Background checks - what should we support?

[Liberty1911]

Ok, let's start off by saying that ANY background check is an infringement on 2A. Yep, I get it.

However, that isn't the real world we live in. There are plenty of laws prohibiting people from owning guns for various reasons.

So, does that put a private citizen in legal jeopardy for a F2F sale? What if I sell a firearm to a felon etc. but didn't know it? Have I committed a crime?

I don't fully understand the legal implications in a F2F sale, which is one of the reasons I've never done one. I assume there must be some legal responsibility since INGO classifieds usually ask for an LTCH.

So, if a law abiding gun owner is legally responsible for knowing the eligibility of the person he sells to, then wouldn't sellers be better protected if that transaction required a background check?

I'm not advocating either way on this, just wanting to better understand what the issues are.

 

[cosermann]

I support no changes. If you have no reasonable cause to believe that a person to whom you're selling a gun is prohibited from possessing one, you have committed no crime.

Some folks like to see a driver's license (to confirm minimum age, and Indiana residency), and a LTCH as "reasonable" assurance someone is a proper person. That's fine. Some people may argue that those things can be faked. However, if that's the case, it's the person BUYING that's committing the crime, not the seller.

You're not legally responsible for knowing what you don't know. Maybe some of the lawyers on here could add something. I'd like to hear if there's case law to the contrary.

IC excerpts:

"IC 35-47-2.5 Sale of Handguns

IC 35-47-2.5-1
Applicability; conflicts
Sec. 1. (a) This chapter does not apply to the following:
...
(3) Indiana residents licensed to carry handguns under IC 35-47-2-3."

"IC 35-47-2.5-15
Ineligible purchaser attempting to purchase handgun; violation
Sec. 15. (a) A person who is ineligible to purchase or otherwise receive or possess a handgun in Indiana who knowingly or intentionally solicits, employs, or assists any person in violating section 14 of this chapter commits a Class D felony."

"IC 35-47-2-7
Prohibited sales or transfers of ownership
Sec. 7. (a) Except an individual acting within a parent-minor child or guardian-minor protected person relationship or any other individual who is also acting in compliance with IC 35-47-10, a person may not sell, give, or in any other manner transfer the ownership or possession of a handgun or assault weapon (as defined in IC 35-50-2-11) to any person under eighteen (18) years of age. (b) It is unlawful for a person to sell, give, or in any manner transfer the ownership or possession of a handgun to another person who the person has reasonable cause to believe:
(1) has been:
(A) convicted of a felony; or
(B) adjudicated a delinquent child for an act that would be a felony if committed by an adult, if the person seeking to obtain ownership or possession of the handgun is less than twenty-three (23) years of age;
(2) is a drug abuser;
(3) is an alcohol abuser; or
(4) is mentally incompetent."

 

[ryknoll3]

You're not legally obligated to know their status as to being a proper person. You are only responsible for what you can reasonably be expected to know. If you have knowledge that a person would be prohibited, you are responsible not to transfer to them. For example, if you met someone to sell to them and they were unmistakably under age or they mention something about doing a private sale because they could not pass a background check, you would be legally obliged to not complete the transaction.

 

[eldirector]

I support NO changes.

If you are buy or selling, and the other guy gives you the creeps, then go through a FFL. Pretty simple, an no need to force EVERY exchange.

OK, I do support a change: allow non-resident sales w/o a check. I should be able to sell a firearm to my uncle from Virginia without going through a dealer.

 

[hooky]

I support NO changes.

If you are buy or selling, and the other guy gives you the creeps, then go through a FFL. Pretty simple, an no need to force EVERY exchange.

OK, I do support a change: allow non-resident sales w/o a check. I should be able to sell a firearm to my uncle from Virginia without going through a dealer.

Out of rep

 

[stephen87]

Got him for you. There's some guns my aunt that lives out of state has some guns that she'd like to give to me, but she thinks like Director. It's family, why do we have to deal with an FFL?

 

[Liberty1911]

Thanks coserman. Looks like the law says "knowingly" or "reasonable cause", and should cover honest people.

So, if I have no legal jeopardy selling F2F, then I wouldn't support any expansion of background checks.

That being said, I wonder if anyone has been prosecuted for this who did it unknowingly.

Also, on the flip side, if I'm buying F2F, is there any way to be sure the firearm isn't stolen? Maybe the guy selling is a crook.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Got him for you. There's some guns my aunt that lives out of state has some guns that she'd like to give to me, but she thinks like Director. It's family, why do we have to deal with an FFL?

Did you know that she can legally temporarily lend them to you for sporting purposes, and then will them to you so you become the permanent owner when she dies? While she will remain the legal owner while she is alive, and they must be for sporting purposes while in your custody, that wouldn't require an FFL transfer.

 

[Sonney]

Why would you care if you get a back round check on someone you didn't know. It is nothing to you unless you did know. Even the NRA don't have a problem with back round checks. Why would you be any different than a dealer. Don't see problems with them now about registering the gun I have a problem with that because it is right close to confiscation. The least the government know about you the better you are.

 

[eldirector]

Well, if YOU want to do a background check on every sale, then YOU are more than welcome. Most any FFL would be happy to help.

Why do you want to force ME to do the same thing?

Besides, background checks are "right close" to registration.

 

[DestructionDan]

Got him for you. There's some guns my aunt that lives out of state has some guns that she'd like to give to me, but she thinks like Director. It's family, why do we have to deal with an FFL?

As did I!
Simple bill of sale that says they are not a felon covers your rear!
I also take it a little further, and put the gun to the paper and rub a pencil to stamp the serial #.
I have a few in the safe, and plan to keep them until I die. JIC
But I also think it's stupid to have to ship a gun from a family member to a ffl.
Let use my ole ladies grandmas little 22 pistol. Had to ship it to a FFL from out of state to get it. From her to her! The .gov is not getting any money from that so what do they care? It's costing them money really, person to answer the phone, computers for the check, power to run the computers, and the building.
As for change, remove state lines from the law.

 

[mullebarap]

On a federally mandated background check for intrastate person to person sales, this is the problem: The Constitution authorizes the Federal government to "regulate interstate commerce." This is the basis for most/all of our Federal gun laws.

A person-to-person sale of a firearm within a state is NOT interstate commerce. This means that such a federal requirement necessitates Constitutional amendment. This issue has more to do with the 10th Amendment than the 2nd Amendment. Without Constitutional amendment, Federal requirements for intrastate person to person sales is not legal.

 

[mullebarap]

That being said, I obviously support NO changes on a Federal level.