4 ms·

>For example, if I bought a gun and ten years later sold it to some guy who committed a crime, should I be indicted? No, because for you to sell it to him, you

>For example, if I bought a gun and ten years later sold it to some guy who committed a crime, should I be indicted? No, because for you to sell it to him, you'd have done the background check, and transferred it to him. That is the point. Same as car titles, or mortgage deeds, or others items in society that transfer ownership.

xienze 4y ago
> No, because for you to sell it to him, you'd have done the background check, and transferred it to him. That is the point. In most (all?) states there's no need for a background check or any kind of record keeping when two individuals are selling/transferring to one another [0]. Between states it's another story. > Same as car titles, or mortgage deeds, or others items in society that transfer ownership. There's no constitutional right to any of those things, which is what makes the situation different. 0: https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/resources/federal-ccw-law/federal-private-firearm-transfer-laws/ https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/resources/federal-ccw-law/f...
- ChrisLomont 4y ago
  >In most (all?) states there's no need for a background check Have you followed this thread at all? I am fully aware of this, having done many gun transfers. This thread is about adding universal background checks. >There's no constitutional right to any of those things, which is what makes the situation different. It is not different at all - it is perfectly constitutional to require background checks and transfers - that is how the current system is legal. And all constitutional rights have bounds. 1st Amendment free speech has limits on what you can say, where you can do it, even requiring permits for many cases. 3rd, 4th, 5th Amendments about housing and property - you have a constitutional right to property, but it can be deprived, and many forms are registered and require paperwork to transfer. So it's not at all different from other property registration and transfers.

xienze 4y ago

> No, because for you to sell it to him, you'd have done the background check, and transferred it to him. That is the point. In most (all?) states there's no need for a background check or any kind of record keeping when two individuals are selling/transferring to one another [0]. Between states it's another story. > Same as car titles, or mortgage deeds, or others items in society that transfer ownership. There's no constitutional right to any of those things, which is what makes the situation different. 0: https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/resources/federal-ccw-law/federal-private-firearm-transfer-laws/ https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/resources/federal-ccw-law/f...

ChrisLomont 4y ago
>In most (all?) states there's no need for a background check Have you followed this thread at all? I am fully aware of this, having done many gun transfers. This thread is about adding universal background checks. >There's no constitutional right to any of those things, which is what makes the situation different. It is not different at all - it is perfectly constitutional to require background checks and transfers - that is how the current system is legal. And all constitutional rights have bounds. 1st Amendment free speech has limits on what you can say, where you can do it, even requiring permits for many cases. 3rd, 4th, 5th Amendments about housing and property - you have a constitutional right to property, but it can be deprived, and many forms are registered and require paperwork to transfer. So it's not at all different from other property registration and transfers.