Right...you admit selling the gun to an ex-felon who couldn't possibly have passed a BC...but lie under oath that you did one?
OK. He passed your background checks. Now what?
- Thread starter Alinvegas
- Start date
It adds up to a punishable offense and sending you to jail as an accessory to the crime sends a message to all "law abiding" gun owners to do the right thing
If the perp had a record and couldn't possibly have passed a background check at the time of the sale....now he's guilty of perjury as well as the illegal sale.
He ignores what I suggested as needed.
When a BC is done the serial number of the gun, date of the BC and the FFL id should be recorded. If gun is recovered at the crime or in apprehending the perp, then the BC record would provide a starting point for the source of the gun.
I sold a handgun to someone a while back. We went to a local gun shop and did the BC. I still have the receipt.
Asked many times -- never truly answered.
Yeah, not big on "message sending," especially where the background checks have been shown not to work. And again, he says he DID a background check. He's innocent until proven guilty -- prove he didn't do one.
As I've already posted, but you seem to ignore, I would add a record of a background check related to a specific gun. I'd record the serial number, caliber, date and FFL id.
So now the gun has been tracked back to the last legal owner. He admits selling it to the person arrested or killed in the act of committing a crime with the gun. They then talk to the last known owner and he says he did a background check. The only problem is that the guy who bought the gun could not possibly have passed a check and there is no record of the background check for that serial number.
Now he goes to jail for lying to the FBI as well as having armed the criminal...making him complicit in the crime.
The message being if you break the law then law enforcement will track you down if your illegal sale led to additional crimes by the guy who bought the gun.
"truly answered"....meaning you didn't like the answer.
No, meaning you never answered.
guns weren’t required to have serial numbers until the 1960s (most did, but still it only takes one).
And your system amounts to registration, it tracks ownership. Thank you, no.
And as I noted before, the system lets people who “can’t pass a background check” pass a lot of the time. Roof, Alexis, Cho, Kelley, we’re all people with records who “couldn’t pass a background check,” and all of them bought guns legally from licensed dealers, before they’re mass shootings. So “ we did a background check” can’t equate to “you’re lying and going to jail.”
No...the record would not "track ownership". It would not have a record of the buyer or seller.
You wrote, “
As I've already posted, but you seem to ignore, I would add a record of a background check related to a specific gun. I'd record the serial number, caliber, date and FFL id.
So now the gun has been tracked back to the last legal owner.”
Thats the same as registration. You go to the FFL, which has a record of the owner. Your proposed system has a record of the gun. That means there is a way to track the gun from owner to owner, and the difference between this and registration is a matter of degree, not kind.
The ffl currently has the record of the sale...correct? The FBI has to get a warrant to see that document.
Last edited:
#37
