# Do private gun sellers have any liability if the purchaser uses the gun to commit a crime? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 22, 2015, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-private-gun-sellers-have-any-liability-if-the-purchaser-uses-the-gun-to-commit-a-crime/735465 "2015-10-22T15:59:29Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2015, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-private-gun-sellers-have-any-liability-if-the-purchaser-uses-the-gun-to-commit-a-crime/735465/61 "2015-10-28T14:24:33Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > So it’s okay to hire someone to kill someone else? Or do you think we should hold that person accountable, too? Hiring someone to kill someone else is conspiracy to murder. Having your gun stolen and being charged with murder is a totally different animal. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2015, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-private-gun-sellers-have-any-liability-if-the-purchaser-uses-the-gun-to-commit-a-crime/735465/62 "2015-10-28T14:32:58Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > I don’t know for sure, but I think most people convicted of murder have criminal records which makes it extremely unlikely they’d be able to legally purchase handguns. > > I could be wrong though. Yes most have criminal records but only felons, fugitives and wifebeaters are denied access to guns as a result of criminal record. People under indictment for a felony are also prohibited persons. So most gun murders are probably committed by criminals who did not possess the gun legally. Also minors cannot purchase guns legally and commit about 1000 (out of 14,000) murders a year. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2015, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-private-gun-sellers-have-any-liability-if-the-purchaser-uses-the-gun-to-commit-a-crime/735465/63 "2015-10-28T14:44:30Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > How would that be different than the scenario we have right now? There would be some non-zero amount of people subject to background checks that weren’t before. I’d say that’s a net positive. I would have an incentive to use it were I to sell a firearm I own because I have no desire to sell to a prohibited person. I would conjecture that most gun owners would not want to sell to prohibited persons either. And since it’s already a crime to sell to a prohibited person knowingly, this would have given people an avenue to verify the status of buyers. > > It is why gun rights advocates are so skeptical of universal background checks. We could have them today - but it seems like registration is the real goal. What’s wrong with registration? If you are saying that it is a stepping stone to something else then isn’t that “something else” the goal? Every argument I have heard against registration (aside from the objections of the ACLU) have been a slippery slope argument. The argument is that registration will lead to something else. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2015, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-private-gun-sellers-have-any-liability-if-the-purchaser-uses-the-gun-to-commit-a-crime/735465/64 "2015-10-28T14:45:40Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > If every (legal) sale gets recorded, then it amounts to registration. Gun grabbers would have a database of firearms and who owns them. That seems to be their goal. They reject any background check system that doesn’t allow them to assemble this database. Wait. Wasn’t the Coburn bill defeated mostly by Republicans? IIRC only a handful of Democrats voted against the bill. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2015, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-private-gun-sellers-have-any-liability-if-the-purchaser-uses-the-gun-to-commit-a-crime/735465/65 "2015-10-28T14:52:45Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Well, the story did say: > > If that doesn’t answer your question, I don’t know what does. > > Here’s [another article on the same subject](http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/06/17213403-gun-control-efforts-hit-senate-snag?lite) > > The Democrats didn’t really want universal background checks. They want registration. They get irked when someone suggests a solution that doesn’t allow them to make lists of firearms and their owners. Can we please not conflate Democrats with gun control? There are plenty of Democratic members of the NRA. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2015, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-private-gun-sellers-have-any-liability-if-the-purchaser-uses-the-gun-to-commit-a-crime/735465/66 "2015-10-28T15:06:27Z")
> [@sweeteviljesus](#): > > Is the standard that the seller had to do something illegal in order to incur liability? For criminal liability? Usually. Yes. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2015, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-private-gun-sellers-have-any-liability-if-the-purchaser-uses-the-gun-to-commit-a-crime/735465/67 "2015-10-28T15:19:23Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > [Here](http://www.lowellsun.com/breakingnews/ci_29002407/tewksbury-gun-suspect-held-bail) is one recent example. The ATF enticed a broke veteran to drive a few miles into another state to sell a few of his personal guns to support his 7-months pregnant wife. This wasn’t some master arms dealer, this was a poor dope that didn’t fully understand the law. Now he’s facing a long prison sentence. I hope the people that think they’re “fighting crime” by doing this sort of thing burn in hell. On the one hand, he HAD to know that selling an AR-15 in Massachussetts was illegal. On the other hand, WTF!!! There has GOT to be more to this story. The ATF doesn’t even go after felons that try (and fail) to purchase a firearm. ---
**Author:** ![sweeteviljesus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/898d66/32.png) [@sweeteviljesus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sweeteviljesus)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2015, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-private-gun-sellers-have-any-liability-if-the-purchaser-uses-the-gun-to-commit-a-crime/735465/68 "2015-10-28T15:19:35Z")
I meant for civil liability as well, but negligence is a factor there as well, even if the defendant or respondent or whatever they are called did not break the law. ---
**Author:** ![sweeteviljesus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/898d66/32.png) [@sweeteviljesus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sweeteviljesus)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2015, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-private-gun-sellers-have-any-liability-if-the-purchaser-uses-the-gun-to-commit-a-crime/735465/69 "2015-10-28T15:23:45Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > On the other hand, WTF!!! There has GOT to be more to this story. The ATF doesn’t even go after felons that try (and fail) to purchase a firearm. I wouldn’t put it past law enforcement to make an crime seem bigger than it is. For example, the Newburg Four, while admittedly scummy, are a pretty far cry from al Quaeda, but that is how the FBI painted them. I am sure you are familiar with the expression, “make a federal case out of it.” ---
**Author:** ![sweeteviljesus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/898d66/32.png) [@sweeteviljesus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sweeteviljesus)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2015, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-private-gun-sellers-have-any-liability-if-the-purchaser-uses-the-gun-to-commit-a-crime/735465/70 "2015-10-28T15:41:14Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > What’s wrong with registration? If you are saying that it is a stepping stone to something else then isn’t that “something else” the goal? > > Every argument I have heard against registration (aside from the objections of the ACLU) have been a slippery slope argument. The argument is that registration will lead to something else. I believe the fear is that confiscation is only really possible through registration. And while plenty of people like you and me, and in the absence of the threat of confiscation, even Bone and HurricaneDitka probably don’t have a problem with it per se, but there are a lot of people who want to ban civilian ownership of firearms outright. The opponents of registration kind of have a point as tragedies are followed by calls for new gun control measures. If registration is fully implemented, what’s left to call for? There’s also the fear that firearms will be confiscated by mistake, as in the aforementioned case of David Lewis. Perhaps such confiscations should be followed by a hearing where the state has to show that it has a good reason to confiscate rather than force the burden of proof on the other party. I do feel that registration would have a positive impact on crime committed with firearms, although it would take a while to realize that. Unregistered firearms (and there will be a lot of them for a long time) will continue to fuel the black market. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2015, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-private-gun-sellers-have-any-liability-if-the-purchaser-uses-the-gun-to-commit-a-crime/735465/71 "2015-10-28T15:42:32Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > On the one hand, he HAD to know that selling an AR-15 in Massachussetts was illegal. On the other hand, WTF!!! There has GOT to be more to this story. The ATF doesn’t even go after felons that try (and fail) to purchase a firearm. You think this is an isolated incident? [The BATFE is a fucking joke.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2015/02/02/more-evidence-that-atf-stings-were-aimed-at-the-weak-mentally-challenged-and-drug-addicted/) > [@](#): > > Agents pressed suspects for specific firearms that could fetch tougher penalties in court. They allowed felons to walk out of the stores armed with guns. In Wichita, agents suggested a felon take a shotgun, saw it off and bring it back — and provided instructions on how to do it. The sawed-off gun allowed them to charge the man with a more serious crime. [The BATFE targeted brain damaged mentally incompetent people:](http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/watchdogreports/botched-atf-sting-in-milwaukee-ensnares-braindamaged-man-pk9d6or-201794871.html) > [@](#): > > ATF agents running an undercover storefront in Milwaukee used a brain-damaged man with a low IQ to set up gun and drug deals, paying him in cigarettes, merchandise and money, according to federal documents obtained by the Journal Sentinel. > > For more than six months, federal agents relied on Chauncey Wright to promote “Fearless Distributing” by handing out fliers as he rode his bike around town recommending the store to friends, family and strangers, according to federal prosecutors and family members. > > Wright, unaware that the store was an undercover operation being run by agents with the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, also stocked shelves with shoes, clothing, drug paraphernalia and auto parts, according to his family. > > Once authorities shut down the operation, they charged the 28-year-old man with federal gun and drug counts. [The BATFE refuses to pay for damage caused by it’s stupid fucking sting operation and had their cache of weapons stolen:](http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/watchdogreports/atfs-milwaukee-sting-operation-marred-by-mistakes-failures-mu8akpj-188952581.html) > [@](#): > > David Salkin unknowingly rented his building at 1220 E. Meinecke Ave. to the ATF, which ran an undercover sting. Burglars broke into the business, ending the operation. Salkin says the ATF owes him $15,000 for damage and unpaid utility bills. The agency has refused to pay. The BATFE convinced mentally disabled people to tattoo themselves to advertise fake storefronts in their stupid fucking stings, then arrested them: > [@](#): > > Aaron Key wasn’t sure he wanted a tattoo on his neck. Especially one of a giant squid smoking a joint. > > But the guys running Squid’s Smoke Shop in Portland, Ore., convinced him: It would be a perfect way to promote their store. > > They would even pay him and a friend $150 apiece if they agreed to turn their bodies into walking billboards. > > Key, who is mentally disabled, was swayed. > > He and his friend, Marquis Glover, liked Squid’s. It was their hangout. The 19-year-olds spent many afternoons there playing Xbox and chatting with the owner, “Squid,” and the store clerks. > > So they took the money and got the ink etched on their necks, tentacles creeping down to their collarbones. > > It would be months before the young men learned the whole thing was a setup. The guys running Squid’s were actually undercover ATF agents conducting a sting to get guns away from criminals and drugs off the street. > > The tattoos had been sponsored by the U.S. government; advertisements for a fake storefront. > > The teens found out as they were arrested and booked into jail. The BATFE doesn’t go after felons that try and fail to purchase a firearm because that would be too much work - they’re too busy trying to arrest mentally disabled people they’ve convinced to commit crimes. Fuck them. From the first link: _"**(I)f you want more federal gun-control laws, keep in mind that this is the agency that would be enforcing them."**_ ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2015, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-private-gun-sellers-have-any-liability-if-the-purchaser-uses-the-gun-to-commit-a-crime/735465/72 "2015-10-28T15:59:56Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > What’s wrong with registration? If you are saying that it is a stepping stone to something else then isn’t that “something else” the goal? > > Every argument I have heard against registration (aside from the objections of the ACLU) have been a slippery slope argument. The argument is that registration will lead to something else. First off - as I make two separate posts aware of the irony, can you not make 10 replies in a row that are relatively short responses? It’s terrible to read. Just a request. Second - there is nothing wrong with a slippery slope argument if there is in fact a slippery slope. A slippery slope argument is only fallacious when the consequence would not follow from the original proposition. Third - there have already been confiscations. Fourth - It is offensive and misguided to burden individuals who have done nothing wrong so that people who have actually done something wrong may be deterred. It also wouldn’t work. Fifth - there are multiple ongoing efforts to use registration lists to expand the population of prohibited persons. Recently the Obama administration pushed the idea that anyone who was on Rep Payee should be a prohibited person which is ridiculous. Having a registration list simply provides more targets as more and more items become banned. There is a proposed ballot initiative in CA to register all ammunition now. Stupid laws once enacted are difficult and resource consuming to overturn or repeal. Sixth - Registration is not the end goal - complete prohibition of private firearms is the goal of gun control. It isn’t the goal of everyone, but it is the goal of enough that it needs to be resisted every step of the way. See the Hughes Amendment. Seventh - getting on the list of prohibited persons is like the no-fly list in some places. No due process to be stripped of rights and registration facilitates the violation of those rights. Any action that can potentially lead to any ban or confiscation should be opposed as if it were the same. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2015, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-private-gun-sellers-have-any-liability-if-the-purchaser-uses-the-gun-to-commit-a-crime/735465/73 "2015-10-28T17:12:04Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Wait. Wasn’t the Coburn bill defeated mostly by Republicans? IIRC only a handful of Democrats voted against the bill. I don’t believe Coburn’s proposal was ever brought up for a vote. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Can we please not conflate Democrats with gun control? There are plenty of Democratic members of the NRA. [The article](http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/06/17213403-gun-control-efforts-hit-senate-snag?lite) said, “Senate **Democrats** … have abandoned discussions with GOP Sen. Tom Coburn, leaving the legislation – at least for now – without backing from a pro-gun Republican.” I realize that there are some members of both parties that buck their party on RKBA issues, but in general Democrats support gun control and Republicans support the right of the people to keep and bear arms. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2015, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-private-gun-sellers-have-any-liability-if-the-purchaser-uses-the-gun-to-commit-a-crime/735465/74 "2015-10-28T17:21:46Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Because that’s what your side does: demand “stricter enforcement of existing law” while defunding (or defanging) the agencies tasked with enforcing it. I also agree with what Bone said about the ATF. They are a horrible, terrible, dirty rotten, no good, very bad federal agency. What you call “defanging” I see as an effort to rein in an out-of-control agency. I applaud the Republicans’ effort on that front. ---
**Author:** ![tooldtocare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e19adc/32.png) [@tooldtocare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tooldtocare)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2015, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-private-gun-sellers-have-any-liability-if-the-purchaser-uses-the-gun-to-commit-a-crime/735465/75 "2015-10-28T19:23:57Z")
\*\*Note to posters: \*\* If you are finding the small text hard to see and/or read just hold down your [CTRL] key while rolling you mouse roller up or down ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2015, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-private-gun-sellers-have-any-liability-if-the-purchaser-uses-the-gun-to-commit-a-crime/735465/76 "2015-10-29T18:13:52Z")
> [@sweeteviljesus](#): > > I believe the fear is that confiscation is only really possible through registration. And while plenty of people like you and me, and in the absence of the threat of confiscation, even Bone and HurricaneDitka probably don’t have a problem with it per se, but there are a lot of people who want to ban civilian ownership of firearms outright. > > The opponents of registration kind of have a point as tragedies are followed by calls for new gun control measures. If registration is fully implemented, what’s left to call for? > > There’s also the fear that firearms will be confiscated by mistake, as in the aforementioned case of David Lewis. Perhaps such confiscations should be followed by a hearing where the state has to show that it has a good reason to confiscate rather than force the burden of proof on the other party. > > I do feel that registration would have a positive impact on crime committed with firearms, although it would take a while to realize that. Unregistered firearms (and there will be a lot of them for a long time) will continue to fuel the black market. I agree that it would take a long time but so would a complete gun ban. As for confiscation. A really totalitarian regime can do it without a registry. There are 300 million guns in America. If it was really a tyranny that wanted to confiscate all guns, about 90% of these guns would be surrendered voluntarily and about 90% of what is left would be confiscated at the point of a gun. They have disarmed the populace in many places without a registry. Sure you can hide a gun or two but they can effectively disarm the public without a registry. ---
**Author:** ![Claverhouse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/13edae/32.png) [@Claverhouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Claverhouse)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2015, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-private-gun-sellers-have-any-liability-if-the-purchaser-uses-the-gun-to-commit-a-crime/735465/77 "2015-10-29T18:29:16Z")
> [@tooldtocare](#): > > \*\*Note to posters: \*\* > > If you are finding the small text hard to see and/or read just hold down your [CTRL] key while rolling you mouse roller up or down Or just install NoSquint and adjust each site’s font exactly as you wish for once and all. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2015, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-private-gun-sellers-have-any-liability-if-the-purchaser-uses-the-gun-to-commit-a-crime/735465/78 "2015-10-29T18:44:16Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I also agree with what Bone said about the ATF. They are a horrible, terrible, dirty rotten, no good, very bad federal agency. What you call “defanging” I see as an effort to rein in an out-of-control agency. I applaud the Republicans’ effort on that front. That’s fine, but defunding the agency rather than making any effort to reform it is unacceptable when your entire argument against new legislation is that the agency (should) make it unnecessary. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2015, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-private-gun-sellers-have-any-liability-if-the-purchaser-uses-the-gun-to-commit-a-crime/735465/79 "2015-10-29T19:03:38Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > First off - as I make two separate posts aware of the irony, can you not make 10 replies in a row that are relatively short responses? It’s terrible to read. Just a request. Walls of text are hard to read too. I have spurts of downtime so my posts come in spurts. > [@](#): > > Second - there is nothing wrong with a slippery slope argument if there is in fact a slippery slope. A slippery slope argument is only fallacious when the consequence would not follow from the original proposition. “a slippery slope is a logical device in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any rational argument or demonstrable mechanism for the inevitability of the event in question” -Wikipedia There is no inevitability of confiscation that results from registration. in fact registration is not even a precondition to confiscation. It might make confiscation easier but it would make local confiscation harder without the cooperation of the federal government. Remember Red Dawn? The commies broke into the gun shop and pulled out all the gun sale records that the gun shop was required to maintain locally. If those records were in Washington DC, the commies would have had to take over the federal government and not just a gun shop on Main Street. > [@](#): > > Third - there have already been confiscations. Not at the federal level. In fact we have had a federal registry of automatic firearms for over 80 years and they have not used it for confiscation. > [@](#): > > Fourth - It is offensive and misguided to burden individuals who have done nothing wrong so that people who have actually done something wrong may be deterred. It also wouldn’t work. We do this all the time. Have you ever been through airport security? Furthermore, I always try to propose licensing and registration along with universal carry permits and the pre-emption of all local and state gun laws along with repeal of the part of the NFA having to do with suppressors, SBRs and SBSs. > [@](#): > > Fifth - there are multiple ongoing efforts to use registration lists to expand the population of prohibited persons. Recently the Obama administration pushed the idea that anyone who was on Rep Payee should be a prohibited person which is ridiculous. Having a registration list simply provides more targets as more and more items become banned. There is a proposed ballot initiative in CA to register all ammunition now. Stupid laws once enacted are difficult and resource consuming to overturn or repeal. Did the machine gun registry cause us to start targeting people on the registry? There is a registry of SBRs, SBSs and suppressors. After the Hughes amendment, has anyone tried to ban any of those things? I have also always proposed HIPAA type penalties for improper disclosure of registry information. > [@](#): > > Sixth - Registration is not the end goal - complete prohibition of private firearms is the goal of gun control. It isn’t the goal of everyone, but it is the goal of enough that it needs to be resisted every step of the way. See the Hughes Amendment. The hughes amendment was simply a back door ban on machine guns by closing the registry, the hughes amendment could just as easily have been an amendment that added a ban on machine guns. The threat of bans will always be with us regardless of whether or not we have a registry, the registry doesn’t make the political process any easier. We have seen them try to ban things like Assault Weapons and it blew up in their face, I was embarrassed for them, it was almost cringeworthy embarrassment. > [@](#): > > Seventh - getting on the list of prohibited persons is like the no-fly list in some places. No due process to be stripped of rights and registration facilitates the violation of those rights. Wait. WHAT!?!?! We both agree that prohibited persons should not get guns, right? So why wouldn’t you prefer a situation where we could take guns away from prohibited persons? or are you saying we should get rid of the prohibited person rules? > [@](#): > > Any action that can potentially lead to any ban or confiscation should be opposed as if it were the same. And that is the slippery slope argument. Lets treat something that might lead to a second action as if it were the second action itself. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2015, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-private-gun-sellers-have-any-liability-if-the-purchaser-uses-the-gun-to-commit-a-crime/735465/80 "2015-10-29T19:04:43Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I don’t believe Coburn’s proposal was ever brought up for a vote. > > [The article](http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/06/17213403-gun-control-efforts-hit-senate-snag?lite) said, “Senate **Democrats** … have abandoned discussions with GOP Sen. Tom Coburn, leaving the legislation – at least for now – without backing from a pro-gun Republican.” > > I realize that there are some members of both parties that buck their party on RKBA issues, but in general Democrats support gun control and Republicans support the right of the people to keep and bear arms. You’re right. I misread the article. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-private-gun-sellers-have-any-liability-if-the-purchaser-uses-the-gun-to-commit-a-crime/735465.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-private-gun-sellers-have-any-liability-if-the-purchaser-uses-the-gun-to-commit-a-crime/735465.md?page=5)