What I object to is being forced into a situation where I have to pay a fee to an FFL in order to transact a FTF transaction. If FFLs were willing to offer this as a "free service" for the good of the gun-owing community, I would have less problem with it; but I have no reasonable expectation that any FFL would be willing to do this for free, nor do I think they should be required to do this for free. Processing my transaction costs them money. They should NOT have to do that for free. But then, neither should I be required to use an FFL's service unless I am buying a gun from his inventory.VMI77 wrote:I don't have a problem with being "able" to do it this way. In fact, if I was selling to someone I didn't know, I might want to do it this way, not only so that I didn't sell a gun to a criminal or psycho, but for my own protection as well. However, making it a legal requirement would be a joke, since anyone with criminal intent isn't going to follow the law anyway.Mike1951 wrote:Just received the letter from BATFE regarding transfers between individuals.
http://www.atf.gov/press/releases/2013/ ... iduals.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Further, it is possible that one might own more than one firearm which was acquired quite lawfully in FTF transactions in which no paperwork was involved. IF I had ever participated in any such transactions, I would very much prefer those transactions to remain "off the books" for the primary reason that the less the government knows about me, the happier I am, particularly when it comes to any firearms I might own. The thing is, I KNOW THAT I AM A LAW-ABIDING CITIZEN. I don't believe that I should be required to PROVE it every time I want to make a private purchase. AND, as we all know because we repeat it over and over again, THIS WOULD ONLY AFFECT LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS. Criminals will continue to obtain guns the same way they always have—illegally and off the books.
As far as answering my doctor's questions, I'm simply going to refuse to discuss it. If asked why, I'll answer that it's because once the information you collect here leaves this office, you no longer have control over it or who gets it or what is done with it, and neither do I. I have privacy expectations, even if you and Adolf Obama don't.
When I had my identity stolen several years ago, I was informed by police that it likely happened through my health insurance company at the time. Including my gun ownership in my healthcare data is an open invitation to someone who wants to steal guns to use my address information to break into my house and take them. It will be the same story as what happened in NY when a burglar used the addresses released by that commie rag to break into a home that was listed on the published map and stole his guns.
If they want to keep guns from being stolen, then they need to respect our privacy.