[Poco Loco]

On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 14:10:31 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/31/2014 12:54 PM, John H wrote:
On Friday, October 31, 2014 12:27:40 PM UTC-4, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/31/2014 12:12 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 10:05:10 -0400, Poco Loco
wrote:

On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 06:07:39 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote:

Not bad for the whole deal John. I'll ask my brother about where he got his and see if it came with the whole kit. Pricing too

I have a son-in-law who loves guns. Might make him a nice Christmas
present.

Dick would make it illegal for you to give it to him.



Not at all. If John's son-in-law has had a background check, is legally
permitted to own a firearm and the serial number is registered in his
name upon transfer... all is good.

None of which is required, although I'll probably have a transfer record for myself. This: http://www.beararms.com/PDF/FTUP.pdf



To me, (and understanding it's a federal law), this is just plain dumb.

What's dumb? That I would give the gun to my son-in-law without
requiring he go through a federal background check? Does federal law
not permit that? What law? Maybe I'm reading your sentence wrong.

I believe everyone who owns a gun should be licensed or permitted.
Ya, I know the criminals don't bother but you aren't a gun criminal
until you use one in a crime.

Licenses or permits should be issued following a background check and a
formal safety course. Guns should be registered by serial number to the
owner with records in a national or state data base. Transfers should be
updated to the data base.

Please don't tell me about growing up in North Dakota or Texas or some
wild west place and having a .22 rifle since you were knee-high to a
grasshopper. This isn't the 1800's.

That's fine. We simply disagree.

[Mr. Luddite]

On 10/31/2014 2:28 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 12:27:39 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/31/2014 12:12 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 10:05:10 -0400, Poco Loco
wrote:

On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 06:07:39 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote:

Not bad for the whole deal John. I'll ask my brother about where he got his and see if it came with the whole kit. Pricing too

I have a son-in-law who loves guns. Might make him a nice Christmas
present.

Dick would make it illegal for you to give it to him.



Not at all. If John's son-in-law has had a background check, is legally
permitted to own a firearm and the serial number is registered in his
name upon transfer... all is good.


He could not just "give it to him" then could he?
In a universal background state he would essentially have to go to a
FFL and "sell" it to him after paying a commission to the FFL for
handling the paperwork. Then he would have to jump through whatever
hoops the state has to register it. (after John had originally
registered it when he bought it)

All of this with no actual demonstrated benefit.


Yes.

[Poco Loco]

On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 14:10:31 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/31/2014 12:54 PM, John H wrote:
On Friday, October 31, 2014 12:27:40 PM UTC-4, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/31/2014 12:12 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 10:05:10 -0400, Poco Loco
wrote:

On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 06:07:39 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote:

Not bad for the whole deal John. I'll ask my brother about where he got his and see if it came with the whole kit. Pricing too

I have a son-in-law who loves guns. Might make him a nice Christmas
present.

Dick would make it illegal for you to give it to him.



Not at all. If John's son-in-law has had a background check, is legally
permitted to own a firearm and the serial number is registered in his
name upon transfer... all is good.

None of which is required, although I'll probably have a transfer record for myself. This: http://www.beararms.com/PDF/FTUP.pdf



To me, (and understanding it's a federal law), this is just plain dumb.
I believe everyone who owns a gun should be licensed or permitted.
Ya, I know the criminals don't bother but you aren't a gun criminal
until you use one in a crime.

Licenses or permits should be issued following a background check and a
formal safety course. Guns should be registered by serial number to the
owner with records in a national or state data base. Transfers should be
updated to the data base.

Please don't tell me about growing up in North Dakota or Texas or some
wild west place and having a .22 rifle since you were knee-high to a
grasshopper. This isn't the 1800's.



BTW, this is what I find:

Q: To whom may an unlicensed person transfer firearms under the GCA?

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]


Q: From whom may an unlicensed person acquire a firearm under the GCA?

A person may only acquire a firearm within the person’s own State,
except that he or she may purchase or otherwise acquire a rifle or
shotgun, in person, at a licensee’s premises in any State, provided
the sale complies with State laws applicable in the State of sale and
the State where the purchaser resides. A person may borrow or rent a
firearm in any State for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes.

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

https://www.atf.gov/content/firearms-frequently-asked-questions-unlicensed-persons#gca-unlicensed-transfer

Maybe you've found something different?

[Poco Loco]

On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 14:48:06 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/31/2014 2:28 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 12:27:39 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/31/2014 12:12 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 10:05:10 -0400, Poco Loco
wrote:

On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 06:07:39 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote:

Not bad for the whole deal John. I'll ask my brother about where he got his and see if it came with the whole kit. Pricing too

I have a son-in-law who loves guns. Might make him a nice Christmas
present.

Dick would make it illegal for you to give it to him.



Not at all. If John's son-in-law has had a background check, is legally
permitted to own a firearm and the serial number is registered in his
name upon transfer... all is good.


He could not just "give it to him" then could he?
In a universal background state he would essentially have to go to a
FFL and "sell" it to him after paying a commission to the FFL for
handling the paperwork. Then he would have to jump through whatever
hoops the state has to register it. (after John had originally
registered it when he bought it)

All of this with no actual demonstrated benefit.


Yes.

Ridiculous.

[Mr. Luddite]

On 10/31/2014 2:43 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 14:10:31 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/31/2014 12:54 PM, John H wrote:
On Friday, October 31, 2014 12:27:40 PM UTC-4, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/31/2014 12:12 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 10:05:10 -0400, Poco Loco
wrote:

On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 06:07:39 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote:

Not bad for the whole deal John. I'll ask my brother about where he got his and see if it came with the whole kit. Pricing too

I have a son-in-law who loves guns. Might make him a nice Christmas
present.

Dick would make it illegal for you to give it to him.



Not at all. If John's son-in-law has had a background check, is legally
permitted to own a firearm and the serial number is registered in his
name upon transfer... all is good.

None of which is required, although I'll probably have a transfer record for myself. This: http://www.beararms.com/PDF/FTUP.pdf



To me, (and understanding it's a federal law), this is just plain dumb.

What's dumb? That I would give the gun to my son-in-law without
requiring he go through a federal background check? Does federal law
not permit that? What law? Maybe I'm reading your sentence wrong.

I believe everyone who owns a gun should be licensed or permitted.
Ya, I know the criminals don't bother but you aren't a gun criminal
until you use one in a crime.

Licenses or permits should be issued following a background check and a
formal safety course. Guns should be registered by serial number to the
owner with records in a national or state data base. Transfers should be
updated to the data base.

Please don't tell me about growing up in North Dakota or Texas or some
wild west place and having a .22 rifle since you were knee-high to a
grasshopper. This isn't the 1800's.

That's fine. We simply disagree.


John, I am expressing my opinion that the federal law that permits
transfer of firearms to unlicensed people is dumb. Not you.

[Mr. Luddite]

On 10/31/2014 2:56 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 14:10:31 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/31/2014 12:54 PM, John H wrote:
On Friday, October 31, 2014 12:27:40 PM UTC-4, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/31/2014 12:12 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 10:05:10 -0400, Poco Loco
wrote:

On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 06:07:39 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote:

Not bad for the whole deal John. I'll ask my brother about where he got his and see if it came with the whole kit. Pricing too

I have a son-in-law who loves guns. Might make him a nice Christmas
present.

Dick would make it illegal for you to give it to him.



Not at all. If John's son-in-law has had a background check, is legally
permitted to own a firearm and the serial number is registered in his
name upon transfer... all is good.

None of which is required, although I'll probably have a transfer record for myself. This: http://www.beararms.com/PDF/FTUP.pdf



To me, (and understanding it's a federal law), this is just plain dumb.
I believe everyone who owns a gun should be licensed or permitted.
Ya, I know the criminals don't bother but you aren't a gun criminal
until you use one in a crime.

Licenses or permits should be issued following a background check and a
formal safety course. Guns should be registered by serial number to the
owner with records in a national or state data base. Transfers should be
updated to the data base.

Please don't tell me about growing up in North Dakota or Texas or some
wild west place and having a .22 rifle since you were knee-high to a
grasshopper. This isn't the 1800's.



BTW, this is what I find:

Q: To whom may an unlicensed person transfer firearms under the GCA?

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]


Q: From whom may an unlicensed person acquire a firearm under the GCA?

A person may only acquire a firearm within the person’s own State,
except that he or she may purchase or otherwise acquire a rifle or
shotgun, in person, at a licensee’s premises in any State, provided
the sale complies with State laws applicable in the State of sale and
the State where the purchaser resides. A person may borrow or rent a
firearm in any State for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes.

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

https://www.atf.gov/content/firearms-frequently-asked-questions-unlicensed-persons#gca-unlicensed-transfer

Maybe you've found something different?



Nope, I read the same thing at the link you provided.

I just think the law is dumb.

Maybe it's due to a reading comprehension on my part but what does:

"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"

mean to you?

Sounds to me that it's ok to transfer or sell the firearm if you *don't*
know if he's prohibited from having one.

[Mr. Luddite]

On 10/31/2014 2:59 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 14:48:06 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/31/2014 2:28 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 12:27:39 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/31/2014 12:12 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 10:05:10 -0400, Poco Loco
wrote:

On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 06:07:39 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote:

Not bad for the whole deal John. I'll ask my brother about where he got his and see if it came with the whole kit. Pricing too

I have a son-in-law who loves guns. Might make him a nice Christmas
present.

Dick would make it illegal for you to give it to him.



Not at all. If John's son-in-law has had a background check, is legally
permitted to own a firearm and the serial number is registered in his
name upon transfer... all is good.


He could not just "give it to him" then could he?
In a universal background state he would essentially have to go to a
FFL and "sell" it to him after paying a commission to the FFL for
handling the paperwork. Then he would have to jump through whatever
hoops the state has to register it. (after John had originally
registered it when he bought it)

All of this with no actual demonstrated benefit.


Yes.

Ridiculous.



Ridiculous to you now John, but most likely a law coming to your
neighborhood in the not too distant future.

That's exactly part of the law in Massachusetts and has been since 1998.
I believe it's now part of gun laws (or a very similar version of) in
Maryland, Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and in several
other states that previously had much more "relaxed" gun laws.

The concept is to prevent guns from being sold to people who are
prohibited from owning one.

Yes, I know, criminals will still have access to guns and people who
pass background checks can still go off their rocker. But at least it
creates a traceable paper trail of ownership.

[Poco Loco]

On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 15:04:24 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/31/2014 2:43 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 14:10:31 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/31/2014 12:54 PM, John H wrote:
On Friday, October 31, 2014 12:27:40 PM UTC-4, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/31/2014 12:12 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 10:05:10 -0400, Poco Loco
wrote:

On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 06:07:39 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote:

Not bad for the whole deal John. I'll ask my brother about where he got his and see if it came with the whole kit. Pricing too

I have a son-in-law who loves guns. Might make him a nice Christmas
present.

Dick would make it illegal for you to give it to him.



Not at all. If John's son-in-law has had a background check, is legally
permitted to own a firearm and the serial number is registered in his
name upon transfer... all is good.

None of which is required, although I'll probably have a transfer record for myself. This: http://www.beararms.com/PDF/FTUP.pdf



To me, (and understanding it's a federal law), this is just plain dumb.

What's dumb? That I would give the gun to my son-in-law without
requiring he go through a federal background check? Does federal law
not permit that? What law? Maybe I'm reading your sentence wrong.

I believe everyone who owns a gun should be licensed or permitted.
Ya, I know the criminals don't bother but you aren't a gun criminal
until you use one in a crime.

Licenses or permits should be issued following a background check and a
formal safety course. Guns should be registered by serial number to the
owner with records in a national or state data base. Transfers should be
updated to the data base.

Please don't tell me about growing up in North Dakota or Texas or some
wild west place and having a .22 rifle since you were knee-high to a
grasshopper. This isn't the 1800's.

That's fine. We simply disagree.


John, I am expressing my opinion that the federal law that permits
transfer of firearms to unlicensed people is dumb. Not you.

Oh, OK. Now I feel so, so much better! :)


When one of my grandsons, now 12, makes Eagle Scout in six months, I
will be giving him a lever action Henry .22LR. He should not be
required to have a license or a background check, and I think a law
requiring same would be dumb - in my opinion.

[Poco Loco]

On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 15:11:24 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/31/2014 2:56 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 14:10:31 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/31/2014 12:54 PM, John H wrote:
On Friday, October 31, 2014 12:27:40 PM UTC-4, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/31/2014 12:12 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 10:05:10 -0400, Poco Loco
wrote:

On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 06:07:39 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote:

Not bad for the whole deal John. I'll ask my brother about where he got his and see if it came with the whole kit. Pricing too

I have a son-in-law who loves guns. Might make him a nice Christmas
present.

Dick would make it illegal for you to give it to him.



Not at all. If John's son-in-law has had a background check, is legally
permitted to own a firearm and the serial number is registered in his
name upon transfer... all is good.

None of which is required, although I'll probably have a transfer record for myself. This: http://www.beararms.com/PDF/FTUP.pdf



To me, (and understanding it's a federal law), this is just plain dumb.
I believe everyone who owns a gun should be licensed or permitted.
Ya, I know the criminals don't bother but you aren't a gun criminal
until you use one in a crime.

Licenses or permits should be issued following a background check and a
formal safety course. Guns should be registered by serial number to the
owner with records in a national or state data base. Transfers should be
updated to the data base.

Please don't tell me about growing up in North Dakota or Texas or some
wild west place and having a .22 rifle since you were knee-high to a
grasshopper. This isn't the 1800's.



BTW, this is what I find:

Q: To whom may an unlicensed person transfer firearms under the GCA?

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]


Q: From whom may an unlicensed person acquire a firearm under the GCA?

A person may only acquire a firearm within the person’s own State,
except that he or she may purchase or otherwise acquire a rifle or
shotgun, in person, at a licensee’s premises in any State, provided
the sale complies with State laws applicable in the State of sale and
the State where the purchaser resides. A person may borrow or rent a
firearm in any State for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes.

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

https://www.atf.gov/content/firearms-frequently-asked-questions-unlicensed-persons#gca-unlicensed-transfer

Maybe you've found something different?



Nope, I read the same thing at the link you provided.

I just think the law is dumb.

Maybe it's due to a reading comprehension on my part but what does:

"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"

mean to you?

Sounds to me that it's ok to transfer or sell the firearm if you *don't*
know if he's prohibited from having one.


It means, to me, if I know the guy is a wife beater, junkie, felon,
drunk, sociopath, Harry Krause, etc, then I should not sell or give
him a firearm.

[Mr. Luddite]

On 10/31/2014 3:24 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 15:11:24 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/31/2014 2:56 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 14:10:31 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/31/2014 12:54 PM, John H wrote:
On Friday, October 31, 2014 12:27:40 PM UTC-4, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/31/2014 12:12 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 10:05:10 -0400, Poco Loco
wrote:

On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 06:07:39 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote:

Not bad for the whole deal John. I'll ask my brother about where he got his and see if it came with the whole kit. Pricing too

I have a son-in-law who loves guns. Might make him a nice Christmas
present.

Dick would make it illegal for you to give it to him.



Not at all. If John's son-in-law has had a background check, is legally
permitted to own a firearm and the serial number is registered in his
name upon transfer... all is good.

None of which is required, although I'll probably have a transfer record for myself. This: http://www.beararms.com/PDF/FTUP.pdf



To me, (and understanding it's a federal law), this is just plain dumb.
I believe everyone who owns a gun should be licensed or permitted.
Ya, I know the criminals don't bother but you aren't a gun criminal
until you use one in a crime.

Licenses or permits should be issued following a background check and a
formal safety course. Guns should be registered by serial number to the
owner with records in a national or state data base. Transfers should be
updated to the data base.

Please don't tell me about growing up in North Dakota or Texas or some
wild west place and having a .22 rifle since you were knee-high to a
grasshopper. This isn't the 1800's.



BTW, this is what I find:

Q: To whom may an unlicensed person transfer firearms under the GCA?

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]


Q: From whom may an unlicensed person acquire a firearm under the GCA?

A person may only acquire a firearm within the person’s own State,
except that he or she may purchase or otherwise acquire a rifle or
shotgun, in person, at a licensee’s premises in any State, provided
the sale complies with State laws applicable in the State of sale and
the State where the purchaser resides. A person may borrow or rent a
firearm in any State for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes.

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

https://www.atf.gov/content/firearms-frequently-asked-questions-unlicensed-persons#gca-unlicensed-transfer

Maybe you've found something different?



Nope, I read the same thing at the link you provided.

I just think the law is dumb.

Maybe it's due to a reading comprehension on my part but what does:

"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"

mean to you?

Sounds to me that it's ok to transfer or sell the firearm if you *don't*
know if he's prohibited from having one.


It means, to me, if I know the guy is a wife beater, junkie, felon,
drunk, sociopath, Harry Krause, etc, then I should not sell or give
him a firearm.



Right. But it's ok to transfer or sell it to him if you *don't* know
he's a wife beater, junkie, felon, drunk, sociopath, or ...

It gets *you* off the hook but it doesn't prevent someone who is or
should be prohibited from having a gun from getting it.

That's what's dumb, IMO.