The Washington Post is reporting that Dylann Roof was given the .45
Glock by his father back in April.

By law, Roof could not purchase a firearm in SC because he
had a felony charge pending (drugs). According to the Washington Post
a FFL would have run a background check and the charge would have come
up disallowing Roof from purchasing it.

But the loophole was the private transfer. SC (along with 40 other
states) does not require a background check for personal transfers.

Seems we've had this debate before.

On 6/20/2015 7:08 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
The Washington Post is reporting that Dylann Roof was given the .45
Glock by his father back in April.

By law, Roof could not purchase a firearm in SC because he
had a felony charge pending (drugs). According to the Washington Post
a FFL would have run a background check and the charge would have come
up disallowing Roof from purchasing it.

But the loophole was the private transfer. SC (along with 40 other
states) does not require a background check for personal transfers.

Seems we've had this debate before.

Almost bought a Dan Wesson 357 at an Indiana flea market a couple of
weeks ago. Show the man cash and no questions asked.

--

Respectfully submitted by Justan

Laugh of the day from Krause

"I'm not to blame anymore for the atmosphere in here.
I've been "born again" as a nice guy."

"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
The Washington Post is reporting that Dylann Roof was given the .45 Glock
by his father back in April.

By law, Roof could not purchase a firearm in SC because he
had a felony charge pending (drugs). According to the Washington Post
a FFL would have run a background check and the charge would have come
up disallowing Roof from purchasing it.

But the loophole was the private transfer. SC (along with 40 other
states) does not require a background check for personal transfers.

Seems we've had this debate before.

Sounds more like we need background checks for being a parent.

On 6/20/15 7:08 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
The Washington Post is reporting that Dylann Roof was given the .45
Glock by his father back in April.

By law, Roof could not purchase a firearm in SC because he
had a felony charge pending (drugs). According to the Washington Post
a FFL would have run a background check and the charge would have come
up disallowing Roof from purchasing it.

But the loophole was the private transfer. SC (along with 40 other
states) does not require a background check for personal transfers.

Seems we've had this debate before.


I oppose private transfers.

When I sold my Ruger GP100 revolver, it was to a sworn federal security
officer, and we did the transfer at a state police barracks. It cost
$10, I think. The only legal way to transfer a handgun like that was via
an FFL or the state police. No biggie for either me or the buyer.
The usual background check and one week waiting period applied.

When I sold my Winchester 92 rifle, I called the state police and was
told that private sales of "unregulated" firearms (ordinary rifles and
shotguns, for example) between individuals required no third party or
paperwork, beyond a bill of sale. I thought that strange, but it is the
law here in Maryland. There really was no procedure that would involve a
background check. So, we met in a parking lot over by the Pax River and
did the "rifle for cash money" swap.

That shouldn't be how it is done, but that is how it is done, here in
Maryland.

When I bought my silencer, I had to fill out a bunch of forms, buy a
$200 federal tax stamp, and wait 92 days for federal approval.

I saw a news story yesterday that claimed that Dylann's father gave him
the money to buy the .45 semi-auto. That's the third different story
I've seen on how the gun came into the little twerp's possession.

On 6/20/2015 7:17 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:
So, we met in a parking lot over by the Pax River and did the "rifle for
cash money" swap.

That shouldn't be how it is done, but that is how it is done, here in
Maryland.

What if a crime was committed with that gun and the chain of custody
ends with you. You should have done the FFL thing

--

Respectfully submitted by Justan

Laugh of the day from Krause

"I'm not to blame anymore for the atmosphere in here.
I've been "born again" as a nice guy."

On 6/20/2015 7:17 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 6/20/15 7:08 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
The Washington Post is reporting that Dylann Roof was given the .45
Glock by his father back in April.

By law, Roof could not purchase a firearm in SC because he
had a felony charge pending (drugs). According to the Washington Post
a FFL would have run a background check and the charge would have come
up disallowing Roof from purchasing it.

But the loophole was the private transfer. SC (along with 40 other
states) does not require a background check for personal transfers.

Seems we've had this debate before.


I oppose private transfers.

When I sold my Ruger GP100 revolver, it was to a sworn federal security
officer, and we did the transfer at a state police barracks. It cost
$10, I think. The only legal way to transfer a handgun like that was via
an FFL or the state police. No biggie for either me or the buyer.
The usual background check and one week waiting period applied.

When I sold my Winchester 92 rifle, I called the state police and was
told that private sales of "unregulated" firearms (ordinary rifles and
shotguns, for example) between individuals required no third party or
paperwork, beyond a bill of sale. I thought that strange, but it is the
law here in Maryland. There really was no procedure that would involve a
background check. So, we met in a parking lot over by the Pax River and
did the "rifle for cash money" swap.

That shouldn't be how it is done, but that is how it is done, here in
Maryland.

When I bought my silencer, I had to fill out a bunch of forms, buy a
$200 federal tax stamp, and wait 92 days for federal approval.

I saw a news story yesterday that claimed that Dylann's father gave him
the money to buy the .45 semi-auto. That's the third different story
I've seen on how the gun came into the little twerp's possession.




I've heard the same different stories. The Wash Post article sorta
makes sense through because he shouldn't have been able to purchase it
through a FFL and successfully clear a background check. Maybe he
bought it privately.

Here in MA, inner state transfers/sales are permitted however a form
is required to be submitted with both the seller's permit number and
the buyer's permit number, along with the firearm serial number, make,
model, etc. It can be done on-line. The rational is
that both the seller and the buyer had to have background checks done
in order to get the permits. The law states that it is the
responsibility of the seller (or transferer) to verify that the
buyer's (or transferee's) permit is current. MA permits have both
picture ID's and fingerprints.

On 6/20/15 7:47 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 6/20/2015 7:17 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 6/20/15 7:08 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
The Washington Post is reporting that Dylann Roof was given the .45
Glock by his father back in April.

By law, Roof could not purchase a firearm in SC because he
had a felony charge pending (drugs). According to the Washington Post
a FFL would have run a background check and the charge would have come
up disallowing Roof from purchasing it.

But the loophole was the private transfer. SC (along with 40 other
states) does not require a background check for personal transfers.

Seems we've had this debate before.


I oppose private transfers.

When I sold my Ruger GP100 revolver, it was to a sworn federal security
officer, and we did the transfer at a state police barracks. It cost
$10, I think. The only legal way to transfer a handgun like that was via
an FFL or the state police. No biggie for either me or the buyer.
The usual background check and one week waiting period applied.

When I sold my Winchester 92 rifle, I called the state police and was
told that private sales of "unregulated" firearms (ordinary rifles and
shotguns, for example) between individuals required no third party or
paperwork, beyond a bill of sale. I thought that strange, but it is the
law here in Maryland. There really was no procedure that would involve a
background check. So, we met in a parking lot over by the Pax River and
did the "rifle for cash money" swap.

That shouldn't be how it is done, but that is how it is done, here in
Maryland.

When I bought my silencer, I had to fill out a bunch of forms, buy a
$200 federal tax stamp, and wait 92 days for federal approval.

I saw a news story yesterday that claimed that Dylann's father gave him
the money to buy the .45 semi-auto. That's the third different story
I've seen on how the gun came into the little twerp's possession.




I've heard the same different stories. The Wash Post article sorta
makes sense through because he shouldn't have been able to purchase it
through a FFL and successfully clear a background check. Maybe he
bought it privately.

Here in MA, inner state transfers/sales are permitted however a form
is required to be submitted with both the seller's permit number and
the buyer's permit number, along with the firearm serial number, make,
model, etc. It can be done on-line. The rational is
that both the seller and the buyer had to have background checks done
in order to get the permits. The law states that it is the
responsibility of the seller (or transferer) to verify that the
buyer's (or transferee's) permit is current. MA permits have both
picture ID's and fingerprints.



I don't know what the precise rules are in South Carolina for private
firearm transfers, but I have read that the gun laws there, for the most
part, are "loose."

On Sat, 20 Jun 2015 21:15:04 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 6/20/15 7:47 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 6/20/2015 7:17 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 6/20/15 7:08 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
The Washington Post is reporting that Dylann Roof was given the .45
Glock by his father back in April.

By law, Roof could not purchase a firearm in SC because he
had a felony charge pending (drugs). According to the Washington Post
a FFL would have run a background check and the charge would have come
up disallowing Roof from purchasing it.

But the loophole was the private transfer. SC (along with 40 other
states) does not require a background check for personal transfers.

Seems we've had this debate before.


I oppose private transfers.

When I sold my Ruger GP100 revolver, it was to a sworn federal security
officer, and we did the transfer at a state police barracks. It cost
$10, I think. The only legal way to transfer a handgun like that was via
an FFL or the state police. No biggie for either me or the buyer.
The usual background check and one week waiting period applied.

When I sold my Winchester 92 rifle, I called the state police and was
told that private sales of "unregulated" firearms (ordinary rifles and
shotguns, for example) between individuals required no third party or
paperwork, beyond a bill of sale. I thought that strange, but it is the
law here in Maryland. There really was no procedure that would involve a
background check. So, we met in a parking lot over by the Pax River and
did the "rifle for cash money" swap.

That shouldn't be how it is done, but that is how it is done, here in
Maryland.

When I bought my silencer, I had to fill out a bunch of forms, buy a
$200 federal tax stamp, and wait 92 days for federal approval.

I saw a news story yesterday that claimed that Dylann's father gave him
the money to buy the .45 semi-auto. That's the third different story
I've seen on how the gun came into the little twerp's possession.




I've heard the same different stories. The Wash Post article sorta
makes sense through because he shouldn't have been able to purchase it
through a FFL and successfully clear a background check. Maybe he
bought it privately.

Here in MA, inner state transfers/sales are permitted however a form
is required to be submitted with both the seller's permit number and
the buyer's permit number, along with the firearm serial number, make,
model, etc. It can be done on-line. The rational is
that both the seller and the buyer had to have background checks done
in order to get the permits. The law states that it is the
responsibility of the seller (or transferer) to verify that the
buyer's (or transferee's) permit is current. MA permits have both
picture ID's and fingerprints.



I don't know what the precise rules are in South Carolina for private
firearm transfers, but I have read that the gun laws there, for the most
part, are "loose."

Gun laws in Chicago must be even 'looser'. A hell of a lot of shootings up there.
Lot's more than nine just about every week, I'll bet.
--

Guns don't cause problems.
Gun owner behavior causes problems.

On Sat, 20 Jun 2015 19:47:43 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 6/20/2015 7:17 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 6/20/15 7:08 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
The Washington Post is reporting that Dylann Roof was given the .45
Glock by his father back in April.

By law, Roof could not purchase a firearm in SC because he
had a felony charge pending (drugs). According to the Washington Post
a FFL would have run a background check and the charge would have come
up disallowing Roof from purchasing it.

But the loophole was the private transfer. SC (along with 40 other
states) does not require a background check for personal transfers.

Seems we've had this debate before.


I oppose private transfers.

When I sold my Ruger GP100 revolver, it was to a sworn federal security
officer, and we did the transfer at a state police barracks. It cost
$10, I think. The only legal way to transfer a handgun like that was via
an FFL or the state police. No biggie for either me or the buyer.
The usual background check and one week waiting period applied.

When I sold my Winchester 92 rifle, I called the state police and was
told that private sales of "unregulated" firearms (ordinary rifles and
shotguns, for example) between individuals required no third party or
paperwork, beyond a bill of sale. I thought that strange, but it is the
law here in Maryland. There really was no procedure that would involve a
background check. So, we met in a parking lot over by the Pax River and
did the "rifle for cash money" swap.

That shouldn't be how it is done, but that is how it is done, here in
Maryland.

When I bought my silencer, I had to fill out a bunch of forms, buy a
$200 federal tax stamp, and wait 92 days for federal approval.

I saw a news story yesterday that claimed that Dylann's father gave him
the money to buy the .45 semi-auto. That's the third different story
I've seen on how the gun came into the little twerp's possession.




I've heard the same different stories. The Wash Post article sorta
makes sense through because he shouldn't have been able to purchase it
through a FFL and successfully clear a background check. Maybe he
bought it privately.

Here in MA, inner state transfers/sales are permitted however a form
is required to be submitted with both the seller's permit number and
the buyer's permit number, along with the firearm serial number, make,
model, etc. It can be done on-line. The rational is
that both the seller and the buyer had to have background checks done
in order to get the permits. The law states that it is the
responsibility of the seller (or transferer) to verify that the
buyer's (or transferee's) permit is current. MA permits have both
picture ID's and fingerprints.


You reckon that would have stopped Roof? I suppose so, since he was such a
law-abiding citizen.
--

Guns don't cause problems.
Gun owner behavior causes problems.

On 6/21/2015 6:40 AM, John H. wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jun 2015 19:47:43 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 6/20/2015 7:17 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 6/20/15 7:08 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
The Washington Post is reporting that Dylann Roof was given the .45
Glock by his father back in April.

By law, Roof could not purchase a firearm in SC because he
had a felony charge pending (drugs). According to the Washington Post
a FFL would have run a background check and the charge would have come
up disallowing Roof from purchasing it.

But the loophole was the private transfer. SC (along with 40 other
states) does not require a background check for personal transfers.

Seems we've had this debate before.


I oppose private transfers.

When I sold my Ruger GP100 revolver, it was to a sworn federal security
officer, and we did the transfer at a state police barracks. It cost
$10, I think. The only legal way to transfer a handgun like that was via
an FFL or the state police. No biggie for either me or the buyer.
The usual background check and one week waiting period applied.

When I sold my Winchester 92 rifle, I called the state police and was
told that private sales of "unregulated" firearms (ordinary rifles and
shotguns, for example) between individuals required no third party or
paperwork, beyond a bill of sale. I thought that strange, but it is the
law here in Maryland. There really was no procedure that would involve a
background check. So, we met in a parking lot over by the Pax River and
did the "rifle for cash money" swap.

That shouldn't be how it is done, but that is how it is done, here in
Maryland.

When I bought my silencer, I had to fill out a bunch of forms, buy a
$200 federal tax stamp, and wait 92 days for federal approval.

I saw a news story yesterday that claimed that Dylann's father gave him
the money to buy the .45 semi-auto. That's the third different story
I've seen on how the gun came into the little twerp's possession.




I've heard the same different stories. The Wash Post article sorta
makes sense through because he shouldn't have been able to purchase it
through a FFL and successfully clear a background check. Maybe he
bought it privately.

Here in MA, inner state transfers/sales are permitted however a form
is required to be submitted with both the seller's permit number and
the buyer's permit number, along with the firearm serial number, make,
model, etc. It can be done on-line. The rational is
that both the seller and the buyer had to have background checks done
in order to get the permits. The law states that it is the
responsibility of the seller (or transferer) to verify that the
buyer's (or transferee's) permit is current. MA permits have both
picture ID's and fingerprints.


You reckon that would have stopped Roof? I suppose so, since he was such a
law-abiding citizen.



I have no problem with any laws that may make it more difficult for
sickos' to acquire firearms, especially if they don't cause responsible,
law abiding folks from purchasing, inheriting or owning them. I really
don't see what the big deal about objections to a universal background
check law is. If it's a 2nd Amendment or "slippery slope" argument it
doesn't make sense unless you are against felons from being prohibited
from gun ownership also.