I got a question thats gona make some of you mad.

[Spartacus]

So, it is impossible to do a check on a used gun? What if you had to do it through an FFL dealer? Would the new problem be the $20 fee?

Look, if I have to do the paperwork for a new one, why is it not the same for a used one? What is the REAL issue? I must be missing it...

The biggest problem would be compliance. How would you even begin to make private sellers and buyers go to a gun store to do their business? And which gun store would want the burden of the increased paperwork with no profit in sight? And can you imagine the volume of paperwork that would be necessary to record all private sale backround checks?

The logistics are insuperable. It cannot be done. Then you have the situation where the government would have to make non-compliance a crime which would make anyone who avoids private sale backround checks a felon.

The idea simply runs cross-purposes to the foundations of liberty and freedom we have come to expect in our gun culture. Sure, some percentage of private sale guns are used in crimes but that doesn't mean all sales should be banned or regulated. Thats like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

 

[Yooper]

Lets not forget, that the 4473 was designed to "get" people who can not legally purchase a firearm. The courts have ruled, that they can not be charged with a crime for attempting to buy a gun by filling out the 4473 because it would violate their rights against self incrimination.

So, if the criminals can't be charged for it, why are law abiding citizens required to go that route?

 

[metalman383]

Plus, you know they would throw some sort of sales, or income tax on the sale. Never let a good chance at taxation go to waste!!

 

[oak1971]

The idea simply runs cross-purposes to the foundations of liberty and freedom we have come to expect in our gun culture.

To this I agree 100%

 

[Flipper]

Lets not forget, that the 4473 was designed to "get" people who can not legally purchase a firearm. The courts have ruled, that they can not be charged with a crime for attempting to buy a gun by filling out the 4473 because it would violate their rights against self incrimination.

So, if the criminals can't be charged for it, why are law abiding citizens required to go that route?

That's interesting in light of the Milwaukee paper's crusade against a gunstore. When you have chance could you find a cite link and pm me or post it here if you wish.

 

[apierce918]

Once again please cite the source for this statement:

over 80% of “crime” guns are sold this way

Are you suggesting that over 80% of stolen weapons sold on the black market are used in crimes?

Otherwise the REAL issue is that you are calling over 80% of us criminals.

you are reading it wrong. he is suggesting 80% of guns used in crimes were sold that way. out of all the guns being sold, 0.2% may be used in crimes and be all that makes up the whole "80%".

20% may buy them from a dealer and used it for their first crime, or stolen them etc.etc.

(artificial numbers, just making a point)

 

[HandyHamlet]

he is suggesting 80% of guns used in crimes were sold that way

Still doesn't make sense to me. Sold what way?

80% of "crime guns" were sold by one criminal to another with no background check prior to the sale? The other 20% of crime guns were gifted from one criminal to another? Or stolen from a law abiding citizen.

'Cause the way I read it the OP is saying that 80% of crime guns were sold by a regular guy to a criminal who then went on to use the gun in a crime. And if there was a mandatory check a law abiding citizen would no longer do this.

So unless there is a source quoted or clarification from the OP... there are more than a few ways to read his post.

 

[MKEgal]

...why some feel it important to be able to sell a (used) gun with out any of the same paperwork that you needed to fill out when the gun was new? Yep, I am talking about a background check for every gun sale, new or used.

I agree with Brass Magnet:
The simple answer is that you're trying to control criminal behaviour by instituting (yet another) law, & criminals don't follow laws.

Also, it would be another infringement on the RKBA of law-abiding citizens, yet do nothing to stop criminals.
In the worst, most paranoid, gov't-is-evil nightmare (for which, see post-Katrina New Orleans)
background checks = registration --> confiscation

The only time the gov't requires a background check to sell or buy a gun is when using a federally-licensed dealer.
If I choose to buy from friends, the transaction is none of the gov't's business, just as if I chose to buy a baseball bat, dog, kitchen knife, computer, or lighter. (All of which can also be used to commit crimes, but none of which are regulated.)

 

[Super Trucker]

Ok, so I guess the topic should have given you some warning as to my question for us all….

So after thinking about all of the (gun) crime stats floating around, I would like to get a better understanding as to why some feel it important to be able to sell a (used) gun with out any of the same paperwork that you needed to fill out when the gun was new? Yep, I am talking about a background check for every gun sale, new or used.
See some of the stats I have seen show over 80% of “crime” guns were sold this way (I know, random stats can show just about anything). So I have to ask, what is the issue putting a stop to this? Is it the extra $20? Please try to remember, I don’t know a lot about the law, and am the product of our free education system (GED), so help me understand…

Michigan law says that all handguns must be registered by the state. You must have a purchase permit (or concealed pistol license) to purchase said pistol, so all handguns new and used require a background check in MI, then registration.

Detroit is in MI, what does that tell you about how background checks and registration work. Detroit is in the top 10 of violent cities EVERY year.

Criminals usually don't buy guns through proper channels, they either steal them or buy an already stolen gun. So background checks are basically a waste of time and money IMO.

 

[AaronS]

Are you looking for answers to debate Jeri? The simple answer is 'Criminals already ignore other laws, what would make her think they would suddenly obey a new law? This would do nothing but hinder law-abiding citizens from being armed which in turn helps criminals by making sure they do not encounter a citizen with the ability to defend themselves.
Look at the crime rates of Chicago, and New York! Tighter gun control equals higher crime rates

Ya got me. If I am going to be talking to her, and her people, I think I need GOOD answers that she will be able to understand. Honest, real answers are nice, but I find that when talking to anti-gun people, simple truth is often not enough.
So as it turns out, this was a good topic. I got a lot of good answers, and I am very sure Jeri is reading this all as well.
The way I look at this "wave" issue is that we ARE getting more gun rights in Wisconsin this year, and she should know it by now. I still feel bad for her, as I do not like the thought of people fearing me as I shop. I can not take away peoples fear, but I am going to try. I will admit, I do think I would have a better chance of suck starting a Harley, then changing the mind of an anti-gun person, but I am still going to try...

 

[apierce918]

Still doesn't make sense to me. Sold what way?

80% of "crime guns" were sold by one criminal to another with no background check prior to the sale? The other 20% of crime guns were gifted from one criminal to another? Or stolen from a law abiding citizen.

'Cause the way I read it the OP is saying that 80% of crime guns were sold by a regular guy to a criminal who then went on to use the gun in a crime. And if there was a mandatory check a law abiding citizen would no longer do this.

So unless there is a source quoted or clarification from the OP... there are more than a few ways to read his post.

He was saying 80% of guns used in crimes were from private party sales. Not 80% of all private sales were used in crimes.

 

[SprayAndPray]

If ATF wants to track a firearm, the query the manufacturer, who discloses what distributor he sold that serial number to. Then ATF queries the Distributor to see what FFL dealer that serial number was sold to. The dealer consults his paperwork and tells ATF what consumer that serial number was sold to.

Exactly, Registration in a pretty dress..... Even in states with no record on file.

(and there would not be as many fires and floods as you think, before we even discuss ATF's habit of coming into a dealer currently and photocopying EVERY 4473 on file)

 

[AaronS]

He was saying 80% of guns used in crimes were from private party sales. Not 80% of all private sales were used in crimes.

You are correct.
To be honest I think the stat I read was around 82%. I got it someware on the WAVE site, and am still looking for it again (sorry).

 

[HandyHamlet]

He was saying 80% of guns used in crimes were from private party sales. Not 80% of all private sales were used in crimes.

Right. Still doesn't make sense.

Maybe believable if stated "over 80% of "crime guns" are obtained illegally"...

But since now we are talking about debating antis we might as well just say 100% of crime guns obtained though the crime gun law loophole cause gun related crime violence every time. And 100% of the victims of crime guns are children most of the time if not single women.

 

[Motofixxer]

My property is my business. I don't need permission to sell a knife, an Axe, chainsaw, machete, or chunk of concrete, all of which can be deadly weapons. So why do I need to ask permission to sell a firearm? What a buyer does with it is their problem.
And I don't think there would be too many fires or floods destroying documentation. Considering the ATF's or similar... ability to pull Licenses and bring a business to it's knees. Acts and threats like that tend to "pursuade" a business into cooperating.

 

[anmut]

Because if I give my son a shotgun for Christmas I shouldn't have to tell the government about it.

Because "background check" = government registration.

Because it's a slippery slope to 1) create more reasons to deny & 2) start registering ammunition as well

But mostly because
"Shall Not Be Infringed" means exactly that.

 

[LR Yote 312]

So, it is impossible to do a check on a used gun? What if you had to do it through an FFL dealer? Would the new problem be the $20 fee?

Look, if I have to do the paperwork for a new one, why is it not the same for a used one? What is the REAL issue? I must be missing it...

A couple of years ago,

When the "gun show loophole" (as the media and others would like to call it)
was first gaining attention in the Milwaukee area there was a certain dealer that
made arrangements with Doyle and the Milwaukee Mayor (it might have been the last year of Norquist or the first year or two of Barret),to be the only FFL at a gunshow in Wisconsin. Doyle and the Milwaukee Mayor left it up the the dealer to set his fee. The price at the time was $25/gun IIRC but they also left it wide open for the dealer to raise his price as he saw fit.

I dont mind paying a little extra sometimes for a product.

But I am not gonna pay some a+shat that had absolutely no part in the transaction
what so ever to sit on his a+s and dial a phone.
Figure a phone call takes 15 mins...@ $25/gun...That S.O.B. would be pullin in $100 an hour per phone.

Theres a huge difference between offering or providing a service and pure unadulterated greed.

The gun stealership??? ...None other than the one thats located on 43rd street.

I will never be a customer there. I dont care whose name is on the FFL or whose name is on the door.

LR Yote

 

[johnny amish]

Because "background check" = government registration.

Because it's a slippery slope to 1) create more reasons to deny & 2) start registering ammunition as well

But mostly because
"Shall Not Be Infringed" means exactly that.

+1

 

[MKEgal]

Maybe believable if stated "over 80% of "crime guns" are obtained illegally"...

Hey - guess what? Since my arrest, and the police (illegally) running the serial # on my Glock, I now own a 'crime gun'.

Not because it was used in a crime, but because the police ran the serial #. (Actually, it was used in a crime, but the police committed the crime against me. And I wonder if, since they ran it at least twice, do the anti's count that as 2 'crime guns'?)

And that one was bought through an FFL. (I'd been trying to find one through friends of friends, but wasn't getting anywhere.)

 

[Brass Magnet]

Hey - guess what? Since my arrest, and the police (illegally) running the serial # on my Glock, I now own a 'crime gun'.

Are you going to get that situation fixed and have them expunge the records from their system?