Would you support this gun private purchase restriction

[03Lightningrocks]

Interesting.

Your suggestion is interesting, but I was more referring to my response to your question.

I had typed out a long well stated (IMHO) response and reasoning and my feelings about several related subjects. But after reflecting on what I had written, and considering today's climate, let me considerably edit my response to your question.

Here is my response: no.

But it did solicit a better idea. Give private gun sellers access to the database.

Not mandatory but allow access.

I like that.

I will make that my suggestion to the politicians.

Thanks all!!

So out of all the answers of “no” you found a couple of gun control infringements you can live with and would offer to your elected officials as proof of your willingness to further compromise our rights?

For the record my answer is absolutely no. Compromising one thing after another is how we have ended up on the door step of losing our rights completely.

[ScottDLS]

- What problem are we trying to solve?
- Are there large numbers of prohibited persons obtaining guns in private sales?
- Is one enough to justify a new law?
- Is there an indication that absent the private sale "loophole" the prohibited possessor wouldn't have gotten a gun a different way?
- Why is the solution to make it harder for law abiding, non-prohibited possessors to buy and sell guns?
- What is the justification, if any, for involving the federal government in a state matter (i.e. intrastate transfer of private property between individuals)? The 1968 Gun Control Act establishing FFL's and certain federal control of firearms transactions was specifically predicated on controlling interstate commerce in firearms (you know the magic Constitutional talisman that federalizes everything ). States (including Texas) are free to impose additional regulation in transactions within their borders if they see fit. I still don't see that it would help anything, because you start to get into the minutiae of how closing the private sale loophole would work. It wouldn't.
- How is the private seller to check that the person they are selling to or transferring to is prohibited or not?
- Give them access to Federal NICS? Really? Every Tom, Dick, and Harry can spend all day looking people up for thrills? What if they get a delay?
- Follow the same process that FFL's do? Wait 3 days?
- Do you (privately) have the buyer fill out a 4473? Do you have to keep it? Send it to the State? The Feds? OK force everyone through an FFL? All right, what about 18-20 year olds...no more handguns for them? Exemptions for military and police 20 year olds?
- What constitutes a sale/transfer? When my dad loans me his Glock to go the range. When grandpa passes and wills me his WWII 1911? Does the executor run to an FFL?
- If someone is willing to murder somebody, how is closing the private sale "loophole" going to help? We didn't have NICS until 1998. Before then an FFL did what current private sellers are obligated to do. They didn't sell the gun to someone they knew or had reason to know was prohibited. We hear lots of great things about how NICS blocks a zillion sales, but the violent gun crime stats were falling before NICS. My proposition was that the reason was because sentencing on both a state and federal level for crime got a lot stricter.
- Another point about NICS. Everyone says why aren't we prosecuting NICS denials? Well...because NICS database stinks! My proposition is that a significant percentage of denials are false positives.
- A federal appeals court (4th circuit I think) has ruled that prosecuting a prohibited possessor for perjury on a 4473 requires proof that the person knew or should have known that he was prohibited. And with the cruddy NICS database, the vague definitions of prohibited possessors (misdemeanor DV, "adjudicated mentally defective", even the definition of "felony" in 50+ jurisdictions, the definition of "restraining order", and so on and so on).
- So now we want to engage this process, not just for regulated FFL's but for every time your brother in law loans you his lever action to go varmint hunting? -
- Also, what about the ammo "loophole". California implemented background checks for ammo.

So no we don't need to DO SOMETHING1 Well, maybe one thing, speed up the application of the death penalty to convicted capital criminals...but that's help up by the SCOTUS "loophole". No executing 17 year olds, no executing violent rapists, no executing insane people (aren't all murderers arguably insane?).

No pre-crime laws!
No unconstitutional federal interference in intrastate commerce!
No cosmetic feature bans!
No magazine size limits!

If a politician, supposedly "on our side" like the Lt. Governor or Governor or President, is going to propose additional restrictions, then they owe it to us to explain how it would work, how it would help, and how it would be Constitutional. The other side doesn't care a bit about this and will simply keep pursuing their goal of a total gun ban and confiscation and screeching and flinging poo like the monkeys they are.

[narcissist]

I do not support ANYMORE restrictions on guns what so ever. We have been giving in way to much and it's about time to put our foot down. I will sell any gun to anyone I choose to, I will use my own common sense in the situation. Enough said I think?

[Robert*PPS]

I will not support ANY infringements on the 2nd.

Ever.

Every time there's a shooting and it looks like new gun laws may pass, gun owners come out of the woodwork with suggestions on how to lose more of our rights

It's real simple, if you sell a gun that is used in the commission of a crime, YOU are held responsible for that crime. That means that if you sell a gun to Jared Loughner or Adam Lanza or any of these other mental crazies that shoot up a kindergarten, YOU are the dumbass that gets charged.

No second amendment infringement, just sweet justice for putting a firearm in the hands of a madman.

This is a frightening end around. I've been wondering when this will be proposed. Not in a free society....

So you think a toddler should be able to have a gun? I'll assume no. And if a toddler get his meemaw's gun and blows his sister's face off so her brains are coming out and look like chewed up hot dogs, do you arrest the toddler? Or do you arrest the meemaw?

So either you think mentally unstable people should have guns or you think people that give them to a mental person should be punished. Or you want to give a toddler the chair. Disgusting.

Wow...just wow. No sir. I will not support the infringement of an individual's rights no matter how many descriptors you throw into your nonsensical diatribe. Selling a firearm to an adult comes nowhere close to the same thing as a toddler getting ahold of one. Just for the sake of entertainment, let me throw this little scenario at you. a father gives his 18 year old son a shotgun for graduation. He is a responsible young man that anyone would vouch for. At the age of 25, that would be seven years later for those keeping count, he develops a severe psychopathy and shoots someone with that shotgun. Are you really proposing that we, as a society go back and arrest the father? Again, not in a free society.

[The Annoyed Man]

- What problem are we trying to solve?
- Are there large numbers of prohibited persons obtaining guns in private sales?
- Is one enough to justify a new law?
- Is there an indication that absent the private sale "loophole" the prohibited possessor wouldn't have gotten a gun a different way?
- Why is the solution to make it harder for law abiding, non-prohibited possessors to buy and sell guns?
- What is the justification, if any, for involving the federal government in a state matter (i.e. intrastate transfer of private property between individuals)? The 1968 Gun Control Act establishing FFL's and certain federal control of firearms transactions was specifically predicated on controlling interstate commerce in firearms (you know the magic Constitutional talisman that federalizes everything ). States (including Texas) are free to impose additional regulation in transactions within their borders if they see fit. I still don't see that it would help anything, because you start to get into the minutiae of how closing the private sale loophole would work. It wouldn't.
- How is the private seller to check that the person they are selling to or transferring to is prohibited or not?
- Give them access to Federal NICS? Really? Every Tom, Dick, and Harry can spend all day looking people up for thrills? What if they get a delay?
- Follow the same process that FFL's do? Wait 3 days?
- Do you (privately) have the buyer fill out a 4473? Do you have to keep it? Send it to the State? The Feds? OK force everyone through an FFL? All right, what about 18-20 year olds...no more handguns for them? Exemptions for military and police 20 year olds?
- What constitutes a sale/transfer? When my dad loans me his Glock to go the range. When grandpa passes and wills me his WWII 1911? Does the executor run to an FFL?
- If someone is willing to murder somebody, how is closing the private sale "loophole" going to help? We didn't have NICS until 1998. Before then an FFL did what current private sellers are obligated to do. They didn't sell the gun to someone they knew or had reason to know was prohibited. We hear lots of great things about how NICS blocks a zillion sales, but the violent gun crime stats were falling before NICS. My proposition was that the reason was because sentencing on both a state and federal level for crime got a lot stricter.
- Another point about NICS. Everyone says why aren't we prosecuting NICS denials? Well...because NICS database stinks! My proposition is that a significant percentage of denials are false positives.
- A federal appeals court (4th circuit I think) has ruled that prosecuting a prohibited possessor for perjury on a 4473 requires proof that the person knew or should have known that he was prohibited. And with the cruddy NICS database, the vague definitions of prohibited possessors (misdemeanor DV, "adjudicated mentally defective", even the definition of "felony" in 50+ jurisdictions, the definition of "restraining order", and so on and so on).
- So now we want to engage this process, not just for regulated FFL's but for every time your brother in law loans you his lever action to go varmint hunting? -
- Also, what about the ammo "loophole". California implemented background checks for ammo.

So no we don't need to DO SOMETHING1 Well, maybe one thing, speed up the application of the death penalty to convicted capital criminals...but that's help up by the SCOTUS "loophole". No executing 17 year olds, no executing violent rapists, no executing insane people (aren't all murderers arguably insane?).

No pre-crime laws!
No unconstitutional federal interference in intrastate commerce!
No cosmetic feature bans!
No magazine size limits!

If a politician, supposedly "on our side" like the Lt. Governor or Governor or President, is going to propose additional restrictions, then they owe it to us to explain how it would work, how it would help, and how it would be Constitutional. The other side doesn't care a bit about this and will simply keep pursuing their goal of a total gun ban and confiscation and screeching and flinging poo like the monkeys they are.

And the NICS database is cruddy, as you put it, exactly because people in positions of authority, who are mandated by law to forward disqualifying information to NICS, are failing to fulfill that mandate!!!! The difference formthem is that, if I lie on a 4473, and I’m found out, I am threatened with up to 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine. But if a psychiatrist fails to forward disqualifying info to NICS, or the Air Force fails to notify NICS of a domestic violence conviction of one of its personnel, or a psychiatric hospital which holds a deranged patient for two weeks, ALL fail to report these disqualifying events to NICS (ALL these things fell though the cracks with the Sutherland Springs shooter), literally NONE of these people are penalized in any way whatsoever for breaking the law. The shooter lies on the 4473, and gets his guns, and 26 people are killed and 20 more wounded. The shooter is guilty, but all those other people enabled him, and their enabling was in violation of the law. But nothing happened to them.

The only people who got punished were America's law-abiding gun owners—who had to endure yet another round of threats against their lawfully purchased property, and against their 2nd Amendment liberties, and of course the shooter's victims—all of whom suffered because of the inexcusable fecklessness of people in authority who violated the law.

Here is ONE change to the law that I would support. Subject those in positions of authority who are mandated by law to forward disqualifying information to NICS, subject to fines and prison sentences for having failed to do so whenever a firearm is used in a crime by someone they could have disqualified if they’d just done their darn jobs.

I'd support a change to the law like that one all day long.

[philip964]

I understand “the shall not be infringed.”

My understanding it’s illegal to shout fire in a theatre. A judge recently ruled pointing your finger at some one like a gun is disturbing the peace or disorderly conduct and a lot of people here said “hades yeah” it is.

So even our cherished first amendment has limitations.

Arms, does that include suitcase thermonuclear weapons?

Cruise missiles with conventional warheads?

Well maybe if your 18.

Felony murderers after they are released from prison on parole?

I’d rather us pick our poison.

Legal concealed carry was sold to the Texas legislature because it would allow people to defend themselves, if another Luby’s happened.

We let them down, there were three mass shootings and there were no LTC’s to stop it. ( yes the church shooting was stopped by a citizen with a gun ) The fourth in Texas was a gun free zone, not our fault.

Walmart has always been very good to us and we weren’t there to stop it.

They have reacted. Moderately. They still allow us to conceal carry.

Our politicians will be under pressure when they resume, we need to help them, guide them.

Allowing us access, to voluntarily search the their database for a private gun sale, does not infringe.

I think it’s a great idea.

I’m just still not sure how to keep guns out of the hands of crazies. Most now seem to have a pattern of buying a new semi automatic rifle and going and committing mass murder. Through the news they have learned exactly which gun to buy to kill the most.

Anyone notice the new article about Las Vegas, the guy left a note in the room, where he calculated the bullet drop to the concert across the street.

[ScottDLS]

I'm not sure if I want psychiatrists making a determination to adjudicate someone a mental defective with no check on their decision. I'm not sure that every psychiatrist is compelled by law to report to NICS. Also I'm not sure that every state is required to report to NICS or if there are penalties for failing to do so. Maybe with the fix NICS law?. Anyway unfunded mandates and commandeering the States by the federal government is unconstitutional. My proposal is to eliminate NICS and leave it back to the States as prior to 1998. YES, that's my proposal. There is really no evidence that NICS is useful in reducing crime. And the National Crime Information Computer (NCIC) or whatever they're calling it these days that is the basis for NICS is a lousy system, riddled with errors and incomplete or incorrect data.

[Grayling813]

I understand “the shall not be infringed.”

I don’t think you do. And if you do you are just willing to go along with incremental infringement.

Enjoy your boxcar ride.

[03Lightningrocks]

The problem is that nothing short of complete elimination of all firearms will ever be enough for the gun grabbers. The old saying of "Give them an inch and they will take a mile" applies here. As much as one would like to believe they will quit going for more, it is simply not reality. Universal background checks will do nothing to prevent the next mass shooting. Then the push will be for a complete ban on semi auto rifles. It will just continue from there until they have all our firearms.

[Grayling813]

The problem is that nothing short of complete elimination of all firearms will ever be enough for the gun grabbers. The old saying of "Give them an inch and they will take a mile" applies here. As much as one would like to believe they will quit going for more, it is simply not reality. Universal background checks will do nothing to prevent the next mass shooting. Then the push will be for a complete ban on semi auto rifles. It will just continue from there until they have all our firearms.

this is what proponents of “must give them something incrementalism” either fail to acknowledge or just ignore.

[ScottDLS]

I understand “the shall not be infringed.”

My understanding it’s illegal to shout fire in a theatre. A judge recently ruled pointing your finger at some one like a gun is disturbing the peace or disorderly conduct and a lot of people here said “hades yeah” it is.

So even our cherished first amendment has limitations.

Arms, does that include suitcase thermonuclear weapons?

Cruise missiles with conventional warheads?

Well maybe if your 18.

Felony murderers after they are released from prison on parole?

I’d rather us pick our poison.

Legal concealed carry was sold to the Texas legislature because it would allow people to defend themselves, if another Luby’s happened.

We let them down, there were three mass shootings and there were no LTC’s to stop it. ( yes the church shooting was stopped by a citizen with a gun ) The fourth in Texas was a gun free zone, not our fault.

Walmart has always been very good to us and we weren’t there to stop it.

They have reacted. Moderately. They still allow us to conceal carry.

Our politicians will be under pressure when they resume, we need to help them, guide them.

Allowing us access, to voluntarily search the their database for a private gun sale, does not infringe.

I think it’s a great idea.

I’m just still not sure how to keep guns out of the hands of crazies. Most now seem to have a pattern of buying a new semi automatic rifle and going and committing mass murder. Through the news they have learned exactly which gun to buy to kill the most.

Anyone notice the new article about Las Vegas, the guy left a note in the room, where he calculated the bullet drop to the concert across the street.

It's not illegal to yell fire in a crowded movie theater if there is a fire, or if you're exhorting the actor on the screen to shoot the bad guy.

It's also not Constitutional to prohibit a newspaper from printing truthful material because it was illegally obtained or because it might be harmful (see prior restraint and Pentagon Papers).

Murder is illegal. Therefore Texas legislators must be wheedled into allowing me to carry a gun for my own defense, only after jumping through hoops. It's illegal to shoot DPS Troopers with an AR-15, therefore I must not be allowed to buy an AR-15 from my neighbor without permission from the state and a record of the transaction. A guy walked into WalMart with an AK-47 pattern semi and shot a bunch of people, therefore I shouldn't be allowed to walk in with a partially visible handgun on my belt, or buy 7.62x39 or 9mm. Wal Mart and Kroger can make whatever policy they like and in Texas they can even use the State to enforce it if they post the right signs, unless you're a cop or VERP, or security guard, or retired cop, etc. etc. And I can do less business with them than I would otherwise. A was always partial to Target though they are bigger lefties than Wally World.

[TreyHouston]

This ends with everyone in the country having to see government phycologists yearly and being told what they can and cannot do. If you are deemed a threat, you are shipped off to a wood chipper!
Book- brave new world

[03Lightningrocks]

This ends with everyone in the country having to see government phycologists yearly and being told what they can and cannot do. If you are deemed a threat, you are shipped off to a wood chipper!
Book- brave new world

Fargo?

[ScottDLS]

I’m going to get flamed but I’m ready for it.

What if their was a law requiring private gun sellers to get three notarized letters from the buyer stating that they have known the person for five years, the person is of sound mind, the person to their knowledge has never been convicted of a crime, does not abuse drugs, and they would recommend that person for a gun purchase.

The gun seller would be required to keep the letters for five years.

Failure to get the letters or to keep them would subject the seller to civil liability should the person commit a crime with the gun sold to them.

Buyers would be responsible to immediately report a gun theft made through a private sale.

What if it was for buyers only under 26 years of age?

I would rather us write the new law than politicians.

To be fair to you for putting a proposal out there, I want to say that I appreciate you starting this thread. As you no doubt read in my and others previous posts, we don't like the idea. But at least you got us to articulate why and describe our opposition. So thank you for starting the thread and giving people the opportunity to (passionately) make our case.

[TreyHouston]

Interesting.

Your suggestion is interesting, but I was more referring to my response to your question.

I had typed out a long well stated (IMHO) response and reasoning and my feelings about several related subjects. But after reflecting on what I had written, and considering today's climate, let me considerably edit my response to your question.

Here is my response: no.

But it did solicit a better idea. Give private gun sellers access to the database.

Not mandatory but allow access.

I like that.

I will make that my suggestion to the politicians.

Thanks all!!

Sounds great! People who date will vet people with the database. Employers will use the database. Facebook, And social media will use the database. EVERYONE WILL!

LET ME ASK YOU ONE QUESTION. WHO controls this data base? Comey, Struck, Page, Tec company owners who can “flag” bad behavior, and all the other raging liberals?????

Once your on this list for some reason or another, can you appeal and get off it? How much time and lawyer expense will this cost or do you have to get a psychological evaluation by a government official?
If this is the case, why not just have everyone on the list FIRST!!! Then the government can make sure to their qualifications that ONLY the ones THEY SAY can have a firearm like in Hawaii, New York City, Chicago, Mexico ETC.
Of course, its only common Since to take away all firearms until this evaluation can be done, only to get started Of course!!