Austin Gun Show Troubles?

[joe817]

If you choose not to write it down if selling or provide the information if buying, then that is your choice. I don't see any rights violation on a private sale.

Neither do I. I believe it is prudent to do so. There once was a time when even that was not necessary. Sadly, that is not the case now. It's a matter of choice....and conscience.

[03Lightningrocks]

My point is, just as some of us feel it prudent to protect ourselves from liability, the City of Austin is simply doing the same thing.

I personally feel both are wrong...maybe it is just me.

[Keith B]

My point is, just as some of us feel it prudent to protect ourselves from liability, the City of Austin is simply doing the same thing.

I personally feel both are wrong...maybe it is just me.

I think we are really saying the same thing. The City/ATF is forcing the hand of the sellers to require a procedure that is not how the law states the sale has to be made. Now, as a private individual selling a gun, I should be able to choose how, what, if I get information form a buyer, and what that information is. I should NOT be forced into it by the city or ATF coercing me. My only obligation is follow the law to feel that the sale is to a person is legal. How/if I choose to document it as a seller is MY decision, not theirs.

[RocTrac]

The difference between the city of Austin and you or me, is that we are not a gov. institution and do not affect millions of others nor do we set a dangerous precident that can and will limit or infring others RKBA.

[03Lightningrocks]

My point is, just as some of us feel it prudent to protect ourselves from liability, the City of Austin is simply doing the same thing.

I personally feel both are wrong...maybe it is just me.

I think we are really saying the same thing. The City/ATF is forcing the hand of the sellers to require a procedure that is not how the law states the sale has to be made. Now, as a private individual selling a gun, I should be able to choose how, what, if I get information form a buyer, and what that information is. I should NOT be forced into it by the city or ATF coercing me. My only obligation is follow the law to feel that the sale is to a person is legal. How/if I choose to document it as a seller is MY decision, not theirs.

That is a valid point....but I do wonder what will happen at some point if we all decide to write down DL number and what not. The next logical step is for the Government to come in and make it a law that we must go through an FFL. After all, why should we have a problem with that? We are already recording all that information. It is a slippery slope.

Every time I purchase a firearm from a dealer and have to fill out a "government permission" form, I feel violated. I suppose I find the laws already to restrictive. It just rubs me wrong to add more rules where there are none.

[frazzled]

My point is, just as some of us feel it prudent to protect ourselves from liability, the City of Austin is simply doing the same thing.

I personally feel both are wrong...maybe it is just me.

I think we are really saying the same thing. The City/ATF is forcing the hand of the sellers to require a procedure that is not how the law states the sale has to be made. Now, as a private individual selling a gun, I should be able to choose how, what, if I get information form a buyer, and what that information is. I should NOT be forced into it by the city or ATF coercing me. My only obligation is follow the law to feel that the sale is to a person is legal. How/if I choose to document it as a seller is MY decision, not theirs.

Exactly. there is not rights violation here (seller decided they want a TDl as proof as part of the conmtract process), as neither buyer or seller are forced to do anything. There is no state actor in this context and no violation of rights.

[bdickens]

I'm impressed that he had the fortitude to put the blame where it started: ATF and APD. Most would have just put up a sign banning private sales.

I'm reminded of some improper influence I've seen at work, where supervisors have directed subordinates to re-write memos they had submitted regarding some incident or other, to go along with the story they wanted told, rather than what actually happened. I've done some of the editing myself, in my role as a union steward. I always start those re-writes with "This is what XXXXX told me to write." Funny, those memos never make it into the final packet....

I've had supervisors try to make me do that, too and I've always refused.

[O6nop]

There was a lot of traffic in the forum about the same time I posed a question - maybe it was overlooked, maybe it was a dumb question, either way, any comments are appreciated.

Were the Saxet and Texas Gun shows both held and the same HEB location? If they were then Austin's analogy works. However, if not then I would amend his analogy to be a different hotel entirely where the illegal or questionable activities took place.

For my clarification, is it illegal for me, a private citizen, to sell to a felon or is is it just illegal for the felon to purchase or possess a gun? Never mind all the caveats of which state I'm in or what kind of felony it was and all that. I just mean in general. I wonder since I don't have access to or the ability to do an NICS or background check on someone or apparently the requirement. I can understand that I might be in trouble if I knowingly do this, but if I don't know the person is a felon and I'm not required to check will I still be in trouble?

It is illegal for you to knowingly sell to a felon. Before I sell to anyone, I ask to see a Texas driver's license, and I ask if they are legally able to purchase a firearm in Texas. If they have a problem with me taking down their name and TX DL # then no deal.

I don't want to change my whole stance on the current rights to keep, bear and sell arms, but this may be the problem and I hope someone can set me straight on the whole thing. As gun owners we should look down on anyone selling a gun to anyone not allowed to own one, be it a felon, a mental case, or a minor. If I don't ask, I don't know... so is that legal for the seller? To say, "Oh, I didn't know" would get you off scot free??

Maybe it should state a little more like "knowingly or irresponsibly" that way they take responsibility for who the gun is sold to. Even if it was done in the parking lot or in your driveway.

[gmckinl]

anyone not allowed to own one, be it a felon, a mental case, or a minor.

It is not illegal for a minor to own a firearm

[O6nop]

OK, it's illegal for a minor to buy a gun, therefore it would be illegally obtained or owned, but thanks for answering any questions I had and focusing on the real issue!

[C-dub]

It's starting to sound like the APD-BATF-whoever didn't do anything illegal, but was definitely unethical. They used their position of authority and power to coerce the owner-leaser into changing the conditions of the lease by basically saying, "you want to do the right thing, don't you." The spineless owner-leaser felt like they were in a no win situation and didn't know any better. Or they are just as bad as the APD & BATF. I think some of you have stated that such changes must be agreed upon by both or all parties to be valid or damages could be awarded for applying changes without all in agreement. I wonder if the show promoter will go that route.

[Rex B]

There was a lot of traffic in the forum about the same time I posed a question - maybe it was overlooked, maybe it was a dumb question, either way, any comments are appreciated.
I don't want to change my whole stance on the current rights to keep, bear and sell arms, but this may be the problem and I hope someone can set me straight on the whole thing. As gun owners we should look down on anyone selling a gun to anyone not allowed to own one, be it a felon, a mental case, or a minor. If I don't ask, I don't know... so is that legal for the seller? To say, "Oh, I didn't know" would get you off scot free??

Maybe it should state a little more like "knowingly or irresponsibly" that way they take responsibility for who the gun is sold to. Even if it was done in the parking lot or in your driveway.

[/quote]

I suspect no one wants to commit to what amounts to legal advice. So, the usual IANAL etc applies here.
The law states that you cannot knowingly sell to a prohibited person.

If the state had an aggressive prosecutor who wanted to make you a test case, they would have to prove that you knew that person was a felon, had a mental history, was not a Texas resident, or otherwise was prohibited from owning a firearm.

But I think the short answer to your question is "Yes", although I bet if that buyer ended up using that weapon in a crime - and it was traceable to you - you would have a very uncomfortable, and possibly expensive - period ahead of you.
So the prudent seller doesn't make a transaction if he/she is not comfortable with the prospective buyer. And in any case, one keeps notes, emails etc, privately, just in case. At least I do.

[Mando'a]

austinrealtor, et al:

So with all this hassle that APD is giving the gun show guys,
can't the gun show just relocate to Round Rock and deprive
the City of Austin of all the sales tax paid on weapons?

Businesses shouldn't be hassled, and if Austin is not gun show
friendly, maybe a trip up the road would make everyone happy.

SIA

Whole-heartedly,

[aardwolf]

So with all this hassle that APD is giving the gun show guys, can't the gun show just relocate to Round Rock and deprive the City of Austin of all the sales tax paid on weapons?

The best idea yet!

[ghostrider]

>Freedom means CHOICE.

I think that sums it up right there. We have (and should have) the choice to decide if we want to purchase a firearm from a dealer or a non-licensed person. In this instance it appears certain gov't agencies are removing that choice by abusing their positions of power. If, in fact, APD has evidence of illegal transactions at any show, then the perpetrators should be arrested and charge. If they have no real evidence then it looks like either an attempt to enforce their view of who should be able to sell firearms or a politically-motivated stunt to provide the appearance to be doing something about so called 'gun crime'.

It reminds of the Brady bunch claims about how many felons were turned away from attempting to buy guns but were turned down because of the background check - well, why were they not arrested?