Say goodbye to private transfers

[ladder13]

So says the NRA,maybe not in those exact words.

http://news.newsmax.com/?K6I6axGjtf.../2013/01/17/id/471835?s=al&promo_code=11FA7-1

 

[Alnamvet68]

I think it will just add the requirement that the buyer in a private sale has to have a background check done, most likely by a FFL, who will seize the opportunity to charge an outrageous fee for going on line and initiating the NICS check and doing the transfer paperwork. While this is a financial win for the LGS, and definitely a legal win for the seller (who will be cleared of all doubt that he knowingly sold to a bad guy), it is a no win for private buyers who will have to bear the additional cost. Perhaps a minor inconvenience in the short run, but another way of insuring guns stay in the hands of those who are in the legal right to own and possess.

 

[HotRoderX]

What happens if the state already has law saying otherwise? Would this over ride it?

 

[Stophel]

What it will do is eliminate private sales of firearms. Meaning, they will simply no longer be private. ALL gun sales will then register the buyer and the seller (oh, you think that they actually wipe out all record of the NICS check??? Sure....). And, of course, it will create a new class of "criminal". Those intrepid Liberty lovers who dare to buy or sell a gun without government interference.

 

[schneiderguy]

I think it will just add the requirement that the buyer in a private sale has to have a background check done, most likely by a FFL, who will seize the opportunity to charge an outrageous fee for going on line and initiating the NICS check and doing the transfer paperwork. While this is a financial win for the LGS, and definitely a legal win for the seller (who will be cleared of all doubt that he knowingly sold to a bad guy), it is a no win for private buyers who will have to bear the additional cost. Perhaps a minor inconvenience in the short run, but another way of insuring guns stay in the hands of those who are in the legal right to own and possess.

In California, we must do all private party transfers through an FFL. The total cost is up to $35, which I believe is excessive.

The FFL can charge up to $10 to compensate for the time he spends doing the paperwork. This is reasonable.

The state of California then charges $25 to run the background check. IIRC the NICS system is free to use, so I don't know what justification they have to charge this fee

 

[Comrad]

I buy privately in NJ, the catch is the seller has to ship it or hand it over to a local FFL who charges me $60.00 for the transfer plus $15.00 for the NICS check. It can be done in 10, 15 or 20 minutes depending on who is in the store and how busy the NICS line is. I hear there are cheaper FFLs but this is my local guy and I like to support my locals.

 

[keith44spl]

Say goodbye to private transfers

And this would apply only for us, the law-a-biding citizens...Right?

 

[atheophilos]

FFL transfers here in PA, at least in my area, are $40.

 

[Stophel]

So, is the NRA spokesman saying that the organization supports forcing all private sales of firearms to go through a NICS check????

 

[A1U]

In Maryland all regulated firearms (all handguns and most AR type rifles) have had to go through a FFL or the State Police for years, $10 at MSP, or a legal maximum of $20 to a FFL.

There are no limits on transfers form auction sites or from an out of state FFL and they can go over $100.

Face to face/ citizen to citizen private sales of all other firearms are still legal. I think that will go away soon.

Folks get angry at FFL fees, but they never consider overhead, liability, licensing fees, opportunity costs for time spent filing papers and the pure pain in the rear that firearms related paperwork causes.

It is only going to get worse, so enjoy that relatively cheap transfer that you can get now.

I believe the NICS check will become universal for all firearm transfers soon.

 

[SanJoseScott]

Ok class so let us review: The aurora shooter bought his guns through gun shops with the background check and waiting period. The Columbine shooters were underage so they bought them through a 3rd party (strawman purchase). The CT shooter stole them from his mom.

So how does restricting private party gun sales even remotely begin to help reduce "gun violence"?

Last night I was in a discussion about "gun violence" with my daughter and a couple of her friends. I told them I would demonstrate "gun violence" to them if they wanted and they all hesitantly agreed. I place an unloaded pellet gun on the kitchen table and sat back and watched (was actually hunched over staring at the pellet gun). After about 2 minutes or so they were curiously looking me intently staring at the gun. At about the 3 minute point they asked what I was doing. I told them to think about the situation a minute. Being relatively bright they all started smiling as they got it. I didn't have to say another word and their conversation started questioning what they had heard from others about those evil guns. I actually heard one of them say on the phone "but dude, it is the crazy person not the gun".....

Maybe there is some hope as these are 18 and 19 year olds

 

[Big Fred]

And this would apply only for us, the law-a-biding citizens...Right?

As always, WE, the law-a-biding, are the ones that suffer.

 

[Joewisc]

Too many gun owners are waiving the white flag and are ready to comply with laws that haven't even been passed yet. Most if not all of New York's new legislation does not kick in for awhile and by then a judge could throw it out. Obama's 23 "executive orders" amounted to very little and were strictly for show. Any meaningful changes will have to go through Congress, which has its hands full with the debt ceiling and a full plate already. Most if not all of NY's and the proposed new federal laws are misdemeanor offenses, punishable by small fines.

Does anyone seriously think that law enforcement, which already is overburdened, is going to be able to expend the time, money and personnel to hunt down and confiscate every "assault rifle" and "hi-cap magazine" when there are millions out there?

 

[Tenn2]

I am sure we all understand that the gov. is going to do is create more crime. Has anyone seen or heard anything that will have an impact on criminals? The background check just keeps the honest people honest.

What irks me is there is never any mention about putting the ones who use guns in a crime away for a loooong time.

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

So, is the NRA spokesman saying that the organization supports forcing all private sales of firearms to go through a NICS check????

After talking about how the NRA supports background checks at gun shows he said -- the difficulty comes in when you're talking about you and me as next-door neighbors and you buy a shotgun and want to sell one to me. How do you enforce a background check on that? We want to see the proposal.

 

[jlrhiner]

As I understand it, the NRA has made it clear that an "assault weapon" ban and magazine ban are non-starters. If all are included in one bill, they will fight it all out. But if they are separate, they will look at the so called "gunshow loophole" and improved mental health tracking and can probably work something out. Regardless, the AWB and mag limits stand little chance for success, as everybody knows they were ineffective from before.

I also don't think there are really a lot of congress-critters that didn't take what happened last time as a very valuable lesson. Risking their political careers on a proven failure of a policy for a lame duck President really isn't smart. There'll be a few, but not enough.

Let's see what really winds up. And by no means, stop writing your congress-critter. If you have the ability, hand write or type letters to them. They need to know how we feel.

 

[walnutred]

And what is not being said is that the only way to enforce this is registration.

 

[hatt]

And every so often I wonder why I don't join the NRA.

I know mandatory .gov approval for all gun sales sounds great to the NRA but not so much what I had in mind.

 

[Sftail04]

I just had a handgun transfered to me at a local Gander Mountain here in Western, PA. They charged me $29.99. Also, I just purchased another handgun at a gun show here in PA and they did the background check. They charged me $5 to do it.

 

[PALADIN85020]

Let me understand this. Out of thousands of people rejected by background check as not being able to purchase a gun, only 44 last year were prosecuted for trying to do so. Forty-four. Thousands of people have committed a federal offense and just walked.

To me, "tougher background checks" means certain prosecution if you are caught lying on the federal form. Now THAT would simply be following the law that makes it a federal felony. To let the miscreants walk does nothing. Trust me, they'll get a gun in other ways - stealing or buying off the street.

It is still abhorrent to me to ask the government's permission when buying or selling between private individuals. It's up to me and/or the person selling to me to make that choice. If I show my CCW that verifies that I've been vetted as one of the good guys by the feds, that should be all I have to do. And no federal record should be involved.

John

 

[LostintheOzone]

And every so often I wonder why I don't join the NRA.

I know mandatory .gov approval for all gun sales sounds great to the NRA but not so much what I had in mind.

I'm not so sure I would call it Gov't approval. When they run a NICS check on me I never get approved and I still get my gun in about 5 working days. So in reality the ATF never approved it, they just didn't not approve it. In that case the gun stays with the FFL I guess. Not sure how that happens but it does. I'm a vet with no record what so ever and I have lived and worked in the same area for 35 years. That's a wonderful database they have there, just needs a little work. Jim

 

[Joewisc]

Other than raising revenues for FFL's, which have to pay for their licenses anyway, I see no point to background checks that are perfunctory at best and do nothing to deter would-be criminals from obtaining a firearm under false pretenses. It's a "feel-good" measure at best. Here in WI long gun purchases can be made at the point of sale, usually with little or no wait, while handgun purchases require a 48-hour wait. This is ironic given all the attention is on so-called "assault rifles." As I recall, the worst mass murder in modern U.S. history took 32 lives and wounded 17. The weapons were a Glock 19 and a Walther P22, both handguns.

 

[jtpur]

I had a good friend whose husband died and three weeks later her Mother died. She, her husband and I had been close since 7th grade. She called ,e one day, left a message saying she wanted help buying a gun. I did not help because with all she had going I wasn't sure of her motives. My point is I did not need the Government telling me she was or was not fine. I made the decision based on my common sense. It now dawns on me that I was the last and only American capable of common sense without government intervention. So now if my best friend wants to buy one of my guns it's obvious that I no longer can exercise my wise judgement and now I too am in need of government intervention.

 

[jlrhiner]

Maybe along with the "universal background checks", we can include nationwide CCW, exempting those that hold them from the restriction.

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

Maybe along with the "universal background checks", we can include nationwide CCW, exempting those that hold them from the restriction.

That's the type of thinking I like.

Whether a person agrees with that particular idea or not, it's negotiating FOR something. I've mentioned before that if we are going to negotiate on background checks then I'd like to see these absurd six months and longer delays in getting a Class 3 tax stamp negotiated away. An instant background check should be all that is required.

Gun control advocates have made it loud and clear what they are for... a ban on 'assault weapons', national gun registration, confiscation, reduced magazine capacity and tighter background checks. But what are our pro 2A friends in Congress for other than gun ownership damage control? I sure would like to see some leadership on something more than babbling about federalizing securtiy at the local elementary school. I understand that defending the Constitution necessarily puts our friends in a defensive posture, but there's plenty of opportunity to negotiate to improve the situation for gun owners, not just give away a bit less than the other side is asking for.

 

[mjb99]

As I recall, the worst mass murder in modern U.S. history took 32 lives and wounded 17. The weapons were a Glock 19 and a Walther P22, both handguns.

Actually, I think the worst mass murder occurred at the Happy Land nightclub in NYC - 87 people died. The murder weapon? A gas can.

Then there were the guys with the stolen standard capacity airliners...

 

[Joewisc]

Actually, I think the worst mass murder occurred at the Happy Land nightclub in NYC - 87 people died. The murder weapon? A gas can.

Then there were the guys with the stolen standard capacity airliners...

of course 9/11 ...3,000 dead. the weapons: box cutters.

 

[Titan]

The intent is for fees and shipping costs to deter private sales altogether.

 

[Vegetaman]

So... This doesn't bode well for giving your collection to your children, does it? If you have to pay a transfer fee... Or am I reading this wrong?

 

[Lenny_D]

So, is the NRA spokesman saying that the organization supports forcing all private sales of firearms to go through a NICS check????

That's exactly what he's saying but what I want to know is after the check is any record retained? Once you pass the NICS check the transaction should be deleted otherwise it is no more than a registration scheme.
Len