Require all firearm sales to go through a NICS check?

[Teufel_Hunden]

NO!

 

[deadeye]

How about we enforce the current laws on the books as they were originally enforced and stop giving the criminal more rights than the victim. If you decide to kill you get the same..... Most criminals dont fear the prison term they would get for stealing a firearm let alone using it to rob, kill or whatever. If the penalty fit the crime and they realized what was ahead of them it would deter a heck of alot of what currently goes on.

I believe a thief should lose a finger or hand, a rapist a differnet part of their anatomy, a killer their life. Yeah we have the death penalty but if the namby pamby in the mansion says no that over rides our vote. If they had a dire consequence rather than a couple months if that in a government hotel it sure would help to reduce overcrowding in prisons too.


Let the bleeding hearts loose to attack that.

 

[oknow]

How about we enforce the current laws on the books as they were originally enforced and stop giving the criminal more rights than the victim. If you decide to kill you get the same..... Most criminals dont fear the prison term they would get for stealing a firearm let alone using it to rob, kill or whatever. If the penalty fit the crime and they realized what was ahead of them it would deter a heck of alot of what currently goes on.

I believe a thief should lose a finger or hand, a rapist a differnet part of their anatomy, a killer their life. Yeah we have the death penalty but if the namby pamby in the mansion says no that over rides our vote. If they had a dire consequence rather than a couple months if that in a government hotel it sure would help to reduce overcrowding in prisons too.


Let the bleeding hearts loose to attack that.

at least save all states a lot of $ by having prisons like the one sheriff Joe has

 

[hermannr]

Serious question here, and since my brain is having trouble getting revved up today I thought I'd post it in hopes that some responses would give it a kick start. What are the pros and cons of requiring all firearm sales go through a NICS check?

• Requiring FFL involvement would not be required and would be an onerous burden to the seller, IMHO.
• Involving a state agency as Oregon does would be the same.
• Criminals or those with criminal intent already find ways to avoid a NICS check.

ETA: Not sure how to edit the thread title. It should read "all legal firearm sales". Thanks NWcid.

There should be no GCA68, if it was repealed, this garbage would not even be a question...NO, there is no need...The Sandy Hook shooter stole his weapons, the Clackamas shooter stole his weapons...why do you want to restrict everyones right when it will have absolutely no good effect for society in General and will gust make a legal activity more difficult and expensive?

it worked for 200 years, why do you want to restrict your RIGHT to your own self defense, and what makes you so D$%^ holy that you should be able to restrict someone elses RIGHT?

 

[rumblebee1967]

Why do people think that criminals are suddenly going to start obeying a new law. They are criminals for dang sake. They dont obey laws.

 

[oknow]

Why do people think that criminals are suddenly going to start obeying a new law. They are criminals for dang sake. They dont obey laws.

because it makes them FEEL like they are doing something (dumb arses) them not you

 

[hermannr]

because it makes them FEEL like they are doing something (dumb arses) them not you

Well, I think the "feel good" actually comes from the power trip of being able to force their will on someone else...after all, they know better than the average joe don't you know?

 

[wayoutwest]

....Pretty obvious. People just wouldn't use the forms and sell anyway.

You think every banger in Oakland buys guns with an FFL present?

Thus violating the law and you become a criminal...the irresponsible gun owner violating the law and selling off the books.

And a general question, when you decide to just sell it outside the FFL and it turns up with LEO, your the last known owner on file, was it stolen? did you forget to report it missing?

 

[waltermitty]

then why have background checks at all? if we conclude that only law abiding people would
succumb to the check, and those with criminal backgrounds would avoid NICS, i'm not clear
why we're not just opposed to all background checks, be it through dealers and private sales?

trying to follow the tangents in all of this. i appreciate the discussion, so thanks for the thread

 

[oknow]

]then why have background checks at all? [/COLOR] if we conclude that only law abiding people would
succumb to the check, and those with criminal backgrounds would avoid NICS, i'm not clear
why we're not just opposed to all background checks, be it through dealers and private sales?

trying to follow the tangents in all of this. i appreciate the discussion, so thanks for the thread

for $

 

[mkwerx]

Why is it impossible to enforce, its already in California and has been for many years. All new gun sales at the FFL get a 4473 and DROS (dealer record of sale) all your info and gun info, kept on file for many, many years. Sell it to someone else and its back to the FFL for a new 4473/DROS for the new owner with a state fee.

Because criminals buy their guns from dealers and go through background checks. Because they won't steal them, or buy them illegally. In every country that has banned firearms - even Japan and China - the criminals have guns, and plenty of them. And they have an unarmed pool of victims to choose from.

 

[mkwerx]

Thus violating the law and you become a criminal...the irresponsible gun owner violating the law and selling off the books.

And a general question, when you decide to just sell it outside the FFL and it turns up with LEO, your the last known owner on file, was it stolen? did you forget to report it missing?

And this would work without requiring registration how? If I bought a gun private party that had two previous owners, and I sell that gun private party to someone who has it stolen from him or uses it in a crime - how are they going to know who had that gun, save for the original purchaser?

then why have background checks at all? if we conclude that only law abiding people would
succumb to the check, and those with criminal backgrounds would avoid NICS, i'm not clear
why we're not just opposed to all background checks, be it through dealers and private sales?

trying to follow the tangents in all of this. i appreciate the discussion, so thanks for the thread

Because gun owners tried appeasing the Brady crowd, and the states get revenue from the checks. The background checks are more feel good measures than working solutions - the Connecticut shooter proved that despite being turned down to buy, he could obtain a gun. And what about people with undiagnosed mental health problems that have no criminal history - they'll pass just about any background check. Do you propose making anyone who wants to buy a gun schedule an hour with a shrink before they're allowed to make that purchase? And what's to stop an anti-gun psych from failing everyone, just because he's afraid of guns or doesn't believed in an armed citizenry?

 

[hermannr]

then why have background checks at all? if we conclude that only law abiding people would
succumb to the check, and those with criminal backgrounds would avoid NICS, i'm not clear
why we're not just opposed to all background checks, be it through dealers and private sales?

trying to follow the tangents in all of this. i appreciate the discussion, so thanks for the thread

You kind of get the idea...yes...background checks are a waste of resources and money. I turned 21 before the GCA68..before the GCA68 a 16 year old could walk into the corner harware store, purchase a pistol, and a couple boxes of ammo, perfectly legally...I know, I did...back in the 50's.

Guess what...there were a lot fewer crazy people playing shoot-em-up, and those that did generally got shot by civilians before the cops even arrived. The worst ever school mass killing happened in 1927...but that was from a bomb not a gun.

There were shooting clubs in school...it was a sport...you competed against other schools, just like football.

Background check never stopped someone that could not pass the check, and it is not a predictor of future behavour...Those that could not pass the check...just stole their weapons...remember not..CT already HAS an AWB, mag cap limits, gun registration, manditory training for posession outside the home, and manditory safe storage...so, how much did these so called "common sense" infringements help???? Not!

 

[jrprich]

Firearms are serialized and tracked from the time of stamping that serial, to the final product, to the sales department, to the wholesaler, to the distributor, to the FFL, then to the purchaser ( despite what the govt claims they still log every sale, that's why a serial number and description of the firearm are on the form ).

Yes, but when I sell my pistol to someone FTF in my state there is no record of that transaction. Even if I wanted the transaction recorded so as to show that the pistol is no longer in my possession there is no way to do so. So as far as the government knows the pistol is still in my possession and if it is used in a crime and found they will show up at my door in the middle of the night. I would not object to some sort of recorded transfer much like we do when we transfer the title on a car once sold.
I know this would not stop "criminals" from obtaining a firearm, it might stop me from getting blamed when some criminal ends up with my sold pistol down the line.

 

[mkwerx]

Yes, but when I sell my pistol to someone FTF in my state there is no record of that transaction. Even if I wanted the transaction recorded so as to show that the pistol is no longer in my possession there is no way to do so. So as far as the government knows the pistol is still in my possession and if it is used in a crime and found they will show up at my door in the middle of the night. I would not object to some sort of recorded transfer much like we do when we transfer the title on a car once sold.
I know this would not stop "criminals" from obtaining a firearm, it might stop me from getting blamed when some criminal ends up with my sold pistol down the line.

What you're saying is that you want registration. How about if you're so worried about the police blaming you for the criminal act of someone who obtains a gun you used to own - you voluntarily keep a record - write up a bill of sale and get the buyer's name, DOB, address, driver license number, etc. If they're willing to give you that info, great. If not, don't sell to them. Pretty simple.

 

[jrprich]

What you're saying is that you want registration. How about if you're so worried about the police blaming you for the criminal act of someone who obtains a gun you used to own - you voluntarily keep a record - write up a bill of sale and get the buyer's name, DOB, address, driver license number, etc. If they're willing to give you that info, great. If not, don't sell to them. Pretty simple.

I do always use a BOS but a simple BOS with the data you listed is unlikely to have much legal standing in court.........if the situation ever came to that.

We all use some sort of legal transfer process when selling or buying cars, boats, homes, etc.

 

[bnsaibum]

There should be no GCA68, if it was repealed, this garbage would not even be a question...NO, there is no need...The Sandy Hook shooter stole his weapons, the Clackamas shooter stole his weapons...why do you want to restrict everyones right when it will have absolutely no good effect for society in General and will gust make a legal activity more difficult and expensive?

it worked for 200 years, why do you want to restrict your RIGHT to your own self defense, and what makes you so D$%^ holy that you should be able to restrict someone elses RIGHT?

Whoa there. In case you didn't finish reading the OP, it was just a question. Perhaps you also missed my post #17.

Thanks for the replies

Will never happen, impossible to enforce.

Agreed

It may reduce, but never, ever stop it.
California is a prime example of it not working. California has some of the toughest gun laws in the United States and yet criminals still obtain weapons, ammunition, and drugs.

Agreed, and would probably not reduce crime by any measurable amount.

If required by law the service shoud be free to use, I know that will never happen!

NICS is already free for FFL, expand to any NICS check (fecking OSP!).

I think its a common sense move.

On the surface it would appear so, but if you look deeper it is replete with flaws, i.e. see above.

I would only give up any more rights if we got to get some rights back.

Trading with the devil will come back to bite you in the arse. No go.

When will punishing the irresponsible acts of criminals become more important than punishing law abiding citizens?

^This seems to be the $64,000 question. Unfortunately it is among the roots of why I posed my question in the first place.





Don't take my intent wrong in asking the question. I think that most gun laws and gun bans are about as useful as feathers on a pecker. This was just one of the few areas I was having trouble seeing all the angles as they would apply for anyone selling a firearm.

I want NO rights taken away. I also think GCA68 should be repealed, as should all the gun grabber acts. So, unless you have a use for feathers on your pecker, maybe you should brush up on your reading and comprehension skills before you go off half cocked.

 

[waltermitty]

I do always use a BOS but a simple BOS with the data you listed is unlikely to have much legal standing in court.........if the situation ever came to that.

We all use some sort of legal transfer process when selling or buying cars, boats, homes, etc.

j,
just take the BOS and mail it to yourself. when received, do not open the envelope. i know
one person will send it registered (for signature) but I've not spent the extra $ for that. this
an old trick used to establish date stamping of ideas, copyright, etc in this case, you should
code either the sender or addressee info with the BOS transaction contained within

 

[fd15k]

How about knives? Last year 1,694 Americans were murdered with knives. Are you saying there should be some sort of "legal transfer process" every time you sell a knife at a garage sale? Should you have to undergo a background check every time you buy a knife at a store or from a private party?

How about baseball bats? Last year 496 Americans were murdered with blunt objects. Are you saying there should be some sort of "legal transfer process" every time you sell a baseball at a garage sale? Should you have to undergo a background check every time you buy a baseball bat at a store or from a private party?

When people advocate for more background checks, I ask them this question:

What do the following people have in common, besides being mass murderers?

• 
  [*]Seung-hui Cho (Virginia Tech)
• Maj. Nidal Hasan (Ft. Hood)
  [*]Jared Loughner (Tucson)
• James Holmes (Aurora)
• Wade Michael Page (Wisconsin Sikh Temple)

Answer: all of them passed background checks when they bought their guns.

How many lives did those background checks save? Zero.

Background checks do not prevent mass shootings or prevent criminals or nuts from obtaining guns. They are a placebo to give people who want "reasonable" gun control a false sense that "guns are being kept out of the wrong hands". There is no need to expand useless background checks to even more types of gun sales, except to further pacify people who want more gun control.

You need to remember that background checks are only as good as the data used in their process. Some of those individuals could have been stopped from acquiring firearms through legal channels if the mental records
existed in the database. Obviously there are two show stoppers for that to happen. One, is the fact that those individuals did not raise enough attention to be entered into the database as mentally unstable individuals.
Two, some states out right refuse to share mental patient data with the feds.

As for the knives, automobiles and airplanes... I'm not sure why radical gun owners can't comprehend that those items are not designed for most effective ending of life, and have a utilitarian function in day to day life.
Otherwise, we should allow uncontrolled circulation of nukes - those haven't killed anybody in last 60 years, and there are thousands of them in the world.

Like I said earlier in this thread. I don't support background checks for all purchases because that would inconvenience me, not because they don't make sense logically.

 

[Father of four]

As for the knives, automobiles and airplanes... I'm not sure why radical gun owners can't comprehend that those items are not designed for most effective ending of life, and have a utilitarian function in day to day life.

LiveLeak.com - JELAOUS GUY KILLED HIS GIRLFRIEND

Yeah? Tell that to her.