Mandatory FFL Checks?

[Donnelly]

Let me preface this with the statement that I am not condoning this nor do I think it would do anything other than put additional burdens upon law-abiding citizens.

That said, the left is calling for the "gun show loop-hole" to be closed. If Congress were to pass a law calling for any transfer to go through a NICS check and for the firearm to be documented on a form 4473, couldn't they (Congress) make it a condition of holding an FFL that if if you were approached by any parties that wanted to do a transfer that you would be required to assist?

My other question is, could they (Congress) set a maximum amount that the FFL holder could charge for said transfer, say $20?

Again, I'm not condoning this. I do not think it would prevent any tragedies, but it would place additional burdens on those that already obey the law.

 

[donballz]

You're asking if congress can make laws that say things?

 

[Donnelly]

I'm wondering how it would fare in the courts due to the whole "shall not be infringed" thing. Also, that mandatory help thing and setting a dollar amount sounds a little like involuntary servitude.

 

[finnegan]

I gotta admit, I'd be willing to live with this. As much of a hassle at it would be to sell a gun on here or armslist, if it meant no other gun laws were passed, I'd deal with it.

 

[phylodog]

I'd forfeit my FFL if they did.

 

[IndyS3]

Form 4473 just states that you purchased a gun. It doesn't say what gun or the serial number or any real info.

 

[phylodog]

The form has the make, model and serial number but the only thing called during the check is handgun, long gun or other firearm.

 

[revance]

IF there was a way to allow normal people to run a NICS check without creating privacy issues (not sure how you could do that). I would be alright with them requiring private sellers to run a NICS check. I would NOT be alright with requiring us to keep paperwork like FFLs or forcing FFLs to do the transfers for free (or force us to pay them).

This would create minimal hassle on our part (just making a phone call and giving them the persons info) and might actually make it more difficult for criminals to get guns. I realize the benefit is pretty small on this, but it would shut up those people always crying about the "gun show loophole". The logical person in me understands that a VERY small percentage of guns used in crimes come from legal private sales. However I think if they could find a way to do it without making it a hassle or infringing on privacy, it wouldn't be that bad. The real question is whether the funding for increased NICS checks provides a worthwhile ROI. I highly doubt it, but neither does anything else our tax dollars are spent on.

Of course, the police would have to do real police work to catch violators. They would have to attempt to buy from people they suspect are selling to criminals and catch them NOT running a check or better yet, selling to them anyway when they get denied.

I always reserve the right to ask to see DL and LTCH when I sell. I don't think I have ever actually checked though. I wouldn't mind making a 5 minute phone call (assuming they keep it that fast).

 

[finnegan]

Are you crazy?

Perhaps I am.

Note though, I said that if this is the ONLY thing passed, I'd consent. Not sure how many private sales you've done; but when a man with a hobo beard stained with Skol meets you at Denny's after dark; you may reconsider.

 

[revance]

Of course nothing I mentioned will ever happen because they aren't trying to come up with solutions that only hurt criminals. They want "solutions" that only screw over the law abiding. Why would they provide private sellers with a tool to make sure they are selling to a proper person when instead they could create de-facto registration by requiring FFL transfers be done on everything?

So naturally I wrote a long post that doesn't matter. Create a gun law that goes out of its way to be helpful to gun owners??? NEVER!

 

[terrehautian]

In. Way I am for it. It would protect the seller from selling to a felon. Here is what I would do, no paperwork to keep track of. In fact it doesn't have to go through a ffl. I got background check printed off a few years ago for under $10 ($3 I think). If the buyer has a ccw license or a background check printed out saying they are not a felon (dated within a week of purchase date), this eliminates the "gun show loophole" and protects the seller. This should not apply to family deals though (like father to son). If your son can't or shouldn't own guns, you should know that.

 

[netsecurity]

I gotta admit, I'd be willing to live with this. As much of a hassle at it would be to sell a gun on here or armslist, if it meant no other gun laws were passed, I'd deal with it.

Of course, neither requiring FFL for each private sale, nor requiring NFA stamps for "assault (style) weapons" will prevent any crime, since--say it with me now--criminals by definition don't obey the law. Obviously, a gangster in Chicago won't go through an FFL dealer when he buys or sells his gun...even the mere thought of that is laughable! And a nut like Lanza won't care if his mom had to buy a $200 stamp to get her AR15, in fact, he would've just used another weapon if she didn't own an "assault weapon" at all.

All these laws would accomplish is making legal sales more onerous, which sure sounds a lot like infringement to me. The Aurora shooter, for example, might have had to wait six months to get his gun (since he had no criminal record). Would that make some crazies think twice? Perhaps, but the Aurora shooter spent six months buying gear anyways. I'm convinced that the ONLY way he might have been stopped is if his psychiatrist did the right thing, and alerted police that he was dangerous, AND, they were able to get a warrant to search his home because of this.

I believe liberals know all this, but they don't care. What the liberals really want is not a solution of any sort, but LESS guns period. They figure the more difficult is for us to buy guns, the more likely we will give up and not exercise our rights. That is it in a nutshell, and I believe their goal is blatant infringement from every angle.

 

[finnegan]

Of course, neither requiring FFL for each private sale, nor requiring NFA stamps for "assault (style) weapons" will prevent any crime, since--say it with me now--criminals by definition don't obey the law. Obviously, a gangster in Chicago won't go through an FFL dealer when he buys or sells his gun...even the mere thought of that is laughable! And a nut like Lanza won't care if his mom had to buy a $200 stamp to get her AR15, in fact, he would've just used another weapon if she didn't own an "assault weapon" at all.

All these laws would accomplish is making legal sales more onerous, which sure sounds a lot like infringement to me. The Aurora shooter, for example, might have had to wait six months to get his gun (since he had no criminal record). Would that make some crazies think twice? Perhaps, but the Aurora shooter spent six months buying gear anyways. I'm convinced that the ONLY way he might have been stopped is if his psychiatrist did the right thing, and alerted police that he was dangerous, AND, they were able to get a warrant to search his home because of this.

I believe liberals know all this, but they don't care. What the liberals really want is not a solution of any sort, but LESS guns period. They figure the more difficult is for us to buy guns, the more likely we will give up and not exercise our rights. That is it in a nutshell, and I believe their goal is blatant infringement from every angle.

I don't see the logic in this argument at all. I'm saying that if it meant no assault weapons ban, no magazine restriction, no mental health background check, etc that I have to follow the same laws as an FFL in selling a firearm to an individual that I'm okay with that to protect MYSELF from being implicated if the person I sold it to shoots up a busload of infants doesn't cause me to be incarcerated?

 

[netsecurity]

I don't see the logic in this argument at all. I'm saying that if it meant no assault weapons ban, no magazine restriction, no mental health background check, etc that I have to follow the same laws as an FFL in selling a firearm to an individual that I'm okay with that to protect MYSELF from being implicated if the person I sold it to shoots up a busload of infants doesn't cause me to be incarcerated?

 

[finnegan]

Referencing specifically the current case against ARMSLIST - Gun Classifieds.

US gun website sued for alleged ties to slayings

 

[bwframe]

NO

NO

NO

 

[KW730]

I believe liberals know all this, but they don't care. What the liberals really want is not a solution of any sort, but LESS guns period. They figure the more difficult is for us to buy guns, the more likely we will give up and not exercise our rights. That is it in a nutshell, and I believe their goal is blatant infringement from every angle.

I'm a liberal and am completely against gun control. Might want to change a few words if you want your argument to hold any weight.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I'm a liberal and am completely against gun control. Might want to change a few words if you want your argument to hold any weight.

If you are a liberal, you seem to be one in the classical sense rather than the modern sense.

As for the original issues, first, it is an invasive burden on citizens to require private sales to brokered through FFL holders. Second, it is wrong for the government to require such persons to provide such a service. Third, it is wrong for the .gov to set a price for such a service. Working backward, if it is mandated that private sales be brokered by FFL holders, someone will be willing to provide this service for a reasonable fee, much in the same way that some dealers now want nothing to do with transfers and others generate more revenue from transfers than from selling inventory. In the end, we have a series of solutions looking for problems which is rather typical for the leftists* in government.


*Not to be confused with classsical/actual liberals.

 

[TheWabbit]

As I posted in the Armslist thread, Congress cannot require anything involving the 'Gunshow loophole'. That is a private intrastate transaction. The State of Indiana would have to pass the law.

Why are some of you willing to give up your rights to Congress when they don't have the power to regulate it?

 

[daddymikey1975]

This would create minimal hassle on our part (just making a phone call and giving them the persons info) and might actually make it more difficult for criminals to get guns.

how so?

Assume I wasn't a law abiding citizen... do you think I would waste the time to call in if I really didn't want to ? Would any of the criminals that break into your neighbors house to steal the guns, would make the call before they sell them to the 'other' criminals ?

Do I need to call in and get permission to sell my snow blower on Craigslist ?

just offering a different perspective