Straight Shooter?

Mojo said:
I posted a verbatim quote.

Perhaps you should research the issue.

http://www.lcav.org/content/private_sales.pdf
Click to expand...

From your link:

"Firearms dealers must, among other things: (1) perform background checks on prospective firearm purchasers; (2) maintain records of all gun sales; (3) make those records available to law enforcement for inspection; (4) report multiple sales; and (5) report the theft or loss of a firearm from the licensee’s inventory.2 Federal law imposes none of these requirements on unlicensed sellers, however."




The link discussing the law makes a differentiation between a "dealer" and a "seller". Had the original article made that differentiation I woiuld not have posted what I did.

My original comment still stands. In fact, your latest link proved it.

The fact that you posted a verbatim quote does not change the accuracy of that article or the quote. Perhaps if you had researched the issue first you would have understood that.
 
WinterBorn said:
Can you give a reason this man should not have legally been able to buy the gun? And of course, since he bought it prior to the shooting, your reasons should only include any information based on facts known prior to that event.
Click to expand...

No.

Nor did say I could.

Perhaps I could base any allegation I care to make on a nonspecific reference to "most of the gun buffs on this site"?
 
Mojo said:
No.

Nor did say I could.

Perhaps I could base any allegation I care to make on a nonspecific reference to "most of the gun buffs on this site"?
Click to expand...

If you had talked to the man for a couple of years you might be able to make that work. But I kinda doubt that is the case.
 
WinterBorn said:
From your link:

"Firearms dealers must, among other things: (1) perform background checks on prospective firearm purchasers; (2) maintain records of all gun sales; (3) make those records available to law enforcement for inspection; (4) report multiple sales; and (5) report the theft or loss of a firearm from the licensee’s inventory.2 Federal law imposes none of these requirements on unlicensed sellers, however."




The link discussing the law makes a differentiation between a "dealer" and a "seller". Had the original article made that differentiation I woiuld not have posted what I did.

My original comment still stands. In fact, your latest link proved it.

The fact that you posted a verbatim quote does not change the accuracy of that article or the quote. Perhaps if you had researched the issue first you would have understood that.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you need more research.

..."I want to sell a gun to another person, i.e., a private party transfer. Am I required to conduct the transaction through a licensed California firearms dealer?

Yes. Firearm sales must be conducted through a fully licensed California firearms dealer. Failure to do so is a violation of California law. The buyer (and seller, in the event that the; buyer is denied), must meet the normal firearm purchase and delivery requirements. "Antique firearms," as defined in Section 921(a)(16) of Title 18 of the United States Code, and curio or relic rifles/shotguns, defined in Section 178.11 of Title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations that are over 50 years old, are exempt from this requirement.

Firearms dealers are required to process private party transfers upon request. Firearms dealers may charge a fee not to exceed $10 per firearm for conducting a private party transfer. Example:

For a private party transfer involving one or more handguns, the total allowable fees, including the DROS, safety, and dealer transfer fees, are not to exceed $35.00 for the first handgun and $31.00 for each additional handgun involved in the same transaction.

For private party transfers involving one or more long guns, or a private party transfer involving one handgun, the total allowable fees, including the DROS, safety, and dealer transfer fees, are not to exceed $35.00. The dealer may charge an additional dealer-service fee of$10.00 per each additional firearm transferred.

(PC section 12072(d)"

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/pubfaqs.php#9

http://www.atf.gov/publications/download/i/atf-i-5300-23a.pdf
 
Mojo said:
Perhaps you need more research.

..."I want to sell a gun to another person, i.e., a private party transfer. Am I required to conduct the transaction through a licensed California firearms dealer?

Yes. Firearm sales must be conducted through a fully licensed California firearms dealer. Failure to do so is a violation of California law. The buyer (and seller, in the event that the; buyer is denied), must meet the normal firearm purchase and delivery requirements. "Antique firearms," as defined in Section 921(a)(16) of Title 18 of the United States Code, and curio or relic rifles/shotguns, defined in Section 178.11 of Title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations that are over 50 years old, are exempt from this requirement.

Firearms dealers are required to process private party transfers upon request. Firearms dealers may charge a fee not to exceed $10 per firearm for conducting a private party transfer. Example:

For a private party transfer involving one or more handguns, the total allowable fees, including the DROS, safety, and dealer transfer fees, are not to exceed $35.00 for the first handgun and $31.00 for each additional handgun involved in the same transaction.

For private party transfers involving one or more long guns, or a private party transfer involving one handgun, the total allowable fees, including the DROS, safety, and dealer transfer fees, are not to exceed $35.00. The dealer may charge an additional dealer-service fee of$10.00 per each additional firearm transferred.

(PC section 12072(d)"

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/pubfaqs.php#9

http://www.atf.gov/publications/download/i/atf-i-5300-23a.pdf
Click to expand...

That would apply if the original article was talking about California. Your own link stated "Failure to do so is a violation of California law". It did not say it was in violation of federal law.

My original comment still stands. Keep looking.
 
Are you under the impression that I am the author of the original article at

http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/exclusive-gun-show-dealers-caught-vi?

Here it is, verbatim.


"Exclusive: Gun show dealers caught on video selling to people who tell them they'd fail a background check


Right-wingers have been having fun in recent weeks with the ACORN "gotcha" videos supposedly showing community organizers indulging in illicit behavior. But they're about to discover that the undercover video can be a two-edged sword.

Over the past year, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has been sending out private investigators to gun shows around the country, focusing on locales where NYPD and other local law enforcement are seeing guns arriving from.

And what they showed was incredibly revealing.

It shows the dirty little secret that everyone who attends gun shows with any kind of discerning eye can tell you: There are a lot of illegitimate transactions taking place at them -- and particularly a lot of sales of guns to people who could never pass a background check.

John Rosenthal described in some detail last year just how big the "gun show loophole" is. Like, Mack-truck sized:

At approximately 5,000 gun shows each year in 32 states, criminals and terrorists are allowed to purchase firearms from private gun dealers without an ID or background check.

Although many gun dealers are federally licensed and therefore legally required to contact the National Instant Criminal Background Check System to ensure that a prospective purchaser is not prohibited from possessing firearms, private sellers have no such requirement.

The report produced by the New York mayor's office investigation -- which, along with the videos, will be available for public view at 11 a.m. PDT today (we'll post them at C&L then) -- reveals that 63 percent of the gun vendors approached by the team were willing to sell to a person who told them they couldn't pass the background check.

Unlike the phony ACORN undercover operation -- which only offered for public view a single instance of actual miscreancy, and refused to report the several instances in which they were turned away -- this report is clear that some gun vendors adhered to the law.

But some 19 out of the 30 vendors approached sold to investigators who said they'd probably fail a check. Along the way, they bought semi-automatic handguns and assault rifles.

All told, 39 of 51 attempts to buy a gun illegally were successful. Several vendors told their buyers that they probably wouldn't pass a check either.

Only 11 vendors said no.

There were exchanges like this caught on tape:

"I don't need your address."

"No background check?"

"Nothing. Just show me that you're from Ohio."

"That's good about the background check because I probably couldn’t pass one."

"I don't care. All's I got to do is demand you show me your license."

"You don’t care about the background check, right?"

"Nope. Nope. I wouldn't pass either, bud." [grin]

"Is that right?"

This is why some 30 percent of all illegal gun traffic in the United States emanates from gun shows. It's long past time to shut this travesty down.

We'll be back later this morning with video and more details."

What part of this do you take exception to?

BTW, the ATF gun show regulation link is under the California code link.
 
They found that both licensed and private gun dealers were willing to sell firearms to detectives posing either as people admitting they couldn’t pass a background check or as obvious straw buyers.
Click to expand...

Thank you... So we know now, the problem is not that we need more gun laws.

Here's the deal, if Dupnik the Pinhead Sheriff, had DONE HIS JOB, the tragedy in Arizona may have been avoided. If he had been a little tougher on Loughner the previous 16 times his deputies encountered him, instead of being a pinhead liberal goob and letting it slide over and over, then maybe this wouldn't have happened. As more information and background comes out on this, it is apparent why Dupnik wanted to shift the blame to "tone of rhetoric."
 
Dixie said:
Thank you... So we know now, the problem is not that we need more gun laws.

Here's the deal, if Dupnik the Pinhead Sheriff, had DONE HIS JOB, the tragedy in Arizona may have been avoided. If he had been a little tougher on Loughner the previous 16 times his deputies encountered him, instead of being a pinhead liberal goob and letting it slide over and over, then maybe this wouldn't have happened. As more information and background comes out on this, it is apparent why Dupnik wanted to shift the blame to "tone of rhetoric."
Click to expand...

So you agree with current firearms laws?
 
Mojo, no where in the original article does it mention CA.

In fact, in the article it states "...private sellers have no such requirement".

So my original comment stands. There is no such thing as a private dealer.

Nothing you have posted shows any different.
 
Mojo said:
How is my agreement or disagreement relevant?
Click to expand...

Funny, you spend several pages chastising me for not providing evidence when I asked Topper for it. Now you get defensive when I ask you the same question you asked of the board.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top