Sellers request CPL when selling rifle

imported post

Wow . . . it's amazing how much hostility and nastiness has crept into this forum lately. It's sad. And it's not even entertaining hostility like we used to get from Bear 45/70!

But regarding the original topic: If I were to sell a gun, I would probably ask to see a CPL also. To me, it's not so much about liability and the potential to get sued . . . it's more about making darned sure that the person I sell it to is someone who SHOULD have a gun.

Even if it's just about my own conscience and peace of mind, I don't ever want to provide a gun to a scumbag.

imported post

Mad Pick wrote:

Wow . . . it's amazing how much hostility and nastiness has crept into this forum lately. It's sad. And it's not even entertaining hostility like we used to get from Bear 45/70!

But regarding the original topic: If I were to sell a gun, I would probably ask to see a CPL also. To me, it's not so much about liability and the potential to get sued . . . it's more about making darned sure that the person I sell it to is someone who SHOULD have a gun.

Even if it's just about my own conscience and peace of mind, I don't ever want to provide a gun to a scumbag.

Click to expand...

Yours is an ethical position.

So, it has a great deal of value. And it says something very positive about you, sir.

Alas, not everyone is up to your ethical standards.

A high level of ethics can coexist with 2A. Easily.

imported post

If I know the person, I don't check CPL or anything. If I don't, just seeing the CPL is good enough to prove I sold the firearm in good faith, with reasonable knowledge the person was not a felon or otherwise prohibited from owning. Do I agree with the need? No....but one would be a fool to ignore said need and sell to anyone without any kind of check. If you sell to a felon and don't check anything, you WILL have trouble on your doorstep if that gun is used in a crime.

imported post

compmanio365 wrote:

If I know the person, I don't check CPL or anything.

Click to expand...

Agreed, and I wouldn't either although I didn't mention this in my post above.

imported post

Time for my take on this one. First, I have to agree that those at the various ends of the political bell curve have gotten much more stand-offish and like to bully others who disagree even so slightly.

If I was to sell a gun, you can be damn sure I will not sell to someone without a CPL and DL. I will make copies of both along with a bill of sale with serial numbers, names, addresses, phone numbers, emails. Why you will ask, to cover my a$$ and to make sure that the person I am about to turn over a tool that could take the life of another. If they don't like it, I am sure I can find a buyer who will play by my rules. Those rules even apply to my close friends.

I don't want a gun I once owned to be used in a crime because I did not perform due diligence in vetting the buyer of the weapon. If I can prove I did the best I could to make sure I wasn't selling to a killer, felon or robber and that gun was then used in a crime, I can use that in my defense as you can be sure the prosecutor will come after the seller. That is why I will document and sell only to a CPL holder with photo ID, why WA doesn't have a pic on their CPLs is beyond me but that is for a different thread. I feel that checking a CPL is my moral and ethical responsibility to my fellow Americans.

In the end WFL, if you don;t like it then tough sh!t. Go someplace else to buy what you want. Just don't come b!tch about it here, even if the seller was a fellow OCer.

imported post

I'm gonna buck the trend a little.

Thinking out loud, here. Bear with me while I do.

I'm not convinced.

The reasons to demand a CPL seem valid. Certainly they are from a free-market perspective.

But, I'm not convinced that we are not also forwardinga misplaced regulatory scheme. Shall not be infringed, as we say, CCW's being viewed by many as an infringement on a basic human right.

I understand the concern that a felon not get a weapon. But, when we say buy somewhere else Mr. Possible Felon, are we not also saying, buy somewhere else Mr.Possible GoodGuy. I'm certain the good guys out-number the bad guys by quite a bit.

Its not like the seller is dealing in guns, or deliberatelymaking a straw sale, orknowingly sellingto a felon. Its one thing to knowingly sell to a bad guy. Its something else to require fellowhuman beingsto comply with a regulatory scheme.

Its also another example of prior restraint.

Its one thing to hold someone else responsible for their misuse of a firearm. Its something else to hold yourself responsible fortheir misuse.

Basically, we aresort of doing the gun-grabbers jobfor them. Closing the private saleso-called loophole, albeit only a little.

What should residents of Alaska and Vermont do to ensure they are not selling to a felon?

I'm not convinced. I'm missing something. Something that would let all the pieces fall into place and arrive at a conclusion with strong certainty.

Suggestions, ideas?

imported post

Basically, we aresort of doing the gun-grabbers jobfor them. Closing the private saleso-called loophole, albeit only a little.

Click to expand...

No, not at all. We're just taking a free ride on the State's background check system. If money was tight, I could certainly bend or break my rule as I saw fit. That's the difference, the state requires a background check, I desire one. One takes an act of legislature to change, the other is subject to my whim. Even with the CPL, if I didn't like the way the guy looked, I can abort the sale. The gun shop cannot.

imported post

Citizen wrote:

I'm not convinced. I'm missing something. Something that would let all the pieces fall into place and arrive at a conclusion with strong certainty.

Suggestions, ideas?

Click to expand...

Common sense?

Responsibility to society?

Accurate sense of reality?

Lack of ability to see your bias?

Ethical capacity?

An open mind?

imported post

Mainsail wrote:

Basically, we aresort of doing the gun-grabbers jobfor them. Closing the private saleso-called loophole, albeit only a little.

Click to expand...

No, not at all. We're just taking a free ride on the State's background check system. If money was tight, I could certainly bend or break my rule as I saw fit. That's the difference, the state requires a background check, I desire one. One takes an act of legislature to change, the other is subject to my whim. Even with the CPL, if I didn't like the way the guy looked, I can abort the sale. The gun shop cannot.

Click to expand...

You've got a point there. Thanks.

imported post

Edit, Mainsail said what I was trying to in a much better way.

imported post

It boils down to how comfortable the seller is. I've handed guns to people and left it at that if I've known them and were comfortable with that. I've demanded CPL's and ID from people too. Asking for documentation is a great way to start weeding people out from the get go. There are other ways too, but it boils down to making sure the SELLER is comfortable and happy with the transaction. You don't like what the seller is doing, go elsewhere. But whining about it sounds like a liberal complaining that the evil right wing is holding up mandatory universal gov't run health care.

imported post

Citizen wrote:

But, I'm not convinced that we are not also forwardinga misplaced regulatory scheme. Shall not be infringed, as we say, CCW's being viewed by many as an infringement on a basic human right.

I understand the concern that a felon not get a weapon. But, when we say buy somewhere else Mr. Possible Felon, are we not also saying, buy somewhere else Mr.Possible GoodGuy. I'm certain the good guys out-number the bad guys by quite a bit.

Its not like the seller is dealing in guns, or deliberatelymaking a straw sale, orknowingly sellingto a felon. Its one thing to knowingly sell to a bad guy. Its something else to require fellowhuman beingsto comply with a regulatory scheme.

Its also another example of prior restraint.

Its one thing to hold someone else responsible for their misuse of a firearm. Its something else to hold yourself responsible fortheir misuse.

Basically, we aresort of doing the gun-grabbers jobfor them. Closing the private saleso-called loophole, albeit only a little.

What should residents of Alaska and Vermont do to ensure they are not selling to a felon?

Click to expand...

"Shall not be infringed" and "prior restraint" refer to limitations placed on the government, not on citizens. I can refuse to sell my gun to you for any reason or no reason. You look funny, you have a pro-Obama sticker, you got a booger in your 70's porno mustache.

For most, myself included, I think it is primarily a moral decision to try and keep guns out of the hands of those who cannot legally possess them. The liability issue is secondary. Fact of life is anyone can be sued for just about anything, and even if you "win" the process can ruin you financially as well as your reputation.

I agree the good guys outnumber the bad, but if I don't know you, you are going to need to prove yourself to me before you buy a gun from me. It is your choice, I've never had a problem finding a buyer who was willing to satisfy my requests. Not all the bad guys post "MUST by from an individual" in their ad, have "prison pallor", or any other obvious signs of shady history. Some of the nicest folks have felony records, you'd be surprised.

If I don't know you, I don't want to risk being sued or accused of a felony for putting a gun in your hand. A CPL tells me you passed a background check and a driver's license tells me you are most likely a state resident.

You do know it is a felony to sell/give a gun to someone who is a resident of another state right? US 18 922 says I can't give a gun to someone I know or have reason to believe is not a resident of the same state as me. Now if I don't know you and I don't have something to suggest you are a WA resident (such as a DL), it could be argued that I "had reason to believe" you are not a WA resident. I don't need the hassle or the grief of dealing with the Feds. Ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

As to the "unconstitutionality" of these laws, that is only an opinion, and one that the courts have yet to agree with. Sure, at some point they may be struck down, but only at that time will they actually be unconstitutional. The fact that someone disagrees with them doesn't make it so.

I don't see us as doing the gun grabbers job for them. I think the best way to maintain our rights and reduce infringement is to exercise them responsibly. Look at CA. - EVERY transfer has to go through an FFL. There are NO "private sales" as we know them. Let the number of guns turning up on felons who purchased them privately from "trusting" folk increase or have a few well publicized cases that have tragic outcomes and see how fast laws get pushed to "crack down" on private sales.

Being responsible and showing some diligence to keep guns away from those who can't legally possess them helps us, not hurts us. Vermont and Alaska aren't my problem, I am only concerned with WA.

And while the 14 yo may have ponied up the coin to buy the neighbors truck, he did not "own" it as you cannot legally own a motor vehicle in WA unless you are at least 18 years old. If you don't have a valid driver's license, DOL won't do a thing for you (register, title, etc.).

imported post

Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:

I think one of the real messed up problems in this country is that nobody is responsible for themselves any more... the alcohol made them do it, the coke made me do it, my depression made me do it... its that other guy's fault because he sold me the car, the gun, the machete...

Personal responsibility is sorely lacking and if we want to preserve our freedom... we had better start demanding that people be held personally responsible for their own actions and stop allowing others who had nothing to do with their actions to be held liable... this whole argument of liability must be nipped in the bud.

Click to expand...

And yet ironically some people are personally responsible enough for their own actions that they choose to see a CPL as a way of making sure they are not selling a firearm to a criminal...

imported post

FE427TP wrote:

Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:

I think one of the real messed up problems in this country is that nobody is responsible for themselves any more... the alcohol made them do it, the coke made me do it, my depression made me do it... its that other guy's fault because he sold me the car, the gun, the machete...

Personal responsibility is sorely lacking and if we want to preserve our freedom... we had better start demanding that people be held personally responsible for their own actions and stop allowing others who had nothing to do with their actions to be held liable... this whole argument of liability must be nipped in the bud.

Click to expand...

And yet ironically some people are personally responsible enough for their own actions that they choose to see a CPL as a way of making sure they are not selling a firearm to a criminal...

Click to expand...

Touche!

imported post

I guess the free-choicers after I posted missed my comment about valid from a free-market perspective.

imported post

911Boss wrote:

SNIP For most, myself included, I think it is primarily a moral decision to try and keep guns out of the hands of those who cannot legally possess them.

Click to expand...

(I selected this part of 911Boss's post as representative, not to single it out.)



But, does this not also ensure to deny to the many, manymore decent people who do not have a CCW? (For example, in VA we have something like 7 million residents and only 130K permits.)

Who perhaps cannot afford a new gun? Some of who might have limited options for a gun, or for who your gun is a very right choice for size, caliber, price (used), hand-size and so forth? All of who deserve to be able to defend themselves? Tonight?

Although rare, I've come across in 2A literature at least two stories of people who bought guns and used them within hours for legitimate self-defense.

Or,freedom-minded fellow, like VCDLs VP who refuses to get a CHP because he refuses to go along with the infringement, or perhaps someone who opposes CCW on principle and 4470's?

I very much understand wanting to keep guns out of the wrong hands. I'm not quite ready to ignore the other side of the equation.

imported post

if they don't have a cpl i guess you have 5 days to get to know the seller so he feels comfortable.

imported post

There have been a few comments along the lines of:

"If you're offended, then I immediately wonder if you have something to hide."

Haven't we heard that type of logic elsewhere?

I support both the seller's right to decide about requiring a CPL and the buyer's right to decide to walk away if offended.

None the less, I also think it is adding a faint tinge of statism to our freely chosen actions without our being aware of it.

By the way - didn't Agent47 say that he used to refuse apparently legitimate buyers when he didn't like their looks? (When he worked at Sam's Gun Store). Gun stores are not governmental bodies that must service all non-prohibited customers.

imported post

I also think that denying a sale based on the buyer's looks is unfortunate.
Are all wearers of baggy pants thugs? Are all wearers of suits upstanding?

Ugly path to walk down.

imported post

Citizen wrote:

911Boss wrote:

SNIP For most, myself included, I think it is primarily a moral decision to try and keep guns out of the hands of those who cannot legally possess them.

Click to expand...

(I selected this part of 911Boss's post as representative, not to single it out.)



But, does this not also ensure to deny to the many, manymore decent people who do not have a CCW? (For example, in VA we have something like 7 million residents and only 130K permits. )

Who perhaps cannot afford a new gun? Some of who might have limited options for a gun, or for who your gun is a very right choice for size, caliber, price (used), hand-size and so forth? All of who deserve to be able to defend themselves? Tonight?

Although rare, I've come across in 2A literature at least two stories of people who bought guns and used them within hours for legitimate self-defense.

Or,freedom-minded fellow, like VCDLs VP who refuses to get a CHP because he refuses to go along with the infringement, or perhaps someone who opposes CCW on principle and 4470's?

I very much understand wanting to keep guns out of the wrong hands. I'm not quite ready to ignore the other side of the equation.

Click to expand...

No it doesn't "ensure to deny" to the many. If Safeway is all out of beanie wienies have they "ensured to deny" everyone of that treat? No, go to Albertson's, Hagen's, or Top Foods.

I see it as a risk vs. benefit proposition. I am not going to risk my morals, arrest, or lawsuit so they can benefit. If they can afford my used gun, they can afford a used pawn shop or gun store gun, or someone else's used gun. I will sleep just fine even if I have been the "barrier" to someone else right to personal protection (by the way there are other methods).

I realize there have been a few "buy today use tonight" stories, those folks were fortunate indeed, but they are by far the exception and not the rule. Had they not waited so long in the first place, they wouldn't have needed the "luck". Maybe it is the Boy Scout in me, but I believe in plan ahead and be prepared.

For those "Freedom minded" folks who want to "protest" the laws, you are making a choice. Be prepared to live (or die) with it. I can understand the concept, but I draw the line at martyrdom. News flash - you can obey and comply with the current laws and still effectively work to change them.

It is your choice, I carry a gun first and foremost for protection, as such I am concerned and active to a certain degree in the support of the 2A. If your concern and activism for the 2A is your primary reason to carry, and SD is secondary, knock yourself out but be willing to accept that it might not work out as you planned.

If being a victim was fun and rewarding, everyone would want to do it.