Buy guns on Facebook

[BIGUN 1,062]

quade

*********I belong to a few gun groups on FB, and have bought and sold a variety of weapons, ammunition and optics. As a general rule, while very protective of their second amendment rights these folks are extremely professional and all transactions I have ever been a part of have been completely legal and include FFL-sponsored transfers. Gun "enthusiasts" are often building and selling weapons in the secondary market simply to support their love of building and firing weapons. There's nothing sneaky going on here.

Except maybe, you know, an enormous loophole in the laws requiring background checks.

did you read the whole post or just the last line and then kneejerk reply?

did you read the part about "FFL-sponsored transfers"?

IF you are telling me all of these transactions are 100% on the up and up, well, that's an extraordinary position to take.

Being on FB; it has to be. They know what they're doing. They send it to the dealer nearest the buyer. The buyer has to present their CCP or go though a background check before the transaction can take place. If the buyer fails the background; the weapon goes back to the seller. All transactions are entered into a master log and yellow sheets are done.

Skydivers should have such a process to go through selling gear.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[BIGUN 1,062]

Hooknswoop

Are you for requiring background checks for private, person to person firearm sales?

If yes, how would you enforce such a law?

Derek V

Hook!!! Holy shit. Good to hear from you.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[davjohns 1]

Hooknswoop

Are you for requiring background checks for private, person to person firearm sales?

If yes, how would you enforce such a law?

Derek V

If the two people meet in person, there is not a way. Outside firearm registration, I don't see a way. Given some of the political positions and how things went in England, Canada, and Australia after gun registration, I violently oppose that route.

If the gun is sent through the post, it must go from one FFL to another. On the buyer side, the FFL holder will run a check before releasing the gun...just like every other sale.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[jpjc2000 0]

quade

I don't have personal knowledge that somebody is cheating at a card table right now in Las Vegas.

That said, I am 100% certain there is.

You mean to tell me there are people jumping out of date reserves or pencil packed reserves….OMG! This should be MUCH more regulated by the feds.

[dpreguy 14]

Iowa has such a "buyers card" law. I haven't read it and only know of it thru a magazine article. Once you are an approved purchaser, you can do so w/o further paperwork on a private purchase, and from the magazine article, it looks like gun ID isn't required for the private sales to one who has a "buyer's card. (Gun stores there are still subject to form 4473=Brady in their sales.) If someone is familiar with the Iowa laws can chime in if this info is wrong, that would be helpful. If it is accurate, then Ok.

Background checks can make sense when viewed as a means to prevent the sale or gifting of a firearm to persons that the Brady or state legislation prohibits. Felons, persons out on bond for violent crimes, etc..

Let's look at the logic behind the idea: That a background check is a good thing to prevent the bad guys from buying guns. Background checks when used for that purpose make common sense. So far, so good. If you are in favor of background checks, and agree that's the purpose of a these checks, then it would only be logical to have such a background check on the buyer or transferee. Now follow along:

The problem is with the Fed Form 4473. Have you read it?Requires gun ID info. It also requires the name address, ID, social sec number, ethnicity, (ethnicity? wtf!) place of birth etc etc of the SELLER?!. Well now, what business does the government have to collect info on the seller? Actually, none, except that they just want it. Does info on the seller pass the logic test of preventing sales/transfers to bad guys? No. Of Course not. And, you may be curious about why the BATF or Homeland Security or FBI or whoever want this info on the seller? I don't know why. What I do know, is that if the purpose of a background check is to prevent guns from being sold to bad guys, the ID of the seller is none of their damn business.

The next problem with the 4473 form, is that while according to Brady, it is supposed to be held only by the gun shops etc unless accessed by law enforcement for ongoing investigations, the little known part of the Brady law is that when a gun shop goes out of business, all of those 4473 forms are required to be given to BATF or whoever. What is the number of years for a "business generation"? Most small businesses only last for a few years, and all of them will die sometime. When these businesses "die', (even family owned businesses that continue in business have to do this when ownership goes to children), these 4473's are then in the hands of a government agency. If they digitize them, in one business generation there will be universal registration of every gun legally sold since the 70's or what ever year Brady became law. Well, the "why" may be this: Complete gun registration of all guns sold by gunshops since Brady that have gone out of business in the last 40+- years, (and now, in any state that has the form 4473 required for private transactions) if this info is digitized. The suspicious part of me makes me believe it is being digitized on a systematic basis. Or will be. Guns owned prior to the Brady date, and transferred between private citizens in states that don't require the 4473 aren't known to the government, nor will these guns ever be known to the government unless a state has a 4473 "background check" law. Here may be the "why" I referred to. Seems like the 4473 is the underpinning for universal registration knowledge, and could accessed so law enforcement can preemptively go to every home that is known to possess guns and grab them as they did in Katrina. No violations of law, but just the decision of some police chief or governor to order the confiscation of these known gun owner's addresses. With the promise that they will be promptly returned when the "crisis is over"? The returns never happened in Now Orleans until the owners forced the returns.

Guns will always be transferred contrary to law, of course.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Are you for requiring background checks for private, person to person firearm sales?

If yes, how would you enforce such a law?

Derek V

[rushmc 18]

Hooknswoop

Are you for requiring background checks for private, person to person firearm sales?

If yes, how would you enforce such a law?

Derek V

There is only one way to check on this
And that is the Holy Grail of gun control
Registration

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[dpreguy 14]

For private sales and transfers: Yes, a voluntary "seller's option" method. Not one that is mandated by law; and never one that reveals the name, ID of the firearm itself or the seller.

The Brady law is here to stay for gun stores, and my opinion or yours will probably not change that. I have my opinion about the Brady law itself, but that's not for here. I do have the opinion that the 4473 has no place in private sales or transfers, for the reasons in my post.

But...First things first.
Do you favor - all criminal records of all adults be "public"-
just put someone's name in and it all pops up. This would include allowing newspapers to publish a person's prior criminal history when they are arrested for a new crime. (Newspapers used to do this)

I think you can see where this is heading.

[Southern_Man 0]

dpreguy

For private sales and transfers: Yes, a voluntary "seller's option" method. Not one that is mandated by law; and never one that reveals the name, ID of the firearm itself or the seller.

The Brady law is here to stay for gun stores, and my opinion or yours will probably not change that. I have my opinion about the Brady law itself, but that's not for here. I do have the opinion that the 4473 has no place in private sales or transfers, for the reasons in my post.

But...First things first.
Do you favor - all criminal records of all adults be "public"-
just put someone's name in and it all pops up. This would include allowing newspapers to publish a person's prior criminal history when they are arrested for a new crime. (Newspapers used to do this)

I think you can see where this is heading.

I can search the local court house records for crimes by name any time I want, so I think the criminal record is already public. There are some limitations, as the records are kept by court (so I can't see if somebody committed a crime in a county way across the state unless I search there as well) and I think the ones in the court of non-record (misdemeanors) are dropped after a time period, but court records are already public.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[dpreguy 14]

Yes, anyone can search court records. Take a long time as each state has multiple judicial districts and there are 50 states and the federal courts as well. I think you can get on line and pay for this now.

But.. the question is: Does one support having the instant info for everyone, for free, by just entering their name, date of birth and Soc Sec #. Your neighbor, the kid who is 18 and dating your daughter, all employers, all employees ....heck, anybody. I'm talking NCIC (FBI National Crime Information Center) and all state databases. Everyone's complete criminal history would be available to anyone, and the newspapers could publish that so and so who was just caught for assault also has x, y ,z etc prior convictions for embezzlement, burglary, murder, fraud, DUI etc etc. Open access to everyone's criminal history by anyone, instant and for free. When you are stopped for speeding the police officer has this info instantly, before he even comes up to your window to give you the ticket.

[Southern_Man 0]

dpreguy

Yes, anyone can search court records. Take a long time as each state has multiple judicial districts and there are 50 states and the federal courts as well. I think you can get on line and pay for this now.

But.. the question is: Does one support having the instant info for everyone, for free, by just entering their name, date of birth and Soc Sec #. Your neighbor, the kid who is 18 and dating your daughter, all employers, all employees ....heck, anybody. I'm talking NCIC (FBI National Crime Information Center) and all state databases. Everyone's complete criminal history would be available to anyone, and the newspapers could publish that so and so who was just caught for assault also has x, y ,z etc prior convictions for embezzlement, burglary, murder, fraud, DUI etc etc. Open access to everyone's criminal history by anyone, instant and for free. When you are stopped for speeding the police officer has this info instantly, before he even comes up to your window to give you the ticket.

In the end it doesn't matter if I support it or don't support it. Since the data is already public the only difference is whether it is aggregated or not. As you point out it is already available in aggregated for for a price. If somebody wanted to put that out as a free product they could and nothing I, or anybody else, could do to stop it. I'm not thrilled about the idea but it is one of the costs of having open courts and public records and the alternatives to that are far worse.

I greatly suspect the police already have access to that before they come to your window. Heck I believe in quite a few states they are performing automated searches by scanning license tags and feeding them into the system.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[Hooknswoop 19]

Are you for requiring background checks for private, person to person firearm sales?

If yes, how would you enforce such a law?

Derek V