I'm not sure about person to person, but I think if you do it on consignment through a dealer it still requires one. That's how I bought one of my guns, and I remember having to do a background check on it. I bought a couple of guns from this place, so maybe it was only the one time I had to, but I thought it was both. It was a while back, so I can't remember for sure.
If a dealer touches it in any form or fashion, a background check is required. I do feel there should be some form of legislation that should highly encourage private sales to run a background check, but not to the point where it requires family and friend sales.
This is an open letter from someone I recently met. Good guy, very mellow, and very brave. Not to say this changes anyone's mind, but it's a powerful letter nonetheless. ----------------------------------- Dear Senator Pryor, As an Arkansan who happens to live in Newtown, Connecticut, and whose parents and sisters and brothers in law and nieces and nephews all still live in AR, I am extremely disappointed in your vote today on cloture. My wife is a teacher at Sandy Hook; she huddled against a wall with her students about 50 ft. away from that mass murder, listening to the whimpers and pleas and cries of the victims. She and I are committed to speaking out on behalf of those victims. We cannot stand for inaction on controlling illegal and inappropriate access to guns in this country. All of my relatives and many, many friends in AR--along with about 90% of all Americans--are in favor of universal background checks and strong anti-trafficking laws, which are essential to reducing the horrible gun violence in this country. If you don't believe that those laws are needed, then you either don't understand or don't care about the problem. Suffice it to say that if you vote against the bill when it comes to a vote, we (my wife and I, all of my friends in Arkansas, and my friends at the Newtown Action Alliance and Mayors Against Illegal Guns and the Brady Campaign and other anti-gun violence organizations) will have no choice but to do everything in our power to see you voted out of office and replaced with someone who has the courage to do what is right in regard to gun violence. Sincerely, Brian Clements
none of the current bills proposed, including expanded background checks, would have stopped the shooting. It is weird, after an airliner accident they would examine the sequence of events that eventually cause people to die. Then they would implement changes in each area to stop each event from ever happening. In gun control they use the accident to push for changes that would have had no effect at all. It would be similar to Air France installing air bags on the Concorde after one turned into a fireball in 2001.
I'm OK with Pryor and others being opposed to this (though I don't think they should vote against having the debate). But I think anyone opposed owes the American people answers to two questions: 1. Do you think gun violence is a problem in this country? 2. If so, what do you think should/can be done to help reduce it?
Then what the $#%# is the goal??? The media lines up all the victims families of the last several mass shootings to speak out for gun control and you say the goal isn't to prevent future shootings like those? The sad thing is that you're absolutely right.
The Patriot Act has provisions that do not allow any of the information to be used for anything other than national security. Yet you still fear that they will abuse this information and it is a huge invasion of our privacy. Why is it when it comes to gun registry you are so confident everything will be done trust worthily? Who sets the standard for mental health cut offs? Those tests generally aren't developed prior to becoming statute. The standards for those tests are not laid out in law, it leaves it entirely to the discretion of HHS. So what happens when a liberal President appoints a liberal cabinet member to the this department and they implement a policy triggered around taking as many guns off the street as possible.
The goal is to prevent future gun violence in a broader sense. It's not to prevent a school shooting by a particular person who used a certain type of weapon in a certain way. So saying that it wouldn't have stopped this one particular school shooting is irrelevant to whether the law is helpful or not.
LOL, it is relevant when you march victims around as THE reason to support the reduction of freedoms. It is relevant to anyone trying to prevent this kind of thing from happening again. I mean, if you want to spend political capitol, why not try to stop these things in the future? Which school shooting would expanded background checks have prevented? I can't think of any. You are expanding a system that specifically failed in the VTech shooting.
This post is borderline offensive to the victims of the Newtown shooting. They aren't being marched around. They are taking an active role in something they believe in, and has affected them personally. Most if not all of them weren't persuaded to do it, they did it all on their own initiative. They aren't being coached, or told what to say. They aren't being told wich legislation to back or push by any politicians or interest groups other than their own. This is all what they believe in. We know the shooter in Newtown had some mental health issues. Might the background check of caught that? Either way we do know that if the assault weapons ban wasn't lifted that would have prevented the shooter from even having the gun he used to kill all those children. Since that one weapons ban would have prevented the Newtown shooting are you in favor of an assault weapons ban? Personally I don't really care for the assault weapons ban, but I am in favor of banning the extended magazines which the assault weapons ban also did.
That's true. I am on record for being fine and dandy with expanded background checks. My prior comments is based on why I feel the NRA has to fight it. But for me, it doesn't affect AR15 or mag purchases so I'm all good.
Thank you for writing that. Since I've gotten to know one of the surviving families (Brian's, as per the letter above), I can confirm what you're saying. Anyone saying people like these folks are "being paraded" doesn't know what they're talking about. The Newtown Action Alliance is actually an interesting little org. They truly welcome all opinions and people to help them brainstorm the wider problems.
If you're going to debate gun control, please! please! know what you're talking about. This is why pro-gun people are putting up a fight. They are educated on the subject. With the exception of the VTech shooter, no. Most of the guns used are obtained from family. And even with the VTech incident, would a mental background work with him? At what point is the line drawn on mental health issues? The assault weapons ban did not ban the ownership. It banned the production. There always has and always will be plenty of AR15's out there. Further, there are ranch rifles, which is not considered an assault weapon, that does the same exact thing as a Bushmaster.
You guys are crazy to think that they aren't parading Newtown families.. hell Obama is taking them a tour on Air Force One across country lobbying his "disarming" agenda. That is the definition of parading if not taking it over the top. Quit drinking the Obama koolaid. as far as the blabbering about loop holes.. here's a video for you. <iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/hiIGUFhPfO8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
