Background check requirements for private sales of firearms. Unenforceable and the anti firearms groups dream come true (drugs, crimes)
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.
The NRA is the biggest compromiser to the 2nd amendment, even writing most of the gun legislation on the books today as a compromise, not to come take them or ban them.
They had no faith in the Constitution and the text of the 2nd amendment to argue it to truth, much less the Supreme Court ruling on feelings not text and the times in context it was composed.....
I thought that one was shot down. I'm surprised it passed here. I voted against it.
Wasn't the procedure supposed to be that for a private sale, you just take the gun to a licensed dealer, pay him a few bucks and he runs the instant background check?
No, it passed. The going through an FFL and using the current system is a proposal to amend the law, and get around the entanglements I noted. But it hasn't been written in yet. There's problems with that as well as the sale winds up on the dealers records and they haven't decided on a fee schedule or how the sales record should be recorded. It fouls up the dealers records with the BATF since the gun wouldn't be part of the dealers inventory. And even with that option, there's still no way to ensure people are complying with the law.
Out of sight out of mind. Most people who want to sell or gift a gun, especially one that they've had forever will just say, "here ya go, who'll know?"
This is a topic that really needs to be examined closely. On the surface and in particular to uninformed voters where these measures have been put to ballot, it sounds like a good idea. Just "common sense." A simplistic way to keep criminals from buying guns not just from licensed dealers, but from anyone. However it's NOT that simple and overlooks some very important issues that I have to date not seen addressed.
Firstly, criminals will not follow any such law when they sell any gun to anyone. Their inventory is stolen any way and is already well outside all other existing laws. Second, and more important, such requirements are totally unenforceable. There is no way for the state to know when any individual firearm changed hands. Most guns have been in circulation for quite a while. There is no way to determine when a gun was sold to who or where it originally was purchased. It could have changed owner several times since the original purchase.
NV voters approved such a measure last November, and now the state has found out they can't enforce it. Not without ( here comes the caveat) a central data base of firearms in private hands. They have to know who owns what guns. Without that, there is just no way to know whether or not an individual gun was sold within the guidelines of the new law. That horse has left the barn and been running wild for far to long, in figurative terms.
Private BC laws basically requires all firearms owners to operate under the same guidelines as FFL dealers. Keeping a detailed inventory of everything they own. And in order to enforce the law the state would need that list as well. There is no other way to ensure compliance. If a person sells or even gifts an individual firearm, that would have to be reported to the state complete with make, model and serial number as no longer being in their possession. In an inheritance situation it would be a nightmare.
Such laws under requirement for central registry also opens the door for the state to conduct random inventory of private owners to ensure compliance. They would be able to come into peoples homes, and make them produce all their registered firearms. "Common sense" right? They want to ensure people are following the law. Is that so bad? After all it's for the greater good, and think of the children.
The big difference between these state private BC laws and federally licensed FFL dealers is that at time of sale the make, model, type (long or hand gun) and serial number would have to be given to the enforcing agency so that their data can be updated. Federal law, the BATF, does not require this from FFL dealers , and the current BC system does not either. Private individuals will be under far stricter regulations than licensed dealers for record keeping.
BATF conducts audits annually on FFL dealers to track inventory and ensure compliance with federal laws. However they are not allowed to use the store records for a central information base. They can only check to assure all inventory left the store legally. The sales records stay with the dealer. private background check laws are nothing but an end around to establishing central firearms ownership data bases. This is something that needs to be brought up and I haven't seen even the NRA do so yet.
As I said, NV is finding all this out the hard way. It's a snow job, and I've seen even staunch 2A supporters buy off on it as a good thing. Certain details of how the state is going to enforce this law have just sailed right past people. They see it as a concession that isn't so bad and might actually do something about illegal sales to unqualified people. But it doesn't. It does however open the door wide to things the anti firearms groups have been after for years, and been unable to obtain. Complete lists of firearms and who owns them. All compiled neatly in government files.
Every country that has ever done a ban and confiscation measure has first required central registration. Australia, the poster child for the anti 2A types, did exactly that. As did the UK. Wake up firearms rights advocates. All that glitters is not gold. These details my have been inadvertent on the part of the anti gun groups when advocating for private sale BCs. But I'm dubious about that. They may not be as stupid as they sound. What I have outlined above here are glaringly obvious and serious problems with even the idea of requiring background checks for private sales.
NV has found this out. The cats out of the bag here now. Popular vote or no, they will have to go back to the drawing board with things. Now that people actually know what will be required to make the new measure work, the picture has been changed. It will require modifications to the state constitution to enforce that are not going to be as easy to sell as the original idea. "Common sense" indeed...
You miss the point on two main issues:
1) Dividing the population between "law abiding citizens" and "criminals", is misleading as far as firearms go. There are a gazillion people that aren't the classic "criminal" type yet they pose great danger with firearms. People that suffer from mental issues, anger, alcoholism. People bearing a grudge against coworkers and neighbors. Basically all unbalanced individuals shouldn't carry weapons. Kids are also in the same category.
2) The fact that some law or regulation doesn't sit well with background checks. That is a technical problem not a fundamental one. The suspicion that random searches by the authorities will be performed in people's homes....Basically you can give a free reign to your imagination on everything.
As an aside, the biggest concern with millions of firearms in everyone's hands, is the possibility of a civil war. You saw that guy that came to shoot republicans in DC. These are the people who should never own weapons (with or without second amendment).
You miss the point on two main issues:
1) Dividing the population between "law abiding citizens" and "criminals", is misleading as far as firearms go. There are a gazillion people that aren't the classic "criminal" type yet they pose great danger with firearms. People that suffer from mental issues, anger, alcoholism. People bearing a grudge against coworkers and neighbors. Basically all unbalanced individuals shouldn't carry weapons. Kids are also in the same category.
2) The fact that some law or regulation doesn't sit well with background checks. That is a technical problem not a fundamental one. The suspicion that random searches by the authorities will be performed in people's homes....Basically you can give a free reign to your imagination on everything.
As an aside, the biggest concern with millions of firearms in everyone's hands, is the possibility of a civil war. You saw that guy that came to shoot republicans in DC. These are the people who should never own weapons (with or without second amendment).
Follow your illogic, we should ban men as every man is a potential rapist.
Except the truth is legal gun owners are 8 times less likely to commit crimes than the general population.
You miss the point on two main issues:
1) Dividing the population between "law abiding citizens" and "criminals", is misleading as far as firearms go. There are a gazillion people that aren't the classic "criminal" type yet they pose great danger with firearms. People that suffer from mental issues, anger, alcoholism. People bearing a grudge against coworkers and neighbors. Basically all unbalanced individuals shouldn't carry weapons. Kids are also in the same category.
2) The fact that some law or regulation doesn't sit well with background checks. That is a technical problem not a fundamental one. The suspicion that random searches by the authorities will be performed in people's homes....Basically you can give a free reign to your imagination on everything.
As an aside, the biggest concern with millions of firearms in everyone's hands, is the possibility of a civil war. You saw that guy that came to shoot republicans in DC. These are the people who should never own weapons (with or without second amendment).
A lot of the people that go off the hinges have no previous record of any type. No BGC is going to catch nutters.
There is a state law in Missouri that bans registration of firearms. More states need that.
Florida too
Quote:
A list, record, or registry of legally owned firearms or law-abiding firearm owners is not a law enforcement tool and can become an instrument for profiling, harassing, or abusing law-abiding citizens based on their choice to own a firearm and exercise their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed under the United States Constitution. Further, such a list, record, or registry has the potential to fall into the wrong hands and become a shopping list for thieves.
A list, record, or registry of legally owned firearms or law-abiding firearm owners is not a tool for fighting terrorism, but rather is an instrument that can be used as a means to profile innocent citizens and to harass and abuse American citizens based solely on their choice to own firearms and exercise their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed under the United States Constitution.
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.