Background checks

[Rye Miles #13621]

I keep reading that the bill that the senate is voting on will include background checks at gun shows and the INTERNET!! What's up with that? I thought all gun sales on the internet were subject to go to FFL's. Are we dealing with ignorance here are am I missing something? Do they mean C&B, muzzleloaders etc.??

 

Anyone??

 

 

Rye

[Chantry]

Some ignorance, they are after all politicians. Some of it is the perception of "doing something".

 

We all know that internet sales require an FFL, but a far too large chunk of the population doesn't understand that.

[Sgt. C.J. Sabre, SASS #46770]

I keep reading that the bill that the senate is voting on will include background checks at gun shows and the INTERNET!! What's up with that? I thought all gun sales on the internet were subject to go to FFL's. Are we dealing with ignorance here are am I missing something? Do they mean C&B, muzzleloaders etc.??

 

Anyone??

 

 

Rye

Pure ignorance, I think. I find myself nearly yelling at the radio when the news readers report this over and over again.

[Cholla Bob]

I was under the same impression.

[Blue Wolf , SASS# 29424L]

I think it means face to face in same state or otherwise. You know the 40% that is not checked now, My question is how are they going to enforce it.

[Utah Bob #35998]

Some ignorance, they are after all politicians. Some of it is the perception of "doing something".

 

We all know that internet sales require an FFL, but a far too large chunk of the population doesn't understand that.

Yup.

[Boon Doggle]

Once again Congress is going to vote on a bill that most of them have not read.

 

Welcome to "Ogunocare".

[Oddnews SASS# 24779]

The compromise in the Senate seems to gloss enforcement. At least it prevents the backdoor registration that was the real focus of most of these so-called "background check" laws. I sort of think whatever the Senate does is effectively moot. They don't have the votes in the House -- for which I give hearty thanks.

[Badlands Beady]

 

I think it means face to face in same state or otherwise. You know the 40% that is not checked now, My question is how are they going to enforce it.

 

 

I think how it'll work is that if they can trace an armed crime back to you as the weapon's (immediately) previous owner, and there's no record of a background check, the cops have grounds to haul you in. If the person you sell to, however, never gets caught and they never recover the gun, you're OK.

 

Sort of like how they enforce jaywalking: It's only a crime if they catch you at it.

[Cliff Hanger #3720LR]

I see two things happening here.

-

1. This is to get all (as many as possible) hand guns and long guns registered into a national data base.

-

2. To get some amendment added at the last minute we don't hear about until after it's passed.

-

But I also don't think they have the votes in the House. Keep track of how everyone in the Senate and House vote on these gun right destroying bills. Expose those that vote against the Constitution every chance we get.

[Buck D. Law, SASS #62183]

It's a boogey man story intended to scare more into supporting it. Tell a kid the boogey man is under the bed and it doesn't matter that he's not there, they won't sleep. The folks pushing this know that the average person can be told the boogey man is under the bed, is coming to get them...and they will buy off on it. They are counting on the average Joe buying off on it. I AM surprised that those opposing it (politicians and such) have not used it as further evidence that the folks pushing it will lie without pause. This is commonly called a scare tactic.

[Griff]

This is commonly called a scare tactic.

 

Isn't that the same thing as "terrorism"? And spouting outright lies to support their contentions, the leadership (if you want to call it that), in the Senate should be called on employing it!

[Buck D. Law, SASS #62183]

Isn't that the same thing as "terrorism"? And spouting outright lies to support their contentions, the leadership (if you want to call it that), in the Senate should be called on employing it!

I couldn't agree more although they (the supporters) know that someone can be accused of a crime and even if acquitted, there will always be some who think you guilty. If I were on their side I'd call it an excellent use of a very willing media.

[Noz]

Do you mean that the politicians in Washington DC are accused of being dishonest?

 

Surely not! They have my best interests at heart.

[Charles B. Gatewood SASS #48517]

On the Weather Channel this morning a man was talking to Roker and Abrams about how you can purchase a firearm online. Of course, they were gushing about how a person could go to a website, fill their cart, and have it shipped without a background. This disinformation seems to be the common mantra with politicians, media, and antigun groups. Sadly folks think this is common practice.

 

 

CBG

[Indian Jack.]

I keep reading that the bill that the senate is voting on will include background checks at gun shows and the INTERNET!! What's up with that? I thought all gun sales on the internet were subject to go to FFL's. Are we dealing with ignorance here are am I missing something? Do they mean C&B, muzzleloaders etc.??

 

Anyone??

 

 

Rye

During my last ATF inspection at my shop the ATF agent was real nice and pleasant while checking my records. She asked about a few things and of course found no problems. She did ask me if I sold Black Powder guns, Flintlocks or Cap And Ball guns. I told her that I didnt because most of my customers want the latest and greatest. She asked me would I do a NCIS background check on someone if they bought a replica C&B revolver and I said that I didnt think I had to because it was designed before 1899. She "Suggested" that I do still have the buyer complete the 4473 form and do a background check anyway because "if they killed people in the 1860's then they could kill people today. She has a point about that but I think I would lose a sale if I did a background check on a guy buying a C&B gun. (I dont stock or sell them anyway)

 

and yes..internet sales do go through a FFL. I Have done more than my share lately.

 

I have received guns from people selling on Gunbroker and on several occasions I get pistols in my mailbox out front in next day mail cartons. Once I got a pistol packed in an empty Post Toasties box and sent regular mail from several states away. I think there are a few people out there who dont care what the rules are.

[Blue Wolf , SASS# 29424L]

   

 

I think how it'll work is that if they can trace an armed crime back to you as the weapon's (immediately) previous owner, and there's no record of a background check, the cops have grounds to haul you in. If the person you sell to, however, never gets caught and they never recover the gun, you're OK.

 

Sort of like how they enforce jaywalking: It's only a crime if they catch you at it.

I don't see how they could trace anything since there is no record of sale. Then just somebody saying I bought it from (Blank). His word againist your word. Plus all the before 1968 guns on the street. I sure am glad that last bill failed. I know the anti-gun nuts will be back. I wish they would start with the 1st amendment next time. Lets see how that goes. :lol:

[Rye Miles #13621]

   

 

I think how it'll work is that if they can trace an armed crime back to you as the weapon's (immediately) previous owner, and there's no record of a background check, the cops have grounds to haul you in. If the person you sell to, however, never gets caught and they never recover the gun, you're OK.

 

Sort of like how they enforce jaywalking: It's only a crime if they catch you at it.

Yea I understand that but I'm specifically talking about "internet" sales! They ARE subject to our current background checks and I am puzzled as to why the media keeps saying that this is part of the NEW" background checks! It's bull$%#@!! Rye

[Blue Wolf , SASS# 29424L]

Rye,

 

I think they are counting if we live in the same state and meet face to face. After internet ad.

[Rye Miles #13621]

Rye,

 

I think they are counting if we live in the same state and meet face to face. After internet ad.

Yea I guess, but that happens a lot huh?

 

 

NOT! Rye

[The Yankee Bandit, SASS #59258]

Rye,

 

I think they are counting if we live in the same state and meet face to face. After internet ad.

I was under the impression that one of the shining points under the expanded check was that in-state, face to face, sales were exempt from the check? Because if that's true, couldn't two pards, from the same state, that met online, meet up, do a face to face transaction with no check? Or were only transfers to family members, heirs, and loaning a gun to a hunting buddy exempted?

 

Can someone tell me what was allowed with and without a check. I are confussedaaaa.

 

Glad it's a moot point now. But I would still like to know. Thanks, bandit

[Madd Mike #8595]

oRIELY last night says he thinks we (legal gun owners) would agree with registration, if tougher enforcement and mandatory 5 year sentence were imposed on gun crimes as a fed law, and passed together in the same bill

 

I say pass the fed law WITHOUT, the gun registration

dont folks know that registration did not work out so well in Canada

and besides

registration in some very small country (sweden or ?), is not a test that shows it will work in the USA

[Dakota Doc Martin, SASS #21774]

Bill O'Reilly has turned out to be an anti-gun bloviating buffoon. I won't listen to that blatherskite anymore