Wyoming attempts to deal with gun suicides

[Markemp]

Why is this a problem? I thought that Progressives were all in favor of assisted suicide.

Do they object to gun owners doing it in their own?

It isn’t a problem. It’s a good thing. Wyoming is at least trying to do something. I’m interested in seeing how effective it is. It would be great if they can significantly improve their numbers.

[Jackpine Savage]

The 'Universal Background Check (except for criminals)' makes it illegal to send your guns to a friend without going to an FFL for a background check in both directions.

[xd ED]

Why is this a problem? I thought that Progressives were all in favor of assisted suicide.

Do they object to gun owners doing it in their own?

This seems rather discriminatory; they certainly aren't showing much concern for those who identify as female, a demographic which rarely uses firearms to end their own lives.

[jdege]

Why is this a problem? I thought that Progressives were all in favor of assisted suicide.

Do they object to gun owners doing it in their own?

Democrats in Minnesota House advance radical assisted suicide bill

[vingrjoe]

My nephew attempted suicide fives times, employing different methods each time. Only on the last try did he attempt to use a firearm, thank God he was stopped and failed the other tries.

My point being is a firearm is a tool that can be used for good or evil. It doesn't make people commit suicide any more than a rope does or an automobile running in the garage.

On a related matter, it's peculiar how liberals are "concerned" with protecting peoples' lives unless they are a baby in the womb... godless hypocrites.

[Markemp]

My nephew attempted suicide fives times, employing different methods each time. Only on the last try did he attempt to use a firearm, thank God he was stopped and failed the other tries.

My point being is a firearm is a tool that can be used for good or evil. It doesn't make people commit suicide any more than a rope does or an automobile running in the garage.

On a related matter, it's peculiar how liberals are "concerned" with protecting peoples' lives unless they are a baby in the womb... godless hypocrites.

You should read the article then. It is about how conservatives in Wyoming are attempting to deal with gun suicide deaths without red flag laws.

[bstrawse]

The 'Universal Background Check (except for criminals)' makes it illegal to send your guns to a friend without going to an FFL for a background check in both directions.

That's not what MN's universal background check law says.

details here:

https://gunowners.mn/learn/minnesota-laws/ubcs/

[Holland&Holland]

The 'Universal Background Check (except for criminals)' makes it illegal to send your guns to a friend without going to an FFL for a background check in both directions.

That's not what MN's universal background check law says.

details here:

https://gunowners.mn/learn/minnesota-laws/ubcs/

But in essence it does doesn’t it? Either you use an Ffl or you create and retain the record, and presumably the liability that goes along with it. So if you don’t want the liability then it is off to the Ffl. Or am I missing something?

And yes I have read the link and watched the videos but I have misunderstood things before.

[jdege]

The 'Universal Background Check (except for criminals)' makes it illegal to send your guns to a friend without going to an FFL for a background check in both directions.

It's been illegal to send a firearm to anyone but an FFL for decades.

Did you mean "lend"?

[Holland&Holland]

The 'Universal Background Check (except for criminals)' makes it illegal to send your guns to a friend without going to an FFL for a background check in both directions.

It's been illegal to send a firearm to anyone but an FFL for decades.

Did you mean "lend"?

This is not a true statement. His friend could very well be in the same state.

I also have shipped several guns to manufacturers for warranty work with out using an ffl.

[xd ED]

The 'Universal Background Check (except for criminals)' makes it illegal to send your guns to a friend without going to an FFL for a background check in both directions.

It's been illegal to send a firearm to anyone but an FFL for decades.

Did you mean "lend"?

This is not a true statement. His friend could very well be in the same state.

I also have shipped several guns to manufacturers for warranty work with out using an ffl.

^^^THIS^^^^
An FFL is required when ownership crosses a state line.

[jdege]

It's been illegal to send a firearm to anyone but an FFL for decades.

This is not a true statement. His friend could very well be in the same state..

Even within the same state, it's illegal to ship a firearm via common carrier, except to yourself or an FFL.

[bstrawse]

The 'Universal Background Check (except for criminals)' makes it illegal to send your guns to a friend without going to an FFL for a background check in both directions.

That's not what MN's universal background check law says.

details here:

https://gunowners.mn/learn/minnesota-laws/ubcs/

But in essence it does doesn’t it? Either you use an Ffl or you create and retain the record, and presumably the liability that goes along with it. So if you don’t want the liability then it is off to the Ffl. Or am I missing something?

And yes I have read the link and watched the videos but I have misunderstood things before.

No. You can either go through a FFL or you can create and retain the record (which does not require going through a FFL) - these are not the same thing.

Bryan

[Holland&Holland]

Even within the same state, it's illegal to ship a firearm via common carrier, except to yourself or an FFL.

Is this MN law? USPS has specific instructions on their site on how you can ship long guns via mail within your state. As stated, I have had several manufactures arrange for me to ship (I believe via Fed Ex but it could have been UPS) direct to them and they have shipped direct back. I don't believe either of us are in violation of a law.

[Holland&Holland]

No. You can either go through a FFL or you can create and retain the record (which does not require going through a FFL) - these are not the same thing.

Bryan

I am still confused. If you do a transfer though an FFL the FFL will run a background check correct? We now have 2 ways in MN to transfer handguns and Mil style guns. Through an FFL or use the record form and retain it for 10 years. If you lose the form you have committed a crime correct? If you have reason to believe the person lied on the forum and still transferred, you have committed a crime. Therefore, if said firearm were to be used nefariously it is completely reasonable in our legal climate to assume it is possible for a prosecutor to make the case that you as the transferer committed a crime because YOU were the point of purchase control and "should have known". I.E. you are taking on liability in transferring the gun. Similar liability as any gun store owner however without the benefit of a ATF back ground check to call into as your defense. I contend that to sell a firearm in this state of the above stated type, you are taking on risk. If you do not want that risk as part of this transaction you have only one option. The options the poster stated. I can only speak for me but if I am to take on that risk, my glocks cost $50,000 a piece.