It seems, in Prince William you are required to tell police

[ProShooter]

You can remain silent, you can say " I choose not to answer that question", or you can lie to him and say no, if you really feel that is the best course of action (again, not encouraged)

I thought lying to an officer was a crime (in a round about way unless it was federal)? It definitely is if you lie to a federal agent (remember Martha!). I thought that if you are found lying, they would hit your with an obstruction of justice charge?

Not exactly...here's the false report statute:

18.2-461. Falsely summoning or giving false reports to law-enforcement officials.

It shall be unlawful for any person (i) to knowingly give a false report as to the commission of any crime to any law-enforcement official with intent to mislead, or (ii) without just cause and with intent to interfere with the operations of any law-enforcement official, to call or summon any law-enforcement official by telephone or other means, including engagement or activation of an automatic emergency alarm. Violation of the provisions of this section shall be punishable as a Class 1 misdemeanor.

Now, part i doesnt fit, although part ii could be stretched to fit.

Here's the Obstruction statute:

18.2-460. Obstructing justice.

A. If any person without just cause knowingly obstructs a judge, magistrate, justice, juror, attorney for the Commonwealth, witness or any law-enforcement officer in the performance of his duties as such or fails or refuses without just cause to cease such obstruction when requested to do so by such judge, magistrate, justice, juror, attorney for the Commonwealth, witness, or law-enforcement officer, he shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.

B. If any person, by threats or force, knowingly attempts to intimidate or impede a judge, magistrate, justice, juror, attorney for the Commonwealth, witness, or any law-enforcement officer, lawfully engaged in his duties as such, or to obstruct or impede the administration of justice in any court, he shall be deemed to be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.

C. If any person by threats of bodily harm or force knowingly attempts to intimidate or impede a judge, magistrate, justice, juror, witness, or any law-enforcement officer, lawfully engaged in the discharge of his duty, or to obstruct or impede the administration of justice in any court relating to a violation of or conspiracy to violate � 18.2-248 or subdivision (a) (3), (b) or (c) of � 18.2-248.1, or � 18.2-46.2 or � 18.2-46.3, or relating to the violation of or conspiracy to violate any violent felony offense listed in subsection C of � 17.1-805, he shall be guilty of a Class 5 felony.

D. Any person who knowingly and willfully makes any materially false statement or representation to a law-enforcement officer who is in the course of conducting an investigation of a crime by another is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.

Now here, part A could be stretched to fit....slim chance, imho, but possible.

Either way, like I said, its not encouraged, but that is your call. I can't give you legal advice. We encourage our students to just be honest, but the decision (and the consequences) are yours.

[ProShooter]

As I know it:

You don't have to voluntarily inform the LEO. (true)
If he asks just for your Driver's License, you don't have to show your CHP to him. (true)

However,

If he specifically asks if you are carrying a concealed firearm, you have to inform him. (false)
If he asks for your CHP, you need to present it (true) along with your Driver's License (or other Commonwealth issued or DOD or Department of State photo ID, and only if you are carrying a concealed handgun).

(or other Commonwealth issued or DOD or Department of State photo ID, and only if you are carrying a concealed handgun).

If police ask you for your identification, you can't not give it to them or refuse to identify yourself... I'm pretty sure if they ask for your CHP, they're gonna ask you to identify yourself as well, regardless of if you're carrying a concealed handgun or not...

You are mixing up a few things. In a general encounter, you are not required to produce an identifying document (except for as expressly listed above), you are only required to identify yourself, i.e. My name is Joe Smith, date of birth 01/01/1975 and I live at 123 Main St. If you are not driving, you do not have to produce a driver's license. If you are not carrying a handgun at all, or are not carrying concealed, then you are not required to display your CHP or one of the identifying documents stated above.

The only difference would be for a local ordinance that requires you to produce a document (ID). I think Richmond city has that, but don't quote me.

[zephyp]

If you appear resistant or uncooperative that will only work against you even if your rights are violated.

How do you figure? If you cooperate the law has decided you are giving consent and thus, it is virtually impossible to violate your rights. I.e. if you don't outright tell them no, you don't have any rights.

Yes you should let them know things like - "I dont consent to search or I elect to exercise my 5th amendment rights."

What I'm talking about is getting mouthy or physically resistant if they try to haul you away...then you are the transgressor. If you find yourself in a situation where your rights are being violated I think its best to simply let them know once that you dont consent or whatever the case is, then keep quiet and let them do whatever. They will most likely run far enough to hang themselves.

Resisting a twit cop will only mire you deeper...

And to address your point - if you cooperate - even if they are violating your rights and you "fight them" then there is probably some charge they can throw against you that might later stick. And it will make it harder for your attorney to portray you as a law abiding citizen having your rights violated as the prosecutor paints you as resisting arrest, etc, etc...

[gunderwood]

18.2-461. Falsely summoning or giving false reports to law-enforcement officials.

It shall be unlawful for any person (i) to knowingly give a false report as to the commission of any crime to any law-enforcement official with intent to mislead, or (ii) without just cause and with intent to interfere with the operations of any law-enforcement official, to call or summon any law-enforcement official by telephone or other means, including engagement or activation of an automatic emergency alarm. Violation of the provisions of this section shall be punishable as a Class 1 misdemeanor.

Now, part i doesnt fit, although part ii could be stretched to fit.

I would say part two is not a stretch. The courts have held that you could refuse to answer under your rights, but by speaking you gave them up. It would be a trivial case for the state to claim you interfered with the operations of a LEO. Not saying it should be that way, but that I would suggest given how courts have ruled concerning our rights in the past, that is anything but a stretch.

18.2-460. Obstructing justice.

A. If any person without just cause knowingly obstructs a judge, magistrate, justice, juror, attorney for the Commonwealth, witness or any law-enforcement officer in the performance of his duties...he shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.

The lie would prevent the LEO from performing his duties as he would have, had you answered truthfully. Again, not saying it is right, but if anyone honestly thinks they can lie to the state and get away with it, good luck.

That isn't just my opinion, Google it. The question is asked all over the place (not strictly referencing firearms) and LEOs say what I have summarized above. Like I pointed out originally, Martha Stewart wasn't convicted of anything but obstruction of justice for lying.

Practically, it is illegal to lie to an agent of the state under any circumstances. If you open your mouth, you don't have any rights.

[Reverenddel]

How about the police just mind their own business if I'm not committing a crime, look like a perp on an APB, or generally doing something goofy?

How about if I'm walking alone, not bothering a soul, and not fitting a profile, they just leave... me... alone. Huh? Wouldn't that be AMAZING to not have to answer "20 Questions", because some bully with a badge is "curious"?

And this isn't besmirching all LEO's, just the "Fife's".

[gunderwood]

If you appear resistant or uncooperative that will only work against you even if your rights are violated.

How do you figure? If you cooperate the law has decided you are giving consent and thus, it is virtually impossible to violate your rights. I.e. if you don't outright tell them no, you don't have any rights.

Yes you should let them know things like - "I dont consent to search or I elect to exercise my 5th amendment rights."

What I'm talking about is getting mouthy or physically resistant if they try to haul you away...then you are the transgressor. If you find yourself in a situation where your rights are being violated I think its best to simply let them know once that you dont consent or whatever the case is, then keep quiet and let them do whatever. They will most likely run far enough to hang themselves.

Resisting a twit cop will only mire you deeper...

And to address your point - if you cooperate - even if they are violating your rights and you "fight them" then there is probably some charge they can throw against you that might later stick. And it will make it harder for your attorney to portray you as a law abiding citizen having your rights violated as the prosecutor paints you as resisting arrest, etc, etc...

There is a vast chasm between not complying and "fighting them." If you don't clearly state that you do not wish to answer their questions, you do not give them permission to search your car, etc. the courts have held you are complying and have no rights. Sad, but true? Yes. The courts have also held that LEO are allowed to lie to you and there are no consequences. If it isn't in writing with your attorney's signature and the prosecutors it doesn't exist.

You must stand up for your rights. Tell them clearly and forcefully, but politely that you do not consent. Do not physically resist them because unlike regular citizens, using force to stop a LEO who is committing a crime is not legal. Violating your rights is a crime the state commits against individuals, however, all you can do is sue them later. Anything else and you will go to jail. However, you must also make it perfectly clear that you are not complying. Don't answer questions. You can do this several ways, only one of which is being silent, another is one or more of the various phrases posted previously, but be careful because once you talk it is easy to get going or unintentionally lie to them.

None compliance does not require physical resistance or that you are aggressive towards the officer.

[cabrera]

Ok, here is a question. I have read on other forums, (some on officer.com I think) that for their safety a LEO may disarm a CHP holder or on some occasions have you up on the hood of your car during a routine traffic stop. Then what is the benefit of being a CHP holder if they can "temporarily" treat you like a criminal in the name of their safety? If the chp holder is a retired LEO would they proceed with the same actions in the name of their safety?
I can understand this concern for someone who open carries & has no CHP permit, as everything from the gun to the individual is a mystery to the LEO, but one would think that a CHP holder who has gone through the diligence of a background check would be give more courtesy by LEO.

In Virginia what is the extent that disarming can be done?

[gunderwood]

Ok, here is a question. I have read on other forums, (some on officer.com I think) that for their safety a LEO may disarm a CHP holder or on some occasions have you up on the hood of your car during a routine traffic stop. Then what is the benefit of being a CHP holder if they can "temporarily" treat you like a criminal in the name of their safety?

Such treatment of citizens should not be tolerated. Unless the CHP holder is actually threatening the officer, disarming a citizen belies the point that they are really subjects, not citizens. IMHO, it violates the 2nd and the 4th Amendments.

You can justify nearly anything in the name of safety, particularly when the justification enhances your own power.

I can understand this concern for someone who open carries & has no CHP permit, as everything from the gun to the individual is a mystery to the LEO, but one would think that a CHP holder who has gone through the diligence of a background check would be give more courtesy by LEO.

I disagree. That is suppose to be a key distinction between LE and the Military or stated from a different reference point, the military is prohibited from carrying out police duties in the US (well, sort of, but we keep breaking that wall down) because the military's mission focus and training are incompatible with police actions.

A police officer's mission is to enforce the law, that includes the supreme law of the land which prohibits them from infringing on a citizens right to keep and bear arms and against unreasonable searches and seizures. The status of carry, open or concealed, should have no bearing on how a citizen is treated, nor should their permit status.

However, that is becoming a mute distinction because we have allowed most, not all, of our LE to become militarized. We have rationalized giving LEOs complete military powers, which includes complete and total subjection of citizens, the presumption of guilt if any citizen stands for their rights, and immunity from the law so long as the states interests were not harmed, if, the LEO chooses to exercise that authority.

In Virginia what is the extent that disarming can be done?

Like any other state, the extent is 100% including false arrest. It can be done, it has been done, and it will be done again, even in VA. Anti-gun LEOs and LEAs simply don't care because it is just tax payer dollars to buy off the lawsuits.

[cabrera]

I can understand this concern for someone who open carries & has no CHP permit, as everything from the gun to the individual is a mystery to the LEO, but one would think that a CHP holder who has gone through the diligence of a background check would be give more courtesy by LEO.

I disagree. That is suppose to be a key distinction between LE and the Military or stated from a different reference point, the military is prohibited from carrying out police duties in the US (well, sort of, but we keep breaking that wall down) because the military's mission focus and training are incompatible with police actions.

Gunderwood, don't get me wrong, I can understand (from the LEO's perspective) doing this from a personal safety point of view to a person w/o a CHP...it doesn't mean I agree with it. The problem seems to me is in Va a private sale is not regulated as are FFL sales. Therefore even though a seller does his due diligence to get proper buyer information, there is no background check. This leaves a big gaping hole for people with less than honorable intentions to purchase a gun. We wouldn't know ( and don't legally need to) if the person is a convict, mental patient or anything else that would prevent a legal sale. I've even read on this forum, postings of resistance if all private sale were required to go through an FFL transfer & background check. I'm sure if this was procedure LEOs wouldn't be so spooked.

[gunderwood]

I can understand this concern for someone who open carries & has no CHP permit, as everything from the gun to the individual is a mystery to the LEO, but one would think that a CHP holder who has gone through the diligence of a background check would be give more courtesy by LEO.

I disagree. That is suppose to be a key distinction between LE and the Military or stated from a different reference point, the military is prohibited from carrying out police duties in the US (well, sort of, but we keep breaking that wall down) because the military's mission focus and training are incompatible with police actions.

Gunderwood, don't get me wrong, I can understand (from the LEO's perspective) doing this from a personal safety point of view to a person w/o a CHP...it doesn't mean I agree with it.

I understand a LEO desiring to do it, but I still think it is wrong.

The problem seems to me is in Va a private sale is not regulated as are FFL sales.

There is no problem here.

Therefore even though a seller does his due diligence to get proper buyer information, there is no background check. This leaves a big gaping hole for people with less than honorable intentions to purchase a gun. We wouldn't know ( and don't legally need to) if the person is a convict, mental patient or anything else that would prevent a legal sale. I've even read on this forum, postings of resistance if all private sale were required to go through an FFL transfer & background check. I'm sure if this was procedure LEOs wouldn't be so spooked.

I disagree with your premise and your conclusion. You apparently are ignoring the fact that most guns used in crimes were illegally obtained. Most of those were stolen or black market guns which regulating private sales would have no impact on. They already are illegal, making them more illegal won't help and puts an undue burden on law-abiding citizens.

I'm guessing that you think LEOs in California, Rhode Island, Connecticut, D.C., and Pennsylvania have nothing to fear from people owning or carrying guns because all transfers are state regulated and require a uniform background check (PA/CT/MD have qualifiers to the UBC requirement)?

The fallacy is that criminals abide by the law when purchasing guns to murder, rape, rob, etc.

[cabrera]

I disagree with your premise and your conclusion. You apparently are ignoring the fact that most guns used in crimes were illegally obtained. Most of those were stolen or black market guns which regulating private sales would have no impact on. They already are illegal, making them more illegal won't help and puts an undue burden on law-abiding citizens.

Yes, I agree most guns used in crimes are stolen or illegally obtained, but since you mention northern states below, there are a lot of guns bought legally down here under private sales that are found up north illegally.
As far as undue burden, I don't see that. It was no burden at all for me to get checked at the FFL.or my CHP. What burden is it to go to an FFL and pay $30 to have the buyer checked. As a buyer I would take that opportunity to test fire the weapon I was buying at the FFL's gun range. I find it more of a burden to get my cars safety inspected annually.

I'm guessing that you think LEOs in California, Rhode Island, Connecticut, D.C., and Pennsylvania have nothing to fear from people owning or carrying guns because all transfers are state regulated and require a uniform background check (PA/CT/MD have qualifiers to the UBC requirement)?

As opposed to LEOs in states with no regulation? I would say in comparison yes, but of course one would have to have been a LEO in both locals to compare. Although I have not personally had a LEO encounter here, I have found that in general, LEOs demand a power status, despite the laws.

The fallacy is that criminals abide by the law when purchasing guns to murder, rape, rob, etc.

No they will obtain their weapon any way they can. I wonder if there are any statistics on crimes committed by CHP holders? I'm not talking about a guy comes home & finds his wife in bed with the neighbor scenario, I'm talking robbery or a LEO getting shot at a traffic stop etc.

[gunderwood]

I disagree with your premise and your conclusion. You apparently are ignoring the fact that most guns used in crimes were illegally obtained. Most of those were stolen or black market guns which regulating private sales would have no impact on. They already are illegal, making them more illegal won't help and puts an undue burden on law-abiding citizens.

Yes, I agree most guns used in crimes are stolen or illegally obtained, but since you mention northern states below, there are a lot of guns bought legally down here under private sales that are found up north illegally.

Please back that up. I'll give you a hint...it is illegal for the resident of NY to purchase a firearm in a private sale in VA, so to say those sales are legal is wrong.

It has been shown many times that Bloomberg, and similar ilk, have cooked the books for those stats. Masterful deceptions unless you read very carefully. This article discuss his deception concerning the guns trafficking between the US and Mexico:

In recent years, the escalating drug cartel violence in Mexico has claimed tens of thousands of lives, fueled in part by thousands of guns illegally trafficked from the United States. In fact, 90% of guns recovered and traced from Mexican crime scenes originated from gun dealers in the United States.

The first sentence of the report is factually correct. Thousands of guns have been smuggled into Mexico by cartels, and theses smuggled firearms have been one source of munitions for the drug gangs.

The second sentence, however, is masterfully deceptive … and purposefully so. You’ll note that it says “90% of guns recovered and traced from Mexican crime scenes originated from gun dealers in the United States.”

Recovered and traced is the hinge for their entire argument. It does not mean that 9 out of 10 guns recovered in Mexico come from the United States, though Bloomberg and others clinging to this fallacy would have you believe this.

What it means is that when Mexican authorities recover firearms from a cartel, they try to discern their origins. The vast majority of firearms recovered by Mexican authorities have no ties to the United States in any way, shape, or form. Roughly 80% of guns recovered from the cartels come from other nations, often former Soviet block nations where AK-47s and other automatic weapons can be obtained on the black market for next to nothing, in bulk.

The same deception has been going on with private sales and it appears you have fallen victim to it. You've made a staggering claim, please prove it.

As far as undue burden, I don't see that. It was no burden at all for me to get checked at the FFL.or my CHP. What burden is it to go to an FFL and pay $30 to have the buyer checked. As a buyer I would take that opportunity to test fire the weapon I was buying at the FFL's gun range. I find it more of a burden to get my cars safety inspected annually.

How would you like it if you couldn't buy a sell your car without government permission and fees? How about anything for that matter. Besides, your car doesn't have an amendment forbidding exactly that. Although, such powers are reserved for the states.

I'm guessing that you think LEOs in California, Rhode Island, Connecticut, D.C., and Pennsylvania have nothing to fear from people owning or carrying guns because all transfers are state regulated and require a uniform background check (PA/CT/MD have qualifiers to the UBC requirement)?

As opposed to LEOs in states with no regulation? I would say in comparison yes, but of course one would have to have been a LEO in both locals to compare. Although I have not personally had a LEO encounter here, I have found that in general, LEOs demand a power status, despite the laws.

I'll put good money on a LEO in one of those states taking your gun far more often than VA does. It happens in VA, but it is relatively rare. In CA, it happens all the time...just search YouTube.

The fallacy is that criminals abide by the law when purchasing guns to murder, rape, rob, etc.

No they will obtain their weapon any way they can. I wonder if there are any statistics on crimes committed by CHP holders? I'm not talking about a guy comes home & finds his wife in bed with the neighbor scenario, I'm talking robbery or a LEO getting shot at a traffic stop etc.

Of course they will acquire the gun anyway they can, that's the whole point.

Yes, there are CHP crime stats, but they are very low compared to the "general population." It happens and will happen in the future because not having committed a crime in the past does not logically preclude anyone from committing one in the future.

[cabrera]

Please back that up. I'll give you a hint...it is illegal for the resident of NY to purchase a firearm in a private sale in VA, so to say those sales are legal is wrong.

No I do not have statistics so I suppose it means it never happens. Those private sales were "technically" legal to the seller because, say the guy is still has Va ID even though he moved to NYC or his "cousin" buys the gun & he takes them back to NY. Yes I know buying a gun in those cases are illegal, but if the ID is bogus, the seller would never know. Should he care? Legally no but morally he should care. For example, I have a .357 that I legally bought when I lived in NJ. Although N.J. doesn't technically register handguns, the purchase permit has ALL my id data including the serial number of the gun. I could sell it privately but then I'd have to be concerned that I would get a knock at my door one day.

It has been shown many times that Bloomberg, and similar ilk, have cooked the books for those stats. Masterful deceptions unless you read very carefully. This article discuss his deception concerning the guns trafficking between the US and Mexico:

I grew up in NYC & worked there all my life...Bloomberg is an ASS!

How would you like it if you couldn't buy a sell your car without government permission and fees? How about anything for that matter. Besides, your car doesn't have an amendment forbidding exactly that. Although, such powers are reserved for the states.

You can't? I consider sales tax, registration fees, insurance requirements,state inspection fees & lets not forget the ridiculously stupid personal property tax just that!
If you buy a car you can't legally drive it without incurring the above costs. & if you don't register it, most communities (not talking about HOA) require you to keep it in a covered garage or shed lest you be cited. (I found that out my 1st day here when I left my unregistered 1964 Mercedes in my driveway because my garage was full of boxes) And if you sell it, and it is used in a crime or abandoned, you know this puppy will come back to bit you in the ass when they trace the VIN, & you have to prove you sold it.

I'll put good money on a LEO in one of those states taking your gun far more often than VA does. It happens in VA, but it is relatively rare. In CA, it happens all the time...just search YouTube.

Don't get me wrong, the LEOs here in Va. are damn great when it comes to CHP holder in comparison to many states...especially up north.

Yes, there are CHP crime stats, but they are very low compared to the "general population." It happens and will happen in the future because not having committed a crime in the past does not logically preclude anyone from committing one in the future.

That's exactly the point of my original comment I was making. Since crimes committed by CHP holder are minimal why is it that LEOs feel the need to treat one as a criminal?

BTW gunderwood I want to add that it it great to talk to someone like you on a forum who can discuss things like gentlemen. I have encountered some winners on other boards.

[gunderwood]

Please back that up. I'll give you a hint...it is illegal for the resident of NY to purchase a firearm in a private sale in VA, so to say those sales are legal is wrong.

No I do not have statistics so I suppose it means it never happens. Those private sales were "technically" legal to the seller because, say the guy is still has Va ID even though he moved to NYC or his "cousin" buys the gun & he takes them back to NY. Yes I know buying a gun in those cases are illegal, but if the ID is bogus, the seller would never know. Should he care? Legally no but morally he should care.

I never said that (underlined). I said you are making a huge leap of logic and don't have any proof of it besides your own opinion. I simply asked you to back up that claim.

In fact, I am sure it happens. I am sure there are private sales which lead to guns in NY or elsewhere. Just as I am sure that FFLs have sold guns to people who legally should have been disqualified, but for a variety of reasons they passed the governments background check anyways. The huge number of sales events practically guarantees it has happened and will happen again. However, to claim something is a problem and take away our rights to privately keep and bear arms as we please (private property rights) you need something besides your uneducated opinion. I have seen stats and they all were manipulated for political reasons like the article discussed concerning US guns in Mexico. I've never seen any stats which indicate that private sales are any more likely to lead to criminals with guns than state sponsored FFL sales.

So by logical extension, if the buyer provided stolen credentials to the governments background check system they would go through too. You can not make me morally responsible for another human's actions, sorry. If a criminal is willing to lie to me during a private sale and falsify documents, nothing is keeping them from doing it with a FFL purchase either. Yes, the degree of difficultly changes, but not by much. Just ask the BATFE about all the strawman purchases.

So I take you think FFLs are morally responsible for firearm sales which the government approves based on falsified documents or even straw purchases? How about the government? What if it was a legal private sale, to an upstanding citizen too, and the purchaser went crazy 10 years later and killed 100 people with it?

Again, rationalize it all you want, but you can not hold me responsible for their actions unless I knew about things that would prohibit the sale and did it anyways. That is why I'm against bills of sale. If filling out a piece of paper would change my feelings about any sale of a firearm, I shouldn't do the sale at all. A BoS doesn't relieve me of any moral or ethical duty.

It isn't the tool, it is the person. Apparently I missed the portion of human history where there were no guns and no crime because of it.

For example, I have a .357 that I legally bought when I lived in NJ. Although N.J. doesn't technically register handguns, the purchase permit has ALL my id data including the serial number of the gun. I could sell it privately but then I'd have to be concerned that I would get a knock at my door one day.

It is your right to keep or dispose of your property as you see fit. If you made a legal sale you should have no worries...unless we adopt your police state. To protect myself, I would only cooperate with my lawyer.

It has been shown many times that Bloomberg, and similar ilk, have cooked the books for those stats. Masterful deceptions unless you read very carefully. This article discuss his deception concerning the guns trafficking between the US and Mexico:

I grew up in NYC & worked there all my life...Bloomberg is an ASS!

At last we agree on something.

How would you like it if you couldn't buy a sell your car without government permission and fees? How about anything for that matter. Besides, your car doesn't have an amendment forbidding exactly that. Although, such powers are reserved for the states.

You can't? I consider sales tax, registration fees, insurance requirements,state inspection fees & lets not forget the ridiculously stupid personal property tax just that!
If you buy a car you can't legally drive it without incurring the above costs. & if you don't register it, most communities (not talking about HOA) require you to keep it in a covered garage or shed lest you be cited. (I found that out my 1st day here when I left my unregistered 1964 Mercedes in my driveway because my garage was full of boxes) And if you sell it, and it is used in a crime or abandoned, you know this puppy will come back to bit you in the ass when they trace the VIN, & you have to prove you sold it.

Only in a police state. Free states still put the burden of proof on the government, not on the citizens.

I agree with you, those taxes and fees shouldn't be legal. I should not be taxed for simply possessing an item which I already paid tax on when I bought. By the way, how are you claiming the high ground by wanting to do the same thing for guns.

In case you're wondering, yes, I set you up.

I'll put good money on a LEO in one of those states taking your gun far more often than VA does. It happens in VA, but it is relatively rare. In CA, it happens all the time...just search YouTube.

Don't get me wrong, the LEOs here in Va. are damn great when it comes to CHP holder in comparison to many states...especially up north.

Isn't that contrary to your argument that LEOs up north should have less concern than those down south with our "loose" gun laws?

As opposed to LEOs in states with no regulation? I would say in comparison yes, but of course one would have to have been a LEO in both locals to compare. Although I have not personally had a LEO encounter here, I have found that in general, LEOs demand a power status, despite the laws.

So which is it?

Funny thing is we don't seem to have much problem with illegal guns down here. Yes, there are cases, but by and large most of our cases are caused by your criminals, not our guns.

Yes, there are CHP crime stats, but they are very low compared to the "general population." It happens and will happen in the future because not having committed a crime in the past does not logically preclude anyone from committing one in the future.

That's exactly the point of my original comment I was making. Since crimes committed by CHP holder are minimal why is it that LEOs feel the need to treat one as a criminal?

The crime rate for the average citizen is also low, why should they feel the need to treat anyone as a criminal.

Only in a police state does the law enforcement get to decide how to treat you based on their perception of you. A LEO should not be able to disarm anyone simply based on their bias against guns or minorities or anything else. Unless a citizen is threatening the LEO, the LEO must treat them as a citizen and not a criminal.

BTW gunderwood I want to add that it it great to talk to someone like you on a forum who can discuss things like gentlemen. I have encountered some winners on other boards.

[/quote]
Yes it is. Forceful debate, but there is no value in flame wars.

[cabrera]

So I take you think FFLs are morally responsible for firearm sales which the government approves based on falsified documents or even straw purchases? How about the government? What if it was a legal private sale, to an upstanding citizen too, and the purchaser went crazy 10 years later and killed 100 people with it?

Hardly, but then for FFLs it's just business. Yes anything can go wrong in the future with a buyer, and although you should not be held responsible for the actions of other, I feel that every possible precaution should be taken by the seller. Yes a practical "red flag" approach is a good one but I feel an additional check would not hurt the situation.

Again, rationalize it all you want, but you can not hold me responsible for their actions unless I knew about things that would prohibit the sale and did it anyways. That is why I'm against bills of sale. If filling out a piece of paper would change my feelings about any sale of a firearm, I shouldn't do the sale at all. A BoS doesn't relieve me of any moral or ethical duty.

Now would your position be the same if the weapon being sold were directly traceable to you?

For example, I have a .357 that I legally bought when I lived in NJ. Although N.J. doesn't technically register handguns, the purchase permit has ALL my id data including the serial number of the gun. I could sell it privately but then I'd have to be concerned that I would get a knock at my door one day.

It is your right to keep or dispose of your property as you see fit. If you made a legal sale you should have no worries...unless we adopt your police state. To protect myself, I would only cooperate with my lawyer.

No worries does not necessarily mean, no aggravation. To have to defend my position that I sold the gun & I saved the BOS would be a huge PITA. Am I correct that the FFL sends a record of the gun serial # to the ATF?

I agree with you, those taxes and fees shouldn't be legal. I should not be taxed for simply possessing an item which I already paid tax on when I bought. By the way, how are you claiming the high ground by wanting to do the same thing for guns.
In case you're wondering, yes, I set you up.

Yeah I saw that coming <LOL>
As much as it burns my butt to have to pay PPT on my cars (which were bought cash in NJ) I have learned a saying that's used a lot here..."It is what it is".
Although technically the same, there is a huge difference between the sum of all the above charges for a car and the $30 for a transfer & check.

Isn't that contrary to your argument that LEOs up north should have less concern than those down south with our "loose" gun laws?

Absolutely. They should be less concerned but they aren't. Is it because they encounter less CCWs up there?
I have no idea, but the northern states have a very dark image of a gun. Everything up there is viewed on "political correctness". Take the anti smoking issue. They ban smoking now in bars and parks in NYC. They actually tried to ban it in cigar bars because it would "hinder the health of any employee".
Down here I see a more down to earth "realistic" approach.

Funny thing is we don't seem to have much problem with illegal guns down here. Yes, there are cases, but by and large most of our cases are caused by your criminals, not our guns.

I hear that. Why? Probably because BG never know who is carrying here.
It reminds me of when the Cuban flotilla in 1980 hit Florida. Shortly after, the newspapers reported there were many break in, and many shootings. The break-in situations stopped very quickly though. I guess they didn't figure that Florida homeowners shoot first!
<LOL>

Only in a police state does the law enforcement get to decide how to treat you based on their perception of you. A LEO should not be able to disarm anyone simply based on their bias against guns or minorities or anything else. Unless a citizen is threatening the LEO, the LEO must treat them as a citizen and not a criminal.

Yes but unfortunately it happens. and all too often.

[gunderwood]

Hardly, but then for FFLs it's just business. Yes anything can go wrong in the future with a buyer, and although you should not be held responsible for the actions of other, I feel that every possible precaution should be taken by the seller. Yes a practical "red flag" approach is a good one but I feel an additional check would not hurt the situation.

There is no evidence (or at least I've never seen any) which suggests that the FFL/background check laws have done anything for crime. Yes, there have been people turned away, but that is usually because of errors in the system, not because a real disqualified person attempted to purchase a firearm. The checks appear to do no good because they merely attempt to crack down on an inanimate object, but objects are not the problem. As for harm...

The "registration" make it easy for a police state to track and harass law-abiding citizens. Unless the people push back against these unlawful systems which are infringing on our ability to keep and bear arms, we are heading towards what the Europeans have, no rights which their government respects. The Constitution of the United States grants us no rights, nor does the government which it created. It simply acknowledges those rights and is bound by law to not infringe on the 2nd or make any law on the 1st, etc.

The additional check may not matter to you, but it infringes on liberty and the government has no such legal power to do so.

Now would your position be the same if the weapon being sold were directly traceable to you?

Yes, I have never done a bill of sale for any firearm I have sold save one, which was required by the state I was a resident at that time (not exactly a BoS, but practically close enough and it was a record). I have done a few BoS as a buyer, but only when the seller required it and it was a good deal. If the deal was average and the seller required a BoS I pass.

Not only that, I generally refuse to live in states which require such nonsense. Their crime rates aren't any lower and often are higher than reasonable states which require no special documentation. This is because the whole concept of background checks and such is illogical. They can never reduce crime. On the face of it they sound like a good idea, but they accomplish nothing useful. In fact, most guns found at crime scenes are not traced because of that very fact.

If you wanted to murder someone would you use a gun that is traceable to you? Furthermore, would you leave it next to the body for the police to find? Of course not.

If you are going to leave the gun at the scene (which is adventitious since you won't have a gun on you if you happen to be stopped/seen later on), you won't use something that can come back to you. You will grind the serials off (note this is already illegal) or simply use a non-traceable gun. There is no way to mark an object that can't be altered or removed. Even the latest and greatest laser this or micro stamp that take less than $1 of tools to defeat.

You see, gun traces are useless for the purposes of the primary crime. The only use is for secondary crimes and returning stolen property. The secondary crimes are things like being an FFL who sold the gun. The BATFE can look for the smallest typo to go after the FFL. The real value of gun traces is not for the primary crime, but rather for the secondary crime of supplying the gun. Yet this too is easily avoided by criminals. Fake IDs, stolen personal info, black market sales make actual criminals who wish to circumvent the laws regarding gun trafficking and illegal sales easy. Just like the primary crime, avoiding ties to the secondary crime is easy and commonly done by criminals. The only people who get caught up in gun traces leading to a secondary "crime" are those with good intentions. Private sales or FFL dealers who complied with the law, but were duped somehow. There is no value to society in going after those people.

You hardly need gun registration to return stolen properly. Besides, if you gun was stolen and used in a crime the odds of you ever getting it back are virtually zero.

In the end there is no value to society for background checks for gun purchases. They provide nothing for the primary crime and nothing for secondary crimes where the supplier had bad intentions. They are beneficial to a police state though and may cause real hard to people with good intentions. This whole discussion reminds me of prohibition, you can't get rid of alcoholism by banning alcohol. It just doesn't work and generally makes the problem worse much like prohibition did.

No worries does not necessarily mean, no aggravation. To have to defend my position that I sold the gun & I saved the BOS would be a huge PITA. Am I correct that the FFL sends a record of the gun serial # to the ATF?

Not in a free society it doesn't. You are innocent until proven guilty. Only in a police state are you assumed guilty and required to prove your innocence. The fact that I owed a gun 10 years ago means what? Nothing, just like the fact that you owned a car 10 years ago which was found to be running drugs today. The police may wish to question you, but if you use your rights you are good to go.

Although technically the same, there is a huge difference between the sum of all the above charges for a car and the $30 for a transfer & check.

As a matter of principle I don't care if it is one cent or $10k, wrong is wrong.

[cabrera]

Well, although we don't see eye to eye on many points, I have to admire your convictions.
Yes, I will agree with you that all the gun controls do cause a lot of difficulties for law abiding citizens, but I have to believe that the FFL background check have to at least help the situation.

If a time came that the government came to take all the guns away from private citizens (and I hope I'm am long gone by then), I would just hire a bodyguard, why, because I find the police to be reactive not proactive to crime.

[gunderwood]

Well, although we don't see eye to eye on many points, I have to admire your convictions.
Yes, I will agree with you that all the gun controls do cause a lot of difficulties for law abiding citizens, but I have to believe that the FFL background check have to at least help the situation.

How does it help in any meaningful way? I've thought about it extensively and I can't think of anything it actually does (rather than appear to do) other than limit how picky a criminal can be about rare gun models.

If a time came that the government came to take all the guns away from private citizens (and I hope I'm am long gone by then), I would just hire a bodyguard, why, because I find the police to be reactive not proactive to crime.

Not everyone can afford a bodyguard and such a government doesn't deserve the loyalty of anyone.

[SgtBill]

Legally no but morally he should care. For example, I have a .357 that I legally bought when I lived in NJ. Although N.J. doesn't technically register handguns, the purchase permit has ALL my id data including the serial number of the gun. I could sell it privately but then I'd have to be concerned that I would get a knock at my door one day.

Wrong , New Jersey registers all new weapon purchases when it comes to handguns.
Bill

[zephyp]

If a time came that the government came to take all the guns away from private citizens (and I hope I'm am long gone by then), I would just hire a bodyguard, why, because I find the police to be reactive not proactive to crime.

I'm with you only i would hire the guard(s) before the illegal confiscation...government is not getting their dirty stinking hands on my guns...