|
More info.. not looking good...
|
More info.. not looking good...
On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 14:15:29 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:
"John H" wrote in message .. . On 6/21/13 8:15 AM, Eisboch wrote: ---------------------------------- Your hands may be clean but your mind is a little confused. You seem to associate "law abiding gun owners" as being lock step in line with the NRA's leadership positions, specifically those of Wayne LaPierre. That's just not so. The vast majority of law abiding gun owners, (even including those who are NRA members) are in favor of and support universal background checks for everyone. If a clean bill were introduced without a list of amendments by some members of Congress with personal agendas, it is likely that the NRA's opposition and lobbying strength could be overcome. 'Reasonable' background checking is great. But, I should be allowed to sell or give a handgun to my brother without Eric Holder's permission. John H. I disagree. If you have no problem with a background check when *you* acquired the handgun, why should your brother, friend or private buyer be any different? Plus, legally it removes you from the paper trail of potential liability should some nutcase who shouldn't own a gun ends up with it. I agree with background checks for *anyone* purchasing a firearm. It's really not all that involved. Here in MA, a full background check is done when you first apply for a gun permit. Often takes 8 weeks to be processed and for the actual background check to be done and a permit to be issued. But once it's done, purchasing a handgun, rifle or shotgun is a simple matter of calling in the transaction at the time of purchase, verifying you are who you claim to be via taking a digital fingerprint and, 5 minutes later, walking out of the gun shop with your new purchase. No waiting period. I don't see what the big deal is. The seller, when I acquired the gun, didn't know me from Adam. I would have a bill of sale to solve the 'paper trail' problem. But, it's OK to disagree. John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! |
More info.. not looking good...
wrote in message ... On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 14:15:29 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: 'Reasonable' background checking is great. But, I should be allowed to sell or give a handgun to my brother without Eric Holder's permission. John H. I disagree. If you have no problem with a background check when *you* acquired the handgun, why should your brother, friend or private buyer be any different? Plus, legally it removes you from the paper trail of potential liability should some nutcase who shouldn't own a gun ends up with it. You are talking about universal registration, not background checks. Otherwise there is no "paper trail". ---------------------------------- Nope. I am talking about universal background checks, "universal" meaning it is required in all states in a uniform way. Not talking about having to register all the guns you purchase. The background check simply verifies that you are not a felon, crazy or otherwise not permitted to own a gun. In MA, it's done at the time you apply for a permit and the reason it takes so long is because they actually *do* an FBI background check on you. Once it's done and the permit is issued, the only other "check" is done whenever you purchase a firearm. It's to verify that your permit is valid and in good standing, you are who you claim you are and there are no warrants etc., since getting the permit. Only takes a few minutes. |
More info.. not looking good...
On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 17:25:49 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:
wrote in message ... On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 14:15:29 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: 'Reasonable' background checking is great. But, I should be allowed to sell or give a handgun to my brother without Eric Holder's permission. John H. I disagree. If you have no problem with a background check when *you* acquired the handgun, why should your brother, friend or private buyer be any different? Plus, legally it removes you from the paper trail of potential liability should some nutcase who shouldn't own a gun ends up with it. You are talking about universal registration, not background checks. Otherwise there is no "paper trail". ---------------------------------- Nope. I am talking about universal background checks, "universal" meaning it is required in all states in a uniform way. Not talking about having to register all the guns you purchase. The background check simply verifies that you are not a felon, crazy or otherwise not permitted to own a gun. In MA, it's done at the time you apply for a permit and the reason it takes so long is because they actually *do* an FBI background check on you. Once it's done and the permit is issued, the only other "check" is done whenever you purchase a firearm. It's to verify that your permit is valid and in good standing, you are who you claim you are and there are no warrants etc., since getting the permit. Only takes a few minutes. Who pays whom? John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! |
More info.. not looking good...
wrote in message ... On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 14:27:36 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: As I explained in a reply to John H., it's not that big of a deal in MA. There are other regulations in this state that I think are unreasonable, but a background check to initially get one of the various permits is the biggest obstacle and may take 8 weeks or more. But once you have the permit, buying a gun is no big deal. A 5 min. telephone call and taking a digital finger print to ensure you are who you claim to be is all that is required. Once approved, (again ... only takes about 5 minutes) you pay for your purchase and walk out the door with your new gun. I don't see why that shouldn't apply to everyone. Private transactions and transfers could easily be accomplished at a licensed firearm dealer for a small fee. The goal is to keep the guns out of the hands of nut cases. That is the way it works in Florida for CCW license holders but then, if a person who wanted to do a private sale and the buyer had a valid CCW, could they just do the deal? ---------------------------------------------------------- In MA, yes but the transaction must be reported to the "Department of Criminal Justice Information Services Firearms Records Bureau ". I'd be in favor of changing that because the actual transfer of the firearm can take place by simply filling out a form on-line. But, if I didn't know the person I was selling the gun to, it's up to me to verify that he has a permit and he is who he says he is. That's the hole in the system. Permits and ID's can be counterfeited. I really don't understand what all the fuss is about. In most states you must have a background check to obtain a permit. What's the big deal about verifying that the permit is valid for both seller and buyer in a private transfer? Again, it only takes a few minutes. It's *verifying* the permit, not doing a new background check each time. |
More info.. not looking good...
|
More info.. not looking good...
"Eisboch" wrote in message
... wrote in message ... On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 14:27:36 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: As I explained in a reply to John H., it's not that big of a deal in MA. There are other regulations in this state that I think are unreasonable, but a background check to initially get one of the various permits is the biggest obstacle and may take 8 weeks or more. But once you have the permit, buying a gun is no big deal. A 5 min. telephone call and taking a digital finger print to ensure you are who you claim to be is all that is required. Once approved, (again ... only takes about 5 minutes) you pay for your purchase and walk out the door with your new gun. I don't see why that shouldn't apply to everyone. Private transactions and transfers could easily be accomplished at a licensed firearm dealer for a small fee. The goal is to keep the guns out of the hands of nut cases. That is the way it works in Florida for CCW license holders but then, if a person who wanted to do a private sale and the buyer had a valid CCW, could they just do the deal? ---------------------------------------------------------- In MA, yes but the transaction must be reported to the "Department of Criminal Justice Information Services Firearms Records Bureau ". I'd be in favor of changing that because the actual transfer of the firearm can take place by simply filling out a form on-line. But, if I didn't know the person I was selling the gun to, it's up to me to verify that he has a permit and he is who he says he is. That's the hole in the system. Permits and ID's can be counterfeited. I really don't understand what all the fuss is about. In most states you must have a background check to obtain a permit. What's the big deal about verifying that the permit is valid for both seller and buyer in a private transfer? Again, it only takes a few minutes. It's *verifying* the permit, not doing a new background check each time. --------- that’s if you have or can get a permit to carry. Near impossible in most of California. Some counties are easier, but every urban county is about 99.9% no! |
More info.. not looking good...
"John H" wrote in message ... On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 17:25:49 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: The background check simply verifies that you are not a felon, crazy or otherwise not permitted to own a gun. In MA, it's done at the time you apply for a permit and the reason it takes so long is because they actually *do* an FBI background check on you. Once it's done and the permit is issued, the only other "check" is done whenever you purchase a firearm. It's to verify that your permit is valid and in good standing, you are who you claim you are and there are no warrants etc., since getting the permit. Only takes a few minutes. Who pays whom? John H. ------------------------------------ Not sure what you are asking. If I go purchase a handgun or rifle tomorrow, I'll fill out a form, the dealer will either call or connect via Internet to the MA Criminal Bureau, give them my permit number and other info, have me put my index finger on a digital fingerprint pad and it transmits it to the Bureau. Within seconds the digital fingerprint image confirms that indeed, it's me (matches the original fingerprints taken when I applied for a permit), I pay for the gun and go home. I don't pay for any of the instant background check verification. |
More info.. not looking good...
F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 6/21/13 11:07 AM, wrote: Ask Harry how much money the FFL charged to broker that transaction. When I sold my SIG X-5 to a guy in Virginia, the Virginia FFL charged $20 for the transaction, which the buyer and I split. I paid the local FFL $20 I think for his services in getting my new six shooter. I'll pick it up sometime next week. "$20 I think"? Your memory is suffering. You shouldn't own a firearm. |
More info.. not looking good...
"Califbill" wrote in message ... "Eisboch" wrote in message ... I really don't understand what all the fuss is about. In most states you must have a background check to obtain a permit. What's the big deal about verifying that the permit is valid for both seller and buyer in a private transfer? Again, it only takes a few minutes. It's *verifying* the permit, not doing a new background check each time. --------- that’s if you have or can get a permit to carry. Near impossible in most of California. Some counties are easier, but every urban county is about 99.9% no! ---------------------------------- That's what Massachusetts was like about 15 years ago. Permits for hunting rifles and handguns for target practice or competition shooting were approved but very few concealed carry permits (Class A) were allowed. Class B permits were the best you could expect which are typically for home defense only or for range shooting and does not allow concealed carry in public. How the allowed firearms were transported to and from the hunting area or shooting range was highly regulated (disassembled and in a locked case, transported preferably in the trunk of your car). Massachusetts remains a "may issue" state for handguns and a "shall issue" state for long guns (rifles). The local police department in your town makes the determination of what type of permit you can get. But people started challenging the authority of the towns and their police chiefs to be so restrictive in the types of permits issued. Lawsuits were filed and won. Slowly, most of the towns and cities began approving concealed carry permits but often with specific restrictions. I was fortunate. The officer who interviewed me knew me .... or *of* me for reasons I won't get into, but I was granted an unrestricted Class A permit which allows me to own and conceal carry any handgun (on the approved MA list or grandfathered) and to own any rifle, including the high capacity assault types that are so controversial. The only type of firearm I can't legally own with the permit I have is a machine gun or sawed off shotgun. I have no interest in the assault rifles (although they are a blast to shoot). I understand that unrestricted Class A permits are again starting to get more difficult to get lately, probably due to all the media attention on gun control. A couple of towns are trying to ban firearms period. Areas in Boston are becoming particularly tough. One thing my town had changed was the reason for applying for a permit which was traditionally, "For all lawful purposes". They no longer accept that as a reason. You must have specific reasons to justify a concealed carry permit. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:22 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com