Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
When I was but a lad anyone with the correct change could purchase cigarettes out of a machine. But we got rid of that, because the public reasoned that it was harder to keep minors from purchasing cigarettes if there were vending machines on every corner doling them out to any purchaser.
All gun sales by licensed dealers including at gun shows are background checked. There are no loopholes. That is a Democrat party lie. When they talk about "universal " background checks. They are talking about an individual not being allowed to sell his gun to another individual without a background check.
I have an idea for a workable compromise. Tell me what you think.
So here is my compromise. Individuals who want to purchase firearms purchase a yearly background check ID card from the government. Like $50 per year. Now this would have to be voluntary to be constitutional. So there would have to be incentive to get people to voluntarily get an ID and private sellers to only sell their firearms to a person who has the ID. The incentive would be sellers, by law, would receive greatly decreased civil liabilities, if the person they sell a gun to commits a crime with the gun. Right now as it stands. Private sellers can be subjected to all kinds of civil liabilities if the gun they sold to an individual is used in the commission of a crime. If sued they basically have to prove they are not guilty of knowingly selling a firearm to an individual who was going to use it in the commission of a crime. This is wrong and unconstitutional but it is the way it is now. Changing the civil law to: Now the one filing the lawsuit against the seller has to prove the seller is guilty of selling the gun to someone they know would use it to commit a crime if that person who committed the crime had the background check ID. That would kill to birds with one stone. It would bring civil law back under constitutional guidelines of innocent until proven guilty and it would be the defacto enactment of much needed tort reform. Criminal liabilities would remain about the same.
So that would be a great incentive for legal, private gun sales from one individual to another to use a background check system. The government would have no knowledge of the private transfer of a firearm from one individual to another. Which is the way it should be. There would be and could not be a data base compiled by the government with this system. Persons selling a firearm could not be held civilly liable for a crime committed by the buyer who used the gun unless the government or greedy lawyer could prove to a jury from a criminal law standard that they are guilty of knowingly selling the firearm to an individual who would commit a crime with it. Civil law would remain the same for individuals who sold the firearm to a non-card carrying individuals. If dragged into court they would have to basically prove they are innocent. Wrong but that is the standard for civil law.
The easy answer would be to have the same info on line. Just like checking a contractors license on line. The hard part about that is we are talking the government. A lot of the mass shootings in the last decade could have easily been stopped beforehand if the government was not such a reliable screw up. So I suppose we would just have to live with screw ups. We do anyway.Two issues right off the top of my head:
1. How will the system retract the purchase license for a recent offense? Will there be an online database where the seller can check the immediate bona fides of the proffered license? That should be the easy answer, but it's going to have to be done.
Well I am no expert on the issue of civil law. I do know TX passed tort reform a decade ago limiting malpractice lawsuits agsint Doctors which made the state a haven for medical practitioners and drasticaly brought down the cost of malpractice insurance. I have never heard of any court overturning that reform. Maybe I'm wrong but I sure don't see the big deal for this. The courts already limit civil liability just because they know lawyers just want to access the deep pockets of corporations or because they know the politics of the thing. That certain groups just want to use civil liability to put gun manufacturers out of business. Or the big daddy of them all. Vaccine manufactures carry no civil liability at all for vaccine injuries. Even if the product is defective. So there are laws that limit civil liability.2. No court at any level is going to roll over on legislation that takes torts out of their hands. It's been tried before--that was the reason Hawaii and other states went to no-fault insurance...under the premise that they could prevent people from suing whenever they felt they had suffered an unfair loss. The courts nixed that idea. "Every person gets his day in court" is the reason they exist. For instance, even if a criminal court proved a man innocent of murder, he can still be financially broken by the the following civil suit. That can't be legislated away.
I have never even heard of this until today. It is illegal for a private individual to sell a gun to someone who does not live in their state. So they have to use a gun dealer as a go between to do so. But the regulation of interstate commerce is within the rights of the federal government. ( A bit of a stretch though when it comes to individuals.) But just to sell a gun period. I think that is an overreach. For one thing it keeps the cost of firearms at a premium. Out of the hands of the poor who may really need them. It is also tantamount to the total regulation of firearms by the federal government though their "agents." The exact opposite of the intention of the 2nd amendment. That right to regulate firearms was was not given to the federal government by the states. Don't know where Montana's state law stands right now. That guns manufactured in the state and not for sale outside the state have no federal jurisdiction over them.I personally have no problem with requiring all gun sales to be on consignment through a licensed dealer who makes all the necessary background checks.
No that's the 'doughnut hole'.
Why would I want to spend $50 a year for an background check ID rather than just paying for a check when I actually buy a gun?If we are going to be constitutional purists. Then the states are the ones with the right to regulate firearms or not. The federal government is not. Not how it is panning out though. Even conservatives sue state governments to get the federal government to impose gun rights on the states.
What do you think of my idea though? If WE MUST pass legislation?
Not in my state where we have universal background checks. The dealer's records will show the buyer that I sold the gun to. I would not be held liable as long as I didn't sell it without a background check being performed.The incentive would be sellers, by law, would receive greatly decreased civil liabilities, if the person they sell a gun to commits a crime with the gun. Right now as it stands. Private sellers can be subjected to all kinds of civil liabilities if the gun they sold to an individual is used in the commission of a crime. If sued they basically have to prove they are not guilty of knowingly selling a firearm to an individual who was going to use it in the commission of a crime. This is wrong and unconstitutional but it is the way it is now.
I have never even heard of this until today. It is illegal for a private individual to sell a gun to someone who does not live in their state. So they have to use a gun dealer as a go between to do so. But the regulation of interstate commerce is within the rights of the federal government. ( A bit of a stretch though when it comes to individuals.) But just to sell a gun period. I think that is an overreach. For one thing it keeps the cost of firearms at a premium. Out of the hands of the poor who may really need them. It is also tantamount to the total regulation of firearms by the federal government though their "agents." The exact opposite of the intention of the 2nd amendment. That right to regulate firearms was was not given to the federal government by the states. Don't know where Montana's state law stands right now. That guns manufactured in the state and not for sale outside the state have no federal jurisdiction over them.
I don't like it. That makes the licensed gun dealer the legal buyer from the original seller and then seller to the buyer. I don't see the point in doing that.I personally have no problem with requiring all gun sales to be on consignment through a licensed dealer who makes all the necessary background checks.
I don't like it. That makes the licensed gun dealer the legal buyer from the original seller and then seller to the buyer. I don't see the point in doing that.
If I were a dealer I wouldn't do that for $25, it's a consignment sale which I'd have to include these purchases and sales in my records, taxes, etc. In effect it is more than double what just running a background check in time and cost would be.
As a seller I wouldn't like it either. I could end up paying a consignment fee of 20-30%.
Mainly, I can't see how it improves the system my state already has.
These laws aren't suppose to be putting financial burdens on anyone.
I don't like it. That makes the licensed gun dealer the legal buyer from the original seller and then seller to the buyer. I don't see the point in doing that.
If I were a dealer I wouldn't do that for $25, it's a consignment sale which I'd have to include these purchases and sales in my records, taxes, etc. In effect it is more than double what just running a background check in time and cost
Having updated and info on the net. Being able to look at his info on the net with his ID number would solve the updated info dilemma. Of course relying on the federal government to update info in s timely fashion is a ridiculous. As far as liability. How would either way make any difference as far as lawsuits are concerned?Why would I want to spend $50 a year for an background check ID rather than just paying for a check when I actually buy a gun?
So in September, I sell a gun to a guy who has an ID card that he purchased in January. In February he was arrested and convicted of domestic violence. So I've just sold a gun to a guy who can't legally owe one.
Not in my state where we have universal background checks. The dealer's records will show the buyer that I sold the gun to. I would not be held liable as long as I didn't sell it without a background check being performed.
The way my state does it is much less complicated and provides the seller with much better protection from lawsuits than your proposal does.
Why have information in two data basis? Why have a private citizen checking the background of another private citizen?Having updated and info on the net. Being able to look at his info on the net with his ID number would solve the updated info dilemma. Of course relying on the federal government to update info in s timely fashion is a ridiculous. As far as liability. How would either way make any difference as far as lawsuits are concerned?
Way to easy to wake up one morning and find out the government raided the NRA under a pretense of a national emergency and seized the list. I’m not even for the gun dealers keeping the list the way they do. But it would be much harder and there would be many more consequences for them to try to raid a thousand gun dealerships under some pretense.It doesn't necessarily need to be the government. What would you think of a requirement for universal ownership registration of the NRA kept the list?
I understand your desire for convenience. But just because a gun dealer did the background check, you sold the gun. Your not going to be any less liable. Gun dealers get sued all the time by individuals and governments attempting to set a president of liability. Now your asking them to also be liable in your place just because they conducted a background check? They couldn’t find insurance to cover for that.Why have information in two data basis? Why have a private citizen checking the background of another private citizen?
If someone was killed with a gun I had sold and I had done the background check I would have to be pulled into a lawsuit, even just as a witness. I would have to obtain an attorney, take time off from work, etc. Why would I want to take the chance on that expense?
Why would I want to even mess with running background checks to begin with?
No thank you. Just allow the licensed dealer to continue doing the background checks and keeping the records safely with the others he keeps. He makes a few bucks for running the check and everyone is taken care of in the most efficient and safest way.
I understand your desire for convenience. But just because a gun dealer did the background check, you sold the gun. Your not going to be any less liable. Gun dealers get sued all the time by individuals and governments attempting to set a president of liability. Now your asking them to also be liable in your place just because they conducted a background check? They couldn’t find insurance to cover for that.
I did not say the lawsuits were successful did I? I said individuals and governments have tried to sue them and create a president for liability. That is not hyper-boil but hard core fact that has been playing itself out for the last 30 years. I am fully aware that there are laws on the books to keep them from being held unjustly liable. But that does not keep local and state governments and lawyers trying anyway.All the time? Wandering back into hyperbole, are we?
The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) is a United States law which protects firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable when crimes have been committed with their products. However, both manufacturers and dealers can still be held liable for damages resulting from defective products, breach of contract, criminal misconduct, and other actions for which they are directly responsible in much the same manner that any U.S.-based manufacturer of consumer products is held responsible. They may also be held liable for negligent entrustment when they have reason to know a gun is intended for use in a crime.
Right, where there’s the political will, there’s a way. Justice John Paul Stevens favored doing away with the Second Amendment altogether.Ok, sure. Now they're sold behind the counter with age restrictions, and yet minors seem to get ahold of them anyway. Or they turn to E-cigs which are now resulting in health issues with them. It just goes to show that where there's a will, there's a way.
No sounds dangerous and rather irrational. Brazil, Mexico and dozens of other nations restrict the personal ownership of firearms. Only the bad guys and the government have the guns. That situation is what is not working.Right, where there’s the political will, there’s a way. Justice John Paul Stevens favored doing away with the Second Amendment altogether.
Sounds crazy, but the alternative isn’t working anymore.
I did not say the lawsuits were successful did I? I said individuals and governments have tried to sue them and create a president for liability. That is not hyper-boil but hard core fact that has been playing itself out for the last 30 years. I am fully aware that there are laws on the books to keep them from being held unjustly liable. But that does not keep local and state governments and lawyers trying anyway.
really am not a conspiracy theorist, but this is obvious.
The two truths are:
- A disarmed population is there goal.
- None of them care about any deaths by firearms, or any other way. It is about them, everything that comes after that, comes after that.
If they succeed, you will never see a conservative President again, and they will turn you into a slave.
I thought the paranoia about the list of registered owners was that the government would take the guns quietly one owner at a time. If you are afraid of mass confiscation then your fantasy about your guns protecting you against the government is just that--a fantasy.Way to easy to wake up one morning and find out the government raided the NRA under a pretense of a national emergency and seized the list. I’m not even for the gun dealers keeping the list the way they do. But it would be much harder and there would be many more consequences for them to try to raid a thousand gun dealerships under some pretense.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?