Mandatory FFL Checks?

[traderdan]

That would be great if it were optional....

 

[Dirtebiker]

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.

I can't agree with any more stipulations OR new laws! There are to many now! And they don't do anything to curb violence.
If an FFL holder doesn't want to do business with a particular person, there should be NO law to force him.
The fee a dealer charges is and should always be up to him only. Again, too much government intervention is NEVER good for any of us.

 

[netsecurity]

I would be glad to do a NICS check by calling direct in advance of the sale. Law abiding citizens would abide by a law like this, and criminals...would not. It doesn't even need to be a law, if people could call for a NICS verification, then they would do it voluntarily, I'm sure. But if we must do an FFL transfer then we have a full-on gun registry, which will eventually be turned against us for confiscation, and everyone knows this.

 

[MadBomber]

Zero Restrictions (for non-felons)

Zero Infringements.

Zero, Zip, Nada, Zilch.

Seriously, what part of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED is so hard to understand? Abolish the NFA, the '68 GCA, the Hughes amendment,, et al.

Tell you what though, I'm a reasonable guy. Once the traitorous laws above are dismantled, I'll be willing to allow restrictions on private ownership of suitcase nukes, LAW rockets, grenades, and RPG's. Everything else should be free for OTC sales at Walgreens and Village Pantry.

And since we're all so anxious to see new laws enacted, here's one for you; I propose a law that would require a conviction of treason, punishable by life in prison or the death penalty, for any law-maker, local, state or federal, that proposes, or votes yes, on ANY law that violates the US Constitution.

There, problem solved. Now let's watch some football.

 

[KW730]

If you voted for Obama, your words have no weight.

Liberal is not equal to Democrat. Despite what you have been told or what you think, there is a difference.

Then you are not a liberal.

Sorry sally.

I don't have to agree with every single liberal agenda to still be a liberal. Just as I hope you don't agree with every conservative agenda.

 

[Dirtebiker]

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.

Do you not understand? They don't take all your rights away at the same time. One small step at a time, like the proverbial frog in the pot of water.

 

[Dirtebiker]

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.

Whats a"hobo beard"? Have you seen many of us?
The "Skol stain"? Gross? Yes. But does that make him a bad person? Denny's? Yeah , bad choice!

 

[jb1911]

Zero Restrictions (for non-felons)

Zero Infringements.

Zero, Zip, Nada, Zilch.

Seriously, what part of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED is so hard to understand? Abolish the NFA, the '68 GCA, the Hughes amendment,, et al.

Tell you what though, I'm a reasonable guy. Once the traitorous laws above are dismantled, I'll be willing to allow restrictions on private ownership of suitcase nukes, LAW rockets, grenades, and RPG's. Everything else should be free for OTC sales at Walgreens and Village Pantry.

And since we're all so anxious to see new laws enacted, here's one for you; I propose a law that would require a conviction of treason, punishable by life in prison or the death penalty, for any law-maker, local, state or federal, that proposes, or votes yes, on ANY law that violates the US Constitution.

There, problem solved. Now let's watch some football.

This is pretty much where I'm at. Thanks for the great post.

 

[LarryC]

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?

First I am sure the liberals would require you state 1) Who you are selling the gun to and the serial number, type of gun and caliber. DEFACTO REGISTERATION. As I have stated before, criminals do not advertize on the internet that they are wanting a gun, I am sure the FBI and others have methods to detect names on gun sites and compare them against criminal records. Second any criminal can obtain a gun by either stealing it, buying it from a criminal "friend" or going into any number of back street bars and just stating he is looking for a gun - with a few bucks he can buy a cheap gun or if he wants a high priced firearm he would just sell a little more dope or trade dope for one. YOU will not be incarcerated for selling a gun to anyone who you "KNOW IS OF AGE, AND KNOW IS A LEGAL RESIDENT OF THIS STATE and that YOU DO NOT HAVE REASONABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE IS NOT LEGALLY QUALIFIED TO OWN OR POSSESS A FIREARM. In other words if a person shows you a Valid Indiana Drivers license, showing they resides in Indiana, and has his/her age listed as over 18, and the person is not obviously drunk or under the influence of drugs, and talks like he/she is sane, doesn't tell you he/she wants to shoot someone or destroy something with the gun, you have met the conditions the ATF requires for a private sale of a firearm. (other than a full auto. sbr, suppressed, or other destructive device).
THE LIBERALS DO NOT WANT GUN "CONTROL", THEY WANT TO CONTROL THE GUNS BY HAVING ALL GUNS IN ONLY THE POSSESSION OF THE POLICE OR MILITARY. Everything they propose is only being used to further that aim. Facts, logic or reason has no place in their agenda, they are using emotion only to achieve that aim.

 

[LarryC]

Liberal is not equal to Democrat. Despite what you have been told or what you think, there is a difference.



I don't have to agree with every single liberal agenda to still be a liberal. Just as I hope you don't agree with every conservative agenda.

I sure don't agree with you. As long as the liberal agenda holds gun rights as an "regulated privilege" I will never agree with anything else they have to offer. The ONLY way (and I do mean ONLY) we have any real control over our government is by being armed. Once the threat of an armed revolution is removed from the politicians fears, God only knows what they will do. History has proven many - many times that the first thing a tyrannical government does is disarm the citizens. Then they can say no more elections - or just about anything they want. READ a little history, I will never, ever vote for any Democrat liberal in my life due to the above FACTS.

 

[KW730]

I sure don't agree with you. As long as the liberal agenda holds gun rights as an "regulated privilege" I will never agree with anything else they have to offer. The ONLY way (and I do mean ONLY) we have any real control over our government is by being armed. Once the threat of an armed revolution is removed from the politicians fears, God only knows what they will do. History has proven many - many times that the first thing a tyrannical government does is disarm the citizens. Then they can say no more elections - or just about anything they want. READ a little history, I will never, ever vote for any Democrat liberal in my life due to the above FACTS.

This is irrelevant. Not a single person in this thread asked you how you would vote, but since you want to talk about voting I shall share my opinion. I have never once voted Democrat. I could get behind the GOP if they changed some of their extremist views and put out a candidate that wasn't a horrible liar and would actually do some good for the population as a whole. I can't justify picking up a party and voting straight ticket for that party if I only agree with one of their points of view. This is a gun owners forum, not a radical Republican's forum like many of you think it is.

 

[netsecurity]

I sure don't agree with you. As long as the liberal agenda holds gun rights as an "regulated privilege" I will never agree with anything else they have to offer. The ONLY way (and I do mean ONLY) we have any real control over our government is by being armed. Once the threat of an armed revolution is removed from the politicians fears, God only knows what they will do. History has proven many - many times that the first thing a tyrannical government does is disarm the citizens. Then they can say no more elections - or just about anything they want. READ a little history, I will never, ever vote for any Democrat liberal in my life due to the above FACTS.

He is not a liberal, he must be a Democrat. Obama is a liberal progressive Democrat, which is akin to an anti-constitutionalist, anti-Christian, anti-capitalist, anti-2A, anti-American, anti-capitalist...that is long winded, which is why I prefer to just say, a socialist, or communist.

The Democrat party has become more and more liberal/radical, especially since Obama. You can still be a moderate Democrat without being a liberal progressive. But most Democrat voters don't understand any of this, because they are uninformed, which is the only reason people like Obama get elected in the first place.

 

[BE Mike]

Fox News this morning had a lot of talk about gun control. They stated that part of the Obama gun ban plan includes letting the FBI have access to gun sales records, which they reportedly have been wanting for quite some time. This would be scarey.

 

[spearheadersarge]

All the more reason to stand firm and just say "NO!" to any new gun control laws or bans. It is death by a thousand cuts. what they get away with today only enboldens them for bigger take-aways later. Sen. Feinstein has put it bluntly, she wants total disarmament for all civilians, period! If she can only get the votes. We need a full court press on all of our Representatives and Senators regardless of whether they have a D or R behind their name! Keep writing/calling/emailing until this whole thing dies!

 

[bwframe]

This is irrelevant. Not a single person in this thread asked you how you would vote, but since you want to talk about voting I shall share my opinion. I have never once voted Democrat. I could get behind the GOP if they changed some of their extremist views and put out a candidate that wasn't a horrible liar and would actually do some good for the population as a whole. I can't justify picking up a party and voting straight ticket for that party if I only agree with one of their points of view. This is a gun owners forum, not a radical Republican's forum like many of you think it is.

You should read your own words. ^^^

There is only one issue. If we loose that, nothing else matters. Any vote that doesn't go to those who would protect our 2A rights is a vote for the enemy. Hopefully we don't have to find that out due to your naivety.

 

[KW730]

You should read your own words. ^^^

There is only one issue. If we loose that, nothing else matters. Any vote that doesn't go to those who would protect our 2A rights is a vote for the enemy. Hopefully we don't have to find that out due to your naivety.

I assume you are saying I should vote Republican? Maybe you should check Gov. Romney's past and some statements he has made. He is as anti-gun as Obama, if not more so. But of course the die hard Republican's could never believe that one of their own would try to infringe upon their rights.

 

[bwframe]

I assume you are saying I should vote Republican? Maybe you should check Gov. Romney's past and some statements he has made. He is as anti-gun as Obama, if not more so. But of course the die hard Republican's could never believe that one of their own would try to infringe upon their rights.

You just keep telling yourself that as our rights fade away...

 

[Degtyaryov]

Any such law would be unconstitutional, and (hopefully) overturned in short order. Not just because of the 2nd amendment, but because it exceeds congress's power to regulate interstate commerce. That's why they didn't require it when they first started these things with the '68 GCA, because back then congress knew it didn't have the authority to regulate private sales between private residents of the same state.

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

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?

Just to be clear - and I've said this here before: We don't negotiate with terrorists and we don't negotiate with socialists. And for the same reason.