Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Ironic post is ironic.How does anyone know who sold the gun if there is no record anywhere?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
You don't understand the premise here.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...
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.
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.
I cant tell you how many times someone had a gun stolen from under the bed or the nightstand and had no idea until they went looking for it. And even then they werent sure it was stolen.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.
That's a fail as absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. They would have to show you didnt go through the check.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.
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.
Ah. So its all based on Turtledude talking.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.How? Why?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.
Please also note that you did not answer the question.
[
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.
What paperwork?All they have to do is look through the paperwork. If that background check was done there would be paperwork filed for it.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?
Ah. So its all based on Turtledude talking.
Who said anyting about either of the guns being used in a crime?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.
Nope. We didnt do that.Write out a bill of sale and have the buyer sign and date it.
You sell the gun but report it stolen.How does anyone know who sold the gun if there is no record anywhere?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
You don't understand the premise here.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...
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.
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 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.
Your statement is bullshit, as proven by the huge numbers of guns that get stolen every year. That includes from police officers btw.You sell the gun but report it stolen.How does anyone know who sold the gun if there is no record anywhere?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
You don't understand the premise here.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...
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.
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 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.
Lawful gun owners secure their guns making theft nearly impossible. Have a gun safe, if you feel you need the gun under your pillow at night, do so, but lock it up in the morning, or keep it on your person at home. You will then know it was stolen, or taken to school by your kid.
Not sure how any of this is relevant tp the question.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.
Actually... the burden is on the state.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.
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.
I cant tell you how many times someone had a gun stolen from under the bed or the nightstand and had no idea until they went looking for it. And even then they werent sure it was stolen.
The only way to make any kind of scheme work is mandatory gun registration. And that is an infringement. And it will be subject to widespread, very widespread, civil disobedience.
It's an intrusion on my privacy for no purpose.
And just because the right is not absolute does not mean that any infringement is also OK. It has to serve some purpose. And registration serves no purpose.
It's an intrusion on my privacy for no purpose.
And just because the right is not absolute does not mean that any infringement is also OK. It has to serve some purpose. And registration serves no purpose.
Criminal law exists to punish people who commit certain acts, not prevent those acts.So, get rid of laws, since there's not a single one that prevents all lawbreaking?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.
Irrelevant to the conversation.If you sell your car and don't have a bill of sale and don't notify DMV a parking ticket will be your responsiblity, any hit and run, you are the suspect and will need to prove you weren't the driver.
