Outdoors
Sponsored by

White House Proposing New Background Checks

2,633 Views | 25 Replies | Last: 4 yr ago by alvtimes
TacosaurusRex
How long do you want to ignore this user?
New rules being proposed for private sells off firearms.

schmellba99
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
So either use an existing FFL (and pay the fee) or go through a new government bureacracy to do an NCIS check, which will still require personal information and be a formal record of sale. And since it's all electronic, a registry will be created.

Nope.
TheEyeGuy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sponsor
AG
So, if I'm reading this correctly, my first thought was "commercial selling without an FFL is already illegal" but they are basically trying to close the non-existent "gun show loophole" by marking gun shows as commercial selling. Now, I will say, there are quite a few "personal collection" dealers at shows that I'm 100% on board with nailing. They are engaged in commerce just trying to hide behind the fact that they are only selling their "personal collection," yet they are at nearly every show and are constantly buying guns while there. They should have an ffl and are blatantly not getting one. That being said, for the guy taking his gun to the gun show to sell it privately, I do not like this at all.
Owner of Texian Firearms:
Dealer in Firearms, Optics, Night Vision and other shooting accessories.
US importer/distributor of Rudolph Optics
Supporting bad financial decisions since 2015
TheEyeGuy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sponsor
AG
I also don't get the point of being a "Licensed transfer agent" and not going ahead and getting an FFL. That just sounds... screwy.
Owner of Texian Firearms:
Dealer in Firearms, Optics, Night Vision and other shooting accessories.
US importer/distributor of Rudolph Optics
Supporting bad financial decisions since 2015
TheEyeGuy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sponsor
AG
So they are trying to make all "advertised commercial sales" fall under this. WTF does that even mean? They specifically called out gun shows, but is this to include putting an ad up on Texags or Texas Gun Trader? How on God's Earth would they even think they could track that????
Owner of Texian Firearms:
Dealer in Firearms, Optics, Night Vision and other shooting accessories.
US importer/distributor of Rudolph Optics
Supporting bad financial decisions since 2015
jh88ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Is there anything at all, beyond politicians' speculation, to suggest this will have any impact whatsoever on reducing gun violence, generally, and mass shootings more specifically? Without taking the time to look it up, my recollection is that the mass shooters (at least the recent ones) either purchased their guns legally after passing a background check; or they couldn't pass a background check and obtained the guns illegally.
TheEyeGuy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sponsor
AG
Shorty said:

Is there anything at all, beyond politicians' speculation, to suggest this will have any impact whatsoever on reducing gun violence, generally, and mass shootings more specifically? Without taking the time to look it up, my recollection is that the mass shooters (at least the recent ones) either purchased their guns legally after passing a background check; or they couldn't pass a background check and obtained the guns illegally.
Well, by definition, if they can't pass the background check, they are illegally obtaining the firearm. Now, if this would stop some transfers.... maybe. But again, let's say this is enacted how I'm reading it and they are specifically talking about commercial sales and commercial sales being those at a gun show or otherwise advertised, that still means that you can sell one buddy to buddy with no transfer because it wasn't advertised. So, basically, this just makes it harder to sell used guns for the good guys while the bad guys will still have a way of getting one without having a check run. Basically, it doesn't change anything for the bad guys but makes it more annoying for the good guys.

Keep in mind, I benefit from this greatly. I'd have more used guns coming to the store to sell since it would be more of a pain to sell them and it would also mean I'd make a lot of money on the extra transfers from those wanting to sell person to person but needing a background check. So, even with all that, I still adamantly oppose this measure.
Owner of Texian Firearms:
Dealer in Firearms, Optics, Night Vision and other shooting accessories.
US importer/distributor of Rudolph Optics
Supporting bad financial decisions since 2015
AgEng06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
TheEyeGuy said:

Shorty said:

Is there anything at all, beyond politicians' speculation, to suggest this will have any impact whatsoever on reducing gun violence, generally, and mass shootings more specifically? Without taking the time to look it up, my recollection is that the mass shooters (at least the recent ones) either purchased their guns legally after passing a background check; or they couldn't pass a background check and obtained the guns illegally.
Basically, it doesn't change anything for the bad guys but makes it more annoying for the good guys.
That's all ANY of this crap is going to do. Because by definition, bad guys don't follow laws.
CanyonAg77
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
So Manchin-toomey has been around for years, here's one explanation of what it was in 2013.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/apr/30/summary-manchin-toomey-gun-proposal/

Quote:

Current law requires checks on purchases only from federally licensed gun dealers. So the Manchin-Toomey amendment attempted to find middle ground by expanding the checks to gun shows and Internet sales, but not requiring them of family members and friends giving or selling guns to each other.

"As under current law, transfers between family, friends and neighbors do not require background checks. You can give or sell a gun to your brother, your neighbor, your co-worker without a background check. You can post a gun for sale on the cork bulletin board at your church or your job without a background check," a press release from the senators said.

For friends buying and selling guns, no background check was required as long as the sale was not advertised online or in a publication.

The amendment went into greater detail on family members, saying that background checks would not be required if "the transfer is made between spouses, between parents or spouses of parents and their children or spouses of their children, between siblings or spouses of siblings, or between grandparents or spouses of grandparents and their grandchildren or spouses of their grandchildren, or between aunts or uncles or their spouses and their nieces or nephews or their spouses, or between first cousins, if the transferor does not know or have reasonable cause to believe that the transferee is prohibited from receiving or possessing a firearm under Federal, State, or local law."

It declared that nothing in the legislation should be construed to "allow the establishment, directly or indirectly, of a federal firearms registry. And it included these provisions:

"The Attorney General shall be prohibited from seizing any records or other documents in the course of an inspection or examination authorized by this paragraph other than those records or documents constituting material evidence of a violation of law."
"The Attorney General may not consolidate or centralize the records of the ... acquisition or disposition of firearms, or any portion thereof."
"Any person who knowingly violates (the prohibition against consolidating or centralizing records) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 15 years, or both." (The threat of prison was a new layer.)



So were I to say on TexAgs that I'd sell to one of you, I'd have to do a background check.

Were I to go down to the local mall, open my trunk, meet new friends, I could sell to them without a check.

Brilliant.
TheEyeGuy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sponsor
AG
CanyonAg77 said:

So Manchin-toomey has been around for years, here's one explanation of what it was in 2013.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/apr/30/summary-manchin-toomey-gun-proposal/

Quote:

Current law requires checks on purchases only from federally licensed gun dealers. So the Manchin-Toomey amendment attempted to find middle ground by expanding the checks to gun shows and Internet sales, but not requiring them of family members and friends giving or selling guns to each other.

"As under current law, transfers between family, friends and neighbors do not require background checks. You can give or sell a gun to your brother, your neighbor, your co-worker without a background check. You can post a gun for sale on the cork bulletin board at your church or your job without a background check," a press release from the senators said.

For friends buying and selling guns, no background check was required as long as the sale was not advertised online or in a publication.

The amendment went into greater detail on family members, saying that background checks would not be required if "the transfer is made between spouses, between parents or spouses of parents and their children or spouses of their children, between siblings or spouses of siblings, or between grandparents or spouses of grandparents and their grandchildren or spouses of their grandchildren, or between aunts or uncles or their spouses and their nieces or nephews or their spouses, or between first cousins, if the transferor does not know or have reasonable cause to believe that the transferee is prohibited from receiving or possessing a firearm under Federal, State, or local law."

It declared that nothing in the legislation should be construed to "allow the establishment, directly or indirectly, of a federal firearms registry. And it included these provisions:

"The Attorney General shall be prohibited from seizing any records or other documents in the course of an inspection or examination authorized by this paragraph other than those records or documents constituting material evidence of a violation of law."
"The Attorney General may not consolidate or centralize the records of the ... acquisition or disposition of firearms, or any portion thereof."
"Any person who knowingly violates (the prohibition against consolidating or centralizing records) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 15 years, or both." (The threat of prison was a new layer.)



So were I to say on TexAgs that I'd sell to one of you, I'd have to do a background check.

Were I to go down to the local mall, open my trunk, meet new friends, I could sell to them without a check.

Brilliant.

And short of a registry there is no way possible to actually ensure someone doesn't illegally buy a gun this way.
Owner of Texian Firearms:
Dealer in Firearms, Optics, Night Vision and other shooting accessories.
US importer/distributor of Rudolph Optics
Supporting bad financial decisions since 2015
Bregxit
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
CanyonAg77 said:

So Manchin-toomey has been around for years, here's one explanation of what it was in 2013.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/apr/30/summary-manchin-toomey-gun-proposal/

Quote:

Current law requires checks on purchases only from federally licensed gun dealers. So the Manchin-Toomey amendment attempted to find middle ground by expanding the checks to gun shows and Internet sales, but not requiring them of family members and friends giving or selling guns to each other.

"As under current law, transfers between family, friends and neighbors do not require background checks. You can give or sell a gun to your brother, your neighbor, your co-worker without a background check. You can post a gun for sale on the cork bulletin board at your church or your job without a background check," a press release from the senators said.

For friends buying and selling guns, no background check was required as long as the sale was not advertised online or in a publication.

The amendment went into greater detail on family members, saying that background checks would not be required if "the transfer is made between spouses, between parents or spouses of parents and their children or spouses of their children, between siblings or spouses of siblings, or between grandparents or spouses of grandparents and their grandchildren or spouses of their grandchildren, or between aunts or uncles or their spouses and their nieces or nephews or their spouses, or between first cousins, if the transferor does not know or have reasonable cause to believe that the transferee is prohibited from receiving or possessing a firearm under Federal, State, or local law."

It declared that nothing in the legislation should be construed to "allow the establishment, directly or indirectly, of a federal firearms registry. And it included these provisions:

"The Attorney General shall be prohibited from seizing any records or other documents in the course of an inspection or examination authorized by this paragraph other than those records or documents constituting material evidence of a violation of law."
"The Attorney General may not consolidate or centralize the records of the ... acquisition or disposition of firearms, or any portion thereof."
"Any person who knowingly violates (the prohibition against consolidating or centralizing records) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 15 years, or both." (The threat of prison was a new layer.)



So were I to say on TexAgs that I'd sell to one of you, I'd have to do a background check.

Were I to go down to the local mall, open my trunk, meet new friends, I could sell to them without a check.

Brilliant.

What if you titled the TexAgs post as "Hey friends, want to buy my XXXXX?"
SMM48
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
mts6175
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Bigger issue - did none of y'all notice the info required under "commercial seller"? It's creating a gun registry.......
CSTXAg92
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
And *NONE* of this would have prevented any of the mass shootings that have taken place in the last several years.
DiskoTroop
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TheEyeGuy said:

I also don't get the point of being a "Licensed transfer agent" and not going ahead and getting an FFL. That just sounds... screwy.


For the same reason you can buy stamps at HEB and yet HEB is not a post office.

Availability - and on this point I'm not necessarily opposed. Though it opens too many doors to registry
Spotted Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Eyeguy,

Don't you have to have some sort of license to sell anything commercially? If you don't have a license then you aren't a commercial seller, you are a private seller. This suggestion seems redundant.
BrazosDog02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I buy almost al of my guns from friends or out of a trunk in a parking lot. Law or no law, I have zero intention of changing that. Will I get busted? Maybe. But maybe not. Cash only. No bill of sale. Once it gets to my home, it's lost to the world.
NoahAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
So, hypothetically, nothing about this legislation prevents me from buying a gun from someone on TexAgs? Also, hypothetically, this doesn't pertain to a parent gifting guns to their adult children?

TheEyeGuy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sponsor
AG
Spotted Ag said:

Eyeguy,

Don't you have to have some sort of license to sell anything commercially? If you don't have a license then you aren't a commercial seller, you are a private seller. This suggestion seems redundant.
Well, here's where things get a bit tricky and where I do have a problem with some sellers. If you are selling guns for a profit, you are supposed to have an FFL. Now, if you are buying a gun for personal use and it appreciates in value then you sell it for more than you paid for it, there's no problem. However, what happens is some people will set up a table at a gun show and start buying used guns and then selling them later for a profit. These guys are actually doing this to make money. Those guys should have an FFL and don't. They are the ones that make the gun shows look worse than they are.

Now, what this whole thing is going after is that they are saying commercial sales are anything advertised. So, since gun shows are advertised, they feel that all sales at a gun show should go through a background check to "closed the (supposed) loophole." On top of that, if you post up on a classified place that you have a gun for sale, they are wanting to consider that a commercial sale and thereby making it a transfer rather than just face to face sale. I have a problem with both sides, though I do feel they need to enforce the rules harder on the dudes that are "private collection" sellers at gun shows.
Owner of Texian Firearms:
Dealer in Firearms, Optics, Night Vision and other shooting accessories.
US importer/distributor of Rudolph Optics
Supporting bad financial decisions since 2015
Morpholino
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Shall not be infringed.
Spotted Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Morpholino said:

Shall not be infringed.
Been being infringed upon for a loooooooong time.
BenderRodriguez
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
CSTXAg92 said:

And *NONE* of this would have prevented any of the mass shootings that have taken place in the last several years.


Speaks to their intent quite nicely, doesn't it?
Burdizzo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
CSTXAg92 said:

And *NONE* of this would have prevented any of the mass shootings that have taken place in the last several years.



Do you think they care how many people die in M
mass shootings? I dont think they care. I think their objective is registration of all guns that are currently unregistered, and the best way to do that is to assign an owner to them every time they change hands. That way they know where to go look for them when they eventually decide they are too dangerous for the ordinary citizen to own.
AgEng06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

Speaks to their intent quite nicely, doesn't it?
DING

Quote:

Do you think they care how many people die in mass shootings? I dont think they care. I think their objective is registration of all guns that are currently unregistered, and the best way to do that is to assign an owner to them every time they change hands. That way they know where to go look for them when they eventually decide they are too dangerous for the ordinary citizen to own.
DING
Player To Be Named Later
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Welp, all the more reason that I'm not selling one single gun of mine. I'm stocking up, not selling
JSKolache
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Its still a solution looking for a problem. Criminals rarely buys guns at gun shows and DOJ stats bear that out.
alvtimes
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Ive been waiting to delve into this..... but if people dont see the end game let me opine now....at this point in time its the scary looking ar-15 so called weapon of war. But think about functionality..... pull the trigger gun goes bang....... how many current guns function like this???? Revolvers.... pull trigger gun goes bang.... so on the the slippery slope they will come after basically everything.
Refresh
Page 1 of 1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.