Background Checks for Private Party Sales: How?

[St. Olaf]

I'd like somebody to explain this for me (in a simple way).

I'm hearing they want background checks for all gun transfers except close family.

Does this mean that (except for close family) you'd have to go to an FFL holder to do the transfer paperwork and background check for you?

Or WHAT?

The support among the general public for universal background checks is HIGH......so this is one of the key places that this fight will end later on.

It would be good to understand the details of what is proposed and the DETAILS of how it would work.

[bstrawse]

I'd like somebody to explain this for me (in a simple way).

I'm hearing they want background checks for all gun transfers except close family.

Does this mean that (except for close family) you'd have to go to an FFL holder to do the transfer paperwork and background check for you?

Or WHAT?

The support among the general public for universal background checks is HIGH......so this is one of the key places that this fight will end later on.

It would be good to understand the details of what is proposed and the DETAILS of how it would work.

The current bills being proposed would do exactly that.

Senate Bill:
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bin/bldbill. ... ssion=ls88

GOCRA Summary:

Adds a $25 fee for a pistol/sporting rifle purchase permit
Extends the purchase permit processing time from 7 to 30 days
Allows a police chief to demand fingerprints before issuing a purchase permit
Disallows the use of a carry permit as a purchase permit after the first year
Requires ALL private firearm transfers to go through a licensed firearms dealer (with another $25 fee)
Deprives a citizen of her firearm rights if confined or hospitalized for a mental health or drug issue (on the mere word of a police officer, without a day in court)
Forbids the loaning of a firearm without a background check and fees

[ijosef]

Your assumption is correct. If I was selling you a firearm (private party to private party), we'd have to go to an FFL so he/she could run the background checks. One of us would also have to pony up the money for the FFL's fee on top of the cost of the firearm, of course. Pennsylvania requires background checks for all handguns sales, private included.

[ijosef]

Senate Bill:
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bin/bldbill. ... ssion=ls88

GOCRA Summary:

Adds a $25 fee for a pistol/sporting rifle purchase permit
Extends the purchase permit processing time from 7 to 30 days
Allows a police chief to demand fingerprints before issuing a purchase permit
Disallows the use of a carry permit as a purchase permit after the first year
Requires ALL private firearm transfers to go through a licensed firearms dealer (with another $25 fee)
Deprives a citizen of her firearm rights if confined or hospitalized for a mental health or drug issue (on the mere word of a police officer, without a day in court)
Forbids the loaning of a firearm without a background check and fees

Thanks for the GOCRA summary. Let's say for the sake of argument that this steaming pile of legislation passed. Would the private firearm transfer fee of $25 be on top of whatever fee the FFL charges? My guess is yes - when it comes to gun bills, it's always safe to assume the worst.

[bstrawse]

$25 for a Permit to Purchase annually (currently free)

Then whatever the FFL charges for the transfer. In the Metro, they range from $10 to $100
b

[Greg]

$25 for a Permit to Purchase annually (currently free)

Then whatever the FFL charges for the transfer. In the Metro, they range from $10 to $100
b

You can bet that those FFL fees will rise once they are manditory!

[St. Olaf]

GOCRA Summary:

Adds a $25 fee for a pistol/sporting rifle purchase permit
Extends the purchase permit processing time from 7 to 30 days
Allows a police chief to demand fingerprints before issuing a purchase permit
Disallows the use of a carry permit as a purchase permit after the first year
Requires ALL private firearm transfers to go through a licensed firearms dealer (with another $25 fee)
Deprives a citizen of her firearm rights if confined or hospitalized for a mental health or drug issue (on the mere word of a police officer, without a day in court)
Forbids the loaning of a firearm without a background check and fees

That summary doesn't mention this:

Sec. 16. Minnesota Statutes 2012, section 624.7132, subdivision 12, is amended to read:
9.23 Subd. 12. Exclusions. (a) For the purposes of this subdivision, "relative" means a
9.24parent, stepparent, child, stepchild, brother, sister, grandparent, or grandchild, by blood or
9.25marriage.
9.26Except as otherwise provided in section 609.66, subdivision 1f, (b) This section shall
9.27not apply to transfers of antique firearms as curiosities or for their historical significance
9.28or value, transfers to or between federally licensed firearms dealers, transfers by order of
9.29court, involuntary transfers, transfers at death or the following transfers:
9.30(1) a transfer by a person other than a federally licensed firearms dealer to a relative
9.31who is not ineligible to possess a firearm under state or federal law;

Or has this been changed?

[Thunder71]

As far as I'm concerned, a permit to carry IS my background check...

I'd want one answer in these hearings: "Tell me what criminal is this going to stop."

They can't find a solution, because there isn't a problem... our system works, for law abiding citizens. Show me one fricking bill that addresses criminals or criminal intent.

[damian_mb]

As far as I'm concerned, a permit to carry IS my background check...

I'd want one answer in these hearings: "Tell me what criminal is this going to stop."

They can't find a solution, because there isn't a problem... our system works, for law abiding citizens. Show me one fricking bill that addresses criminals or criminal intent.

They can't nor will they care. They know they can't control crminals, just law abiding citizens. Like people have been saying, it's not even about gun control, it's about control. You can ask these REPS until your jaw falls off about how this will affect criminals and they will continue to either go around it or ignore it.

[EllisW]

Let's hope our FFLs don't take advantage of this and raise their transfer fees. It'll be a good opportunity to find out if your local FFL is a total dbag and unworthy of your business.

The antis don't care about stopping criminals. This is one restriction among many on the long road to total civil disarmament. DiFi herself has publicly said that confiscation is her end game.

[White Horseradish]

Why couldn't they just allow NICS to be used by private sellers directly? I wouldn't mind being able to call in a buyer I don't personally know.

[Thunder71]

Why couldn't they just allow NICS to be used by private sellers directly? I wouldn't mind being able to call in a buyer I don't personally know.

I've thought similar the whole while... make 'an app for that', so you can just scan their DL, hit submit and it comes back with a yay or nay, no information stored, just an approval or denial.

[matthew.allen]

Why couldn't they just allow NICS to be used by private sellers directly? I wouldn't mind being able to call in a buyer I don't personally know.

The major issue, as I see it, is that that kind of access would allow possible access of private data to anyone who calls. I'm not sure what would stop someone from calling in checks on anyone for any arbitrary reason. There is a big difference between checking someone's history through public court records, and allowing access to a database that may contain non-public criminal data or health data. I know that there is limited info available currently, but even that is only given to licensed dealers, so there is some recourse if abuse is found to be happening. I wouldn't want just anyone to be able to call in a check on me.

[jdege]

The current bills being proposed would do exactly that.

OTOH, our current PTP/PTC system allows a seller to determine that a buyer has passed a background check, without creating a paper trail.

Making a PTP or PTC mandatory for all private firearms transactions would accomplish what they claim to want, without creating the paper trail that is the source of most of the opposition to the universal background check proposals. If the antis were to offer it, they'd see far less opposition, and they'd be almost certain to get it passed. And they know that.

That they aren't offering it is, in my mind, proof that they care more about establishing the paper trail than they do about the background checks.

[MJY65]

Why couldn't they just allow NICS to be used by private sellers directly? I wouldn't mind being able to call in a buyer I don't personally know.

The major issue, as I see it, is that that kind of access would allow possible access of private data to anyone who calls. I'm not sure what would stop someone from calling in checks on anyone for any arbitrary reason. There is a big difference between checking someone's history through public court records, and allowing access to a database that may contain non-public criminal data or health data. I know that there is limited info available currently, but even that is only given to licensed dealers, so there is some recourse if abuse is found to be happening. I wouldn't want just anyone to be able to call in a check on me.

Not necessarily. The response from the database would only need to be "approved" or "denied". The caller wouldn't need to know the reason why.