My Buddy in the Marines Posted this - Guns

[sirdingydang]

Would anyone in here be on board with this?

• 21 to buy (all guns)
• no private sales
• universal background check
• universal reciprocity on concealed carry with fed oversight
• spousal abusers, both married or simply partners, are prohibited for firearm ownership.

 

[btbones]

Yes

 

[UCFWayne]

No to the age limit. either change the age of adulthood or leave it as is.
yes to everything else

 

[bqknight]

No to the age limit. either change the age of adulthood or leave it as is.
yes to everything else

Why no to the age limit? IMO - and I'd venture to say there is research on this too - is that someone is still going through a lot of mental development from 18 to 21. I get that military is 18 but even then, they are under supervision and aren't buying a gun.

 

[Bob the Citronaut]

No to the age limit for all guns. 18-21 year olds often live on their own. They should be able to protect themselves at home if they want to.

 

[KNIGHTTIME^]

If we are going to ban something that might hurt someone, how are we not completing banning alcohol? How many deaths are created by alcohol? Oh that is right, because that isn't convenient for most of us (myself included).

Hitler loved gun control. Enough said.

 

[btbones]

If we are going to ban something that might hurt someone, how are we not completing banning alcohol? How many deaths are created by alcohol? Oh that is right, because that isn't convenient for most of us (myself included).

Hitler loved gun control. Enough said.

With all due respect nobody is talking about banning guns in this thread

 

[UCFWayne]

Why no to the age limit? IMO - and I'd venture to say there is research on this too - is that someone is still going through a lot of mental development from 18 to 21. I get that military is 18 but even then, they are under supervision and aren't buying a gun.

because you are either an adult at 18 or you are not. as an adult you are allowed to exercise your rights. owning a gun is one of those.

so either change the year we think kids become adults or its a no go for me.

 

[fabknight]

I hate the thought of not being able to sell any of my guns. I guess it wouldn't bother me as much if there was a way to have a background check done on the person to whom you were selling the gun.

 

[UCFKnight85]

No private sales? No.

If I want to sell a firearm, or transfer a firearm, to someone in my family, it’s none of the governments f’ing business

 

[UCFWayne]

I hate the thought of not being able to sell any of my guns. I guess it wouldn't bother me as much if there was a way to have a background check done on the person to whom you were selling the gun.

if they make it easy to do, im for it. if its going to be a pita, then no.

 

[SublimeKnight]

No private sales? No.

If I want to sell a firearm, or transfer a firearm, to someone in my family, it’s none of the governments f’ing business

I assume you mean you'd have access to the same background check. That also would mean you accept liability if the person you gift/sell the firearm to should not have passed the background check.

 

[sirdingydang]

No private sales? No.

If I want to sell a firearm, or transfer a firearm, to someone in my family, it’s none of the governments f’ing business

that came up in a discussion we were having.

What about if they're done through a certified dealer, would you'd be ok with that? Pay them a $15 or whatever fee to run background checks on the recipient and they go about their business?

As a buddy stated: FFL holders should fully support this - it opens up a new revenue stream and requires private sellers to enter their shop which means there’s an opportunity for up selling.

 

[UCFWayne]

from a legal perspective, i dont know how they could shift the age to 21 without being struck down in the courts. i know people will say we do it for alcohol sales, but that is a privilege, not a right under the constitution.

i know we hold the age limit of handguns to 21. i wonder if that age limit has been challenged in court before.

 

[SublimeKnight]

from a legal perspective, i dont know how they could shift the age to 21 without being struck down in the courts. i know people will say we do it for alcohol sales, but that is a privilege, not a right under the constitution.

i know we hold the age limit of handguns to 21. i wonder if that age limit has been challenged in court before.

That's interesting. Without changing the second amendment, you'd have to declare 21 the legal age of adulthood. Which I'd guess that would change the age to vote, get drafted, and charged for a crime as an adult. Also when you could sign a contract without a guardian.

 

[UCF11and1]

That's interesting. Without changing the second amendment, you'd have to declare 21 the legal age of adulthood. Which I'd guess that would change the age to vote, get drafted, and charged for a crime as an adult. Also when you could sign a contract without a guardian.

Declare 21 the age of adulthood and pass laws where the age for the other stuff is 18.
Private sales: allow but buyer has to apply for the registration (pay fee and wait for background check). It would work similar to car sales where the car is in your name until the buyer registers the car in their name but in this case gun (and money) wouldn't change hands until paperwork is completed.

 

[btbones]

that came up in a discussion we were having.

What about if they're done through a certified dealer, would you'd be ok with that? Pay them a $15 or whatever fee to run background checks on the recipient and they go about their business?

As a buddy stated: FFL holders should fully support this - it opens up a new revenue stream and requires private sellers to enter their shop which means there’s an opportunity for up selling.

When you buy a gun online this is the exact process . Has to be received by a licensed FFL and they do a background check . Usually 25-40 bucks . I’d be good with that

 

[NinjaKnight]

In this day and age there should be an automated online system for background checks that can be run by anyone. So that way private sales can continue without the burden of charging $15-50 at an FFL. Just verify with an ID the person you are selling to (this is already required to ensure they are a resident of the same state as you) and the FBI could have an online page that let's you ensure the buyer doesn't have a felony and is legal to purchase.

 

[sk8knight]

I assume you mean you'd have access to the same background check. That also would mean you accept liability if the person you gift/sell the firearm to should not have passed the background check.

This is the case already. Only it’s rarely, if ever, prosecuted. Just like strawman purchases aren’t prosecuted often (although there has been more activity lately). Also, in most states, DV perpetrators have to surrender all weapons. The laws are on the books. How about we try enforcing the laws that we have rather than some big show of making new laws that also don’t get enforced.

 

[USFSucks]

I don’t love the age limit but I can deal with it. Definitely believe there needs to be a way to do private sales, I want my dad’s guns whenever he’s gone or done with them (they were his dad’s) and I should be able to have them, which with no private sales I basically can’t. Make me go through a background check, that’s fine, but it should be at the governments cost IYAM

 

[knight_poster_15]

The last two major shootings should have been intercepted by law enforcement.

The Texas church shooter was a ****ing scum bag that should have never been allowed to own guns but the Air Force ***ed up.

The Parkland High shooter should have been nabbed by the FBI based on calls directly to them vividly describing the menace he presented.

There's no point in passing laws if we don't make law enforcement do their job.

If that coward Broward County Sheriff would have done his job (yeah he's got a story but I call BS) who knows how many lives would have been saved.

Plus the hero teachers who saved their kids in Parkland would have put a bullet in that deranged killer too.

Restricting 18 year olds to shotguns and rifles is probably okay. But the UT tower killer did a lot of damage with a hunting rifle.

These last two tragedies could have been prevented with the laws on the books if LE had done their jobs.

 

[EweSeaEff]

Hitler loved gun control. Enough said.

Quickest that Godwin's law has been invoked? Has to be close, right?

 

[goodknightfl]

No buy till 28 when you are no longer a babe on the tit of daddys health ins.
No to no private sales.

 

[UCFKnight85]

that came up in a discussion we were having.

What about if they're done through a certified dealer, would you'd be ok with that? Pay them a $15 or whatever fee to run background checks on the recipient and they go about their business?

As a buddy stated: FFL holders should fully support this - it opens up a new revenue stream and requires private sellers to enter their shop which means there’s an opportunity for up selling.

Why exactly am I paying to run a background check on a father who I've known every day of my life, or a brother in law that I've known for most of my life?

It's idiotic. Like you said, it's just a meaningless way for government intrusion and to suck money from people. I have 3 family heirloom rifles that were passed down to me, and will be passed down to my son some day.

You'll have me paying money to run a background check on my son when I do?

 

[fabknight]

Why exactly am I paying to run a background check on a father who I've known every day of my life, or a brother in law that I've known for most of my life?

It's idiotic. Like you said, it's just a meaningless way for government intrusion and to suck money from people. I have 3 family heirloom rifles that were passed down to me, and will be passed down to my son some day.

You'll have me paying money to run a background check on my son when I do?

I agree. There would have to be exceptions for being able to give/sell guns to family members.

 

[UCFWayne]

In this day and age there should be an automated online system for background checks that can be run by anyone. So that way private sales can continue without the burden of charging $15-50 at an FFL. Just verify with an ID the person you are selling to (this is already required to ensure they are a resident of the same state as you) and the FBI could have an online page that let's you ensure the buyer doesn't have a felony and is legal to purchase.

this is common sense gun control that would be acceptable on both sides. id be ok with a $5-10 processing fee.

also still need to require all states to report all felonies into the ncic system for this to be truly effective.

 

[sk8knight]

I agree. There would have to be exceptions for being able to give/sell guns to family members.

If only that were already in place.............

The issue is that you would have to build a huge government system to register and manage all of these weapons. You’d also have to reverse some protectionary laws, such as in Florida where there is a law explicitly prohibiting registration of firearms (thanks to the media’s publishing or gun owners information thus making them targets). Even then, you can’t keep someone from making an illegal transaction. You’re still not preventing people who shouldn’t have guns but are determined to get them from obtaining them.

 

[fabknight]

If only that were already in place.............

The issue is that you would have to build a huge government system to register and manage all of these weapons. You’d also have to reverse some protectionary laws, such as in Florida where there is a law explicitly prohibiting registration of firearms (thanks to the media’s publishing or gun owners information thus making them targets). Even then, you can’t keep someone from making an illegal transaction. You’re still not preventing people who shouldn’t have guns but are determined to get them from obtaining them.

Who said anything about registering firearms and tracking them in a database?

 

[sk8knight]

Who said anything about registering firearms and tracking them in a database?

It's the next logical step. How are you going to enforce that people go through a background check for private sales without ascertaining possession of the firearm before and after transfer? It's easy with gun shops because that's their primary business. The sales are reported in multiple ways and there is always the threat of losing that license and thus their livelihood. Not so with private transfers. There is no requirement for bill of sale (at least in Florida) and most of them are cash transactions. Therefore, if the government wants to make sure the transfer was done coincident with a background check, it will need to record the transfer to the new owner with the record of the background check passing. Which comprises everything needed for a gun registry.

 

[UCFWayne]

It's the next logical step. How are you going to enforce that people go through a background check for private sales without ascertaining possession of the firearm before and after transfer? It's easy with gun shops because that's their primary business. The sales are reported in multiple ways and there is always the threat of losing that license and thus their livelihood. Not so with private transfers. There is no requirement for bill of sale (at least in Florida) and most of them are cash transactions. Therefore, if the government wants to make sure the transfer was done coincident with a background check, it will need to record the transfer to the new owner with the record of the background check passing. Which comprises everything needed for a gun registry.

i think if you passed a law that said you need to do a back ground check, and took what ninja suggested an online tool to easily do it, most people would go that route.

there would be no need to do registration. i am 100% against registration.

 

[NinjaKnight]

i think if you passed a law that said you need to do a back ground check, and took what ninja suggested an online tool to easily do it, most people would go that route.

there would be no need to do registration. i am 100% against registration.

I am too. Registration nearly universally leads to confiscation, which 100% defeats the purpose of the 2nd amendment. There is no need or lawful cause for registration.

 

[sk8knight]

I am too. Registration nearly universally leads to confiscation, which 100% defeats the purpose of the 2nd amendment. There is no need or lawful cause for registration.

Oh, I agree. I also like the idea of an easily-accessible background system as the only measure on that front. I just don't think that's going to be enough given the emotional groundswell and the efforts of gun control groups to steer the legislation to prevention and not tracking.

The issue is that you've only settled one facet of the transaction. Yes, people can perform the checks but you have no idea if they are actually doing so. You will have no idea that a background check wasn't performed for a transfer until someone who shouldn't have the weapon uses it in a criminal act. There is no prevention in the system, merely a punitive aspect. Which is the way we work in America (and rightfully so) but, again, in the current cultural environment I think there is going to be a big call to be preventative.

In order to be preventative and for the government to ensure that you are following the rules, you'd need to present something like a bill of transfer along with a background check receipt. This would be reviewed and someone from ATF (or whichever entity inherits it) would follow up if the paperwork is out of order. This will be deemed necessary because to do otherwise would mean you support mass shooters in schools.

 

[UCFWayne]

Oh, I agree. I also like the idea of an easily-accessible background system as the only measure on that front. I just don't think that's going to be enough given the emotional groundswell and the efforts of gun control groups to steer the legislation to prevention and not tracking.

The issue is that you've only settled one facet of the transaction. Yes, people can perform the checks but you have no idea if they are actually doing so. You will have no idea that a background check wasn't performed for a transfer until someone who shouldn't have the weapon uses it in a criminal act. There is no prevention in the system, merely a punitive aspect. Which is the way we work in America (and rightfully so) but, again, in the current cultural environment I think there is going to be a big call to be preventative.

In order to be preventative and for the government to ensure that you are following the rules, you'd need to present something like a bill of transfer along with a background check receipt. This would be reviewed and someone from ATF (or whichever entity inherits it) would follow up if the paperwork is out of order. This will be deemed necessary because to do otherwise would mean you support mass shooters in schools.

i dont think anything like that will get passed.

 

[knight_poster_15]

i think if you passed a law that said you need to do a back ground check, and took what ninja suggested an online tool to easily do it, most people would go that route.

there would be no need to do registration. i am 100% against registration.

Oh, I agree. I also like the idea of an easily-accessible background system as the only measure on that front. I just don't think that's going to be enough given the emotional groundswell and the efforts of gun control groups to steer the legislation to prevention and not tracking.

The issue is that you've only settled one facet of the transaction. Yes, people can perform the checks but you have no idea if they are actually doing so. You will have no idea that a background check wasn't performed for a transfer until someone who shouldn't have the weapon uses it in a criminal act. There is no prevention in the system, merely a punitive aspect. Which is the way we work in America (and rightfully so) but, again, in the current cultural environment I think there is going to be a big call to be preventative.

In order to be preventative and for the government to ensure that you are following the rules, you'd need to present something like a bill of transfer along with a background check receipt. This would be reviewed and someone from ATF (or whichever entity inherits it) would follow up if the paperwork is out of order. This will be deemed necessary because to do otherwise would mean you support mass shooters in schools.

There will still be illegal transfers under this system. Nikolas Cruz and Texas Scumbag would still have gotten their guns. They passed background checks.

 

[UCFWayne]

NinjaKnight - In this day and age there should be an automated online system for background checks that can be run by anyone. So that way private sales can continue without the burden of charging $15-50 at an FFL. Just verify with an ID the person you are selling to (this is already required to ensure they are a resident of the same state as you) and the FBI could have an online page that let's you ensure the buyer doesn't have a felony and is legal to purchase.

@UCFKnight85 do you think ninja has a good idea on this one?

 

[sk8knight]

There will still be illegal transfers under this system. Nikolas Cruz and Texas Scumbag would still have gotten their guns. They passed background checks.

Then those aren’t illegal transfers.

 

[sk8knight]

i dont think anything like that will get passed.

I hope it won’t but something like this is going to seem very common sense to a lot of the gun control crowd.

 

[UCFKnight85]

NinjaKnight - In this day and age there should be an automated online system for background checks that can be run by anyone. So that way private sales can continue without the burden of charging $15-50 at an FFL. Just verify with an ID the person you are selling to (this is already required to ensure they are a resident of the same state as you) and the FBI could have an online page that let's you ensure the buyer doesn't have a felony and is legal to purchase.

@UCFKnight85 do you think ninja has a good idea on this one?

No. Having a page that is populated by the FBI, that people can access data on other people with, will be a massive clusterf*ck at best, and a massive intrusion of privacy at worst.

We have issues with identify theft and con artists as it is; do we really want a public access system where people can dig dirt on others under the guise of a "background check"?

 

[NinjaKnight]

No. Having a page that is populated by the FBI, that people can access data on other people with, will be a massive clusterf*ck at best, and a massive intrusion of privacy at worst.

We have issues with identify theft and con artists as it is; do we really want a public access system where people can dig dirt on others under the guise of a "background check"?

If only there was some number that is uniquely identifiable to each person, which they would input into the secure background checker website, thereby proving they are agreeing to the background check. This number would even be included in the current forms that every person fills out at an FFL. It could be a socially used number, and very secure. Too bad no such number exists.

 

[fabknight]

No. Having a page that is populated by the FBI, that people can access data on other people with, will be a massive clusterf*ck at best, and a massive intrusion of privacy at worst.

We have issues with identify theft and con artists as it is; do we really want a public access system where people can dig dirt on others under the guise of a "background check"?

I don' know why a simple program could be developed such that it's a simple answer is returned in the form of "Passed Background Check" or "Problem Encountered" with some form of confirmation number assigned to the check for verification by the seller.