poll,... on weapon sales

[AZ Husker]

Since at the current time the poll is 100% no, I'd guess he knows.

 

[storage_man]

Up front I'm not a supporter of felons, but after rereading the 2A, I can find nowhere that says "except felons".
Either it's an unalienable right or it isn't, you can't have it both ways.

Congress says it can go both ways ? I agree with you, but RIGHTS and LAWS are different. Since LAWS are created by the peoples representatives, it has shown in the past that they have been able to override your rights, because you gave them the right to DO IT !

 

[Boriqua]

Up front I'm not a supporter of felons, but after rereading the 2A, I can find nowhere that says "except felons".
Either it's an unalienable right or it isn't, you can't have it both ways.

Congress says it can go both ways ? I agree with you, but RIGHTS and LAWS are different. Since LAWS are created by the peoples representatives, it has shown in the past that they have been able to override your rights, because you gave them the right to DO IT !

Very interesting point .. A little off the OP but interesting and deserves its own thread maybe. I am on the fence. Or not ..

My take is .. if you did your time and paid your debt then yes you should be able to own a firearm and vote. Unfortunately with over crowding, plea deals, court time being costly and at a premium are felons actually paying "their debt"

For me the only way for a murderer to repay his debt is with his life but their are a whole host of felonies on the books well below.

When I see some of the light sentences that murderers and rapist get .. I don't think they have paid what they owe and are not ready to rejoin the people and have the same rights as people who haven't done these things. I have personally known or met people who got out and did start a new healthy life and others that seemed like they just couldnt wait to get locked up again.

If they met with a parole board and the parole board says they are fit to rejoin society then I think they should have their rights reinstated. If they get out and commit crimes again .. then they obviously weren't ready for release and you should have kept them locked up.

 

[storage_man]

Again, you, me, and everybody else gave their representatives the rights to create these laws. Over the last 100+ years we the people ended up created a Professional Politician ! The upper education institutions have career paths in being a "PP". We elect them and expect them to do our bidding, but they don't because they are professionals enhancing their wealth.

Think about this: President Donald J. Trump volunteered to do this a job as president of the USA. He was able to spend the $$$ to try an do this job. He could easily retired and enjoy his later years. His children have the ability and $$ to mange his businesses. He had no reason to do this, but he felt a need to try and fix the wrongs that the professional politicians have created. He was successful because people are finally getting tired of "Professional Politicians".

The problem is we need another 500+ of them in DC. With out term limits its impossible to have a willing patriot (Wealthy or not) to succeed.

 

[Ballistic Therapy]

I only deal with people that have a CCW. That way I know they have already been cleared by the FBI.

Do you realize the state of Arizona has NO LAW REQUIRING you to check any ID, of any buyer, for any sale,... other than proof of residency?

There is no law that say's you have to prove proof of residency.
The law say's you can not knowingly sell to a prohibited possessor.
You don't have to ask anything.

 

[shooter444]

I only deal with people that have a CCW. That way I know they have already been cleared by the FBI.

Do you realize the state of Arizona has NO LAW REQUIRING you to check any ID, of any buyer, for any sale,... other than proof of residency?

[highlight=yellow]There is no law that say's you have to prove proof of residency.[/highlight]
The law say's you can not knowingly sell to a prohibited possessor.
You don't have to ask anything.

Hmmm,... I luv it when I learn something new,... but, you don't mind if I trust, but, verify?

________________________________________________________________________

Ballistic Therapy,...Well, I did a quick search and came across a conversation that sounded pretty real to me,.... what do you think?

"[highlight=yellow]You can only purchase a handgun in your state of legal residence. Purchasing a handgun in another state would require you to ship it to an FFL in your state of residence to be transferred to you in that state. You can't purchase handguns as a resident in two states at the same time.[/highlight]

If you're in Arizona as a snow bird and none of the below make you a resident you can't legally purchase a handgun and take possession of it without going through an FFL in your state of residence. If you are considered a resident of AZ then you can't legally purchase a handgun in MA.

State law (or state taxes) have nothing to do with this (other than establishing residency) as this is covered by federal law.

Also, one becomes a resident of Arizona when ANY of the following happens and require you to get a drivers license immediately.

"Once you move to Arizona, you'll need to get an AZ driver's license and register your vehicle(s) immediately upon establishing residency.

Arizona considers you a resident when any of the following situations apply:

You work in Arizona.
This does NOT apply to seasonal farm work.
You're a registered voter in AZ.
Your children go to an AZ school and the tuition rate reflects that of a resident.
Your business operates in AZ and operates vehicles in the state.
You have a business that uses vehicles as a transport for goods or passengers in AZ.
You live in AZ for 7 months or more during a calendar year (regardless of whether you claim AZ as your permanent residence)."

Source: Arizona New License Application Info | DMV.org

Read more: http://www.city-data.com/forum/arizona/2412410-buying-guns-without-az-drivers-license.html#ixzz61uK7gDWg"

 

[YNOTAZ]

Lucky he can't see this but easy peesy. Go to the Gifford Law Center, the liberal site that posts the most restrictive laws available to restrict further gun sales. Only 2 in AZ don't knowingly sell to a prohibited possessor and not to someone under age.

And crap while I'm at it, if might as well set the Claymore, if you know the person has an MMJ card and you sell the a firearm, you have committed a felony.

Have fun, of course everyone except snowflake444

 

[YNOTAZ]

I love it. He can't see my vote soo he can't bytch about it. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

There ya go now he can see it. LOL.

Thanks watching snowflakes melt is a pastime I miss since leaving the Midwest.

 

[gunpoorboy1]

Are you a felon?

"Nope"

Do you own those hand cuffs you have on?

"Yep"

Good enough for me. Here's your AR. (and be sure to fill out our poll questions)

 

[Ballistic Therapy]

Ask me no questions and I will tell you no lies.

 

[shooter444]

Jamnmike, who is currently on your ignore list, made this post.
YNOTAZ,who is currently on your ignore list, made this post.

"There ya go now he can see it. LOL."

_________________________________________________

No I can't !!! :dance: :dance: :dance: , so you want to play, huh, Jamnmike?

OK, I'll play !!! :lol: :lol: :lol: But I should warn you, I only play,...by my rules!!!

 

[admin]

I do the same as AZ Husker - though I simply ask if they are a "prohibited possessor". I also ask if they are an AZ resident.

The 4473 also asks questions like that that about felony conviction, drug user or someone who was adjudicated mentally ill, that they may choose to lie about - but that's on them, not me as a private seller.

The 4473 form is a backdoor infringement on the 2nd amendment and our Creator Endowed Inalienable Human Right to ,...LIFE, LIBERTY and the PURSUIT of HAPPINESS! It is nothing less than REGISTRATION leading, eventually, to CONFISCATION.

What possible reasoning do you have for letting that tyrannical One World Government sponsored Demonscat infringement,... creep into the Free State of Arizona, gun laws?

wait... I thought you were being facetious! But based on your subsequent replie(s), it seems you aren't. So I then take your reply to me is suggesting that I personally am somehow permitting the "One World Government sponsored Demonscat infringement" [sic] by asking a benign question when selling a firearm privately, and filling out a 4473 when buying a firearm from a gun shop/FFL?!

While in principle, don't disagree with you... the practicality of the matter is something else entirely. I am keenly aware that a felon who would go through with a FTF purchase would not respond honestly to a question asking if he were a prohibited possessor, nor answer honestly on questions on a 4473. That doesn't change the fact that if something happened down the road with the firearm and I am questioned about it, I would like to be able to say that I did my due diligence to ensure I sold it to someone who could legally own it.

Some people choose to only sell a gun if they can get a bill of sale, or will require a picture of the buyer's AZDL, or will write down that info.
Some people will sell a gun to anyone who has the cash, no questions asked.

I find my comfort level to be somewhere in the middle, especially if the gun I am selling to someone is one that I had to fill out a 4473 myself to acquire originally.

My $0.02.

 

[YNOTAZ]

if you ignore admin, do you cease to exist or do your snowflakes melt faster?

Asking for a friend who hasn't made the list yet.

PS he is quite pissed about it.

 

[shooter444]

No, not facetious, just opinionated. Speaking of which, and please, don't take this as a personal attack, it is just my reaction to your presentation, of your approach to sales,... if I got you right.

Call me a skeptic, but, I feel your level of "due diligence" is basically a cop out. Seems like you have set a level of legality that you can live with, and when you reach that level, you move on feeling like you accomplished "due diligence". And I'll give you this, you probably have done "due diligence" from your perspective.

But, for me, "due diligence" falls more in line with ,... making sure you know the legal status of your buyer,.... not half heart'ed questions to allow you to sleep at night,.... but, honest, in depth scrutiny.

But, as we both know (I think) "in depth scrutiny" is an impossibility, since we never, really, get to scrutinize a stranger we are selling to,... it's just not practical, and certainly not real.

Is it?

Further more, I don't buy your morality reference,... that it would bother you to find out a crime had been committed with a piece you sold. If that were so, your "due diligence" level would be a little more in depth than a few questions, asked of a possible lying criminal, in my opinion!

Again,... in depth scrutiny is just not real, for these circumstances.

Sooo , all I can see for a seller wanting true "due diligence" in a transaction with a stranger,... is that there would be ,... no transaction, imo.

________________________________

Due Diligence | Definition of Due Diligence by Merriam-Webster
https://www.merriam-webster.com › dictionary › due diligence
Definition of due diligence. 1 law : the care that a reasonable person exercises to avoid harm to other persons or their property failed to exercise due diligence in trying to prevent the accident.

 

[shooter444]

Ooops,... a dupe.

 

[admin]

Wait a second... your logic is all over the place and your hyperbole is off the charts. You were the one that said I (as in "me"), let "that tyrannical One World Government sponsored Demonscat infringement,... creep into the Free State of Arizona, gun laws" (your words). Explain how I have allowed that by merely asking a benign question that makes me more comfortable selling something that has my name attached to it by a 4473 'record'?

No, not facetious, just opinionated. Speaking of which, and please, don't take this as a personal attack, it is just my reaction to your presentation, of your approach to sales,... if I got you right.

Call me a skeptic, but, I feel your level of "due diligence" is basically a cop out. Seems like you have set a level of legality that you can live with, and when you reach that level, you move on feeling like you accomplished "due diligence". And I'll give you this, you probably have done "due diligence" from your perspective.

But, for me, "due diligence" falls more in line with ,... making sure you know the legal status of your buyer,.... not half heart'ed questions to allow you to sleep at night,.... but, honest, in depth scrutiny.

But, as we both know (I think) "in depth scrutiny" is an impossibility, since we never, really, get to scrutinize a stranger we are selling to,... it's just not practical, and certainly not real.

Is it?

Nope, as private citizens, we can't - and I am 100% fine with that. I suppose you could decide to go to extremes and sell "through" an FFL and I'm sure there are some people that would only be comfortable doing that. I also know people that won't ever sell a gun.

Further more, I don't buy your morality reference,... that it would bother you to find out a crime had been committed with a piece you sold. If that were so, your "due diligence" level would be a little more in depth than a few questions, asked of a possible lying criminal, in my opinion!

Again,... in depth scrutiny is just not real, for these circumstances.

Sooo , all I can see for a seller wanting true "due diligence" in a transaction with a stranger,... is that there would be ,... no transaction, imo.

Nope - you're incorrect. Morality has ZERO to do with it and I didn't even insinuate that, so not sure where you pulled that from.

My reasoning for asking those is that if I buy a gun from a FFL and fill out a 4473, it's tied to my name via paperwork. Later, I decide I don't want the gun anymore and decide to sell it to Person 1. Person 1 happens to be a CA resident who traveled to AZ to visit family and just decided to buy a gun from a local board while he was here. He does something dumb, or maybe it's not a "CA legal" firearm and he gets busted by the police in CA for it. They want to know where he acquired it from - who is going to get questioned? Yeah, me (assuming that they take it to that level in an investigation - however unlikely). But when questioned, I'd prefer to be able to say that "I sold it to some guy in a parking lot who showed me an AZDL and said he wasn't a prohibited possessor" rather than "I sold it to some random guy in a parking lot".

Escalate that if it happened to be used in a crime.

Morality has nothing to do with it. I am not responsible for what any person does with a firearm they buy from me after I legally sell it to them.

 

[Flash]

You can say the guy showed you an Arizona DL whether he did or not. No way the cops can prove it one way or the other.

 

[Harrier]

I guess my reply got deleted....

 

[Boriqua]

You can say the guy showed you an Arizona DL whether he did or not. No way the cops can prove it one way or the other.

Unless the guy your doing the deal with is some branch of LE.
Paranoid? Could be but America has gotten wierd.

 

[Crippledtrigger]

Tidy bowl man cometh.