# 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:** 1\ **Showing post:** 81
**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 29, 2015, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-private-gun-sellers-have-any-liability-if-the-purchaser-uses-the-gun-to-commit-a-crime/735465/81 "2015-10-29T19:49:01Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > “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. First off, Red Dawn? For real? As much as I like Patrick Swaze, it’s silly to even mention a movie in this context. Second of all, you didn’t actually dispute my statement about the definition of a slippery slope argument. There exists both fallacious and non-fallacious slippery slope arguments. And further, the tactic of opposing incremental restrictions is not one based merely on logical truisms - it’s one of tactics and strategy. [We’ve had discussions on this board about this before.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=415232) In that thread, RP stated: _“When people invoke the slippery slope, they are almost never saying that some action will logically require another. They are just saying that the probability of the latter action is significantly increased.”_[From a discussion on slippery slopes from Prof. Volokh](http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/slippery.pdf): > [@](#): > > The slippery slope is a familiar label for many instances of this > phenomenon: when someone says “I oppose partial-birth abortion bans > because they might lead to broader abortion restrictions,” or “I oppose > gun registration because it might lead to gun prohibition,” the common > reaction is “That’s a slippery slope argument.” But whatever one calls > these arguments, the important point is that a person is asking the > question “Does it make sense for me to support A, given that it might > lead others to support B?,” which breaks down into “How much do I > like A?,” “How much do I dislike B?,” and, the focus of this Article, > "How likely is A to lead others to support B?"1 4 And this last question > in turn requires us to ask “What are the mechanisms by which A can > lead others to support B?” > [@](#): > > 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. There is no distinction between federal or state when it comes to the individual. Does it matter to him that the person threatening them with prison if they do not surrender their property wears a badge from the FBI or from the sheriff? Your insistence on clinging to this meaningless distinction without a difference is unpersuasive. > [@](#): > > We do this all the time. Have you ever been through airport security? And it’s a joke. Just because we engage in imbecilic security theater in one arena is no support to propagate the practice in other areas. And wasn’t it you who criticized this: > [@Why are gun owners not required to carry insurance?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-gun-owners-not-required-to-carry-insurance/735454/104): > > You are imposing costs on one group of gun owners (legal gun owners) for acts that are largely committed by another group of gun owners (people who are not allowed to purchase guns). > [@](#): > > 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. This is fantasy land. I might as well say that I support universal background checks, registration, and licensing as long as we also have a constitutional amendment saying that gun ownership is a suspect class and that no firearms, weapons, or accessories will ever be banned or restricted in the future and that all firearm laws will be in the future and retroactively subject to strict scrutiny with all levels of government to pay for attorney fees when they lose challenges based on the new amendment. If that happens, then sure I’d support registration. And I want a unicorn. Your proposal emboldens gun control advocates. > [@](#): > > 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? These are banned in CA. Suppressors are banned in many states. > [@](#): > > 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? Yes, I do not want prohibited persons to obtain firearms. I have no problem when firearms are taken from a prohibited person. You aren’t following the complaint. The issue is that gun control advocates engage in multi-pronged efforts. One of those is to expand the list of prohibited people. This is a backdoor way to limit those who can own firearms. So yes it’s obvious we don’t want prohibited people to have firearms - it’s in the name 'natch. But then the question becomes, who is a prohibited person, how is a new prohibited person determined, what process surrounds who can be designated a prohibited person, etc. If some bureaucrat has the ability to declare tomorrow that you are now a prohibited person, and you have little to no recourse to contest it, and the sheriff is at your door (from the state of course) to confiscate your weapons that you have dutifully registered, I think you’d be upset. So fine - give me a constitutional amendment like I stated earlier, and then and only then would I consider any action supported by gun control advocates. This applies to magazine restrictions, ammo restrictions, zoning restrictions, ivory bans, and all manner of incremental actions designed to impact gun ownership. These incremental efforts are what you seem either blind to, or are willing to accept because you think that gun control advocates will stop at some point. Maybe they will - but 100% of past experience does not support that idea. > [@](#): > > 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. You are not understanding. It’s not an argument - it’s a strategy. I’m not saying that the second must follow from the first - but it is better tactics to defend against the first reducing the possibility of the second. --- _[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-private-gun-sellers-have-any-liability-if-the-purchaser-uses-the-gun-to-commit-a-crime/735465)._