What is your opinion of this?

[Thegeek]

So, you are perfectly OK with outlawing face to face sales, even in your own state? Even to your own family?

Yes. The people who know they can't buy a gun or have been denied at a gun store will exploit this ability.

Who does it hurt really? You can still sell your gun privately, you can still buy a gun from a private individual. It just puts the same requirement for them to buy a used gun as it does for me to buy a new gun. The only argument you can make is that it takes a little time, a transfer fee, and a trip to the gun store.

Case in point, I have a friend who's in his late 40's. Until this past weekend, I didn't know he had a mark on his record that prevents him from purchasing a firearm. If he hadn't told me this, I would have had no problem selling him a pistol. I've known him for about 10 years. He's a good guy and whatever mistakes he made in the past, are completely in the past.

This guy is a friend who confided his issue to me. How many strangers are out there that won't tell you that and come off as a straight-liner? A lot! Why not put them through a check? Because it inconveniences you? Since when has gun safety been an inconvenience?

The family question is a difficult one. But personally, my son has asked me "dad, when can I have my own rifle?". My answer is always "when you can purchase one without my consent". Meaning when he can plunk down the cash and pass the background check. I have zero issue putting my own father or brother through a background check for a $25-$35 transfer fee if it means closing that easy and exploitable hole.

 

[eldirector]

Ok, I guess you don't really want to get it. That's fine, enjoy your day.

That is correct. I have no interest in this particular proposal, or any like it.

Thanks, and you have a good day as well!

 

[Thegeek]

Once again, if you hold a valid LTCH you are exempt from a background check. You don't need to go anywhere or do anything you just make the exchange. Only a person who is not licensed in their state has to go to an FFL for the background check. That is my understanding of the proposal. The gubmint would have no knowledge whatsoever of what gun you bought/sold or traded. Only those without a state issued license/permit (for whatever state they reside in) would need to go to an FFL.

Fake handgun licenses for sale: $50, printed while you wait.

 

[abnk]

I have zero issue putting my own father or brother through a background check for a $25-$35 transfer fee if it means closing that easy and exploitable hole.

That's OK. You can do that today. However, what you're asking is also putting my father and brother through a background check. I do have an issue with that.

 

[Thegeek]

And I don't know your father or brother, and take issue with them getting their hands on guns without a background check.

I'm not saying this will stop the black market, but anything we can do to make it harder for criminals to get guns, without impacting our ability to get guns, is a good move.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Who does it hurt really? You can still sell your gun privately, you can still buy a gun from a private individual. It just puts the same requirement for them to buy a used gun as it does for me to buy a new gun.

It hurts us all in the gun culture.

1. It creates an unenforceable law which damages respect for the rule of law.

2. It creates a transaction cost which will result in the increased cost of firearms hurting economically disadvantaged.

3. It creates additional duties for the dealer.

4. It creates no additional benefit in increased public safety.

5. It allows the government to prevent the transfer of any firearms by shutting down NICS.

6. It could potentially eliminate the ability of those aged 18-20 from purchasing handguns or receiving handguns as gifts.

From 1974 to 1998 Indiana required that any sale of a handgun be done through a dealer. My questions for you, Mr. Geek, as a proponent of this proposed legislation, are:

1. What benefit did this law provide in public safety? Show your work.

2. Name a single prosecution of a violation of this statute.

3. What was the compliance rate with this statute?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I'm not saying this will stop the black market, but anything we can do to make it harder for criminals to get guns, without impacting our ability to get guns, is a good move.

So you admit that criminals will not comply with your statute but somehow criminals will be impacted?

How will criminals comply with your proposed statute?

Name a single criminal prosecution for a violation of Indiana's 1974-1998 private transfer statute.

 

[Thegeek]

I don't have a law library and paralegal at my disposal, so I can't do the stats for you.

Criminal to criminal = no change.
citizen to criminal = big change.
citizen to citizen = $25 background check that already exists for commercial sale (that's included in the price of a new gun).

How is that not clear? Just like healthcare isn't a tax, and the fuel tax doesn't impact those who don't drive. The fee trickles to the consumer no matter what.


Answers:
1) respect for rule of law? We're screaming for no new gun legislation, but to focus on keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. This is one of the few ways we have to actually impact the availability of guns to criminals.

2) Not really. The price is the price. You're free to negotiate your price down $12 to split the cost of the background check, or drop it $25 to cover the fee. Free market brother! Affordable guns is not part of the right.

3) I don't think a dealer will mind the easy money. In fact, I can see this as opening the door for new dealers to have a low overhead source of income.

4) See above reasoning.

5) No. It means that we're working with the government to help reduce the problem. We agree to use the system for private sale. If they take away the system, we'll just stop using it for private sale. Build it into the law so it states that we use the check system provided by the Gov't. If they provide no system, no background check.



Second set: before you tell me to go find sources for a logical opinion, why don't you go hit the bookshelf and disprove the logic my argument. This is a logical debate, not a comparison of statistics.

 

[abnk]

And I don't know your father or brother, and take issue with them getting their hands on guns without a background check.

You have an issue? Tough ****. Because you don't like something, it should be illegal?

I don't know you so I will request that you pass a background check, at your expense, before accessing internet to ensure you're not viewing child pornography.

 

[eldirector]

Let's look at places that ALREADY have this type of background check for all firearms purchases.

Chicago:
- Requires FOID to even own a gun,
- Both buyer and seller must have and present a FOID, even for personal sales
- There is even a waiting period for personal sales
- Seller MUST record the sale and buyer's FOID info
- 40 firearm-related murders in Chicago in JUST this month

Washington DC
- All firearms must be registered
- Must be re-registered every 3 years
- 10-day waiting period, and you MUST buy from a dealer
- the dealer cannot release the firearm until you show it has been registered
- we are at about a 24/100K murder rate (US average is about 4.5/100K)

So, what are the crime rates in Chicago and in DC? Shall we compare to say, Indiana and our current system? Do you think that implementing a system at the Federal level will have any (positive) impact in DC or Chicago?

Do folks REALLY think that trying this yet again will someone yield different results? It hasn't worked, it doesn't work, and it won't work next time.

 

[Thegeek]

I love useless stats....

How do those stats compare to those of general violent crime, gang violence, and drug related crime? Without those comparisons, you're doing a point to point comparison without a baseline.

For example, let's say Indiana has a violent crime rate of 10 and a firearm related crime of 2.5. Chicago or DC has a violent crime rate of 30 and a firearm related crime rate of 6.

Indiana would have 1/4 of the violent crime being gun related, and Chicago would have 1/5. Meaning Indiana would have more gun crime statistically. Gotta look at the big picture.

I just think another hurdle for the criminals is a good thing. It's a hurdle you and I can cross with very little pain or expense. It's one they can't cross.

So, if you think this is a bad idea, give us a good idea besides encouraging more upstanding people to carry. You're not going to make it a law that people must carry, so what idea can you offer?

I'm in full agreement with our President. Something must be done. But that something shouldn't prevent a proper person from having any gun/ammo/accessory they wish (I think we agree about that).

 

[Hop]

Ugh, if NICS were opened up to the general public a seller could ask about a potential buyer. I've tossed this idea around a few other forums and gotten some pretty positive replies.

Have the purchaser fill out the free downloadable yellow form so I can call it in to verify the buyer is in good standing. Me to ATF: "Is Mr Smith, IN resident, white male, approx. 5'10" brn eyes & hair allowed to purchase my used firearm?", ATF: "proceed". I keep the form as a record of the sale the same way a C&R FFL transaction happens. No gun registration, no info on the type of gun (other than handgun, long gun or other) nor serial number goes to the ATF.

There's already a PIN # system in place so people with common names don't get put on hold when buying from an FFL. I would accept the PIN # system as verification to buy a used gun as well. Me to ATF: "Is Mr Smith, IN resident, white male, approx. 5'10" brn eyes & hair with UPIN# xxxx allowed to purchase my used firearm?", ATF: "proceed". Thank you, no paperwork!

Why would this be hard? It even creates more .gov jobs.

 

[eldirector]

I now see where you and I differ: I do NOT agree that SOMETHING must be done. Especially when it comes to firearms.

I believe there are more fundamental issues to be resolved. I believe you hit the nail on the head when you mentioned gang-related and drug-related crimes. I'll also add our dismal assessment and treatment of our mentally ill.

There are issues in our culture with the lack of parenting, the lack of personal responsibility, and the lack of strong morals. We are waist-deep in a "me" society, that cares little for what happens to their neighbors, as long as *I* get what I feel I deserve. We have SO much, but always want MORE, and are willing to sacrifice anything to get it.

These issues are incredibly difficult to solve, so folks just look the other way. I'm not sure any laws would actually solve them, even if I WANTED the government to try (and I don't). At best, the government can get out of the Arbitrator of Morals role, and stick to governing.

Besides, this perception that the world is somehow more dangerous today than yesterday is outright FALSE. I've posted information to back this up many time, so feel free to search it out. We are SAFER today than we have been in many years. But, for some reason, the media and our government want us to feel otherwise. They keep trying to take, take, take, while promising me something I already have (and do NOT need them to provide).

That's my $0.02.

 

[Thegeek]

Agree. Our problems go much deeper than any gun issue. But as gun owners, I think the best way to protect our rights are to offer and support sensible laws. If we show them we want it to end as much as they do and help to push the fight in the right direction.

Adam Corolla gave a nice speech about the problem with this country. It's the "participation trophy" generation who thinks they've earned the right to the 100k/year job, healthcare, a car, a house and the flat screen TV just by being American. There will always be the haves and the have-nots. We've painted ourselves into the corner by making the have-nots feel like the haves instead of teaching them what to do, and how to become haves of their own. The value of hard work, consequences for ones actions, and self-reliance are things we need to teach our children now more than ever.

 

[Markedup]

Second, if the state revokes, it should flag as an immediate deny. This would also serve as a mechanism for the gun store to confiscate and destroy invalid LTCH.

Neither would have any affect on law abiding gun owners and would not provide any new information to either enforcement body.

Wow.Then we would have many more gun store stories
to discuss on this website.I do not like your idea.

Thanks

Mark

 

[jgreiner]

I love useless stats....



I just think another hurdle for the criminals is a good thing. It's a hurdle you and I can cross with very little pain or expense. It's one they can't cross.

THERE is your mistake. There are no hurdles for criminals. They buy what hey want on the black market. That won't change. All you are doing is causing problems for those of us who wish to FOLLOW the law.

 

[jgreiner]

Agree. Our problems go much deeper than any gun issue. But as gun owners, I think the best way to protect our rights are to offer and support sensible laws. If we show them we want it to end as much as they do and help to push the fight in the right direction.

Adam Corolla gave a nice speech about the problem with this country. It's the "participation trophy" generation who thinks they've earned the right to the 100k/year job, healthcare, a car, a house and the flat screen TV just by being American. There will always be the haves and the have-nots. We've painted ourselves into the corner by making the have-nots feel like the haves instead of teaching them what to do, and how to become haves of their own. The value of hard work, consequences for ones actions, and self-reliance are things we need to teach our children now more than ever.

We already have sensible laws. Criminals ignore them.

I would say the MAJOR problem we have is STUPID laws, like creating killing zones (gun free zones), where a nutcase can go with a weapon and be guaranteed a bunch of soft targets.

 

[eldirector]

My list of sensible changes to current law:

- Drop the current NFA list. Suppressors are safety devices, and everything else should be legal under MILLER.

- Drop the current NICS system. It has only led to the prosecution of a few hundred people since its inception (out of millions of denials). Totally ineffective for the cost.

Boom! The Feds are out of the gun game, and can actually respect the limits imposed by the 2A.

- States should move towards Constitutional Carry. I believe there is a strong positive correlation between the increase in Shall Issue states and the drop in violent crime. I've written up some ideas for Indiana to move in this direction, but they are rather long to post here.

- States should also stop creating state-enforced victim zones at schools, courts, sporting arenas, or any other public place. Private businesses are still welcome to create their own victimization zones, but must either a) provide ample security, or b) remain liable for all injuries/death due to their policies. I'm guessing most will choose to become "hard targets".

- Legalize the vast majority of the drugs we are supposedly at war against. Treat them like alcohol. I believe gang activity would show a steep decline as their major source of revenue dried up. General availability wouldn't change, so the number of strung-out druggies would be similar. Tax revenues would increase on the legal sales of "recreational drugs", and the monies could be used to treat addiction.

- Re-evaluate our treatment (and sheltering) options for the mentally ill. I'm not well versed in this area, so I don't have a great answer on hand. I DO know that we have reduced our treatment options greatly in the last few decades, and have made it very difficult for families to find and afford help.

-I am not sure I am for this at all (need to think on it a lot more), but holding parents legally responsible for the actions of their children MIGHT ignite a bit of personal responsibility in the next generation. No more letting your pre-teen run the streets, especially if YOU might get fined/jailed (along with your kid) when they break the law. If your kid is a "burden", then it comes out of your pocket. Can't afford it? Then you and your kid get work detail, and some familial bonding time.

I've got a ton more "root cause" ideas, but I think I've started making my point.

 

[Thegeek]

If the kid is under 18, then yes, hold the parents responsible.

I like most of your ideas save one. The legalization of drugs. Drug violence has two sides. Not only the dealers, but the users as well. Much of the crime is for the user to get money to pay the dealer. If you legalize it, you'll wind up with more junkies out of work willing to do anything to get the next hit.

So without the background check system, am I to understand that you have no issue with a violent repeat offender who just got released to walk in and purchase a weapon? I know that sounds argumentative, but it's not. I'm just wondering what you would define as a "proper person" and how would you validate them?

 

[eldirector]

I like most of your ideas save one. The legalization of drugs. Drug violence has two sides. Not only the dealers, but the users as well. Much of the crime is for the user to get money to pay the dealer. If you legalize it, you'll wind up with more junkies out of work willing to do anything to get the next hit.

I don't believe the number of "junkies" will change strictly by legalizing the dope. The criminal on criminal violence should drop, though. Part of the reason I would direct any tax income from "dope" to treat addiction is to drive down the overall number of junkies, and thereby reduce the numbers of crimes they commit. I don't think you will ever get rid of all criminals, or all junkies. Some people are just bad or just want to die/escape.

So without the background check system, am I to understand that you have no issue with a violent repeat offender who just got released to walk in and purchase a weapon? I know that sounds argumentative, but it's not. I'm just wondering what you would define as a "proper person" and how would you validate them?

Repeat, violent offenders should not be released. I will add that to my list.

But seriously, if you have proven to be a threat, you should be in jail. If you are out of jail, you should have all the same rights as I do.

So, two more items:

- Repeat, violent offenders should receive MUCH longer sentences, and be incarcerated until such a time they are no longer a threat. I have no problem with capital punishment, if it fits the crime.

- All citizens (even citizens of other countries) have the same rights. If you are incarcerated, they are greatly restricted. Once released, you still have them.