Under recent legislation in Virginia, the State Police have tables at all the major gun shows, where private sellers can get background checks of their buyers (without going through an FFL). This system is entirely voluntary. It's unclear how many people are using it. I see the State Police representatives looking rather lonely sitting at their tables.
Only if free men refuse to fight.
They go to the bound book for that.
Uh, I didn't pose a question, instead "who then produces the 4473" was a statement of action. It was a progressive sentence, the "who" is there to clarify the party performing the subsequent action. For the purpose of my point it makes no difference whether they use their "bound book" rifle through a stack of 4473's, or look it up in their computer database.
No, I didn't contradict myself at all. A NICS background check is not considered proof that a firearm was transferred. A person can fill out a 4473, gotten the OK, and then decided not to purchase a firearm (in their case they had planned a certain amount and were a few dollars short when tax was included). A 4473 inquiry only has the information contained in questions 1-10 (name, place and date of birth, height weight, etc.) and whether the proposed transfer is for a handgun, long gun, or other firearm.
Not a bad idea. Available if you want to use it, but your choice.
You can tell a lot by a person's appearance and demeanor. If someone looks and acts like a scuzzball, that should cause red flags to go up, and you shouldn't sell him the weapon. Subjective, I know, but "you know them when you see them." At the gun shows I go to, maybe 25% of the attendees fit that description, and they seem to have no problem buying guns from private sellers. Now, if the scuzzball really is OK (for example if he's an undercover cop), he would have no problem buying from a licensed dealer after a NICS check. (On the other hand, perfectly clean-cut individuals could be criminals.) Absent a system to objectively check a buyer's bona fides, it's wise for private sellers to err on the side of caution. A non-registration UBC system would make life easier for conscientious private sellers. What we want to avoid is the system you have there in Washington State. Leave the FFL's out of private sales.
It's not the criminal use of firearms that anti-gun cultists want to end.
Obviously the FFL's would profit from a UBC system that funnels all transactions through FFL's. They would collect transfer fees every time a gun changes hands. Do you think perhaps they are lobbying for it behind the scenes?
No, there isn't. The Form 4473 was instituted after the GCA of 1968. At that time, there was no way to quickly verify the truth of the statements made on the form. So buyers filled out the form more or less "on the honor system," with the proviso that they could be prosecuted later for lying. In the meantime, they could get their gun. The Brady checks (with a 5-day waiting period) came in in 1993, and the instant checks (NICS) weren't fully implemented until 1998.
If they were in combat they would all be dead.
In REALITY, it's simple recognition of the profound malice and deceit of the anti-gun cult.
The biggest thing that jumps out is FOPA. Pro-gun improvements in exchange for the Hughes Amendment. The NRA seemed to think it was a net gain. (I don't agree.)
