Criminal Background Checks on Private Firearm Sales

[peacepipe]

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

If Congress passed it no it would be perfectly fine most likely. By executive order they might though. They dont want a precedent where presidents just bypass congress all the time.

Would you really want your President to have that much power peace?

Obama stated very clearly that he could not ban ARs by executive order/action,& that it needed to go through congress. so it is a moot point.

[peacepipe]

Originally Posted by Pony Boy

Before 1998 the only thing the ATF required a licensed firearm dealer to do was verify the buyer had valid identification and that he answered no to all the questions on 4473 form. That form released the seller from any responsibility related to buyer’s use of the firearm in any criminal activity.

maybe so,but it is 2013 not 1997.

[cutthemdown]

Just make the penalty for felons with firearms to be like 15 yrs in prison. Trying to go after the sellers just hurts the economy even more. Liberals are like pirhanna picking at the economy. Its not just one policy its all of them added up that sap our revenue stream.

[peacepipe]

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

Just make the penalty for felons with firearms to be like 15 yrs in prison. Trying to go after the sellers just hurts the economy even more. Liberals are like pirhanna picking at the economy. Its not just one policy its all of them added up that sap our revenue stream.

thats stupid,so by your logic I can buy an AR,turn around and sell it to a known criminal or terrorist & not suffer any repecuusions cause it might hurt the economy. you are reaching.

[peacepipe]

if a criminal or terrorist is going the route of buying a gun without a BG check,it highly likely he is doing so to commit a crime that carries a heavier sentence. I doubt he is gonna give a ****,if buying a gun carries a longer sentence.

[errand]

Originally Posted by peacepipe

of course it was no problem then after columbine,but now after newtown its a problem.

So if they implemented the law after Columbine , how come it didn't prevent Sandy Hook?

you do realize the owner of the guns used wasn't the shooter right?

[errand]

Originally Posted by Pony Boy

I don't have a problem with a background when purchasing from a firearm dealer. I bought a Ruger LCP 380 semi-automatic handgun from a licensed dealer about 3 months ago, they performed a background check, filled out 4473 form and I was out the door with the gun in 20 minutes.

The problem is Obama calling for universal background checks that would require background checks between private citizens. That would be impossible to enforce.

I'm still waiting for the liberals to come up with their plan for keeping guns out of a criminal's hand. Because as always, criminals don't follow laws....hence the name "criminals".....

[cutthemdown]

Originally Posted by peacepipe

thats stupid,so by your logic I can buy an AR,turn around and sell it to a known criminal or terrorist & not suffer any repecuusions cause it might hurt the economy. you are reaching.

Not at all I am all for prosecutions of people who knowingly transfer them to a felon. I am saying if that person lies about it its not the sellers crime.

[cutthemdown]

Originally Posted by peacepipe

if a criminal or terrorist is going the route of buying a gun without a BG check,it highly likely he is doing so to commit a crime that carries a heavier sentence. I doubt he is gonna give a ****,if buying a gun carries a longer sentence.

So you are saying laws about owning a gun really only apply to law abiding citizens because criminals don't care? Wow what a theory. You are finally understanding why we are against laws about guns. They only apply to non criminals because like you said, criminals do not care.

[That One Guy]

All they really need to do is say if someone sells a gun to someone who was not legally allowed to own a gun, they're susceptible to punishment. Make any gun dealer required to do background checks on the individual for a very low cost ($5 or something) - the gun involved should not even be a consideration. There'd be no gun records but everyone could ensure crazies or felons aren't buying a gun within the law.

That fits the requirements, right?

[myMind]

Originally Posted by Pony Boy

Should we require all passengers to do a criminal background or mental illness check before they can purchase an airline ticket or would this be a violation of their civil rights? We could add everyone to the no-fly list until they pass a background check.

Do you think felons should be allowed to vote?

[errand]

Originally Posted by myMind

Do you think felons should be allowed to vote?

No they shouldn't....and they shouldn't own guns either. but pray tell how many felons do you know that actually follow the laws of this nation? If they did, they wouldn't be felons, right?

[Pony Boy]

Originally Posted by That One Guy

All they really need to do is say if someone sells a gun to someone who was not legally allowed to own a gun, they're susceptible to punishment. Make any gun dealer required to do background checks on the individual for a very low cost ($5 or something) - the gun involved should not even be a consideration. There'd be no gun records but everyone could ensure crazies or felons aren't buying a gun within the law.

That fits the requirements, right?

The gun dealer is a private businessman, how do you justify making him do a background check for a fee of $5.00? Would you allow the government to walk into your work place and tell you what you are gong to do and how much you will charge?

Does the seller have to do a background check also or just the buyer. The seller could be a criminal selling a firearm to a law abiding citizen, is that ok?

[That One Guy]

Originally Posted by Pony Boy

The gun dealer is a private businessman, how do you justify making him do a background check for a fee of $5.00? Would you allow the government to walk into your work place and tell you what you are gong to do and how much you will charge?

Does the seller have to do a background check also or just the buyer. The seller could be a criminal selling a firearm to a law abiding citizen, is that ok?

Make it a requirement that if you want the privilege to be able to conduct your own background checks, you have to be willing to do them at a reasonable cost. Allowing there to be a call center where you can just call in and get them done for free would be sufficient as well but then you'd have the issue of false IDs if people don't have a means to check. Another option would be to make the police station do them. Either way, not enough firearms are trading hands everyday to make it a monsterous burden. If that's really what holds it up, someone's just crying.

And the seller is either allowed to have a firearm or he isn't. If he isn't, it's up to him to decide if he wants to assume the risk of selling a firearm without the check or to go get the check and risk getting in trouble. I guess I don't really understand the issue here. If I were selling, I'd definitely want to get my name recorded as having checked the buyer's information on that particular day so as to ensure it was a legal transaction when it occurred and no repercussions could later come of it.

Again, not sure I really understand your issue on this one. If you're buying from a criminal, it'd also not hurt to have both people's name registered for the day the checks occurred so if the gun ever got traced back to trouble, you could point a finger at someone and establish the time frame in which you possessed it. Again, the gun info wouldn't be recorded anywhere but it's provide a means for everyone to keep themselves covered and it'd introduce a protection against someone escaping the looneybin and gathering an arsenal.

[Pony Boy]

Originally Posted by myMind

Do you think felons should be allowed to vote?

If a mentally ill person can't pass a background check to purchase a firearm, should they be able to vote? There is a difference between mentally ill and mentally incompetent so where do you draw the line?

[Pony Boy]

Originally Posted by That One Guy

Make it a requirement that if you want the privilege to be able to conduct your own background checks, you have to be willing to do them at a reasonable cost. Allowing there to be a call center where you can just call in and get them done for free would be sufficient as well but then you'd have the issue of false IDs if people don't have a means to check. Another option would be to make the police station do them. Either way, not enough firearms are trading hands everyday to make it a monsterous burden. If that's really what holds it up, someone's just crying.

And the seller is either allowed to have a firearm or he isn't. If he isn't, it's up to him to decide if he wants to assume the risk of selling a firearm without the check or to go get the check and risk getting in trouble. I guess I don't really understand the issue here. If I were selling, I'd definitely want to get my name recorded as having checked the buyer's information on that particular day so as to ensure it was a legal transaction when it occurred and no repercussions could later come of it.

Again, not sure I really understand your issue on this one. If you're buying from a criminal, it'd also not hurt to have both people's name registered for the day the checks occurred so if the gun ever got traced back to trouble, you could point a finger at someone and establish the time frame in which you possessed it. Again, the gun info wouldn't be recorded anywhere but it's provide a means for everyone to keep themselves covered and it'd introduce a protection against someone escaping the looneybin and gathering an arsenal.

If you want to force someone to do background checks at a low fee or for free then have it done at the local police station.

My point is background checks betweeen private citizens would be impossible to enforce and if they do occur, it will only be done between law abing private citizens that have nothing to hide.

[peacepipe]

Gun dealers must be complete idiots, I would assume a gun dealer would be smart enough to include the cost of a BG check in the price of the gun.

[That One Guy]

Originally Posted by Pony Boy

If you want to force someone to do background checks at a low fee or for free then have it done at the local police station.

My point is background checks betweeen private citizens would be impossible to enforce and if they do occur, it will only be done between law abing private citizens that have nothing to hide.

We all know nothing is really going to change if a person is committed to their plan. However, if they want to be able to say something changed then they could at least stop law abiding citizens from unknowingly selling to felons or crazies. I don't think It's really necessary and won't have major impacts but if it'll make the gun talk go away, it could be much worse.

[barryr]

The places where these latest mass shootings happened already have the strictest guns laws, yet some believe there can somehow be more? If a bad person wants to do harm, they will find a way and abiding by gun laws is hardly on top of their "to do" list. If the imbecile in the WH would do more about the borders, then maybe, just maybe that would help just in itself. What good is making more gun laws when guns can be funneled through our borders other than ensuring the criminals have the majority of them? It would be nice for the self appointed gun patrol crowd to think just a little more outside of the box for a change.

[Pony Boy]

Originally Posted by peacepipe

Gun dealers must be complete idiots, I would assume a gun dealer would be smart enough to include the cost of a BG check in the price of the gun.

Wakeup and smell the coffee........ We were not talking about gun dealers and background checks on firearms they sell, we were talking about a dealer being forced to do a background check on a sale between 2 private citizens for a low fee.

[peacepipe]

Originally Posted by Pony Boy

Wakeup and smell the coffee........ We were not talking about gun dealers and background checks on firearms they sell, we were talking about a dealer being forced to do a background check on a sale between 2 private citizens for a low fee.

The fee is low,in some states its free, for example in Alaska there is no charge at all for BG check. It doesn't cost much at all to do a BG check.

[peacepipe]

Originally Posted by barryr

The places where these latest mass shootings happened already have the strictest guns laws, yet some believe there can somehow be more? If a bad person wants to do harm, they will find a way and abiding by gun laws is hardly on top of their "to do" list. If the imbecile in the WH would do more about the borders, then maybe, just maybe that would help just in itself. What good is making more gun laws when guns can be funneled through our borders other than ensuring the criminals have the majority of them? It would be nice for the self appointed gun patrol crowd to think just a little more outside of the box for a change.

Lol,by your own logic,why do anything to secure the border. You're never going to stop people from illegally crossing the border.

[BroncoInferno]

Originally Posted by peacepipe

Lol,by your own logic,why do anything to secure the border. You're never going to stop people from illegally crossing the border.

, yeah, barryr an idiot as always. Why have any laws at all? After all, the criminals won't follow them!

[barryr]

Originally Posted by BroncoInferno

, yeah, barryr an idiot as always. Why have any laws at all? After all, the criminals won't follow them!

It doesn't take long for the liberals who to turn any forum they are of the majority into a bore like they have done around here. The usual name calling, ad hominem attacks of posters, pretending they are judge and jury of facts, and then wonder why no one is interested in "discussing" anything with them. No wonder they can't make it in radio since they put people to sleep. Great work.

[barryr]

Originally Posted by peacepipe

Lol,by your own logic,why do anything to secure the border. You're never going to stop people from illegally crossing the border.

Then by that logic, no reason to have Homeland Security since that is its job or drones killing people, which noticeably Obama supporters have stopped worrying about innocent people getting killed in any crossfires.