Armslist being sued by the Brady Bunch

[Guest BMcCoy]

http://news.msn.com/us/us-gun-website-sued-for-alleged-ties-to-slayings-3

 

The whole "lethal loophole" thing you know... :shake:

 

Ben

 

 

[Oh Shoot]

Forgive me for belaboring the point now and then, but it's obvious to me that all private sales/transfers will be federally outlawed before long.

 

Among all possible firearm restrictions, it's the lowest hanging fruit of all, and about 15 states already agree partially or totally.

 

- OS

Edited December 13, 2012 by Oh Shoot

[Lumber_Jack]

Forgive me for belaboring the point now and then, but it's obvious to me that all private sales/transfers will be federally outlawed before long.

Among all possible firearm restrictions, it's the lowest hanging fruit of all, and about 15 states already agree partially or totally.

- OS

Yep that's my worry. Think we will have to go to an FFL for transfer or could it be more restrictive than that?

[robin48]

I don't know how they'll do it but they will. I wish I hadn't lost all my guns in that tragic boating accident. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 2

[Sam1]

I would guess that it'll end up going through an FFL, and those FFL's are going to charge more, & hold it for days while they run the numbers (probably gonna be a requirement)... And they would gladly do so because they will see the sale as impacting a transaction on their part.

[monkeylizard]

The good ones don't see it that way. They see it as another revenue stream (albeit usually a small one) and the opportunity to get a future gun sale, a present accesory/ammo sale, and good word of mouth.

[Oh Shoot]

Yep that's my worry. Think we will have to go to an FFL for transfer or could it be more restrictive than that?

 

I'd think it would simply be the FFL check route, as set up by the Brady Bill in the first place.

 

I would guess that it'll end up going through an FFL, and those FFL's are going to charge more, & hold it for days while they run the numbers ...

 

Why would it be held for days? Nothing in the NICS would need to be changed.

 

Main thing would be the physical hassle of scheduling at meet at FFL and a minimum extra $30 or so here in TN. It would become the "new normal", and buyers would simply understand that a gun costs that much more than it used to.

 

Some places might even reduce their transfer fees some if they were doing a bunch every day, might become competitive part of the business. And of course the state coffer would increase significantly.

 

- OS

Edited December 13, 2012 by Oh Shoot

[TNcitizen22]

I don't know how they'll do it but they will. I wish I hadn't lost all my guns in that tragic boating accident. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 2

 

 

I imagine the number of tragic boating accidents and unreported thefts will increase greatly in the future.

[Oh Shoot]

I imagine the number of tragic boating accidents and unreported thefts will increase greatly in the future.

 

We're not talking gun confiscation here, just selling them. Selling one that is supposedly on the bottom of the lake to an undercover agent would be same felony.

 

- OS

Edited December 13, 2012 by Oh Shoot

[TNcitizen22]

I realize that.  I was just hypothesizing about confiscation.  I see the banning of private sales as a stepping stone.

[JayC]

Banning private sales in 35+ states would cause a large uproar...  ATF is in the crosshairs already..  the last thing they want to do is push more gun regulation...  I've heard Senators openly talking about doing away with it altogether...

 

And parts of the NFA may be struck down in the coming years by SCOTUS.

 

You have 5 states which have passed a law allowing commercial sales between state residents, you think they're going to roll over and agree to FFL only transfers?  I seriously doubt it.

[Oh Shoot]

Banning private sales in 35+ states would cause a large uproar...  ATF is in the crosshairs already..  the last thing they want to do is push more gun regulation...  I've heard Senators openly talking about doing away with it altogether...

 

And parts of the NFA may be struck down in the coming years by SCOTUS.

 

You have 5 states which have passed a law allowing commercial sales between state residents, you think they're going to roll over and agree to FFL only transfers?  I seriously doubt it.

 

What objective observer would have believed the encroachments on firearm ownership that we've already seen?

 

What exactly did the states do about the last AWB? I do believe they rolled right over. All 50 of them, and some have even retained parts of that ban.

 

- OS

[Seabeejason]

A judge in Chicago will have a field day with this.  Armslist better get a change of venue or they will get eaten alive.  I really hope the NRA gets involved heavily on this one.  I want to see the Brady Campaign get their asses kicked.  

[mikegideon]

What objective observer would have believed the encroachments on firearm ownership that we've already seen?

 

What exactly did the states do about the last AWB? I do believe they rolled right over. All 50 of them, and some have even retained parts of that ban.

 

- OS

I think you and I have had this conversation before. Banning private sales would be unenforceable without a registry. That probably ain't gonna happen. Yep. Boating accidents, and all kinds of other tragic gun losses.

[monkeylizard]

It's as enforceable as 21 to buy liquor. Nothing really stops it except the possibility of it coming back to bite the seller and bite hard. How many of us would really risk federal felony charges to avoid an FFL transfer and to save a few bucks on an otherwise legal sale?

[Oh Shoot]

I think you and I have had this conversation before. Banning private sales would be unenforceable without a registry. That probably ain't gonna happen. Yep. Boating accidents, and all kinds of other tragic gun losses.

 

It might be largely technically unenforceable, but most will adhere to it. Easiest entrapment arrest imaginable, just hire lots of temp agents to hang around guns shows and online sales forums. Just like enforcing prostitution, soon as money changes hands on a meet, busted. 100% conviction rate. I guess with audio/video recording, only the verbal commitment is enough, also just like prostitution. Perfect use for the Obama Citizen Army, eh?

 

Hell, even if I were willing to break the law,  I wouldn't sell one to someone I didn't know damn well, which would lower options by about 99%. About same for most folks.

 

- OS

Edited December 13, 2012 by Oh Shoot

[mikegideon]

It might be largely technically unenforceable, but most will adhere to it. Easiest entrapment arrest imaginable, just hire lots of temp agents to hang around guns shows and online sales forums. Just like enforcing prostitution, soon as money changes hands on a meet, busted. 100% conviction rate.

 

Hell, even if I were willing to break the law,  I wouldn't sell one to someone I didn't know damn well, which would lower options by about 99%. About same for most folks.

 

- OS

Yep. Won't stop one criminal, but it will add more crap on us.

[Oh Shoot]

Yep. Won't stop one criminal, but it will add more crap on us.

 

Well, it would absolutely stop criminals from buying guns from law abiding people, and narrow a criminal's choices to buying from other criminals.

 

Of course, there are no stats, but it's simple logic that someone who can't legally buy a gun from FFL can buy them from individuals. Lord knows if I were prohibited and wanted guns,  first place I'd go is a gun show, where there's a vast smorgasbord of choices and the prices are the same for a guy on the lam as they are for anyone else.

 

Of course, I'm one of those who believe that as long as a guy ain't in prison or serving probation, he should be able to purchase firearms. Period. Which would leave only the pool of yet uncaught criminals. :) But that's another discussion. That has no consensus.

 

- OS

Edited December 13, 2012 by Oh Shoot

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Isn't there a problem with forcing commerce? That's still an issue with Obamacare that may end up before the

Supreme Court, yet again. Forcing us to submit to an FFL holder to transfer a firearm from one to another is

the same thing, notwithstanding NICS, which is just a tax. Brady, no Brady Bunch. Doesn't matter. Until they can

get each criminal to submit to an FFL holder to transfer their weapons, I see no reason to allow this to affect us.

[Oh Shoot]

Isn't there a problem with forcing commerce? ..

 

Well, it's just another fee, or since the SCOTUS ruling on Obamacare, a tax, on individual buyers. And not even on everyone, only those who choose to buy a certain product. No different than cigs or booze. Or gasoline.

 

Hell, it even promotes the economy ... at least for the thousands of gun shops that will charge to do it. Maybe they make it a pure tax, where x amount goes to the government, and the FFL gets to keep part of it, just like sales tax works here.

 

Point is , there's really no limit to federal power on these type issues now.

 

- OS

Edited December 13, 2012 by Oh Shoot

[monkeylizard]

It's not forcing commerce, it's regulating commerce. Buyer and seller freely engage in the deal. The Fed would just be regulating it. That's not unusual.

[Oh Shoot]

It's not forcing commerce, it's regulating commerce. Buyer and seller freely engage in the deal. The Fed would just be regulating it. That's not unusual.

 

Yep. Not to mention it would be just one more mini-step in making more free men criminals to control them. But that goes without saying. But I said it again anyway. :)

 

- OS

Edited December 13, 2012 by Oh Shoot

[Sam1]

 

 

 

Why would it be held for days? Nothing in the NICS would need to be changed.

 

To give it a bit to be reported if it was stolen right before being sold. Would also give them an opportunity to turn it over to the police without the customer being on-site which could reduce incidents/safety concerns.

 

We're all just assuming on theoretical possibilities on the processes of a law that doesn't even exist yet, so it's probably going to be a way that none of us even thought about.

Edited December 13, 2012 by Sam1

[DaveTN]

I’ve expected this. Obama has made most of his noise about background checks. How many of these websites can afford the legal battle the Brandy Bunch, or a wrongful death suit bring? Can TGO, or GOC? I doubt it. Even GT, S&W or Arfcom would struggle with that.

I wouldn’t have a problem with requiring a background check if they were free. But it’s not right to mandate a BC and then let a dealer charge whatever he likes, or even make them responsible for doing it.

I’d be curious to know if Haughton’s restraining order would have even showed up in a background check. Unless it’s part of a criminal case; it’s unlikely. Demetry Smirnov didn’t have a criminal record; his crime was being from Canada.

[Lumber_Jack]

Think people will make a buisness out of just running background checks, set up a booth at gun shows?