Thoughts on private sale background checks

[Dolomite_supafly]

I have spoken to quite a few dealers and nearly every one of them wants background checks on private sales. I suspect very few are worried about felons getting guns and more worried about lost revenue, either through the sale of their own inventory or being able to charge for transfers. I can see where they would like to be able to charge a fee to do a transfer and background check on private sales.

I wonder how their tune would change if the state mandated that background checks done on private sales would be done for free?

After all private sales do not cost the buyer or seller anything in the way of a background check. I imagine most would cry foul.

Dolomite

[Mike.357]

We got enough laws regarding firearm sales.

I should be able to sell my possessions without interference by the man

[Guest nicemac]

We got enough laws regarding firearm sales.

I should be able to sell my possessions without interference by the man

+1

[daddyo]

Until it can be proven that violent criminals or the mentally disturbed get a significant amount of their arsenal from private sales (at gunshows, in the parking lot, or anywhere else), they should leave it alone.

I've bought several of my firearms from private individuals, and none of them have ever shot anyone. Why should I be penalized for someone else's alleged illegal activity?

[DRM]

No.

No.

NO.

[UncleJak]

I read the article in the Tennessean yesterday regarding this topic. I was afraid it would mislead and call it a "gun show loophole" but it did not. One guy they talked to who had a gun ship said his profits would increase. If they were free checks, he and many others would not feel the same way. The reason most of the dealers want this: charge a fee. I would be curious of the numbers who would want to do it for free. Personally, like I have said before, I wouldn't sell to a shady person. A background check would not change that. If someone passes a check and I still felt weary about it, I would not complete the transaction. Laws only work when everyone obeys them. Common sense always works.

[Guest NYCrulesU]

I'm against background checks for private sales.

[Murgatroy]

I would have to believe it is lost revenue. However, why are so many shops hostile when it comes to terms of transfers? This is free money to them is it not? Is it the concept of losing a sale? The extra work involved in the paperwork? Are they required to log said firearm into their bound book?

Would being required to do a background check on a private sale be the same process as a transfer? Would they be required to log the firearm in their bound book? All sorts of extra paperwork?

So if a fair percentage of gun shops oppose transfers, why do they support background checks on private sales?

I oppose background checks on private sales. It is not that I am adverse to a background check, after all, I submit to them whenever I buy a gun from a shop, or do a transfer for something. It is that it would create more hassle in private sales and trades. As it is already it can be difficult to get times to align to meet for a trade or sale now. I have had excellent transactions on this site from all that I have dealt with, but that is not to say that there have been occasions where myself or the other party has had to delay or postpone the sale due to time constraints. Imagine if we were then limited by the shop hours or the hours of the TBI for the background check.

I don't want to see any more laws. I would like to see many of the laws now go away. However, I don't see this happening. Gun owners may be plentiful now, but sadly many of the modern gun owners believe they are better than the common citizen. That somehow the laws should only apply to everyone else, not realizing that calls for more legislation hurt everyone.

As someone else mentioned above me, none of my guns have ever shot anyone. Why should I be penalized for someone else's alleged illegal activity.

[Guest dubaholic2]

i am also opposed to checks on private sales. the government mandates enough of my life as it is, and i dont want them imposing on another facet of it. i know there are people out there who dont care who they sell to, but for the most part i believe they are the minority and wouldnt change their ways, no matter what laws are set in place.

[jimic]

I agree with the above.......

[Oh Shoot]

....I wonder how their tune would change if the state mandated that background checks done on private sales would be done for free? ...

Reckon the state would waive its 10 clams per, also?

- OS

[Reservoir Dog]

However, why are so many shops hostile when it comes to terms of transfers? This is free money to them is it not? Is it the concept of losing a sale? The extra work involved in the paperwork? Are they required to log said firearm into their bound book?

It's not free money for them. Dealers have to log the gun into their books, then log it out. It also takes their time calling TICS or entering the stuff on the TICS website, and reviewing the 4473. So, they spend a little manpower time doing transfers.

Most dealers I have dealt with are fine with doing transfers, but I have seen a few that don't like them. When you charge $75 or $100 for transfers (both of which I have seen), it is quite obvious that they do not want to do them. It probably is that they are losing a sale, because they are doing all the same stuff they do for an "in stock" gun, but they are not making anywhere near the profit.

[ttocswob]

If I know a dealer supports mandatory background checks on private sales, then I won't purchase from them, period.

[Murgatroy]

It's not free money for them. Dealers have to log the gun into their books, then log it out. It also takes their time calling TICS or entering the stuff on the TICS website, and reviewing the 4473. So, they spend a little manpower time doing transfers.

Most dealers I have dealt with are fine with doing transfers, but I have seen a few that don't like them. When you charge $75 or $100 for transfers (both of which I have seen), it is quite obvious that they do not want to do them. It probably is that they are losing a sale, because they are doing all the same stuff they do for an "in stock" gun, but they are not making anywhere near the profit.

I understand that it does indeed take some time to conduct the transfer. However, wouldn't this be considered a guaranteed sale? It is not like they are going to have to hold said firearm for a month or more hoping to sell it to someone. Upon receipt of the firearm they know that the purchaser is going to walk through the door and take possession. I am certain that the $25 (what my local shop charges me for transfers) is less than what they will make on the sale of a stocking item, but it is still $25 they make for the transaction. I can't make the same statement for everyone, but when I make a transfer, I make a point of buying something else. Honestly who can walk into a gun store that they regularly do business with and not find something they want?

I know that using myself isn't a perfect example, as I am sure there are many folks that don't make a separate purchase at the time of a transfer, but I still don't understand all the hostility that comes from a brick and mortar regarding transfers. Some of it I do understand, such as the dislike towards Bud's or other online retailers that don't have the overhead, but when I purchase something from a manufacturer and have it shipped and transfered, why the hostility? Now, with that said, I have not suffered this first hand, just through what other folks have mentioned. My local store that handles my transfers has always been polite and professional. This may or may not have to do with my being a fairly regular patron.

[Jonnin]

I want it to be an option. I want the state of TN, then, to allow me to do a background check on someone else (assisted, I am not saying people should be able to tap that database directly), or to run a gun's serial number (this should be public info, no reason a list of stolen guns cannot be public), for free, without keeping any of the information of who, what, when, etc. They can use the sales tax and extra taxes applied to both guns and ammo along with the HCP fees and so on to fund this. The service should be 100% optional, 100% free, and a booth should be provided at any gun shows (the police that are already present can perform the service).

That is what I want. I doubt it will ever happen, however.

[Smith]

While I think the stores that advocate for private sales checks think it would bring in more revenue for them, I think the long term net gain would be a negative. Most private sales are ways for individuals to free up money in a less desirable gun in order that they can buy more guns. If you cut off or stifle the ability to liquidate used guns at retail prices you ultimately choke off a large source of new gun money for stores. I think the stores who advocate private checks are being near sighted.

Of course that isn't the largest issue in regards to limiting private sales but it does seem to be the only practical arguement they could make.

[Grunt67]

You can sell an automobile to another private individual with no background check.

An automobile is more dangerous than a gun & causes more fatalities, injuries, etc.

So why would you need to do so with a gun? We have more laws now than you can print.

Just another step in chipping away at gun rights. BS

[daddyo]

You can sell an automobile to another private individual with no background check.

An automobile is more dangerous than a gun & causes more fatalities, injuries, etc.

So why would you need to do so with a gun? We have more laws now than you can print.

Just another step in chipping away at gun rights. BS

I use this argument all the time, only to be met with "Well, a car isn't DESIGNED for killing".

So, just because something is supposedly "designed" for killing, but doesn't kill nearly as many as some other object not "designed" to do so, that somehow makes it more deadly?

This is the kind of stupidity we are up against.

[Smith]

You can sell an automobile to another private individual with no background check.

An automobile is more dangerous than a gun & causes more fatalities, injuries, etc.

So why would you need to do so with a gun? We have more laws now than you can print.

Just another step in chipping away at gun rights. BS

Not the best example. You do have to register a vehicle and there is no constitutional right that allows you to own one.

[Guest vthokies03]

While I think the stores that advocate for private sales checks think it would bring in more revenue for them, I think the long term net gain would be a negative. Most private sales are ways for individuals to free up money in a less desirable gun in order that they can buy more guns.

I agree, if the state makes you do the background, they can then track it. With them tracking, they will then be able to charge tax also.

It would eliminate the benefits from buying a gun used, so i would think more people will buy new. Shops benefit from new guns being bought, and shops can make more money off the guns you trade in.

[bigwakes]

I agree, if the state makes you do the background, they can then track it. With them tracking, they will then be able to charge tax also.

It would eliminate the benefits from buying a gun used, so i would think more people will buy new. Shops benefit from new guns being bought, and shops can make more money off the guns you trade in.

That's the key. Except for an uniformed few like the Brady bunch, they know the DOJ is responsible for far more criminals buying guns than private sales are. It's not about stopping criminals, who any slightly inteligent person knows will get a gun if they want it bad enough, it's about tracking sales and taxing those sales for revinue.

[Oh Shoot]

I agree, if the state makes you do the background, they can then track it. With them tracking, they will then be able to charge tax also....

Good thought on a new wrinkle. But they could already be doing that now on all the transfers they come in from out of state. Sizeable volume of online bought shipments coming into TN FFLs. I've even done it myself.

Maybe they could do it if they wanted, or maybe the system ain't up to it, either. Wouldn't know.

- OS