Correct ne uf I'm wrong

[Hkindiana]

Your thread says correct me if I'm wrong. You Have Been Corrected. This thread is done..

Are you just trying to build up your post count?

 

[Hoosier Carry]

What i am proposing is NOT going to stop a "bad guy" from getting a gun, nothing can do so. IF only the police had guns, a bad guy could walk up behind a policeman and hit him in the back of the head with a brick and take his gun.
What I am advocating is a simple, free, way for us to make sure that the person we deliver a firearm to is a "proper person". Right now, there s NO WAY to do this. A non FFL cannot do a NICS check. If we go through a dealer, there is a cost of $20-$50, AND the serial number and make/model of the firearm IS recorded, which could lead into a national database and eventual firearms confiscation.

us meaning law abiding citizen's?

Now the lady that wants to get her new felon boyfriend a gun in his hand, and goes to the local thief in the streets to do it, do you think they will abide by any new law?

Is it possible that a felon could get someone in his daily group of friends, that has a clean record, to go out and buy a gun legally and then sell/give it to him? I don't believe that last transfer will be done through any type of background check.

The only ones abiding by this proposed law is us? Right? What has changed?

 

[IndyDave1776]

us meaning law abiding citizen's?

Now the lady that wants to get her new felon boyfriend a gun in his hand, and goes to the local thief in the streets to do it, do you think they will abide by your new law?

Is it possible that a felon could get someone in his daily group of friends, that has a clean record, to go out and buy a gun legally and then sell/give it to him? I don't believe that last transfer will be done through any type of background check.

The only ones abiding by this proposed law is us? Right? What has changed?

Funny you should mention this. I seem to recall hearing of a certain gun shop that sells HiPoints for the price of Glocks that make a similar transition through society.

 

[Hoosier Carry]

Funny you should mention this. I seem to recall hearing of a certain gun shop that sells HiPoints for the price of Glocks that make a similar transition through society.

Im too new here to know of who your talking about but I don't doubt it one bit.

 

[Hkindiana]

I don't know how many time I have to say it: I am NOT advocating any NEW laws, and I AM NOT supporting UBC's. You need to read the ENTIRE thread before making a comment.

 

[Hoosier Carry]

I don't know how many time I have to say it: I am NOT advocating any NEW laws, and I AM NOT supporting UBC's. You need to read the ENTIRE thread before making a comment.

My apologies Hk. I tried to fix my comment. sorry

 

[jbombelli]

I don't know how many time I have to say it: I am NOT advocating any NEW laws, and I AM NOT supporting UBC's. You need to read the ENTIRE thread before making a comment.

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.

First, you asked us to read your post, not the entire thread. I read that post I quoted above. It reads like you favor universal background checks. You first start by showing how other requirements are not infringements on our rights, then you ask what is wrong with NICS checks, and you go on to try to convince us that universal background checks won't lead to the registry we all know it will lead to. You then lament the fact that criminals and crazy people can walk into a gunshow and buy firearms, no questions asked. Then you go on to tell us how, if we agree to simple background checks and the government goes too far, we can just go back to what we do now, and further state that "in the interim, just maybe, we might stop some crazy from obtaining a firearm."

It sure reads like you favor universal background checks to me.

 

[LarryC]

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.

Your first assumption (and you should know what an assuming does) is that WE meaning Individuals would be able to access the NCIS site and verify. The actual requirement the Anti's are asking for is that all sales and or transfers / gifts to you son, your family etc. MUST go through an FFL dealer!

The information MUST be recorded on the 4473 (PERMANENT RECORD) and kept as long as the GS is in business then TURNED IN TO THE ATF! If that is not a registeration I don't know what it would be called.

Second I would almost bet money that if this measure passes, costs of a "Transfer" will go up within a year to double what it is now! Soon a "transfer tax" will be added (as an excuse to cover the costs of checking on all these dangerous weapons / individuals). IF THIS MEASURE PASSES THERE WILL NO "GOING BACK" - IT WILL PROBABLY COME WITH A PENALTY FOR ILLEGAL TRANSFER BEING A CAUSE FOR REVOKING YOUR GUN RIGHTS AS WELL AS A FINE AND POSSIBLE JAIL TERM.

Third: I fully believe you have been listening to a lot of Anti propaganda. I go to many gun shows a year - Possibly 1% of the firearms that are sold in a gun show are by individuals. I sincerely doubt one out of a hundred people that would be considered "criminal" or fail a background check would purchase a firearm in a gun show! There is always a LEO at every gun show I have attended - often several. I would also bet there are ATF agents in plain clothes attending EVERY show. Why would a criminal purchase a firearm in front of people that can put him or her in Jail??

Any Criminal can (and does) purchase guns from the illegal black market (other criminals) or they steal the firearms. Even the ATF has admitted they have "LOST' many firearms during many "sting operations".

If you have the guts, go to the lowest class bar in the area where you live and while having a drink - mention you want to buy a gun! I'm sure if you work at it you will have several offers - maybe not the first time - maybe the second or third time you visit after they decide your not a LEO.

Hell just ask any honest LEO that has been on the force for a few years - they will tell you. This avenue of gun purchase cannot be closed by all the laws in the books. Anymore than making a "gun free" zone makes it safe - The only one that obeys the LAW is the honest citizen.

 

[Caleb]

What i am proposing is NOT going to stop a "bad guy" from getting a gun, nothing can do so. IF only the police had guns, a bad guy could walk up behind a policeman and hit him in the back of the head with a brick and take his gun.
What I am advocating is a simple, free, way for us to make sure that the person we deliver a firearm to is a "proper person". Right now, there s NO WAY to do this. A non FFL cannot do a NICS check. If we go through a dealer, there is a cost of $20-$50, AND the serial number and make/model of the firearm IS recorded, which could lead into a national database and eventual firearms confiscation.

So if what you are proposing isn't going to keep guns from bad guys, why are you proposing it?

 

[Caleb]

I, for one, value ALL of my constitutional freedoms, and do not want ANY of them to be infringed, reduced, or lost. If my discussions have appeared otherwise, I apologize for offending you. We are all open to our own beliefs, and I am just trying to figure how to keep from breaking current laws without enacting new ones. All too often a politician feels it his his/her job to propose new laws and regulations, and that is one reason we are buried under the current avalanche of laws and regulations that the police, with their limited manpower & time, do not/cannot enforce. It is the politicians job to do what we the people ask of them, and as I see it, really nothing more. After all, WE are their constituents, and not visa-versa. We DO NOT need more gun control laws, including UBC's but we do need a way to help enforce what are already on the books, OR work with our elected politicians to REMOVE those that the MAJORITY of us feel are unjust.

 

[LarryC]

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.

You apparently have not read the current laws. The ATF rule states you MAY sell a firearm to anyone you do NOT HAVE REASONABLE CAUSE to consider the person not legal to possess a firearm!

The current law mean that if you have verified that they are at least 18 yo, a resident of Indiana, and do not appear to be drunk or under the influence of drugs, you can sell the gun to him/her.

You are not required to check it he is has a dishonorable discharge or felony on his record as long as you don't have a good reason to suspect these, you are not liable for anything HE does.

Now, I believe their is no one on this site that would intentionally sell a firearm to any person that they believe, or even have a slight doubt, would use it in an illegal manner. For that matter ID's can be faked and some have bought firearms from dealers using that method.

 

[tallend]

When I gave up my FFL,I had 500+ firearms-----------------

I set up at 2 gun shows---to sell my personal guns----------99% long guns

I do buy certian firearms for my own personal use-------not for resale

The idea of registering my PERSONAL firearms(and paying someone to do so)--if I want to sell,or gift them to my kids,and grandkids,or anyone-------pixxes me-------

The ruling has NOTHING to do with crime control----only registration of gun owners----MORE GOVERNMENT CONTROL

NO NEW GUN LAWS-------period

 

[SideArmed]

I don't know how many time I have to say it: I am NOT advocating any NEW laws, and I AM NOT supporting UBC's. You need to read the ENTIRE thread before making a comment.

So what you are suggesting is that there should be some way for us to access the NICS system to verify who we are selling guns to can pass a NICS check?

-Ok, Check. That is already in place via FFL Transfer.

But that it has to be mandatory?

-That equals UBC.

 

[Caleb]

 

[theblackhat]

So is the real issue not so much of privacy or expense or control but rather not being held accountable for someone else's illegal activities?
I've been of the opinion that the issue is the govnt's ability to confiscate personal property as a result of banning said property from personal ownership. (BTW, the US military is already training soldiers how to do this quickly and in force)
A Background Check, regardless of its universality, is by definition a breach of privacy, albeit legal, and there will always be $$$ involved when the govnt is involved.
So again, how would a NICS transaction solve any of this?

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

We do not negotiate with terrorists, and we do not negotiate with Socialists... and for the same reason.

 

[Hkindiana]

So what you are suggesting is that there should be some way for us to access the NICS system to verify who we are selling guns to can pass a NICS check?

-Ok, Check. That is already in place via FFL Transfer.

But that it has to be mandatory?

-That equals UBC.

WRONG! As ALREADY stated several times, an FFL transfer involves a monetary cost, AND the serial number, make, and model of the weapon are recorded, which could eventually lead to registration and confiscation

 

[Caleb]

WRONG! As ALREADY stated several times, an FFL transfer involves a monetary cost, AND the serial number, make, and model of the weapon are recorded, which could eventually lead to registration and confiscation

Which is why we do private sales

 

[Shoe69b]

Just wanted to see what my avatar looks like.

 

[Hkindiana]

Thank you, I agree, but I'm not arguing with you, I'm trying to have a polite discussion, and won't hold your lack of intelligence against you