The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Status
    Not open for further replies.

    fabsroman

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 14, 2009
    35,883
    Winfield/Taylorsville in Carroll
    I tried to avoid chiming in, but here goes...
    Background checks are fine by me provided there is no paper trail of who buys/owns what. If there was a way for private sellers/buyers to get a NICS type number confirming "Citizen XYZ" was not prohibited from buying a firearm at the time of the inquiry and MSP had no knowledge of what was bought or sold, I would be OK with that.
    I'm hoping my fellow MDS members are in agreement that criminals shouldn't be allowed to buy/own firearms and a CYA discreet background check would be OK. IE- He cleared the background screening on __/__/__ so I am not liable for what happened with the firearm I sold him.
    I had an ATF trace done on a SKS I sold to a fellow member ~3yrs ago. I provided my bill of sale- which included a photocopy of the buyer's DL. The ATF's response was "Thank you, that is all we need from you." I have no idea what happened afterward, but my ass was covered with a paper trail.

    (I am already on Clandestine's "list", and I'm fine with that)

    Now you are in for a world of hurt. lol

    We can talk more about this on the 4th and why I feel like people being released from prison and sent back to the hood should be handed a gun right in front of the parole board and before they ever step out of the prison. It should be an entertaining discussion. We can also discuss NICS checks, public access to the system for free, and making the system a lot more cost effective. This thread right here is not conducive to this discussion. Heck, this board in its entirety might not be conducive to this discussion.

    On another note, I looked further into making 6.5CM rounds from 308 Win, and you are right. Good Lord, much easier to just buy 6.5CM brass. I have 1,000 pieces of 308 Win sitting here and they will remain 308 Win. How I cherish the 6.5CM brass you gave me. Thanks for that. Time to buy some dies and components.
     

    willtill

    The Dude Abides
    MDS Supporter
    May 15, 2007
    24,498
    I tried to avoid chiming in, but here goes...
    Background checks are fine by me provided there is no paper trail of who buys/owns what. If there was a way for private sellers/buyers to get a NICS type number confirming "Citizen XYZ" was not prohibited from buying a firearm at the time of the inquiry and MSP had no knowledge of what was bought or sold, I would be OK with that.
    I'm hoping my fellow MDS members are in agreement that criminals shouldn't be allowed to buy/own firearms and a CYA discreet background check would be OK. IE- He cleared the background screening on __/__/__ so I am not liable for what happened with the firearm I sold him.
    I had an ATF trace done on a SKS I sold to a fellow member ~3yrs ago. I provided my bill of sale- which included a photocopy of the buyer's DL. The ATF's response was "Thank you, that is all we need from you." I have no idea what happened afterward, but my ass was covered with a paper trail.

    (I am already on Clandestine's "list", and I'm fine with that)

    Just to add a little bit to that... let the State pay for background checks. Why do I have to pay for a right granted under COTUS?

    I'd rather that all of these infringing laws be tossed; though once they're instituted they're here to stay in the foreseeable future.

    I'm ALSO in the camp for seeing them being challenged in their entirety and withdrawn. More importantly in the immediate short term, we need to see amendments proposed against these current unconstitutional amendments simultaneously, in order to neuter them ineffective. There's NOTHING wrong with attacking these anti 2nd Amendment laws on multiple fronts.

    Anyone whom abhors challenging these gun control laws on every possible (and multiple) proposed future legislative action(s) via amendments to said laws; is certainly fraught with tunnel vision, and will be continually blindsided by opponents whom have taken their gloves off; in their ongoing attempts to nullify our 2nd Amendment.
     

    zoostation

    , ,
    Moderator
    Jan 28, 2007
    22,857
    Abingdon
    Not sure where it started and I am not reading through ten pages of squabbling to decide who was the first one to throw their Tonka truck in the sandbox. Fair warning for those who wish to stay

    Be nice to one another, or don't respond. If I need to explain to anyone how to do that, you aren't growed-up enough to be here.

    Threats or talk of fisticuffs, outright, direct, or "hypothetical," will NOT be tolerated.

    TIA. And apologies to the majority who were just having a discussion. Thank you.

     
    Status
    Not open for further replies.

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    275,342
    Messages
    7,277,804
    Members
    33,437
    Latest member
    Mantis

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom