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.

On 6/21/15 8:05 AM, 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.





Herring has purchased firearms as "gifts" for members of his family
without bothering with background checks because the law doesn't require
them in his state or in most states. Stupid.

Interestingly, if you own a suppressor/silencer and you want to legally
pass it on to a friend or relative, that person will have to go through
the federal procedure all over again *unless* you've established a
firearms trust and the "inheritor" is a trustee of that trust.

On 6/21/2015 8:26 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:

Herring has purchased firearms as "gifts" for members of his family
without bothering with background checks because the law doesn't require
them in his state or in most states. Stupid.


Is this as stupid as you selling a gun in the parking lot, for cash, to
a complete stranger, without doing a background check, because your
state doesn't require it.
Your assignment for today, Mr. Krause, is to write "I am stupid and
hypocritical" on the blackboard 500 times.


--

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 Sun, 21 Jun 2015 08:55:41 -0400, Justan Olphart wrote:

On 6/21/2015 8:26 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:

Herring has purchased firearms as "gifts" for members of his family
without bothering with background checks because the law doesn't require
them in his state or in most states. Stupid.


Is this as stupid as you selling a gun in the parking lot, for cash, to
a complete stranger, without doing a background check, because your
state doesn't require it.
Your assignment for today, Mr. Krause, is to write "I am stupid and
hypocritical" on the blackboard 500 times.

No. I know how many felonies my SIL's and grandkids have been charged with.
--

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

On 6/21/15 10:51 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jun 2015 08:26:54 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 6/21/15 8:05 AM, 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.





Herring has purchased firearms as "gifts" for members of his family
without bothering with background checks because the law doesn't require
them in his state or in most states. Stupid.

Interestingly, if you own a suppressor/silencer and you want to legally
pass it on to a friend or relative, that person will have to go through
the federal procedure all over again *unless* you've established a
firearms trust and the "inheritor" is a trustee of that trust.

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.

On 6/21/2015 11:03 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 6/21/15 10:51 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jun 2015 08:26:54 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 6/21/15 8:05 AM, 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.





Herring has purchased firearms as "gifts" for members of his family
without bothering with background checks because the law doesn't require
them in his state or in most states. Stupid.

Interestingly, if you own a suppressor/silencer and you want to legally
pass it on to a friend or relative, that person will have to go through
the federal procedure all over again *unless* you've established a
firearms trust and the "inheritor" is a trustee of that trust.

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.

It's hard to imagine you having a "buddie". You are good at finding
loopholes in laws, aren't you?

--

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 6/21/15 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.

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.

On 6/21/2015 8:05 AM, 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.




Sickos don't pay attention to laws.

--

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."