Posted on 09/30/2014 6:19:11 AM PDT by marktwain
Alan Gottlieb, at the Gun Rights Policy Conference, asked a very scary question. It is a question loaded with bad premises, freighted with unintended consequences. It was terrifying when you consider where it leads us, as a society.
It was: Would you sell a gun to someone you do not know?
The premise that underlies the question is that selling a gun to someone that you do not know is irresponsible, and that it should be regulated by the government.
Alan followed up his question with another terrifying premise: If you sell your gun to someone who later uses it in a crime, you could be held liable for the criminal's actions.
Alan asked us whether a jury would hold a person liable if they sold a gun to someone they did not know, who committed a crime with it later.
This premise has already been knocked down by at least one court, because it takes us down the rabbit hole to Alice in Wonderland. No one should be held responsible for the actions someone else commits with property that was legally sold. If you can be held liable for this, then selling a car, or a computer, or a telephone, or a knife, or a chainsaw to someone who later uses it criminally would make the seller liable for that criminal act. It undercuts the very foundation of a free society.
Alan is a very smart guy. I respect Alan. I like Alan. The premise of his question is horrifying. It is a simple train of thought.
1. Selling to someone you do not know is irresponsible.
2. To prevent this irresponsible action, the government must monitor who things are sold to, so that bad people cannot buy things that can be used in crimes.
3. If the government must monitor transactions so that bad people may not buy things that the government thinks they should not have, then the government may stop those transactions.
4. This does not stop at guns. Knives can be used in crime, as can cars, and computers, and shoes.
5. If the government may stop those transactions, they may stop *any* transactions, because virtually everything and all transactions may be used for criminal purposes. Governments have historically used this power to disenfranchise and destroy those who they politically disagree with.
The freedom to buy and sell to people anonymously is a fundamental property right. If the government can say that you may not sell your property, it has taken that property from you.
If we believe that some individuals are so dangerous that they should not have access to certain things, such as guns or knives or computers, then those people need to be in prison or closely monitored so that they do not have access to those things.
Setting up a system so that everyone in society is monitored to prevent the actions of a few evil or irresponsible people is an excuse to control everyone. It is what has brought us to the NSA recording all telephone conversations.
A free society is put in grave peril when such systems are put in place. Those in power are always tempted to use such systems to help keep them in power.
Could the IRS ever be used for political purposes?
President Nixon was hounded out of office for merely considering it.
It appears that elements of the current administration actually did it.
Alan Gottlieb made these remarks while talking to the conference about his concerns with the gun control dueling initiatives in Washington State.
He believes that severe gun control, disguised as "universal background checks" is likely to pass in Washington State. The initiative for this is number I 594. Billionaires have contributed millions of dollars to push I 594. The pro freedom forces are being outspent 8 to 1.
A competing initiative was put on the ballot to prevent the abuses inherent in the densely worded 18 pages of legalese that is I-594.
It is initiative I-591. It is a simple one page initiative that requires background checks in Washington State to comply with national standards, and to require due process before any gun is confiscated. It is behind in the polls.
Whether you are a Christian or not, there is much wisdom in the Bible. In the book of Revelations, the most evil of governments puts in place a system where no one can buy or sell without government permission.
For millions of people in NAZI Germany and The Soviet Union, that sort of control meant the end of the world.
©2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch
“Background check” means ‘Does the government approve of what you are about to do?’
the decision whether or not to sell an item is strictly on me.
once the sale has been completed, the relationship ends there (exceptions for warrantys that help entice the buyer)
to say the seller is responsible for the use of items sold after the fact is absurd. the property is not in his possession and not under his control. he would have to be a mind reader and a fortune teller to foresee criminal intent months in advance.
how about this... in such a world... if these criminals were released from prison, wouldn’t the state be at fault for any crimes they committed in the future, as they gave them their freedom knowing criminal activity was possible?
Not only “does it approve?” but “will it be allowed?”
An issue I have is “we” seem to support background checks when buying a gun from a dealer/FFL. I personally am not in favor of any background check, but the NRA and most 2A organizations seem to (enforce existing laws, blah, blah).
So this begs the question that if a background check at the dealer is a good idea and supposedly “keeps guns out of the wrong hands”, then why aren’t all sales checked? What good is it if a “bad guy” can bypass the dealer background check by purchasing from a private party?
These are the types of questions I get from antis and fence sitters and I don’t have a very good answer.
Personally, I’d like to see GCA’68 and NFA ‘34 repealed so I can ring up Colt and have an M4 delivered to my front door. But nowadays most people freak out at the thought of that much freedom.
It’s the other way ‘round.
One of the greatest bits of wisdom my dad ever imparted to me was “Don’t ever sell your used car to a friend if you value the friendship.”
Private sales are the safety valve that stops background checks from becoming registration, enabeling confiscation:
http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2013/08/how-to-get-gun-without-background-check.html
The vast majority of guns ‘in the wrong hands’ are stolen. Plain and simple - that’s where they come from.
They form burglary teams that specifically target homes that they suspect have guns, and sell the stolen goods outside of government supervision.
Next biggest source - straw buyers.
The incidence of a criminal being caught with a gun he purchased at a gun show (sans background check) is rare enough to be newsworthy.
Background checks don’t stop the trade of stolen guns or straw bought guns.
Me personally? If I sell a gun, I will do it through a dealer. I don’t know all the laws...and if I accidentally sell a gun to a felon, I’m not sure what that means to me. And I don’t know about my liability for civil action, if the guy turns around and kills someone. So I cower under the government boot, and plan to obey.
I bought my trap gun from a site called trapshooters. We didn’t know each other and I’m now looking to upgrade again. That means I’ll list my gun there and buy another one there. I don’t see any issues with that, I don’t think its anyones business either
In my state you need a license to carry.
I should see that before I sell the person a handgun.
If the state is OK with their credentials, who am I to question them?
How many checks do we have to make? I argue that we all have the inherent right to own a firearm. But the Commonwealth places other restrictions on ownership. If I am following those stupid laws, that should be enough.
Seems like the entire West Coast is lost to “loonies” that want the government to control and give them everything. No more personal responsibility (i.e., if you sell the gun, you, not the buyer, are responsible for the subsequent actions) equals total government dominance. Is this not the end goal of our current administration?
Exactly!
I’d never sell a car to someone I know, but I’d never sell a gun to someone I didn’t.
Although I have no intention of selling any of my guns, I’ve told my son who to go to if something happens to me and he wants to move them on
I sold a hammer to a complete stranger.......
My dad practiced what he preached. Sold his clunker Pontiac station wagon to a group of foreign grad students at the University of Pittsburgh. It probably became a school bus in Indonesia.
I’m more cautious than you are. I would not sell a car to someone else. If it has a problem that can be attributed to me by some out-of-control lawyer, I could end up responsible for an accident or later problem. Same thing with knives, pressure cookers, you name it. In these crazy days, I could be arming a terrorist.
Once the transaction is complete and I have a sellers copy bill of sale (I’ve gotten one for every car I’ve sold, I don’t sell guns) what happens after that is none of my business nor should I be responsible in any way.
And I think you should be able to buy and sell like that - it should be your own choice.
All of the guns I own were bought from a dealer...so I’m ‘in the system’ already. And if any of my guns were ever used in a crime, the serial number would bring the police to my doorstep. So, my choice would be to use a dealer, to avoid that hassle.
Now if I bought a gun online, outside of ‘the system’, I wouldn’t be too worried about turning around and selling it online.
How about doing some background checks on the people living in the white hut? The American people were sold a bucket of crap - twice.
I sold a nice O/U shotgun to someone I didn’t know one time. Not the kind of weapon a criminal would typically use to commit a crime though. Of course, the person I sold it to might use it to hunt dove out of season or without a license. Should I then be an accessory to the crime?
I know a bit about buying guns. Selling one is an entirely foreign concept.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.