Never ever trust a yankee

[M16]

Good ole Dannie Scott Goeb aka Dan Patrick. Ex yankee. Ex bankrupt bum.

https://www.texastribune.org/2019/09/03/odessa-texas-shooter-bought-gun-private-sale-without-background-check/

But the shooting — the fourth mass shooting in Texas in four years — prompted widespread calls for action from state leaders. Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick said Monday there should be a “strong look” at the lack of a required background checks for some private sales.

“And I believe as a supporter of the Second Amendment we should protect that family transfer or family sale, but any stranger to stranger — we don’t know how this person got the gun — but we do know that that’s a real loophole in the law, and I think the NRA [National Rifle Association] needs to get behind the president on that issue and really address that issue,” Patrick said.

[PondPopper]

SMH..... Patrick and his pandering azz.... I think a bunch of the R's in Austin are actually D's....

[Laszlo]

All my private sales go through FFL transfer. Last thing I want is to get my butt sued for not doing my due diligence. Still on the fence about making it law though.

[jerp]

I have often thought that it's just a matter of time before restrictions on private sales goes nationwide - it has been happening incrementally for years and this Odessa incident may be the tipping point . More and more gun shows are FFL only - either due to state law or the promoters don't want to have to police the "private collection" guys. I just wonder how - and if - it will be enforced. I assume any new laws will go after the seller as well as the buyer but will they really prosecute? For example "straw buyers" -those who legally buy a firearm then give/sell it to a friend/relative who is a felon - rarely get prosecuted in most states. (almost never) District attorneys are reluctant to jail grandmothers/nephews/girlfriends who have a clean record even if they handed off a gun to someone who cannot legally own one. But now they would jail your lease buddy who sold you his AR? Not sure how that would work from a practical enforcement standpoint

[Shane]

I have often thought that it's just a matter of time before restrictions on private sales goes nationwide - it has been happening incrementally for years and this Odessa incident may be the tipping point . More and more gun shows are FFL only - either due to state law or the promoters don't want to have to police the "private collection" guys. I just wonder how - and if - it will be enforced. I assume any new laws will go after the seller as well as the buyer but will they really prosecute? For example "straw buyers" -those who legally buy a firearm then give/sell it to a friend/relative who is a felon - rarely get prosecuted in most states. (almost never) District attorneys are reluctant to jail grandmothers/nephews/girlfriends who have a clean record even if they handed off a gun to someone who cannot legally own one. But now they would jail your lease buddy who sold you his AR? Not sure how that would work from a practical enforcement standpoint

The civil liability risk would go up exponentially if the law required a background check for every private sale. If you chose to sell a gun to someone without going through the background check system and that buyer eventually used the gun you sold him to commit a crime, the victims of that crime would pretty much have an open door to everything you owned. Whether law enforcement has the will and/or ability to enforce that kind of law or not, you'd have a huge incentive to comply with it. You'd be crazy not to.

I buy and sell guns on gunbroker, and that always requires going through an FFL and background check. It's never been a problem at all for me. I wouldn't be upset at all if all my future private sales and purchases had to go through the background check system. I also gift guns to my family. I wouldn't like it if I had to run family gifts through the system. I don't know if they could craft a law to cover all private sales with an exemption for gifts to family members, but if we ever do get a law that requires checks on private sales I hope it has such an exemption.

[Dusty Britches]

Failing a background check is a federal felony. If that dude failed the check why wasn't he arrested?

[duckmanep]

The civil liability risk would go up exponentially if the law required a background check for every private sale. If you chose to sell a gun to someone without going through the background check system and that buyer eventually used the gun you sold him to commit a crime, the victims of that crime would pretty much have an open door to everything you owned. Whether law enforcement has the will and/or ability to enforce that kind of law or not, you'd have a huge incentive to comply with it. You'd be crazy not to.

I buy and sell guns on gunbroker, and that always requires going through an FFL and background check. It's never been a problem at all for me. I wouldn't be upset at all if all my future private sales and purchases had to go through the background check system. I also gift guns to my family. I wouldn't like it if I had to run family gifts through the system. I don't know if they could craft a law to cover all private sales with an exemption for gifts to family members, but if we ever do get a law that requires checks on private sales I hope it has such an exemption.

The current bill floating around (H.R.8 - Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019) does have an exemption for family...

" Paragraph (1) shall not apply to: a transfer that is a loan or bona fide gift between spouses, between domestic partners, between parents and their children, including step-parents and their step-children, between siblings, between aunts or uncles and their nieces or nephews, or between grandparents and their grandchildren, if the transferor has no reason to believe that the transferee will use or intends to use the firearm in a crime or is prohibited from possessing firearms under State or Federal law;"

[Shane]

Failing a background check is a federal felony. If that dude failed the check why wasn't he arrested?

Is it a felony to fail a background check, or is it a felony to lie on a question on the form?

You could answer all questions truthfully and fail if you had to answer yes to one of the things that would disqualify you. Surely failing after answering truthfully isn't a felony, right??

[Clay C]

And what ongoing issue do we have that this will solve? Let's say this passes. What happens when the next shooting happens that this didn't prevent. What "reasonable" law will we be fine with then?

One day we will be sitting here saying "as long as they give me close to what I paid for it, i'm fine with turning it in."

[Shane]

The current bill floating around (H.R.8 - Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019) does have an exemption for family...

" Paragraph (1) shall not apply to: a transfer that is a loan or bona fide gift between spouses, between domestic partners, between parents and their children, including step-parents and their step-children, between siblings, between aunts or uncles and their nieces or nephews, or between grandparents and their grandchildren, if the transferor has no reason to believe that the transferee will use or intends to use the firearm in a crime or is prohibited from possessing firearms under State or Federal law;"

I would not have any problem with that, personally.

Requiring a background check for private sales wouldn't prevent black market transactions, of course. And it certainly wouldn't make gun crime go away. Nothing can ever be 100% effective at that. I get that. But I don't have a problem with requiring background checks on private sales with the family exemption above. I don't see how it hurts anything. It would be no different than buying/selling on gunbroker, which I do all the time. I'm not hindered by the FFL requirement at all. Just adds a little paperwork and $10-20 cost. Such a requirement MIGHT have prevented the nut job in Midland from getting a gun. Sure, he still could have found a way to buy a gun in an alley somewhere. But he and/or SOME of the nuts like him might not go to that much effort. I think it's reasonable to do. I'm not at all willing to give in to the anti-gun crazies on anything else. For me, it's not some slippery slope of gradual caving. I'll never cave on 2A rights, and I am not at all worried that lots of people will gradually get to that point simply by going along with background checks. I don't see the harm in background checks for private sales, and I think it benefits us in the long run if we are reasonable. If we are not willing to be reasonable, then we run the risk of more and more people in the middle being persuaded by the anti-gun emotional arguments from the other side. Like it or not, emotion will eventually win if our side is seen as unreasonable and uncaring and unwilling to help.

Let's do background checks, but use it as a negotiating tool and do it ONLY if we get meaningful action on dealing with mental illness, making sure that all federal agencies keep the background check system updated and effective, making sure that obvious warning signs are followed up on before something terrible happens, etc.... We can never prevent all gun (or any other) crimes. But we can do better than we've been doing on several fronts. Don't pass universal background checks as a stand-alone deal. Tie it to all the other things that can each have an impact on the bad stuff. Make it a more comprehensive deal. That would actually make it more effective, plus it would change the conversation so that it isn't all just about "take the guns".

[M16]

And what ongoing issue do we have that this will solve? Let's say this passes. What happens when the next shooting happens that this didn't prevent. What "reasonable" law will we be fine with then?

One day we will be sitting here saying "as long as they give me close to what I paid for it, i'm fine with turning it in."

There you go. Won’t solve a **** thing. Then here comes another regulation. Keep giving and inch and it eventually becomes a mile.

[RiverRat1]

And what ongoing issue do we have that this will solve? Let's say this passes. What happens when the next shooting happens that this didn't prevent. What "reasonable" law will we be fine with then?

One day we will be sitting here saying "as long as they give me close to what I paid for it, i'm fine with turning it in."

There you go. Won’t solve a **** thing. Then here comes another regulation. Keep giving and inch and it eventually becomes a mile.

The inches keep adding up.

And we all know they will not stop. And we all know this will not stop shootings.

Hard to understand how some are ok with this.

[DirtyDave]

It's been a law in CA for quite sometime that ALL firearm transfers must go through an FFL. Private Sales, Gifts, Inheritance, Everything. Doesn't stop a thing except inconvenience those that choose to follow the law.

Oh, and their 10 day waiting period also applies.

[Mike D]

I would not have any problem with that, personally.

Requiring a background check for private sales wouldn't prevent black market transactions, of course. And it certainly wouldn't make gun crime go away. Nothing can ever be 100% effective at that. I get that. But I don't have a problem with requiring background checks on private sales with the family exemption above. I don't see how it hurts anything. It would be no different than buying/selling on gunbroker, which I do all the time. I'm not hindered by the FFL requirement at all. Just adds a little paperwork and $10-20 cost. Such a requirement MIGHT have prevented the nut job in Midland from getting a gun. Sure, he still could have found a way to buy a gun in an alley somewhere. But he and/or SOME of the nuts like him might not go to that much effort. I think it's reasonable to do. I'm not at all willing to give in to the anti-gun crazies on anything else. For me, it's not some slippery slope of gradual caving. I'll never cave on 2A rights, and I am not at all worried that lots of people will gradually get to that point simply by going along with background checks. I don't see the harm in background checks for private sales, and I think it benefits us in the long run if we are reasonable. If we are not willing to be reasonable, then we run the risk of more and more people in the middle being persuaded by the anti-gun emotional arguments from the other side. Like it or not, emotion will eventually win if our side is seen as unreasonable and uncaring and unwilling to help.

Let's do background checks, but use it as a negotiating tool and do it ONLY if we get meaningful action on dealing with mental illness, making sure that all federal agencies keep the background check system updated and effective, making sure that obvious warning signs are followed up on before something terrible happens, etc.... We can never prevent all gun (or any other) crimes. But we can do better than we've been doing on several fronts. Don't pass universal background checks as a stand-alone deal. Tie it to all the other things that can each have an impact on the bad stuff. Make it a more comprehensive deal. That would actually make it more effective, plus it would change the conversation so that it isn't all just about "take the guns".

I normally am 100% on board with your opinions because they are usually sensible, well thought out and articulated well. This however I can’t stand with you on.

This sill only place additional burdens on law abiding gun owners because they are the ones that follow the law. There are too many guns in circulation for this to be seriously effective.

I asked in a previous post if anyone could tell me how many of these types of shootings involved private sales. I don’t recall anyone answering but up until Midland the answer was none in recorded times. So my stance is we shouldn’t burden the millions of law abiding gun owners over the acts of ONE deranged individual.

I do agree there is already plenty of avenues in place to address folks that shouldn’t own guns, it’s just that our outdated and inept systems aren’t effective or people just flat don’t follow the laws we already have in place.

Government ineptitude at its finest. The last thing we need to do is give them more power.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[SaltwaterSlick]

I normally am 100% on board with your opinions because they are usually sensible, well thought out and articulated well. This however I can’t stand with you on.

This sill only place additional burdens on law abiding gun owners because they are the ones that follow the law. There are too many guns in circulation for this to be seriously effective.

I asked in a previous post if anyone could tell me how many of these types of shootings involved private sales. I don’t recall anyone answering but up until Midland the answer was none in recorded times. So my stance is we shouldn’t burden the millions of law abiding gun owners over the acts of ONE deranged individual.

I do agree there is already plenty of avenues in place to address folks that shouldn’t own guns, it’s just that our outdated and inept systems aren’t effective or people just flat don’t follow the laws we already have in place.

Government ineptitude at its finest. The last thing we need to do is give them more power.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

This is how I see it as well...



To that, I would add that one thing that would cause some to stop and think before they act out in gun violence, if a firearm is used in the commission of any felony, the maximum penalty should be the death penalty, and once proven the gun was used and the perp was the one who committed the offence, by using a firearm to commit the crime, the perp also foregoes the multiple appeals... One appeal, then if nothing is overturned or changed, the needle (or a rope) in 30 days.


Anyone willing to use a gun to commit a crime is willing to take a life. Therefore is by default willing to give up his/her life in committing the crime.