- Messages
- 424
- Reactions
- 45
NO!
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
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.
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
....Pretty obvious. People just wouldn't use the forms and sell anyway.
You think every banger in Oakland buys guns with an FFL present?
waltermitty;741275[COLOR="#FF0000" said:]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
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.
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 said: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
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
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.
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.
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?
Thanks for the replies
AgreedWill never happen, impossible to enforce.
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 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.
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.
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.