Yes, was looking for numbers for intent. Saw that. Am thinking the reasoning behind numbers or frequency sold is to reduce or eliminate trafficking and criminal intent. The ATF site is like going around in circles when it works correctly. Search engine there is terrible. May need to use another browser.Bob, this requirement applies to those already FFL 'licensed'. Here's what it says about individual (private) sales:
Individual Sales
"Under federal law, there are no recordkeeping requirements for transferring a firearm between two individuals who are not federal firearms licensees. However, there are individuals who cannot purchase or possess a firearm known as prohibited persons. As a seller, you should make every effort to ensure you are not transferring a firearm to a prohibited person."
That last line is the precise reason I've never in all those years sold to anyone I didn't know personally as a law-abiding, responsible gun owner.
Why Is Texas Sen. John Cornyn Working With Democrats to Outlaw Private Gun Sales?
- Thread starter Annihilator
- Start date
Yah, am thinking we all know? Such a thing? Is now?Don't know where the hell my head was at when I wrote this .... "definitive definition". Don't even know if there is such a thing.
HayesGreener
Ronin
Back to Cornyn, If I am going to denigrate him I need specifics as to what he is proposing that will adversely affect our 2A rights. I just don't know what he is trying to accomplish. But I'm all for throwing the federal book at criminals using guns. Most of the crooks doing a lot of the shooting in places like Chicago have multiple felonies in their background, but they are not being prosecuted at the federal level. Put them under the prison and they will stop shooting.
Bassbob
Emissary
I'm not complaining too hard about the BGC when I buy a gun. What I do have a problem with is paying to transfer a firearm I already own to a dealer, then my kid having to pay a transfer fee to have it transferred to her.
There are a great many dangerous inanimate objects in this world. If you think about it, it's ridiculous for the one that is a constitutionally guaranteed right to have every aspect of it's existence monitored, taxed, regulated and registered by the government who is supposed to be restrained from infringing upon it. All the sweating it about guns ending up in the wrong hands if we don't have this law, that BGC and those regulations is a pure smoke screen. Don't look now but all those " Wrong handed people", they already have guns and if they don't and they want one they aren't going to Frank's gun shop or Cabelas to go through a BGC to get one.
Hypothetical question: Knowing that all the guns on the streets of America could never be taken away by the feds, cops or anyone else, which of these 2 scenarios do you prefer.
1) All guns are now illegal, no one outside of LEO can have them.
or
2) All guns are unrestricted, no one can be denied the right to have one.
Before you answer think about this. In scenario #2 where everyone has guns, the people who would have them, but probably shouldn't are the same people that already have them now.
All gun laws are an infringement. Because they only affect people who obey the law.
ddeuce22
Professional
I don't know alot about his past being that I have been in Texas for approx 10-11 months, but the general consensus amongst Texans here is that they see him as Anti-2A and they want to vote him out as soon as possible because of exactly what was posted.
Most likely they are probably half right, but the second anything about guns that they perceive as negative, immediately you are the bad guy. I'm all for 2A, but I like to read things for myself from a few sources before making a decision. I've noticed Texans are quick to pull out the pitchforks and torches over the subject, often times jumping the gun (no pun intended) before getting the full story.
Cornyn might not be a bad guy, or may be. It's hard to say for sure just yet.
That being said and the point I originally wanted to make about private gun sales down here, is almost every post i've seen for a sale down here has had these 2 requisites:
1. Sales are done either outside of a precinct or a gun range parking lot.
2. Buyer must hold an LTC.
I think private sales are taken way more seriously and responsibly than the average person or non-gun educated person thinks.
Sadly, all it takes is one or two jerk offs to ruin for the rest of us.
Most likely they are probably half right, but the second anything about guns that they perceive as negative, immediately you are the bad guy. I'm all for 2A, but I like to read things for myself from a few sources before making a decision. I've noticed Texans are quick to pull out the pitchforks and torches over the subject, often times jumping the gun (no pun intended) before getting the full story.
Cornyn might not be a bad guy, or may be. It's hard to say for sure just yet.
That being said and the point I originally wanted to make about private gun sales down here, is almost every post i've seen for a sale down here has had these 2 requisites:
1. Sales are done either outside of a precinct or a gun range parking lot.
2. Buyer must hold an LTC.
I think private sales are taken way more seriously and responsibly than the average person or non-gun educated person thinks.
Sadly, all it takes is one or two jerk offs to ruin for the rest of us.
ChanceMcCall
Master Class
You have a slight error of fact. Currently, at least, a private seller/transferrer in Illinois can sell a gun to an Illinois resident who has a valid FOID card. Several years ago, a requirement was added and the private seller/transferrer must go online to an ISP portal, type in the FOID number and some information to verify the FOID is still valid. The verification/denial is accomplished in seconds if the user has good internet speed. The seller/transferrer then has to print/save the screenshot for their records.
Just a correction, nothing more. The whole change was confusing to many people, especially those who don't use computers.
jumpinjoe
Hellcat
Here's a link to an article that better defines what Murphy and Cornyn are trying to get an agreement to. A specific definition (I called it a "definitive definition" for some stupid reason) as to what constitutes a 'gun dealer'. Y'all think it over and let us all know your thoughts.
www.yahoo.com
It's the only way for the current NICS BG check to be effective at preventing those people we've all agreed should not have guns from buying by reducing the number of available 'unlicensed' dealers, yet not infringe on the law-abiding folks (any more than the current, original BG check) who on occasion might want to sell or gift to a family member, close friend, or even a well known acquaintance. I'm pretty confident it's in line with what I, and others were trying to get to in our previous posts from yesterday/last night. Personally, I'd be perfectly OK with a definition that limited a seller to no more than 1 gun sale per month per year or even less. I also recognize there are folks who might have legitimate need to sell more than one per month, I'm OK with that too. So what should be the limit? 10, 20, 50, ? If there's going to be a definition, it should be a definition that will mean something to those who currently skirt the issue.
Sure, we all know there will still be some bad guys who will find a way to get a gun. I don't know of anyway to ever positively stop all that, but this will narrow the opportunities for those bad guys to buy from other bad guys. It will certainly make it easier to prosecute those other bad guys who are ready, willing and able, to skirt the law around what constitutes a requirement to become an FFL licensee/dealer. If it all works through the process, let's all hope those who still try to skirt the issue and are caught, will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law !!!!
A quiet bipartisan effort on gun background checks may have a path to a deal
Democrat Chris Murphy and Republican John Cornyn believe they may have landed on a new way to beef up background checks while attracting bipartisan support.
It's the only way for the current NICS BG check to be effective at preventing those people we've all agreed should not have guns from buying by reducing the number of available 'unlicensed' dealers, yet not infringe on the law-abiding folks (any more than the current, original BG check) who on occasion might want to sell or gift to a family member, close friend, or even a well known acquaintance. I'm pretty confident it's in line with what I, and others were trying to get to in our previous posts from yesterday/last night. Personally, I'd be perfectly OK with a definition that limited a seller to no more than 1 gun sale per month per year or even less. I also recognize there are folks who might have legitimate need to sell more than one per month, I'm OK with that too. So what should be the limit? 10, 20, 50, ? If there's going to be a definition, it should be a definition that will mean something to those who currently skirt the issue.
Sure, we all know there will still be some bad guys who will find a way to get a gun. I don't know of anyway to ever positively stop all that, but this will narrow the opportunities for those bad guys to buy from other bad guys. It will certainly make it easier to prosecute those other bad guys who are ready, willing and able, to skirt the law around what constitutes a requirement to become an FFL licensee/dealer. If it all works through the process, let's all hope those who still try to skirt the issue and are caught, will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law !!!!
Sadly, the details, opportunity and differences between offline and online news available is often buried in the site, video, paper and/or making it unknown by many people? Useful or local content is often buried or distorted, while glitzy irrelevant articles replace the actually useful knowledge? That can be the sad part of "news" sometimes?
jumpinjoe
Hellcat
I'm not complaining too hard about the BGC when I buy a gun. What I do have a problem with is paying to transfer a firearm I already own to a dealer, then my kid having to pay a transfer fee to have it transferred to her. I have to agree with the sentiment here, but recognize this is a state or local statute rather than a federal statute as is the NICS BG check. Turn to your state elected officials to repair this. Just for the record .... where I live I can make any 'private' sale to any legal buyer within my home state with no gov't involvement whatever. In my particular case, I have always insisted on my giving him a 'Bill of Sale', and he signing a 'purchase agreement' for me. And realize that as the law regarding what constitutes a dealer currently stands, I can sell virtually as many as I want with no repercussions from the law ..... since the law is so vague right now....... and needs fixing for the benefit of us all.
There are a great many dangerous inanimate objects in this world. If you think about it, it's ridiculous for the one that is a constitutionally guaranteed right to have every aspect of it's existence monitored, taxed, regulated and registered by the government who is supposed to be restrained from infringing upon it. This is a very common argument we all, 'law-abiding' gun owners will make. By the same token, that they should be taxed, regulated, etc, is likely the argument many/most all anti-gun folks will make. All the sweating it about guns ending up in the wrong hands if we don't have this law, that BGC and those regulations is a pure smoke screen. All us pro-gun folks recognize that there is NO law that can/will prevent a 'bad guy' from getting his hands on a gun if he truly wants one. This is the basic argument we all should continue to make. The anti-gun folks argue these stupid laws will make us safer when the bottom line is our constitution never guaranteed our safety ...... only our freedom. Anyone with an intelligence level greater than the number of their legitimate parents will understand "You simply cannot legislate either morality nor safety". Don't look now but all those " Wrong handed people", they already have guns and if they don't and they want one they aren't going to Frank's gun shop or Cabelas to go through a BGC to get one. And hopefully this is one area that will be reduced and/or limited by reducing the numbers of bad guys who are willing to violate an ATF&E or federal law defining (or not) what constitutes a 'licensed dealer' requirement, and their requirement to do a NICS BG check. As it stands right now, the law is so vague it is very difficult to enforce and even more difficult to prosecute.
Hypothetical question: Knowing that all the guns on the streets of America could never be taken away by the feds, cops or anyone else, which of these 2 scenarios do you prefer.
1) All guns are now illegal, no one outside of LEO can have them.
or
2) All guns are unrestricted, no one can be denied the right to have one.
Before you answer think about this. In scenario #2 where everyone has guns, the people who would have them, but probably shouldn't are the same people that already have them now. Both these questions are rhetorical and have no logical/black or white answer. And we don't have enough posting space to address them with any amount of clarity and/or detail.
All gun laws are an infringement. Because they only affect people who obey the law. OK, now here's where it gets a little finicky. Most anti-gun laws are only an infringement to those they directly affect. Let me explain .... The law that restricts mental deficients, drug abusers, and/or women/child abusers don't affect you, nor me, nor any other law-abiding gun owner in the least. That law affects only those people it's directed at. The NICS BG check doesn't prevent you, nor me, nor any law-abiding gun owner from buying or owning (keeping and bearing) guns. Yeh, a short delay maybe and a bit of aggravation, but doesn't prevent us as long as we're doing our part by remaining law-abiding, but just maybe does prevent some 'bad guy' from getting one, especially in the heat of the moment. Now let me qualify this reply by saying I, like you, think the NICS BG chaek is a small delay and an aggravation to me personally, but like I said earlier, for right now it's the best thing we have to weed some of those bad guys out. I don't have a better way, so until I do, and because I'm in favor of doing all we can to weed out those particular individuals, I'll go along with it .
Bob, I thought about this reply of yours all night, and believe it deserves as detailed reply as possible. So, in light of the fact there are so many points you've made here, I'll try to answer them in RED text within your own post to the best of my ability: .................. (see red text within your post above)
Last edited:
Bassbob
Emissary
I agree. Mostly. But I am way less concerned about weeding one or two bad guys out in a sea of tens of thousands than I am someone trying to keep me from doing what I need to do to protect myself.
uspatriot1960
Custom
My problem with all this is, even if you make it where everyone who sells a gun has to be an FFL or has to do it through an FFL or has to go through a process to get a BGC on the person they’re selling to, you’re still going to have unsavory characters who won’t do it. They’ll just sell a gun to whoever wants to buy it.
Once again, implementation of this process will only affect the law abiding. It won’t do anything to those who are willing to avert the law.
Once again, implementation of this process will only affect the law abiding. It won’t do anything to those who are willing to avert the law.
jumpinjoe
Hellcat
Absolutely agree with this, especially the part about 'protecting yourself' ............ but until a law affects you and/or me on a personal level and prevents us from just that, concern about how many or few are weeded out is not the question ...... the fact that some number are weeded out is a good thing !!! Don't you agree?
Bassbob
Emissary
We're way out in the weeds here Joe. I'll just say yeah and we can leave it at that. I think we mostly agree.
jumpinjoe
Hellcat
As much as I can appreciate and agree with the sentiment, I'll have to disagree with the premise. What I see happening is that once it's in black-n-white just what constitutes a dealer and requires a dealer's license, and supports severe penalties for violation, there will be some number of scumbags who today will chance skirting the law (due to it's vagueness), but won't chance it after it becomes clearly defined. Every single illicit sale of a gun that is prevented is a win for us good guys. True, not every sale prevented by the reduction of "unlicensed" sellers will prevent the bad guy from ultimately getting a gun if he wants one, but it will be made just a little less likely and less easy that the bad guy will get one.
Much like simple speeding penalties ...... when the cost of a speeding ticket is $20, many, many people will still speed with little concern. But raise that same penalty to let's say $100, and far fewer will take the chance speeding. Raise it to say $1,000, and even fewer will chance it. Our very own human nature dictates we will take chances until the penalty far exceeds the reward.
BTW, I think the majority of us here on this forum basically agree on most things 'gun'! We may sometimes have a little difficulty getting to the same frame of mind and frame of reference that will allow us to see that we do in fact agree.
I'm all good, hope everyone else is too !!!
Writing's already on the wall?
Can easily see another prohibition and it's terrible effects and repeal similar to alcohol prohibition if this gun control continues? What's really their goal and objective? Is it only more revenue while citizens and safety takes a backseat again?
Can see and agree on knowing what interpretation of what constitutes the definition of what a dealer is. "One who makes a significant portion of their income from selling a product." Then, would need to define what percentage of what a significant portion is too? Could be another revolving door scenario for low income people or retiree's who are selling off their collections and possibly effect someone who is selling off an unwanted inheritance too.As much as I can appreciate and agree with the sentiment, I'll have to disagree with the premise. What I see happening is that once it's in black-n-white just what constitutes a dealer and requires a dealer's license, and supports severe penalties for violation, there will be some number of scumbags who today will chance skirting the law (due to it's vagueness), but won't chance it after it becomes clearly defined. Every single illicit sale of a gun that is prevented is a win for us good guys. True, not every sale prevented by the reduction of "unlicensed" sellers will prevent the bad guy from ultimately getting a gun if he wants one, but it will be made just a little less likely and less easy that the bad guy will get one.
Much like simple speeding penalties ...... when the cost of a speeding ticket is $20, many, many people will still speed with little concern. But raise that same penalty to let's say $100, and far fewer will take the chance speeding. Raise it to say $1,000, and even fewer will chance it. Our very own human nature dictates we will take chances until the penalty far exceeds the reward.
BTW, I think the majority of us here on this forum basically agree on most things 'gun'! We may sometimes have a little difficulty getting to the same frame of mind and frame of reference that will allow us to see that we do in fact agree.
I'm all good, hope everyone else is too !!!
Could be a huge can of worms with no good fish in sight?
To me, a private sale is similar to someone selling something at a garage sale verses someone who's main income is derived from only selling products. Bottom line after all's said and done? Is it only about the money?
uspatriot1960
Custom
Kinda like murder is illegal and renders either death or life in prison, so people don’t do it? Or armed robbery is illegal and carries decades in prison, so people don’t do it? Or rape is illegal, doesn’t stop people from committing rape. Need I go on? Prisons are full of people who ignored the law, regardless of the consequences.As much as I can appreciate and agree with the sentiment, I'll have to disagree with the premise. What I see happening is that once it's in black-n-white just what constitutes a dealer and requires a dealer's license, and supports severe penalties for violation, there will be some number of scumbags who today will chance skirting the law (due to it's vagueness), but won't chance it after it becomes clearly defined. Every single illicit sale of a gun that is prevented is a win for us good guys. True, not every sale prevented by the reduction of "unlicensed" sellers will prevent the bad guy from ultimately getting a gun if he wants one, but it will be made just a little less likely and less easy that the bad guy will get one.
Much like simple speeding penalties ...... when the cost of a speeding ticket is $20, many, many people will still speed with little concern. But raise that same penalty to let's say $100, and far fewer will take the chance speeding. Raise it to say $1,000, and even fewer will chance it. Our very own human nature dictates we will take chances until the penalty far exceeds the reward.
BTW, I think the majority of us here on this forum basically agree on most things 'gun'! We may sometimes have a little difficulty getting to the same frame of mind and frame of reference that will allow us to see that we do in fact agree.
I'm all good, hope everyone else is too !!!
People who are going to break the law, break the law regardless of what may happen. This will be no different. It’s already illegal to sell a firearm to someone who is not legally allowed to possess one. Adding more regulations will do nothing, other than put more of a burden on law abiding people.
How can this affect us? What if the number they come up with is 10? And what if I have a collection of hunting guns, but decide I don’t want to hunt anymore, for whatever reason. I want to sell my collection, but can’t unless I get an FFL. That won’t be easy and will take a long time. And once I unload my collection, I’ll never need it again for the rest of my life. Unreasonable burden on a law abiding citizen. What if the number they come up with is one? You don’t think that will affect law abiding citizens? Yet, the bad guys will continue to do what they do, regardless of the consequences.
uspatriot1960
Custom
You know, most of the flack we get as gun owners are the mass shootings in schools. Maybe we ought to make a law to make it illegal to bring a firearm into a school and shoot kids. Wait - we already have that law. Why the heck don’t these people follow the law??? They know they will go to prison for decades, yet they do it? WTF?
The answer isn’t more laws and regulations. It goes much deeper than that. Bad people will do bad things. Enforce the laws we have. We don’t need more new ones.
The answer isn’t more laws and regulations. It goes much deeper than that. Bad people will do bad things. Enforce the laws we have. We don’t need more new ones.
jumpinjoe
Hellcat
C'mon, we both know none of the penalties you've named are swift nor sure. So yes, people still do the crimes. If murder meant you'd swing from a limb in the public square the minute you're apprehended, or beheaded on the court house steps, there would be far fewer doing it. Remember the correlation between penalty exceeding reward.
Today even the worst, most heinous killers live it out for many, many years and many, many appeals, usually in a better conditions than they had outside. Others have spent so many years of their lives either getting a slap on the hand and being immediately turned out, or getting minimum sentencing for whatever they've done, they have no fear of going to the big house.
Then there is also some number who are mentally disturbed and won't ever get the treatment they need as well as those who flip out in a rage. All these same things apply to those guilty of "armed robbery" and even "rape". Our legal system leaves much to be desired in being a deterrent which is supposed to be one of the five purposes of punishment. Only when penalties are severe and swift enough, do they deter anyone for any crime. Another of the five purposes of punishment is rehabilitation ..... ask yourself how much of that goes on in our legal system? So generally speaking when a bad guy gets out, what does he do but often re-offend?
Yes, there will always be some people who will break the law ...... but again much of it is directly related to the relative penalty to the reward. It always will be. I'm not one in favor of cruel and inhumane punishment, but I am in favor of full, swift, and sure punishment. A certain and swift death penalty may not deter any of the mentally defectives, or those who act out in a fit of rage, but it will very likely make some impact on those who just have a dislike or grudge against someone. And in the case of those who have no reason but the grudge or lack of any respect for life, it will sure as hell prevent any 2nd offenders.
Yes it's "already illegal to sell to someone not legally allowed to have one" ............... but that's part of the problem we've been discussing. If there is no law defining a penalty for that sale, a harsh enough penalty, then more scumbags will chance doing it than if there is a swift, severe and sure penalty.
Please go back and read the article again and I think you'll see where they are trying to define it so that it will not negatively impact those individuals who are just wanting to rid themselves of a gun, or a few guns. None of us here know what the limit might be, but as long as they make it a viable situation for the law-abiding, it's of no consequence. For example, a clause can be written in the law to explicitly exempt someone from selling a known collection or other sensible situations.
If and when our elected leaders do things we law-abiding don't feel/think is right and just, it's up to us to vote them out and make it known what we do think is right. But there's little to no benefit to get all up about something that hasn't even happened, moreover not even being talked about happening.
Look guys, I always enjoy a good discussion, especially when everyone involved remains respectful to the others and can debate the topic reasonably and intelligently just as we've all done with this. But I think we all might ought to take a little break from this one and regroup !!!
Last edited:
jumpinjoe
Hellcat
I can't agree any more with this. Unfortunately there is no current, viable law regarding "unlicensed" dealers (scum bags). That is a law we need badly. It won't stop all of them, but some !!!!