Benedict Arnold...

[Old Rocks]

I'm just guessing, the top one is the Garand ... so little difference it is hard to tell.

Connecticut has had an assault weapons ban continuously since 1994.

if that were true why was it in the home of the assailant and used at target ranges ?

Quite a bit of differance in operaton. The Garand is a top loader, eight shot clip. The AR-15 has a 30 shot clip standard, a faster rate of fire. Easy to do 30 shots in under ten seconds. And two seconds to discard the empty magazine and load a new one.

 

[OKTexas]

The GOP will prevent the Feds from banning guns and giving Democraps the chance to come get your guns.

Registering the guns puts the anti-gun Democraps in their place because anymore demands from them shows they really want to violate the Second Amendment.

The police will be helped by forcing criminals to register their guns, of course felons won't do it because they aren't supposed to have a weapon but the less violent criminals get into a gun database for reference.

If your registered gun is found on a felon, then the police will ask you about selling it to the felon, etc. Registering guns helps law and order that conservatives demand.

I edited that post a little, but I'll restate it here...the illegal seizure of firearms post Katrina was the final nail in the gun registry coffin for me and many other lawful gun owners.

That was wrong and unconstitutional and I believe the New Orleans Police Department figured that out and gave the guns back.

What you are saying is basically the potential deaths of innocent children isn't worth the way out there chance that the US is going to become a dictatorship and take away your guns.

The police in NO didn't figure out squat, they were ordered by a court to return the weapons they illegally confiscated. Some owners got their weapons back but not very many, the cops didn't keep adequate records where they came from. What pisses me off more than anything is the fact that no police officer was charged with civil rights violations, even though they entered homes without warrants and forcibly took the firearms leaving people defenseless against the looters and gangs.

 

[OKTexas]

...that's what the pro-2nd amendment folks will be calling me by the end of this post...but I was extremely disturbed by something that took place last night...and I wanted to share it, and discuss it rationally.

As some of you know, I have expressed reservations in the past regarding the private sale exception. For those of you who don't, here is a link:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...laws-discussion-and-debate-7.html#post4001890

SO, here is my story, and forgive me if I get a little long winded...

My wife really, really wanted her own AR15.

We have one already, but I bought it 20 years ago, long before she was into guns and shooting, and I set it up for what I intended to use it for...long rang target shooting and coyote control.

That made it extremely heavy and my Angel is a little girl...it is uncomfortable for her to shoot in any position but prone.

She was afraid that with all the idiot gun grabbers clamoring for another ridiculous weapons ban, that she wasn't going to be able to get one of her own.

As you know, when momma ain't happy, ain't nobody happy...I started the hunt.

Of course, every store, pawn shop and internet source is out of stock of everything AR related, and I knew this going in...so I started calling friends, and they called their friends, and by six pm, I had a hit...a friend of a friend had just bought an AR from a guy who had two more for sale...here's his number.

I call the fella...yes, he has one; Sure, he can meet me.

We meet at Wal-mart...and here is the disturbing part...

The Seller doesn't ask me a single question.

No inquiry of whether I can legally purchase a firearm, of if I am a felon, or even if I am a resident of the state.

I know what you are thinking, I could have just lied...and that's true, I could, and that's a huge problem too...but on this subject, for the private sale exception to work, we as gun owners must police ourselves.

We have to find a way to screen private sale purchasers WITHOUT creating a de facto firearm registry.

I have a few proposals, but I'd like to here your thoughts first...

I see your point and understand your concerns but in free society I'm not sure what you can do about private sales for myself I wouldn't sell to a person I didn't know well but not everyone will do that.

I'd like to see ALL background checks handled differently...and in exchange for that compromise, ALL weapons transfers would need to be handle thru an FFL.

The compromise would be that all background check simply determine the legal illegibility of the purchaser...no firearm data is recorded in conjunction with a persons name.

And for that small concession, private sales would be subject to the same federal background checks that are required of FFL transactions.

Keep in mind, when Obama and the gun grabber talk about ending the "gun show loophole"...what they really mean is ending the private sales exception.

I think you need to give this a little more thought. There would be no way to insure compliance without the ability to track individual weapons, meaning a registry or the equivalent of a title. Do you really want to go there, registration has always been the precursor of confiscation.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I'd like to see ALL background checks handled differently...and in exchange for that compromise, ALL weapons transfers would need to be handle thru an FFL.

The compromise would be that all background check simply determine the legal illegibility of the purchaser...no firearm data is recorded in conjunction with a persons name.

And for that small concession, private sales would be subject to the same federal background checks that are required of FFL transactions.

Keep in mind, when Obama and the gun grabber talk about ending the "gun show loophole"...what they really mean is ending the private sales exception.

But what would be the mechanics of this?

Would the buyer/seller go to a local FFL to have the buyer complete a 4473, much like an interstate or online sale?

Exacty.

This also eliminates another potential pitfall for the prospective private seller.

Let's image I am the seller...I agree to meet the prospective buyer at Wal-mart.

I perform my due diligence, ask for his drivers license to establish his Missouri citizenship, and inquire if they are a convicted felon...and they say "Why yes I am...armed robbery...why do you ask?"

So now I am in a position where I must, by law, inform this fellow that I in fact cannot allow him to purchase my firearm."

Probably should have handled this over the phone, right?

But then I relinquish the opportunity to gauge the prospective buyers honesty while responding to my inquiries.

What a situation we have here...I'm wondering if this is the reason the seller was reluctant to question me.

The way the law is written, as Dick Tuck pointed out, under Missouri law, the seller must neither "know nor suspect" that the seller is ineligible to purchase a firearm.

If a person doesn't ask, he is in the clear legally and does not have to face the aforementioned scenario.

The short answer to your question is...yes...both buyer and seller would present themselves to a FFL and for a small fee (like $20...ten for the FFL and ten for the government), a background check is performed and everyone is happy.

But no one is going to go for this if it becomes a de facto registry...no weapon types or serial numbers are recorded...the weapon would not even have to be present. Just a go/no-go yes or no decision.

The firearm would need to be present to complete Section D of the 4473 and the FFL’s bound book transaction record.

And what would keep a private transaction from occurring anyway, since both would be complicit in the crime, and no record exists of the transaction and firearm, in a state that requires no license or registration? And even if the authorities somehow had cause to question the buyer of a private sale, the buyer could simply claim the gun was purchased prior to the background check requirement.

Your plan might be useful to give the seller peace of mind when making a private gun sale, in that they’re not selling to someone unauthorized to own a gun; but with enforcement virtually impossible it will do little to address the problem of criminals acquiring guns.

 

[Lakhota]

Private Gun Sale Loophole Creates Invisible Firearms Market, Prompts Calls For Reform

Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence

"There's a loophole where you can sell guns without a background check … 40 percent of guns are sold that way" at gun shows and over the Internet.

Mental Health Checks for Gun Buyers: Weak, Chaotic, Full of Loopholes | Mother Jones

 

[Ravi]

Have you checked to see if the gun is stolen?

How would he check?

 

[Oldguy]

The easiest fix to this mess is that every gun must be registered with the Feds or state it resides in.

If two private citizens want to exchange guns like this then they should need to go to the local police to register the transaction and pay a fee for the background check.

If someone is caught with an unregistered gun, then they get arrested. Criminals will either be forced to register their guns, thus connecting a specific weapon to their ass for tracking purposes or they will hide their gun taking a chance when they get caught.

Law abiding citizens have nothing to fear from registering their guns. I tell the government I have this gun and that gun, that's it. Now, if there's a shooting with my rare gun....then I might have to explain something.

OMG! GUN REGISTRATION? Don't you know that's the first step down the road to tyranny and being disarmed?

Actually, this is one of the few subjects we agree on. I don't care if the government knows what guns I have and I don't mind jumping through a few hoops to sell or buy one.

It's not like I want to reserve a throw-down for shooting my neighbors if I need to.

 

[Care4all]

During the times of our Founding Fathers, it was REQUIRED that every male owned a gun and required that those guns/gun owners, were REGISTERED.....so I don't see how our gvt having all guns be registered is breaking the intention of our founding fathers when it comes to the 2nd amendment, if they required such during their reins?

As far as not wanting our government to have a list of who all owns guns and what kinds of guns etc....and fear of confiscation at some point down the road, I can understand that as well....

but my point is, that requiring guns to be registered with ownership, and the gvt having this list...is NOT unconstitutional....if precedence has any relevance...

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

During the times of our Founding Fathers, it was REQUIRED that every male owned a gun and required that those guns/gun owners, were REGISTERED.....so I don't see how our gvt having all guns be registered is breaking the intention of our founding fathers when it comes to the 2nd amendment, if they required such during their reins?

As far as not wanting our government to have a list of who all owns guns and what kinds of guns etc....and fear of confiscation at some point down the road, I can understand that as well....

but my point is, that requiring guns to be registered with ownership, and the gvt having this list...is NOT unconstitutional....if precedence has any relevance...

True, registration requirements have been upheld by the courts, but one shouldn’t perceive them as a panacea for gun crime. And I’ll continue to oppose registration as being consequently unjustified and burdensome, intended to discourage the exercising of a right rather than enact public safety policy, particularly on the Federal level.

With regard to the OP, he might want to consider researching FFL licensing policy and obligations – I don’t believe FFLs can be compelled to do background checks for private intrastate sales, online sales, or interstate sales, acting essentially as ATF agents; they’re businessmen and gun dealers, not government employees. They do the background checks because it’s the law, and a condition upon which to make a gun sale, from their own inventory.

I do know of FFLs who refuse to do online sales transfers, for example.