I found myself shorter of money this month than usual so I dug through

[Cleita]

my old jewelry and coins and went to the local gold broker's shop. I had to provide my driver's license. I believe it would be used to background check me. I assume it was to protect the broker if the jewelry turned out to be stolen. It left me wondering why couldn't we do something this simple for gun purchases? What are people so afraid of that a simple background check is so alien to them?

[premium]

1. All FFL dealers are required by Federal law

to fill out form 4473, and the dealer HAS to do a background check on the buyer, not exceptions, the problem is that most states don't require BGC's on private sales, that, in my opinion, needs to be fixed, that's why I support the UCB bill pending in the Congress.

BTW, if you lie on Form 4473, it is a Federal offense with a potential 10 year prison sentence in Club Fed for every lie on the form

[Cleita]

2. Exactly, my point. If you have to do a few simple things to prove what your

intentions are when you buy a fire arm in some instances, why can't we do this for all gun sales and purchases?

[The Straight Story]

5. While it could help in some instances

Suppose someone buys a gun and three years laters goes off and kills someone (100% of gun owners do this because the gun makes them do it, now if it was only like 0.4% that would be a whole differ....oh wait) - then what, should make them do checks each year? And what about if someone owns a gun now goes to buy a new one but fails the check for some reason, do we take away their other guns? And do you want people in power to have that power (oh look, you voted for my opponent and suddenly there is this negative thing on your record, hand over your guns).

[CreekDog]

8. none of which actually makes background checks a bad idea

although you would like us to think it does.

[premium]

6. I have no problem with ALL firearms sales

having a background check done, my feeling is that all private sales should go through an FFL dealer with a fee of $10-$15 per check per firearm.

[forthemiddle]

13. But if you sold your jewelery to your neighbor....

There wouldn't be a background check required.

I am NOT against background checks for all sales, public and private if the system is open to all sales. I am just saying you can't compare the two transactions unless the sale of gold and jewelery to your friends and family also required background checks.

[Cleita]

14. My neighbor is not a dealer and would probably be only interested in a few pieces.

If I were taking jewelry to the brokers to be sold every week, the authorities would probably investigate me as a possible burglar. They have my information so they can. What I'm questioning is how did those recent mass killers in Boston and Santa Monica get so many weapons without setting off an alarm? Me selling copious jewelry would set off an alarm. Sure I could go to a street corner and sell stolen stuff to passersby but there is always a risk. With firearms? No. We need some very basic rules.

[The Straight Story]

3. What else should we have background checks on? Buying booze? Smokes? Pit bulls?

Or ordering anything from the Olive Garden....

Besides, the NSA knows all about us already anyway and everything we buy and sell is tracked in some form or other. Even in cash since most places have security cameras.

[Cleita]

4. You have to be of age to buy booze and cigarettes, which means you need

a legitimate ID. That's my point.

[The Straight Story]

7. There is a difference between showing ID (which you don't always have to do at all)

and running a check on someone.

I go to a local gas station where they rarely ask for ID (compared to the UDF that always asks when getting booze, even if you were in there 1 minute ago - they have to have it on camera for corporate).

[Cleita]

9. I used to be a bartender and I could get into a lot of trouble including getting

the establishment into trouble if I served a minor. It didn't matter if said minor had a phony ID. I got very good at screening them. I mean how did the Tsarnaev bros. and the kid in Santa Monica get arsenals between them with little trouble?

[CreekDog]

10. you're trolling this issue

you know that guns are a different story, you know that guns already require background checks for *some* sales and others, likely including more dangerous and more dubious sales, *don't* require background checks.

yes, sell a weapon whose purpose is to kill, and only to kill, and a background check is a reasonable thing.

but you want us to fear that if you sell toilet paper or yard sculptures that suddenly background checks for all firearms sales will suddenly mean that you need a background check to blow your nose.

posting such crap is trolling on the issue and everyone here knows it.

[geckosfeet]

11. +1

I'll add it is flame bait as well. The op demonstrates their ignorance of the gun buying process and continues to prop up the urban legend around gun sales.

[The Straight Story]

12. So what other constitutional rights do you want to have background checks on?

Just the ones you don't like?

over 99% of people with guns don't harm others with them (unless you consider deer and paper targets human) - want to talk about trolling? How about people who will post only stories about guns used to hurt others, day in and out, when those people represent less than 1% of the actual group?

Kind of like if I post stories each day about bad abortion doctors (hell, having one posted here and people were worried it would be 'used against abortion') - I am sure I could 365 negative stories about the whole topic - people would say I was trying to bias others against people, was anti-abortion, have an agenda, etc and so on.

People like to peddle fear of things they hate and want to control others through that fear. I am ok actually with background checks but don't see them as the cure-all others want to claim them to be. We don't enforce the laws we have now because we don't have the funding/manpower (oh crap..uh human power) to do so. But adding new things makes people feel better....

[petronius]

15. Did they write down a description of what you brought in, or take a photograph?

And was it an actual background check, or did they just keep a record of who they received the items from?

If the latter, the same thing would have happened to you at a gun dealer, by federal law:

27 CFR 478.125(e) Firearms receipt and disposition by dealers. Except as provided in § 478.124a with respect to alternate records for the receipt and disposition of firearms by dealers, each licensed dealer shall enter into a record each receipt and disposition of firearms. In addition, before commencing or continuing a firearms business, each licensed dealer shall inventory the firearms possessed for such business and shall record same in the record required by this paragraph. The record required by this paragraph shall be maintained in bound form under the format prescribed below. The purchase or other acquisition of a firearm shall, except as provided in paragraph (g) of this section, be recorded not later than the close of the next business day following the date of such purchase or acquisition. The record shall show the date of receipt, the name and address or the name and license number of the person from whom received, the name of the manufacturer and importer (if any), the model, serial number, type, and the caliber or gauge of the firearm.

--- Snip ---

http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/27/478.125

Of course, it doesn't specifically say that a DL must be checked, but it seems like it would be a foolish dealer to omit that (and for all I know, CA may require verification).

In the other direction, the person subsequently purchasing the gun from the dealer would need to show ID and undergo a background check, but the check is not required in a private party sale. And I agree with you that that should change: the background check should be universal, whether the seller is a dealer or not (as it is here in CA)...

[Cleita]

16. I'm thinking it's to protect the dealer from being considered a fence.

I assume if I showed up every week with stuff to be sold, I would fall under suspicion and he would be required to report me. I once owned a bookstore and in order to sell used books I had to have a pawnbroker's license. The police explained to me that they were looking for rare first edition books that are stolen and sold. I had to report every one I came across. I didn't have to bother with the ordinary used paperbacks and stuff. I assume this dealer must do the same for coins and jewelry. (He doesn't deal in guns or other artifacts.) It's what could be suspicious especially if there is a coincidence of burglaries in the area.

My point is though, how do kids like the ones in the news recently gain arsenals of guns and ammo without setting off alarms? It's because of our lax rules on the buying and selling of these weapons. We need better regulations to trace suspicious purchases especially in large amounts like this. One lone person stocking up on the amount of ammo that kid had in Santa Monica should have triggered off alarms but without any way to keep track of the sales, I don't see how they could have. I forgot to mention that I had to sign a document that itemized what I sold. So no matter where I go there is a file on me of my transactions with this person or another if I pick another broker all tied to my Drivers License.

[petronius]

17. I understand that it seems strange to non-shooters, but buying and possessing ammo

in large quantities is very common and cost effective. Showing up with a new batch of gold jewelry every week would make you look like a thief very quickly, but buying 1000 or so rounds of ammunition every week just means you've been shooting or you've found a good deal - it's not outlier enough to trigger any sort of useful alarm. And I didn't pay particularly close attention, but I didn't get the sense that the Santa Monica or Boston guys had unusually high quantities.

I get what you're saying, but I don't think monitoring purchase quantities (of guns or ammo) has any chance of separating incipient mass killers from the average weekend shooter - there's just too much overlap. And really, a mass killer doesn't actually need all that much (1-2 guns and a few hundred rounds would be plenty) so the alarm triggers would be easy to avoid.

But I do think that sellers of used items (gold or guns) should be recorded, just to protect the dealer and recover stolen property. And every gun purchaser should pass a check.

However, you'll be glad to know that our state Senate just passed a bill (SB53) that would require background checks, permits, and fees for ammunition purchasers as well as guns - personally, I oppose it...

[Fla_Democrat]

18. Go to a gun store and buy a gun

Let us know if they ask for I.D.

[Cleita]

19. I have no use for a gun. Food on the other hand, is what I would spend my money on. n/t