Playing chicken...

In reply to alfadriver:

I find it amusing that people make a distinction between a right and a law like one is somehow immutable or different. They are the same thing... rules that the government agreed to follow until they no longer agree to do that.

SCARR wrote: when it comes down to it, background checks will lead to slowed gun sales. slowed sales means less money in the pockets of the gun makers.

Except there are background checks on new guns (at least I can't think of a time there wouldn't be). The only time there isn't is on person to person sales like at gun shows and via sties like armslist. So it would have zero effect on the money going into gun makers pockets. Heck it may even increase the money going to gun makers because the increased price of private gun sales might cause more people to go buy new guns.

In reply to 93EXCivic:

I Thought gun shows didn't have to have checks.. I guess I was wrong.

SCARR wrote: In reply to 93EXCivic: I Thought gun shows didn't have to have checks.. I guess I was wrong.

They don't if it is a person to person sale. If there is a licensed dealer at a gun show, they still have to do background checks.

My point is that I don't see how universal background checks violate the Constitution unless you want to say the current background check system does. (note I am not for assault weapons bans or clip size bans. I think those are unconstitutional).

SCARR wrote: In reply to 93EXCivic: I Thought gun shows didn't have to have checks.. I guess I was wrong.

person-person sales do not have to have a background check. Gun shows are almost all dealers, and even internet sales places almost exclusively use a local FFL for a background check. It just doesn't happen often enough to make a difference.

tuna55 wrote:

SCARR wrote: In reply to 93EXCivic: I Thought gun shows didn't have to have checks.. I guess I was wrong.

person-person sales do not have to have a background check. Gun shows are almost all dealers, and even internet sales places almost exclusively use a local FFL for a background check. It just doesn't happen often enough to make a difference.

Correct, yet another media sensationalism at it's finest. Let's blur the actual truth to get our point across. I've bought multiple guns at gun shows. I've had to fill out the form and get called in for every one of them.

The "gunshow loophole" BS is just that, BS. It is illegal to knowingly sell to a prohibited individual. Straw purchases are illegal. This "background check" BS was completely unenforcable, was nothing more than "feel good legislation" that was thrown out to draw emotions out after another tragedy.

What I WOULD be ok with would be allowing citizens to call in the national line to do a quick yes/no on a private sale. No records kept, no database to track every sale to eery person. Just a quick go/no-go on private sales to allow the seller to know one way or the other.

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote: I am a little annoyed at the reciprocity thing. The penalties are really steep for crossing an arbitrary line (like 10yrs in prison) for something that is perfectly legal in other places in the same berkeleying country. Imagine if they did that with driver's licenses.

Or Marriage...

nocones wrote:

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote: I am a little annoyed at the reciprocity thing. The penalties are really steep for crossing an arbitrary line (like 10yrs in prison) for something that is perfectly legal in other places in the same berkeleying country. Imagine if they did that with driver's licenses.

Or Marriage...

That might not be so bad.... "Honey, I'm going to Vegas for the weekend. I won't be married, so I can't say what will happen".

Wait, no that would be a really bad thing.

Bobzilla wrote: What I WOULD be ok with would be allowing citizens to call in the national line to do a quick yes/no on a private sale. No records kept, no database to track every sale to eery person. Just a quick go/no-go on private sales to allow the seller to know one way or the other.

Now that would be a reasonable solution to this entire problem......not dragging emotions around. FWIW, the national reciprocity wasn't going to force NY, IL, or CA to allow carry, I am pretty sure it was meant to standardize pretty much the rest of the states that allow carrying of firearms. I agree, the federal government cannot force the states to comply.....but in this case, a simple flat standard across the board would make a E36 M3load of sense.

OH has their own carry license, yet they won't recognize IN's. Basicly, we can go north/south and not get berkeleyed with, east/west is a different story for some reason.

nocones wrote:

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote: I am a little annoyed at the reciprocity thing. The penalties are really steep for crossing an arbitrary line (like 10yrs in prison) for something that is perfectly legal in other places in the same berkeleying country. Imagine if they did that with driver's licenses.

Or Marriage...

.. like how in one state a 34 year old man can marry his 14 year old cousin (yes, look it up) and in others you cannot?

yamaha wrote:

Bobzilla wrote: What I WOULD be ok with would be allowing citizens to call in the national line to do a quick yes/no on a private sale. No records kept, no database to track every sale to eery person. Just a quick go/no-go on private sales to allow the seller to know one way or the other.

Now that would be a reasonable solution to this entire problem......not dragging emotions around. FWIW, the national reciprocity wasn't going to force NY, IL, or CA to allow carry, I am pretty sure it was meant to standardize pretty much the rest of the states that allow carrying of firearms. I agree, the federal government cannot force the states to comply.....but in this case, a simple flat standard across the board would make a E36 M3load of sense. OH has their own carry license, yet they won't recognize IN's. Basicly, we can go north/south and not get berkeleyed with, east/west is a different story for some reason.

And from AL we can't carry pretty much anywhere else because the requirements are just stupid easy.

No worries, after they ban magazines over 10 rounds, and all the high capacity magazines are "used up", they'll be all gone. Right? Just ask Rep. Diana DeGette from Colorado. She knows all about magazines.

I support the Constitution- the WHOLE thing. Not just the 2nd Amendment, not just the 10th, or the 14th, or whatever. All of it.

But especially the 3rd Amendment. Damn troops always getting quartered in my house.

volvoclearinghouse wrote: No worries, after they ban magazines over 10 rounds, and all the high capacity magazines are "used up", they'll be all gone. Right? Just ask Rep. Diana DeGette from Colorado. She knows all about magazines.

That was by far one of the funniest things I've read in the last few months.....

SCARR wrote: In reply to 93EXCivic: I Thought gun shows didn't have to have checks.. I guess I was wrong.

guess that's just people believe what's told to them on facebook, huh?

Face to face transactions between two individuals are not required by federal law to go through a background check. some states require them for private transfers of handguns, but not long guns, and some states i think just passed laws requiring all gun transfers to have a check.

a face to face transaction that happens to occur at a gun show, or boat show, or reverse speed walking competition are not treated any different than one between two neighbors. if you buy from an FFL licensee at any time, at their shop, their home, or even at a gun show, you have to complete a background check to complete the transfer. only exception is certain states allow you to show a current CHL permit since there has already been a more extensive check done for that.

In reply to Strizzo:

Related, I had someone trying to tell me today that "Guns traded in to dealers at gun shows are checked and then resold without background checks"

I'm pretty sure at that point, that dealer will not be in business for very long doing something like that. I'm still adamant that 95%+ of guns sold at gun shows are backed by a form 4473. The people walking around always want too effing much anyways.

FWIW, F2F transactions will never be stopped, as being able to enforce it would require an already illegal registry of gun owners on the federal level.

tuna55 wrote:

SCARR wrote: In reply to 93EXCivic: I Thought gun shows didn't have to have checks.. I guess I was wrong.

person-person sales do not have to have a background check. Gun shows are almost all dealers, and even internet sales places almost exclusively use a local FFL for a background check. It just doesn't happen often enough to make a difference.

any time a firearm is shipped, the recipient must be an FFL licensee. you can arrange a sale on the internet and complete it face to face no problem, unless the seller is an FFL dealer not selling from their personal collection, in which case a 4473 and background check must be completed.

yamaha wrote: In reply to Strizzo: Related, I had someone trying to tell me today that "Guns traded in to dealers at gun shows are checked and then resold without background checks"

except for that pesky little bound book they have to keep

yamaha wrote: ... I'm still adamant that 95%+ of guns sold at gun shows are backed by a form 4473. The people walking around always want too effing much anyways.

the study that concluded that 40% of sales don't go through a background check included the number of people that said they purchased in a FTF sale and the people that received as a gift (around 20%, iirc). it also used a rediculously small sample size (like 3 figures).

yamaha wrote: FWIW, F2F transactions will never be stopped, as being able to enforce it would require an already illegal registry of gun owners on the federal level.

this is the point of those opposed to these "universal background checks", there is no way in hell to regulate them without knowing who has what right now, so you can prove that they didn't sell to joe schmoe without going through the background check process at some point down the road.

also one only has to look at canada, who tried a gun registration that ended up costing way more than originally thought and had a dismal participation rate before it was eventually scrapped.

Strizzo wrote: also one only has to look at canada, who tried a gun registration that ended up costing way more than originally thought and had a dismal participation rate before it was eventually scrapped.

WHAT?!?!? Next you're going to tell me Canada's healthcare and 2-yr degree isn't free either.

Bobzilla wrote:

Strizzo wrote: also one only has to look at canada, who tried a gun registration that ended up costing way more than originally thought and had a dismal participation rate before it was eventually scrapped.

WHAT?!?!? Next you're going to tell me Canada's healthcare and 2-yr degree isn't free either.

how's that saying go? something about bribing people with their own money?

My cat likes Cheez-Its.

Strizzo wrote:

tuna55 wrote:

SCARR wrote: In reply to 93EXCivic: I Thought gun shows didn't have to have checks.. I guess I was wrong.

person-person sales do not have to have a background check. Gun shows are almost all dealers, and even internet sales places almost exclusively use a local FFL for a background check. It just doesn't happen often enough to make a difference.

any time a firearm is shipped, the recipient must be an FFL licensee. you can arrange a sale on the internet and complete it face to face no problem, unless the seller is an FFL dealer not selling from their personal collection, in which case a 4473 and background check must be completed.

Just for clarification, we're agreeing. In theory, there is nothing to prevent me from shipping a gun in the mail to you, but in reality, it doesn't happen. The laws we already have regarding FFL are pretty secure compared to what they could be.

Well, you can mail order/purchase online and have it shipped directly to you.....its just that little thing known as a Curio & Relic license.

Strizzo wrote:

Bobzilla wrote:

Strizzo wrote: also one only has to look at canada, who tried a gun registration that ended up costing way more than originally thought and had a dismal participation rate before it was eventually scrapped.

WHAT?!?!? Next you're going to tell me Canada's healthcare and 2-yr degree isn't free either.

how's that saying go? something about bribing people with their own money?

You know, I'm trying to very carefully not get banned from this site, so maybe consider editing your post.

Just to confirm, we do have free, and quite good health care. We tend not to leave our people out on the street if they can't afford it. Also secondary education is subsidized so as to not wind up with a nation of poorly educated yahoos that post nonsense on forums to bolster their adolecent views among other things.

Strizzo wrote:

SCARR wrote: In reply to 93EXCivic: I Thought gun shows didn't have to have checks.. I guess I was wrong.

guess that's just people believe what's told to them on facebook, huh? Face to face transactions between two individuals are not required by federal law to go through a background check. some states require them for private transfers of handguns, but not long guns, and some states i think just passed laws requiring all gun transfers to have a check. a face to face transaction that happens to occur at a gun show, or boat show, or reverse speed walking competition are not treated any different than one between two neighbors. if you buy from an FFL licensee at any time, at their shop, their home, or even at a gun show, you have to complete a background check to complete the transfer. only exception is certain states allow you to show a current CHL permit since there has already been a more extensive check done for that.

THEN i WAS RIGHT. you are not required to do a background check at a gunshow. it is not place specified. it is by the seller. so I am still correct, and you are displacing needs.

I can go and sell a gun at a gunshow, and the buyer does not need a background check.

On a side note I apparently have two AR lowers on their way from an order I thought was canceled. Now the question is build or sell. I already built the two rifles these were suppose to be used for.