TexasCHLforum.com

While I get the nervousness some of our less experienced gun owners may have over selling the "evil gun". I think it is important to recognize how the government utilizes nervousness to control "we the people". We are not required in any way form or fashion to prove the person we sold a weapon to was eligible under the federal firearms act. Our only requirement is that we not KNOWINGLY sell to a person who resides out of state or KNOWINGLY sell to a prohibited buyer. The government must prove you KNOWINGLY sold to one of the above. It is not "we the people" who must prove our innocence. The government must prove our guilt. Why give them more powers than they already have? It is a slow walk towards the loss of our freedoms on many fronts.

I realize some may not think of it this way but in reality we are supporting gun control measures when we require our fellow citizens comply with our own personally imposed gun control measures. Anti gunners point at this and are able to bolster their case for further restrictions on our rights. They can claim that even we in the community of gun owners feel the restrictions are too lenient, why not go ahead and make it law?

We should not be so terrorized by our government that we self impose restrictions on ourselves. What is next? We will be snitching on our neighbors for talking improperly about the dear leader?

03Lightningrocks wrote:While I get the nervousness some of our less experienced gun owners may have over selling the "evil gun". I think it is important to recognize how the government utilizes nervousness to control "we the people". We are not required in any way form or fashion to prove the person we sold a weapon to was eligible under the federal firearms act. Our only requirement is that we not KNOWINGLY sell to a person who resides out of state or KNOWINGLY sell to a prohibited buyer. The government must prove you KNOWINGLY sold to one of the above. It is not "we the people" who must prove our innocence. The government must prove our guilt. Why give them more powers than they already have? It is a slow walk towards the loss of our freedoms on many fronts.

I realize some may not think of it this way but in reality we are supporting gun control measures when we require our fellow citizens comply with our own personally imposed gun control measures. Anti gunners point at this and are able to bolster their case for further restrictions on our rights. They can claim that even we in the community of gun owners feel the restrictions are too lenient, why not go ahead and make it law?

We should not be so terrorized by our government that we self impose restrictions on ourselves. What is next? We will be snitching on our neighbors for talking improperly about the dear leader?

You have a valid point. But let me inject something that IMHO represents another side. We spend a lot of time telling the antis, "It's not a question of NEED, it's a question of WANT." "Who are you to tell me what I don't NEED?" Along those lines, aren't you telling those that WANT a record of sale for whatever reason they WANT, that there is no NEED, so they shouldn't do it? Just askin'.

G26ster wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote:While I get the nervousness some of our less experienced gun owners may have over selling the "evil gun". I think it is important to recognize how the government utilizes nervousness to control "we the people". We are not required in any way form or fashion to prove the person we sold a weapon to was eligible under the federal firearms act. Our only requirement is that we not KNOWINGLY sell to a person who resides out of state or KNOWINGLY sell to a prohibited buyer. The government must prove you KNOWINGLY sold to one of the above. It is not "we the people" who must prove our innocence. The government must prove our guilt. Why give them more powers than they already have? It is a slow walk towards the loss of our freedoms on many fronts.

I realize some may not think of it this way but in reality we are supporting gun control measures when we require our fellow citizens comply with our own personally imposed gun control measures. Anti gunners point at this and are able to bolster their case for further restrictions on our rights. They can claim that even we in the community of gun owners feel the restrictions are too lenient, why not go ahead and make it law?

We should not be so terrorized by our government that we self impose restrictions on ourselves. What is next? We will be snitching on our neighbors for talking improperly about the dear leader?

You have a valid point. But let me inject something that IMHO represents another side. We spend a lot of time telling the antis, "It's not a question of NEED, it's a question of WANT." "Who are you to tell me what I don't NEED?" Along those lines, aren't you telling those that WANT a record of sale for whatever reason they WANT, that there is no NEED, so they shouldn't do it? Just askin'.

I don't really believe it works both ways. The folks asking for proof of who they are selling to are doing it based on an irrational fear of government, not simply because they WANT to. Maybe they are doing it because they don't really believe owning a gun is a right but a priviledge instead. I dunno. I do see what you are saying and if we weren't talking about a constitutionally protected right, I would possibly agree with your reasoning.

I don't think there is any getting around the appearance it gives that some of us feel the law should impose more restrictions on private sales of firearms.

I look at it in the same way I do the hunter who sits by and says nothing when high capacity magazines are restricted, because they figure it isn't affecting them.

Sometimes we gun owners are our own worst enemies.

Maybe part of my reasoning has to do with my strong belief that it is an infringement of a constitutionally protected right to require restrictions on the RKBA. Whether it is the government requiring registration or my fellow gun owners requiring registration. It is still registration.

03Lightningrocks wrote:

G26ster wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote:While I get the nervousness some of our less experienced gun owners may have over selling the "evil gun". I think it is important to recognize how the government utilizes nervousness to control "we the people". We are not required in any way form or fashion to prove the person we sold a weapon to was eligible under the federal firearms act. Our only requirement is that we not KNOWINGLY sell to a person who resides out of state or KNOWINGLY sell to a prohibited buyer. The government must prove you KNOWINGLY sold to one of the above. It is not "we the people" who must prove our innocence. The government must prove our guilt. Why give them more powers than they already have? It is a slow walk towards the loss of our freedoms on many fronts.

I realize some may not think of it this way but in reality we are supporting gun control measures when we require our fellow citizens comply with our own personally imposed gun control measures. Anti gunners point at this and are able to bolster their case for further restrictions on our rights. They can claim that even we in the community of gun owners feel the restrictions are too lenient, why not go ahead and make it law?

We should not be so terrorized by our government that we self impose restrictions on ourselves. What is next? We will be snitching on our neighbors for talking improperly about the dear leader?

You have a valid point. But let me inject something that IMHO represents another side. We spend a lot of time telling the antis, "It's not a question of NEED, it's a question of WANT." "Who are you to tell me what I don't NEED?" Along those lines, aren't you telling those that WANT a record of sale for whatever reason they WANT, that there is no NEED, so they shouldn't do it? Just askin'.

I don't really believe it works both ways. The folks asking for proof of who they are selling to are doing it based on an irrational fear of government, not simply because they WANT to. Maybe they are doing it because they don't really believe owning a gun is a right but a priviledge instead. I dunno. I do see what you are saying and if we weren't talking about a constitutionally protected right, I would possibly agree with your reasoning.

You are putting your own words (or thoughts) in people's mouths as to why they want proof. First, is it not the law that you may only sell a gun, without an FFL transfer, to a person who resides in the State of Texas? If so, why is that "an irrational fear of government" to have you provide ID to prove that? You also say they possibly "don't believe owning a gun is a right but a privilege." That's your own assumption, but you really don't know. While it's your right to own a gun, it's the seller's right to be "happy" by having a record of who he sold it to for whatever reason that may be. You know, the old, "pursuit of happiness" thing. The buyer doesn't have to buy the gun if they are offended by being asked to provide the information. Bottom line, IMHO, is that neither the buyer's or the seller's rights carry greater weight, and asking a seller why they need that information, is no different than the antis asking us why we need a 30 round magazine or a so-called assault rifle. I'm sure they feel we have "irrational fears" of many things.

G26ster wrote:First, is it not the law that you may only sell a gun, without an FFL transfer, to a person who resides in the State of Texas? If so, why is that "an irrational fear of government" to have you provide ID to prove that? . . . . While it's your right to own a gun, it's the seller's right to be "happy" by having a record of who he sold it to for whatever reason that may be. .... The buyer doesn't have to buy the gun if they are offended by being asked to provide the information....

There is that pesky old word "knowingly" regarding transferring to a non-resident. I am not required to prove "beyond reasonable doubt" the other party is also a Texas resident.

I am quite happy to hold my thumb over my name and address on the driver license and show the other party a Texas Drivers License in my hand with my picture on it. I expect the other party to do the same. That is a sufficient demonstration that I took reasonable measures. I don't need their name and address to establish that I believe them to be a resident.

I'll also ask a simple question, "Are you legally allowed to possess firearms?" Again, showing reasonable measures that I did not knowingly sell to a prohibited person. If they lie about it, that is on them, not me. If it is some kind of BATF-er sting, they can't can't I never asked nor cared.

And you are correct about the buyer. I will not purchase a gun in a private transaction where the seller requires my identity or paperwork.

I agree it is a free market and buyers/seller have the liberty to impose additional terms and conditions should they so choose. Terms and conditions are also negotiable, so I am also free during those negotiations to persuade the other party that their fears are unfounded, unreasonable, and a deal-breaker. If they aren't willing to make a deal, then I can always find a different gun -- nothing I am buying are "one of a kind" firearms with historical significance. There are plenty more where they came from.

03Lightningrocks

While I get the nervousness some of our less experienced gun owners may have over selling the "evil gun".

But I don't consider myself to be a nervous inexperienced gun owner. A bill of sale is only kept by the seller and the buyer. It shows that a good faith sale of property was done. Not much different than when you go to the supermarket and get a receipt for a food purchase or buy gas. You don't want the receipt? Throw it away. If I buy a gun from someone and 5 years from now that item proves to be a stolen item I can at least show that I bought it from "such an such", paid for it and didn't steal it. Of course I will lose possesion of the gun but at least won't be accused of the theft. I personally don't care if you get a bill of sale for anything you sell but to conclude that if I get a bill of sale that I am falling into the hands of the gun control nuts seems to be stretching the point. I wouldn't sell anything of value without a bill of sale. On a moral basis though I would not sell a gun to someone that I personally believed should not own a gun even if legally I could make the sale.

Jumping Frog wrote:

G26ster wrote:First, is it not the law that you may only sell a gun, without an FFL transfer, to a person who resides in the State of Texas? If so, why is that "an irrational fear of government" to have you provide ID to prove that? . . . . While it's your right to own a gun, it's the seller's right to be "happy" by having a record of who he sold it to for whatever reason that may be. .... The buyer doesn't have to buy the gun if they are offended by being asked to provide the information....

There is that pesky old word "knowingly" regarding transferring to a non-resident. I am not required to prove "beyond reasonable doubt" the other party is also a Texas resident.

I am quite happy to hold my thumb over my name and address on the driver license and show the other party a Texas Drivers License in my hand with my picture on it. I expect the other party to do the same. That is a sufficient demonstration that I took reasonable measures. I don't need their name and address to establish that I believe them to be a resident.

I'll also ask a simple question, "Are you legally allowed to possess firearms?" Again, showing reasonable measures that I did not knowingly sell to a prohibited person. If they lie about it, that is on them, not me. If it is some kind of BATF-er sting, they can't can't I never asked nor cared.

And you are correct about the buyer. I will not purchase a gun in a private transaction where the seller requires my identity or paperwork.

I agree it is a free market and buyers/seller have the liberty to impose additional terms and conditions should they so choose. Terms and conditions are also negotiable, so I am also free during those negotiations to persuade the other party that their fears are unfounded, unreasonable, and a deal-breaker. If they aren't willing to make a deal, then I can always find a different gun -- nothing I am buying are "one of a kind" firearms with historical significance. There are plenty more where they came from.

I don't disagree with you or 03Lightningrocks when it comes to the buyer's rights or perspectives. I'm just addressing the seller's rights and perspectives, without assigning what they NEED to do, but rather what they WANT to do. If the seller wants proof of residence or a bill of sale for their peace of mind or ANY other reason, that is their right as well. And it's your right to walk away. And even if it was, in the buyer's opinion, an "unreasonable fear of government," in today's gun control climate that fear may be quite "reasonable." I think there are a lot of folks in NY and CO, as of today, who would agree with that.

And as far as "fear of government", assuming that most of us are chl holders, they have ALL of the info on us now, except they don't know what we own. So, if there is ever to be a confiscation we have given "them" the info already. Where would they go first? Probably us.

rotor wrote:03Lightningrocks

While I get the nervousness some of our less experienced gun owners may have over selling the "evil gun".

But I don't consider myself to be a nervous inexperienced gun owner. A bill of sale is only kept by the seller and the buyer. It shows that a good faith sale of property was done. Not much different than when you go to the supermarket and get a receipt for a food purchase or buy gas. You don't want the receipt? Throw it away. If I buy a gun from someone and 5 years from now that item proves to be a stolen item I can at least show that I bought it from "such an such", paid for it and didn't steal it. Of course I will lose possesion of the gun but at least won't be accused of the theft. I personally don't care if you get a bill of sale for anything you sell but to conclude that if I get a bill of sale that I am falling into the hands of the gun control nuts seems to be stretching the point. I wouldn't sell anything of value without a bill of sale. On a moral basis though I would not sell a gun to someone that I personally believed should not own a gun even if legally I could make the sale.

This.

For those that don't want or need a bill of sale, don't get one. For those that want one (me), do so. But to say I support the 2nd amendment less than those that don't use a bill of sale is simply not true. I am 100% behind the 2nd amendment. There is the 2nd amendment in its original intent and there is reality. Maybe I just trust the government less than those that don't require the bill of sale or maybe its just the OCD in me. To each his own.....

I think Lightening has something here. Every time (to my recollection) that I've seen a firearm for sale on this board where the seller wanted a bill of sale, the seller articulated that it was "just in case". IMHO, this pretty much proves his point. The seller may or may not actually WANT a BoS, but they certainly seem to fear what could happen if they don't have one.

Maybe that is a reasonable precaution to take in today's climate. Maybe it isn't. Either way, I don't think their commitment to be RKBA should be called not question over it.

rotor wrote:03Lightningrocks

While I get the nervousness some of our less experienced gun owners may have over selling the "evil gun".

But I don't consider myself to be a nervous inexperienced gun owner. A bill of sale is only kept by the seller and the buyer. It shows that a good faith sale of property was done. Not much different than when you go to the supermarket and get a receipt for a food purchase or buy gas. You don't want the receipt? Throw it away.

Fine. I don't have to show any ID or give my address, DOB, Lic #, or other personal information to buy groceries if I pay cash. Even if I use a credit card they only get my billing address, which is not where I live.

So I assume you don't ask for that information either. You know, good faith and all that.

G26ster wrote:You are putting your own words (or thoughts) in people's mouths as to why they want proof. First, is it not the law that you may only sell a gun, without an FFL transfer, to a person who resides in the State of Texas? If so, why is that "an irrational fear of government" to have you provide ID to prove that?

First, to say I am "putting words in their mouths", when I read post after post from folks telling us they are doing it "to be safe", is inaccurate at best. It is they who are saying why it is being done. That is not me putting my thoughts or words anywhere.

Second, we were talking of asking for a bill of sale so your argument about asking for proof of residency is a slight diversionary tactic. I will go there anyway. When the law requires no such action, it is irrational. Just as irrational as stopping at a stop sign twice to make sure you can't be accused of not stopping. Both actions are out of fear of the government.

RottenApple wrote: Maybe that is a reasonable precaution to take in today's climate. Maybe it isn't. Either way, I don't think their commitment to be RKBA should be called not question over it.

Third, and to address the above statement, a quote comes to mind here. "Forgive them, for they know not what they do". I don't think it is an intentional effort to give up the RKBA. A hunter or other gun owner that tells you or me we don't need military style weapons or high capacity magazines for hunting or self defense would never believe they are anti RKBA. The politicians that are for an "assualt weapons" ban repeatedly remind us they are not anti RKBA and offer their duck hunting as an example to prove it.

If we don't bring our own actions into question on occasion, we may not recognize a mistake we are making. Our intentions mean nothing if the appearance of our actions says something completely different.

tacticool wrote:

rotor wrote:03Lightningrocks

While I get the nervousness some of our less experienced gun owners may have over selling the "evil gun".

But I don't consider myself to be a nervous inexperienced gun owner. A bill of sale is only kept by the seller and the buyer. It shows that a good faith sale of property was done. Not much different than when you go to the supermarket and get a receipt for a food purchase or buy gas. You don't want the receipt? Throw it away.

Fine. I don't have to show any ID or give my address, DOB, Lic #, or other personal information to buy groceries if I pay cash. Even if I use a credit card they only get my billing address, which is not where I live.

So I assume you don't ask for that information either. You know, good faith and all that.

There was a time in the old west ( at least from what I see in the movies ) when people were hanged for not showing a bill of sale for the horse they were riding. If anyone believes that they have some anonymous standing when they use a credit card they are in great error. Remember filling out the application for the credit card? I believe a judicious person selling anything of significant value would be smart to have a bill of sale (receipt) of the sale. It is not a legal requirement ( at least for now). You do what you want- I do what I want. But if you want to get a bill of sale the one I posted seems to be a nice one to use. I "borrowed" it from texasguntrader.com.

03Lightningrocks wrote:

G26ster wrote:You are putting your own words (or thoughts) in people's mouths as to why they want proof. First, is it not the law that you may only sell a gun, without an FFL transfer, to a person who resides in the State of Texas? If so, why is that "an irrational fear of government" to have you provide ID to prove that?

First, to say I am "putting words in their mouths", when I read post after post from folks telling us they are doing it "to be safe", is inaccurate at best. It is they who are saying why it is being done. That is not me putting my thoughts or words anywhere.

Second, we were talking of asking for a bill of sale so your argument about asking for proof of residency is a slight diversionary tactic. I will go there anyway. When the law requires no such action, it is irrational. Just as irrational as stopping at a stop sign twice to make sure you can't be accused of not stopping. Both actions are out of fear of the government.

RottenApple wrote: Maybe that is a reasonable precaution to take in today's climate. Maybe it isn't. Either way, I don't think their commitment to be RKBA should be called not question over it.

Third, and to address the above statement, a quote comes to mind here. "Forgive them, for they know not what they do". I don't think it is an intentional effort to give up the RKBA. A hunter or other gun owner that tells you or me we don't need military style weapons or high capacity magazines for hunting or self defense would never believe they are anti RKBA. The politicians that are for an "assualt weapons" ban repeatedly remind us they are not anti RKBA and offer their duck hunting as an example to prove it.

If we don't bring our own actions into question on occasion, we may not recognize a mistake we are making. Our intentions mean nothing if the appearance of our actions says something completely different.

My point is twofold. First, I said words or "thoughts." Your ONLY conclusion was, and you just reinforced" is that they all "fear gov't" because some say they want to "be safe." My first point was that it is not up to anyone but the seller, why they want the information. That is their right, just as it is your right to refuse. Second, how many times on this forum to we hear, "I disarmed because ... and I just wanted to be safe." (or words to that effect.) You know, "you may beat the rap but..... " I don't count that as "irrational fear." There is a difference between fear and caution. And, I added later, that in today's climate, I believe there are a lot of pro RKBA folks who do "rationally" fear what gov't is doing or attempting to do. That's all.