OK, so if private Gun Sales are legal (in most states) with no background check, how will you ever..

[VoteProgressive]

prevent criminals or nuts from getting guns?

I am not in favor of them getting guns, but is there really any possible way to stop it?

There are about 65 Million hand guns in the USA. I cannot see any possible way to stop criminals from getting them with that volume on the market.

So, do any Pro-Gun members here think there is a real solution to stop criminals from buying guns from individuals?

Because if not, I think any time spent on this issue by congress is a waste of time.

[pickle juice]

1. Pass more laws. That's all we need to do.

:silly:

[mybuddy]

31. More laws

More laws and more tests for these nuts before you let them buy anything that can fire a bullet.

[VoteProgressive]

2. What laws would help?

[right2bfree]

32. First offence would be a felony, with 6 month behind bars, 10000 dollar fine. nt

That would make ever owning a firearm by the sellers and buyers, illegal, as well.

[Hangingon]

37. Ironic position given your handle.

[right2bfree]

49. Not at all. When you are DEAD by a firearm, you no longer have any "rights" OR freedoms. nt

[lawodevolution]

3. If someone really can't be trusted with a gun they should be either in prison

under the care of a guardian or in a mental hospital.

[VoteProgressive]

4. So released felons, armed robbers are ok? Just asking because I know...

they can buy other weapons.

[lawodevolution]

24. don't release them if they can't be trusted with a gun.

[speltwon]

5. Give private sellers quick easy access to qualified/disqualified

databases. That's the only practical way. The problem is there are privacy and technology issues, but in the day/age of the internet, etc. they should not be insurmountable.

Currently, there is no reliable way for a private seller to check to see if the person they are selling to is disqualified.

Maybe there could some way for a potential buyer to go and get some sort of printout that is good for (for example) one month from date of printing, that shows that on this date/time, they are eligible to purchase. People can get driver's abstracts from DMV to show potential employers (pizza delivery drivers usually have to do something like this).

[VoteProgressive]

8. I see your point......

I guess some sellers would just not check if they wanted to sell it bad enough. And you could not force them too because no one would know about the sale. It would ne a nightmare to implement. Wonder if it would be possible.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

21. Right now the law is private seller CANNOT access the NICS system

Fix that and if I was doing a private transaction (I can't in CA) I would use it.

No legitimate gun owner wants to have weapons in the possession of people who can not legally own them.

[rrneck]

6. No.

The definition of a straw purchaser is somebody who knows somebody. Regulating that means regulating interpersonal relationships. Not only will that never fly in this country, it's logistically impossible.

[VoteProgressive]

7. That is what I am thinking also. No way to stop private sales. nt

[Night Crawler]

9. The same way you control the private sale of pot

"Dave?"
"Dave's not here Man!"
"I'm Dave!"

[hollowdweller]

10. Here's how you would do it

You would make every gun like a car, where even if the sale was individual to individual there was a title.

But that would basically mean national gun registration which if I'm not mistaken is forbidden under the gun control act of 1968.

You would still have a large number of weapons unregistered that people wouldn't register. But you could prevent any new ones from going to the criminal or the crazy.

HOWEVER that will never happen. In order for that to happen the gun lobby would have to feel comfortable that once all guns were listed in a registry that at some future date guns would not be allowed and they would use the list to round them up.

Now with the passage of HELLER we have an opinion that the right to own guns is protected by the constitution. But right now I think most gun fanciers are still up in the air if it is legal for the state to only permit certain guns and the Supreme Court was really vague on this.

So I SEE a way to prevent diversion on face to face but politically there is not enough trust on the gun community side for this to become a reality. Maybe as Heller is better defined in the courts but not now.

[VoteProgressive]

11. I like the "title" idea......

But I think there is, like you said, too much paranoia from the NRA types that the government will come to take your guns. Which of course is crazy because once they came for the guns, the revolution would start.

I think this issue is past fixing.

Thanks for the logical answer. I appreciate it.

[hack89]

12. How many billions will this cost?

I would rather spend it on education or health care.

[Blown330]

23. That wouldn't work either.

I can buy a car and drive it for months without registering it. Titles can be bought, sold, and forged. Same thing would happen with firearms. Cars go missing and frequently are never recovered. Simply no practical way to achieve that end.

[RSillsbee]

13. According to DOJ stats I've read

Criminals don't buy their guns in legal private sales. They buy stolen guns from other criminals.

[VoteProgressive]

14. Wonder why if it is so easy to buy from a non criminal.

[RSillsbee]

15. Don't know

possibly because I'm going to ask more for a gun that I bought than a crook will ask for one he stole.

[VoteProgressive]

17. Good point! nt

[GreenStormCloud]

16. That 65 million sounds on the low side to me.

I don't trust the VPC estimate. I googled but couldn't find any other estimate.

[VoteProgressive]

18. Might be. Shit, they are expensive now. Low supply I assume.

[pipoman]

20. Handguns can be had from $59 to $10k+

[pipoman]

19. I agree..I think it is waaaay low..

edit...then to start from an erroneous number would insure no possible way to log all of them..

[X_Digger]

22. 65M was in 1994.. at 4M/year after that (NSSF production numbers)..

You're looking at roughly 100M handguns in private hands (accounting for rust / buy-backs / police sales).

[VoteProgressive]

28. Wow. Thanks!

[slackmaster]

25. Keep criminals in jail. Nuts have the right to own guns.

HTH

[right2bfree]

33. No, since when do nuts have the *right* to gun down people easily nt

[slackmaster]

34. Changing the subject?

I thought we were discussing gun ownership here.

People with psychological problems, even those who are diagnosed with specific psychiatric illnesses, have civil rights.

[right2bfree]

39. Not the right to own a firearm. nt

[slackmaster]

45. They most certainly do have the right to own a firearm, except under one special condition...

When they have been adjudicated as mentally incompetent, or involuntarily committed to a psychiatric institution.

Learning about the law isn't very hard, if you'll only put out a little effort.

[X_Digger]

36. It takes a court order to remove a person's right- conviction, adjudication of imcompetence, etc

Until that point, all rights are retained. You've had this explained to you before, but you never seem to respond.

It's called due process.

[right2bfree]

40. Not at all, Many states confiscate guns from the mentally ill with NO judge involved...

maybe YOU should check YOUR facts before posting.

[X_Digger]

41. I have family who work in the mental health industry. I know my facts.

In every state whose laws I'm familiar with, it takes a competency hearing, an involuntary commitment order (signed by a judge), an order of temporary restraint (based on affidavit, good for 72 hours max, more must be signed by a judge), conservatorship, or guardianship before someone's rights are taken away.

Perhaps you should refresh your familiarity with the fourteenth amendment's first section-

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

See the following cases:

Addington v. Texas
O'Connor v. Donaldson
Kansas v. Hendricks

Even in California, a '5150' must be filed, and it's only good for 72 hours. Any longer, and a judge must provide a protective order, either involuntary or outpatient (5250- 14 day evaluation).

A person can be 'mentally ill' and not meet the criteria for involuntary commitment. In such a case, there is no legal means to confiscate or otherwise impair the rights of the person.

People like you scare the shit out of me. We'd all be fucked if your authoritarian wet dreams came to pass.

[right2bfree]

42. People have a RIGHT t o be free from spree shooters and gun owners who have mental ilnesses..

or does that not fit in with your idea of a safe society?

One doesnt have any freedoms if they are dead, thanks to some
nut with a gun, do they?

So with you notions, we are free alright; free to die by a person
that shouldnt have a gun in the first place.

Funny but people like you who want everyone armed scare the hell,
out of me.

[X_Digger]

43. So, you admit you were wrong, then?

You admit that a person's rights cannot be permanently removed without due process?

Let me reiterate, since you seem to have missed it the first time. Having a 'mental illness' does not disqualify someone from owning a firearm. Only when they become a danger to themselves or others, and via established due process means can a person be held against their will, and at that time have certain rights removed.

The mentally ill are overwhelmingly more likely to be the victim of crime than perpetrate it. By some estimates, as many as one in four americans suffers from some form of mental illness to some degree.

Oh, and..

Funny but people like you who want everyone armed scare the hell,
out of me.

Please quote me saying this, or anything like it.

You get today's award..

[slackmaster]

47. You enjoy that right only within the confines of your own home

:hi:

[slackmaster]

46. Please cite examples of that happening

I've never heard of it, and it certainly wouldn't be legal here in California.

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LAGC]

50. Sure, cops can confiscate guns for "safe-keeping."

But once its proven that the suspect is "in his right mind" again, the cops have to give the guns back.

They can't just permanently confiscate them on a whim, without legal cause.

[oneshooter]

53. New Orleans La?

Democratic Mayor and Police Chief. Guns forcibly removed from owners and destroyed.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[slackmaster]

54. Not a good response, oneshooter. They took guns from everyone.

Not just from mentally ill people; and what they did was illegal.

[Atypical Liberal]

26. Universal FOID.

OK, so if private Gun Sales are legal (in most states) with no background check, how will you ever prevent criminals or nuts from getting guns?

In the State of Illinois, in order to own a firearm you must first obtain a Firearm Owner Identification card - an FOID. In order to get this, you must undergo a background check. If you privately sell a firearm in Illinois, you must do the following:

http://www.isp.state.il.us/docs/9-049.pdf

Acquiring or Transferring Firearms - Private Citizen Transfer in Illinois
* Private Citizen is defined as "Any person who is not a Federal Firearms Licensed (FFL) gun dealer who desires to acquire or transfer firearms."
* Seller and Buyer must possess a valid FOID card.
* Seller and Buyer must verify local firearm ordinance requirements.
* Buyer must display his or her valid FOID card prior to handling the firearm.
* Buyer must abide by the State of Illinois waiting period before taking possession of the firearm. The waiting period for a long gun is 24 hours and 72 hours for a hand gun.
* Seller must keep a record of such transfer for a period of 10 years from the date of transfer.
* The record must contain the date of the transfer, the description, serial number, or other information identifying the firearm if no serial number is available.
* Upon transfer of possession, the firearm must be unloaded and enclosed in a case to transport.

With the exception of the waiting period, I think this is a good policy.

However, the problem with the Illinois system is that it is opt-in. What that means is that only people who own, or are very likely to own, a firearm are going to obtain an FOID. This creates a de facto registry of firearm owners, which is bad.

I would propose instead an opt-out system.

What this would mean is that any time a citizen applied for a Driver's License or State-issued ID, they would automatically be processed through NICS, unless they opted out. Since the State will have no way to know who is an actual firearm owner or not, every firearm owner will have plausible deniability as to whether or not they actually own firearms. This preserves anonymous firearm ownership.

Assuming you pass your NICS background check, your Driver's License or your State-Issued ID would be marked with an appropriate mark indicating that you are illegible to own firearms. Some people have expressed privacy concerns about having this information on your ID. If this is truly a concern (and I do not think it should be a concern anyway), then the information could be encrypted, so that you would have to go to your local police station, or even upload a picture of the ID to a government web site, for decryption to reveal the FOID status.

In this way, all firearm transactions will only proceed with people who have undergone a background check.

However, if this comes to pass, one thing I would like to see is that people with valid FOIDs should be able to buy firearms through the mail, having them directly shipped to them after sending a copy of their FOID.

[oneshooter]

27. And since the Illinois DA considers the FOID a public document

You can have your name and address printed in the paper!

http://www.sj-r.com/top-stories/x2022437908/Attorney-general-State-should-release-FOID-card-list

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[gejohnston]

38. That works

However, if this comes to pass, one thing I would like to see is that people with valid FOIDs should be able to buy firearms through the mail, having them directly shipped to them after sending a copy of their FOID.

That is what they do in Canada. The other side raves how great Canadian laws are, it should seem reasonable to me.

[Kennah]

29. "is there really any possible way to stop it?"

If anyone finds a way, then I'm going to nominate them for Drug Czar.

[one-eyed fat man]

30. Private sales.

If you want a really practical explanation of the system of underground economics why don't you ask the guy you buy your dope from if he can get you a gun?

[Katya Mullethov]

35. " Law enforcement needs new tools "

Well they cant borrow mine . Close the gun walking loophole .

[Taitertots]

44. Open NICS to private inquiries n/t

[Euromutt]

51. The question, as always, is whether any benefits outweigh the costs

There are, theoretically, any number of things we could try to do to prevent the criminally inclined (insane of not) from acquiring firearm via private-party sales. The question is whether the burden such measures would impose on those engaged in legit transactions would be offset reducing the supply of firearms into the black market.

Say we go the California route, and require the overwhelming majority of firearm transfers to be conducted via a Federal Firearms Licensee (at a cost of $35 or more). Let's say, for the sake of the argument, that this severely cuts down on the number of guns "diverted" to the criminal circuit via private sales. So far, so good, right? But what if that gain is offset by guns smuggled in from China and south-eastern Europe (Bulgaria, Serbia, Croatia)? Then all you've got is a burden on law-abiding citizens that doesn't reduce the number of guns in criminal hands. What's the point of that?

[Remmah2]

52. Gun buy-back programs give criminals amnesty.

No questions asked. No one does background checks on those government sanctioned sales.

[one-eyed fat man]

55. Not all the guns get destroyed either.

Now it's a pretty good bet if you have a Lorcin or a Hi-Point was used in a drive-by you can get the cops to melt it down for you and give you a 100 bucks. On the other hand, some clueless little old lady turning in an 1892 Colt her father carried up San Juan hill will get a 100 bucks and some cop will have it on Gunbroker with an opening bid of a thousand bucks by nightfall.

[WatsonT]

58. Gun buy backs haven't ever been shown to reduce the crime rate

what they do is waste money to make people feel good.

Think about it: if you're a criminal intent on using a gun for a crime that is now a tool of your trade. It'd be like offering a few grand to buy up a taxi drivers car, or a plumbers tools. Without that they have no means of income. So it would be foolish to trade them in for any amount less than they would likely be able to earn with them, which would cripple the state if attempted.

[Katya Mullethov]

56. Holder and Melson were going to permanently solve that conundrum

But they got caught ...... AGAIN !


It's getting a bit redundant with these booger eaters , but I will reitterate :
"AHAHAHAHAHAHA !"

[WatsonT]

57. Even with a background check

one need not have a prior arrest history to become a criminal.

Or you could steal a gun.

Or buy it from an illegal source.