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.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.
That's all ANY of this crap is going to do. Because by definition, bad guys don't follow laws.TheEyeGuy said:Basically, it doesn't change anything for the bad guys but makes it more annoying for the good guys.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.
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.)
And short of a registry there is no way possible to actually ensure someone doesn't illegally buy a gun this way.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?"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.
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.
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.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.
Been being infringed upon for a loooooooong time.Morpholino said:
Shall not be infringed.
CSTXAg92 said:
And *NONE* of this would have prevented any of the mass shootings that have taken place in the last several years.
CSTXAg92 said:
And *NONE* of this would have prevented any of the mass shootings that have taken place in the last several years.
DINGQuote:
Speaks to their intent quite nicely, doesn't it?
DINGQuote:
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.