Gun Rights: Should you be allowed to own an RPG?
10-07-2017, 12:00 PM
#1681
It depends on the state. There are only a handful of states left that still have legal private transfers without a background check. Most states now require both parties to go to an FFL, put the gun into the possession of the FFL, and then the buyer submits a 4473 and gets a background check. If the buyer fails the check then the owner also has to submit to a 4473 and background check before the FFL will give his gun back.
Reply
0
0
10-07-2017, 12:50 PM
#1682
It depends on the state. There are only a handful of states left that still have legal private transfers without a background check. Most states now require both parties to go to an FFL, put the gun into the possession of the FFL, and then the buyer submits a 4473 and gets a background check. If the buyer fails the check then the owner also has to submit to a 4473 and background check before the FFL will give his gun back.
Neither is NH where I lived for a long time. A text from an article back in 2015 that was relevant to a NH gun show purchase;
New Hampshire is one of 39 states that have a gun show “loophole,” which means there is no federally mandated background check requirement for any weapon sold by an unlicensed dealer. The only identification required must show the purchaser is a state resident and over age 21. If FFL dealers sell at gun shows, they still must conduct a background check.
I wonder why/how someone could be an "unlicensed" dealer instead of being a licensed one? Federal paperwork?
Reply
0
0
10-07-2017, 04:35 PM
#1685
Elite Member
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Huntington, Indiana
Posts: 2,885
Total Cats: 616
... Unless it is at a gun show, which is treated the same as if it were a big gun shop.
You need an FFL to be a vendor, therefore you must process the background check with each purchase.
You need an FFL to be a vendor, therefore you must process the background check with each purchase.
Reply
0
0
10-08-2017, 07:24 PM
#1686
AFAIK, there hasn't been a successful case against a regular guy just selling a few personal guns here and there. While the language is intentionally vague, the ATF does not have the manpower or money to even bother with some dude who has 4 Mossy 500's and realized he only needs 2. As long as you're not being a total ******* about "buying and selling"... the ATF could care less. Even if they did have the resources, the ATF realizes that they need to actually produce meaningful results... and going after A GUY who sold A COUPLE of guns ONCE OR TWICE... that dog won't hunt.
It depends on the state. There are only a handful of states left that still have legal private transfers without a background check. Most states now require both parties to go to an FFL, put the gun into the possession of the FFL, and then the buyer submits a 4473 and gets a background check. If the buyer fails the check then the owner also has to submit to a 4473 and background check before the FFL will give his gun back.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_show_loophole
10 states require background checks at the point of sale for all guns.
4 states require you to obtain a permit (which includes the background check) to purchase all guns... that permit is usually good for a limited time, but no check is required by the actual dealer you buy from.
2 states require a background check at the point of sale for HANDGUNS only.
4 states require you to obtain a permit (which included the background check) to purchase HANDGUNS only... same limited timeframe as above.
There are some other things that affect each state... for example, in North Carolina (a state that requires permits for handguns purchases) if you have a CCW, you are exempt from applying for a permit, and hence, a background check.
The biggest issue of all is the absurdity that background checks "save lives". I think I'm correct in saying that every single mass shooter of recent memory use legally owned (background check passed) weapons. While 999/1000 gangbanger related shootings involved stolen firearms and were committed by people who were legally unable to possess a gun in the first place. So if mass shooters all pass checks, and gangbangers don't bother... how the hell is mandatory checks gonna solve anything? Yes, I'm speaking to the choir.
Clearly it won't. The whole point of mandatory background checks is to pave the way for registration. As soon as there is a computer system that tracks EVERY gun through it's history, you have default registration anyways. And the only reason for registration is eventual confiscation. You can look up how it went down for California SKS owners, the SAFE Act in NY and NJ, etc... Background Checks => Registration => Confiscation. If they know where the guns are, and then make that type of gun illegal, and you don't voluntarily turn them in... they can start sending SWAT teams to your house to get them. Or they can be like the utopia of Australia and have an "anonymous turn-in" every couple of years. Just ask New York where only 13% of people bothered to register their newly illegal "assault rifles" after the SAFE act went down and made 300,000(?) new felons overnight.
Last edited by samnavy; 10-09-2017 at 01:56 PM.
Reply
0
0
10-08-2017, 07:39 PM
#1687
To my knowledge, no state requires "any seller of any firearm at any gunshow to be a licensed FFL holder." I think you may run across some shows that have that requirement (ie, a rule of the actual show promoter), but there's nothing at the state level.
Here in VA, the anti's tried some serious bullshit last year with CCW reciprocity. Part of the fallout was that every gunshow is required to have the State Police (100% at taxpayers expense) set up a table to conduct voluntary background checks for private sellers that wanted them. The anti's insisted that private sellers were demanding this happen in the name of the children.
After a year, they ran a grand total of 54 voluntary checks at 77 VA gunshows... to the tune of $300,000.
New law that encourages voluntary background checks at Va. gun shows is yielding few tangible results | Virginia | roanoke.com
Reply
0
0
10-08-2017, 07:54 PM
#1688
Elite Member
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Huntington, Indiana
Posts: 2,885
Total Cats: 616
In my face.
I assumed that Indiana was following federal laws on the issue.
Crowder did a mildly amusing video about trying to purchase a gun as a non-resident at the Indiana gun show Obama falsely called out a few years ago.
I assumed that Indiana was following federal laws on the issue.
Crowder did a mildly amusing video about trying to purchase a gun as a non-resident at the Indiana gun show Obama falsely called out a few years ago.
Reply
0
0
10-08-2017, 08:54 PM
#1689
Elite Member
iTrader: (21)
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 6,593
Total Cats: 1,259
Samnavy, point of contention. It's the SAFE act, not SHARE, at least here in NY. All over western NY you will see tiny signs saying "Repeal the SAFE act". They just keep multiplying.
Reply
0
0
10-09-2017, 02:28 PM
#1691
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: TAMPA, FL
Posts: 817
Total Cats: 20
In the past, the ATF has been known to hassle people for buying and selling guns without an FFL.
They have also been known to refuse FFL applications since the early 90s because people aren't sufficiently engaged in the business of selling firearms. But they also refuse due to zoning, and other reasons.
The cutoff isn't consistent, but if you regularly buy and sell guns for profit, you might need to get an FFL. I'm a lawyer and I am not sure where the line is drawn.
They have also been known to refuse FFL applications since the early 90s because people aren't sufficiently engaged in the business of selling firearms. But they also refuse due to zoning, and other reasons.
The cutoff isn't consistent, but if you regularly buy and sell guns for profit, you might need to get an FFL. I'm a lawyer and I am not sure where the line is drawn.
Reply
0
0
12-14-2017, 11:36 AM
#1694
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,493
Total Cats: 4,080
My local delegate is keeping us safe:
Dec 11 2017
CHANTILLY, Va.: Delegate John J. Bell (D - Loudoun) introduced two bills today that will increase firearm safety for all Virginians. Delegate Bell said of the legislation:
"As a military veteran who carried a firearm in combat zones, I know how dangerous these weapons can be. The bill I introduced today will help make Virginians more safe by ensuring those who seek to carry concealed firearms are safely doing so in the Commonwealth."
HB 91 requires in-person training to obtain a permit to carry a concealed weapon.
CHANTILLY, Va.: Delegate John J. Bell (D - Loudoun) introduced two bills today that will increase firearm safety for all Virginians. Delegate Bell said of the legislation:
"As a military veteran who carried a firearm in combat zones, I know how dangerous these weapons can be. The bill I introduced today will help make Virginians more safe by ensuring those who seek to carry concealed firearms are safely doing so in the Commonwealth."
HB 91 requires in-person training to obtain a permit to carry a concealed weapon.
Reply
0
0
12-14-2017, 01:53 PM
#1696
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,493
Total Cats: 4,080
probably everyone in this area has already attended that, including me. the NRA headquarters/shooting range is like 5min away from me.
it's just silly. Gun violence isn't a problem in this area. Accidentally shooting yourself/others while concealed carrying is even less of a worry. Building a wall between VA and MD however would be a big start.
it's just silly. Gun violence isn't a problem in this area. Accidentally shooting yourself/others while concealed carrying is even less of a worry. Building a wall between VA and MD however would be a big start.
Reply
0
0
12-15-2017, 09:49 AM
#1697
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,493
Total Cats: 4,080
more govt keeping us safe --- from being offended:
https://www.dangerous.com/38784/phil...nts-indignity/
https://www.dangerous.com/38784/phil...nts-indignity/
Philadelphia’s City Council has voted to remove bulletproof barriers from local businesses, despite a backlash from Asian store owners.
Store owners argued that the plexiglass windows separating store clerks from their customers provided them with a measure of safety against robbers.
Despite their concerns, the city council voted 14-3 approving legislation to force them to remove the glass outside their storefronts, which some lawmakers claim operate as drug fronts and facilitate loitering, Fox News reports.
The bill, which was passed by the city’s Public Health and Human Services Committee on December 4, allows the city’s Department of Licenses and Inspections to regulate the installations of bulletproof barricades separating customers and cash registers in urban corner stores.
While the approved bill “does not require mandatory removal” of the barriers, it does call for “tighter rules on seating, public restrooms, and what can be sold at these stores.”
Councilwoman Cindy Bass, who sponsored the bill, said the beer delis were drug fronts “masquerading as restaurants,” adding that undesirables loitered inside or outside the businesses to sell narcotics.
Bass argued that the small stores were a source of trouble in her district, calling the bulletproof barriers a “sort of indignity” to customers in certain (mainly black) neighborhoods. Following outrage on social media, Bass penned an op-ed on Philly.com to say that her bill was mischaracterized as “racist.”
“The bill has been mischaracterized by the people who run those stores – people who are exploiting a loophole in state law and hurting the neediest neighborhoods in Philadelphia,” she argued.
Her comments were supported by Yale sociology professor Elijah Anderson, who argued that the barriers were a “symbol of distrust” in black neighborhoods by Asian store owners.
Asian store owners like Jeff Liu told Philly.com that the bulletproof glass afforded them a small measure of protection from criminals.
“You can ask us to cook food, no problem, to put in bathrooms, no problem, to put out seats, no problem,” said Liu, who legally emigrated to the United States from China in 1985. “The problem is the protective glass. Because without the glass, maybe one day I would get killed.”
Not every city council member agreed with the measure. Speaking to the press, councilman David Oh called the outcome “worse… than what we have today.”
“If we take down the safety glass, they’re not changing their business model. They’re not moving. What they will do is purchase firearms. I think that is a worse situation than what we have today,” Oh said ahead of the vote on Thursday.
Source: Philly.com, Fox News.
Store owners argued that the plexiglass windows separating store clerks from their customers provided them with a measure of safety against robbers.
Despite their concerns, the city council voted 14-3 approving legislation to force them to remove the glass outside their storefronts, which some lawmakers claim operate as drug fronts and facilitate loitering, Fox News reports.
The bill, which was passed by the city’s Public Health and Human Services Committee on December 4, allows the city’s Department of Licenses and Inspections to regulate the installations of bulletproof barricades separating customers and cash registers in urban corner stores.
While the approved bill “does not require mandatory removal” of the barriers, it does call for “tighter rules on seating, public restrooms, and what can be sold at these stores.”
Councilwoman Cindy Bass, who sponsored the bill, said the beer delis were drug fronts “masquerading as restaurants,” adding that undesirables loitered inside or outside the businesses to sell narcotics.
Bass argued that the small stores were a source of trouble in her district, calling the bulletproof barriers a “sort of indignity” to customers in certain (mainly black) neighborhoods. Following outrage on social media, Bass penned an op-ed on Philly.com to say that her bill was mischaracterized as “racist.”
“The bill has been mischaracterized by the people who run those stores – people who are exploiting a loophole in state law and hurting the neediest neighborhoods in Philadelphia,” she argued.
Her comments were supported by Yale sociology professor Elijah Anderson, who argued that the barriers were a “symbol of distrust” in black neighborhoods by Asian store owners.
Asian store owners like Jeff Liu told Philly.com that the bulletproof glass afforded them a small measure of protection from criminals.
“You can ask us to cook food, no problem, to put in bathrooms, no problem, to put out seats, no problem,” said Liu, who legally emigrated to the United States from China in 1985. “The problem is the protective glass. Because without the glass, maybe one day I would get killed.”
Not every city council member agreed with the measure. Speaking to the press, councilman David Oh called the outcome “worse… than what we have today.”
“If we take down the safety glass, they’re not changing their business model. They’re not moving. What they will do is purchase firearms. I think that is a worse situation than what we have today,” Oh said ahead of the vote on Thursday.
Source: Philly.com, Fox News.
Reply
0
0
