Interesting... this doesn't seem to jibe with the states that already require universal background checks: https://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/background-checks/universal-background-checks/ Also worth reading the section on "STATE LAWS CLOSING THE PRIVATE SALE LOOPHOLE: Background Checks at the Point of Transfer" in the above link.
New York has background checks for person to person sales. It requires you to go to a gun store, with the gun and the two parties (buyer and seller) to fill out the federal background check form (4473), and USUALLY pay the routine fee that is charged: usually $25. Some gun stores, however, have jacked that fee up to $50 or $75 in the hopes of discouraging private parties from wasting their time with such transactions. Notice this process costs money and time on both the part of the buyer and seller. And gasoline to travel to a gun shop, which upstate might be a drive of 30, 40, or 50 miles. Most private sellers therefore generally ignore the requirement and simply sell the firearms as they have been sold in the past: as a cash transaction with no middle man gun store background check seller involved. So you can talk all you want about "Reasonable" gun laws. These laws are utterly USELESS if (a) people ignore them and (b) law enforcement either can't or won't enforce them.
Again, it doesn't take much effort to search... US police chiefs back universal background checks for gun purchases https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/oct/27/police-chiefs-back-universal-background-checks https://www.mnchiefs.org/2018-legislative-agenda https://www.abqjournal.com/1289628/gov-lujan-grisham-signs-background-check-bill-into-law.html
so let's see how this actually plays out with a REAL EXAMPLE. Gun Owner A has a youth rifle that he bought his child when the child was 7 or 8 years old. That youth rifle cost $149 when new. He got it on sale new for $129. Now Gun Owner A's child has outgrown the rifle, and he would like to sell it to Gun Purchaser B. Gun Purchaser B knows the value of the used rifle is now somewhere around $80. Gun Purchaser B offers Gun Owner/Seller A $50, and they agree on that as the purchase price of the used youth rifle. Away both parties go to the Gun Shop in East BumF*ck to complete the Reasonable Gun Law™ Hoop Jumping Requirement. Unfortunately that's 50 miles away, and they have to go on a Saturday as they both work. They decide to drive in one car to save some cash, but it will take them an hour to get there, hopefully less than an hour while they are there to complete the background check paperwork, and then an hour back home. Three hours if they are lucky. They are not lucky. The gun store where they need to complete the ATF-4473 is jammed. The wait in line for 45 minutes to get to the counter. They fill out the paperwork, pay their $50 fee, and wait for the gun shop owner to phone in the background check. OH NO!! another snafu. The ATF line is busy. It is Saturday after all. So they wait another half hour as the gun shop salesperson tries again and again. Let's say he gets through to the ATF on the third try and the background check is cleared. Okay. let's see. it ended up taking four hours, cost $50 for the fee for a $50 firearm. The buyer didn't want to pay the entire fee for a $50 firearm, so the buyer and the gun seller agreed to split the fee 50/50. Which means it cost the gun seller $25 to sell a $50 firearm. And waste four hours of his life in the process. Plus the gas to and from: let's say he's a good ole' boy with a truck that gets 10mpg . . . so he's out 10 gallons of gas at $3/gallon, or another $30. So now he has just sold his $50 firearm for NEGATIVE FIVE DOLLARS. Meaning HE HAS ACTUALLY LOST MONEY on the transaction. The gun buyer is also a bit unhappy with having to pay an extra $25 for a $50 used firearm. But such is the cost of "reasonable" gun control. The whole thing is a farce. It's a waste of time, money, and effort. Otherwise law-abiding and responsible gun owners will ignore the law.
Gun purchasers can choose to purchase guns from licensed gun dealers. But even if, for whatever reason, they want to purchase a gun from a private party, these certainly don't seem like unreasonable steps to have to take. And again... not putting in background checks because "gun owners will prefer to break the law" doesn't sound like a compelling argument to me...
and it's just as easy to search the RURAL law enforcement agencies, largely Sheriffs Associations, to see that there is widespread opposition to the background checks proposals. Here is but one example: https://www.nraila.org/articles/201...sociation-opposes-bloomberg-gun-control-bills
In past gun control threads I have said I don't have a problem with background checks. However, they need to regulate what a gun dealer can charge to do the transfer. All he does is log the gun into his book. Hand the buyer a 4473 and then maybe make a phone call that takes a couple minutes. In TX, if the buyer has a CHL he doesn't even have to call in the background check. Then he logs the gun out of his book. If you charge 50 bucks for that and the gun is worth only 250 people might not want to comply with a background check. Also, if a seller bought the gun in a person to person transaction without a background check it will be even harder to enforce a person to person sale. Lots of guns have already changed hands several times. That means tracing the gun will likely only go as far as the original owner. He will say he sold it to someone. The ATF pretty much stops at that point unless the original seller has a bill of sale or some proof of who he sold it to. At gun shows... it is usually cash for gun... maybe a hand shake and adios. The only way person to person background checks would be enforceable is with a national gun registration tying every gun to a person. That isn't likely to happen anytime soon.
Again, your "real life example" doesn't sound that unreasonable. If gun owners truly want the "right" to own a gun, they should be willing to go through the reasonable steps to own a gun. The steps described don't unfairly prevent anyone from purchasing a gun. And those steps help reduce the chance that a gun gets into the hands of someone that shouldn't... and help track a gun that is used in commitment of a crime.
I am cool with the idea of standardizing the costs. I'd also think the process can be streamlined through improvements in the information systems (technology) used. Improved systems to enter and track guns that can not only speed registration and background checks and the front end will also help law enforcement at the back end.
And they will throw the voter ID argument back in your face. You are putting financial restrictions and burdens on people wanting to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights. You are discriminating against the poor and minorities.....
If the proposed legislation for "private transfer background checks" included funding for an improved NICS system where a gun seller or gun buyer could log on to the ATF site, fill out all the appropriate private transfer forms online, have NO FEE (or a very very negligible fee, maybe $5 or less), then I think you might see some support from the pro-gun rights side. We already can buy hunting and fishing licenses online; there is no reason whatsoever this system could not be put into place online. But nobody's talking about that.
I am not opposed to improved NICS system. And reasonable, standardized fees. Not so sure about "on-line" since I would think you would want to make sure the person applying is the person applying, unless I am missing something (is there some way to ensure the buyer and seller?). And I am sure the costs of this (minimal it would seem) could easily be covered.
The majority certainly isn't infallible, as history as shown. However, is the argument that we should not listen to the majority because there are examples historically of the majority being wrong? I don't really follow. To me the reality is more complicated. How strongly does one group feel? How well organized? Do they show up to vote? While I agree with increased (really smarter) background checks and laws on gun ownership, I don't think that a majority of Americans want the Second Amendment moved to the rubbish stack.
It really depends. There are ways to limit or cash transactions, severe punishment is one way. I am in favor of keeping teeth to the Second Amendment (I own a large number of guns), however I do believe that there should be yearly registration like cars and there should be a cost associated with that. I also believe that guns when purchased new should carry a healthy tax to help pay for the negative externalities associated with gun ownership. The cost of yearly registration will be covered with the registration fee, and it will help us keep better track of weapons.
I think we are in agreement, though I don't think requiring background checks results in moving the 2nd Amendment to the rubbish sack.
