Results 1 to 21 of 21

Thread: After a couple of Emails, "Why I ask for a CPF for a ftf sale."

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    113

    Post imported post

    EDIT Title was supposed to be CPL not CPF

    I guess this came up the other day, and I have recieved a few emails, that range from curious to non-sensical ranting to downright rude. Here is my explanation.

    If I know you, I trust I have a good idea of who you are, I still record full data.

    If I don't know you, I want to have as complete a record of my sale as I can.

    Why? Look at the Maldonado Case. He obtained his weapons through a face to face sales out of the little nickel. Maldonado had a criminal record, and was under an order not to possess firearms. Maybe a CPL or lack of, would have shown he was under age, may have sent up a red flag to the seller, maybe maybe not, but it is one more tool in the tool box.

    I am not saying I distrust a buyer, not at all, but I do want a accurate record and a good feeling that I sold my weapon to a responsible party. Would you sell your car to anyone that walked up to you on the street who refused to identify themslves demanding no record of the sale? I hope not.

    By asking for a CPL and a WADL, it is that much more difficult for someone who is not supposed to get a weapon to obtain one. It isn't full proof just a speed bump. But it does add to the credibility of the buyer. It tells, me they are at least 21 years old and at the time of issuance they had a clean criminal record. It is also another issued piece of id that will confirm and bolster the buyers ID.

    I do not appreciate, being called names, and having my credibility attacked simply because I am trying to be responsible. Or being referred to as Hitler and compared to Nazi Germany. Or the other rumored political gunsiezing panics. If you do not wish to show ID, I urge you to look else where.

    Since the contacts happened outside of the OCDO website I am not going to even make the effort to out anyone. Those that wrote the emails know who they are. Attacking me for trying to be responsible only shows you in a bad light.

    I don't feel that asking for a DL, CPL, and board name is over the top, or the "Epidimy of Nazi Germany" as was written.

    Please don't PM me for idenities, those that sent these emails know who they are.

    Thank You.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Port Orchard, Washington, USA
    Posts
    897

    Post imported post

    Very well written. I agree with your right to do so. NO ONE should criticize you for trying to ensure that the buyer of a firearm is responsible, trustworthy and legally able to do so. If in every private sale out there the seller did his/her best to prevent the firearm from getting into the hands of violent criminals, there would be far fewer instances of criminals using firearms in their deeds. Then we wouldn't have the leftists coming after us so hard as that is one of their biggest selling points.

    I trust very few people and only then after knowing them personally for some time. I will also verify the identity of my buyers to ensure who they are and that they are at least over 21, though I may not record the sale for my personal stuff. It's always a good idea to CYA.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    2,247

    Post imported post

    I have no problems with anyone asking for whatever they want to ask for when buying or selling a gun or anything else. Take this actual example.

    Manyyears ago I was hanging out at the local gas station (back when we actually had gas stations and decent hang outs so that give you a time frame) on a Saturday night. A fellow drives up with FL license on his car (this is SC) and says that heis out of gas and needs money for food and to get back to FL. He has what looks like his wife and young son in the car with him. He appears to be a decent fellow just trying to get back home and we can't really find any flaws in his story. He offers to sell a Rem 700 BDLwithscope for a very low price. Everything looked fine and he even offered to show his drivers license etc.

    Would you buy it and what would you require from him?

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran Bookman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Winston Salem, North Carolina, United States
    Posts
    1,424

    Post imported post

    Don't let them get you down. You have every right to make sure the person you're selling a deadly weapon to is a LAC. It's funny how some people preach responsible gun ownership, but object when it's practiced. We, as responsible gun owners, have a greater degree of care when selling a gun, which can kill people when used correctly, than say someone selling a car which, when used correctly, will NOT kill anyone.

    It's called "due diligence" and I would be disappointed and maybe call off the sale myself if you DIDN'T practice it. After all, if I don't know you I don't know for a fact that the gun isn't stolen, do I? I'm gonna ask you for ID too!
    "All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke


    "I like people who stand on the Constitution... unless they're using it to wipe their feet." - Jon E Hutcherson

  5. #5
    Regular Member gsx1138's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Bremerton, Washington, United States
    Posts
    884

    Post imported post

    I guess I'm in the "nazi" camp as well because I posted in that thread that I also ask to see a CPL when I sell a firearm.

    Also it should be a well known fact that if you even start to bring up "Hitler" or "Nazi" in an argument for comparison: you lose. I compare it to always jumping to the race card. Generally it's used by those who don't have an actual point or a good argument in the first place. And if they did have a valid point they just flushed it down the sh!tter by using a stupid comparison.
    "Think lightly of yourself and deeply of the world." ~ Musashi

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    NavyLT wrote:
    sirpuma wrote:
    I will also verify the identity of my buyers to ensure who they are and that they are at least over 21, though I may not record the sale for my personal stuff. It's always a good idea to CYA.
    I am just curious as to why you would not sell to a 18-20 year old person?* They are responsible enough to be able to join the military and fight for this country, why can't they be responsible enough for you to sell a gun to them?
    Amen NavyLT.
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

  7. #7
    Regular Member j2l3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    871

    Post imported post

    NavyLT wrote:
    I am just curious as to why you would not sell to a 18-20 year old person? They are responsible enough to be able to join the military and fight for this country, why can't they be responsible enough for you to sell a gun to them?
    My guess is because they cannot produce the requested CPL, which proves that a criminal background checkhas been conducted.
    CZ 75B 9mm, Ruger P94 .40 S&W, Bersa Thunder .380, AR-15 Homebuild

  8. #8
    Regular Member Metalhead47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    South Whidbey, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,812

    Post imported post

    Seems to me this whole debate is just a basic free market choice. As the seller of a thing, whether it's a firearm or not, you have the right to attach whatever conditions you want to the sale. You could demand that the buyer do jumping jacks while wearing a pink tutu and yelling "Obama is an alien!" as conditions of the sale if you so choose. And the potential buyer has the right to call you a raving lunatic and go buy the thing somewhere else. If they really want the item, they'll agree to your conditions. If you really want to sell it, you'll modify them when multiple people start calling you names. Eventually y'all will meet somewhere in the middle.
    It is very wise to not take a watermelon lightly.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Eagle River, Alaska, USA
    Posts
    584

    Post imported post

    Well I am sorry you were inferred to be a Nazi over wanting to know if someone was safe to sell to, but I think we all know who you're talking about 'cough' Washintonian_For_Liberty 'cough'. http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum55/32494.html



  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Wa, ,
    Posts
    2,769

    Post imported post

    I have been a member of WAC for MANY years, and I sell a lot of guns at each show. The WAC requires membership to buy or sell weapons, and even though a person may have a WAC mebership badge displayed, I still require photo ID. I have had several transactions that I would not complete because the photo ID did not match the name on the badge. As a result, I contacted the WAC officials and the member that owned the badge lost his membership and the borrower was removed from the show.

  11. #11
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    Metalhead47 wrote:
    Seems to me this whole debate is just a basic free market choice.
    I don't recall anybody saying it wasn't.

    I was asking questions because it occurred to me that there was a similarity to government infringement.

    And I got pounced a little bit for asking questions. For thinking. Sheesh.

    Some of thereplies were a little self-contradictory. One asserted that it was the responsible thing to do, then said he didn't care what Vermont and Alaska residents (who lack CCW permits) did. Huh? He didn't seem to want his fellow Americans to act responsibly.

    What I got from that whole thread is that folks just haven't thought through completely. Mainly because the answers kept coming back to peace of mind and keeping guns out of criminal hands; but omitted consideration of keeping guns out of law-abiding hands--until discussed in response to me bringing it up anyway.

    I'm not so much knocking holes in their arguments, as I am frustrated that I seemed to be the only one willing to explore the question further. They seemed fine arguments, just incomplete. And me taking it further was met with somewhat antagonized commentary in return. Its as though they did not realize that further examination, if it did in fact arrive back to the same idea, could only serve to strengthen certainty as to the propriety of demanding a CCW permit.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Des Moines, Washington, USA
    Posts
    26

    Post imported post

    triehl27, you are a good man, don't let the trolls bother you they just do not know any better. It is your life, live it your way.

  13. #13
    Regular Member killchain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Richland, Washington, USA
    Posts
    788

    Post imported post

    NavyLT wrote:
    sirpuma wrote:
    I will also verify the identity of my buyers to ensure who they are and that they are at least over 21, though I may not record the sale for my personal stuff. It's always a good idea to CYA.
    I am just curious as to why you would not sell to a 18-20 year old person? They are responsible enough to be able to join the military and fight for this country, why can't they be responsible enough for you to sell a gun to them?
    Morally I agree with you NavyLT, but legally I agree with the original poster (assuming the original poster is speaking of selling a pistol).

    I wish that were the case with a lot of things... a man or woman who can and does choose to serve and fight for the country should be able to decide all of these things the second they take the Oath.
    "War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." -John Stuart Mill

  14. #14

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Gone... Nutty as squirrel **** around here
    Posts
    753

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    Metalhead47 wrote:
    Seems to me this whole debate is just a basic free market choice.
    I don't recall anybody saying it wasn't.

    I was asking questions because it occurred to me that there was a similarity to government infringement.

    And I got pounced a little bit for asking questions. For thinking. Sheesh.

    Some of thereplies were a little self-contradictory. One asserted that it was the responsible thing to do, then said he didn't care what Vermont and Alaska residents (who lack CCW permits) did. Huh? He didn't seem to want his fellow Americans to act responsibly.

    What I got from that whole thread is that folks just haven't thought through completely. Mainly because the answers kept coming back to peace of mind and keeping guns out of criminal hands; but omitted consideration of keeping guns out of law-abiding hands--until discussed in response to me bringing it up anyway.

    I'm not so much knocking holes in their arguments, as I am frustrated that I seemed to be the only one willing to explore the question further. They seemed fine arguments, just incomplete. And me taking it further was met with somewhat antagonized commentary in return. Its as though they did not realize that further examination, if it did in fact arrive back to the same idea, could only serve to strengthen certainty as to the propriety of demanding a CCW permit.
    Private citizens deciding what to do with their personal property has absolutley no similarity whatsoever to government infringement. You tried to liken those personal decisions to infringment and prior restraint in an attempt to support your opinion that private sales should be no questions asked and anything else effectively makes us agents of the governent.

    You didn't get "pounced", people explained why they do what they do. You disagreed, but instead of leaving it at that, you wanted to argue about it. No one berated you or told you you were wrong, they explained why they do what they do.

    Your post above is quite telling. Someone differs in their opinion and you surmise that they must not have "thought it through" since they came to a different conclusion than you did.

    The answers to your questions were there, you didn't like them or disagreed with them. There are other options for those folks who are declined a private sale by someone who wants to see ID or CPL. They can find another seller (as some posters said they do), buy from a personal friend with whom they have a relationship, or they can go to a store or pawn shop (of course they will have to show ID there as well). Clearly my decision to see ID and or a CPL does not create a permanent barrier to a buyer.

    Not getting your way is not the same as being infringed. As was said by many, you certainly have a right to buy a gun. You have many options in how you go about doing that, but what you don't have is a right to buy a specific gun or a gun from a specific person.

    I didn't say I don't care what AK and VT residents do, what I said was:

    "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.".

    My concern with WA is that I am a WA resident and as such, I can only participate in a FTF with another WA resident since federal law bars private transfers between folks from different states. We have pretty good laws in regards to private sales and I don't want to see them become more stringent or start requiring documentation, etc. as other states have done.

    As such, I considered the "What about AK and VT" question to be a bit of an irrelevant strawman argument. I guess the simple answer is that people in other states should follow their state laws and personal convictions, just as I do. It is quite the stretch to twist my comment into me not wanting my "fellow Americans to act responsibly."

    I agree in theory that everyone should be concerned about things keeping guns out of the hands of those legal to possess them. One cannot however address that issue in the absence of the issue of people who are barred from possession. It is the duality of the topic, anything that affects one side, also affects the other.

    The affects of an action must be weighed and a decision (legal, personal, or moral) reached. That decision may differ between people. Such is life. Different people have different priorities and there is no single "right" answer.

    Currently I find the potential inconvenience to someone wanting to buy my firearm, who has several other options to buy a firearm, less important than the consequences of being involved in providing a firearm to someone who cannot legally possess one. Even with the measures I take, that could still conceivably happen but the chances of it are far less than it would be if not taking those measures.

    In a perfect world we could all trust one another and no one would do wrong. In the world we have there are lots of folks who break the law and do evil things. They look just like you and me and one cannot, in the brief span of a few moments in a parking lot, make any sort of educated decision based on observation alone as to whether they are good or bad. What is the most common statement by neighbors after some macabre slaughter comes to light? "He was the nicest guy, never had a problem, etc, etc .."

    No, you're not knocking any holes in the arguments. You are however making another assumption that I and others are not considering the other side. Again, your assumption is wrong. I have considered it and I have dismissed it in favor of the other option which for me is the better answer. To me, you presented a weak argument, I addressed your points and they did not sway me.

    To continue going round and round once I have considered the options and made a reasoned decision, amounts to nothing more than mental masturbation.


  15. #15
    Regular Member 1245A Defender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    north mason county, Washington, USA
    Posts
    4,381

    Post imported post

    thank you 911boss!! cannot be said any betterer; yah thats better than better.
    EMNofSeattle wrote: Your idea of freedom terrifies me. So you are actually right. I am perfectly happy with what you call tyranny.....

    If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.

    Stand up for your Rights,, They have no authority on their own...

    All power is inherent in the people,
    it is their right and duty to be at all times ARMED!

  16. #16
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    911Boss wrote:
    SNIP [last post]
    I don't know Boss. You seemed kinda grumpy and defensive.

    I wasn't particularly arguing.

    I am here, though, next. In my own defense.

    I think it is a little short on consideration to say that AK and VT residents should follow their convictions when they do not have the option of checking CCW's because their states don't issue CCW's. What do their convictions have to do with it if they cannot demand a non-existent CCW?

    And I think it is a little short on consideration to say you think someone who might be legal has several other options when if everyone adopted the level of responsibility you advocate, that legal person would have no option except to submit to a CCW license or buy through an FFL.

    Unless I am missing something, which I admit I might because I have not studied your last post thoroughly,it really seems to boil down, not to responsibility and keeping weapons out of the hands of prohibited possessors, but toconcern foryourself. Not that that is necessarily wrong. I'm merely pointing out that if you thought it was sufficiently important to prevent prohibited possessors, you would want everyone to refusea non-CCW private sale. My point here is not that you should personally do it differently. My point is that I think the conversation would go smoother if you didn't use arguments that don't add up. Or more precisely, arguments that seem more for the sake of bolstering your position rather than their actual applicability.

    With that said, I'd rather not argue. Lets just say we each know where the other stands and get back to defending 2A.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  17. #17
    Regular Member 1245A Defender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    north mason county, Washington, USA
    Posts
    4,381

    Post imported post

    I smell a troll.dont need to sniff to much torecognize one. Go home!!

    ive wrote to citizen before; hes another HankT, only smoother.


    EMNofSeattle wrote: Your idea of freedom terrifies me. So you are actually right. I am perfectly happy with what you call tyranny.....

    If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.

    Stand up for your Rights,, They have no authority on their own...

    All power is inherent in the people,
    it is their right and duty to be at all times ARMED!

  18. #18

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Gone... Nutty as squirrel **** around here
    Posts
    753

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    911Boss wrote:
    SNIP [last post]
    I don't know Boss. You seemed kinda grumpy and defensive.

    I wasn't particularly arguing.

    I am here, though, next. In my own defense.

    I think it is a little short on consideration to say that AK and VT residents should follow their convictions when they do not have the option of checking CCW's because their states don't issue CCW's. What do their convictions have to do with it if they cannot demand a non-existent CCW?

    And I think it is a little short on consideration to say you think someone who might be legal has several other options when if everyone adopted the level of responsibility you advocate, that legal person would have no option except to submit to a CCW license or buy through an FFL.

    Unless I am missing something, which I admit I might because I have not studied your last post thoroughly,it really seems to boil down, not to responsibility and keeping weapons out of the hands of prohibited possessors, but toconcern foryourself. Not that that is necessarily wrong. I'm merely pointing out that if you thought it was sufficiently important to prevent prohibited possessors, you would want everyone to refusea non-CCW private sale. My point here is not that you should personally do it differently. My point is that I think the conversation would go smoother if you didn't use arguments that don't add up. Or more precisely, arguments that seem more for the sake of bolstering your position rather than their actual applicability.

    With that said, I'd rather not argue. Lets just say we each know where the other stands and get back to defending 2A.
    I seemed "grumpy and defensive?" how so? These posts are written words. They don't have the inflection of tone, body language, or the ability to interrupt another. I address the points you make and offer reasoned opinion on them. Hopefully you note that I don't call names or attack people, but instead stay focused on the ideas.

    In regards to AK and VT, as I said, it was a simple answer. I don't know what options residents of those states may have so I am not in a position to discuss the process there. Again it is an irrelevant argument to what people in WA do.

    It is purely academic to get into the "What if" game. There are infinite options and defending ones choice doesn't require defeating all possible alternatives. No where did I say others should follow what I do or that such measures should become law. I merely stated my beliefs and why I have them.

    Interesting in how you process my statements you keep coming back to making judgments on them or on me. You want to somehow negate what I consider to be responsible behavior and try to infer it is simply some selfish desire of concern for myself. You twist a statement I make and accuse me of not wanting Americans to act responsibly. You seem to have a rather simplistic and one track way of looking at something instead of using a parallel thought process. Again, one thing can and does have an affect on another.

    The two ideals, trying to keep guns away from those who shouldn't have them and protecting my own interests are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they are complimentary. I believe keeping guns away from folks who shouldn't have them is in my (and everyone else's) best interest. The fact that I believe checking ID/CPL helps these interests doesn't mean that I don't recognize the legality and personal choice of someone to do something different.

    It is quite presumptuous of you to tell me what I should think, based on what I have told you I do think. In any sort of discussion, debate, or argument, people use arguments that they believe support or bolster their position, that is the point. Simply responding with "It doesn't add up" or "It isn't applicable" is as effective as saying "Because". If you believe my argument doesn't add up, tell me how so? Don't just say it has no applicability.

    Here is an example - I believe that I should do what I can to keep people who should not have firearms from gaining access to them. To achieve that, I:

    -Follow applicable state and federal laws.
    Applicability
    - legal requirement.

    -I securely store firearms when not in my possession.
    Applicability
    - most crimes are crimes of convenience. Leaving something unsecured increases the chances of someone stealing it. Most accidents can be avoided, leaving a dangerous weapon unsecured allows access to someone who may use it improperly.

    -I make sure someone understands the safe handling of firearms before giving them control of one.
    Applicability
    - If someone doesn't know safe firearm handling, they could pose a danger to others if given a firearm.

    -If I decide to sell a firearm to someone not personally known to me to be of good character and legally able to possess a gun, I take what I consider to be reasonable steps to ensure that I a) don't violate the law, and b) the person buying the gun is legal to do so.
    Applicability- Since the majority of guns used in crime are not acquired though dealer purchases, they must therefore be acquired through theft or private sales. I do not wish to be responsible legally, civilly, or morally, for assisting someone in possessing a firearm illegally. Recognizing that any private buyer could potentially be someone trying to circumvent the law, I take precautions to reduce the chance of being involved in such a transaction.

    I understand that some of these things are not required of me, and that others may not agree with them or do the same things. That is what liberty is about, freedom to do things (or not do things) as a result of ones personal beliefs so long as it is within the law.

    In exercising my liberty, I recognize the rights of others to exercise theirs as they see fit. While I may personally disagree with their choices, I fully support their right to make those choices and I will no more attempt to stop them from making them that I would wish them to stop me.

    Yes, I am sure that things would go smoother if I just acquiesced and agreed with you. To do so though would require me to abandon my beliefs, and that is not something I am willing to do.

    As to agreeing to disagree, I have been willing to do that from the start. You asked a question or presented an opinion, and I replied. You could have left it at that. You keep coming back to the table, so I continue to respond. I believe that all participants should have equal opportunity to express their views and opinions, as such when one side starts a discussion, I think it fair that the other side have the last word.

  19. #19
    Founder's Club Member Jim675's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Bellevue, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,037

    Post imported post

    Yeah! And take your dang high-falutin' idears with ya! Ya hear?

    Gentlemen, really? The reason we (2A supporters) make gains against the anti's is because we can use logic and cite facts. Blindly declaring something to be factual and shouting down nay-sayers makes us look silly and weakens our arguments.

    Again, no one here has demanded you sell to anyone you'd rather not. Do as you wish.
    Asking you to explore why you made that decision becomes fair game when you state the decision on an internet forum.


    We would still persecute Galileo today. This type of discourse is why guns are needed. People are so quick to turn on their comrades, much less enemies. Willing volunteers just waiting for a brown shirt in their size.

    ETA: Not directed at the previous poster.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    , Washington, USA
    Posts
    162

    Post imported post

    I agree with NAVY LT to a point. If your old enough to fight for this country you should be able to own a gun. On the other hand their are a lot of gang members that join before or become members after they join the military for the training and tactics. A few years ago they had a problem with gangs at an army base. Im not saying all military persons are bad but we need to be careful who we sell to. Being military myself if someone ask me for cpl and dl I would give it to them. I am not trying to disagree with LT at all.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    , Washington, USA
    Posts
    162

    Post imported post


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •