# Anti-gun control folks, a question **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 25, 2005, 3:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-gun-control-folks-a-question/300967 "2005-04-25T03:00:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2005, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-gun-control-folks-a-question/300967/101 "2005-04-26T23:49:38Z")
> [@minty green](#): > > Given that federal law only requires NICS checks on sales conducted through gun dealers, and not private sales, it seems obvious that no NICS background check is required for a private sale unless state law provides otherwise. Hence, there would appear to be any number of states where you can legally purchase a handgun (via private sale) without any NICS check. Thanks **minty**. When **drachillix** asked the question, i was worried that i might have misinterpreted the articles and websites that i’ve read on the subject. I made very clear above, **drachillix** , that i was referring specifically to private sales not covered by the federal legislation. ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-gun-control-folks-a-question/300967/102 "2005-04-27T00:25:33Z")
> [@minty green](#): > > Goodness gracious, Una, that attempt to define “well regulated” that you just quoted was pretty darned misleading, so much so that I question the original author’s good faith. First off, I’m glad you read it. > [@](#): > > First, it completely ignores the undeniable fact that the framers used “regulate” in its ordinary sense of “control by rule or law” elsewhere in the original text of the Constitution. Again, see Article I, section 8, where it makes no sense whatsoever to claim that the writers really meant Congress had the power to make commerce and the value of currency “efficient” (notwithstanding catsix’s embrace of that nonsensical position). I think you have a good point, but I wonder if it doesn’t have both meanings - that is one for Article I, and one for the 2nd Amendment. That is, can it be shown that use of the word “regulated” with respect to a militia could have been _more likely_ to mean “organized”. Even to this day we read of “regulars” describing organized troops, even revolutionary ones, as opposed to assuming that they mean they are “under control”, so to speak. > [@](#): > > Second, who gives a darn if “The first dictionary of American English usage, published by Noah Webster in 1803, gives no entry for ‘well regulated’”? Did the dictionary give a definition for the verb _regulate_? I guarantee you it did, and I further guarantee you that the first definition for that word was some version of the ordinary “control by rule or law,” not “make efficient.” I agree that it might be unusual to find “well regulated” as an entry, and not to expect it as an example in said dictionary. And while the first definition may be such as you say (I actually do not know, not having the original source), it need not be in opposition to the assertion of the commonality of the term “regulars” used to describe troops. > [@](#): > > Third, it’s awfully misleading of the author to point out that the OED "includes as one of the definitions of ‘regulated’ a meaning which directly applies to troops, that of “properly disciplined,’” since the first definition in the OED is, in fact, some version of the ordinary “control by rule or law” meaning. Well, I’ve done a lot of work in the OED of late for some upcoming Staff Reports, and with respect, one definition or one usage must come first, with any word. The fact that it’s not the first, the second, or whatever may or may not mean anything with respect to the context. > [@](#): > > Finally, even _assuming_ that the founders really did intend “regulated” to mean something like “made efficient,” one can hardly overlook that “regulate” is a verb that requires somebody or something to accomplish the aforementioned regulating. Who’s responsible for making sure the well-regulated militia is, in fact, well regulated? The text itself is silent, of course, but given once again that the Constitution does in fact speak of state militias being under the control of the federal government (see Art. I, § 8 and Art. II, § 2), I think it hard to escape the textual conclusion that the state and federal governments would be in charge of regulating the militias. I think what’s presented is a strong argument, but not proof, of course. I think by itself it may not even be very convincing, for exactly the reasons you put forward right here. But if it is backed up with supporting evidence from other sources, such as by looking at the writings of the FF, the situation at the time, the debates and rough drafts (one of which is posted), then I think it is more compelling. At least, I hope that was clear… ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-gun-control-folks-a-question/300967/103 "2005-04-27T00:57:47Z")
Perfectly clear, and perfectly reasonable, **Una**. I don’t take exception to the idea that “regulated” may also mean (even in the 18th century) “organized” or “efficient,” just the assertion that they had some completely different understanding of the word than we do. **enipla** : What I mean to convey was that the majority of people do not have hard and fast ideas on what kinds of gun control are desirable, legal, etc., and therefore are actually or potentially persuadable. Such persons ordinarily do not take part in these kinds of debates, however, for pretty much the same reason that undecided voters in presidential elections don’t take part in Bush v. Kerry election threads. After all, nobody’s strongly dedicated to being undecided. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![catsix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e19b73/32.png) [@catsix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/catsix)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-gun-control-folks-a-question/300967/104 "2005-04-27T02:44:00Z")
> [@](#): > > **minty green** said: > You’re asking about something called “the law,” and yes, my explanations of what the law is are much more valid and correct than yours, since I do actually know whereof I speak on that subject. You thought I actually wanted you to explain to me what ‘the law’ is? How cute. I don’t. I don’t need your smug interpretations of what I can read for myself, nor your belief that so long as the Supreme Court agreed with your position, they can do no wrong. As I said before, I believe they have a serious conflict of interest when it comes to interpreting the Constitution’s allowance of power to the federal government, since they are the federal government. To me, it’s a lot like Congress voting themselves a pay raise. > [@](#): > > Of course, the National Guard’s eligibility to keep and bear arms isn’t really being questioned by anyone, but there you have it. What a lot of people ‘quibble’ over is whether or not the National Guard is a valid militia. Being that they are a standing army under federal control, I don’t think they are a valid militia. > [@](#): > > **Una Persson** said: > > You know, I think I’ve debated this issue with several people in here in the past, who don’t seem to remember any of this. Yeah, it seems to me like **minty green** does his research with the latest edition of [dictionary.com](http://dictionary.com). > [@](#): > > **minty green** said: > Goodness gracious, Una, that attempt to define “well regulated” that you just quoted was pretty darned misleading, so much so that I question the original author’s good faith. Why’s that? Because they’re capable of using a dictionary and a definition that was actually common in the time of the writing of the Bill of Rights as opposed to the more modern and less-firearms favorable one you prefer? > [@](#): > > Third, it’s awfully misleading of the author to point out that the OED "includes as one of the definitions of ‘regulated’ a meaning which directly applies to troops, that of “properly disciplined,’” since the first definition in the OED is, in fact, some version of the ordinary “control by rule or law” meaning. In 2005. What did it say in 1789? > [@](#): > > **mhendo** said: > Just how, pray tell, am i supposed to tell that the guy who wants to buy my gun is someone who “would be rejected by the standard NICS background check”? By not selling to people whose backgrounds you aren’t 100% sure of. If no private citizens fit that bill, sell it to an FFL holding dealer. > [@](#): > > **minty green** said: > Hence, there would appear to be any number of states where you can legally purchase a handgun (via private sale) without any NICS check. I can tell you for absolute fact that Pennsylvania is not one of those states, since it is only legal to make a person to person sale without using an FFL intermediary if the firearm in question is a long gun, not a handgun, and if both parties live in Pennsylvania. Do you have an example of any state in which it is legal to sell a handgun from person to person without an FFL intermediary and a NICS check? If you don’t, you better quit claiming there are places that allow it. > [@](#): > > Having said that, I don’t particularly care about changing people’s minds. I just detest the misstatements of the law that these threads routinely spawn, and will be damned if I’m going to let them go uncorrected. You are not the final authority on the law. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 4:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-gun-control-folks-a-question/300967/105 "2005-04-27T04:39:57Z")
> [@catsix](#): > > By not selling to people whose backgrounds you aren’t 100% sure of. If no private citizens fit that bill, sell it to an FFL holding dealer. Well, my question was a rather rhetorical one, and your answer still elides the problems associated with the system. Sure, one problem is that an honest person like you or me might not be able to tell whether the potential buyer of our weapon is a good person. But, more problematically, there is virtually no procedure to prevent a less-than-honest person from selling guns to criminals. Sure, you might argue that a dishonest person is always going to find a way around the law. But if the law itself is as toothless as **UncleBeer** suggests—requiring only that i have a reasonable belief that my customer would pass a background check—this leaves me free to throw up my hands at a later date and say, “Hey, i never knew he was a bad guy.” There’s just too much leeway for people to sell weapons to criminals and then argue that they couldn’t have known any better. What we need is a system that requires appropriate checks for _every_ legal gun sale, whether by a dealer or a private citizen. I really don’t understand what benefit there is in opposing a system that has no bearing on your right to own a gun, but simply requires certain procedures to be followed every tie a gun changes hands. ---
**Author:** ![catsix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e19b73/32.png) [@catsix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/catsix)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 10:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-gun-control-folks-a-question/300967/106 "2005-04-27T10:48:10Z")
> [@](#): > > **mhendo** said: > But if the law itself is as toothless as UncleBeer suggests—requiring only that i have a reasonable belief that my customer would pass a background check—this leaves me free to throw up my hands at a later date and say, “Hey, i never knew he was a bad guy.” That’s a hell of a gamble to take, because if the jury doesn’t buy it, you’re going to prison. ---
**Author:** ![Arwin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/51bf81/32.png) [@Arwin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arwin)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 11:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-gun-control-folks-a-question/300967/107 "2005-04-27T11:01:54Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > What we need is a system that requires appropriate checks for _every_ legal gun sale, whether by a dealer or a private citizen. I really don’t understand what benefit there is in opposing a system that has no bearing on your right to own a gun, but simply requires certain procedures to be followed every tie a gun changes hands. Pointless. Half a million of the guns each year bought by private citizens are stolen by criminals. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 12:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-gun-control-folks-a-question/300967/108 "2005-04-27T12:44:53Z")
> [@catsix](#): > > You thought I actually wanted you to explain to me what ‘the law’ is? How cute. > > I don’t. I don’t need your smug interpretations of what I can read for myself, nor your belief that so long as the Supreme Court agreed with your position, they can do no wrong. No, no, no, silly girl. I do not for a moment pretend that the Supreme Court can do no wrong. But when it comes to deciding what the law is, they’re the final word. You’re just some schmuck who prefers to pretend otherwise. I do hope that if you ever get sued or arrested, you have the common sense to obtain legal counsel, because otherwise you’re going to be in a heap of trouble with that your deep embrace of legal ignorance. > [@](#): > > Why’s that? Because they’re capable of using a dictionary and a definition that was actually common in the time of the writing of the Bill of Rights as opposed to the more modern and less-firearms favorable one you prefer? No, because you are demonstrably incorrect when you claim that it necessarily meant anything different than it means today. Being as how it appears in the “control by rule or law” sense elsewhere in the original Constitution. > [@](#): > > In 2005. What did it say in 1789? Just what I told you it says. The OED is marvelous for listing first usages of the words it defines in their various meanings, and the “control by rule or law” definition went back a whole hell of a long time. Feel free to head over to your local library to look it up sometime, as I did the first time somebody raised your ridiculous definitional claim. > [@](#): > > You are not the final authority on the law. And you are no authority whatsoever. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-gun-control-folks-a-question/300967/109 "2005-04-27T13:57:10Z")
> [@ExTank](#): > > Now here’s where **mintygreen** and **Elvis** are not only exposed as liars, but Fucking Liars. [About two seconds on Google:](http://www.americanvoice2004.org/askdave/22askdave.html) > [@](#): > > In 1903, Congressman Charles Dick of Ohio introduced a bill that began the federalization of state militias. The Dick Act renamed the state militia, the National Guard, or Organized Militia. It was the first statutory use of the term National Guard. > … > > The term National Guards was already in use in some states and might have originated from a visit by Lafayette in 1824 in which he remarked that a New York militia unit reminded him of the Paris National Guards. Whadda maroon. > [@](#): > > **Exposition:** > **1.** a setting forth of the meaning or purpose (as of a writing); Exactly. The first half of the 2nd Amendment sets forth the meaning or purpose of the writing of the second half, just as you have now confirmed for yourself. But somehow you go on to say: > [@](#): > > Fucking tit; go play your wordgames with someone who doesn’t speak English as a first language, you disingenuous dickhead. Is there an evil twin who takes over control of your fingers at times, or are you simply unable to survive contact with reality? > [@minty green](#): > > Didn’t you used to be, like, not a hysterical name-calling nutball? You know, somebody with whom it was once possible to engage in civilized discourse? Not in my recollection. Rather, we’re dealing with a person who defines “liar” as “someone who points out errors in my views that I am unable to rationalize away”. I’m also amused by the steadily-repeated assertion that a militia, or anything else for that matter, can be regulated, at all much less _well_-regulated, without allowing anyone the authority to regulate it, or “organized” without granting anyone the authority to “organize” it. That assertion doesn’t rise to the level of contorted logic; it’s just absurd. ---
**Author:** ![catsix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e19b73/32.png) [@catsix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/catsix)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-gun-control-folks-a-question/300967/110 "2005-04-27T14:31:56Z")
> [@](#): > > **minty green** said: > But when it comes to deciding what the law is, they’re the final word. There’s a huge problem with anyone being the ‘final word’ when not only do they have the conflict of interest of benefitting from allowing the federal government more power than the Constitution might really allow for. Selective interpretation, and all of that. > [@](#): > > You’re just some schmuck who prefers to pretend otherwise. As opposed to the great and powerful **minty green** , know-it-all at law. > [@](#): > > I do hope that if you ever get sued or arrested, you have the common sense to obtain legal counsel, because otherwise you’re going to be in a heap of trouble with that your deep embrace of legal ignorance. There’s no way in hell I’d hire you or anyone like you. You’re too much of a blowhard, and I doubt you’d actually listen to your client at all. > [@](#): > > No, because you are demonstrably incorrect when you claim that it necessarily meant anything different than it means today. Being as how it appears in the “control by rule or law” sense elsewhere in the original Constitution. Context doesn’t mean a damn thing to you, does it? > [@](#): > > Just what I told you it says. Have you ever, in your life, admitted you were wrong? > [@](#): > > And you are no authority whatsoever. Says you. And that’s not really saying much at all. > [@](#): > > **ElvisL1ves** said: > I’m also amused by the steadily-repeated assertion that a militia, or anything else for that matter, can be regulated, at all much less well-regulated, without allowing anyone the authority to regulate it, or “organized” without granting anyone the authority to “organize” it. I’m astounded by the fact that someone is utterly incapable of recognizing that people are fully capable of organizing and regulating themselves without the big nanny in Washington, DC doing it for them. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-gun-control-folks-a-question/300967/111 "2005-04-27T14:36:49Z")
> [@minty green](#): > > given that courts up to and _including_ the Supreme Court (see the _Miller_ case) have held that the “militia” clause imposes a substantive limitation on the scope of the keep-and-bear-arms guarantee What the Court found in _Miller_ is that the “militia clause” provides guidance as to the sort of “arms” included in the right specified in the Second Amendment. (They erred in their finding of fact – in fact, sawed-off shotguns had seen substantial use as personal infantry weapons in the trenches of the Great War – but that is a different issue.) We can, however, say that the “nukes and nervegas” strawman has been definitively dispelled by the Court. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-gun-control-folks-a-question/300967/112 "2005-04-27T14:55:05Z")
> [@Steve MB](#): > > What the Court found in _Miller_ is that the “militia clause” provides guidance as to the sort of “arms” included in the right specified in the Second Amendment. Correct. Like I said, they determined that the “militia” clause provides a substantive limitation on the scope of the “keep and bear” clause, to wit, that the arms covered are only those that are suitable for militia use. > [@](#): > > (They erred in their finding of fact – in fact, sawed-off shotguns had seen substantial use as personal infantry weapons in the trenches of the Great War – but that is a different issue.) As a matter of judicial procedure: The Supreme Court does not make findings of fact.\* Facts are found by trial courts and juries, and generally can only be disturbed on appeal if the evidence against the fact finding is conclusive or there is no evidence at all in support of the fact. Appellate courts are there to make sure that the law was correctly applied, not to independently determine whether the facts were correct. In the specific case of _Miller_, there was never any finding that a sawed-off shotgun was _not_ suitable for militia use. The Court determined that it was Mr. Miller’s burden to prove that the gun _was_ suitable for militia use. Miller did not submit any evidence on that point (seeing as how he decided not to show up for trial), so he lost out on what appears to be (but the Court never labeled as) an affirmative defense. \*Except in the ultra-rare cases where the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction of a case instead of appellate jurisdiction, primarily in lawsuits where states are suing each other. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-gun-control-folks-a-question/300967/113 "2005-04-27T15:05:57Z")
> [@catsix](#): > > I’m astounded by the fact that someone is utterly incapable of recognizing that people are fully capable of organizing and regulating themselves without the big nanny in Washington, DC doing it for them. Who, in your constitutional philosophy, is granted the authority to do this organizing and regulating, if not the government? What, in your philosophy, makes a “well-regulated militia” anything more than an armed mob? Once again, you don’t have to like the law or the Constitution the way it is. But you don’t get to pretend it away, either. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Krebbs](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5fc32e/32.png) [@Mr.Krebbs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Krebbs)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-gun-control-folks-a-question/300967/114 "2005-04-27T15:17:44Z")
**Mhendo,** I do understand that you are trying to put forth a reasonable manner in which law-abiding gun owners may sell their guns to other law-abiding citizens, while not to criminals. This is commenable. However, your idea simply would not work. Not only for the reason that **Arwin** postulated (though I highly doubt the accuracy of the “half million stolen” number), but also because someone who wishes to buy a gun illegally would have no qualms about purchasing a firearm that has already had its serial number removed. Even when the police came into possession of such a gun, they would not be able to trace it back to the legal owner (not that he is no longer law-abiding). Really, the only effect that such a law would have is to create more of a hassle for law-abiding gun owners to buy and sell firearms. Furthermore, I’m not sure that I agree with the notion that when a citizen commits a felony and serves his time in jail (and on probation, if applicable) that he should be forbidden from owning a firearm. Even an ex-convict has the right to defend himself, and due to possible criminal assosciates, might even have more of a reason to own a gun for self-defense than the average citizen. If you’ve read or seen A Clockwork Orange, both book and film illustrate rather well why denying anyone a right to self-defense is wrong. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-gun-control-folks-a-question/300967/115 "2005-04-27T15:22:02Z")
Sig line! ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Krebbs](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5fc32e/32.png) [@Mr.Krebbs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Krebbs)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-gun-control-folks-a-question/300967/116 "2005-04-27T15:30:43Z")
**ElvisL1ves** , your participation in this thread is aggravating. You have reduced yourself to making snipes at the other posters here, and you will not respond adequately to points directed against your argument. Nonetheless, let me make you aware of something. The National Guard did not exist when the Constitution was ratified, and didn’t for more than a century later (it was created January 1, 1903). It is not, as has been pointed out, an entity controlled by the states, but by the federal government. Official state militias do exist, such as the [Alaska State Defense Force](http://www.ak-prepared.com/asdf/). So, what do you think, **ElvisL1ves** , do militias like the Alaska State Defense Force meet your definition of “well-regulated,” or should the federal government have control of them, too? ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-gun-control-folks-a-question/300967/117 "2005-04-27T15:44:19Z")
> [@catsix](#): > > That’s a hell of a gamble to take, because if the jury doesn’t buy it, you’re going to prison. Well, correct me if i’m wrong, but my understanding of the American legal system suggests that the prosecution would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that i should have known that the guy trying to buy my gun was unlikely to pass a federal background check. Surely criteria as nebulous as this are tailor-made for reasonable doubt? And the problem is that these criteria don’t just give a loophole to dishonest people who actually _want_ to sell guns to bad guys; they also mean that honest people might easily be duped. Again, i ask what criteria i should use to determine if the guy who wants to buy my gun is someone who shouldn’t have one? Now, in answer to this, you suggested, “By not selling to people whose backgrounds you aren’t 100% sure of. If no private citizens fit that bill, sell it to an FFL holding dealer.” That’s all well and good, but the law doesn’t require me to be that careful. If a guy turns, dressed neatly, and giving me a plausible reason for wanting to buy a gun, then under the law that’s all i need to sell him the gun. > [@Arwin](#): > > Pointless. Half a million of the guns each year bought by private citizens are stolen by criminals. No, my suggestion is not pointless, precisely _because_ lots of guns are stolen. I’m well aware that requiring background checks and documentation for every legal sale (private or not) will not stop guns getting into the hands of criminals. But what it will do is ensure that every gun that does get into the hands of a criminal gets there illegally. It will solidify the currently-blurry line between legal and illegal gun sales by putting in place a proper procedure for every gun sale, rather than relying on the “criminal-detecting” abilities of John Q. Citizen. As it stands now, in some states an honest person can make a perfectly good-faith legal sale to another person who then turns out to be a bad guy, simply because the only criteria required for the sale are the seller’s own hunch about the character of the buyer and the use for which the gun is to be put. If we require background checks and criminal record checks for _all_ sales, this element of uncertainty is removed. Then, if we find that someone sold a gun to a person with a criminal record, it is clear that the seller acted against the law, and the seller can be charged and punished. Under the current system, all the seller has to do is argue that he had no way of knowing that the gun would be used for illegal purposes. > [@catsix](#): > > I can tell you for absolute fact that Pennsylvania is not one of those states, since it is only legal to make a person to person sale without using an FFL intermediary if the firearm in question is a long gun, not a handgun, and if both parties live in Pennsylvania. Do you have an example of any state in which it is legal to sell a handgun from person to person without an FFL intermediary and a NICS check? If you don’t, you better quit claiming there are places that allow it. Well, you asked **minty** this question, but i’ll take a stab. According to the stuff i’ve read, you are correct about Pennsylvania. Even [this website](http://www.bradycampaign.org/legislation/state/viewstate.php?st=pa#secondary), which is an anti-gun website, concedes that in Pennsylvania: > [@](#): > > State law requires a person buying or obtaining ownership of a handgun to go through a criminal background check, while buyers of shotguns and rifles do not. All handgun sales, including sales by private individuals, at gun shows or through newspaper or Internet advertisements, must be completed at a Sheriff’s office or through a federally licensed firearms dealer. But, as no-one ever argued that _all_ states allow private sales without checks, simply pointing to PA as an example doesn’t take account of the 49 other states. The same site, on another [page](http://www.bradycampaign.org/legislation/state/viewstate.php?st=tx#secondary), discusses the situation in Texas: > [@](#): > > No state requirement that criminal background checks be done on people buying firearms at gun shows, swap meets or through newspaper or internet advertisements. Criminal background checks are only required if the buyer goes to a federally-licensed gun store - all other sales are not subject to the background check. Now, i don’t expect you to rely only on the word of an anti-gun website, so let’s actually look at the Texas statue regarding transfer of firearms. Here is the relevant section, in its entirety, from [here](http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/cgi-bin/cqcgi?CQ_SESSION_KEY=RSHLDIZDSKKN&CQ_QUERY_HANDLE=124309&CQ_CUR_DOCUMENT=16&CQ_TLO_DOC_TEXT=YES): > [@](#): > > § 46.06. UNLAWFUL TRANSFER OF CERTAIN WEAPONS. (a) A > person commits an offense if the person: > (1) sells, rents, leases, loans, or gives a handgun[0] to > any person knowing that the person to whom the handgun[0] is to be > delivered intends to use it unlawfully or in the commission of an > unlawful act; > (2) intentionally or knowingly sells, rents, leases, > or gives or offers to sell, rent, lease, or give to any child > younger than 18 years any firearm, club, or illegal knife; > (3) intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly sells a > firearm or ammunition for a firearm to any person who is > intoxicated; > (4) knowingly sells a firearm or ammunition for a > firearm to any person who has been convicted of a felony before the > fifth anniversary of the later of the following dates: > (A) the person’s release from confinement > following conviction of the felony; or > (B) the person’s release from supervision under > community supervision, parole, or mandatory supervision following > conviction of the felony; > (5) sells, rents, leases, loans, or gives a handgun[0] to > any person knowing that an active protective order is directed to > the person to whom the handgun[0] is to be delivered; or > (6) knowingly purchases, rents, leases, or receives as > a loan or gift from another a handgun[0] while an active protective > order is directed to the actor. > (b) In this section: > (1) “Intoxicated” means substantial impairment of > mental or physical capacity resulting from introduction of any > substance into the body. > (2) “Active protective order” means a protective order > issued under Title 4, Family Code, that is in effect. The term does > not include a temporary protective order issued before the court > holds a hearing on the matter. > (c) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under > Subsection (a)(2) that the transfer was to a minor whose parent or > the person having legal custody of the minor had given written > permission for the sale or, if the transfer was other than a sale, > the parent or person having legal custody had given effective > consent. > (d) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor, > except that an offense under Subsection (a)(2) is a state jail > felony if the weapon that is the subject of the offense is a > handgun[0]. > > Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. > Amended by Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 686, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, > 1985. Renumbered from V.T.C.A., Penal Code § 46.07 and amended > by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994. > Amended by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 324, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1996; > Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1193, § 22, eff. Sept. 1, 1997; Acts > 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1304, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1997; Acts 1999, > 76th Leg., ch. 62, § 15.02(f), eff. Sept. 1, 1999. So, we already know that gun sales in Texas are subject to federal law, which requires, as **minty** said, that NICS checks are only necessary for sales undertaken by gun dealers. What we need to find, then, is something in the Texas law that would require such checks by persons selling firearms privately. If you can see any such requirement in the above legislation, i’d be happy for you to point it out to me. If i read the above statute correctly, the only thing that would stop me from legally selling a gun to another individual in Texas is if i knew that: a) the gun was to be used unlawfully, or in commission of an unlawful act b) the customer is under 18 years of age c) the person is drunk d) the person has, within the past five years, been released from prison or finished parole e) the person has an active protective order against him/her If i read that correctly, then not only do i not have to carry out any background or criminal reecord checks, but i just have to be ignorant of what the person intends to do with the gun. There doesn’t even seem to be any requirement that i make all reasonable efforts to find out what the gun is going to be used for. Furthermore, as long as the customer was released from prison or parole more than five years ago, it doesn’t even matter if he or she has a criminal record. Now, i’m not a lawyer, and i’m perfectly willing to concede that i might have misinterpreted the statute. One of the reasons i chose Texas is that the only lawyer currently participating in this debate (to my knowledge) is from Texas. If i’ve fucked up my interpretation, **minty** can probably correct me. And you, **catsix** , are also welcome to question my interpretation if you think i’ve got something wrong. But as far as i can see, the Texas statute answers the question you asked earlier. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-gun-control-folks-a-question/300967/118 "2005-04-27T15:44:45Z")
Project much, pal? If you wish to dismantle any points I’ve made, go right ahead and try. Perhaps your inability to do so is the source of your aggravation, and your wish that I wasn’t doing it. The point is still that the “state militias” whose claimed nonexistence so aggravates Unc (and you, with a bit less invective) are, in fact, the National Guard. A simple click on the provided link, one of many available, would clarify that for you by explaining their history. Even the very brief quote I excerpted shows that the militias were renamed National Guard in 1903, despite your silly contention that the Guard simply did not exist before then. > [@](#): > > Official state militias do exist And they are, in fact, well-regulated by a government - not by We the People, as **catsix** seems to be implying can be the only interpretation, one which it seems you share. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-gun-control-folks-a-question/300967/119 "2005-04-27T15:57:45Z")
[More source material](http://www.guninformation.org/secondamendment.html), for those who do know that Supreme Court rulings are final: > [@](#): > > In US v. Miller the Supreme Court, explained that historically “the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.” In more recently rulings the Supreme Court has made clear what the modern day militia is. “The National Guard is the modern Militia reserved to the States by Art. I. 8, cl. 15, 16, of the Constitution…The passage of the National Defense Act of 1916 materially altered the status of the militias by constituting them as the National Guard.” Maryland v. United States, 381 U.S. 41, 46 (1965). And in 1990 the Supreme Court ruled that “Notwithstanding the brief periods of federal service, the members of the state Guard unit continue to satisfy this description of a militia.” Perpich v. Department of Defense, 496 U.S. 334, 355 (1990) Is that clear enough, Mr. Krebbs or UncleBeer? ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-gun-control-folks-a-question/300967/120 "2005-04-27T16:04:37Z")
> [@Mr. Krebbs](#): > > **Mhendo,** I do understand that you are trying to put forth a reasonable manner in which law-abiding gun owners may sell their guns to other law-abiding citizens, while not to criminals. This is commenable. However, your idea simply would not work. Not only for the reason that **Arwin** postulated (though I highly doubt the accuracy of the “half million stolen” number), but also because someone who wishes to buy a gun illegally would have no qualms about purchasing a firearm that has already had its serial number removed. Even when the police came into possession of such a gun, they would not be able to trace it back to the legal owner (not that he is no longer law-abiding). Really, the only effect that such a law would have is to create more of a hassle for law-abiding gun owners to buy and sell firearms. Well, again, someone has to have filed the serial number off. And doing that is, if i’m not mistaken, illegal. I’m just calling for laws that make it easier to trace where, in the chain of custody, the illegal act took place, and to hold the correct person responsible. And if that creates a little more red tape and hassle in the transfer of firearms, it’s something that i think is acceptable. > [@Mr. Krebbs](#): > > Furthermore, I’m not sure that I agree with the notion that when a citizen commits a felony and serves his time in jail (and on probation, if applicable) that he should be forbidden from owning a firearm. Even an ex-convict has the right to defend himself, and due to possible criminal assosciates, might even have more of a reason to own a gun for self-defense than the average citizen. If you’ve read or seen A Clockwork Orange, both book and film illustrate rather well why denying anyone a right to self-defense is wrong. Well, much as i love _A Clockwork Orange_, i’m not sure that i’m willing to formulate US firearms policy based on it. As for the right of the convicted felon to defend himself, your position is one that essentially uses the criminal’s own history of violent associations as a reason to allow him to carry a gun. I just can’t agree with that. The former criminal should take steps to remove himself from criminal associates. If that means moving to another area, then i prefer that to allowing the felon to carry a gun. Just out of interest, having supported the right of former felons to own guns, do you support state legislation forbidding convicted felons from voting in elections? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-gun-control-folks-a-question/300967.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-gun-control-folks-a-question/300967.md?page=7)