That's actually the point. Yes, you can go through FFL now, but there's entire groups out there dedicated to destroying someones life for a legal sale and there's currently no protection for civil or criminal lawsuits. All this is intended to do is offer a layer of protection for private sellers who want it and deal with the antis trying to force more gun control down our throats.Flightmare wrote: ↑Thu Sep 12, 2019 1:07 pmNo! I refuse to say a person is guilty of someone else's crime! People who want to go thru the FFL process already have that as an option. This proposal would not have addressed the issue in Odessa, nor any of the other mass murders that I am aware of. Doing something for the sake of doing something is not wisdom, it is an emotional response.ShepherdTX wrote: ↑Thu Sep 12, 2019 11:33 am This disappoints me but I did have an idea in my head about this whole background check "we have to do something" thing.
What if instead of mandatory background checks between private persons, they were simply incentivised similar to what was recently done with 30.06 signs where there are liability protections to business establishments who choose not to post 30.06?
In other words, if one chooses to privately sell a gun and include a background check (or, I would also add if buyer has a current LTC), should that gun be used in a future crime, the seller has PLCA type protection and cannot be held civilly or criminally liable? That still frees up private transfers without background checks between those that want that protection and those do not need or want it because the parties are related or are lifelong friends, or really whatever reason they have not to do one. To me this would make a BGC a more attractive option to lawful gun owners without making it mandatory.
Never claimed this was intended to stop a mass shooting. If you want to stop a mass shooter, shoot back.