On 'Loop-holes' and Personal Responsibility

[QuackerSmacker]

8 hours ago, DaveTN said:

The Illinois FOID system is not a bad system as far as useless background check systems go. But it should be pointed out that it is required for more than just firearms or ammo purchase. It is required for mere possession also. Having a single round on you or having a loose round in your vehicle can be cause for arrest; even in your own home. An otherwise law abiding citizen can quickly become a criminal with a “Weapons” conviction if they don’t get a FOID card and make themselves aware of all firearms laws prior to handling or possessing any guns or ammo.

Excellent points.  I should have said those things.  Thanks for completing the info!

[Oh Shoot]

23 hours ago, DaveTN said:

So your interpretation of the Federal law on age and residence is that if you don’t ask and they don’t offer you won’t be charged because no crime has been committed?

As far as the residence part, yes, and I think you'll find that is ATF policy based on case law. And another point is that only the seller can commit a crime at this point, as the buyer has not violated federal law until he brings the firearm back into his home state (or causes it to be delivered there).

The age factor is a bit more iffy since simply "looking young" I suppose could be "reasonable cause to believe" the buyer is a minor. I don't know enforcement policy based on case law regarding that.

All that said, unlike some, I find it quite reasonable to simply ask for ID during a private sale.

- OS

[Raoul]

3 minutes ago, Oh Shoot said:

As far as the residence part, yes, and I think you'll find that is ATF policy based on case law. And another point is that only the seller can commit a crime at this point, as the buyer has not violated federal law until he brings the firearm back into his home state (or causes it to be delivered there).

The age factor is a bit more iffy since simply "looking young" I suppose could be "reasonable cause to believe" the buyer is a minor. I don't know enforcement policy based on case law regarding that.

All that said, unlike some, I find it quite reasonable to simply ask for ID during a private sale.

- OS

I'm also in favor of a little due diligence.

[chances R]

 

Just to muddy the water:

https://www.scribd.com/doc/255590629/Mance-v-Holder-Interstate-Transfer-PDF

[Oh Shoot]

1 hour ago, chances R said:

 

Just to muddy the water:

https://www.scribd.com/doc/255590629/Mance-v-Holder-Interstate-Transfer-PDF

Yeah, I never really heard any more about that ruling. It basically says that any FFL can sell a handgun directly to out of state residents, but as I understand it, only within that district.  I've wondered if it actually affected any FFL behavior within that area or not, and I've never seen an ATF response to it.

- OS

[gregintenn]

How bout we punish criminals instead of law abiding citizens?

[chances R]

Explanation I heard is that nothing changes until the ATF issues a letter of policy.  Until then no FFL is going to go out on a limb for the small profit of a gun sell.  Too many varibles of state laws in addition to existing Fed laws to risk it.

[Six &Twenty]

Good observations by all.  I appreciate the measured response. 

My 'concern' is that in spite of the obvious (to us) protections of The Second, a substantial portion of the Nation is either vehemently opposed to the basic notion of an armed populous, or incredibly misinformed.  This is fertile ground for 'ambulance chasers' and anyone remotely involved in a criminal case is up for grabs in a civil case. You can get an attorney to take anything as a case, even when they know they are tilting at windmills and will logically lose the action... makes me totally crazy.  I am concerned generally about the prevailing 'climate' and how we may best protect ourselves as lawful gun-owners.

Understand, I do not like ANY of this.  Perhaps, as the Left claims, I'm just paranoid.  However any registration 'list' either of individuals 'licensed' to purchase, or records on gun ownership set the hair on my neck into spasms.  I remain unconvinced that the NICS data, that is by law required to be 'dumped' if the check is successfully passed, is not currently living in a convenient and readily accessible database at NSA. 

Edited May 7, 2018 by Six &Twenty
Typo

[Raoul]

29 minutes ago, Six &Twenty said:

Good observations by all.  I appreciate the measured response. 

My 'concern' is that in spite of the obvious (to us) protections of The Second, a substantial porting of the Nation is either vehemently opposed to the basic notion of an armed populous, or incredibly misinformed.  This is fertile ground for 'ambulance chasers' and anyone remotely involved in a criminal case is up for grabs in a civil case. You can get an attorney to take anything as a case, even when they know they are tilting at windmills and will logically lose the action... makes me totlly crazy.  I am concerned generally about the prevailing 'climate' and how we may best protect ourselves as lawful gun-owners.

Understand, I do not like ANY of this.  Perhaps, as the Left claims, I'm just paranoid.  However any registration 'list' either of individuals 'licensed' to purchase, or records on gun ownership set the hair on my neck into spasms.  I remain unconvinced that the NICS data, that is by law required to be 'dumped' if the check is successfully passed, is not currently living in a convenient and readily accessible database at NSA. 

Yeah, data never "disappears".

[QuackerSmacker]

It's a massive potential problem.  It is so much easier for one bad actor to grab and hide terabytes of data, than to know that he/they ever did that, and then get it back and erased with certainty. That may even be impossible. The ONLY way to protect against this is to stop data collection from even happening at the earliest and lowest level. 

[SWCUMBERLAND]

2 hours ago, Six &Twenty said:

Good observations by all.  I appreciate the measured response. 

My 'concern' is that in spite of the obvious (to us) protections of The Second, a substantial portion of the Nation is either vehemently opposed to the basic notion of an armed populous, or incredibly misinformed.  This is fertile ground for 'ambulance chasers' and anyone remotely involved in a criminal case is up for grabs in a civil case. You can get an attorney to take anything as a case, even when they know they are tilting at windmills and will logically lose the action... makes me totally crazy.  I am concerned generally about the prevailing 'climate' and how we may best protect ourselves as lawful gun-owners.

Understand, I do not like ANY of this.  Perhaps, as the Left claims, I'm just paranoid.  However any registration 'list' either of individuals 'licensed' to purchase, or records on gun ownership set the hair on my neck into spasms.  I remain unconvinced that the NICS data, that is by law required to be 'dumped' if the check is successfully passed, is not currently living in a convenient and readily accessible database at NSA. 

Can't recall the # of times Carson City BATFE called us about a 4473 with the name, weapon and time frame... that WE had to dig through and send a fax of back to them. (Retail FFL holders are required to maintain the copy of the 4473 for twenty years onsite.) Have absolutely no doubt, No Such Agency has NICS checks sitting in storage someplace. They probably think all they are doing is being a Federally funded Iron Mountain Group (a libel, I fear, against a very reputable and steady firm, for which I apologize.)

[m16ty]

My personal stance is that I at least have to know somebody that knows you, or see your HCP, before I'll sell somebody a firearm. I've sold a few guns at gun shows, all were either sold to people with tables at the show, or somebody just walking around, after I saw their HCP. 

This is just my personal stance, and in no way would I want it to become law. I would just hate for a firearm I sold to be used for foul play, and wouldn't want to deal with the legal ramifications that followed.