Another new "rule" incoming? No more private sales without a ffl involved?

[blain]

"SHALL NOT INFRINGE"

You're pulling up that old tired line... please.
That was in the 2nd Amendment, only because the Founders didn't have good imaginations.
We can't blame them too much for that oversight. Back in 1776 there just weren't any criminals using firearms to commit crimes. It was a simpler, more peaceful time. They left their doors unlocked and windows open and when rising in the morning were greeted by all the singing birds of the forest.
Remember this is 1776 2023 not 1984 1776.

 

[Creedmoor]

Did your wife REALLY buy that B.S.?

Mine does,













Oh thats right, I don't have a wife. HA

 

[bobzilla]

Absolutely not.
No.
End discussion.

agreed. Tired of butters making excuses for why we should have our rights removed.

 

[NHT3]

I was recently reading up on this subject. I get why people want to be able to sell their private property to others. But I also know that selling a firearm to a guy in a Lowes parking lot and checking his DL isn't necessarily the end all be all to make sure he's not a felon. Cudos to those that check for pink card licenses, but you don't need those anymore (constitutional carry kind of ruined that) and a person could have a lifetime permit and have received a felony afterward. I'm not against ending private sales but I'm not against having to go through a FFL. As that would also help boost some of our LGS who lose a lot of business to online retailers.

Not an attorney here but I'm pretty certain the "law" doesn't require me checking anything on a private sale. Personally I always want to know who I'm dealing with so that's how I CHOOSE to conduct a transaction if I'm selling. I break the law if I sell to someone that I KNOW is a felon. If this doesn't suit the powers that be then it's their option to change the law. If I'm mistaken someone please enlighten me.

 

[bobzilla]

I 100% agree with you. Again, I am trying to just have an informative conversation. What if it was free, would that change your mind (if the feds made them free)? There are those that are willfully ignorant and are willing to sell to anyone to make a buck and I don't think that should be the case.

Nope. Full nope. I don't understand how "Shall not be infringed" is just so hard for some people to comprehend. I know words change meaning over time, but those 4 words have pretty much meant the same thing for several centuries.

EDIT: also, I don't think you quite understand what "100% agree" means.

 

[blain]

agreed. Tired of butters making excuses for why we should have our rights removed.

I won't stand for you deriding little Butters Stotch!

 

[bobzilla]

I won't stand for you deriding little Butters Stotch!
View attachment 290969

My apologies.

 

[Creedmoor]

You're pulling up that old tired line... please.
That was in the 2nd Amendment, only because the Founders didn't have good imaginations.
We can't blame them too much for that oversight. Back in 1776 there just weren't any criminals using firearms to commit crimes. It was a simpler, more peaceful time. They left their doors unlocked and windows open and when rising in the morning were greeted by all the singing birds of the forest.
Remember this is 1776 2023 not 1984 1776.

Really, it wasn't a violent society in early America? LOL
I'll let Chip and others cover that topic.
Lets start with, if we were not armed in early America, we would be speaking French here.
I would suggest a good read from Holger Hoock, Scars of Independence.

Now as for peaceful times, one of my brothers place outside of Leadville, Co stays unlocked along with my familys farm in Md, no locks on the houses , barns or outbuildings.
Keys for what needs a key for are left on the floor or in the ignition.

 

[chipbennett]

Really, it wasn't a violent society in early America? LOL
I'll let Chip and others cover that topic.
Lets start with, if we were not armed in early America, we would be speaking French here.
I would suggest a good read from Holger Hoock, Scars of Independence.

Now as for peaceful times, one of my brothers place outside of Leadville, Co stays unlocked along with my familys farm in Md, no locks on the houses , barns or outbuildings.
Keys for what needs a key for are left on the floor or in the ignition.

I'm pretty sure that post was purple-implied; but, yes.

 

[Creedmoor]

I'm pretty sure that post was purple-implied; but, yes.

I came to that, after I clicked "Post reply... lol
TGIF...

 

[KellyinAvon]

Once again, we are fighting on multiple fronts. @chipbennett mentioned up-thread the BS Communities Act (Todd Young stopped announcing his locations after Stacks Pancake House in Plainfield last year... wonder why?) changed the definition of "engaged in the business" to "makes a profit". That part (to me anyway) was even worse than the Red Flag Law bribes and denying rights to 18-20 year olds. Much worse than the "swiped right loophole".

If everyone is "engaged in the business" then everyone is subject to the .gov BS. This isn't the ATF making up **** as they go along, this is law.

By the time it gets into a court (which might be SCOTUS) that can throw the BS flag we're years down the road.

If no one ever gets punished for the blatantly unconstitutional action, why would they stop?

 

[Creedmoor]

If no one ever gets punished for the blatantly unconstitutional action, why would they stop?

Coming from a Anti firearms state, They don't stop. Look at the laws that just Md, NJ and NY have passed in the last 30 years.

 

[KellyinAvon]

Coming from a Anti firearms state, They don't stop. Look at the laws that just Md, NJ and NY have passed in the last 30 years.

The important word in the is "from", as in "far from there and now in a much more 2A friendly State." Even here, it never ends.

 

[11infantryb]

Not an attorney here but I'm pretty certain the "law" doesn't require me checking anything on a private sale. Personally I always want to know who I'm dealing with so that's how I CHOOSE to conduct a transaction if I'm selling. I break the law if I sell to someone that I KNOW is a felon. If this doesn't suit the powers that be then it's their option to change the law. If I'm mistaken someone please enlighten me.

You are totally correct, at this time Indiana law doesn't require any documentation to sell a firearm via private sale. That's the only reason I made my original comment, because there is no way of knowing who you are selling to.

 

[Creedmoor]

The important word in the is "from", as in "far from there and now in a much more 2A friendly State." Even here, it never ends.

Thats correct. I voted with my feet and tax dollars.
I laugh when people say, my family's here, my kids are here, my job is here and my friends are here.
**** that, I got fed up and packed my sons, business and life up and moved.
I educated my sons in Md, because I believed and still believe it was a better option for their education.
If I can do it, anyone can...

 

[bobzilla]

You are totally correct, at this time Indiana law doesn't require any documentation to sell a firearm via private sale. That's the only reason I made my original comment, because there is no way of knowing who you are selling to.

Then don't sell to someone you don't know. Done. If you're that scared of freedom and liberty than please go hide somewhere until the .gov tells you what to do. But leave the rest of us the **** alone.

 

[Ark]

You are totally correct, at this time Indiana law doesn't require any documentation to sell a firearm via private sale. That's the only reason I made my original comment, because there is no way of knowing who you are selling to.

So what? If they lie, they're the ones committing the crime, not you, so the state can go take it up with them.

 

[Ingomike]

I 100% agree with you. Again, I am trying to just have an informative conversation. What if it was free, would that change your mind (if the feds made them free)? There are those that are willfully ignorant and are willing to sell to anyone to make a buck and I don't think that should be the case.

Then you do not believe the second and its “shall not be infringed”…

 

[chipbennett]

Apropos of nothing: this appears to be my 10,000th post. (Still not sure I've hit 50 quality posts yet, though...)

 

[AndreusMaximus]

I was recently reading up on this subject. I get why people want to be able to sell their private property to others. But I also know that selling a firearm to a guy in a Lowes parking lot and checking his DL isn't necessarily the end all be all to make sure he's not a felon. Cudos to those that check for pink card licenses, but you don't need those anymore (constitutional carry kind of ruined that) and a person could have a lifetime permit and have received a felony afterward. I'm not against ending private sales but I'm not against having to go through a FFL. As that would also help boost some of our LGS who lose a lot of business to online retailers.

Hi there, as a still recovering "compromise" addict myself, I just wanted to reach out and say that I sympathize with where you're at right now, but I want to let you know that there IS help available!

The first thing you have to realize in order for it to all make sense is that NONE of the politicians pushing for universal background checks are doing so in good faith. They don't believe for a moment that universal background checks are really going to reduce crime or "gun violence." The proof of this is that if they really DID want to reduce violent crime in our country, they would push for things like more aggressive prosecution of the ever-growing crime wave in our inner cities, longer sentences for violent crime, securing our border against violent gang members and human traffickers, etc., and STOP pushing for things like lower bail, defunding police, and so forth. Instead, these people cheer and pat themselves on the back when a peaceful citizen is locked up over a few inches of barrel (see ) but will turn around and try to get someone off scott-free for blatant violations of existing gun laws if that person happens to be on their "side" (see, for instance, Hunter Biden.)

So if these people are NOT interested in reducing violent crime (which is obvious from the other things that they support or don't support) then we have to ask ourselves, what ARE they trying to accomplish? The answer is CONTROL. They want to be able to control society, and as long as citizens are armed, they simply can't push their tyranny to the point that it would provoke armed resistance. They don't like that. For them, universal background checks is just another thing they can use as a proverbial "thin end of the wedge." Once they get one concession, getting more becomes easier. Once we accept one infringement as palatable, we've given up our principled stance, and it becomes harder and harder to defend our rights. Once they make sure that no one can legally buy a gun without an FFL, they are one easy step away from making more and more classes of people who can't legally buy guns.

And this is the reason why pro-2A folks are so quick to shut down any suggestion of making concessions.

Not long ago, I though similar to how you did. I thought things like "well, if it reduces violent crime, surely I can accept some infringement as palatable." Or, "Surely, if the other side was willing to make a reasonable concession for us, we could do so in return."

But history has proven that this sort of thinking gets us nowhere. The other side is NEVER going to willingly give us reasonable concessions; they are NOT interested in abolishing existing infringements; even if you could prove to them absolutely that abolishing a given infringement would reduce violent crime, they would not be willing to do so, because reducing violent crime is not their goal, their goal is CONTROL over you and me. And if we want to be free, we must resist them.