The Private sale loophole.

[cpttango30]

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/463164.../#.TzPcXsVtYeU

[langenc]

Why give credence to the 'loophole' title.

Why not call it gun sales in parking lots?

Or legal gun sales cause that is what they are?

[howlnmad]

Great, another anti-gun windbag that doesn't have a clue. And apparently some experts that don't either. A police grade pistol? An assault rifle modified to use AK bullets? And the most deadly hand gun of all, the Glock 23 with hollow points. The man is an idiot!
Worst part is, there are other idiots that will listen to this crap. From what I read none of the sales were illegal because they were private. If I sold a firearm to someone knowing they wouldn't pass a background check, that'd be something that I'd have to live with.

[cpttango30]

I am sorry the one guy was a DOUCHE BAG. If some dude says I can't pass a background check. I am out give me my gun and you can keep your cash. If he refuses I get his plates name and I call the cops.

That was stupid right there.

I myself would never sell FTF to an unknown person. I would force the deal through a dealer even paying the Fee out of my cost. That is just me.

[cpttango30]

Originally Posted by langenc

Why give credence to the 'loophole' title.

Why not call it gun sales in parking lots?

Or legal gun sales cause that is what they are?

Sorry to offend you.

[cpttango30]

Here is a question.

Why shouldn't all sales of firearms go through a dealer?

Really if you are smart enough and want a gun now you go to private sale. It make sense to have a gun that is not yours. Because they will get to the last person that purchased it from a lic dealer will they not? I am sure we are not seeing the whole transaction. Did any of the sellers take a digital photo of the purchasers DL? Did they ask any kind of questions? Or did they get out show the person the gun and take cash on the spot and walk off.

Why did every single person just run away. Why not stay and talk, explain that by law it is legal to sell a gun this way. There is nothing wrong with the way I conducted the transaction. So what is your problem. Would I be upset if the gun I sold a guy (Which I wouldn't sell to a stranger) was used to murder someone HELL yes I would. I would more than likely blame my self for that murder.

I love some of the comments though. Someone was saying the more money you have the less guns you would own. WRONG the more money you have the more likely you are to have a collection of firearms.

[JLA]

Funny how the ability to 'not like' it is not present next to the 'like' button.

That dips*** is truly stupid. Furthermore if he thinks regulating private sales will keep the guns out of the hands of a criminal. Criminals are criminals because they disregard the law, so what are they going to care if the law says they cant buy guns privately? theyll buy them anyway, illegally, and not lose a bit of sleep over it.

All their little anti gun push is gonna do is effect the legal and safe sale between law abiding gun enthusiasts, like myself. Heck some of the best deals Ive ever gotten on guns was thru private sales, and some of them were in parkinglots.

Tactical assault rifle modified to use AK-47 bullets?? WTF! any ol sks in a tapco stock would fit that description, and the 7.62X39 has been around longer than the weapons its used in. Dont these idiots ever read a book? And the 50 cal powerful enough to drop a helicopter was a Armalite AR-50 with a crappy spraypaint camo job, granted its a 50 cal, and I suppose it could be used with AP ammo, IF one could find some. But still. And the Glock with hollowpoints designed to inflict serious internal damage.. Any handgun can be used with hollowpoints and apparently theyve never seen anything shot, bullets inflict serious internal damage, no matter the design or the composition, thats what they do because thats what they are supposed to do. I get so mad when i read anti gun media nonsense. They dont understand the material they write about and they make the weapons out to be far more evil than they really are... I just wanna scream sometimes.

Maybe we should ban criminals.. I mean if these people have a criminal record and are considered a threat to society, then why are they walking free in the streets? I mean they have to be caught and convicted to be criminals, so why didnt the system keep them locked away in the first place.. THATS the big failure here.

In my mind there should be no "severity of crime".. Crime is crime IMO, dont like the punishment, dont do the crime. Yeah getting locked up for life might seem a little harsh for a petty theif, but my point is, if the punishment is that stiff, eventually crimes will stop being committed.. Dont you think?

[Claudius Valarium]

Does this story really surprise any of us on this forum? After all, it originates from the MSM. Everything I look at is tinted by the source as I'm sure each of you do as well.

The "tactical assault" being waged is on our 2A rights to own modern sporting rifles (or any other legal firearm).

The TA on our 2A is being systematically implemented to sway the drones of the country to view firearms as a deadly danger to society, thereby making it acceptable to eliminate them for the good of society.

I am speaking to the choir here, but make no mistake, this has been visibly going on since the 60's and probably since the 30's in stealth mode. It's just been recently ratcheted up a few notches.

[cpttango30]

I knew it was to begin with.

My wife likes MSNBC and set it as the home page on chrome and it follows me everywhere. I just happen to pop open my browser at work and it slapped me in the face with a Smith M&P-15. So I clicked the link.

I am sure the edit job was done to make all the sellers look bad.

[deadin]

If I sold a firearm to someone knowing they wouldn't pass a background check, that'd be something that I'd have to live with.

You also might have to live with Bubba as a cell mate..........

A person may sell a firearm to an unlicensed resident of his State, if he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law. A person may loan or rent a firearm to a resident of any State for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes, if he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law. A person may sell or transfer a firearm to a licensee in any State. However, a firearm other than a curio or relic may not be transferred interstate to a licensed collector.

18 U.S.C. 922(a)(3) and (5), 922(d), 27 CFR 478.29 and 478.30]

[Dennis C]

I read the article and want to know what exactly is a police grade pistol?

[Double D]

I would like to say that this type of nonsense is exactly why we pro gunners must stick together more now than ever. Notice they said that the NRA is blocking their legislation. We need the NRA and others, so like my signature line says, its time to put our differences aside and band together. The anti crowd is certainly coming together, we had better do the same.

[pinecone70]

This is ridiculous. It's a good thing I didn't go into journalism, I wouldn't have been very popular with anyone else in the field. In my limited journalism experience, I was told to do research and get facts, apparently those aren't requirements for writers anymore.

[fuzebox40]

Originally Posted by JLA

All their little anti gun push is gonna do is effect the legal and safe sale between law abiding gun enthusiasts, like myself. Heck some of the best deals Ive ever gotten on guns was thru private sales, and some of them were in parkinglots.

Ditto.

Obviously this is simply more anti gun campaigning. As anyone can plainly tell, the tone of this entire report was negative toward guns in general, all the while implying that FTF transactions in someway promote crime or there must be some underlying “bad guy” reason for not buying all your guns from a store. In the end they would simply have us all believe that guns inspire criminality, not criminals.
On a side note I just have to say that if the government wanted to promote registration of firearms one simple tactic would be to stop being so anal about denying nearly everyone who’s ever been arrested. For example one of my gun collector friends was denied a store purchase because of a drunk driving accident he was involved in some 30 years ago when he was 20yo. For this they want him forever banned from gun ownership and would have him protect his castle and family with a frying pan. Ever hunt coyote with a frying pan?
Another example, a normal 21yo gal found out her boyfriend was cheating on her. Upset and in tears she blurted out she wanted to run him over with her car. A trouble maker and friend of the cheater reported it and "for her own good" she was detained on a 5150 to "give her time to cool down". Now she cannot pass a bkgnd check. There are many good folks out there who are "not allowed" to register a firearm for reasons unrelated. Of course they wouldn’t think of pulling their heads out of their butt and revise the qualifications to be realistic of its purpose because the real truth is they ultimately wish to ban all, not just some, from possessing firearms.
A background check should target "high risk" individuals for obvious reasons, and not every rediculouse reason to get around the second amendment.

[prof_fate]

The law says sellers that 'sell from their private collection and are not in it for profit' are not dealers and therefore don't need to do the background check on the buyers.

If that were 100% true then OK, leave the loophole. However I can just about guarantee it's not the case. If you want to sell your glock 21 to a buddy at the gun club and get a kimber then that's what the loophole is for. But how many of these deals are like that? I bet less than 50%.

As others have stated, if you bought the gun legally and went through the BG check and then hand it off in a non-registered sale, and then it's used in a crime (if not by him, his bad uncle, theif that stole it from him or he sells it FTF again) the lawmen will come knocking on your door. Prove you didn't break the law - who did you sell it to? Yeah, you don't need records of this until you do.

And god help you if say, that guys kid takes it to school and guns down a friend (by accident or because he's disturbed and emulating columbine) - you'll be sued, you'll be on the news, your life will suck.

I think fairness is the ideal - if you need a BG check for a new gun, why not a used one? If small business owners have to BG checks that those operating businesses "online" are operating outside the law and unfairly.

How many innocent folks are on death row? How many is too many? Should it not be the same for gun sales - how many criminals should be allowed to buy guns w/o BG checks? None would be my feeling.

[mogunner]

I use bills of sale in all my private transactions. If someone refuses to sign one, I'll just take that as their admission that they probably aren't legally able to buy one. There's always the possibility that they don't want their name and address known, but thats too bad for them as that's how I choose to do it. There's also a statement on it that there is "No reason that they cannot legally purchase this firearm".

[Ed~]

While this news article is another example of Sensationalism and the journalist obviously has very little knowledge of firearms, I would still say this video is not simply an anti-gun campaign smear job and you can't go after the messenger for the message. That is intellectual laziness.

I am honestly on the fence on this issue after watching this because I AM JUST LIKE ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE IN THE VIDEO.

I met a Seller in a Walmart parking lot in Phoenix to purchased a nice S&W Airlight. He asked to see my AZ DL# and we did do a Bill of Sale, one copy for each person. The guy seemed totally trustworthy so I did not write down his DL# on the Bill of Sale even though he let me see his CDL license. Everything was cake and I went home with a very handsome revolver for a good price.

Nevertheless, what we are witnessing in this video is obviously a failure of individual citizens to do the right thing and follow the law... They knowingly sold a firearm to someone who (jokingly or not) said they probably couldn't pass a background check. We heard people say, "No paperwork or nuthin..." in the video so I assume that to mean no DL# was checked or written on any Bill of Sale.

If I am not mistaken, it is already against the law for a private party to sell a firearm of any sort to someone not a resident of the same state, often proven by a Drivers License of that state.

So what the sellers in that video did probably was very grey according to 18 U.S.C. 922(a)(3) and (5), 922(d), 27 CFR 478.29 and 478.30] and that's why most of the Sellers didn't hang around to chit-chat with the news crew.

Now I and many of my gun owning friends always say that it is far better to own a gun that the ATF doesn't have a Serial # on if they decide to come and collect all personal firearms. These days I'm not convinced that will ever happen, or happen so easily without all gun-owners (in AZ anyway) going ape-sh*t first. What is more likely, however, is that someone takes a private-sale gun and robs a liquor-store, goes on a shooting rampage, or as in the video shoot someone in a moment of passion.

And yet, we in Cochise County are the ones to experience a totally legal FTF sale of a handgun to a complete nutcase, Jared Laughner, who proceeds to plan and execute one of the most horrific attacks on our political psyche.

What is the answer? I really don't know. But I highly doubt that arming the entire population like the wild-west is truly the answer. Liberalizing the gun laws don't seem to make sense in this case.

But I appreciate that everyone here took the time to watch and respond to the video according to their individual values. These arguments helps me to form my own opinion.

[Brass Tacks]

just typical, anti gun, liberal verbal diarrhea.

[jjmitchell60]

Private sales are OK as long as seller and buyer cover their butts. Seller asks if buyer can own and buyer get a bill of sale to ensure not stolen.

Now with that said, 99% of the ones at guns shows set up selling ARE selling for a profit and should be maade to get their FFLs IMHO.

true story, I know a man who sets p at all the gun shows on a show circut, he is not a dealer, went to Center Fire Systems and bought 100 mausers which were put on ONE form 4473, AND then sold those exact mausers at guns shows on the gun show circuit as "his private collection"!!!!

I had to pay $300 for my FFLs, finger printed, back ground check, premises checked, and pay $90 to renew each 3 years. Now if I have to do that then why can a man buy 100 mausers on ONE form 4473 and then sale them at gun shows NOT have to pay to be a LEGAL seller. He is breaking the LAW!!!

As to the video, idiot!

[Nighthawk]

I'd like to see it revert to way it was in 50's. You could order from the pages of
just about any magazine by mail. Less troubles then than now. More law=
more crime. I guess that's what government wants change everybody's
legal status to illegal. MORE CONTROL

[fuzebox40]

Originally Posted by Ed~

While this news article is another example of Sensationalism and the journalist obviously has very little knowledge of firearms, I would still say this video is not simply an anti-gun campaign smear job and you can't go after the messenger for the message. That is intellectual laziness.

I am honestly on the fence on this issue after watching this because I AM JUST LIKE ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE IN THE VIDEO.

I met a Seller in a Walmart parking lot in Phoenix to purchased a nice S&W Airlight. He asked to see my AZ DL# and we did do a Bill of Sale, one copy for each person. The guy seemed totally trustworthy so I did not write down his DL# on the Bill of Sale even though he let me see his CDL license. Everything was cake and I went home with a very handsome revolver for a good price.

Nevertheless, what we are witnessing in this video is obviously a failure of individual citizens to do the right thing and follow the law... They knowingly sold a firearm to someone who (jokingly or not) said they probably couldn't pass a background check. We heard people say, "No paperwork or nuthin..." in the video so I assume that to mean no DL# was checked or written on any Bill of Sale.

If I am not mistaken, it is already against the law for a private party to sell a firearm of any sort to someone not a resident of the same state, often proven by a Drivers License of that state.

So what the sellers in that video did probably was very grey according to 18 U.S.C. 922(a)(3) and (5), 922(d), 27 CFR 478.29 and 478.30] and that's why most of the Sellers didn't hang around to chit-chat with the news crew.

Now I and many of my gun owning friends always say that it is far better to own a gun that the ATF doesn't have a Serial # on if they decide to come and collect all personal firearms. These days I'm not convinced that will ever happen, or happen so easily without all gun-owners (in AZ anyway) going ape-sh*t first. What is more likely, however, is that someone takes a private-sale gun and robs a liquor-store, goes on a shooting rampage, or as in the video shoot someone in a moment of passion.

And yet, we in Cochise County are the ones to experience a totally legal FTF sale of a handgun to a complete nutcase, Jared Laughner, who proceeds to plan and execute one of the most horrific attacks on our political psyche.

What is the answer? I really don't know. But I highly doubt that arming the entire population like the wild-west is truly the answer. Liberalizing the gun laws don't seem to make sense in this case.

But I appreciate that everyone here took the time to watch and respond to the video according to their individual values. These arguments helps me to form my own opinion.

An actual campaign? Of course not! But yes I can attack the messenger when the messenger tries to influence while claiming to be impartial. "Intellectual laziness" is being led by the media's cow bell! Do you think for a minute they couldn't find anyone who would appear to operate satisfactorily. Do you not think that the media is largely democratic and "anti gun". That's right, our beloved Hollywood and so on would also have us believe in Obama all the way to government rule as they do their best to praise him and bash all who appose, still claiming to be unbiased.
But now that you've "formed your own opinion" what do you feel was the message? A terrorist can get a gun, or we need gun control? Just curious.

[Bobitis]

We recently had a father of two young boys here, hack them up with a hatchet, pour gas all over the inside of his house, and blow them all up.

No more hatchet sales or gas purchases without a background check?

What's next? Knives, baseball bats, and toilets?

Buyer beware. Seller beware.

This isn't a 'gun' issue. It's a 1st amendment issue. Big Brother is watching, and the MSM is in his pocket. Fear mongering at its finest.

If you as a buyer or seller doesn't understand CYA; let it go. Ya may get lucky, or go to prison. It's a personal choice thing.

[Ed~]

Originally Posted by fuzebox40

An actual campaign? Of course not! But yes I can attack the messenger when the messenger tries to influence while claiming to be impartial. "Intellectual laziness" is being led by the media's cow bell! Do you think for a minute they couldn't find anyone who would appear to operate satisfactorily. Do you not think that the media is largely democratic and "anti gun". That's right, our beloved Hollywood and so on would also have us believe in Obama all the way to government rule as they do their best to praise him and bash all who appose, still claiming to be unbiased.
But now that you've "formed your own opinion" what do you feel was the message? A terrorist can get a gun, or we need gun control? Just curious.

Blown a fuse there, fuzebox?

I am much more informed by cpttango30 comments. I, too, would feel like sh*t if a gun I sold was involved in a crime or murder.

Wouldn't you?

And yet a perfectly intelligent and reasonable looking guy in the interview under economic pressure essentially said, "I need the money," knowing the firearm transaction was iffy with the weight of his conscience in his heart. He was not proud. Not like the ass who sold the Barrett with a grin.

My question is why we don't have a system that keeps the good-guys from being lumped together with the questionable asses instead of what we have now?

I just don't know what that would look like.

I also don't understand why all gun control measures have to mean Anti-gun to some here? Is it because it feels so much more powerful inside to be Anti-something than sit in Unknowing before a reasonable answer surfaces?

Just know that historically such feelings are what makes for a fearful/angry populace easily lead (by the nose) to war and perversions by the charismatic, corrupt individuals: Nazi Germany, Stalin's USSR, Cultural Revolution in China, Iraq War after 9-11.

Those are what I call the real concerns of intellectual laziness. We are all wallowing in its effects.

[millwright]

Originally Posted by cpttango30

Here is a question.

Why shouldn't all sales of firearms go through a dealer?

Really if you are smart enough and want a gun now you go to private sale. It make sense to have a gun that is not yours. Because they will get to the last person that purchased it from a lic dealer will they not? I am sure we are not seeing the whole transaction. Did any of the sellers take a digital photo of the purchasers DL? Did they ask any kind of questions? Or did they get out show the person the gun and take cash on the spot and walk off.

Why did every single person just run away. Why not stay and talk, explain that by law it is legal to sell a gun this way. There is nothing wrong with the way I conducted the transaction. So what is your problem. Would I be upset if the gun I sold a guy (Which I wouldn't sell to a stranger) was used to murder someone HELL yes I would. I would more than likely blame my self for that murder.

I love some of the comments though. Someone was saying the more money you have the less guns you would own. WRONG the more money you have the more likely you are to have a collection of firearms.

[bold added]

I'd say it all depends upon your confidence in our government(s) !

Today government has the capability to keep a lot of data it formerly didn't. Why put a gun unlikely on any "registry" back on by passing it thkroug a dealer ? On a more philosophical note, why should I - or anyone - need "government permission" to dispose of personal property ? Where do such restrictions stop ? Logically - per the established BATF meme - such controls ought to encompass such things as rubber bands, boot laces, water pipe, machining devices/tools and hand tools to name but a few areas.

WTF did the concept that anyone has responsibility - legal or moral - for the misuse/abuse of some inanimate object they sold to another emerge ? >MW

[Ed~]

Originally Posted by Bobitis

We recently had a father of two young boys here, hack them up with a hatchet, pour gas all over the inside of his house, and blow them all up.

No more hatchet sales or gas purchases without a background check?

What's next? Knives, baseball bats, and toilets?

I mentioned the Tucson shooting as an example of our current gun laws and our society.

How much damage did Loughner do with one legally purchased Glock 19 and a single 30 round magazine? How many people and how much damage could one nut do with a hatchet or a can of gasoline in front of a Safeway shopping center with many other men his size standing around?

Your example of a father and his kids just don't stack up. It only confuses the issue.