Want universal background checks? A question....

[NYcarbineer]

If you support imposing universal background checks on all gun sales, whether through a dealer or not, I have a question for you.

Say I meet up with Turtledude; he and I buy a gun off each other, get a beer, and go home.

How does the government prove that background checks were not run before we sold the guns?

You should be made to buy through a registered dealer. I dunno, make dealers register with the government so that the gov is aware of who buys what and when and where.

Well that's the idea. Of course it's a failure. If I'm a criminal and I stole this gun, and the guy I'm selling it to is also a criminal, then we're obviously not going to go through a background check.
If we are both law abiding people, what's the background check going to do?

lol, how you both be law abiding if you stole the gun and the buyer was receiving stolen goods? jesus!

 

[Wry Catcher]

If you support imposing universal background checks on all gun sales, whether through a dealer or not, I have a question for you.

Say I meet up with Turtledude; he and I buy a gun off each other, get a beer, and go home.

How does the government prove that background checks were not run before we sold the guns?

When Turtledude goes onto the local Jr. College and shoots and kills dozens the investigation may very well lead to you.

How? Why?
Please also note that you did not answer the question.

When more than one person shares a secret, it is not a secret. Investigators, expecially in the scenario I posted (where there will be many, checking and crosschecking each other) will turn over every rock, check every record, interview every person who may know something.

Don't kid yourself, crooks who think their smarter than everyone else are the easiest to crack.

I'm unclear what this scenario is supposed to be.
The FFLs who sold guns to some of the high profile killers recently did so legally and had no repercussions because the background check came back OK. Why dont people sue the government for approving these transfers?

"did so legally" vis a vis did so illegally. See the difference?

I see that you're illiterate as well as stupid.
What dealer does a transfer illegally? It doesnt happen basically.

Rabbi, you're stupid as well as a bigot, a jerk and a liar. But, I digress. In the senario, the gun transfer was ILLEGAL. As for your proffer - which I reject as true - what evidence do you have that no licensed gun dealer has ever transferred a firearm illegally?

 

[Dana7360]

If you support imposing universal background checks on all gun sales, whether through a dealer or not, I have a question for you.

Say I meet up with Turtledude; he and I buy a gun off each other, get a beer, and go home.

How does the government prove that background checks were not run before we sold the guns?

All they have to do is look through the paperwork. If that background check was done there would be paperwork filed for it.

If the person didn't do a background check and that gun was used in a crime, that person who didn't do the background check goes to prison along with the person they

If you support imposing universal background checks on all gun sales, whether through a dealer or not, I have a question for you.

Say I meet up with Turtledude; he and I buy a gun off each other, get a beer, and go home.

How does the government prove that background checks were not run before we sold the guns?

The answer is stunningly simple.

The new state IDs can be tied to very federal database we have. How hard would it be to design an app for your Droid? Slide the ID like a credit card, bam you've ran an NCIC check on that person...

You don't understand the premise here.

We -didn't- run a background chreck on each other, which violates the supposed law.
How does the state prove this?

sold the gun to.

It's a way of getting those who sell guns to criminals off the streets.



It's proven if and when you commit a crime with that gun.

Until that point, the government won't know a thing about it.

So if you sell a gun to someone who isn't a criminal and won't use that gun in a crime, the government will never know you sold that gun without that background check.

The big questions how will you know that the person is going to use it in a crime? You don't. So you're taking your chances.

You're missing the point of the law. It's to stop the wrong people from getting guns and to stop those who provide those guns to those criminals.

Not much can be done about people who sell guns to criminals right now. With that law we have a better tool to find out who is selling those guns to criminals and put their sorry butts in jail where they belong.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

If you support imposing universal background checks on all gun sales, whether through a dealer or not, I have a question for you.

Say I meet up with Turtledude; he and I buy a gun off each other, get a beer, and go home.

How does the government prove that background checks were not run before we sold the guns?

All they have to do is look through the paperwork. If that background check was done there would be paperwork filed for it.

If the person didn't do a background check and that gun was used in a crime, that person who didn't do the background check goes to prison along with the person they

If you support imposing universal background checks on all gun sales, whether through a dealer or not, I have a question for you.

Say I meet up with Turtledude; he and I buy a gun off each other, get a beer, and go home.

How does the government prove that background checks were not run before we sold the guns?

The answer is stunningly simple.

The new state IDs can be tied to very federal database we have. How hard would it be to design an app for your Droid? Slide the ID like a credit card, bam you've ran an NCIC check on that person...

You don't understand the premise here.

We -didn't- run a background chreck on each other, which violates the supposed law.
How does the state prove this?

sold the gun to.

It's a way of getting those who sell guns to criminals off the streets.



It's proven if and when you commit a crime with that gun.

Until that point, the government won't know a thing about it.

So if you sell a gun to someone who isn't a criminal and won't use that gun in a crime, the government will never know you sold that gun without that background check.

The big questions how will you know that the person is going to use it in a crime? You don't. So you're taking your chances.

You're missing the point of the law. It's to stop the wrong people from getting guns and to stop those who provide those guns to those criminals.

Not much can be done about people who sell guns to criminals right now. With that law we have a better tool to find out who is selling those guns to criminals and put their sorry butts in jail where they belong.

You have, once again, totally missed the point the OP is making.

Let's say the law was today and tomorrow I sold you a gun. Then on Tuesday you ran out and committed a crime with that gun and got arrested.

When the cops show up looking for me, unless I'm stupid, I simply say "I sold Dana that gun last Saturday, before background checks were required. Prove otherwise"

 

[The Rabbi]

If you support imposing universal background checks on all gun sales, whether through a dealer or not, I have a question for you.

Say I meet up with Turtledude; he and I buy a gun off each other, get a beer, and go home.

How does the government prove that background checks were not run before we sold the guns?

When Turtledude goes onto the local Jr. College and shoots and kills dozens the investigation may very well lead to you.

How? Why?
Please also note that you did not answer the question.

When more than one person shares a secret, it is not a secret. Investigators, expecially in the scenario I posted (where there will be many, checking and crosschecking each other) will turn over every rock, check every record, interview every person who may know something.

Don't kid yourself, crooks who think their smarter than everyone else are the easiest to crack.

I'm unclear what this scenario is supposed to be.
The FFLs who sold guns to some of the high profile killers recently did so legally and had no repercussions because the background check came back OK. Why dont people sue the government for approving these transfers?

"did so legally" vis a vis did so illegally. See the difference?

I see that you're illiterate as well as stupid.
What dealer does a transfer illegally? It doesnt happen basically.

Rabbi, you're stupid as well as a bigot, a jerk and a liar. But, I digress. In the senario, the gun transfer was ILLEGAL. As for your proffer - which I reject as true - what evidence do you have that no licensed gun dealer has ever transferred a firearm illegally?

I see I was correct in my assessment of you. You are illiterate.
I never claimed no dealer ever transfers illegally. Obviously it happens because dealers sometimes go to jail.
But that isnt the avenue for guns used in crimes. Those guns are stolen by criminals and resold to other criminals to be used in crimes.
And tehre is nothing that can be done to prevent that.

 

[turtledude]

If you support imposing universal background checks on all gun sales, whether through a dealer or not, I have a question for you.

Say I meet up with Turtledude; he and I buy a gun off each other, get a beer, and go home.

How does the government prove that background checks were not run before we sold the guns?

When Turtledude goes onto the local Jr. College and shoots and kills dozens the investigation may very well lead to you. Then, you ought to be complicit and put in prison. And, since you had a duty to perform the background checks and did not do so, and harm was caused, you will lose everything you own, home, car and all of your guns.

Now, it may be hard to prove "beyond a resonable doubt" and put you in prison (where you belong), but the standard of proof in a civil suit is much lower, and everyone effected by your irresponsible behavior will sue your ass. Attorney fees alone will put you in the poor house.

turtledude junior is a national class shooter but he's more into Katanas. He appreciates the artistry of the old ways

 

[The Rabbi]

If you support imposing universal background checks on all gun sales, whether through a dealer or not, I have a question for you.

Say I meet up with Turtledude; he and I buy a gun off each other, get a beer, and go home.

How does the government prove that background checks were not run before we sold the guns?

All they have to do is look through the paperwork. If that background check was done there would be paperwork filed for it.

If the person didn't do a background check and that gun was used in a crime, that person who didn't do the background check goes to prison along with the person they

If you support imposing universal background checks on all gun sales, whether through a dealer or not, I have a question for you.

Say I meet up with Turtledude; he and I buy a gun off each other, get a beer, and go home.

How does the government prove that background checks were not run before we sold the guns?

The answer is stunningly simple.

The new state IDs can be tied to very federal database we have. How hard would it be to design an app for your Droid? Slide the ID like a credit card, bam you've ran an NCIC check on that person...

You don't understand the premise here.

We -didn't- run a background chreck on each other, which violates the supposed law.
How does the state prove this?

sold the gun to.

It's a way of getting those who sell guns to criminals off the streets.



It's proven if and when you commit a crime with that gun.

Until that point, the government won't know a thing about it.

So if you sell a gun to someone who isn't a criminal and won't use that gun in a crime, the government will never know you sold that gun without that background check.

The big questions how will you know that the person is going to use it in a crime? You don't. So you're taking your chances.

You're missing the point of the law. It's to stop the wrong people from getting guns and to stop those who provide those guns to those criminals.

Not much can be done about people who sell guns to criminals right now. With that law we have a better tool to find out who is selling those guns to criminals and put their sorry butts in jail where they belong.

How does anyone know who sold the gun if there is no record anywhere?
I legally sell a gun to M14. He llegally sells it to someone else. Someone else has the gun stolen and the gun is used in a crime. So who is culpable here?
Because that is trajectory of almost all guns used in crime: they are stolen from lawful owners and then resold to criminals or used by criminals.
What law will stop that?

 

[turtledude]

Lets be honest-stopping crime is not what motivates the gun restrictionists

1) pretending something is being done to stop crime is a major motivator of politicians-they want to pander to the garment soiling hand wringing ninnies who think another law will stop criminals

2) harassing gun owners for their political views is also a major motivator of the anti gun scum. Ever notice that almost every anti gun poster and politician is a welfare socialist lefty

3) and many laws are proposed with the hope that if passed, they fail, so other laws can be demanded

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

If you support imposing universal background checks on all gun sales, whether through a dealer or not, I have a question for you.

Say I meet up with Turtledude; he and I buy a gun off each other, get a beer, and go home.

How does the government prove that background checks were not run before we sold the guns?

When Turtledude goes onto the local Jr. College and shoots and kills dozens the investigation may very well lead to you.

How? Why?
Please also note that you did not answer the question.

When more than one person shares a secret, it is not a secret. Investigators, expecially in the scenario I posted (where there will be many, checking and crosschecking each other) will turn over every rock, check every record, interview every person who may know something.

Don't kid yourself, crooks who think their smarter than everyone else are the easiest to crack.

I'm unclear what this scenario is supposed to be.
The FFLs who sold guns to some of the high profile killers recently did so legally and had no repercussions because the background check came back OK. Why dont people sue the government for approving these transfers?

"did so legally" vis a vis did so illegally. See the difference?

I see that you're illiterate as well as stupid.
What dealer does a transfer illegally? It doesnt happen basically.

Rabbi, you're stupid as well as a bigot, a jerk and a liar. But, I digress. In the senario, the gun transfer was ILLEGAL. As for your proffer - which I reject as true - what evidence do you have that no licensed gun dealer has ever transferred a firearm illegally?

I see I was correct in my assessment of you. You are illiterate.
I never claimed no dealer ever transfers illegally. Obviously it happens because dealers sometimes go to jail.
But that isnt the avenue for guns used in crimes. Those guns are stolen by criminals and resold to other criminals to be used in crimes.
And tehre is nothing that can be done to prevent that.

black market pawn shops, who are not going to follow ANY law that might cut into their profit.

So passing more laws has zero effect on their behavior.

 

[turtledude]

Those who do not study history are doomed to get ass whipped by those who do

Prohibition, and the war on drugs. caused more problems than the alleged contraband did

so why do the gun banners want to do to guns given the massive failures of prohibition and the drug war

 

[Dana7360]

If you support imposing universal background checks on all gun sales, whether through a dealer or not, I have a question for you.

Say I meet up with Turtledude; he and I buy a gun off each other, get a beer, and go home.

How does the government prove that background checks were not run before we sold the guns?

All they have to do is look through the paperwork. If that background check was done there would be paperwork filed for it.

If the person didn't do a background check and that gun was used in a crime, that person who didn't do the background check goes to prison along with the person they

If you support imposing universal background checks on all gun sales, whether through a dealer or not, I have a question for you.

Say I meet up with Turtledude; he and I buy a gun off each other, get a beer, and go home.

How does the government prove that background checks were not run before we sold the guns?

The answer is stunningly simple.

The new state IDs can be tied to very federal database we have. How hard would it be to design an app for your Droid? Slide the ID like a credit card, bam you've ran an NCIC check on that person...

You don't understand the premise here.

We -didn't- run a background chreck on each other, which violates the supposed law.
How does the state prove this?

sold the gun to.

It's a way of getting those who sell guns to criminals off the streets.



It's proven if and when you commit a crime with that gun.

Until that point, the government won't know a thing about it.

So if you sell a gun to someone who isn't a criminal and won't use that gun in a crime, the government will never know you sold that gun without that background check.

The big questions how will you know that the person is going to use it in a crime? You don't. So you're taking your chances.

You're missing the point of the law. It's to stop the wrong people from getting guns and to stop those who provide those guns to those criminals.

Not much can be done about people who sell guns to criminals right now. With that law we have a better tool to find out who is selling those guns to criminals and put their sorry butts in jail where they belong.

How does anyone know who sold the gun if there is no record anywhere?
I legally sell a gun to M14. He llegally sells it to someone else. Someone else has the gun stolen and the gun is used in a crime. So who is culpable here?
Because that is trajectory of almost all guns used in crime: they are stolen from lawful owners and then resold to criminals or used by criminals.
What law will stop that?

If a gun is used in a crime, the person of record is where the police will start looking when trying to find out who used that gun in that crime. If you sold a gun to someone without a background check and they turn around and sold it to a criminal, you're probably going to be liable for not doing the background check.

Write out a bill of sale and have the buyer sign and date it. There, you have proof of sale. However you also have proof that you didn't do that background check.

If you're a legal gun owner and you sell a gun, then you shouldn't have any problem with making sure that you're not liable for a gun that was used in a crime.

If your gun is stolen you have the obligation to report it to the police. That way you're not liable for any crimes that were committed with that gun. If you know it's stolen and you don't report it then you deserve all that the law can impose on you. You have the obligation to cover your own butt by letting the police know it was stolen.

If you sell your gun to someone who you know won't commit a crime with that gun the government will never know you didn't do a background check on that gun. If that new owner is a responsible gun owner and properly stores that gun, it won't be stolen and the government will never know you sold it without a background check. You're not the person that the government is looking for.

The government doesn't care about or want to know about law abiding gun owners, which is the vast majority of owners. The government cares about the criminals who get guns and those who sell them to those criminals. If you're not selling guns to criminals then you have absolutely nothing to worry about.

Why not just avoid all the hassle? A bill of sale, a few minutes to check the background and you've got nothing to worry about.

 

[Wry Catcher]

If you support imposing universal background checks on all gun sales, whether through a dealer or not, I have a question for you.

Say I meet up with Turtledude; he and I buy a gun off each other, get a beer, and go home.

How does the government prove that background checks were not run before we sold the guns?

All they have to do is look through the paperwork. If that background check was done there would be paperwork filed for it.

If the person didn't do a background check and that gun was used in a crime, that person who didn't do the background check goes to prison along with the person they

If you support imposing universal background checks on all gun sales, whether through a dealer or not, I have a question for you.

Say I meet up with Turtledude; he and I buy a gun off each other, get a beer, and go home.

How does the government prove that background checks were not run before we sold the guns?

The answer is stunningly simple.

The new state IDs can be tied to very federal database we have. How hard would it be to design an app for your Droid? Slide the ID like a credit card, bam you've ran an NCIC check on that person...

You don't understand the premise here.

We -didn't- run a background chreck on each other, which violates the supposed law.
How does the state prove this?

sold the gun to.

It's a way of getting those who sell guns to criminals off the streets.



It's proven if and when you commit a crime with that gun.

Until that point, the government won't know a thing about it.

So if you sell a gun to someone who isn't a criminal and won't use that gun in a crime, the government will never know you sold that gun without that background check.

The big questions how will you know that the person is going to use it in a crime? You don't. So you're taking your chances.

You're missing the point of the law. It's to stop the wrong people from getting guns and to stop those who provide those guns to those criminals.

Not much can be done about people who sell guns to criminals right now. With that law we have a better tool to find out who is selling those guns to criminals and put their sorry butts in jail where they belong.

How does anyone know who sold the gun if there is no record anywhere?
I legally sell a gun to M14. He llegally sells it to someone else. Someone else has the gun stolen and the gun is used in a crime. So who is culpable here?
Because that is trajectory of almost all guns used in crime: they are stolen from lawful owners and then resold to criminals or used by criminals.
What law will stop that?

If the victim of the first crime (the stealing of the gun) is held civilly culpable [if 1) the gun was not safely stored; and 2) if the gun was not reported stolen] it would follow that fewer guns might be stolen.

There is no perfect solution to ending gun violence; there are steps which IMO ought to be taken to at least mitigate the harm the possession of guns by criminals, addicts and the mentally ill create.

 

[Wry Catcher]

That's a fail as absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. They would have to show you didnt go through the check.
Of course if you're having the PD do it, then they ought to have the record, much as firearms dealers now keep records of every transaction.
What about the guy who steals guns and then sells it to the guy who deals dope? What are you going to do to prevent that?

Nothing can prevent 100% of lawbreakers.

But with this system, both parties must go to the PD to do the background check and have it entered into record. If it's not done, then there are two people who are breaking the law. Now, in your scenario, both of them are criminals, anyway. But for law-abiding gun owners, if a potential buyer is unwilling to go through a background check, then that might tell them something.

It's not going to prevent anything. If the person has a criminal record but is not really a criminal (and that happens all the time) then they werent going to commit a crime anyway.
If they are criminal then they'll buy from someone willing to go around the background check anyway.
If they're honest citizens then they aren't criminals.

This isnt rocket science. Laws dont affect criminals. Period.

? word salad?

 

[Wry Catcher]

If you support imposing universal background checks on all gun sales, whether through a dealer or not, I have a question for you.

Say I meet up with Turtledude; he and I buy a gun off each other, get a beer, and go home.

How does the government prove that background checks were not run before we sold the guns?

All they have to do is look through the paperwork. If that background check was done there would be paperwork filed for it.

If the person didn't do a background check and that gun was used in a crime, that person who didn't do the background check goes to prison along with the person they

If you support imposing universal background checks on all gun sales, whether through a dealer or not, I have a question for you.

Say I meet up with Turtledude; he and I buy a gun off each other, get a beer, and go home.

How does the government prove that background checks were not run before we sold the guns?

The answer is stunningly simple.

The new state IDs can be tied to very federal database we have. How hard would it be to design an app for your Droid? Slide the ID like a credit card, bam you've ran an NCIC check on that person...

You don't understand the premise here.

We -didn't- run a background chreck on each other, which violates the supposed law.
How does the state prove this?

sold the gun to.

It's a way of getting those who sell guns to criminals off the streets.



It's proven if and when you commit a crime with that gun.

Until that point, the government won't know a thing about it.

So if you sell a gun to someone who isn't a criminal and won't use that gun in a crime, the government will never know you sold that gun without that background check.

The big questions how will you know that the person is going to use it in a crime? You don't. So you're taking your chances.

You're missing the point of the law. It's to stop the wrong people from getting guns and to stop those who provide those guns to those criminals.

Not much can be done about people who sell guns to criminals right now. With that law we have a better tool to find out who is selling those guns to criminals and put their sorry butts in jail where they belong.

How does anyone know who sold the gun if there is no record anywhere?
I legally sell a gun to M14. He llegally sells it to someone else. Someone else has the gun stolen and the gun is used in a crime. So who is culpable here?
Because that is trajectory of almost all guns used in crime: they are stolen from lawful owners and then resold to criminals or used by criminals.
What law will stop that?

If a gun is used in a crime, the person of record is where the police will start looking when trying to find out who used that gun in that crime. If you sold a gun to someone without a background check and they turn around and sold it to a criminal, you're probably going to be liable for not doing the background check.

Write out a bill of sale and have the buyer sign and date it. There, you have proof of sale. However you also have proof that you didn't do that background check.

If you're a legal gun owner and you sell a gun, then you shouldn't have any problem with making sure that you're not liable for a gun that was used in a crime.

If your gun is stolen you have the obligation to report it to the police. That way you're not liable for any crimes that were committed with that gun. If you know it's stolen and you don't report it then you deserve all that the law can impose on you. You have the obligation to cover your own butt by letting the police know it was stolen.

If you sell your gun to someone who you know won't commit a crime with that gun the government will never know you didn't do a background check on that gun. If that new owner is a responsible gun owner and properly stores that gun, it won't be stolen and the government will never know you sold it without a background check. You're not the person that the government is looking for.

The government doesn't care about or want to know about law abiding gun owners, which is the vast majority of owners. The government cares about the criminals who get guns and those who sell them to those criminals. If you're not selling guns to criminals then you have absolutely nothing to worry about.

Why not just avoid all the hassle? A bill of sale, a few minutes to check the background and you've got nothing to worry about.

Reasonable and rational posts will not be tolerated within any discussion or debate on gun control issues. Doing so simply irrates the gun lovers and may create cognitive dissonance in a few - a serious mental cunundrum in those not willfully ignorant.

 

[Wry Catcher]

You don't understand the premise here.

We -didn't- run a background chreck on each other, which violates the supposed law.
How does the state prove this?

My idea is that you both go to a police department and do the transaction there. They provide background check, give you both receipts.

Keep the receipt like you would any other important document. If you're asked to produce it, and can't, they assume the background check wasn't done. You get a ticket or whatever, until one or both of you go back to place of the original check, and produce a record. Hopefully, they can find what you didn't bother to keep around.

That's a fail as absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. They would have to show you didnt go through the check.
Of course if you're having the PD do it, then they ought to have the record, much as firearms dealers now keep records of every transaction.
What about the guy who steals guns and then sells it to the guy who deals dope? What are you going to do to prevent that?

20 years and a $10,000 fine to the seller; 10 years and a $10,000 fine to the buyer (unless the buyer is an undercover LEO, of course). Will that prevent every such transaction? Nope.

As for the evidence, the burden is on the seller. S/he must prove via a bill of sale and a background check that they complied with the law.

 

[The Rabbi]

If you support imposing universal background checks on all gun sales, whether through a dealer or not, I have a question for you.

Say I meet up with Turtledude; he and I buy a gun off each other, get a beer, and go home.

How does the government prove that background checks were not run before we sold the guns?

All they have to do is look through the paperwork. If that background check was done there would be paperwork filed for it.

If the person didn't do a background check and that gun was used in a crime, that person who didn't do the background check goes to prison along with the person they

If you support imposing universal background checks on all gun sales, whether through a dealer or not, I have a question for you.

Say I meet up with Turtledude; he and I buy a gun off each other, get a beer, and go home.

How does the government prove that background checks were not run before we sold the guns?

The answer is stunningly simple.

The new state IDs can be tied to very federal database we have. How hard would it be to design an app for your Droid? Slide the ID like a credit card, bam you've ran an NCIC check on that person...

You don't understand the premise here.

We -didn't- run a background chreck on each other, which violates the supposed law.
How does the state prove this?

sold the gun to.

It's a way of getting those who sell guns to criminals off the streets.



It's proven if and when you commit a crime with that gun.

Until that point, the government won't know a thing about it.

So if you sell a gun to someone who isn't a criminal and won't use that gun in a crime, the government will never know you sold that gun without that background check.

The big questions how will you know that the person is going to use it in a crime? You don't. So you're taking your chances.

You're missing the point of the law. It's to stop the wrong people from getting guns and to stop those who provide those guns to those criminals.

Not much can be done about people who sell guns to criminals right now. With that law we have a better tool to find out who is selling those guns to criminals and put their sorry butts in jail where they belong.

How does anyone know who sold the gun if there is no record anywhere?
I legally sell a gun to M14. He llegally sells it to someone else. Someone else has the gun stolen and the gun is used in a crime. So who is culpable here?
Because that is trajectory of almost all guns used in crime: they are stolen from lawful owners and then resold to criminals or used by criminals.
What law will stop that?

If a gun is used in a crime, the person of record is where the police will start looking when trying to find out who used that gun in that crime. If you sold a gun to someone without a background check and they turn around and sold it to a criminal, you're probably going to be liable for not doing the background check.

Write out a bill of sale and have the buyer sign and date it. There, you have proof of sale. However you also have proof that you didn't do that background check.

If you're a legal gun owner and you sell a gun, then you shouldn't have any problem with making sure that you're not liable for a gun that was used in a crime.

If your gun is stolen you have the obligation to report it to the police. That way you're not liable for any crimes that were committed with that gun. If you know it's stolen and you don't report it then you deserve all that the law can impose on you. You have the obligation to cover your own butt by letting the police know it was stolen.

If you sell your gun to someone who you know won't commit a crime with that gun the government will never know you didn't do a background check on that gun. If that new owner is a responsible gun owner and properly stores that gun, it won't be stolen and the government will never know you sold it without a background check. You're not the person that the government is looking for.

The government doesn't care about or want to know about law abiding gun owners, which is the vast majority of owners. The government cares about the criminals who get guns and those who sell them to those criminals. If you're not selling guns to criminals then you have absolutely nothing to worry about.

Why not just avoid all the hassle? A bill of sale, a few minutes to check the background and you've got nothing to worry about.

You sell the gun but report it stolen.
You sell the gun and someone else steals it.

You undertstand ATF does trace requests every day, right? And they virtually never uncover who committed a crime because the gun was stolen previously in almost every case.
And guns get stolen without people realizing it every single day.

Again, your proposal does not address the actual problem and instead sticks it to lawful gun owners and buyers.

 

[The Rabbi]

That's a fail as absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. They would have to show you didnt go through the check.
Of course if you're having the PD do it, then they ought to have the record, much as firearms dealers now keep records of every transaction.
What about the guy who steals guns and then sells it to the guy who deals dope? What are you going to do to prevent that?

Nothing can prevent 100% of lawbreakers.

But with this system, both parties must go to the PD to do the background check and have it entered into record. If it's not done, then there are two people who are breaking the law. Now, in your scenario, both of them are criminals, anyway. But for law-abiding gun owners, if a potential buyer is unwilling to go through a background check, then that might tell them something.

It's not going to prevent anything. If the person has a criminal record but is not really a criminal (and that happens all the time) then they werent going to commit a crime anyway.
If they are criminal then they'll buy from someone willing to go around the background check anyway.
If they're honest citizens then they aren't criminals.

This isnt rocket science. Laws dont affect criminals. Period.

? word salad?

Translation: He's too smart for me.

 

[Jarlaxle]

When Turtledude goes onto the local Jr. College and shoots and kills dozens the investigation may very well lead to you. Then, you ought to be complicit and put in prison. And, since you had a duty to perform the background checks and did not do so, and harm was caused, you will lose everything you own, home, car and all of your guns.

Now, it may be hard to prove "beyond a resonable doubt" and put you in prison (where you belong), but the standard of proof in a civil suit is much lower, and everyone effected by your irresponsible behavior will sue your ass. Attorney fees alone will put you in the poor house.

You have a vivid imagination...and a grasp on reality that is, at best, tenuous.

Honestly.,..if selling a gun privately, the buyer would not know who I am. First names only, meet in a public place (mall parking lot, Park & Ride, etc), contact only via throwaway phones.

 

[The Rabbi]

You don't understand the premise here.

We -didn't- run a background chreck on each other, which violates the supposed law.
How does the state prove this?

My idea is that you both go to a police department and do the transaction there. They provide background check, give you both receipts.

Keep the receipt like you would any other important document. If you're asked to produce it, and can't, they assume the background check wasn't done. You get a ticket or whatever, until one or both of you go back to place of the original check, and produce a record. Hopefully, they can find what you didn't bother to keep around.

That's a fail as absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. They would have to show you didnt go through the check.
Of course if you're having the PD do it, then they ought to have the record, much as firearms dealers now keep records of every transaction.
What about the guy who steals guns and then sells it to the guy who deals dope? What are you going to do to prevent that?

20 years and a $10,000 fine to the seller; 10 years and a $10,000 fine to the buyer (unless the buyer is an undercover LEO, of course). Will that prevent every such transaction? Nope.

As for the evidence, the burden is on the seller. S/he must prove via a bill of sale and a background check that they complied with the law.

The burden is on the state to prove the crime, Einstein.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

You sell the gun but report it stolen.
You sell the gun and someone else steals it.

You undertstand ATF does trace requests every day, right? And they virtually never uncover who committed a crime because the gun was stolen previously in almost every case.
And guns get stolen without people realizing it every single day.

Again, your proposal does not address the actual problem and instead sticks it to lawful gun owners and buyers.

There are times when I don't even look in my gun safe for months. Now I have it fairly well secured and big dogs and all that, so not much chance of anyone stealing any of my weapons , but if they DID it might go months before I realized it, depending on my mood for shooting, etc etc.