|
Private gun transfers
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. |
Private gun transfers
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." |
Private gun transfers
"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. |
Private gun transfers
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. |
Private gun transfers
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." |
Private gun transfers
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. |
Private gun transfers
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." |
Private gun transfers
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. This was transferred by the father. The law might be able to address this by charging pop but I doubt any law is going to stop it. Even with no transfer is probably available from dad. |
Private gun transfers
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. -- Guns don't cause problems. Gun owner behavior causes problems. |
Private gun transfers
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. |
Private gun transfers
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. |
Private gun transfers
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. We'll just let that sit, I'll be at Solomons for a week. |
Private gun transfers
On 6/21/15 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? We'll just let that sit, I'll be at Solomons for a week. Solomons...ahh, just the place to be in a travel trailer when it is 85-99F outside, with high humidity. All those folks and their trailers at the Navy Rec Center, lined up, with the A/C compressors running 24/7...blech. Don't forget to take all your guns and other hobby stuff you don't know how to use. |
Private gun transfers
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? |
Private gun transfers
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. |
Private gun transfers
On 6/21/2015 7:57 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 6/21/15 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? We'll just let that sit, I'll be at Solomons for a week. Solomons...ahh, just the place to be in a travel trailer when it is 85-99F outside, with high humidity. All those folks and their trailers at the Navy Rec Center, lined up, with the A/C compressors running 24/7...blech. Don't forget to take all your guns and other hobby stuff you don't know how to use. "And old man like you shouldn't waste his dwindling days on foolishness like that" Donnie said that -- 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." |
Private gun transfers
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. |
Private gun transfers
On 6/21/2015 7:57 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 6/21/15 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? We'll just let that sit, I'll be at Solomons for a week. Solomons...ahh, just the place to be in a travel trailer when it is 85-99F outside, with high humidity. All those folks and their trailers at the Navy Rec Center, lined up, with the A/C compressors running 24/7...blech. Don't forget to take all your guns and other hobby stuff you don't know how to use. Ha. Brings back memories of our very brief "camping" experience. We've had a few RV's ... Class A and Class C motorhomes but they were primary purchased with the thought in mind that they would be used for traveling back and forth to Florida when we had the houses down there. We thought they would make for leisurely trips, stopping to see the sights so to speak. Never worked out that way. Once on the road we got to Jupiter in two and a half days ... the same amount of time it took to drive in a car. Then my daughter convinced us to get a fifth wheel. Her two boys were young at the time and she, her husband and kids loved to go "camping" in a travel trailer they had. She talked us (and my oldest son) to join them in their camping adventures. So, we bought a 36 or 37 foot fifth wheel and a Ford F-350 diesel to pull it. My son also bought a fifth wheel and a new truck to pull his. Off we all went to some place in New Hampshire. Fifty million screaming little kids all over the place. Hottest week in years in New Hampshire with temps in the 90's and near 100 percent humidity. Rained every afternoon. Mosquitoes the size of Boeing 747's. One of the most horrible weeks I've ever spent. Dragged the fifth wheel home and immediately put it up for sale. |
Private gun transfers
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." |
Private gun transfers
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." |
Private gun transfers
On 6/21/2015 8:39 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 6/21/2015 7:57 AM, Keyser Söze wrote: On 6/21/15 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? We'll just let that sit, I'll be at Solomons for a week. Solomons...ahh, just the place to be in a travel trailer when it is 85-99F outside, with high humidity. All those folks and their trailers at the Navy Rec Center, lined up, with the A/C compressors running 24/7...blech. Don't forget to take all your guns and other hobby stuff you don't know how to use. Ha. Brings back memories of our very brief "camping" experience. We've had a few RV's ... Class A and Class C motorhomes but they were primary purchased with the thought in mind that they would be used for traveling back and forth to Florida when we had the houses down there. We thought they would make for leisurely trips, stopping to see the sights so to speak. Never worked out that way. Once on the road we got to Jupiter in two and a half days ... the same amount of time it took to drive in a car. Then my daughter convinced us to get a fifth wheel. Her two boys were young at the time and she, her husband and kids loved to go "camping" in a travel trailer they had. She talked us (and my oldest son) to join them in their camping adventures. So, we bought a 36 or 37 foot fifth wheel and a Ford F-350 diesel to pull it. My son also bought a fifth wheel and a new truck to pull his. Off we all went to some place in New Hampshire. Fifty million screaming little kids all over the place. Hottest week in years in New Hampshire with temps in the 90's and near 100 percent humidity. Rained every afternoon. Mosquitoes the size of Boeing 747's. One of the most horrible weeks I've ever spent. Dragged the fifth wheel home and immediately put it up for sale. Ahhhh. Camping in New England at it's finest. -- 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." |
Private gun transfers
On 6/21/15 8:39 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 6/21/2015 7:57 AM, Keyser Söze wrote: On 6/21/15 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? We'll just let that sit, I'll be at Solomons for a week. Solomons...ahh, just the place to be in a travel trailer when it is 85-99F outside, with high humidity. All those folks and their trailers at the Navy Rec Center, lined up, with the A/C compressors running 24/7...blech. Don't forget to take all your guns and other hobby stuff you don't know how to use. Ha. Brings back memories of our very brief "camping" experience. We've had a few RV's ... Class A and Class C motorhomes but they were primary purchased with the thought in mind that they would be used for traveling back and forth to Florida when we had the houses down there. We thought they would make for leisurely trips, stopping to see the sights so to speak. Never worked out that way. Once on the road we got to Jupiter in two and a half days ... the same amount of time it took to drive in a car. Then my daughter convinced us to get a fifth wheel. Her two boys were young at the time and she, her husband and kids loved to go "camping" in a travel trailer they had. She talked us (and my oldest son) to join them in their camping adventures. So, we bought a 36 or 37 foot fifth wheel and a Ford F-350 diesel to pull it. My son also bought a fifth wheel and a new truck to pull his. Off we all went to some place in New Hampshire. Fifty million screaming little kids all over the place. Hottest week in years in New Hampshire with temps in the 90's and near 100 percent humidity. Rained every afternoon. Mosquitoes the size of Boeing 747's. One of the most horrible weeks I've ever spent. Dragged the fifth wheel home and immediately put it up for sale. I did a little "camping out" with friends during my college days, out in Kansas and Colorado and South Dakota. We actually "camped out," though, with sleeping bags out under the stars, and a couple of tents in case it rained. Driving or dragging a motel room has no appeal. I don't even like to see the monster RVs on the interstate, because you can't see over or around them, and many times the drivers shouldn't be trusted piloting a skateboard. |
Private gun transfers
On 6/21/2015 9:00 AM, Justan Olphart wrote:
On 6/21/2015 8:39 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 6/21/2015 7:57 AM, Keyser Söze wrote: On 6/21/15 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? We'll just let that sit, I'll be at Solomons for a week. Solomons...ahh, just the place to be in a travel trailer when it is 85-99F outside, with high humidity. All those folks and their trailers at the Navy Rec Center, lined up, with the A/C compressors running 24/7...blech. Don't forget to take all your guns and other hobby stuff you don't know how to use. Ha. Brings back memories of our very brief "camping" experience. We've had a few RV's ... Class A and Class C motorhomes but they were primary purchased with the thought in mind that they would be used for traveling back and forth to Florida when we had the houses down there. We thought they would make for leisurely trips, stopping to see the sights so to speak. Never worked out that way. Once on the road we got to Jupiter in two and a half days ... the same amount of time it took to drive in a car. Then my daughter convinced us to get a fifth wheel. Her two boys were young at the time and she, her husband and kids loved to go "camping" in a travel trailer they had. She talked us (and my oldest son) to join them in their camping adventures. So, we bought a 36 or 37 foot fifth wheel and a Ford F-350 diesel to pull it. My son also bought a fifth wheel and a new truck to pull his. Off we all went to some place in New Hampshire. Fifty million screaming little kids all over the place. Hottest week in years in New Hampshire with temps in the 90's and near 100 percent humidity. Rained every afternoon. Mosquitoes the size of Boeing 747's. One of the most horrible weeks I've ever spent. Dragged the fifth wheel home and immediately put it up for sale. Ahhhh. Camping in New England at it's finest. Well, the fifth wheel wasn't exactly a land yacht. :-) |
Private gun transfers
On 6/21/2015 9:02 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 6/21/15 8:39 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 6/21/2015 7:57 AM, Keyser Söze wrote: On 6/21/15 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? We'll just let that sit, I'll be at Solomons for a week. Solomons...ahh, just the place to be in a travel trailer when it is 85-99F outside, with high humidity. All those folks and their trailers at the Navy Rec Center, lined up, with the A/C compressors running 24/7...blech. Don't forget to take all your guns and other hobby stuff you don't know how to use. Ha. Brings back memories of our very brief "camping" experience. We've had a few RV's ... Class A and Class C motorhomes but they were primary purchased with the thought in mind that they would be used for traveling back and forth to Florida when we had the houses down there. We thought they would make for leisurely trips, stopping to see the sights so to speak. Never worked out that way. Once on the road we got to Jupiter in two and a half days ... the same amount of time it took to drive in a car. Then my daughter convinced us to get a fifth wheel. Her two boys were young at the time and she, her husband and kids loved to go "camping" in a travel trailer they had. She talked us (and my oldest son) to join them in their camping adventures. So, we bought a 36 or 37 foot fifth wheel and a Ford F-350 diesel to pull it. My son also bought a fifth wheel and a new truck to pull his. Off we all went to some place in New Hampshire. Fifty million screaming little kids all over the place. Hottest week in years in New Hampshire with temps in the 90's and near 100 percent humidity. Rained every afternoon. Mosquitoes the size of Boeing 747's. One of the most horrible weeks I've ever spent. Dragged the fifth wheel home and immediately put it up for sale. I did a little "camping out" with friends during my college days, out in Kansas and Colorado and South Dakota. We actually "camped out," though, with sleeping bags out under the stars, and a couple of tents in case it rained. Driving or dragging a motel room has no appeal. I don't even like to see the monster RVs on the interstate, because you can't see over or around them, and many times the drivers shouldn't be trusted piloting a skateboard. 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. |
Private gun transfers
On 6/21/2015 9:54 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 6/21/2015 9:00 AM, Justan Olphart wrote: On 6/21/2015 8:39 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 6/21/2015 7:57 AM, Keyser Söze wrote: On 6/21/15 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? We'll just let that sit, I'll be at Solomons for a week. Solomons...ahh, just the place to be in a travel trailer when it is 85-99F outside, with high humidity. All those folks and their trailers at the Navy Rec Center, lined up, with the A/C compressors running 24/7...blech. Don't forget to take all your guns and other hobby stuff you don't know how to use. Ha. Brings back memories of our very brief "camping" experience. We've had a few RV's ... Class A and Class C motorhomes but they were primary purchased with the thought in mind that they would be used for traveling back and forth to Florida when we had the houses down there. We thought they would make for leisurely trips, stopping to see the sights so to speak. Never worked out that way. Once on the road we got to Jupiter in two and a half days ... the same amount of time it took to drive in a car. Then my daughter convinced us to get a fifth wheel. Her two boys were young at the time and she, her husband and kids loved to go "camping" in a travel trailer they had. She talked us (and my oldest son) to join them in their camping adventures. So, we bought a 36 or 37 foot fifth wheel and a Ford F-350 diesel to pull it. My son also bought a fifth wheel and a new truck to pull his. Off we all went to some place in New Hampshire. Fifty million screaming little kids all over the place. Hottest week in years in New Hampshire with temps in the 90's and near 100 percent humidity. Rained every afternoon. Mosquitoes the size of Boeing 747's. One of the most horrible weeks I've ever spent. Dragged the fifth wheel home and immediately put it up for sale. Ahhhh. Camping in New England at it's finest. Well, the fifth wheel wasn't exactly a land yacht. :-) Wasn't talking bout the equipment. ;-) -- 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." |
Private gun transfers
|
Private gun transfers
|
Private gun transfers
|
Private gun transfers
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. |
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
|
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
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:44 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com