Gun Control

[Gameface]

Not sure what you're getting at here - are you saying this is an unreasonable hardship?

What if your uncle was giving you a car instead of guns? Would you change your insurance. Change the registration with the DMV?

No, I just think it's important for people who are for certain regulations to get an understanding of how it plays out int he real world. It's one thing to say "This is the way things should be" if in the end you don't have the slightest clue about the way thing are.

EDIT
I mean, it is a hardship and added expense. Combine that with the fact that the guns are not registered in the first place and no record of the sale is kept so there isn't really any way to verify compliance after the fact. If people know one another I highly doubt they'd go to the trouble to comply with the law. Obviously when the term universal background check is thrown around they don't consider illegal black market sales to exist in their universe because no background check are going to be done on those sales.

 

[franklin]

In principle I think there are few reasons to oppose a background check.

Calling it "the gun show loophole" is a propaganda term that doesn't represent the reality.

I have attempted to purchase firearms at a gun show. Once many many years ago when my driver's license was expired and I was turned away at Doug's Shoot 'n Sport (local gun shop that's been around for a long time) I tried to get a gun at a gun show. It didn't work. Wanna know why? Because all the people running booths at the gun show were gun store owners. Because they had a Federal Firearm Licence (FFL) they were required to run the same background check as they would have in their store. So, while it would have been possible for a private citizen to rent a booth at the gun show and sell guns from his/her private collection and not run background checks I haven't ever seen that.

I'd like to see someone go in with a hidden camera and try to buy a gun at a gun show without doing a background check. I bet they'll leave empty handed.

The "loophole" that is actually being closed is private person to person firearms transfers. So not only will I have to perform a background check if I want to sell a gun on craigslist, but if my uncle wanted to return some guns that used to belong to my father we'd have to run a background check.

So, how would this work? I can't run a background check from my computer or smartphone. So all private sales would have to include an established FFL holder as middleman so that they could conduct the background check. There is currently a standard practice where a gun store will receive privately ordered firearms from out of state because guns cannot be shipped except from FFL holder to FFL holder. Then you go to the gun store pay a fee, usually around $25 but I've seen as low as $15 and as high as $40, plus the cost of the background check that they're required to run before releasing the gun to you. So in the case of my uncle wanting to give me guns that used to belong to my father to do it legally we'd have to meetup at the gun store, pay the fees and then he could give me the guns.

That's the goal of closing the "loophole." To make private sales of guns get a background check. gun shows have almost nothing to do with it. The gunshow loophole was a fake problem that happened to get a lot of people riled up so they've been runnin' with it.

I think many gun owners would actually appreciate this type of service. You take a huge risk of serious jail time every time you sell a gun in a private transaction. I'd love to pay the sheriff's office $15 or whatever to facilitate a transaction that would limit my liability similar to how these background checks limit retailer's liability.

It would suck paying the fee when you want to give a gun to a father or brother or something though. But you could always "loan" them a gun indefinitely.

 

[franklin]

Link?

I have plenty but thanks for the offer.

 

[One Brow]

And they want people walking in their front door with a bunch of guns?

Does the gun need to be physically present for the background check to occur?

 

[Gameface]

Does the gun need to be physically present for the background check to occur?

Yes. Basically the seller turns custody of the gun over to the FFL who then wait for a good BGC and turn possession of the gun over to the buyer.

If you pawn a gun the pawn shop is required to run a BGC on you before giving the gun back to you.

 

[moevillini]

...Show any poll where 87% of Americans agree on anything.

96% agree the world is not run by reptilians. What do I win?

my undying love! think you can handle it?

Link?

get in line after franklin...

Justify for me a purpose for banning the production of 9mm weapons that is something other than an attempt to limit the 2nd amendment...

honestly Stoked, sometimes you sound as though you think anything short of giving away guns away for free is an attempt to limit the 2nd amendment...

 

[Stoked]

my undying love! think you can handle it?




get in line after franklin...




honestly Stoked, sometimes you sound as though you think anything short of giving away guns away for free is an attempt to limit the 2nd amendment...

Can you think of a reason for the government to ban an existing weapon that is not limiting the 2nd amendment?

Also have I not said i was for increased background checks?

 

[One Brow]

Yes. Basically the seller turns custody of the gun over to the FFL who then wait for a good BGC and turn possession of the gun over to the buyer.

That's today, when a license is required, right?

If you pawn a gun the pawn shop is required to run a BGC on you before giving the gun back to you.

Today, or under the new law? Also, pawn shops sometimes buy, and sometimes make loans. If the gun is collateral on a loan, this doesn't seem right, as you have always been the legal owner.

 

[One Brow]

Also have I not said i was for increased background checks?

You have not said that, if it could save one life out of 20, you would be be in favor of reducing magazine size. You also have not said you would oppose it.

 

[Stoked]

You have not said that, if it could save one life out of 20, you would be be in favor of reducing magazine size. You also have not said you would oppose it.

Yes I am against it. Why? Because that is a ludicrous question for all the reasons you already know but will pretend you don't.

 

[One Brow]

Yes I am against it. Why? Because that is a ludicrous question for all the reasons you already know but will pretend you don't.

So to be clear, even if it could be tested and shown to be able to save lives, you would be against magazine size restrictions, because you need to have the right to 30 bullets in a magazine instead of 6, even though that doesn't impede you in any way.

 

[Stoked]

So to be clear, even if it could be tested and shown to be able to save lives, you would be against magazine size restrictions, because you need to have the right to 30 bullets in a magazine instead of 6, even though that doesn't impede you in any way.

Oh your joking. I'll wait till your serious.