Private gun transfers
 

On 6/21/15 11:39 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jun 2015 11:03:31 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 6/21/15 10:51 AM, wrote:

The "trust" loophole is mostly to bypass the local police endorsement
on the Form 4 but it is commonly used to include a number of 3d
parties on the form 4.


Our county sheriff has no problems signing off for silencers, but, as
you posted, the trust allows others to use or "inherit" the silencer.
One of my buddies in Virginia is one of my trustees.

... or you are one of his trustees. What was the address of record,
Maryland or Virginia?

When I bought my machine gun, it was as an individual but these days
virtually all are in a trust ... for the exact reason I cited.


And, as I stated, the local sheriff has no problem signing off on Form
4's. It's my trust, as I have stated several times, so your other
question is not relevant.

I've been told and I've read that the ATF approves trusts "quicker" than
individual applications for Form 4's. Mine took 92 days, if memory
serves, from the time the app got into the ATF system until it mailed
the stamp to my FFL.

Private gun transfers
 

Keyser Söze wrote:
On 6/21/15 10:48 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jun 2015 07:52:04 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 6/21/2015 6:34 AM, John H. wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jun 2015 19:08:11 -0400, "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.

You reckon the dad would have filled out the paperwork before giving the gun to the
druggie son?

Not as the law stands now. But perhaps if it was illegal to transfer
firearms without a background check he may not have done so. Based on
media reports it appears Root's parents are law abiding and not racists.

Do you really think that every person in Maryland or Massachusetts
fills out all of those forms and involves the government when they
"transfer" a firearm within the household?
This wasn't even a case of getting a gun from a neighbor or a family
member outside the home.



It's almost but not quite funny that your answer to virtually every
serious challenge facing us is, "We really can't do anything about that."

Well, that's a cop-out, bull**** answer.

Every single firearm should have to be registered with an appropriate
government agency, and every time one is sold or otherwise transferred,
the name and address of its new owner should be recorded. That should be the first step.

And that would accomplish what? We would still have nutcase people.

Private gun transfers
 

"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
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.

Seems as if gun laws do not really reduce gun violence. There are nutcases
out there. Chicago has extremely tight gun laws. Seems as if the
shootings are higher there than loose gun law areas. Then you have people
upset at family who drive in to a crowd. Not even America. Same thing
happens here. Maybe we need to change how we handle nutcases.

Private gun transfers
 

wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jun 2015 10:03:40 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On one of the many trips to Florida I drove the F-350 towing a Scout
Center Console. I was by myself (my wife and I don't travel well
together) and I decided to make the trip a camping adventure in the
style we did as youths. I bought a cheap pup tent, a sleeping bag, a
mat to sleep on, along with the cooking and coffee making basics used on
an open fire.

Stopped at a campground somewhere in Virgina the first night and set up
camp on the edge of a small lake. After night fall I tried to sleep but
couldn't. Even with the mat, the ground was hard as a rock. Finally
started to doze off after midnight only to be awakened by a bunch of
ducks quaking and parading in front of the tent. Miserable night. Got
up the next morning and tossed the tent, sleeping bag and cooking gear
into a dumpster. Stayed at a Best Western the next two nights.

Sorry to hear you don't travel well together. My wife and I do that
quite well but we do live a little farther out of the dirt. ;-)

"Camping" for us is a regular hotel room, not a suite. We prefer
renting a house.

My wife actually likes traveling with me, and even enjoys the camper. But
is a truck camper, so minimalist, but good bed. Let's us take the boat to
some remote lakes near Yosemite. Also when towing long distance, we are
getting ready to tow 1200 miles to Vancouver Island for a couple weeks of
boating. But I also treat her to B&Bs and lodge rooms. May boat into
Westview in Tahsis, BC for a couple nights. Also a few days on Salt Spring
Island. But the west is more comfortable camping than Eastern Summers.

Private gun transfers
 

Keyser Söze wrote:
On 6/21/15 7:52 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 6/21/2015 6:34 AM, John H. wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jun 2015 19:08:11 -0400, "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.

You reckon the dad would have filled out the paperwork before giving
the gun to the
druggie son?

Not as the law stands now. But perhaps if it was illegal to transfer
firearms without a background check he may not have done so.

But that might restrict the ability of those who shouldn't have
firearms...this is 'Merica, buddy, and 2nd Amendment and the NRA, dontcha know?

How do you pass a background check? Two bankruptcies, tax liens.

Private gun transfers
 

John H. wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jun 2015 19:08:11 -0400, "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.

You reckon the dad would have filled out the paperwork before giving the gun to the
druggie son?

We'll just let that sit, I'll be at Solomons for a week.

Maybe dad is a lowlife also.

Private gun transfers
 

On 6/21/15 1:52 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jun 2015 11:52:00 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 6/21/15 11:39 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jun 2015 11:03:31 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 6/21/15 10:51 AM, wrote:

The "trust" loophole is mostly to bypass the local police endorsement
on the Form 4 but it is commonly used to include a number of 3d
parties on the form 4.


Our county sheriff has no problems signing off for silencers, but, as
you posted, the trust allows others to use or "inherit" the silencer.
One of my buddies in Virginia is one of my trustees.

... or you are one of his trustees. What was the address of record,
Maryland or Virginia?

When I bought my machine gun, it was as an individual but these days
virtually all are in a trust ... for the exact reason I cited.


And, as I stated, the local sheriff has no problem signing off on Form
4's. It's my trust, as I have stated several times, so your other
question is not relevant.

I've been told and I've read that the ATF approves trusts "quicker" than
individual applications for Form 4's. Mine took 92 days, if memory
serves, from the time the app got into the ATF system until it mailed
the stamp to my FFL.

Calvert is different than PG then because my buddy moved to Virginia
to get away from that CLEO. He was not signing form 4s ... any of
them.


Your buddy moved to another state because the sheriff in PG County
wouldn't sign his Form 4? You have an odd buddy.

Private gun transfers
 

On 6/21/15 1:35 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jun 2015 11:37:15 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 6/21/15 11:34 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jun 2015 10:57:36 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 6/21/15 10:48 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jun 2015 07:52:04 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 6/21/2015 6:34 AM, John H. wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jun 2015 19:08:11 -0400, "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.

You reckon the dad would have filled out the paperwork before giving the gun to the
druggie son?

Not as the law stands now. But perhaps if it was illegal to transfer
firearms without a background check he may not have done so. Based on
media reports it appears Root's parents are law abiding and not racists.

Do you really think that every person in Maryland or Massachusetts
fills out all of those forms and involves the government when they
"transfer" a firearm within the household?
This wasn't even a case of getting a gun from a neighbor or a family
member outside the home.



It's almost but not quite funny that your answer to virtually every
serious challenge facing us is, "We really can't do anything about that."

Well, that's a cop-out, bull**** answer.

It is also accurate. There are an estimated 300,000,000 - 400,000,000
guns in this country and we are not sure who actually owns half of
them. The best we can come up with in most cases are anonymous surveys
with dubious accuracy.


Every single firearm should have to be registered with an appropriate
government agency, and every time one is sold or otherwise transferred,
the name and address of its new owner should be recorded. That should be
the first step.

In this case the only thing that would have changed on that form was
the first name of the owner. It was the same family at the same
address.




Right, because we can't do anything about anything. Your answer to
virtually every significant issue. Insane libertarianism.

Your assertion that every issue has a government solution is just as
silly. Laws don't change culture and, as BAO points out, we have a
very strong gun culture ... but you are part of it so I don't need to
explain that to you.

Most of the guns used in these high profile shootings were legally
purchased and the buyer did fill out a BATF form.

It is the murders that the press is not interested in covering that
involve the illegal guns and since those people are involved in plenty
of other illegal activity, no there is not much another law would
solve.



I don't recall stating that every issue has a government solution.

Private gun transfers
 

On 6/21/15 1:09 PM, Califbill wrote:
"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
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.

Seems as if gun laws do not really reduce gun violence. There are nutcases
out there. Chicago has extremely tight gun laws. Seems as if the
shootings are higher there than loose gun law areas. Then you have people
upset at family who drive in to a crowd. Not even America. Same thing
happens here. Maybe we need to change how we handle nutcases.


Yeah, the right gun laws can reduce gun violence.

Private gun transfers
 

On 6/21/2015 10:56 AM, wrote:

On Sun, 21 Jun 2015 10:03:40 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On one of the many trips to Florida I drove the F-350 towing a Scout
Center Console. I was by myself (my wife and I don't travel well
together) and I decided to make the trip a camping adventure in the
style we did as youths. I bought a cheap pup tent, a sleeping bag, a
mat to sleep on, along with the cooking and coffee making basics used on
an open fire.

Stopped at a campground somewhere in Virgina the first night and set up
camp on the edge of a small lake. After night fall I tried to sleep but
couldn't. Even with the mat, the ground was hard as a rock. Finally
started to doze off after midnight only to be awakened by a bunch of
ducks quaking and parading in front of the tent. Miserable night. Got
up the next morning and tossed the tent, sleeping bag and cooking gear
into a dumpster. Stayed at a Best Western the next two nights.

Sorry to hear you don't travel well together. My wife and I do that
quite well but we do live a little farther out of the dirt. ;-)

"Camping" for us is a regular hotel room, not a suite. We prefer
renting a house.



The problem with traveling with my wife is that she wants to stop every
hour or so at rest areas or at shops that she sees advertised on the
road. Then she sleeps while I drive. I like to "get there".

When we had the places in Florida, I'd drive and she would fly down or back.