Back in December, St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner predicted that a private sales ban is the most likely federal infringement on that which shall not be infringed–far easier to pass than banning so-called “assault weapons” (gun banner-speak for “regime change rifles”) or “high capacity” magazines (gun banner-speak for “standard capacity magazines”) will be.
If anything about that assessment has changed, the difference is that it looks still more accurate now. In that article, we noted that even many supposedly “pro-gun” Republicans have historically supported private sales bans even before the Sandy Hook atrocity created an anti-gun feeding frenzy that has terrified many of gun rights advocates’ less stalwart “allies” in Congress.
Since then, NRA president David Keene has made clear that the NRA is quite willing to trade Americans’ right to privately buy and sell firearms for . . . well, really for nothing but perhaps a bit of a delay before the gun prohibitionists renew their push to eviscerate every other aspect of the Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms
Note: I’m not 100% against NICS checks for private sales at gun shows. When I was in law enforcement, I personally observed “prohibited persons” trying to buy guns from private sellers at the shows. The article implies that we are talking about all private sales.
Not only is the NRA apparently willing to accept–and even advocate–an infringement that Mike Vanderboegh, of Sipsey Street Irregulars, frequently characterizes by pointing out that “not even King George the Third was so grasping,” he also does not appear particularly concerned about the threat of a “blanket dragnet” for disarming the supposedly “mentally ill.”
Some people are saying that between Obamacare and Barry’s 23 executive orders, it’s going to be easier to get someone into the prohibited category for the mental health ban. Debatable?
Is NRA unknowingly facilitating this?
Do we wake up one morning and anyone who’s ever taken an anti-depressant would end up being prohibited?
I’m all for adding the ranks of the adjudicated (as in: a judge decides) mentally ill for their 2A rights being denied, but reading this entire article I am concerned that NRA has become an enabler of the gun grabbers, at least on this issue.
NRA caving?
Is that publication spinning the story inaccurately?
this is a double edge sword while back in the late 80’s and during the last Ban I went to many Gun shows with polytech AK 's to turn a good profit and I had many that approached me that i did not feel comfortable selling the rifle to .I ended up selling them to a local gun shop Because of this .
Most of the weapons i have sold have been to people i know personally or to a FFL dealer I always thought of how bad it would be for a weapon i sold to turn up in a bad situation .
Now for the Mental health Issue I take no anti-depressants but the wife has for chronic Pain with Lupus it worries me this could be a easy way of throwing someone on the ban list as in oh you are Not of right mind to handle a firearm .
I noticed Last year getting my DOT physical Done a DR in a Box was asking about weapons in my house I said no .
My current DR who is also My wives DR is a CCW himself and has seen my carry gun on me, Never asked anything other than another shooter would and no where has he written down i own firearms i think this will be a tough one for some DR’s .
But then again maybe the DR will take more notice of the Pills and effects he is writing scripts for .
I am sure their are others that can answer it better .
It’s hard when your major arguement is that we need to keep the guns out of crazies hands and then you are against back ground checks. The other side has done a good job branding it “Universal Background” checks.
I’d like less govt intervention when it comes to sales, but I think the major issue most people would have with this is that it would make it easier to institute a registry of firearms. What I would like to see is some kind of language that the information wouldn’t be used to make a defacto registry. The whole 4473 form, lifetime records and current data purging of sales info is hard for me to totally follow.
On the list of bad things to happen, this is less worse than a lot of other things. Unlike the AW and mag bans, it might actually do some benefit to keep crazies from getting guns, especially if they work the database right.
I think it is important that the NRA, even if it fights it behind the scenes, publicly is at least neutral on it with a statement something like “We are committed to keeping guns out of the hands people who shouldn’t have guns.”
I’m not sure how I feel about mandatory background checks. Most ethical gun owners will not sell to individuals whom they do not know or do not come with high recommendations from someone they trust. I have personally never sold a gun to anyone other than friends, family, a gun dealer or someone who was identified as trustworthy by trusted friends or family.
I have misgivings about gun dealers who sell to individuals who they suspect might not be trustworthy enough but do so anyway based on the fact that their background check came back positive. I have seen customers who, based on their questions is probably planning on selling the gun they are buying to another person (straw man purchase). While what they are doing is within their legal rights, it is barely so.
IMHO, this all comes about because people put sales and the almighty dollar before common sense. As a result, the rest of us who actually do use common sense and not sell to strangers without going through a licensed dealer.
FWIW, I was almost involved in an illegal gun sale when someone who I knew and who I thought could be trusted tried to buy a handgun I had on consignment at a mutual friend’s gun shop. He wanted to me take the gun out of consignment and do a private sale to him. At first I thought nothing of his suggestion but told him that such a course of action amounts to a straw purchase.
I told him he should go ahead and just buy it and go through the paperwork for it (I even agreed to sell it to him for less than I was asking). But he kept on insisting on me taking it out of the gun shop and then selling it to him. I knew this was a no-no because I would have to go through the background check just to do so and I told him I was not about to commit a straw purchased.
A few weeks later I get a call from a local Investigator (whom I knew from my LE days) who informed me that this “friend” had received a Judge’s order not to purchase, possess or handle any firearm outside of his military duties (he was Active Army) until his pending trial. I ended up giving the Investigator copies of the conversation logs (it was done via text messaging) and submit to an interview.
The last I heard he was remanded to the military for safe keeping. He was transferred to a military stockade where he must stay until his trial. It is people like him that gives the rest of us gun owners a bad name. YMMV.
I have not changed since the 80s when I and the NRA fought to prevent them from being enacted. The idea a BGC is going to prevent a bad guy from getting a gun is as silly as thinking not selling crack at the pharmacy is somehow preventing crackheads from getting crack. It is just feel good legislation. The solution lies elsewhere.
The way I’m looking at it, there are few options. They aren’t going to leave it alone, because enough people out there are demanding them to “DO SOMETHING.”
They can’t open NICS up to the general public, because it could be abused for purposes other than firearms and could be a pretty significant privacy violation.
I see them working this so that the current FFL holders perform the NICS checks between private sellers, but there is no requirement for the FFL to retain records like a 4473 in their bound books. I would still rather them not do anything, because it still amounts to incremental infringement.
It’s a tough issue, and if they came out tomorrow and said everyone ever has to get a background check to buy a gun, honestly I wouldn’t lose any sleep over it. At the same time though, I fully understand the concern about it leading to a registry and the precedent of getting involved in private business.
I agree that a BGC won’t do squat to keep determined criminals from getting their hands on a gun. However one could offer the seller some CYA in the event that you unknowingly sold to a prohibited person. It should be a free and unrecorded transaction. Run it from a smartphone like a credit card and get an approval #. Call a 1800 number and get an approval #. That sort of thing. Could be used for things aside from guns as well. Want to know if the guy your daughter is dating has a history run him through NICS. Want to hire a maid service or lawn service same thing.
With all that stated, I know that there is no guarantee that the transactions won’t be recorded and used as some form of registry. Subcontract out the requests and have a third party store the transaction records and you can bypass legislation prohibiting the gov for registering the transaction. As such I’d prefer to not have that in place for future use against us.
Repealing the Hughes Amendment implies it was legal in the first place. When watching the “verbal” vote of this Amendment (with that piece of whale shit Rangel as Speaker); I don’t see where he even bothered to count the votes to determined if it passed or not. I say they investigate it thoroughly to determine if it is “repealable” first.
I am worried whether or not we can repeal the Hughes Amendment without negating the Firearms Owners Protection Act (FOPA). Either way, preventing the laws that they are attempting to shove down the throats should be your priority and the most pressing reason to join the NRA (is $10 a year really that hard to come by?).
Do you really think the Hughes Amendment is going to be an issue if they make it outright illegal to own machineguns (by legal definition the true “Assault Rifles”)?
By what authority do the Feds claim to be able to regulate an intra-state private transaction? A fair number of gun owners seem all too happy to give that away without thinking about the precedent it sets for Federal overreach… again.
Valid, and it’s producing cash and also serving as registration, so unlikely it would happen.
The only way it would make sense is an outright repeal with ironclad protections against revision and reintroduction…which ain’t happening. Would be nice, though. Seems stupid to deal with the hassle for things like short barrels and cans that are off-the shelf items in countries that have otherwise draconian firearms restrictions.
good gun shows ended in the late 80’s early 90’s I will not go to any to buy again when I can pretty much get stuff shipped to my door or local FFL for under cost of retail
Sort of Like getting Hazmat Put back on my CDL I had to fingerprint and take a test to prove I would not drive a tanker full of gas or chemicals into people or a building .It will never end:blink:
Like I have said before I think background checks on private sales is a good thing and by being inflexible on this the NRA will appear to be unreasonable and crazy by the general public.