TexasCHLforum.com

E.Marquez wrote: ↑Tue Aug 20, 2019 8:33 am

MaduroBU wrote: ↑Mon Aug 19, 2019 11:22 pm
Sales on this website uniformly state via FFL or FTF only and require the presentation of a valid CHL at the time of the sale.

Can you point me to that forum rule?
I cant seem to find it.
I've looked in the "Read before posting" thread in firearm sales https://texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=10175
And I checked the Forum rules post https://texaschlforum.com/app.php/rules

Where did you read something that supports your position of "Sales on this website uniformly state via FFL or FTF only and require the presentation of a valid CHL at the time of the sale."

Thanks

I read through the top 5 posts in the for sale section and all of them required a FTF transfer with presentation of a valid LTC (listed as preferred) or a Texas DL. I'm not making this up and it's easy to go look.

I agree that an NICS database that incorporates byzantine standards and a lack of accountability invites abuse. I think that might be the chief argument for an open and searcheable database. While soccerdad brings up a great point about privacy, right now the only way to know that you're prohibited is to try to buy a gun. If we write that law, it means that crazies get added to it (with provisions for penalties if thry aren't). If the Dems write that law, it means that gun sales not reported to the Federal government will be illegal (which will become a de facto registry and later a de jure registry).

Limiting the potential for abuse and punishing those who abuse the process in a law that we write kicks the legs out from under the Democrat talking points. I think that a similar process could work well for red flag laws, though they have the potential to be atrocious if written by people who want to ban guns.

Scott Farkus wrote: ↑Tue Aug 20, 2019 6:55 am

MaduroBU wrote: ↑Mon Aug 19, 2019 11:22 pmI'm also fairly intolerant of people who want to hide behind the (very important) private sales exception to essentially run a business because my neighbor's dad growing up was an FFL. He kept it up as a side for his regular business, but it was mostly a service for friends and family to get firearms at dealer pricing. He went through all of the hoops to keep that license through the Clinton years (when the Clinton ATF tried to avoid renewing him for literally no cause, only to have the paperwork magically go through in February 2001 after months of inexplicable delay). If a law-abiding citizen wants to be an FFL, that process should be fair and open. If someone wants to sell a firearm to someone that they're willing to personally vouch for, that needs to be protected. I do NOT, however, support the right to sell guns to a complete stranger without any sort of checkup on them or an FFL and NICS check.

Sales on this website uniformly state via FFL or FTF only and require the presentation of a valid CHL at the time of the sale. I think that's completely reasonable,and it is a good standard to uphold. Ensuring that any background check law reflects a standard of behavior that we already adhere to rather than the deceitful attempt to register and confiscate firearms which the Democrats have been pushing for 30 years is, to me, the only reasonable course of action. Changing the law doesn't have to mean that things get worse. Refusing to acknowledge that there are gaping holes in the background check system, defending the status quo the the last, losing, and then getting the awful Democrat background check bill is the worst thing that can happen.

I will repeat that a searchable NICS list of prohibited buyers and real penalties if you're caught selling a gun to someone on that list would fix the vast majority of the issues here. It formally closes the "gun show loophole" without setting the NICS up to monitor sales and has no way of being turned into a registration scheme (which is what the Democrats actually want but won't admit to).

You seem to be all over the map on private sales. You say the "private sales exception" is "very important" but then proceed to undermine it and advocate for laws restricting it.

I don't know what all goes into the NICS system but I suspect you're going to run into all kinds of privacy and false flag stuff if you open it up to the public ostensibly for the purposes of private sellers vetting potential buyers. What prevents my neighbor from entering my name and what happens if something comes up? More realistically, what prevents Moms Demand types from entering in everybody's name in a particular city or neighborhood and publishing all those that were flagged? I guess I don't really understand what your proposal would do other than potentially holding off full blown UBC's, which the left will never stop pushing for anyway, not to mention a cursory NICS check requirement would make it that much easier to expand to full UBC's down the road.

And you're right, all they really want from UBC's is the national registry it will necessitate. Not a single one of the recent mass shootings would have been prevented by a UBC and I've not seen any evidence that UBC's would make any meaningful difference in gun violence overall. If there are "gaping holes" in the existing background check system, it's not because we don't have UBC's.

Having said all that, I understand and sympathize with FFL holders who feel like some private sellers abuse the system insofar as skirting the rules about what constitutes a dealer. Again, that's a different discussion that doesn't really have anything to do with UBC's.

Are you suggesting that anyone can call the NICS and demand that a third party be placed on the list? I completely agree that the scope of background checks hasn't been a factor in mass shootings, but the failure of the NICS system to recognize meaningful and disqualifying mental illness has been a major factor in nearly all of them. The nutjobs who are murdering people uniformly look like the kind of nutjobs who shouldnt have guns, and right now the law does not reflect that.

Expanded Background check laws have widespread support, and unless we get ahead of this and write one that actually does good things while keeping the government out of private sales, we will get a firearm registration law. I strongly believe that many here are choosing the wrong hill to die on with the end result our advocacy is completely ignored. "Do nothing" isn't a viable option, but "write things that we already do into the law" is.

Scott Farkus wrote: ↑Mon Aug 19, 2019 8:19 pm

MaduroBU wrote: ↑Mon Aug 19, 2019 11:18 am The in the business of selling guns standard is reasonable, except that gun shows all have an ATF presence for running NICS checks. I'm not a big participant in gun shows, but my understanding is that selling off of your table with no NICS check in Texas essentially does not happen.

That is not correct. Every gun show I've been to has had a mixture of private sellers and licensed dealers and I've never seen or heard of a private seller conducting an NICS check. I've also never seen the ATF running NICS checks at any show, I have no idea where that comes from. The licensed dealers are all set up to run the checks, perhaps that's what you meant?

Now, private sellers could of course go to one of those licensed dealers and, for a fee, ask him or her to run a check but again, I've never seen it happen. I'm not sure who's telling you otherwise.

In fairness, there aren't usually that many private seller tables and they tend not to have a whole lot of guns offered for sale. Maybe 10% of the guns at a typical show are at private tables and that's being generous. But no, they don't run NICS checks on them, nor is it required, nor should it be.

The question of what constitutes a dealer or "in the business of selling guns" is a different discussion.

My source was prior threads here about experiences at gun shows. I think I went to one in maybe 2002. I was pretty turned off by the experience and haven't had the desire to go back since. Point being, I don't have any relevant personal experience. I thought that I'd read responses to other, similar circumstances to the effect that most gun shows here in Texas route all sales through an event ATF booth designated for that purpose. I could easily have misread that or maybe the statement was made but simply untrue.

I'm also fairly intolerant of people who want to hide behind the (very important) private sales exception to essentially run a business because my neighbor's dad growing up was an FFL. He kept it up as a side for his regular business, but it was mostly a service for friends and family to get firearms at dealer pricing. He went through all of the hoops to keep that license through the Clinton years (when the Clinton ATF tried to avoid renewing him for literally no cause, only to have the paperwork magically go through in February 2001 after months of inexplicable delay). If a law-abiding citizen wants to be an FFL, that process should be fair and open. If someone wants to sell a firearm to someone that they're willing to personally vouch for, that needs to be protected. I do NOT, however, support the right to sell guns to a complete stranger without any sort of checkup on them or an FFL and NICS check.

Sales on this website uniformly state via FFL or FTF only and require the presentation of a valid CHL at the time of the sale. I think that's completely reasonable,and it is a good standard to uphold. Ensuring that any background check law reflects a standard of behavior that we already adhere to rather than the deceitful attempt to register and confiscate firearms which the Democrats have been pushing for 30 years is, to me, the only reasonable course of action. Changing the law doesn't have to mean that things get worse. Refusing to acknowledge that there are gaping holes in the background check system, defending the status quo the the last, losing, and then getting the awful Democrat background check bill is the worst thing that can happen.

I will repeat that a searchable NICS list of prohibited buyers and real penalties if you're caught selling a gun to someone on that list would fix the vast majority of the issues here. It formally closes the "gun show loophole" without setting the NICS up to monitor sales and has no way of being turned into a registration scheme (which is what the Democrats actually want but won't admit to).

I'm not arguing that private sales should undergo checks, just that we need a real and consistent definition of "in the business". The only guns that I've given away or sold were to people that I know, and this forum maintains a strong ethic of "CHL or Texas DL" for FTF sales. I dont really care about background checks, but I do care that universal bavkground checks is just a fake word for gun registration (and thereafter confiscation).

My belief is that the NICS should be public and searcheable, and that knowingly selling a gun to someone on that list should be a crime that gets prosecuted. That solves the issue for everyone while eliminating the bureaucracy that keeps letting wackos through anyway.

The in the business of selling guns standard is reasonable, except that gun shows all have an ATF presence for running NICS checks. I'm not a big participant in gun shows, but my understanding is that selling off of your table with no NICS check in Texas essentially does not happen.

The gun seller said he would support a requirement that gun-show sellers like him get a federal firearms license.

What does he mean "would support a requirement"? Does he mean that he would begin obeying the current laws if a new one were passed? If the ATF doesn't care now, why would they suddenly care in the future?