Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ah, why? What is wrong with the current law against purchasing for those prohibited from owning a firearm? It's a reasonable restriction and one I support.
What exactly would banning the resale of a firearm for some arbitrary 90 day limit accomplish? 99.9% of people buying (and selling) firearms do so legally. Would you make a criminal out of someone that sells his shotgun to a buddy (who is legally able to buy one) after 89 days?
The point is that we, non-dealers, shouldn't buy firearms for resell. This is against the current law already. To a reasonable person, I would think at least keeping the gun on hand for a little while would prove the intent is to keep not resell.
The point is that we, non-dealers, shouldn't buy firearms for resell. This is against the current law already. To a reasonable person, I would think at least keeping the gun on hand for a little while would prove the intent is to keep not resell.
To some extent, but hardly proof.
I'd think a facility for background checks would be about a thousand times more effective.
They need to go after the straw purchasers. I would incline to re-define the straw purchase law. Currently, straw purchase is defined as one purchases a firearm for a prohibited person. I would like to change that to the original purchaser cannot resell the gun within 90 days - they can gift the gun but not resell.
If they resell or gift the gun within 90 days, they should be held liable if the recipient commits a crime with such gun.
why? can you resell your car or any other item that you own? maybe I dont like the firearm after all, or some other reason. who cares, it is my property and as long as i dont sell the firearm to a prohibited person, why should you or anyone else give a damn who i sell it to.
also, going by what you are saying, if you sell a car to someone who commits a crime with that car, then you should be prosecuted as if you commited the crime too.
why? can you resell your car or any other item that you own? maybe I dont like the firearm after all, or some other reason. who cares, it is my property and as long as i dont sell the firearm to a prohibited person, why should you or anyone else give a damn who i sell it to.
also, going by what you are saying, if you sell a car to someone who commits a crime with that car, then you should be prosecuted as if you commited the crime too.
The point is to prove "straw purchase." Most straw purchases are done through criminals' family members and friends. Also the intent of purchase should be to keep or to gift. Well, how do you show your intent to keep when you sell the gun right after you buy it?
The point is to prove "straw purchase." Most straw purchases are done through criminals' family members and friends. Also the intent of purchase should be to keep or to gift. Well, how do you show your intent to keep when you sell the gun right after you buy it?
when i get a firearm, within 2 weeks, I will have put 2-3 thousand rounds through it. it is also at this point that the firearm is the kind I like or not. if I dont like it, i sell it. usually as fast as I can and get a reasonable price for it.
also, it would only be straw purchases. gifts is also listed on a 4473.
I'd think a facility for background checks would be about a thousand times more effective.
I don't think a background check would have done squat for the murders that have happened in Detroit this year. The majority of them where done by teenagers, with handguns. It is already unlawful for a teenager to posses a handgun and unlawful for them to carry it. AND background checks are already in place for handgun purchases..
I don't think a background check would have done squat for the murders that have happened in Detroit this year. The majority of them where done by teenagers, with handguns. It is already unlawful for a teenager to posses a handgun and unlawful for them to carry it. AND background checks are already in place for handgun purchases..
What I said was only in the context of the limited discussion I was having with that poster.
I don't think a background check would have done squat for the murders that have happened in Detroit this year. The majority of them where done by teenagers, with handguns. It is already unlawful for a teenager to posses a handgun and unlawful for them to carry it. AND background checks are already in place for handgun purchases..
not unlawful for them to carry it on private property. some states it might be, but not most.
NRA has been begging every part of the government to do this for years!!!
Here's another thing we all have been begging: put those, who are denied to purchase a firearm after a background check, in prison!!!
What? I don't know if you realize this, but we are talking about the laws of the United States of America, NOT North Korea.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
