I told the NRA today I agree with background checks

[bushmaster1313]

So, am I allowed to cross into Ohio, buy a gun under Ohio rules, and legally own that gun in PA?

Be very careful


If you go to another state you can only buy a long gun and only through an FFL with a NICS check, and you must be allowed to own that gun under your state's laws. So, for example, if a resident of New Jersey goes to buy a long gun in New Jersey, the buyer must fill out a "New Jersey Certificate of Eligibility." Under federal law, the out of state FFL is presumed to know the laws of the buyer's state.

Under no circumstances can you go to another state and come back with a handgun, although you can pay for it and have the seller ship it to your instate FFL for transfer under your state law with a NICS check

 

[tyusclan]

If the gun you sold is then used in the commission of a crime and the serial number run, who is the gun registered to?

No one. Florida does not have gun 'registration'.

 

[johngalt]

Wow, this thread lost me a long time ago! I need to ask one simple question. Here in PA. we have a mandatory background check when buying a handgun. There is no other legal way here in PA. to buy one. There's no such thing as a "face to face" sale, period. ALL sales must go through a person with an ATF license and a background check must take place. The cost of this check is I believe $5.00. This check was instituted years ago after the PA. State Police tried to create a registry. The courts told them a registry was against the law. This check, combined with all the info on the gun you are buying, is actually a backdoor to a registry - they created their registry anyway. Is it not like this in other states? Are you telling me there are states where two people can actually just meet and buy / sell a handgun? Someone please set me straight on this once and for all.

Yes, in most states private individuals can conduct private sales, no FFL must be involved nor background checks performed.

 

[cmort666]

So, am I allowed to cross into Ohio, buy a gun under Ohio rules, and legally own that gun in PA? What happens if I decide to sell the gun off a year or so later here in PA? Once they do the background check (which like I said includes info on the gun) on the buyer and the serial number etc. goes in, does the gun show an owner who it was registered to at one time or another?

Another thing - we can't mail a gun to anyone. We have to take it to an FFL holder and they have to send it to another FFL holder. Is Ohio like that also?

Unless I'm mistaken, FEDERAL law forbids unlicensed interstate transfers of handguns. To buy a handgun out of state, you need to go through an FFL.

Other than NFA items at the Federal level, there is NO registration ANYWHERE in Ohio by virtue of state preemption. There is NO state maintained information regarding what firearms are owned by whom, and nobody else is permitted to do so. In PA there is the sales database that's "not a registry" but IS a registry since the police routinely treat it as one.

The PA system is a deeply flawed one that has repeatedly been abused by cops who unlawfully confiscate firearms lawfully not in the "non-registry" registry. We're completely uninterested in going down that road.

 

[cmort666]

Depending on Ohio and Pennsylvania law, (and I don't know what it is) you may be able to purchase a long gun from a dealer in Ohio and take it back to Penn.

I've done the reverse several times at the PGCA.

 

[cmort666]

And it seems to me that some have lived under tyranny for so long they think it's normal, and have forgotten what freedom smells like.

When I visited my family in Chicago for the first time in thirteen years in '99, and the subject of guns came up, they asked me if my guns were "registered". They were astonished that there were NEITHER licenses nor registration. They were REALLY astonished that I could actually defend myself OUTSIDE of my home.

 

[redlevel]

If the gun you sold is then used in the commission of a crime and the serial number run, who is the gun registered to?

What is this "registration" of which you speak?
We ain't got none of it here in Georgia.

 

[LouisianaJoe]

So Joe and Art what you're saying is that because I recently joined this particular forum I shouldn't exercise my first amendment rights? Or I shouldn't share an opinion? I joined because I am a fan of smith and Wesson and their products. Some people think its a give an inch they'll take a mile situation. Maybe it's give an inch and get that inch back.

When the AR ban came back to vote the lack of changes in crime rates led it to be voted out and we got back the ability to purchase ARs which will probably stick and not go through congress. We have to look at every solution and potential outcome with an open mind. Immediately dismissing any idea prematurely is simply ignorance.

You have the right to your opinion and your 1st Amendment rights. We have the right to be suspicious of the motive of anyone that wants to give the government more control of our 2nd Amendment rights and more ability to track where the guns are to confiscate.

I have seen too many blogs where the poster tries to sound "reasonable" while trying to convince us that they are on our side when they are not.

This administration has a record of deceiving the public and then passing unacceptable legislation behind closed doors or passing it at the last minute without allowing amendments. It does not have our best interest as a priority.

 

[harrison12]

Not sayin' anything about what course you will all decide because it's your country and none of my business.

Just wanted to say that with the system we have here, background checks aren't required every time you purchase a gun. You take or challenge a basic safety/knowledge course and when you pass you get a background/criminal record check done before they issue you a licence. First time you wait 28 days before it will be issued. The licence is good for five years, like a driver's licence that you carry around with you and show when you're buying a gun or ammo, but a valid licence is all the seller needs to see proof of before you buy. Commit a crime and you'll likely lose your licence so no more legal gun buying.

Not going to get into the whole restricted and prohibited hand gun classification we have because some of the categorizing doesn't make much sense. The paperwork for handguns can get tedious and take a awhile but there is no fee for transfers and permits -just a lot of bureaucracy that could benefit from some streamlining.

On the bright side, at least we don't have a long gun registry anymore.

 

[leswad]

Are you telling me there are states where two people can actually just meet and buy / sell a handgun? Someone please set me straight on this once and for all.

Before the recent attack on my rights, I actually bought an AR15 off of the hood of an on duty police officer under the glow of his spotlight. I went to show him my CCW to prove my background and he said no need, which I thought was strange until a few minutes later it occurred to me he had already run my plates.

 

[PA Reb]

Alot of useful information. Thanks all!

 

[redlevel]

Before the recent attack on my rights, I actually bought an AR15 off of the hood of an on duty police officer under the glow of his spotlight. I went to show him my CCW to prove my background and he said no need, which I thought was strange until a few minutes later it occurred to me he had already run my plates.

I bought my Model 60 from a Georgia Revenue Officer at a peach packing shed of all places. I jokingly told him my Granddaddy would roll in his grave if he knew I was dealing with a "revenoor." I asked him if he wanted to see my GWL. He said "nah, you look honest."

 

[ogilvyspecial]

I bought my Model 60 from a Georgia Revenue Officer at a peach packing shed of all places. I jokingly told him my Granddaddy would roll in his grave if he knew I was dealing with a "revenoor." I asked him if he wanted to see my GWL. He said "nah, you look honest."

I bought my Model 66 from a Sgt. of a Detroit suburb PD and when he told me where
to meet him, an isolated industrial area, I told him what I would be driving.

He responded with, "I'll be the one in a po-leece car."

 

[Rule 303]

Me, I believe Universal Back Ground checks for Face to Face gun sales are an infringement of my Civil Rights to sell my lawfully owned property.

But we have lots of Fudds out there who have no conception of Fundemental Constitutional Rights.

Fudds will be the death of us.

Me, I won't buy from an individual unless he shows me a photo ID and I keep the informations with my gun records.

Rule 303

 

[Cavere]

You have the right to your opinion and your 1st Amendment rights. We have the right to be suspicious of the motive of anyone that wants to give the government more control of our 2nd Amendment rights and more ability to track where the guns are to confiscate.

I have seen too many blogs where the poster tries to sound "reasonable" while trying to convince us that they are on our side when they are not.

This administration has a record of deceiving the public and then passing unacceptable legislation behind closed doors or passing it at the last minute without allowing amendments. It does not have our best interest as a priority.

Joe I am not posting to convince anyone that they should believe what I do. I was mearly stating what I believe to show a side that is out there and supporting bushmaster who was getting attacked.

All administrations have history of such practices. But I believe myself to simply be a responsible gun owner who happens to be a liberal and share the opinion with a minority of other responsible gun owners. Just as with religion I don't think people should be attacked on differences because beliefs can be personal. But we should all recognize that there is a spectrum of beliefs and take a serious look at all options.

 

[cmort666]

But I believe myself to simply be a responsible gun owner who happens to be a liberal and share the opinion with a minority of other responsible gun owners.

I'm a liberal and I'm not buying any of this "compromise" gibberish. Gun control is pure jackboot ideology and there's no more compromising with it than Mordechai Anilewicz was going to compromise with Juergen Stroop.

You're not talking about personal choice. You're talking about government force pointed directly at MY head to IMPOSE what you support. You get to choose for yourself. You DON'T get to force those choices on ME at gunpoint, and that's EXACTLY what you and the rest of the non-gun owning "reasonable gun owners" who get trotted out by the other side want.

For anti-gunners there's no "compromise", only abject submission or compulsion at gunpoint. Your "reasonable gun safety" laws are merely this generation's version of the Fugitive Slave Law. People said "NO" to that and we're saying no to this act of oppression.

Don't play the "opinion" game. This is about force, violence and making people do what you want at gunpoint.

 

[Denver Dick]

Universal background checks are probably in the cards over the next year or two. However, make them fight for it. Keep in mind that what they really want is to disarm all civilians. They do not believe that there is any need for private citizens to own firearms. They are attacking what they view as the huge second amendment octopus -- one leg at a time. If you rollover and "give" them the universal background check, they will be back tomorrow wanting to ban assault weapons. When they get those, they will be back the next day wanting all semi-automatic pistols. When they check those off, they will target semi-automatic long guns, etc, etc. Always keep in mind, they will never be satified until all firearms are out of private hands, that includes your five-shot revolver, bolt action rifle, and double barrel shotgun . . . even though they aren't saying that now.

When dealing with this issue keep in mind the following: 1) Know thy enemy, and 2) Better to fight your enemy on the beach rather than inland, inland rather than your town, your town rather than your backyard, and it is definitely better to fight them in your backyard rather than in your living room.

Now, if their goal was truly to restrict access to firearms by felons and crazy people and protect children, you could sit down with them and discuss possiblities. However, when their ultimate goal is the disarmament of all, we must fight them all the way. Be careful when you find yourself saying, "Gee, that seems somewhat reasonable, why not?" The answer is, "Because they will never be satisfied, it will only embolden them." Even if it appears inevitable, make them FIGHT FOR IT.

FWIW JMHO based on my 61 years on this earth. Ask yourself, have they ever been satisfied? You know the answer to that, don't you?

 

[Kanewpadle]

Joe I am not posting to convince anyone that they should believe what I do. I was mearly stating what I believe to show a side that is out there and supporting bushmaster who was getting attacked.

All administrations have history of such practices. But I believe myself to simply be a responsible gun owner who happens to be a liberal and share the opinion with a minority of other responsible gun owners. Just as with religion I don't think people should be attacked on differences because beliefs can be personal. But we should all recognize that there is a spectrum of beliefs and take a serious look at all options.

My definition of a "responsible gun owner" is one that supports and defends the second amendment. Period. No gray area. No compromise.

A "serious look at all options?". There are no options. There is simply one choice. And that choice is to leave us the hell alone!!

The ultimate goal of gun grabbers is to totally disarm us a little at a time. They hate guns and think nobody in their right mind needs one. They insist on forcing their way of thinking on us. They know that bans don't work. They know background checks don't work. And they know high cap magazine limits don't work either. They know that these are just temporary measures to slow us down so they can get a leg up on us.

This country was built on many freedoms. The freedom of choice and to believe what you like. The freedom of speech and assembly. By owning guns we are expressing those rights not only under the second amendment, but other amendments also.

So to slowly lose the right to own and bear arms is also the slow, sure way to lose freedom.

If people don't like it, they need to move to another country. Us gun lovers were here first.

 

[71firebird400]

In Washington state they collect sales tax on transferred firearms (when bought out of state); as far as I know no other state does that. If a "background check", and thus an FFL transfer, is required for every person to person transaction I can see our state taxing those purchases as well.

 

[Silversmok3]

Joe I am not posting to convince anyone that they should believe what I do. I was mearly stating what I believe to show a side that is out there and supporting bushmaster who was getting attacked.

All administrations have history of such practices. But I believe myself to simply be a responsible gun owner who happens to be a liberal and share the opinion with a minority of other responsible gun owners. Just as with religion I don't think people should be attacked on differences because beliefs can be personal. But we should all recognize that there is a spectrum of beliefs and take a serious look at all options.

You will not like the following. If you're honest about believing in a "spectrum of beliefs", you'll be mature enough to rebut me in an intellectually honest manner, one devoid of ad hominems and a posse of strawman arguments .

When it comes to gun control, there is no debate any more then there's a debate regarding gravity. Throw a ceramic plate off the top of the Empire State Building, and it will shatter when it hits bottom. There is no multi-cultural viewpoint which will cause it to remain intact when it hits the pavement.

Gun control policy is a failure. That is not an opinion any more then the Earth rotating around the Sun is up to personal belief. There are reams of data which backs that up.

You can choose to believe what you wish. If you go about your day convinced the Sun revolves around the Earth, there's nothing I will do to change your mind. The Earth will rotate regardless of your opinion, and so we similarly hold true to the facts of the 2nd Amendment.

 

[boneman]

The anti's feel that gun owners should make concessions. One thing I have found in life is you can't make Concessions with fringe or any do-gooder. One concession leads to two then in a blink of an eye it isn't asking any more its taking. I've had many back ground checks in Ohio and it doesn't bother me at all but if I want to sell my collection to friends or family I do not feel I should have to jump through hoops to do it. I think making concessions to give away any hard earned gun rights is a really really bad idea. Thanks Larry

 

[125JHP]

Beware of unintended consequences...

A lot of people will agree that there are some people that shouldn't have guns... seems like a reasonable proposal, doesn't it. So then they might also agree a background check system would be a good way to implement it. This is where you get sucked into the system with each step down that path supported in the name of the original premise.

I tend to agree that certain people like mental defectives, chronic drug addicts and violent criminals shouldn't have guns but there has to be other ways to prevent that than instituting a carte blanc BCS to jump thru. However I disagree that a 100% gun registration and BCS is the way to do it. Perhaps more education of the general population thru school programs (just after sex ed class) would instill some common gun-sense in people.

So, after the check system becomes law, guess who get to decide "who is not fit" to own guns? Guess who gets to make up the rules and fees and regulations and enforcement penalties? Guess who gets to expand the system once its in place... Not you, that's for sure. Also try to guess what it would be like to get your name off the "prohibited to own" list, just like today's 'no-fly" list. You watch, if this becomes law the PTB will find all kinds of reasons to put as many on the list as possible, to prohibit otherwise OK people from buying guns.

Remember the seat belt law? at first it was just for the driver and only enforced if in an accident, then later only if stopped for another reason, then later it became required for passengers and then after a while all occupants. Now some areas throw up "safety check" road blocks, where they use it as an excuse to check you out in several ways (DUI, Illegals, Contraband, tobacco, whiskey, unpasteurized milk, home garden vegetables, License check, guns). It is just one more expansion of the police state.

You better hope you never made any mistake in your life that is on record somewhere, as it will be a witch hunt.

 

[bettis1]

Sure wish the OP had set this thread up as a POLL. Results would be interesting.

 

[wbraswell]

Remember that "they" don't want just to register sales. They want to ban guns, period. They have a utopian ideal of "no violence, no racism, no wars, no anger attitude. John Lennon would add "no religion too." They abhor hunting, so don't fall for their lies. They have tried to outlaw most every gun at some time. Saturday night specials were once the main target, that's every decent CC gun there is. Big guns, litle guns, short guns, long guns, they want them all, and every single one they get just feeds their fire. NO QUARTER! Not now, not ever!

 

[MTS Cop]

This is the problem I have with face to face, no background check sales. Every response on here has been "I don't want the government putting red tape in front of me selling my property to my law abiding friend/neighbor/relative". And I agree with that. I believe most of the people who participate here are good people with sound judgement. Unfortunately this world is full of even more degenerate, greedy, gulible or just plain stupid people. I have made a career out of handling their lives for them everyday. The fact that these people can turn around and sell a gun to whom ever they want, i.e. criminals or mental cases, bothers me. A lot actually. The only safe guard in the whole private sale system is the sellers conscience and quite frankly I have little to no faith that. I also have no idea what a good solution is. Maybe it is background checks on all sales. Maybe it is making sure all current records are up to date so the current system works better. If I had answers to questions like this I probably wouldn't be a lowly patrolman.

 

[cmort666]

Remember that "they" don't want just to register sales. They want to ban guns, period. They have a utopian ideal of "no violence, no racism, no wars, no anger attitude. John Lennon would add "no religion too." They abhor hunting, so don't fall for their lies. They have tried to outlaw most every gun at some time. Saturday night specials were once the main target, that's every decent CC gun there is. Big guns, litle guns, short guns, long guns, they want them all, and every single one they get just feeds their fire. NO QUARTER! Not now, not ever!

After decades of observation and actually LISTENING to these people, I'm convinced that much of this is rooted in an irrational hatred of people who forcibly RESIST aggression.

The aggressor they can always find an excuse or even a justification for. Hence their defenses of Sadaam Hussein, the Japanese militarists, and even to an extent the Nazis.

Those who resist violence with violence on the other hand are hated and reviled. Hence the condemnations not just of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but the CONVENTIONAL bombing of Japan and now even Germany. I doubt I'm the only person who remembers the criticisms of the movie "The Great Raid" as "too one sided", as if there was some silver lining to Japan's campaign of murder, rape, slavery and human vivisection from Manchuria to Manila.

Even more to the point, violent Jewish resistance to the Holocaust is either ignored or even condemned. I've actually been told by gun control fanatics that more violent resistance to the Holocaust would have made things WORSE. None of them can coherently... or even sanely, tell me HOW.

What we have on the other side is a cult of nihilism and schadenfruede. For them, the only truly "decent" people are those who meekly amble to slaughter like sheep. Refuse to get on the boxcars to be "resettled to the east" and you become evil incarnate.

 

[cmort666]

This is the problem I have with face to face, no background check sales. Every response on here has been "I don't want the government putting red tape in front of me selling my property to my law abiding friend/neighbor/relative".

If you THINK that's been "every response", then you have a reading comprehension problem.

The VAST majority of responses have instead been, "We won't countenance this because the ONLY way to enforce it is with registration and registration is the gateway to CONFISCATION."

As a cop in New York, you're part of a privileged class. As a retired cop, you'll still be part of a privileged class. You will always (or THINK you will always) be allowed to own a gun without the restrictions imposed on everyone else. Everybody ELSE (at least those without money and political influence) are TOTALLY at the mercy of the WHIM of police officials and politicians who INVARIABLY exempt THEMSELVES from those same regulations.

Perhaps you've lived your whole adult life as a New York cop and simply have no experience of life anywhere else. Some of us on the other hand have experienced life under both oppression and corruption (Chicago, NY, NJ, etc.) and liberty (OH, PA, IN, etc). We have neither special privileges nor misplaced trust in those like Daley, Bloomberg and the like. Our rights haven't been reduced to plums of patronage. We won't have them so in the future.

 

[PALADIN85020]

Let's blow the foam off the beer with some facts...

Let's blow the foam off the beer, so to speak, and examine the gun-banner's mantra: Gun Control helps to prevent violent crime, and no one "needs" (insert the name of your favorite evil gun here) ____. Here are some facts.

Number one: No gun control law, ever, has reduced violent crime. The "Assault Weapons ban" of 1994 was proof positive of that. The antis want us to repeat a policy that failed. Isn't that the definition of stupidity?

Number two: Look at the gun crime rates in Chicago, Detroit, New York City, and Washington D.C. Extremely tight gun control laws, yet their incidence of murders committed with guns is extremely high compared to the averages.

Number three: Nearly total gun bans don't work either. Both Great Britain and Australia took that path. Problem solved, right? Wrong. Their violent gun-related crimes skyrocketed after the bans.

Number four: Registration, either overt or back door (via apparently innocent "record checks") leads ultimately to gun confiscation. History is full of examples - Germany, Soviet Russia, China, Cambodia. Once the confiscation had been accomplished, state-sponsored mass murders followed.

Number five: The Second Amendment is not about hunting, sport shooting, or collecting. It was placed in the Bill of Rights as a final guarantee (note the operative word here is "final") against tyranny in government. If the people are armed with basically the same individual weapons as the military ("well regulated" meaning "equipped to standard"), then the government can never effectively subdue the people with the military.

Number six: The right to keep and bear arms pre-dates the Constitution. It goes back in common law and tradition for centuries. All the Second Amendment does is to proscribe the government from messing with the right. Any infringement (look up the word) on that right is illegal under the highest law in the land - the Constitution.

Number six: "Tyrannical government? That will never happen here!" I've got news for you. I suggest you do your homework. It already has. I've posted examples already on this forum. Go ahead - Google:

Battle of Athens

Veterans Bonus March

Kent State Massacre

Number seven: Do you realize that millions of firearms, and many of them quite effective, have been manufactured before 1968 with no serial numbers at all? Are you serious that I would have to go through a dealer to give my grandson a Winchester 69A .22 rifle, and record the serial number as "None"? This is not only intrusive into my private life, it's just another example of out-of-control government insanity.

Number eight: More murders in this country, every year, are committed with hammers and bare hands than with guns. If a crazy person wishes to inflict mayhem on others, it can be done in other ways, and if a criminal wishes to obtain a firearm, one can be stolen (there are guns out there, and you cannot un-ring a bell), bought on the black market (like drugs), or even made from common materials.

Number nine: Bans simply don't work. The prime example was America's "noble experiment" with Prohibition. All that did was create a new class of criminals, profitable black marketing by crime syndicates, and the public almost universally thumbing its collective nose at the law.

Number ten: "No one NEEDS 'assault rifles', 30-round magazines, etc. etc." Tell that to the Korean merchants who protected their lives and businesses during the L.A. riots. Tell that to the cops who protect their lives and those of others daily with such weapons and equipment. If these things are effective for them, why not for US? And by the way, no one NEEDS a Ferrari that can go 200 miles per hour! But if you WANT one, if you have the dough or can borrow it, you can buy one. It's still a free country, the last time I checked.

In the face of this overwhelming evidence, why can anyone with an ounce of common sense support ANY sort of gun control? And if you are not involved in helping to derail it, why not? Once more, join the NRA and get your shoulder behind the wheel. The time to do it is NOW.

John

 

[Stephanie B]

The anti's feel that gun owners should make concessions.

Concessions, no. Negotiations, yes. Negotiations are "give and take". If we have to give on some things, I want to see what we can get out of it. For example, can we get suppressors removed from the NFA?

A discussion about concessions without anything in return is basically a discussion about the terms of a surrender. And if the gun control side thought that they had the votes, they wouldn't be asking for "concessions".

 

[cmort666]

Number one: No gun control law, ever, has reduced violent crime. The "Assault Weapons ban" of 1994 was proof positive of that. The antis want us to repeat a policy that failed. Isn't that the definition of stupidity?

Insanity, actually, but I suppose neither completely excludes the other.

Number ten: "No one NEEDS 'assault rifles', 30-round magazines, etc. etc." Tell that to the Korean merchants who protected their lives and businesses during the L.A. riots.

They SAY "No one NEEDS 'assault rifles' , 30-round magazines, etc., etc." What they MEAN is:

1. nobody needs to DEFEND themselves because the police will "protect" them as individuals.
2. it's WRONG to protect yourself.

1 is simply a lie. 2 is purest evil.

Never forget that AFTER initially defending themselves, the Koran shopkeepers of L.A. were FORCIBLY DISARMED, whereupon they were unable to stop the criminals who subsequently burned their businesses.

Actual consequences are utterly irrelevant to anti-gunners. The advancement of their decadent ideology of enforced victimization trumps all.