Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 121

Thread: Any thing wrong with requiring an FFL transfer when transferring a weapon?

  1. #1

    Default Any thing wrong with requiring an FFL transfer when transferring a weapon?

    Buy, sell, trade, or give to your relatives. What would be wrong with making a law all transfers go through a FFL holder with the required back ground checks?
    It would take a lot of weight off individuals making sure they are transferring the weapon to someone legally allowed to own it as well as hopefully making sure there could be some sort of security check to make sure the weapon was not stolen.
    I for one would have more piece of mind knowing a buyer was legally allowed to buy the item in question.
    Thoughts?

  2. #2
    Member 0321Tony's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Sterling, Alaska, United States
    Posts
    1,712

    Default

    Go troll someplace else. Do you really think this will solve anything? There is a plethora of illegal guns out there and criminals don't really follow laws. I for one think it would be BS to go through a full ffl transfer to loan my dad or wife or daughter or friend a gun.
    If the existing laws were enforced then that would stop a lot I for one am against ANY new gun laws until they enforce the ones already there. New laws do nothing but put more burden on the law abiding citizens.
    If you want to go through a ffl to sell your guns that's fine, do it, but don't push more laws down my throat.

    Life is too short to pass up a day of hunting

  3. #3

    Default

    How about:
    1) They don't work, never have, never will.
    2) Are used as a political tool to identify owners and deny ownership to political opponents.

    Take those two and go discuss them with your buddies at the Gabby Giffords Gun Range and Park in Birchwood.

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Veneta, OR
    Posts
    1,156

    Default

    there are laws and more laws addressing your point and virtually none of them work or ever HAVE worked so my "thoughts" on the subject are HELL NO !! enforce the laws already in place (and while you, "they", "WHOEVER" are at it, try using some common sense as well)

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Southwest Alaska
    Posts
    2,145

    Default

    Go back to Kommiefornia, New Yoik, Taxachuesetts, Joisey, DC, Detroit or wherever it is you came from. THAT is the answer to your question.
    Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocre minds. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence. Albert Einstein

    Better living through chemistry (I'm a chemist)

    You can piddle with the puppies, or run with the wolves...

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    AK
    Posts
    4,034

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Money Pit View Post
    Buy, sell, trade, or give to your relatives. What would be wrong with making a law all transfers go through a FFL holder with the required back ground checks?
    It would take a lot of weight off individuals making sure they are transferring the weapon to someone legally allowed to own it as well as hopefully making sure there could be some sort of security check to make sure the weapon was not stolen.
    I for one would have more piece of mind knowing a buyer was legally allowed to buy the item in question.
    Thoughts?
    What would be wrong with making a law requiring you to get a license to buy a steak knife? What would be wrong with making you get a license license to buy a baseball bat? You could be easily killed with either of those items...

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Money Pit View Post
    Buy, sell, trade, or give to your relatives. What would be wrong with making a law all transfers go through a FFL holder with the required back ground checks?
    It would take a lot of weight off individuals making sure they are transferring the weapon to someone legally allowed to own it as well as hopefully making sure there could be some sort of security check to make sure the weapon was not stolen.
    I for one would have more piece of mind knowing a buyer was legally allowed to buy the item in question.
    Thoughts?
    Nothing is stopping you from using a person with an FFL to transfer your firearms now. If you feel as if that is necessary, go ahead.
    As for wanting to criminalize someone giving a gun to his brother as a gift or making an otherwise legal transfer, you're crazy. The most bizarre part of your comment is "it would sure take a lot of weight off the individual." Have you thought of running for political office? If you think a federal law takes a lot of weight off any individual there's a whole group of like minded individuals waiting for you in DC.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,121

    Default

    Laws only work for people obeying them- that is why breaking the law is illegal! More laws won't help and they don't help now. I sure hope this is just trolling from having lousy weather and being inside too long....

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    wasilla
    Posts
    788

    Default

    [
    QUOTE=AKBEE;1363194]Laws only work for people obeying them- that is why breaking the law is illegal! More laws won't help and they don't help now. I sure hope this is just trolling from having lousy weather and being inside too long....[/QUOTE]
    This is correct, my late father used to say that ''locks are for honest folks ''

    Laws only work for the honest folks out there, Money Pit there are no laws that are stopping you from using an FFL to make a transfer... that should help you feel more at ease with your conscious when selling a weapon. To ask or imply there should be more laws or infringements on rights is either naive or you are just plan ????

    Sweepint
    Wasilla, (when not overseas)
    '' Livn' The Dream ''
    26' Hewescraft Cuddy, twin 115 Yam

  10. #10

    Default

    Seemed to have hit a nerve with this one. Different strokes for different folks. Seeing most of you turned to childish banter I realize this debate is far beyond your ability to discuss anything in a logical manner.

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Palmer, AK
    Posts
    723

    Default

    Yeah but maybe the guy that steals the gun out of your truck will only sell it to a licensed business professional.

  12. #12

    Default

    Well you are going to have to pay the FFL dealer $25.00 or $50.00 to do it. It also does not guarantee that the firearm was NOT stolen. As for me whenever possible I prefer to pay extra for a face to face deal and avoid government paperwork (Form4473). Not that I do anything illegal, but it just grinds my arse that government feels the need to be "ALL KNOWING" about private transactions that are legal & none of their stinking business... For further information please read my signature line below.

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    6,031

    Default huh?

    Quote Originally Posted by Money Pit View Post
    It would take a lot of weight off individuals making sure they are transferring the weapon to someone legally allowed...
    Quote Originally Posted by Money Pit View Post
    Seemed to have hit a nerve with this one. Different strokes for different folks. Seeing most of you turned to childish banter I realize this debate is far beyond your ability to discuss anything in a logical manner.
    weight? What weight?

    There is no onus of responsibility on the gun seller to do this, either morally or legally. There is zero weight.

    No childish banter here; I just disagree with your premise.

  14. #14

    Default

    Amazing, I almost can't believe you actually posted that comment. To think you have no morally or legally responsibility to insure the weapon goes to the right person is beyond belief.



    Quote Originally Posted by FamilyMan View Post
    weight? What weight?

    There is no onus of responsibility on the gun seller to do this, either morally or legally. There is zero weight.

    No childish banter here; I just disagree with your premise.

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Palmer Alaska
    Posts
    224

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Money Pit View Post
    Buy, sell, trade, or give to your relatives. What would be wrong with making a law all transfers go through a FFL holder with the required back ground checks?
    It would take a lot of weight off individuals making sure they are transferring the weapon to someone legally allowed to own it as well as hopefully making sure there could be some sort of security check to make sure the weapon was not stolen.
    I for one would have more piece of mind knowing a buyer was legally allowed to buy the item in question.
    Thoughts?
    Many good points have been brought up here….My main argument is that it would negatively effect people who choose to live off the grid…Asking many rural alaskans ( or others in rural communities in the lower 48) to travel hundreds of miles to do a transfer is obsurd. especially when your dealing with folks who view a gun as a tool…nothing more then a way to continue and provide for their way of life.

    I also think it allows Uncle Sam another venue of encroaching on a way of life he has shouldn't be butting into in in the first place. I doubt this law would do anything other then burden law abiding folk to begin with…. Of all the laws we have there is no proof that any of them do any good, Its seldom they are even enforced…The federal government is one of the biggest violator's of these laws.
    The ATF selectively enforces the laws they want and chooses to ignore the others…..See Operation Fast and Furious …among many examples.
    IMHO I say no new laws.. They only serve to benefit bureaucrats and politicians who wish to selectively use said laws to further their own agenda….

    Just my 2 cents

  16. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AlaskanTides View Post
    Many good points have been brought up here….My main argument is that it would negatively effect people who choose to live off the grid…Asking many rural alaskans ( or others in rural communities in the lower 48) to travel hundreds of miles to do a transfer is obsurd. especially when your dealing with folks who view a gun as a tool…nothing more then a way to continue and provide for their way of life.

    I also think it allows Uncle Sam another venue of encroaching on a way of life he has shouldn't be butting into in in the first place. I doubt this law would do anything other then burden law abiding folk to begin with…. Of all the laws we have there is no proof that any of them do any good, Its seldom they are even enforced…The federal government is one of the biggest violator's of these laws.
    The ATF selectively enforces the laws they want and chooses to ignore the others…..See Operation Fast and Furious …among many examples.
    IMHO I say no new laws.. They only serve to benefit bureaucrats and politicians who wish to selectively use said laws to further their own agenda….

    Just my 2 cents
    That's a valid point concerning bush residents.

  17. #17
    Member hodgeman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Delta Junction AK
    Posts
    4,055

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Money Pit View Post
    Amazing, I almost can't believe you actually posted that comment. To think you have no morally or legally responsibility to insure the weapon goes to the right person is beyond belief.
    Ahem…. since we're all moral free agents, then no- I have no moral responsibility for that person whatsoever- neither explicitly nor implicitly. Legally- folks who are prohibited from owning weapons cannot legally possess them. If they knowingly break the law to purchase secondhand- how should that be my responsibility? It's not any more than having them kick in my door to steal my belongings is my responsibility.

    But hey- it's been a long dark winter already. I predict thread lock in less than three hours.
    "I do not deal in hypotheticals. The world, as it is, is vexing enough..." Col. Stonehill, True Grit

  18. #18
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    6,031

    Default

    How about if you describe the steps you think would be the right ones to take? For example, if I was going to sell you a gun MoneyPit, what all exactly would you propose I do?

    And if you think there is any legal reason for a seller to check a buyer, what the heck would that be?

  19. #19

    Default

    Weapon........WEAPON......what weapon......??? I have "NO" Weapons, PERIOD. I have firearms for hunting & perfecting my shooting skills. But I don't own any "WEAPONS".


    Quote Originally Posted by Money Pit View Post
    To think you have no morally or legally responsibility to insure the weapon goes to the right person is beyond belief.

  20. #20
    Member gunbugs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Fairbanks
    Posts
    1,382

    Default

    As a dealer I don't want anything to do with such a law. Sure, it would temporarily line my pockets. In the end, it will only lead to registration and confiscation. I'm done compromising my rights under the second amendment, now I want the anti's to compromise some of their wants and proposed laws into non-existance.
    "A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind."

Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •