Hunting Washington Forum
Community => Advocacy, Agencies, Access => Topic started by: CoryTDF on August 02, 2013, 09:31:34 AM
-
:bash: :bash: :bash: Having a yard sale at my moms house and I was going to try and sell an SKS that have. All was well and good then my Brother-in-law who is a cop tells my mom she cant sell it. "What if you sell it to a convicted felon?" he asked her. Well sir, this is America and last I checked the private sales of firearms are completely legal! This is not Communist Russia! I cant believe this crap. What if you sell a car to a guy with 9 DUI's? we can what-if forever. The point is it's legal and there is no reason that she cant sell my gun. I do not believe in mandatory registration!
-
Wow! Is that a City, County, or State thing?
-
I think it's a brother-in-law doesn't know the law type thing.
-
Sell it anyway. However, it would behoove you and any responsible seller to request a CPL from someone purchasing a firearm from you. It's not a requirement or a law, but it covers your butt AND shows that you've taken steps to avoid selling to someone who is prohibited from owning a firearm. As responsible firearm owners, none of us want to put guns in the hands of dangerous people and/or felons. Keep a record of the transaction.
-
Sell it anyway. However, it would behoove you and any responsible seller to request a CPL from someone purchasing a firearm from you. It's not a requirement or a law, but it covers your butt AND shows that you've taken steps to avoid selling to someone who is prohibited from owning a firearm. As responsible firearm owners, none of us want to put guns in the hands of dangerous people and/or felons. Keep a record of the transaction.
And, your brother-in-law is full of crap. :yeah:
-
I suppose you could tell your BIL that you would only sell to someone with a conceal carry permit.
I see Pman beat me to it as I was typing.
-
I think it's a brother-in-law the cop doesn't know the law type thing.
Modifications made
-
And, I love that you used the word "poppycock" on a hunting forum! :chuckle: :chuckle:
-
BTW - personally, I would sell to someone who did not have a CPL if I believed them about being legally able to own the rifle. But if I had a BIL that was a cop and a stickler about that sort of thing, requiring a CPL would be the way to go to try to keep piece in the family. :twocents:
-
Seems to me that the brother in law isn't saying she CAN'T sell it (by law), but just that she SHOULDN'T sell it. Which is fine, that's his opinion and he has a right to it.
But, it's your gun and your right to sell it to whoever you want. I don't believe in the whole requiring a concealed pistol license in order to purchase a rifle. Makes zero sense. I personally don't have a CPL and will never have one, because I don't believe it should be required for simply exercising a person's constitutional rights.
So because I don't have a CPL I shouldn't be trusted with a rifle? What a bunch of malarkey. You can tell a lot about a person just from their appearance and how they talk. If you have a bad feeling about someone, don't sell them the gun. But otherwise, it's perfectly legal, so don't sweat it.
-
I don't know Bobcat. The op said his BIL said can't. Not shouldn't. But your right a cpl is not required to purchase a long gun. I personally wouldn't require one. I would simply ask the purchaser if he maintains his legal rights to own a firearm and if he says he does then you have CYA and done all you need to do by law.
-
Seems to me that the brother in law isn't saying she CAN'T sell it (by law), but just that she SHOULDN'T sell it. Which is fine, that's his opinion and he has a right to it.
But, it's your gun and your right to sell it to whoever you want. I don't believe in the whole requiring a concealed pistol license in order to purchase a rifle. Makes zero sense. I personally don't have a CPL and will never have one, because I don't believe it should be required for simply exercising a person's constitutional rights.
So because I don't have a CPL I shouldn't be trusted with a rifle? What a bunch of malarkey. You can tell a lot about a person just from their appearance and how they talk. If you have a bad feeling about someone, don't sell them the gun. But otherwise, it's perfectly legal, so don't sweat it.
Don't get your Kevlar in a bunch, Bobcat. Requiring a CPL is for the seller's benefit in case the gun is used in a crime and traced back to him. No one has to do it, but I do. I've sold a couple of firearms to members of this forum and want to see it. I just like to cover my bases and I'm not infringing on anyone's Constitutional rights by doing it. If they're legal, they can buy a gun anywhere. I'm not stopping them from doing that.
-
And, I love that you used the word "poppycock" on a hunting forum! :chuckle: :chuckle:
I took the words I was thinking and tried to find the g rated version. :chuckle:
My BIL also made a comment to me about high cap mags and assault rifles once. But he bought his son an AR. :dunno: double standard??
It's my gun. This is AMERICA!!!! i'll sell the damn thing to whoever I feel like. Obviously not some dirtbag looking guy or a known felon. I thought that kinda went without saying. I am a Prison Guard I do know alot of the local felons.
-
And, I love that you used the word "poppycock" on a hunting forum! :chuckle: :chuckle:
I took the words I was thinking and tried to find the g rated version. :chuckle:
My BIL also made a comment to me about high cap mags and assault rifles once. But he bought his son an AR. :dunno: double standard??
It's my gun. This is AMERICA!!!! i'll sell the damn thing to whoever I feel like. Obviously not some dirtbag looking guy or a known felon. I thought that kinda went without saying. I am a Prison Guard I do know alot of the local felons.
And you apparently know more about the law.
-
Seems to me that the brother in law isn't saying she CAN'T sell it (by law), but just that she SHOULDN'T sell it. Which is fine, that's his opinion and he has a right to it.
But, it's your gun and your right to sell it to whoever you want. I don't believe in the whole requiring a concealed pistol license in order to purchase a rifle. Makes zero sense. I personally don't have a CPL and will never have one, because I don't believe it should be required for simply exercising a person's constitutional rights.
So because I don't have a CPL I shouldn't be trusted with a rifle? What a bunch of malarkey. You can tell a lot about a person just from their appearance and how they talk. If you have a bad feeling about someone, don't sell them the gun. But otherwise, it's perfectly legal, so don't sweat it.
Don't get your Kevlar in a bunch, Bobcat. Requiring a CPL is for the seller's benefit in case the gun is used in a crime and traced back to him. No one has to do it, but I do. I've sold a couple of firearms to members of this forum and want to see it. I just like to cover my bases and I'm not infringing on anyone's Constitutional rights by doing it. If they're legal, they can buy a gun anywhere. I'm not stopping them from doing that.
You dont need a CPL to buy ANY gun though? :dunno: I understand what you are saying but I would sell to anybody who I feel is ok. This is a second hand gun to me and since this is AMERICA I dont have it registered to myself. You don't ask a guy for his driving record when selling him a car or drivers license for that matter do you? it is a CYA and i see absolutely what you are saying but if a guy or gal looked ok and wanted to buy the gun I'm cool with selling it.
-
I don't know Bobcat. The op said his BIL said can't. Not shouldn't. But your right a cpl is not required to purchase a long gun. I personally wouldn't require one. I would simply ask the purchaser if he maintains his legal rights to own a firearm and if he says he does then you have CYA and done all you need to do by law.
A CPL isn't even required to purchase a pistol.
I'd do the same thing when selling a firearm. Just ask the buyer if he can legally own the firearm. Then it is up to you whether you believe them or not.
I also understand those that don't want to take the risk of taking someone's word on it.
(Of course, I'm also of the opinion that the law should allow some felons that have done their time and paid their debt to society, the right to own firearms........but that is a whole other discussion there.)
-
I don't know Bobcat. The op said his BIL said can't. Not shouldn't. But your right a cpl is not required to purchase a long gun. I personally wouldn't require one. I would simply ask the purchaser if he maintains his legal rights to own a firearm and if he says he does then you have CYA and done all you need to do by law.
A CPL isn't even required to purchase a pistol.
I'd do the same thing when selling a firearm. Just ask the buyer if he can legally own the firearm. Then it is up to you whether you believe them or not.
I also understand those that don't want to take the risk of taking someone's word on it.
(Of course, I'm also of the opinion that the law should allow some felons that have done their time and paid their debt to society, the right to own firearms........but that is a whole other discussion there.)
[/b][/u]
I agree with this and still understand that knowingly selling them a firearm is a felony for me. No way, baby!
-
I don't know Bobcat. The op said his BIL said can't. Not shouldn't. But your right a cpl is not required to purchase a long gun. I personally wouldn't require one. I would simply ask the purchaser if he maintains his legal rights to own a firearm and if he says he does then you have CYA and done all you need to do by law.
A CPL isn't even required to purchase a pistol.
I'd do the same thing when selling a firearm. Just ask the buyer if he can legally own the firearm. Then it is up to you whether you believe them or not.
I also understand those that don't want to take the risk of taking someone's word on it.
(Of course, I'm also of the opinion that the law should allow some felons that have done their time and paid their debt to society, the right to own firearms........but that is a whole other discussion there.)
Your right and I do know that. I was just referring to Bobcat's comment. I do however require a cpl if I am selling a handgun. Otherwise I will send it to a ffl at the purchaser's expense.
-
Don't get your Kevlar in a bunch, Bobcat. Requiring a CPL is for the seller's benefit in case the gun is used in a crime and traced back to him. No one has to do it, but I do. I've sold a couple of firearms to members of this forum and want to see it. I just like to cover my bases and I'm not infringing on anyone's Constitutional rights by doing it. If they're legal, they can buy a gun anywhere. I'm not stopping them from doing that.
The buyer having a CPL doesn't guarantee they won't commit a crime with the firearm, just says they can own/conceal one. A bill of sale on the sellers end would be able to prove you were not in possession/ownership of said firearm if it were to be used in a crime at a later date.
I can't quote it at the moment but I thought the law said it was illegal to sell to a "known" felon? Still, wouldn't want to deal with the hassle of finding out down the road that that person turned out to be a felon and acquired said firearm from me. If you really wanted to be sure, do an FFL transfer. :tup:
Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2
-
Look up, Straw Purchases, for gun sales.
-
The laws says you cannot deliver to someone that you have reasonable cause to believe is ineligible to possess. RCW 9.41.080
-
Im sure if you asked a 'not known felon' if they could legally own a gun they would say 'yes' and not disclose their personal record. Afterall.....they are a felon and could lie through their teeth.
-
Everyone who says it's not required is absolutely correct. Our rights, however, are under attack and our actions, under a microscope. There are a large percentage of Americans who stupidly think that we no longer need the 2nd Amendment. If one of us sells to someone without checking and that person uses the firearm to commit a crime, it's a black eye on personal sales and a one-way ticket to new laws.
It's like ethical behavior while hunting. There are many things that aren't against the rules that would make hunting look bad to the over 96% of people who don't hunt. You can be indignant and refuse to do the things which will help us maintain a positive public profile, or you can choose not to and risk losing the support of the general public. I choose to be careful when selling a firearm to another. Do what you want.
-
Honestly after i sell a gun it's out of my life and my mind. I don't care what happens with it. I have no feeling of responsibility for bad decisions made by other people. If i sell a knife and a guys stabs a person i don't feel bad that i sold the knife. I feel bad the guy made a bad choice but it's not my fault he did that. :twocents:
-
Some of you guys worry way to much.
-
Everyone who says it's not required is absolutely correct. Our rights, however, are under attack and our actions, under a microscope. There are a large percentage of Americans who stupidly think that we no longer need the 2nd Amendment. If one of us sells to someone without checking and that person uses the firearm to commit a crime, it's a black eye on personal sales and a one-way ticket to new laws.
It's like ethical behavior while hunting. There are many things that aren't against the rules that would make hunting look bad to the over 96% of people who don't hunt. You can be indignant and refuse to do the things which will help us maintain a positive public profile, or you can choose not to and risk losing the support of the general public. I choose to be careful when selling a firearm to another. Do what you want.
So private sellers should now require that Guns be registered? doesn't that pretty much negate the purpose of a private sale. I do not believe in gun registration. Plain and simple. If you pick up my rifle look it over look like you know what you are doing and dont look like a dirt bag i'm fine with selling it to you. :twocents:
-
Everyone who says it's not required is absolutely correct. Our rights, however, are under attack and our actions, under a microscope. There are a large percentage of Americans who stupidly think that we no longer need the 2nd Amendment. If one of us sells to someone without checking and that person uses the firearm to commit a crime, it's a black eye on personal sales and a one-way ticket to new laws.
It's like ethical behavior while hunting. There are many things that aren't against the rules that would make hunting look bad to the over 96% of people who don't hunt. You can be indignant and refuse to do the things which will help us maintain a positive public profile, or you can choose not to and risk losing the support of the general public. I choose to be careful when selling a firearm to another. Do what you want.
In a sense this isn't all that different than what we are fighting the gov't to keep them from doing though.
-
You're debating legal vs. moral responsibility. Seldom do the two match up.
-
Everyone who says it's not required is absolutely correct. Our rights, however, are under attack and our actions, under a microscope. There are a large percentage of Americans who stupidly think that we no longer need the 2nd Amendment. If one of us sells to someone without checking and that person uses the firearm to commit a crime, it's a black eye on personal sales and a one-way ticket to new laws.
It's like ethical behavior while hunting. There are many things that aren't against the rules that would make hunting look bad to the over 96% of people who don't hunt. You can be indignant and refuse to do the things which will help us maintain a positive public profile, or you can choose not to and risk losing the support of the general public. I choose to be careful when selling a firearm to another. Do what you want.
In a sense this isn't all that different than what we are fighting the gov't to keep them from doing though.
It's actually the opposite of what the government is trying to do. It's taking on personal responsibility and preventing problems instead of ignoring it and waiting for the dictator to tell us what to do.
-
Everyone who says it's not required is absolutely correct. Our rights, however, are under attack and our actions, under a microscope. There are a large percentage of Americans who stupidly think that we no longer need the 2nd Amendment. If one of us sells to someone without checking and that person uses the firearm to commit a crime, it's a black eye on personal sales and a one-way ticket to new laws.
It's like ethical behavior while hunting. There are many things that aren't against the rules that would make hunting look bad to the over 96% of people who don't hunt. You can be indignant and refuse to do the things which will help us maintain a positive public profile, or you can choose not to and risk losing the support of the general public. I choose to be careful when selling a firearm to another. Do what you want.
In a sense this isn't all that different than what we are fighting the gov't to keep them from doing though.
It's actually the opposite of what the government is trying to do. It's taking on personal responsibility and preventing problems instead of ignoring it and waiting for the dictator to tell us what to do.
But your doing an impromptu background check before selling any firearm. Which is exactly what the gov't wants. All gun purchases to be checked prior to sale. Unless I totally mis understood you.
-
Everyone who says it's not required is absolutely correct. Our rights, however, are under attack and our actions, under a microscope. There are a large percentage of Americans who stupidly think that we no longer need the 2nd Amendment. If one of us sells to someone without checking and that person uses the firearm to commit a crime, it's a black eye on personal sales and a one-way ticket to new laws.
It's like ethical behavior while hunting. There are many things that aren't against the rules that would make hunting look bad to the over 96% of people who don't hunt. You can be indignant and refuse to do the things which will help us maintain a positive public profile, or you can choose not to and risk losing the support of the general public. I choose to be careful when selling a firearm to another. Do what you want.
In a sense this isn't all that different than what we are fighting the gov't to keep them from doing though.
It's actually the opposite of what the government is trying to do. It's taking on personal responsibility and preventing problems instead of ignoring it and waiting for the dictator to tell us what to do.
:tup:
-
Everyone who says it's not required is absolutely correct. Our rights, however, are under attack and our actions, under a microscope. There are a large percentage of Americans who stupidly think that we no longer need the 2nd Amendment. If one of us sells to someone without checking and that person uses the firearm to commit a crime, it's a black eye on personal sales and a one-way ticket to new laws.
It's like ethical behavior while hunting. There are many things that aren't against the rules that would make hunting look bad to the over 96% of people who don't hunt. You can be indignant and refuse to do the things which will help us maintain a positive public profile, or you can choose not to and risk losing the support of the general public. I choose to be careful when selling a firearm to another. Do what you want.
In a sense this isn't all that different than what we are fighting the gov't to keep them from doing though.
It's actually the opposite of what the government is trying to do. It's taking on personal responsibility and preventing problems instead of ignoring it and waiting for the dictator to tell us what to do.
But your doing an impromptu background check before selling any firearm. Which is exactly what the gov't wants. All gun purchases to be checked prior to sale. Unless I totally mis understood you.
Yes, you totally misunderstand me. I'm saying that if we take personal responsibility which nets positive results, then the general public will support us in keeping our rights when the dictator wants to take personal then away and force us to do his bidding. It's an enormous difference. Voluntary responsibility v. Losing our rights.
-
Everyone who says it's not required is absolutely correct. Our rights, however, are under attack and our actions, under a microscope. There are a large percentage of Americans who stupidly think that we no longer need the 2nd Amendment. If one of us sells to someone without checking and that person uses the firearm to commit a crime, it's a black eye on personal sales and a one-way ticket to new laws.
It's like ethical behavior while hunting. There are many things that aren't against the rules that would make hunting look bad to the over 96% of people who don't hunt. You can be indignant and refuse to do the things which will help us maintain a positive public profile, or you can choose not to and risk losing the support of the general public. I choose to be careful when selling a firearm to another. Do what you want.
In a sense this isn't all that different than what we are fighting the gov't to keep them from doing though.
It's actually the opposite of what the government is trying to do. It's taking on personal responsibility and preventing problems instead of ignoring it and waiting for the dictator to tell us what to do.
But your doing an impromptu background check before selling any firearm. Which is exactly what the gov't wants. All gun purchases to be checked prior to sale. Unless I totally mis understood you.
Yes, you totally misunderstand me. I'm saying that if we take personal responsibility which nets positive results, then the general public will support us in keeping our rights when the dictator wants to take personal then away and force us to do his bidding. It's an enormous difference. Voluntary responsibility v. Losing our rights.
Ok, but this is the statement I am referring to. It appears you are advocating that we be diligent and "check out" anyone we make a private sale to. Is that what you meant? Cause if so that is EXACTLY what the gov't wants.
-
Personally (and I had a thread explaining this as well), I support a change in the law to make it a felony to sell to someone ineligible to possess (I did have exceptions for CPL holders).
If you don't care and want to sell to whoever walks up, that is perfectly fine and your right. But I also believe there is some responsibility on our part when selling firearms, not to simply turn a blind eye with a wink, wink, nod, nod and never try to find out if the person is eligible or not, thus staying ignorant. Because of this, I don't believe ignorance should be an excuse and therefore put the onus on the seller to ensure they can possess, or be willing to live with the consequences.
The reasons we end up with the laws that we have is a lack of responsibility on the part of citizens, resulting in the government trying to instill values and responsibility.
Right/wrong and legal/illegal are completely different things. Personally, while it is legal to sell to anyone you want as long as you remain ignorant and turn a blind eye, I don't believe that is the responsible (right) thing to do. I know my thoughts are not popular on here...so be it. :twocents:
-
If you think a felon that wants to buy a gun is going to tell the truth then you are the one that is ignorant.
-
I know my thoughts are not popular on here...so be it. :twocents:
No they are not. :tdown:
-
My thought is that if a person is so dangerous that he cannot be trusted with a gun, then they never should have set him free in the first place.
It shouldn't be up to me to determine that.
Keep these people in jail if they can't be trusted to be roaming the streets! :DOH:
-
Everyone who says it's not required is absolutely correct. Our rights, however, are under attack and our actions, under a microscope. There are a large percentage of Americans who stupidly think that we no longer need the 2nd Amendment. If one of us sells to someone without checking and that person uses the firearm to commit a crime, it's a black eye on personal sales and a one-way ticket to new laws.
It's like ethical behavior while hunting. There are many things that aren't against the rules that would make hunting look bad to the over 96% of people who don't hunt. You can be indignant and refuse to do the things which will help us maintain a positive public profile, or you can choose not to and risk losing the support of the general public. I choose to be careful when selling a firearm to another. Do what you want.
In a sense this isn't all that different than what we are fighting the gov't to keep them from doing though.
It's actually the opposite of what the government is trying to do. It's taking on personal responsibility and preventing problems instead of ignoring it and waiting for the dictator to tell us what to do.
But your doing an impromptu background check before selling any firearm. Which is exactly what the gov't wants. All gun purchases to be checked prior to sale. Unless I totally mis understood you.
Yes, you totally misunderstand me. I'm saying that if we take personal responsibility which nets positive results, then the general public will support us in keeping our rights when the dictator wants to take personal then away and force us to do his bidding. It's an enormous difference. Voluntary responsibility v. Losing our rights.
Ok, but this is the statement I am referring to. It appears you are advocating that we be diligent and "check out" anyone we make a private sale to. Is that what you meant? Cause if so that is EXACTLY what the gov't wants.
I'm done. You know exactly what I said and meant. Time to go camping/scouting. Bye all.
-
Everyone who says it's not required is absolutely correct. Our rights, however, are under attack and our actions, under a microscope. There are a large percentage of Americans who stupidly think that we no longer need the 2nd Amendment. If one of us sells to someone without checking and that person uses the firearm to commit a crime, it's a black eye on personal sales and a one-way ticket to new laws.
It's like ethical behavior while hunting. There are many things that aren't against the rules that would make hunting look bad to the over 96% of people who don't hunt. You can be indignant and refuse to do the things which will help us maintain a positive public profile, or you can choose not to and risk losing the support of the general public. I choose to be careful when selling a firearm to another. Do what you want.
In a sense this isn't all that different than what we are fighting the gov't to keep them from doing though.
It's actually the opposite of what the government is trying to do. It's taking on personal responsibility and preventing problems instead of ignoring it and waiting for the dictator to tell us what to do.
But your doing an impromptu background check before selling any firearm. Which is exactly what the gov't wants. All gun purchases to be checked prior to sale. Unless I totally mis understood you.
Yes, you totally misunderstand me. I'm saying that if we take personal responsibility which nets positive results, then the general public will support us in keeping our rights when the dictator wants to take personal then away and force us to do his bidding. It's an enormous difference. Voluntary responsibility v. Losing our rights.
Ok, but this is the statement I am referring to. It appears you are advocating that we be diligent and "check out" anyone we make a private sale to. Is that what you meant? Cause if so that is EXACTLY what the gov't wants.
I'm done. You know exactly what I said and meant. Time to go camping/scouting. Bye all.
If I did I wouldn't be asking. Don't get your undies in a bunch. Just asking you to clarify and or back up what you said. :dunno:
-
:bash: :bash: :bash: Having a yard sale at my moms house and I was going to try and sell an SKS that have. All was well and good then my Brother-in-law who is a cop tells my mom she cant sell it. "What if you sell it to a convicted felon?" he asked her. Well sir, this is America and last I checked the private sales of firearms are completely legal! This is not Communist Russia! I cant believe this crap. What if you sell a car to a guy with 9 DUI's? we can what-if forever. The point is it's legal and there is no reason that she cant sell my gun. I do not believe in mandatory registration!
ya just sell it don't worry. If i could afford it i'd buy it.
glad people stand up to over regulative states.
-
Sell it, then report it stolen........... :chuckle:
-
Sell it, then report it stolen........... :chuckle:
:nono: :lol4:
-
Selling a gun is no different than selling a car, knife, or baseball bat. :twocents:
I agree with the thought that if a person can't be trusted with a gun why is he trusted to roam freely among us using cars, knives, and baseball bats which can all be just as lethal. :twocents:
I think some of you are playing right into the hands of the liberals who want more controls on all the activities of others. :twocents:
-
Selling a gun is no different than selling a car, knife, or baseball bat. :twocents:
I agree with the thought that if a person can't be trusted with a gun why is he trusted to roam freely among us using cars, knives, and baseball bats which can all be just as lethal. :twocents:
I think some of you are playing right into the hands of the liberals who want more controls on all the activities of others. :twocents:
:yeah:
And this is not the only issue where we do it!!
-
Everyone who says it's not required is absolutely correct. Our rights, however, are under attack and our actions, under a microscope. There are a large percentage of Americans who stupidly think that we no longer need the 2nd Amendment. If one of us sells to someone without checking and that person uses the firearm to commit a crime, it's a black eye on personal sales and a one-way ticket to new laws.
It's like ethical behavior while hunting. There are many things that aren't against the rules that would make hunting look bad to the over 96% of people who don't hunt. You can be indignant and refuse to do the things which will help us maintain a positive public profile, or you can choose not to and risk losing the support of the general public. I choose to be careful when selling a firearm to another. Do what you want.
In a sense this isn't all that different than what we are fighting the gov't to keep them from doing though.
It's actually the opposite of what the government is trying to do. It's taking on personal responsibility and preventing problems instead of ignoring it and waiting for the dictator to tell us what to do.
But your doing an impromptu background check before selling any firearm. Which is exactly what the gov't wants. All gun purchases to be checked prior to sale. Unless I totally mis understood you.
Yes, you totally misunderstand me. I'm saying that if we take personal responsibility which nets positive results, then the general public will support us in keeping our rights when the dictator wants to take personal then away and force us to do his bidding. It's an enormous difference. Voluntary responsibility v. Losing our rights.
Ok, but this is the statement I am referring to. It appears you are advocating that we be diligent and "check out" anyone we make a private sale to. Is that what you meant? Cause if so that is EXACTLY what the gov't wants.
I'm done. You know exactly what I said and meant. Time to go camping/scouting. Bye all.
If I did I wouldn't be asking. Don't get your undies in a bunch. Just asking you to clarify and or back up what you said. :dunno:
I agree with Piano, the big difference is that the private seller is not RECORDING and KEEPING a list of who is buying what to be used against the buyer at a later date.
-
And, I'm not talking about a legal requirement, either. I would be against that. For me personally, I'm going to cover my butt and request a CPL or higher. I don't have any expectation of what others do when they sell firearms in private sales.
-
Everyone who says it's not required is absolutely correct. Our rights, however, are under attack and our actions, under a microscope. There are a large percentage of Americans who stupidly think that we no longer need the 2nd Amendment. If one of us sells to someone without checking and that person uses the firearm to commit a crime, it's a black eye on personal sales and a one-way ticket to new laws.
It's like ethical behavior while hunting. There are many things that aren't against the rules that would make hunting look bad to the over 96% of people who don't hunt. You can be indignant and refuse to do the things which will help us maintain a positive public profile, or you can choose not to and risk losing the support of the general public. I choose to be careful when selling a firearm to another. Do what you want.
In a sense this isn't all that different than what we are fighting the gov't to keep them from doing though.
It's actually the opposite of what the government is trying to do. It's taking on personal responsibility and preventing problems instead of ignoring it and waiting for the dictator to tell us what to do.
But your doing an impromptu background check before selling any firearm. Which is exactly what the gov't wants. All gun purchases to be checked prior to sale. Unless I totally mis understood you.
Yes, you totally misunderstand me. I'm saying that if we take personal responsibility which nets positive results, then the general public will support us in keeping our rights when the dictator wants to take personal then away and force us to do his bidding. It's an enormous difference. Voluntary responsibility v. Losing our rights.
Ok, but this is the statement I am referring to. It appears you are advocating that we be diligent and "check out" anyone we make a private sale to. Is that what you meant? Cause if so that is EXACTLY what the gov't wants.
I'm done. You know exactly what I said and meant. Time to go camping/scouting. Bye all.
If I did I wouldn't be asking. Don't get your undies in a bunch. Just asking you to clarify and or back up what you said. :dunno:
I agree with Piano, the big difference is that the private seller is not RECORDING and KEEPING a list of who is buying what to be used against the buyer at a later date.
But your still doing a check. Whether you keep the info or not your still doing a background check which is the exact same thing the gov't wants to do that we are fighting. To me it's not all that different.
-
Turkeyf, not sure how you cannot see the difference between someone being responsible about who they sell their firearm to and the government wanting and keeping records of who owns what so that they can come get it if they feel like it.
I don't know how to put it more clearly so I'm over and out on this as well, I guess. :dunno:
-
Everyone who says it's not required is absolutely correct. Our rights, however, are under attack and our actions, under a microscope. There are a large percentage of Americans who stupidly think that we no longer need the 2nd Amendment. If one of us sells to someone without checking and that person uses the firearm to commit a crime, it's a black eye on personal sales and a one-way ticket to new laws.
It's like ethical behavior while hunting. There are many things that aren't against the rules that would make hunting look bad to the over 96% of people who don't hunt. You can be indignant and refuse to do the things which will help us maintain a positive public profile, or you can choose not to and risk losing the support of the general public. I choose to be careful when selling a firearm to another. Do what you want.
In a sense this isn't all that different than what we are fighting the gov't to keep them from doing though.
It's actually the opposite of what the government is trying to do. It's taking on personal responsibility and preventing problems instead of ignoring it and waiting for the dictator to tell us what to do.
But your doing an impromptu background check before selling any firearm. Which is exactly what the gov't wants. All gun purchases to be checked prior to sale. Unless I totally mis understood you.
Yes, you totally misunderstand me. I'm saying that if we take personal responsibility which nets positive results, then the general public will support us in keeping our rights when the dictator wants to take personal then away and force us to do his bidding. It's an enormous difference. Voluntary responsibility v. Losing our rights.
Ok, but this is the statement I am referring to. It appears you are advocating that we be diligent and "check out" anyone we make a private sale to. Is that what you meant? Cause if so that is EXACTLY what the gov't wants.
I'm done. You know exactly what I said and meant. Time to go camping/scouting. Bye all.
If I did I wouldn't be asking. Don't get your undies in a bunch. Just asking you to clarify and or back up what you said. :dunno:
I agree with Piano, the big difference is that the private seller is not RECORDING and KEEPING a list of who is buying what to be used against the buyer at a later date.
But your still doing a check. Whether you keep the info or not your still doing a background check which is the exact same thing the gov't wants to do that we are fighting. To me it's not all that different.
Yeah, you thought I was talking to you. I wasn't.
-
Turkeyf, not sure how you cannot see the difference between someone being responsible about who they sell their firearm to and the government wanting and keeping records of who owns what so that they can come get it if they feel like it.
I don't know how to put it more clearly so I'm over and out on this as well, I guess. :dunno:
It's difficult when someone won't see what you're saying because their own voice is so loud in their head. He's not going to be able to get this.
-
Turkeyf, not sure how you cannot see the difference between someone being responsible about who they sell their firearm to and the government wanting and keeping records of who owns what so that they can come get it if they feel like it.
I don't know how to put it more clearly so I'm over and out on this as well, I guess. :dunno:
It's difficult when someone won't see what you're saying because their own voice is so loud in their head. He's not going to be able to get this.
This is the internet :)
-
Turkeyf, not sure how you cannot see the difference between someone being responsible about who they sell their firearm to and the government wanting and keeping records of who owns what so that they can come get it if they feel like it.
I don't know how to put it more clearly so I'm over and out on this as well, I guess. :dunno:
I am referring to universal background checks not the gov't keeping records. That is the difference to me. I absolutely oppose record keeping as well as universal background checks. My response was cause it appeared some were in favor of doing their own impromptu background checks. Which to me is no different than the gov't doing it. If your going to do a background check on someone buying a gun from you why not let the gov't do it?
-
Yeah, you thought I was talking to you. I wasn't.
I wasn't talking to you. Your arrogance and need to have to have the last word makes you only think I was. ;)
-
:bash: :bash: :bash: Having a yard sale at my moms house and I was going to try and sell an SKS that have. All was well and good then my Brother-in-law who is a cop tells my mom she cant sell it. "What if you sell it to a convicted felon?" he asked her. Well sir, this is America and last I checked the private sales of firearms are completely legal! This is not Communist Russia! I cant believe this crap. What if you sell a car to a guy with 9 DUI's? we can what-if forever. The point is it's legal and there is no reason that she cant sell my gun. I do not believe in mandatory registration!
He should hand in his badge and apply at mcdonalds.