5 ms·

This could be viewed as a good thing, as guns sold via a gun store (Or just a licensed dealer) include a background check, unlike private party sales. I'm by n

This could be viewed as a good thing, as guns sold via a gun store (Or just a licensed dealer) include a background check, unlike private party sales. I'm by no means opposed to private party gun sales, and my own anecdotal private gun buying experience has been that sellers are taking more steps to ensure they're selling to legitimate parties, i.e. only to CCW holders, or requiring an in-state drivers license, etc.

serge2k 11y ago
> requiring an in-state drivers license Such rigorous checks, how does anyone acquire a firearm in this country!
- abduhl 11y ago
  Requiring an in-state drivers license prevents one of the many loopholes touted by gun control advocates whereby strong gun control in one state is easily gotten around by driving to the next state over. But I assume your reply was meant more as a "GOTCHA" snark comment than a real conversation starter.
  - Ntrails 11y ago
    Surely the advocates are after federal level gun control laws rather than looking to make sure people have to abide by disparate state rules..?
    - travisby 11y ago
      You cannot buy a handgun in a state you do not reside, and a gun must be legal in both the state where the transaction is occurring, and the home state of the buyer. (that's federal law) Although it's illegal to "knowingly" sell against those rules, most buyers don't live by the "don't ask, don't tell" methodology. So in a lot of cases (don't have statistics on it), sellers will want to verify the buyer's home state, and probably even keep a receipt with the name incase the gun is used in a crime, and the ATF comes knocking at the buyer's door.
      - rascul 11y ago
        Seems like the state residency requirement was struck down earlier this year. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/11/federal-court-rules-residency-requirements-pistol-/?page=all http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/11/federal-cour...
        rascul 11y ago
        Er, last year. Forgot the year changed.
      - DrScump 11y ago
        ...the ATF comes knocking at the buyer's door. I think you meant the seller's door there.
        dawnbreez 11y ago
        No, you want to take down the buyer. Removing the seller removes supply and leaves demand in place, making illegal sales more profitable (and eliminating part of your competition); removing the buyer removes demand, making the supply less valuable (and possibly putting you out of business).
        DrScump 11y ago
        I was replying to travisby's comment. In the scenario of a transaction not documented in compliance with law, you wouldn't know where the buyer lives.
        dawnbreez 11y ago
        Fair enough, though you might be able to get that out of the seller.
  - serge2k 11y ago
    It was a snarky response to the idea that asking for a drivers license is considered rigorous from the standpoint of purchasing a deadly weapon.
    - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
      It is not just rigorous but outright restrictive when it comes to exercising a right.
      - Frondo 11y ago
        For my part, I'd like to see mandatory liability insurance tied to every gun a person owned. Want to own a hundred guns, stashed in all corners of your house? Sure, better get ready to buy a big insurance policy! After all, we require cars to be insured, and with cars, violence is at least a byproduct of proper use. It's a no-brainer to do the same for guns.
        OopsCriticality 11y ago
        I don't understand these sorts of proposals: what are you insuring?
        Frondo 11y ago
        You're making sure that when the gun is handled negligently and shoots someone (i.e. when you didn't realize it was loaded, or when you mistook your neighbor or child for a burglar, or whatever), that the financial consequence is covered. Keeping guns around is risky, but right now society bears that risk, not the people who insist on keeping guns around.
        OopsCriticality 11y ago
        But aren't criminal acts (i.e., criminal negligence) committed by the insured not covered by insurance? As far as the comparison to cars, we require insurance for cars operated on public roads. Also with cars, the morbidity and mortality is overwhelmingly associated with accidents; with firearms, it's deliberate acts (either suicides or intentional shootings), neither of which would be covered by insurance. I'm not sure I see what mandatory liability insurance is supposed to accomplish, since it would rarely seem to be applicable. The cost of the insurance, since it would likely rarely pay out, would seem to be too low to make gun ownership unaffordable (which would seem to be your goal, based on your earlier comment of "Sure, better get ready to buy a big insurance policy!").
- Lawtonfogle 11y ago
  Now imagine how bad the outcry would be if this was required to vote.
NiftyFifty 11y ago
I'm a hugely leaning conservative thinking individual, but I think all guns should be restricted with the NICS check. I think only exception maybe immediate family for obvious reasons. The "gun trust" idea is even more my liking. However, any sale outside of this ... NICS always.
- Lawtonfogle 11y ago
  I sometimes go shooting with my little sister. I'm teaching her how to shoot a .22. One problem is that every time I hand her the gun, it could count as a gun transfer... and she legally isn't family (close family friend since she was born). Personally, I am pushing for a reduction in gun control across the board.
  - Frondo 11y ago
    Just to clarify, because of this one thing that could be obviously turned into an exception ("if you go shooting with a family member, handing them the gun doesn't require a background check"), you want to reduce gun control across the board? Or are these two statements unrelated?
    - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
      Legally she isn't family. So clearly your exception isn't as easy as you think it is.
jff 11y ago
Regarding private sales, I'd really like a system whereby the buyer can generate a 1-time code (by filling out some information on a gov't website, for instance) that's good for say a month. The seller can then enter that code, see that "John Smith" is clear to buy a gun, and after checking the buyer's photo ID can sell him the gun in relative confidence that he's not selling to a prohibited possessor. This would help eliminate private party sales to prohibited possessors, but it has the unfortunate (to gun control advocates) of making firearm sales more convenient and safe; their desired solution is of course to eliminate private sales.
- Merad 11y ago
  We already have the NICS system, which performs an "instant" background check with a phone call that typically takes a couple of minutes. The problem is that it's not open to use by the public, and attempts to change that have been shot down in Congress (mostly by gun control advocates, FWIW).
  - jff 11y ago
    It could absolutely be done as NICS: rather than a phone call, plug your form 4473 info into a website. Once they do the check, it emails you the code which is good for N days. Your seller then just verifies the code on the ATF website and checks that your ID matches the name for the code. It would be more convenient for everyone, including the ATF employees.

serge2k 11y ago

> requiring an in-state drivers license Such rigorous checks, how does anyone acquire a firearm in this country!

abduhl 11y ago
Requiring an in-state drivers license prevents one of the many loopholes touted by gun control advocates whereby strong gun control in one state is easily gotten around by driving to the next state over. But I assume your reply was meant more as a "GOTCHA" snark comment than a real conversation starter.
- Ntrails 11y ago
  Surely the advocates are after federal level gun control laws rather than looking to make sure people have to abide by disparate state rules..?
  - travisby 11y ago
    You cannot buy a handgun in a state you do not reside, and a gun must be legal in both the state where the transaction is occurring, and the home state of the buyer. (that's federal law) Although it's illegal to "knowingly" sell against those rules, most buyers don't live by the "don't ask, don't tell" methodology. So in a lot of cases (don't have statistics on it), sellers will want to verify the buyer's home state, and probably even keep a receipt with the name incase the gun is used in a crime, and the ATF comes knocking at the buyer's door.
    - rascul 11y ago
      Seems like the state residency requirement was struck down earlier this year. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/11/federal-court-rules-residency-requirements-pistol-/?page=all http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/11/federal-cour...
      - rascul 11y ago
        Er, last year. Forgot the year changed.
    - DrScump 11y ago
      ...the ATF comes knocking at the buyer's door. I think you meant the seller's door there.
      - dawnbreez 11y ago
        No, you want to take down the buyer. Removing the seller removes supply and leaves demand in place, making illegal sales more profitable (and eliminating part of your competition); removing the buyer removes demand, making the supply less valuable (and possibly putting you out of business).
        DrScump 11y ago
        I was replying to travisby's comment. In the scenario of a transaction not documented in compliance with law, you wouldn't know where the buyer lives.
        dawnbreez 11y ago
        Fair enough, though you might be able to get that out of the seller.
- serge2k 11y ago
  It was a snarky response to the idea that asking for a drivers license is considered rigorous from the standpoint of purchasing a deadly weapon.
  - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
    It is not just rigorous but outright restrictive when it comes to exercising a right.
    - Frondo 11y ago
      For my part, I'd like to see mandatory liability insurance tied to every gun a person owned. Want to own a hundred guns, stashed in all corners of your house? Sure, better get ready to buy a big insurance policy! After all, we require cars to be insured, and with cars, violence is at least a byproduct of proper use. It's a no-brainer to do the same for guns.
      - OopsCriticality 11y ago
        I don't understand these sorts of proposals: what are you insuring?
        Frondo 11y ago
        You're making sure that when the gun is handled negligently and shoots someone (i.e. when you didn't realize it was loaded, or when you mistook your neighbor or child for a burglar, or whatever), that the financial consequence is covered. Keeping guns around is risky, but right now society bears that risk, not the people who insist on keeping guns around.
        OopsCriticality 11y ago
        But aren't criminal acts (i.e., criminal negligence) committed by the insured not covered by insurance? As far as the comparison to cars, we require insurance for cars operated on public roads. Also with cars, the morbidity and mortality is overwhelmingly associated with accidents; with firearms, it's deliberate acts (either suicides or intentional shootings), neither of which would be covered by insurance. I'm not sure I see what mandatory liability insurance is supposed to accomplish, since it would rarely seem to be applicable. The cost of the insurance, since it would likely rarely pay out, would seem to be too low to make gun ownership unaffordable (which would seem to be your goal, based on your earlier comment of "Sure, better get ready to buy a big insurance policy!").
Lawtonfogle 11y ago
Now imagine how bad the outcry would be if this was required to vote.

NiftyFifty 11y ago

I'm a hugely leaning conservative thinking individual, but I think all guns should be restricted with the NICS check. I think only exception maybe immediate family for obvious reasons. The "gun trust" idea is even more my liking. However, any sale outside of this ... NICS always.

Lawtonfogle 11y ago
I sometimes go shooting with my little sister. I'm teaching her how to shoot a .22. One problem is that every time I hand her the gun, it could count as a gun transfer... and she legally isn't family (close family friend since she was born). Personally, I am pushing for a reduction in gun control across the board.
- Frondo 11y ago
  Just to clarify, because of this one thing that could be obviously turned into an exception ("if you go shooting with a family member, handing them the gun doesn't require a background check"), you want to reduce gun control across the board? Or are these two statements unrelated?
  - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
    Legally she isn't family. So clearly your exception isn't as easy as you think it is.

jff 11y ago

Regarding private sales, I'd really like a system whereby the buyer can generate a 1-time code (by filling out some information on a gov't website, for instance) that's good for say a month. The seller can then enter that code, see that "John Smith" is clear to buy a gun, and after checking the buyer's photo ID can sell him the gun in relative confidence that he's not selling to a prohibited possessor. This would help eliminate private party sales to prohibited possessors, but it has the unfortunate (to gun control advocates) of making firearm sales more convenient and safe; their desired solution is of course to eliminate private sales.

Merad 11y ago
We already have the NICS system, which performs an "instant" background check with a phone call that typically takes a couple of minutes. The problem is that it's not open to use by the public, and attempts to change that have been shot down in Congress (mostly by gun control advocates, FWIW).
- jff 11y ago
  It could absolutely be done as NICS: rather than a phone call, plug your form 4473 info into a website. Once they do the check, it emails you the code which is good for N days. Your seller then just verifies the code on the ATF website and checks that your ID matches the name for the code. It would be more convenient for everyone, including the ATF employees.