials were because the firearm came up as stolen, leaving 291 individuals being barred from owning firearms. According to ORS 166.250, a felon, mental health patient, etc, is not allowed to own/purchase firearms, yet only four criminals were arrested last summer.

http://media.oregonlive.com/mapes/other/FICS-Denials-Executive-Summary.pdf
<broken link removed>


Assuming that the two months of FICS information is consistent with the rest of the year, approximately 222,000 background checks were run in the state of Oregon. Everytown for Gun safety estimates that 25,000 guns are sold second hand without background checks each year in Oregon. The last time that I did a background check in Oregon, it took over two hours of standing there waiting for the State Police to complete a check. By law, I am not allowed to walk away while the check is being completed, because the OSP is supposed to show up at the gun store for every denial, in order to make an arrest. The OSP is already overburdened, so an 11% increase on an overly burdened system is only going to make wait times longer.

http://media.oregonlive.com/mapes/other/EGS-022_Oregon_10c_040215-FINAL.pdf


The law as it is written is impossible to enforce unless the OSP starts to make a gun registry. The OSP runs the serial on every gun sold through a background check, and keeps those records for five years. The OSP is legally required to delete the files after five years. The only way to enforce this law is to start a gun registry. The police must prove that the gun was purchased without a background check, which they can't do unless they have a record of who owns it.


If preventing felons from getting firearms is the end goal, please take into consideration the following suggestions.
1) Take the OSP out of the picture, let individuals call NICS directly.
2) Make an exemption for CHL holders, as they're legally allowed to purchase firearms.
3) Make an exemption for FFL 03 holders; the whole reason to get an FFL 03 license is to be able to skip having to complete a background check at an FFL 01 for every firearm purchased.
4) Increase the OSP budget to allow for arresting criminals that aren't allowed to own firearms.

Well written and well cited. This should be included in all of our contacts to all of our legislators. Don't give them any way to weasel out of these facts.