Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
Would you support free face to face bg checks at police stations for private sales?
Yes
No
gently caress the government
View Results
 
  • Post
  • Reply
pipebomb
May 12, 2001

Dear God, what is it like in your funny little brains?
It must be so boring.


Would you support closing the ‘gunshow’ loophole (read: armslist type deals and other private party sales) if both parties were to meet at a local law enforcement office for a free background check? It would alleviate fraud, robberies and would locate stolen guns.

Hell, if the gun was stolen, the seller could maybe get an ATF reward if it can be tracked back.

Personally, I ask everyone I sell to or buy from if they’re legal and I get a picture of their license or cc permit. If they’re not willing, I pass.


(Hopefully this doesn’t degrade into a poo poo thread, but I’m just curious.)

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Action-Bastard
Jan 1, 2008



I fully expect this to derail into oblivion and get shut down...

Anyways,

"Would you support closing the ‘gunshow’ loophole (read: armslist type deals and other private party sales) if both parties were to meet at a local law enforcement office for a free background check?"

If I could trust law enforcement to be fair, impartial, and have the interests of both parties in mind. Yeah I could see this being an effective system. However given that in recent years we have seen law enforcement be corrupt, unfair, and downright tyrannical and racist... I see this creating more issues than it solves. Hell my local law enforcement has made national news for having officers with ties to white nationalist groups and being caught on camera having a double standard for behavior depending on someone's race.

Here in Oregon all sales have to go through an FFL, so at the very least you can find someone happy to take your money for a transfer.

Warbadger
Jun 17, 2006


pipebomb posted:

Would you support closing the ‘gunshow’ loophole (read: armslist type deals and other private party sales) if both parties were to meet at a local law enforcement office for a free background check? It would alleviate fraud, robberies and would locate stolen guns.

Hell, if the gun was stolen, the seller could maybe get an ATF reward if it can be tracked back.

Personally, I ask everyone I sell to or buy from if they’re legal and I get a picture of their license or cc permit. If they’re not willing, I pass.


(Hopefully this doesn’t degrade into a poo poo thread, but I’m just curious.)

Maybe, at least insofar as it might be a nice service to have a reasonably safe location and be easier to be sure you aren't selling to the FBI's most wanted when you sell a gun. I see a few big problems though.

First off that it'd be essentially unenforceable without universal licensing. You don't know who owns the guns to begin with, so how do you know they were transferred? Unless you're keeping records of all said transfers you don't even know whether they really were transferred the legal way.

Second, it sounds like a shoe-in for de-facto ban fuckery - similar to how local law enforcement is known for stonewalling signing off on NFA items and some areas have made licensing and purchases effectively impossible in the past. I'd expect the same kind of tricks - technically offering the service but only between 2AM-3AM once a month (and it mysteriously gets cancelled any time the LEOs or their friends don't need to do a few transfers). Enact huge fees for the service. Make only one room available in a large city, scheduled in hour long blocks. Or just straight up not offer the service if the wording of the law allows for it.

Warbadger fucked around with this message at 11:43 on Mar 23, 2021

Strayer
May 19, 2006



Oh yeah. I'd absolutely love to have to go to my local PD and get a NICS check run by the cops whenever my brother wants to borrow one of my guns for a match or something.

Sarcasm aside: No. Only way I would ever even remotely consider any restrictions on face-to-face transfers beyond those already extant would be if somebody could create a black-box system that just gave a go or no-go result. You go with your transferee to the black box in a public place, you confirm their ID matches up to what you see, they punch the card into the box, and it just gives a Go or No-Go. And then you do the transfer at your leisure. And even that is iffy because it's a magic pipedream.

The way it stands, Face To Face has to happen in State of Residence, between two Residents of the same State. The transferor must have a reasonable belief that the transferee is not a prohibited person. IMO, that's good enough for the government. Everything is still in place to nail straw purchasers(something the ATF gives few fucks about) and to nail someone who knowingly sells/gives a firearm to a prohibited person. All the universal background checks stuff being pushed is aimed solely at giving the government the ability to track and document all firearms transfers and thereby create a de facto registry. At the very least, such legislation is intended to be purely obstructionary.

FWIW, I do shy away from private transfers with anyone that I do not personally know and know relatively well. I've been party to a few transfers as the second to a friend, but pretty much I've only ever done transfers with close friends or people who I've shot matches with a multitude of times. I'd be all about a system that gives people a way to be confident that they're not selling to a prohibited person who knows how to talk the talk, but it needs to be one that isn't designed to gently caress over me and mine.

By the way: Loophole is a massively bullshit weasel word. Everything is a loophole. Now we've got the Charleston loophole because some cops didn't answer the phone when FBI NICS called them to check on some flags on a person who got a Delayed status, and the cops never followed up, so Dylan Roof met his Brady Date and was able to buy a gun he should not have(because he was, by law, a prohibited person but the Police Department he was charged by botched their paperwork and follow through) and committed a racially motivated shooting spree at a Black church. The Brady Date, which is a perfectly valid caveat designed explicitly to prevent the government from being able to stop legal and valid transfers by just never giving a status on a NICS check, is now a "loophole".

Shaocaholica
Oct 29, 2002

Fig. 5E


Take comfort the most populous state and one of the biggest gun markets already closed the loophole.

Strayer
May 19, 2006



And just as an addendum: If you as a transferor have any doubts about a potential transferee, you just make transferring the firearm through an FFL part of your requirements. I worked the FFL gig for a few years and we handled a ton of private transfers. Gun gets transferred in to the FFL by the transferor, transferee does the 4473, and upon Proceed status we booked the gun out to the transferor, and one of them would pay the $25 transfer fee. So, if you have any reason to doubt your potential transferee, the option to go through an FFL is always there. Just very firmly of the opinion that it should not be a requirement for ALL transfers.

Capn Beeb
Jun 29, 2003

Enter the woods, find a friend!


Remove the having to meet at a police station bit and I might be mildly interested. But as others stated, this is unenforceable without universal registration/licensing and l m a o gently caress that.

Honestly the only legislation on transfers I'd support is setting FFL transfers nationwide to a fixed rate of $25. No further restrictions or price increases, no pinned on tacked on paperclip rider bullshit.

Strayer posted:

Oh yeah. I'd absolutely love to have to go to my local PD and get a NICS check run by the cops whenever my brother wants to borrow one of my guns for a match or something.

Sarcasm aside: No. Only way I would ever even remotely consider any restrictions on face-to-face transfers beyond those already extant would be if somebody could create a black-box system that just gave a go or no-go result. You go with your transferee to the black box in a public place, you confirm their ID matches up to what you see, they punch the card into the box, and it just gives a Go or No-Go. And then you do the transfer at your leisure. And even that is iffy because it's a magic pipedream.

The way it stands, Face To Face has to happen in State of Residence, between two Residents of the same State. The transferor must have a reasonable belief that the transferee is not a prohibited person. IMO, that's good enough for the government. Everything is still in place to nail straw purchasers(something the ATF gives few fucks about) and to nail someone who knowingly sells/gives a firearm to a prohibited person. All the universal background checks stuff being pushed is aimed solely at giving the government the ability to track and document all firearms transfers and thereby create a de facto registry. At the very least, such legislation is intended to be purely obstructionary.

FWIW, I do shy away from private transfers with anyone that I do not personally know and know relatively well. I've been party to a few transfers as the second to a friend, but pretty much I've only ever done transfers with close friends or people who I've shot matches with a multitude of times. I'd be all about a system that gives people a way to be confident that they're not selling to a prohibited person who knows how to talk the talk, but it needs to be one that isn't designed to gently caress over me and mine.

By the way: Loophole is a massively bullshit weasel word. Everything is a loophole. Now we've got the Charleston loophole because some cops didn't answer the phone when FBI NICS called them to check on some flags on a person who got a Delayed status, and the cops never followed up, so Dylan Roof met his Brady Date and was able to buy a gun he should not have(because he was, by law, a prohibited person but the Police Department he was charged by botched their paperwork and follow through) and committed a racially motivated shooting spree at a Black church. The Brady Date, which is a perfectly valid caveat designed explicitly to prevent the government from being able to stop legal and valid transfers by just never giving a status on a NICS check, is now a "loophole".

Pretty much all of this.

Edit:

Wasn't Aurora also the result of somebody sitting on a pile of clear as day warning signs and just snail mailing them instead of following protocol and expediting them to local law?

Capn Beeb fucked around with this message at 07:55 on Mar 23, 2021

Dip Viscous
Sep 17, 2019



Loopholes kick rear end but still open NICS to everyone.

Dip Viscous
Sep 17, 2019



In an ideal system a buyer could punch all of their info into an ATF site, show the seller a QR code, and the seller would see a "NAME DOB LOL THEY ARE PASSED" message.

Completely unenforceable without being a shitshow, but probably kind of sort of I guess better than the current system. For some reason.

Dr. Gojo Shioji
Apr 22, 2004



Dip Viscous posted:

In an ideal system a buyer could punch all of their info into an ATF site, show the seller a QR code, and the seller would see a "NAME DOB LOL THEY ARE PASSED" message.

It kind of boggles the mind why this isn't already an option. That isn't to say that I'd want it to be necessary (since I doubt there would be any way to avoid those requests being stored permanently on the ATF side), but I can't see any reason why I wouldn't use it for a private transfer to someone that isn't a friend or family member.

Capn Beeb
Jun 29, 2003

Enter the woods, find a friend!


Dr. Gojo Shioji posted:

It kind of boggles the mind why this isn't already an option. That isn't to say that I'd want it to be necessary (since I doubt there would be any way to avoid those requests being stored permanently on the ATF side), but I can't see any reason why I wouldn't use it for a private transfer to someone that isn't a friend or family member.

What, and make it easier for people to legally sell guns with a paper trail?

That's not Common Sense™

Gray Stormy
Dec 19, 2006



If there was a quick-check method, that didnt store either parties info, using NICS that was available to everyone, maybe.

It could generate a QR or something for each party in case something comes into question.

"Were you aware you were selling that shotgun to a felon?"

"Nope. The Feds cleared him. See?"

Warbadger
Jun 17, 2006


Gray Stormy posted:

If there was a quick-check method, that didnt store either parties info, using NICS that was available to everyone, maybe.

It could generate a QR or something for each party in case something comes into question.

"Were you aware you were selling that shotgun to a felon?"

"Nope. The Feds cleared him. See?"

That would be a much better system. You give the people who are trying to follow the laws the tools to do the right thing better, voluntarily. Plus you don't hand police a way to selectively criminalize or disenfranchise people with a largely unenforceable law!

ZebraBlade
Mar 26, 2010

Something is rotten in the state of Denmark

I would happily agree to that if they opened the NFA registry for new machineguns, removed SBR/SBS/Silencers from the NFA, and lowered the tax stamp to $20

or abolished the NFA entirely, that would work

SFH1989
Apr 23, 2007



ZebraBlade posted:

I would happily agree to that if they opened the NFA registry for new machineguns, removed SBR/SBS/Silencers from the NFA, and lowered the tax stamp to $20

or abolished the NFA entirely, that would work

And federal carry reciprocity or better yet constitutional carry.

Shaocaholica
Oct 29, 2002

Fig. 5E


ZebraBlade posted:

I would happily agree to that if they opened the NFA registry for new machineguns, removed SBR/SBS/Silencers from the NFA, and lowered the tax stamp to $20

or abolished the NFA entirely, that would work

And make ban states reciprocate. CA would freak. CA would rather see the world burn.

Capn Beeb
Jun 29, 2003

Enter the woods, find a friend!


ZebraBlade posted:

I would happily agree to that if they opened the NFA registry for new machineguns, removed SBR/SBS/Silencers from the NFA, and lowered the tax stamp to $20

or abolished the NFA entirely, that would work

I feel opening the registry would be met with current MG owners rallying their reps to not let it happen because how dare this gun I take to Knob Creek etc devalue!! Also oops someone left a pile of money on the table senator, I shall turn my back and when I look again surely it will be gone, wink wink

Warbadger
Jun 17, 2006


ZebraBlade posted:

I would happily agree to that if they opened the NFA registry for new machineguns, removed SBR/SBS/Silencers from the NFA, and lowered the tax stamp to $20

or abolished the NFA entirely, that would work

My god??? You mean GIVE, not just TAKE? That sounds an awful lot like compromise.

Also a lot like actually actively regulating a thing rather than banning it.

Somebody Awful
Nov 27, 2011

BORN TO DIE
HAIG IS A FUCK
Kill Em All 1917
I am trench man
410,757,864,530 SHELLS FIRED




Capn Beeb posted:

I feel opening the registry would be met with current MG owners rallying their reps to not let it happen because how dare this gun I take to Knob Creek etc devalue!!

Rich dipshits who buy MGs purely to make a long term profit might get upset. People who want to own MGs for collecting or shooting, probably not so much.

This came up in one of Ian's Q&A videos a year or two ago:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cssjmceX0gI#t=320s

pipebomb
May 12, 2001

Dear God, what is it like in your funny little brains?
It must be so boring.


Some really good ideas and conversations in here. Thanks for the feedback, y’all. As a newer ‘gun nut’, I’m still coming to terms with how I perceive current regulations. I personally don’t think we’ll ever have a ‘THEY’RE HERE FOR OUR GUNS!’ moment, so I don’t mind as much about registration.

But I feel like anyone that is willing to die for their guns…well, they’re probably gonna die for them.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

The ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ folks are either posers or they’re itching for the fight anyway - how can they come and take them if they don’t know where they are?

Shaocaholica
Oct 29, 2002

Fig. 5E


I’ve joked about offering rewards for ratting out gun owners as late stage gun control. It’s not a new concept and it works. I can honestly see it being a thing in my state in my lifetime. Always sticks never carrots doesn’t seem to work well past a certain threshold which I think the US has passed a long time ago.

Shooting Blanks
Jun 6, 2007

Real bullets mess up how cool this thing looks.

-Blade





Somebody Awful posted:

Rich dipshits who buy MGs purely to make a long term profit might get upset. People who want to own MGs for collecting or shooting, probably not so much.

This came up in one of Ian's Q&A videos a year or two ago:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cssjmceX0gI#t=320s

I don't know how many prospective MG shooters will be that interested when they figure out just how expensive it is to feed those things. Especially given ammo scarcity these days.

madeintaipei
Jul 13, 2012



Shooting Blanks posted:

I don't know how many prospective MG shooters will be that interested when they figure out just how expensive it is to feed those things. Especially given ammo scarcity these days.

Machine-gun co-ops. Crew served weapons, after all. Vegetable garden on one end, shooting range on the other.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Monolith.
Jan 28, 2011

To save the world from the expanding Zone.


No because the laws outside the gun show are the same inside it. There is no "gun show loophole."

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply