General Discussion

RantinRavin

(507 posts)

73. My concept of what it needed

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 12:32 PM

Apr 2013

The concern is background checks on private sales of firearms.

Legislation should be written to do the following:

1. ATF shall develop form XXXX "Personal Sale or Delivery of Firearm"

2. If the seller and purchaser are relatives or otherwise known to each other the form would allow for a personal guarantee by both the seller and purchaser that the purchaser has full firearm rights under federal and state laws. Perjury under this section will be a second degree felony punishable by up to 10 years in federal prison. Don't want to take the chance of a federal prison sentence, follow #3

3. If the seller and purchaser are not familiar to each other then a background check is required. This background check may be done by any FFL, State Police, County Sheriff, or local police department. The fee for this service shall be $10. ( $5 which is the normal fee for the background check, and $5 to the organization doing the check. ) The authorization number shall be listed on form ATF XXXX.

4. The seller of the firearm shall retain form XXXX for a period of 10 years, and shall be presented upon demand by any law enforcement agency.

If someone commits a crime and the firearm is traced back to the seller, they are given full protection from criminal and civil liability if they can produce the form XXXX showing an approved background check was done. If the seller personally guaranteed the form, civil and criminal charges are possible.

Bring this up as a totally separate legislation. No amendments about magazine capacity, or any other concepts or ideas.....let it stand on it's own.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

77 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Sausage making: what are you willing to concede in return for background checks? [View all] Recursion Apr 2013 OP

Why should the majority who aren't gun fanatics concede on background checks? Hoyt Apr 2013 #1

Because I would like universal background checks to pass? Recursion Apr 2013 #18

What do you want to concede? Everything, so that the legislation makes Wayne LaPierre giddy. Hoyt Apr 2013 #57

Speaking for myself, I'd concede nationwide concealed carry reciprocity Recursion Apr 2013 #59

You can tell those who promote more guns in more places, by what they are willing concede. Hoyt Apr 2013 #61

"house trading that would email" DURHAM D Apr 2013 #2

"Horse". Sorry. Android keyboard. Recursion Apr 2013 #6

"horse trading that would email"? DURHAM D Apr 2013 #7

$&%^. "entail". Sigh (nt) Recursion Apr 2013 #9

No way on either count. geek tragedy Apr 2013 #3

It sounds like you don't fully trust the background checks kudzu22 Apr 2013 #10

I don't trust any person with a gun when they're near me. geek tragedy Apr 2013 #19

Canada's firearms ownership rate is roughly the same as the US per capita Recursion Apr 2013 #21

Canada has strict gun registration with audits. geek tragedy Apr 2013 #24

Not anymore, though they did for years Recursion Apr 2013 #27

handguns are still required to be registered, geek tragedy Apr 2013 #29

Yes, true, and handguns are also more tightly controlled in the US than long guns Recursion Apr 2013 #31

That makes sense. geek tragedy Apr 2013 #43

You know, that never occurred to me, but it's worth doing some numbers on Recursion Apr 2013 #44

less than half of the NRA's money comes from individual gun owners geek tragedy Apr 2013 #47

Dodd was a little ahead of the facts there Recursion Apr 2013 #50

No, it's not. It is much lower. DanTex Apr 2013 #64

We don't really know because we don't know how bad compliance with the late registry was Recursion Apr 2013 #66

I am willing to give up the entire current Congress, replace them all, if that's what it takes. nt bemildred Apr 2013 #4

I don't believe there's anything that can be put in that would pacify the NRA or the el_bryanto Apr 2013 #5

OK, that's a valid argument, but that's a different question Recursion Apr 2013 #15

What should I offer them? What do gun owners want that they don't have? el_bryanto Apr 2013 #62

Have you asked? Has the party polled this question? (nt) Recursion Apr 2013 #65

It frankly seems like a non-sensical question - and kind of a dishonest one el_bryanto Apr 2013 #68

Because edhopper Apr 2013 #8

If the 10% are legislatively powerful and the 90% want legislation to pass, yes. Recursion Apr 2013 #11

What you don't get is edhopper Apr 2013 #17

I mentioned two things. There are probably more. Recursion Apr 2013 #20

The bill was already a compromiose edhopper Apr 2013 #26

Only in our minds, I think Recursion Apr 2013 #30

I cannot think of a single legislation the other side wants edhopper Apr 2013 #33

Most people also think the AWB bans assault rifles and machine guns Recursion Apr 2013 #37

I would want far more than just edhopper Apr 2013 #39

Armor piercing bullets are banned under 18 USC 921 Recursion Apr 2013 #41

Chicken wings. (n/t) Iggo Apr 2013 #12

Reinterpretation of the 2nd. Then let the new 2nd forever decide it. graham4anything Apr 2013 #13

So I fear this is the left's version of the right's decades-long crusade to overturn Roe v. Wade Recursion Apr 2013 #23

A false analogy edhopper Apr 2013 #28

Background checks is not an overturning of Heller and McDonald Recursion Apr 2013 #32

Oops. You were reply to something else edhopper Apr 2013 #35

I don't care. The NRA don't care when 90% wanted what they didn't. graham4anything Apr 2013 #77

What did Congress concede to us in exchange for doing nothing on guns? n/t Orsino Apr 2013 #14

Well, they took a lot of money and time from us in exchange for doing nothing Recursion Apr 2013 #16

Here's my proposal kudzu22 Apr 2013 #22

I love the Federal Firearm Operators License (or whatever we should call it) idea Recursion Apr 2013 #25

On background checks? Nothing. I would rather fight that out in the public sphere Tom Rinaldo Apr 2013 #34

I think limiting magazine size is a much better idea than regulating grip shape Recursion Apr 2013 #38

Sausage making was already attempted. Unfortunately, it failed. Tommy_Carcetti Apr 2013 #36

Nobody proposed a ban on semi-automatic rifles. This is part of the problem: you think DiFi did Recursion Apr 2013 #40

Nothing. Time and tide change all. Ikonoklast Apr 2013 #42

Nothing. We don't need to trade anything for background checks. XRubicon Apr 2013 #45

You clearly do if you actually want them to become law Recursion Apr 2013 #46

No, only you think that is true. XRubicon Apr 2013 #49

You may have 90% support kudzu22 Apr 2013 #56

Keep telling yourself that XRubicon Apr 2013 #60

It's always about the gun control side giving in, isn't it? Paladin Apr 2013 #48

I don't recall gun control proponents offering anything at any point here Recursion Apr 2013 #54

I stand by my comments. Paladin Apr 2013 #74

Recursion, Raine1967 Apr 2013 #51

I'm not rah-rah on overturning Hughes; I brought it up as an example Recursion Apr 2013 #52

As I said most; I am not well versed in gun laws. Raine1967 Apr 2013 #63

Yeah, there's a difference in purchase and ownership Recursion Apr 2013 #69

Nothing. I gave at the office, thanks. Robb Apr 2013 #53

Fewer senseless mass shootings. morningfog Apr 2013 #55

Not to go on a tangent, but I think that's the wrong goal Recursion Apr 2013 #58

Tangent noted. It is not the sole goal. morningfog Apr 2013 #72

Nothing. I'd concede something for a national gun registry. DanTex Apr 2013 #67

OK, that's a good goal too Recursion Apr 2013 #70

I'd concede a lot. For example, Hughes and conceal carry reciprocity. DanTex Apr 2013 #71

My concept of what it needed RantinRavin Apr 2013 #73

Not a damned thing. Warpy Apr 2013 #75

How will it cost Baucus? Recursion Apr 2013 #76