I've never had dealer check out my butt yet!
Would forcing all sales to require a NICS check "save lives"? Doubtful. And would the added hassle and expense be worth it? NO!
Last edited:
-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
Gun show loop hole
- Thread starter GMtoblat
- Start date
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!
Member Benefits:
I've never had dealer check out my butt yet!
Would forcing all sales to require a NICS check "save lives"? Doubtful. And would the added hassle and expense be worth it? NO!
From way downtown, swoosh.
When will politicians understand this? Maybe they do and they also understand they need to get reelected in a popularity contest.
"When you have ten thousand regulations, you destroy all respect for the law." - Winston Churchill.
We're way past 10,000 JUST for firearms related laws (to say nothing of all the other frivolous, picayune laws on the books). What we need are fewer laws, not more.
Furthermore, by definition, felons violate the law. They will steal to obtain arms (this is by far the most common means). They will buy stolen firearms (FAR cheaper than buying from a private seller). They will misrepresent themselves, participate in strawman purchase schemes, etc. Yet another law will have no effect on this activity. These people care not about the law.
When violent people do the things they'll do, we have plenty of laws with which to prosecute them.
Yet another law to restrict/bind/potentially trip up, regular law abiding gun owners, who simply want to sell their own property, can have no positive effect. The most pronounced effects would be a chilling of gun sales and catching/tripping up otherwise law abiding folks who didn't cross all the "Ts" and dot all the "is" of the law correctly.
BOTH of which, I might add, play directly into the REAL goals of people advocating such laws by further reducing gun ownership and further demonizing gun owners.
We're way past 10,000 JUST for firearms related laws (to say nothing of all the other frivolous, picayune laws on the books). What we need are fewer laws, not more.
Furthermore, by definition, felons violate the law. They will steal to obtain arms (this is by far the most common means). They will buy stolen firearms (FAR cheaper than buying from a private seller). They will misrepresent themselves, participate in strawman purchase schemes, etc. Yet another law will have no effect on this activity. These people care not about the law.
When violent people do the things they'll do, we have plenty of laws with which to prosecute them.
Yet another law to restrict/bind/potentially trip up, regular law abiding gun owners, who simply want to sell their own property, can have no positive effect. The most pronounced effects would be a chilling of gun sales and catching/tripping up otherwise law abiding folks who didn't cross all the "Ts" and dot all the "is" of the law correctly.
BOTH of which, I might add, play directly into the REAL goals of people advocating such laws by further reducing gun ownership and further demonizing gun owners.
I think the points have already been made.
well i have no more points against this discussion well played sirs
First, can you come up with a definition of "strawman purchase" that does not also make illegal the giving of a firearm as a gift?
Again, that line of attack is really intended to forbid private gun transactions.
There are other laws on the books that make certain gun-related actions illegal - possession by a felon for example. More laws aren't going to make a difference.
well an example would be buying tobacco alcohol for a minor, i think this is the same situation. although the example i just gave i dont agree with the term minor but same principle with gunsFirst, can you come up with a definition of "strawman purchase" that does not also make illegal the giving of a firearm as a gift?
Again, that line of attack is really intended to forbid private gun transactions.
There are other laws on the books that make certain gun-related actions illegal - possession by a felon for example. More laws aren't going to make a difference.
But it IS two separate situations. To reference the tax code again, you do pay sales tax on delivery and installation charges but not on repair charges.
Even though both are labor charges, they are two separate situations -- as is the difference between a sale between two separate individuals vs a sale from a dealer to an individual (as a point of note, there is at least one more separate situation defined which also does not require a time-of-sale background check: the sale of firearms from an individual to a licensed dealer.)
I have problems on a few fronts:
1) Forcing an intrastate transaction of goods (even an in-kind trade, from the proposed solutions I have seen) to go through a federally licensed dealer would appear to be an over-extension of the government's ability to regulate interstate commerce.
2) I do not trust state/local government's continued ability to restrain from over-regulating these transactions. Think of the impact to citizens on the ability of individuals to "keep and bear arms" if IL (or another state) placed a transaction fee of $500 per firearm transaction (or a fee equal to 300% of retail value) and all firearms transactions had to go through an FFL (allowing these fees to be collected.) What if they leveraged their input on the licensing status of local dealers to enforce a "just cause" requirement for local transactions? They can attempt to do these things already, but the person-to-person transactions would greatly reduce the impact of requirements efforts for the citizens.
3) This would permit dealer's transaction documents (combined with the regular collection of dealers logs, as is accused of happening in Alaska) to turn into a de-facto gun registration system over years and generations.
4) I similarly do not trust the federal government's willingness to comply with their own document handling/disposition requirements. They have already been accused of (and I believe admitted to) holding the background check documents longer than the 90 days originally permitted. IIRC, the current regulation is that the records must be destroyed within 24hrs. By making this a complete record of the buyer in all likely firearms transactions and combining that with an "black" inter-agency co-operative effort (say for the purpose of using pattern-matching analytics to identify potential security threats) and you now have a FBI (or like agency) with a long-term record of background checks and likely firearms owners. Not only that, but there is a distinct chance these secondary copies of the records could move into a database that is subject to FOIA requests, creating a semi-public registry.
You may not think these types of things could happen, but considering that similar things have happened in other democratic environments and our current fees on tobacco products, I see them as quite probable.
I also feel that the freedom firearm movement between individuals, much like our freedom of interstate travel, creates a significant issue for any government authority attempting to radically overstep its legal authority.
Last edited:
First, can you come up with a definition of "strawman purchase" that does not also make illegal the giving of a firearm as a gift?
Again, that line of attack is really intended to forbid private gun transactions.
There are other laws on the books that make certain gun-related actions illegal - possession by a felon for example. More laws aren't going to make a difference.
Isn't a Straw Purchase defined as buying a firearm for someone who cannot legally posses one?
So me buying a gun for a felon would be a straw purchase. However, me buying a gun for my brother (who has a clean record) is NOT a straw purchase.
I know most gun shops don't sell to anyone buying a gun for someone else just to be safe though.
and the vast majority of those with no common sense are the liberal media types like Costas.
Just because HE has an irrational fear of guns, doesn't mean everyone should.
EvilBlackGun
Master
So simple logic would suggest ...
..... ask for Ind DL (PROOF OF RESIDENCY) and LTCH, even on long-gun sales, to prove buyer is an approved person. Is this too far?
..... ask for Ind DL (PROOF OF RESIDENCY) and LTCH, even on long-gun sales, to prove buyer is an approved person. Is this too far?
That's what I'm saying - it basically already is.
You know it is illegal to sell beer to kids. Someone walks up, looks young, and asks if they can buy some beer from you. It is illegal to do it if they are under 21. You can take whatever steps you are comfortable with to make sure they are over 21. If they aren't, and you get caught, you just committed a crime. You don't NEED to require (as Indiana recently found out) proof of ID all the time. It makes sense to, but the requirement for proof does not really change how many kids drink.
The people that were going to break the law in the first place, are very likely to break another law that's meant to make enforcement of the first law easier.
Same thing with the strawman purchase stuff. The people willing to sell firearms to felons already don't care that what they are doing is illegal.
I think so, I know plenty of people that have long-guns, but don't have an LTCH because they have no interest in carrying or owning a handgun. 2 years ago before I got my LTCH and a handgun, I saw a shotgun on Armslist that I wanted to purchase. The guy said LTCH is required. I contacted him, and he wouldn't budge. I then tried to tell him that I do not need a License to carry a Handgun, to buy a shotgun, and that he was a fool, he just ignored me.
If you are selling it, then you can make whatever rules you want. But I think requiring LTCH for long guns is unreasonable.
He had every right to not sell it, and I had every right to make my complaints known.
If you are selling it, then you can make whatever rules you want. But I think requiring LTCH for long guns is unreasonable.
He had every right to not sell it, and I had every right to make my complaints known.
These laws (while seeming to be common sense) are NOT about regulating common sense, they are about assigning penalties to actions that may (or do) bring injury or damage to others. While it may seem like common sense not to commit the infractions defined, I would suggest that much of the basis for that judgement has to do with the repercussions if caught.
Or, as my dad used to say, "If you are going to rob a bank, make certain you get enough money hidden away to make it worth the jail time."
Last edited:
shibumiseeker
Grandmaster
If you buy a firearm for a felon or anyone who is not allowed to purchase one, you have committed a felony. If you as a private individual sell a firearm to another individual who happens to be a felon, you have committed a crime if you either knew, or had reasonable cause to know that they were a felon. If you had no knowledge of it then you are fine.
In the case of above let's analyze it:
A felon possessing a gun (in most cases) is a crime. Someone willing to buy for a felon or sell to someone they know is a felon is also committing a crime.
Plenty of crimes being committed all around here. Anyone really interested in the problem (felons owning guns) has plenty of ways to go about punishing those who break the laws. People who intend to break the laws won't have any compunction against breaking another.
Of course, that also gets back to just how many laws we have that makes felons out of nonviolent offenders (shoplift a pack of gum in Indiana and you have committed a felony...), but that's a different argument.
