Private sale and gun show "loophole" background checks on the horizon?

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • IcemanIND

    Plinker
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Aug 29, 2018
    66
    6
    Indianapolis
    I'm not at all confident in President Trump's position on second amendment issues. It seems every time a shooting happens he is willing to give away another concession. Setting a precedent that will steadily chip away at our rights.

    Possible legislation that would require private sales background seems like something that might happen. If it was a one time check, similar to showing a LTCH is one thing. But I am afraid all private sales may be required to go through NICS at a FFL.
     

    IcemanIND

    Plinker
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Aug 29, 2018
    66
    6
    Indianapolis
    Of course this would raise questions on a national registry.
    Not sure how they could do this constitutionally, but the federal government always seems to find a way to make it work.

    Yes, as a seller, you would be required to maintain records of all sales. Or just let a federal agency take care of the record keeping for you.
     

    snorko

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    361   0   0
    Apr 3, 2008
    8,294
    113
    Evansville, IN
    Ask Kirk how well this worked in Indiana.

    I think UBCs are very likely, magazine bans/limits and a revised AWB possible/somewhat likely. I don't know if it would be better or worse if it were 2020.

    Of course the UBC will necessitate some form of registration so we know all are conforming. I am getting tired of reasonable people I know who are not gun folks regurgitating falsehoods and lies they hear on tv. I've started replying to their suggested "reasonable gun laws" suggestions with things like "all cars should have breathalyzer lock-outs to stop drunk driving. Cell phones should have to be tethered to the car and automatically put in airplane mode when the vehicle is running. Of course to make sure it's the drive's phone, we need biometric locks on the vehicle as well. If you have children, mandatory inspections to insure you have the correct car seat. Since kids grow, let's make them annual.

    It means nothing to these folks that 3.5X deaths were from knives versus all long gun deaths, heck, 75% more people were beaten and kicked to death with hands and feet than were killed by a long gun.
     

    DoggyDaddy

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    73   0   1
    Aug 18, 2011
    102,052
    77
    Southside Indy
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that under the current system (going through NICS), serial numbers are not "tied" to the buyer on a national database. That information resides on the 4473 only (kept at the FFL). What gets reported to NICS whether over the phone or online, is that "John Doe bought a handgun" or "John Doe bought a long gun." I have never heard an FFL relay that information to NICS when they would call in for any purchase I've made. I was also under the impression that it is specifically against the law (currently) for that information to be centralized by the government. So if some form of UBC were to be enacted, couldn't it be done the same way? "John Doe is selling a long gun (or hand gun) to Bob Smith." No serial numbers need be passed to the .gov.

    Don't get me wrong, I am not in favor of UBC's but I don't know that they would necessarily have to become a "registry" if they were just done under the current guidelines.
     

    snorko

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    361   0   0
    Apr 3, 2008
    8,294
    113
    Evansville, IN
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that under the current system (going through NICS), serial numbers are not "tied" to the buyer on a national database. That information resides on the 4473 only (kept at the FFL).

    That is correct. However, when an FFL retires i believe they have to ship the forms to the BATFE. and, if UBCs were to go through, I would bet the serial # becomes another item submitted.
     

    DoggyDaddy

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    73   0   1
    Aug 18, 2011
    102,052
    77
    Southside Indy
    That is correct. However, when an FFL retires i believe they have to ship the forms to the BATFE. and, if UBCs were to go through, I would bet the serial # becomes another item submitted.

    That would be a new (and bad) wrinkle then, since it's currently illegal to aggregate that info. Even so, just as with new fire arms, once John sells it to Bob who sells it to Frank, who sells it to Susie, the trail goes cold, unless all the FFLs in between all retire. And if there is no central repository, each 4473 for each FFL would need to be looked at to find a particular serial number. Now, could they change the law? Certainly a possibility (again, that would be a bad thing).
     

    fullmetaljesus

    Probably smoking a cigar.
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    Jan 12, 2012
    5,849
    149
    Indy
    Right wing republicans put him in office.
    Typically speaking gun lovers are right wing republicans.

    Do y'all really think he will alienate his voter base this close to am election year?
     

    flatlander

    Master
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    18   0   0
    May 30, 2009
    4,184
    113
    Noblesville
    Right wing republicans put him in office.
    Typically speaking gun lovers are right wing republicans.

    Do y'all really think he will alienate his voter base this close to am election year?

    Yes I do believe he would. Remember that with NO Republicans in the house or senate he has nothing! It's not just about him and his giant ego.

    Bob
     

    Denny347

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    21   0   0
    Mar 18, 2008
    13,415
    149
    Napganistan
    That is correct. However, when an FFL retires i believe they have to ship the forms to the BATFE. and, if UBCs were to go through, I would bet the serial # becomes another item submitted.
    Not likely since the ATF is not allowed to digitize those records. When a FFL goes out of business and send in it's records to the ATF, they get stored in a metal shipping container to never be seen again unless one of us asks for a gun trace then they have to go through the stacks of records by hand. Without digitizing those records, serial numbers will NEVER be attached.
     

    gregkl

    Outlier
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    33   0   0
    Apr 8, 2012
    11,868
    77
    Bloomington
    If only the FFL has the record then how does the police trace a gun used in a crime back to the original purchaser? Or can't they?
     

    DoggyDaddy

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    73   0   1
    Aug 18, 2011
    102,052
    77
    Southside Indy
    Not likely since the ATF is not allowed to digitize those records. When a FFL goes out of business and send in it's records to the ATF, they get stored in a metal shipping container to never be seen again unless one of us asks for a gun trace then they have to go through the stacks of records by hand. Without digitizing those records, serial numbers will NEVER be attached.

    Wow, so I almost Denny'd a thread with my own understanding of the way it works! :rockwoot:
     

    DoggyDaddy

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    73   0   1
    Aug 18, 2011
    102,052
    77
    Southside Indy
    If only the FFL has the record then how does the police trace a gun used in a crime back to the original purchaser? Or can't they?

    They can start with the manufacturer/distributor, who would have records of which FFL the gun was sent to. Then they would have to go through that FFL's 4473's, but that still only gives them the original purchaser. If the gun was sold several more times after that, the trail goes cold. Even if the original purchaser sold it, say on Gunbroker, where it had to be transferred to the buyer through an FFL, that FFL would still only have that record. If the guy that bought it off GB sold it to somebody else (private sale - no FFL), again, the trail goes cold.
     

    gregkl

    Outlier
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    33   0   0
    Apr 8, 2012
    11,868
    77
    Bloomington
    They can start with the manufacturer/distributor, who would have records of which FFL the gun was sent to. Then they would have to go through that FFL's 4473's, but that still only gives them the original purchaser. If the gun was sold several more times after that, the trail goes cold. Even if the original purchaser sold it, say on Gunbroker, where it had to be transferred to the buyer through an FFL, that FFL would still only have that record. If the guy that bought it off GB sold it to somebody else (private sale - no FFL), again, the trail goes cold.

    Thanks. That makes sense. The distributor keeps records of where serial numbers go so it get's narrowed down to possibly one location. Cops pop in, scan the book and find the original purchasers name and address and pay them a visit.

    It makes me think though that I have sold several firearms and I wouldn't be able to tell the officers who I sold them to. I only verify DL and view LTCH. I don't record anything and I couldn't pick them out of a line up if I had to.
     

    Tomc1947

    Sharpshooter
    Rating - 100%
    9   0   0
    Jan 17, 2013
    526
    28
    YODER
    Right wing republicans put him in office.
    Typically speaking gun lovers are right wing republicans.

    Do y'all really think he will alienate his voter base this close to am election year?

    He might, remember for years he was a NY Democrat and looks at the gun issue from that point of view.
    I might add that if he does, he may loose the next election because lots of us who voted for him will just stay home.
    If he trashes this part of the Bill of Rights then what's he going to do next?
     

    chipbennett

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 18, 2014
    10,943
    113
    Avon
    And if the current owners of the 400 million guns already in private circulation refuse to comply? How would the state ever prove it?
     

    gregkl

    Outlier
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    33   0   0
    Apr 8, 2012
    11,868
    77
    Bloomington
    Personally I'm bracing for UBC, AR/AK bans and high capacity(especially the 100 rounders) mag bans at the least. If not under Trump, under the next president.

    I think we have reached a tipping point.

    But hey, I didn't think Trump would win so I have been known to be wrong...often.

    But I was right about 9 MM 1911's becoming popular.:)
     

    spec4

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Jun 19, 2010
    3,775
    27
    NWI
    Trump needs to stop this in its tracks. He's not stupid, he knows his base. He knows the Dems will never be satisfied until we are disarmed. Some of us recall the Gun Control Act of 1968. That was supposed to be the end all to this crap. Sure hope Trump's advisors give him a dose of reality.
     

    DoggyDaddy

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    73   0   1
    Aug 18, 2011
    102,052
    77
    Southside Indy
    Thanks. That makes sense. The distributor keeps records of where serial numbers go so it get's narrowed down to possibly one location. Cops pop in, scan the book and find the original purchasers name and address and pay them a visit.

    It makes me think though that I have sold several firearms and I wouldn't be able to tell the officers who I sold them to. I only verify DL and view LTCH. I don't record anything and I couldn't pick them out of a line up if I had to.

    Right, same here, with the exception of C&R firearms which I have to record in my log book. "Who'd you sell that AR-15 to Mr. DoggyDaddy?" "I don't know... some dude. Verified his residency and saw his LTCH. :dunno:" And really, seeing the LTCH is just a "feel good" measure, since we have no way of knowing whether it's been revoked or not. Simply asking if they're prohibited from owning firearms and verifying residency (with reasonable proof), is all that we need to do. And I'm not even sure that verifying residency is required. Could probably just ask them if they're a resident.
     

    WebSnyper

    Maximum Effort
    Rating - 100%
    56   0   0
    Jul 3, 2010
    15,419
    113
    127.0.0.1
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that under the current system (going through NICS), serial numbers are not "tied" to the buyer on a national database. That information resides on the 4473 only (kept at the FFL). What gets reported to NICS whether over the phone or online, is that "John Doe bought a handgun" or "John Doe bought a long gun." I have never heard an FFL relay that information to NICS when they would call in for any purchase I've made. I was also under the impression that it is specifically against the law (currently) for that information to be centralized by the government. So if some form of UBC were to be enacted, couldn't it be done the same way? "John Doe is selling a long gun (or hand gun) to Bob Smith." No serial numbers need be passed to the .gov.

    Don't get me wrong, I am not in favor of UBC's but I don't know that they would necessarily have to become a "registry" if they were just done under the current guidelines.

    But then how does one get charged with not following the law if UBCs become law? The logical step is that they would require a registration of some sort. The ATF can obviously audit an FFL and see if they can account for everything. Don't you think that if UBCs become law, then part of that will be to create some way to tell if folks (private sellers) are breaking the law, i.e. a defacto registration?

    This is NOT something we should even think of conceding on.

    Not likely since the ATF is not allowed to digitize those records. When a FFL goes out of business and send in it's records to the ATF, they get stored in a metal shipping container to never be seen again unless one of us asks for a gun trace then they have to go through the stacks of records by hand. Without digitizing those records, serial numbers will NEVER be attached.

    Again, then how is the law actually enforced if UBCs become law, without a trail?

    They can start with the manufacturer/distributor, who would have records of which FFL the gun was sent to. Then they would have to go through that FFL's 4473's, but that still only gives them the original purchaser. If the gun was sold several more times after that, the trail goes cold. Even if the original purchaser sold it, say on Gunbroker, where it had to be transferred to the buyer through an FFL, that FFL would still only have that record. If the guy that bought it off GB sold it to somebody else (private sale - no FFL), again, the trail goes cold.

    Yep, and 100% understood.

    And if the current owners of the 400 million guns already in private circulation refuse to comply? How would the state ever prove it?

    This is my thought. How would they, without requiring a tracking system of some sort. The proponents of it will not call it a registration, but it will be.
     
    Top Bottom