Correct ne uf I'm wrong

[Hkindiana]

No no no no no.............. How is it my responsibility to assume liability for another person's action? So I sell my buddy a gun. He is a proper person who later makes a bad decision.

if you knowingly give car keys to a drunk individual, the courts have held that you ARE liable for another persons actions. So, by NOT doing this type of limited background check, and you deliver a firearm to a mentally unstable person who uses it in a crime, you don't think you would not bear any responsibility?

 

[SmokinSigs357]

I will only correct you because your thread title is spelled incorrectly.

 

[Birds Away]

Before you start the hate mail, pease read this entire post, and offer rational suggestions. My point is that by law, we must verify that an individual is 21 before we can give or sell them alcohol, and no one screams that this is an infringement of our rights. What is wrong with a NICS check (with no weapon information conveyed) requirement for the sale of a firearm? This would not be a "firearm registry" as some fear, because there would be no record of the weapon OR the serial number. It would simply be to verify that the person you are transferring a weapon to, is not a criminal or disqualified individual. You and I both know that ANYONE can walk into a gun show and walk out with any number of handguns, rifles, and "assault weapons" without ANYONE verifying that they are not a criminal, mentally insane, an illegal, etc, simply by purchasing from individuals or those selling from "private collections". I know the term "disqualified individual" is open to discussion, and CAN be changed by government whim. However, if we agreed to a simple background check, and the government later decided that redheads and blondes would now be "disqualified individuals", we could use common sense, and just go back to what we do now. In the interim, just maybe, we might stop some crazy from obtaining a firearm.

I guarantee you that information will be recorded and ATF knows just where to find it. They won't pass a UBC without this information being taken because it would not get them any closer to registration which is their real intent.

 

[SideArmed]

My point. If you KNOW they would pass, you wouldn't have to do it. No penalty. However, IF you don't do it, and transfer the weapon to a convicted felon, mentally unstable individual, illegal, etc, then YOU could legally be held jointly responsible for anything they do with the weapon. Plus, it could be a toll free number that ANYONE could call, so there would be no cost.

AHahahahahaha...Having a toll free number makes it free??? AHhahahaha

Who do you think is paying those folks on the other end of the phone call??

It would be your responsibility IF you delivered a firearm to a prohibited person AT THE TIME of the transfer. If you had an OK from NICS, and the guy later does something stupid with the firearm, you would not be subject to prosecution OR civil liability, because NICS said it was alright to transfer the firearm. If however, you did not do the NICS, and the person was prohibited from receiving the firearm AT THE TIME of the transfer, then YOU (the transforer) could be held liable. Former owners of the firearm, the manufacturer, UPS, and Santa Claus, could NOT be held liable.

Again, STOP giving away MY rights.

 

[Hkindiana]

Again, STOP giving away MY rights.

Is it REALLY yout RIGHT to give a convicted felon a firearm?

 

[Hkindiana]

I will only correct you because your thread title is spelled incorrectly.

I hope you saw the intended irony in my title

 

[raptrbreth]

We will agree to disagree on this, just guessing, and many other subjects. The government does not enforce the laws already passed so another will not make a difference. I will not bury my head in the sand and believe that the background check will not be recorded somehow. Slowly eating away rights makes one lose sight when they are all gone.

 

[SmokinSigs357]

I hope you saw the intended irony in my title

I did, forgot the purple...sorry, will edit.

 

[Hkindiana]

But, that is not at ALL what is being proposed at the federal level.

EVERYONE would need to be checked against their database, and their purchase /transfer recorded. EVERYONE.


That is NOT what I am proposing

It is already illegal to transfer to an "excepted" person, and you can already be held accountable for that transfer. Why make it double illegal?

Yes, it is, but how do We KNOW if they are "excepted"?

There is no proposal to make it a toll-free number. The current proposal would be a paper form at a dealer in ALL cases. Talk about waste.....

Again, not my proposal

There is ALWAYS a cost. Today it is a transfer fee. Tomorrow it could be a "tax". Either way, if the government is involved we ALL pay the (terribly inflated) price.

You want to give up YOUR freedom? Go ahead. Do all of your deals through an FFL. Leave me out of it, though. I'm not a criminal. Don't treat me like one.

I'm not trying yo give up anyones freedom. I'm suggesting something akin to the goid samaritan law. In this case you COULD NOT BE HELD liable fir someone elses actions if you get the OK from NICS to transfer the firearm.

 

[eldirector]

Is it REALLY yout RIGHT to give a convicted felon a firearm?

That is already illegal.

Oh, and you are wrong.

</thread>

 

[Classic]

OP, you said you wanted to be corrected if you are wrong. You are wrong and now corrected.

 

[Hkindiana]

We will agree to disagree on this, just guessing, and many other subjects. The government does not enforce the laws already passed so another will not make a difference. I will not bury my head in the sand and believe that the background check will not be recorded somehow. Slowly eating away rights makes one lose sight when they are all gone.

HOW could it be somehow recorded, if you the seller, do not provide OR maintain the information?

 

[Hkindiana]

OP, you said you wanted to be corrected if you are wrong. You are wrong and now corrected.

I also asked for rational discussion, not your personal opinion.

 

[JoshuaW]

I would have no problem with NICS checks, the real problem is they will want some form of enforcement, they will want some record to verify that the private party did a NICS. If they started requiring FFLs to perform the service for free, or required the BATF to setup a booth at gun shows and perform them for free, then I would happily comply, but I dont dont want to personally have to keep additional records, and I dont want the government keeping additional records to form a defacto registration.

As for your point about alcohol, alcohol use is not a Constitutionally protected right, firearm ownership is.

 

[Classic]

I don't converse with obvious trolls.

 

[raptrbreth]

HOW could it be somehow recorded, if you the seller, do not provide OR maintain the information?

Hmm, the person that I sell to has to have a file on a mainframe/server somewhere...so I call and verify that they are not a felon/crazy/whatever. I am and will never claim to be a computer scientist but all computers maintain a file of when the files are accessed. Do the math.

 

[Hkindiana]

Acually, Vert is correct. And then you went on to reiterate his point again in your post. You first disagreed with him, then agreed with him later in his post. The term "Private Dealer" is an oxymoron on terms of gun sales and gun shows. If it is a private sale then the person CAN NOT be a dealer.?

Vert is not right, and HE used the oxymoron "private dealer". I said "private individual", a TOTALLY different term

 

[Dauvis]

That is already illegal.

Oh, and you are wrong.

</thread>

How would a seller know if the buyer is not a violent felon? Take his word for it?

 

[Shootsforfun]

The record would be that if I sell a firearm to raptrbreth on 3/30/13, I have a NICS transaction number, on that date, to show that they said it was OK to transfer a firearm to him. I wouldn't be required to keep your address or the firearm information. Then if raptrbreth turned out to be a criminal and said "hey, I got the pistol from hkindiana", I would be covered because I did the check. If I did not do the legally required check, I could be held jointly liable for any infraction done with said firearm.

The point is we don't or shouldn't need approval from the government to buy or sell anything....

 

[Caleb]

I'm starting to wonder if you are trying to start something...