Honest opinion w/o the bullshit.......

[Old Texan]

Can we at least try to be civil. Ignore the past and just give a reasonable comment on what you think of my statement.

I've been nothing but pro gun since I was born. I have been nothing but a responsible and safety conscious gun owner my whole life. I realize a prime concern of many is that if a inch is given to the anti guns folks, we are conceding a step to losing our rights.

But we have a problem with guns getting on the hands of bad people, both crooks and loons. So here it is, a way to solve the private sale issue so many want to bepart of the solution:

What would be wrong to have a law that required a background check of a person that was buying a gun from a private individual?

Put the sale through a licensed firearm dealer. The amount of sale and even the S/N of the gun does not have to be recorded. This will give some protection of the gun rights crowd demands. But the whole of the deal is to assure the buyer is legal to own and competent to own. Nothing more nothing less.

Thoughts?

 

[94Nautique]

Can we at least try to be civil. Ignore the past and just give a reasonable comment on what you think of my statement.

I've been nothing but pro gun since I was born. I have been nothing but a responsible and safety conscious gun owner my whole life. I realize a prime concern of many is that if a inch is given to the anti guns folks, we are conceding a step to losing our rights.

But we have a problem with guns getting on the hands of bad people, both crooks and loons. So here it is, a way to solve the private sale issue so many want to bepart of the solution:

What would be wrong to have a law that required a background check of a person that was buying a gun from a private individual?

Put the sale through a licensed firearm dealer. The amount of sale and even the S/N of the gun does not have to be recorded. This will give some protection of the gun rights crowd demands. But the whole of the deal is to assure the buyer is legal to own and competent to own. Nothing more nothing less.

Thoughts?

People still sell and buy weed illegally in CA, even though it's legal for recreational use. This would look to be the same.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-T377A using Tapatalk

 

[was thatguy]

I don’t know the numbers, but it would seem to me that any success of this plan would hinge on intent at the time of purchase.
How many people actually blow a gasket and then commit a crime with a legally owned gun compared to how many criminals illegally obtain weapons with the intent of committing crimes?

I can legally buy guns with any sort of background check implemented.
But the problem I see in the future is the arbitrary decision making by others on who exactly qualifies to own a weapon.
Eventually, all current legal gun owners will in some way be disqualified. May take many years may take less years. But it is coming.
We will likely be long gone when this republic falls, but fall it will.
How it will develop is anyone’s guess, but the sheer volume of private weapons in this Country suggests that it will be bloody.

 

[500bbc]

Can we at least try to be civil. Ignore the past and just give a reasonable comment on what you think of my statement.

I've been nothing but pro gun since I was born. I have been nothing but a responsible and safety conscious gun owner my whole life. I realize a prime concern of many is that if a inch is given to the anti guns folks, we are conceding a step to losing our rights.

But we have a problem with guns getting on the hands of bad people, both crooks and loons. So here it is, a way to solve the private sale issue so many want to bepart of the solution:

What would be wrong to have a law that required a background check of a person that was buying a gun from a private individual?

Put the sale through a licensed firearm dealer. The amount of sale and even the S/N of the gun does not have to be recorded. This will give some protection of the gun rights crowd demands. But the whole of the deal is to assure the buyer is legal to own and competent to own. Nothing more nothing less.

Thoughts?

It will only affect honest law-abiding citizens.
Heroin, Meth, Cocaine, Weed, pills, all illegal, some with severe penalties for trafficking, sales and consumption still increasing.

 

[Bpracing1127]

I see the problem as: ok we will do this for safety’s sake. Then in 10 years the law changes and now s\n and guns will be recorded. Then where does it stop?

Anything the government does, it does really poorly!

 

[LargeOrangeFont]

Can we at least try to be civil. Ignore the past and just give a reasonable comment on what you think of my statement.

I've been nothing but pro gun since I was born. I have been nothing but a responsible and safety conscious gun owner my whole life. I realize a prime concern of many is that if a inch is given to the anti guns folks, we are conceding a step to losing our rights.

But we have a problem with guns getting on the hands of bad people, both crooks and loons. So here it is, a way to solve the private sale issue so many want to bepart of the solution:

What would be wrong to have a law that required a background check of a person that was buying a gun from a private individual?

Put the sale through a licensed firearm dealer. The amount of sale and even the S/N of the gun does not have to be recorded. This will give some protection of the gun rights crowd demands. But the whole of the deal is to assure the buyer is legal to own and competent to own. Nothing more nothing less.

Thoughts?

That example is exactly what is done in California except they record the serial number. I don't even care if they record the serial number, the serial number is inconsequential if they are recording the sale of the gun anyway.

Background check everyone in a private party sale. Nothing wrong with that in my mind.

 

[westair]

With background checks who decides who can and can't own a gun?

 

[Sleek-Jet]

The world is awash in firearms, you can buy one on the black market right now, or even the grey market. Laws such as univesal background checks only apply to law abiding citizens. They sound like really good ideas, but someone that is planning something really heinous isn't going to let a back ground check get in the way.

But it so easy to buy an AR-15 baby killer special at a gun show!

It is probably even easier to buy the same gun on the street.

I for one am getting tired of being blamed and carrying the burden of the lawless.

 

[SNiC Jet]

What would be wrong to have a law that required a background check of a person that was buying a gun from a private individual?

So ...your buddy comes over to shoot some pool and have a few beers with you.....and you show him your guns.....and your buddy really likes the 380 you have had for about 8 years or so........he wants to trade you a big screen for it.......do you really think that you will call a dealer and get a background check on your buddy?

Just sayin....

 

[squeezer]

All guns were legal at some point...

The same folks that scream about rights and personal responsibility go silent when asked who is responsible for legal weapons ending up on the wrong side of the law.

 

[Racey]

All guns were legal at some point...

The same folks that scream about rights and personal responsibility go silent when asked who is responsible for legal weapons ending up on the wrong side of the law.

The people that stole them?

 

[MSum661]

There's no way to know how many non-background checked/ unregistered firearms are currently in the U.S.
It could be in the 10's of Millions or more...nobody knows and I seriously doubt any of those firearms will become willfully registered with checked backgrounds through a private legal transfer for one reason or another. So we have a BIG mix of registered and unregistered, both Legal or not in the year 2019. Its waaaayyy over the anti's Head's to understand that its not as simple as passing laws, restrictions or outright bans. The numbers are too big and will always win over the argument, IMO.
So I don't believe background checks, although still a good idea, is a rock solid solution to stopping guns from getting into the hands of the criminally minded. Evil is evil, and law abiding citizens have at the very least the right to protect as needed. JMO.

Personally I'm becoming more concerned about a Foreign Adversary.

 

[was thatguy]

With background checks who decides who can and can't own a gun?

Exactly.

 

[was thatguy]

So ...your buddy comes over to shoot some pool and have a few beers with you.....and you show him your guns.....and your buddy really likes the 380 you have had for about 8 years or so........he wants to trade you a big screen for it.......do you really think that you will call a dealer and get a background check on your buddy?

Just sayin....

Legally speaking, in CA you will, or you just became a criminal.
It’s also going to cost around $150 and the gun in question will be in the possession of said dealer during the 30 days or less wait.

 

[SNiC Jet]

Legally speaking, in CA you will, or you just became a criminal.
It’s also going to cost around $150 and the gun in question will be in the possession of said dealer during the 30 days or less wait.

Do buddys in CA actually do this....or do they simply trade? Curious....not debating.

 

[was thatguy]

Do buddys in CA actually do this....or do they simply trade? Curious....not debating.

Depends if they care about being legal I suppose?

If they don’t do it, they are technically in violation of CA gun ownership laws. What the repercussions might be, and how worried they are about it, is up to them.
But it could be very costly down the road depending on if anything ever came if it. Say it gets stolen and used in a murder or other crime. Then what?

 

[SNiC Jet]

Depends if they care about being legal I suppose?

If they don’t do it, they are technically in violation of CA gun ownership laws. What the repercussions might be, and how worried they are about it, is up to them.
But it could be very costly down the road depending on if anything ever came if it. Say it gets stolen and used in a murder or other crime. Then what?

Thanks, and I see your angle........but with this CA logic....shouldn't the same apply to owning a "Bowie knife"? Just more government in our lives......inch by inch.....

 

[500bbc]

All guns were legal at some point...

The same folks that scream about rights and personal responsibility go silent when asked who is responsible for legal weapons ending up on the wrong side of the law.

Criminals you fucking idiot

 

[thetub]

Criminals you fucking idiot

The people that stole them?

Squeeze you and Rod should put yore heads together and make an ass outta yoreselves

 

[LargeOrangeFont]

Legally speaking, in CA you will, or you just became a criminal.
It’s also going to cost around $150 and the gun in question will be in the possession of said dealer during the 30 days or less wait.

It takes 10 days for the waiting period.

 

[LargeOrangeFont]

All guns were legal at some point...

The same folks that scream about rights and personal responsibility go silent when asked who is responsible for legal weapons ending up on the wrong side of the law.

Both you and Rod are falling apart this evening.

 

[LargeOrangeFont]

Do buddys in CA actually do this....or do they simply trade? Curious....not debating.

In CA that is considered a loan if the gun is registered to someone else, and you can only loan a gun to a family member.

If it is a handgun that is pre registration, no one would ever know the gun changed hands.

 

[was thatguy]

Thanks, and I see your angle........but with this CA logic....shouldn't the same apply to owning a "Bowie knife"? Just more government in our lives......inch by inch.....

Hey! I never used the word “logic”!

 

[was thatguy]

It takes 10 days for the waiting period.

Sounds about right.
It took a little longer, as I recall, when I had dads model 70 sent to me from Alaska. It had th be mailed from a gun shop in Anchorage to a gun shop in CA where it sat until I cleared.
Of course, all parties colected their fees along the way.

 

[SNiC Jet]

Hey! I never used the word “logic”!

isn't it funny that we allow the gov to dissolve our Freedoms.... yet that is not enough...we pay them fees ($150 example) to do it.

 

[LargeOrangeFont]

Sounds about right.
It took a little longer, as I recall, when I had dads model 70 sent to me from Alaska. It had th be mailed from a gun shop in Anchorage to a gun shop in CA where it sat until I cleared.
Of course, all parties colected their fees along the way.

It is a racket, for sure. I don’t mind.

I get the point of tracking ownership, but the person with no criminal record and clean mental health is not loaning guns to their crazy and/or criminal friends. It is legislation from the exceptions, while ignoring the actual problem - criminals steal and or otherwise illegally smuggle/obtain guns for crimes. They don’t buy them from the gun store or trade them with friends.

 

[was thatguy]

It is a racket, for sure. I don’t mind.

I get the point of tracking ownership, but the person with no criminal record and clean mental health is not loaning gums to their crazy and/or criminal friends. It is legislation from the exceptions, while ignoring the actual problem - criminals steal and or otherwise illegally smuggle/obtain guns for crimes. They don’t buy them from the gun store or trade them with friends.

Yep.
Like I posted earlier, how many legal buyer/ owners snap and commit a violent crime, compared to criminals who illegally obtain weapons for the purpose of criminal acts?

It’s the same old story. Making criminals out of law abiding citizens.

 

[SNiC Jet]

 

[spectra3279]

So doing background checks on private sales of guns is ok.

While illegals are allowed to cross the border without any kind of background check. Hell they are even allowed welfare, government housing and free medical. All of this is against the law yet kommifornia and other states and politicians are actively ignoring the law.

But you want to enforce and enact more laws on me and my guns. When democrats/liberals start abiding by the constitution and the current laws. Then maybe they will understand what the 2nd ammendment says. And maybe then we can talk about more background checks. Until then, go fuck yourself cause you don't want gun control, you want guns only for politicians and military. Peasants dont deserve to protect themselves.

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

 

[RodnJen]

Can we at least try to be civil. Ignore the past and just give a reasonable comment on what you think of my statement.

I've been nothing but pro gun since I was born. I have been nothing but a responsible and safety conscious gun owner my whole life. I realize a prime concern of many is that if a inch is given to the anti guns folks, we are conceding a step to losing our rights.

But we have a problem with guns getting on the hands of bad people, both crooks and loons. So here it is, a way to solve the private sale issue so many want to bepart of the solution:

What would be wrong to have a law that required a background check of a person that was buying a gun from a private individual?

Put the sale through a licensed firearm dealer. The amount of sale and even the S/N of the gun does not have to be recorded. This will give some protection of the gun rights crowd demands. But the whole of the deal is to assure the buyer is legal to own and competent to own. Nothing more nothing less.

Thoughts?

Civil, noted.

Why not try a pilot program to see how it goes.

 

[n2otoofast4u]

Can we at least try to be civil. Ignore the past and just give a reasonable comment on what you think of my statement.

I've been nothing but pro gun since I was born. I have been nothing but a responsible and safety conscious gun owner my whole life. I realize a prime concern of many is that if a inch is given to the anti guns folks, we are conceding a step to losing our rights.

But we have a problem with guns getting on the hands of bad people, both crooks and loons. So here it is, a way to solve the private sale issue so many want to bepart of the solution:

What would be wrong to have a law that required a background check of a person that was buying a gun from a private individual?

Put the sale through a licensed firearm dealer. The amount of sale and even the S/N of the gun does not have to be recorded. This will give some protection of the gun rights crowd demands. But the whole of the deal is to assure the buyer is legal to own and competent to own. Nothing more nothing less.

Thoughts?

Welcome to Oregon. We have to do transfers through an FFL on private party sales. Guess what....... the criminals still don't follow the law. It is not the law abiding people that need to follow more laws, and the criminals are well, just that, criminals, and aren't going to follow laws. The solutions dont start at the law abiding level.

 

[boatdoc55]

W

Welcome to Oregon. We have to do transfers through an FFL on private party sales. Guess what....... the criminals still don't follow the law. It is not the law abiding people that need to follow more laws, and the criminals are well, just that, criminals, and aren't going to follow laws. The solutions dont start at the law abiding level.

When did Orygon start this???? I've got signed papers from buyers and myself from all sorts of guns I sold when we lived there. Datung way back!!!

 

[Grandpa mac]

Can we at least try to be civil. Ignore the past and just give a reasonable comment on what you think of my statement.

I've been nothing but pro gun since I was born. I have been nothing but a responsible and safety conscious gun owner my whole life. I realize a prime concern of many is that if a inch is given to the anti guns folks, we are conceding a step to losing our rights.

But we have a problem with guns getting on the hands of bad people, both crooks and loons. So here it is, a way to solve the private sale issue so many want to bepart of the solution:

What would be wrong to have a law that required a background check of a person that was buying a gun from a private individual?

Put the sale through a licensed firearm dealer. The amount of sale and even the S/N of the gun does not have to be recorded. This will give some protection of the gun rights crowd demands. But the whole of the deal is to assure the buyer is legal to own and competent to own. Nothing more nothing less.

Thoughts?

This is my absolute top priority toward reducing gun violence. Once upon a time even the NRA supported. I appreciate that you’re considering it seriously- it really is a reasonable step toward saving lives. Thank you.

 

[Grandpa mac]

With background checks who decides who can and can't own a gun?

Congress has decided who is prohibited from gun ownership. Here’s the list-
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/identify-prohibited-persons

 

[Grandpa mac]

So ...your buddy comes over to shoot some pool and have a few beers with you.....and you show him your guns.....and your buddy really likes the 380 you have had for about 8 years or so........he wants to trade you a big screen for it.......do you really think that you will call a dealer and get a background check on your buddy?

Just sayin....

Legally speaking, in CA you will, or you just became a criminal.
It’s also going to cost around $150 and the gun in question will be in the possession of said dealer during the 30 days or less wait.

You need to find a new FFL. When I’ve bought off gunbroker.com etc I’ve paid a local FFL $30 to receive and submit my paperwork. Easy peasy.

 

[Grandpa mac]

It is a racket, for sure. I don’t mind.

I get the point of tracking ownership, but the person with no criminal record and clean mental health is not loaning gums to their crazy and/or criminal friends. It is legislation from the exceptions, while ignoring the actual problem - criminals steal and or otherwise illegally smuggle/obtain guns for crimes. They don’t buy them from the gun store or trade them with friends.

You know what a straw buyer is? And at a gun show you don’t even need that.

 

[Sleek-Jet]

You know what a straw buyer is? And at a gun show you don’t even need that.

I don't know, do you? A true straw purchase is already illegal.

 

[wallnutz]

Tex, I got to go back to give them an inch and they will take... There definitely needs to be something in place, but the gov just can't be trusted. Just think like this. There is a fight for funding the border wall, the dems come up with this plan to fund it, but part of the plan includes adding restrictions to the original background checks. Boom, there is the first chip of the law. It's only a matter of time until we deal our way out of the 2nd.
Really goes back to, "we are the government, we are here to help". Sad sad day, but both sides would use it as a bartering chip.

 

[500bbc]

Civil, noted.

Why not try a pilot program to see how it goes.

Pilot program? You really are a fucking IDIOT.

 

[Skinny Tire AH]

You know what a straw buyer is? And at a gun show you don’t even need that.

Interesting topic, hats off to OT.

My pop died in 1998. He had a gun safe full of super nice stuff, pre-64 model 70's, lots of Brownings, Smith hand guns. and his real passion, fine SxS shotguns. When he passed, mom eventually told me come get all this stuff. When I saw some of the absolute garbage he bought in his late years, I was surprised.

He had purchased a bunch of these Tokarev 9mm and 380 style, cheap auto's. You know, 119.00 packed in cosmoline. I decided to sell the junk.

I signed up and bought a table at "Crossroads of the West" gun show. It was at the country fairgrounds over off McDowell rd. Before the show, we were given an orientation by the promoter. He warned us not to participate in any straw purchases. Even if we simply suspect it. He went on to tell us the BATF undercover officers frequent these shows and do stings, trying to set-up un-educated sellers.

Once the show opened, I was shocked. Bangers, poor white trash, all manner of Nefarious Rapscallions. To make a long weekend story tolerable, I sold everything. The shocking part was, it hit me, as a responsible gun owner (very responsible) that I myself, handed over fully functioning firearms to people I would avoid...anywhere. But what choice were we given. They seemed to check all the boxes of a legit sale.

Now, if you go to say, Cabelas, you fill out the online 4473, walk around for a few minutes, Poooof!! the instant FBI background check is complete. I can then walk out with a .50BMG Bushmaster, get a Nightforce, 5.5-22x56 scope and a couple hundred rounds of ammo.

Point is, If I'm comfortable doing the Cabelas method, is there a way to streamline this same process at gun shows? I don't appreciate the predatory and confiscatory nature of where all this is going, but seeing first hand, the people whom frequent these shows, it's frightening.

 

[pronstar]

We should restrict the sales of cars because of drunk drivers.

Criminals steal guns or get them thru straw purchases. How would background checks affect this?

The anti-2A crowd is chipping away toward their goal of confiscation. It requires a national registry. Which requires a record of all transactions. Which begins with the “benign” UBC.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[n2otoofast4u]

W

When did Orygon start this???? I've got signed papers from buyers and myself from all sorts of guns I sold when we lived there. Datung way back!!!

3-4 years ago now. It's a pain in the ass, and adds $50 to the purchase price of every gun!

 

[LargeOrangeFont]

You know what a straw buyer is? And at a gun show you don’t even need that.

I’m aware of the concept.

How about this : If you accept that voter fraud is a thing, I will accept that straw buyers and “gun show loopholes” are how criminals are getting guns.

How’s that for compromise?

I can’t go to a gun show and buy a gun without a background check and waiting period. Straw purchases are illegal. In CA Borrowing guns is illegal. This “loophole” is only a thing in a couple states.

Yet it is still the criminals committing nearly all of the gun crimes... not citizens who legally purchased guns. Astonishing!

 

[Old Texan]

Some very interesting and good feedback. I posted this because I was reading the Wiki background on Mark Kelly and it was his statement about these type of background checks. I added the no s/n and dollar amount portion.

In January 2013, Kelly and Giffords started a political action committee called Americans for Responsible Solutions. The mission of the organization is to promote solutions with elected officials and the general public. The couple states that it supports the Second Amendment while promoting responsible gun ownership and "keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous people like criminals, terrorists, and the mentally ill."[46] Current gun laws allow for private sellers to legally sell guns without a background check, creating a loophole that provides criminals and the mentally ill easy access to guns.[citation needed] Kelly said on Fox News on March 31, 2013, that "any bill that does not include a universal background check is a mistake, It's the most common sense thing we can do to prevent criminals and the mentally ill from having access to weapons

Obviously Kelly has passion for this issue as he nearly lost his wife from an armed loon. I think Kelly is the kind of person that is smart enough and has the record to make critical intelligent decisions in the heat of the moment giving him credibility. Though the thread has comments that what he thinks and what I think are completely against the pro gun folks and 2A, it still carries merit as to finding a solution on keeping guns out of the hands on mentally unstable buyers.

Background checks will not keep guns out of the hands of criminals as they are determined and the law is meaningless to them. That is obvious and shouldn't be used to fight common sense laws meant to work towards dealing with the mental illness issue. Folks, we pro gun people have all said, it is not the guns, but the mental instability problems that need to be addressed. So how do we isolate that issue and work to solve it?

To identify the mentally ill who have potential to "go off", we need to find means to weed them out from responsible gun owners. But how? Where do we start? Would not background info at least give us a starting point?

Rather than keep trying to argue the same points over and over, I think the time has come to give consideration to finding solutions to these increasing gun violence incidents. The problem will not go away and with the new crew in Congress we're already seeing the future is bringing folks into power that will get the political advantage to take our guns away. We have to fight them while we also have to solve the gun violence issue which fuels their fire. Standing on the "no change" to existing laws will eventually produce a loss. Reducing the issues leading to violence prior to losing our rights is the prudent approach in my mind.

Gun ownership is a Constitutional "right" and one I am not willing to chance being taken away by the anti left. The only way to assure that right is maintained, is to make it as clear as possible responsible gun owners are part of fighting gun violence and ownership abuse by mentally unstable persons causing that violence. How we do that is to be determined and sitting on our hands and saying, "no more laws," is not a winning hand, IMHO.

 

[Old Texan]

So doing background checks on private sales of guns is ok.

While illegals are allowed to cross the border without any kind of background check. Hell they are even allowed welfare, government housing and free medical. All of this is against the law yet kommifornia and other states and politicians are actively ignoring the law.

But you want to enforce and enact more laws on me and my guns. When democrats/liberals start abiding by the constitution and the current laws. Then maybe they will understand what the 2nd ammendment says. And maybe then we can talk about more background checks. Until then, go fuck yourself cause you don't want gun control, you want guns only for politicians and military. Peasants dont deserve to protect themselves.

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

Is this addressed at me?

 

[squeezer]

We should restrict the sales of cars because of drunk drivers.

Not at all... But why not treat guns like cars?

The operator has proficiency training, testing, licensing, and insurance. There is an agreed upon minimum standard one must meet before legally operating a car.

The car is serialized, and registered.

Drunk driving is way down because of education, enforcement, and broad liability. (Yes you can be held accountable for over-serving a patron at a bar...)

Car manufacturers are responsible for implementing safety standards to the highest state of technology...

So yea make the guns are like cars argument... I am 100% with you on that.

 

[was thatguy]

Not at all... But why not treat guns like cars?

The operator has proficiency training, testing, licensing, and insurance. There is an agreed upon minimum standard one must meet before legally operating a car.

The car is serialized, and registered.

Drunk driving is way down because of education, enforcement, and broad liability. (Yes you can be held accountable for over-serving a patron at a bar...)

Car manufacturers are responsible for implementing safety standards to the highest state of technology...

So yea make the guns are like cars argument... I am 100% with you on that.

Decent argument and valid points...except for that Cars aren’t in the Constitution.

 

[squeezer]

Decent argument and valid points...except for that Cars aren’t in the Constitution.

You know what else isn't (wasn't) in the constitution. A womans right to vote. You know what is (was) the fact that a black man is 3/5ths as important as a white man.

The 2A also specifically calls out "A Well Regulated Militia"

I would agree that well regulated will mean different things to different people but a form of regulation is clearly part of the 2A.

 

[Grandpa mac]

Interesting topic, hats off to OT.

My pop died in 1998. He had a gun safe full of super nice stuff, pre-64 model 70's, lots of Brownings, Smith hand guns. and his real passion, fine SxS shotguns. When he passed, mom eventually told me come get all this stuff. When I saw some of the absolute garbage he bought in his late years, I was surprised.

He had purchased a bunch of these Tokarev 9mm and 380 style, cheap auto's. You know, 119.00 packed in cosmoline. I decided to sell the junk.

I signed up and bought a table at "Crossroads of the West" gun show. It was at the country fairgrounds over off McDowell rd. Before the show, we were given an orientation by the promoter. He warned us not to participate in any straw purchases. Even if we simply suspect it. He went on to tell us the BATF undercover officers frequent these shows and do stings, trying to set-up un-educated sellers.

Once the show opened, I was shocked. Bangers, poor white trash, all manner of Nefarious Rapscallions. To make a long weekend story tolerable, I sold everything. The shocking part was, it hit me, as a responsible gun owner (very responsible) that I myself, handed over fully functioning firearms to people I would avoid...anywhere. But what choice were we given. They seemed to check all the boxes of a legit sale.

Now, if you go to say, Cabelas, you fill out the online 4473, walk around for a few minutes, Poooof!! the instant FBI background check is complete. I can then walk out with a .50BMG Bushmaster, get a Nightforce, 5.5-22x56 scope and a couple hundred rounds of ammo.

Point is, If I'm comfortable doing the Cabelas method, is there a way to streamline this same process at gun shows? I don't appreciate the predatory and confiscatory nature of where all this is going, but seeing first hand, the people whom frequent these shows, it's frightening.

Excellent post. Thank you.

 

[Hullbilly]

You know what a straw buyer is? And at a gun show you don’t even need that.

You drooling imbecile go back to your abortion thread...its a shame your mommy did not share your views