Supreme Court Weighs Second Amendment Showdown After Mass Shootings

[High_Plains_Drifter]

i just heard Trump on Fox say that he and others are looking very closely at new background check and red flag laws.

Well, I'll tell ya what... he fucks around with red flag laws and makes back ground checks mandatory for EVERY gun sale, even private citizens, and I guarantee you, you can mark my words here, his next rally after he signs some shit like that and he'll have HALF the people there he normally does, and when he sees that, he'll know he doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of being reelected. He fucked up. He's railed about protecting the second amendment at EVERY rally he's ever had, and it states "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." He's playing with fire, seriously. He signs some expansive new bull shit back ground checks that includes private sales, and we get red flag laws, he won't get my vote again.

[Kathianne]

i just heard Trump on Fox say that he and others are looking very closely at new background check and red flag laws.

Well, I'll tell ya what... he fucks around with red flag laws and makes back ground checks mandatory for EVERY gun sale, even private citizens, and I guarantee you, you can mark my words here, his next rally after he signs some shit like that and he'll have HALF the people there he normally does, and when he sees that, he'll know he doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of being reelected. He fucked up. He's railed about protecting the second amendment at EVERY rally he's ever had, and it states "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." He's playing with fire, seriously. He signs some expansive new bull shit back ground checks that includes private sales, and we get red flag laws, he won't get my vote again.

No disrespect, but who are you going to vote for then? Going to let a Democrat win?

[High_Plains_Drifter]

No disrespect, but who are you going to vote for then? Going to let a Democrat win?

It won't be just me "letting a democrat win," he'll lose major support. If a democrat wins, it'll be TRUMP'S fault, not mine.

And when you have no one to vote for, you just don't vote.

Maybe I'd write MYSELF in.

[Noir]

Nice try but you are presenting only half the equation. I would prefer that the millions of law abiding citizens were armed, trained and capable of effectively neutralizing any armed threat at any time.

Well that’s a nice fantasy equation, my equation that you call “half” is the actual real day situation.

Do really believe that a mass murder would walk into WalMart and start shooting knowing that most of the folks in there were armed?

Yes.

As for rioters being armed, I am quite certain they would think twice before rioting if they know the majority of those NOT rioting were armed as well.

I doubt it, mobs are mobs, guns or not, and mob mentality will win out over any individual assessment.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

Well that’s a nice fantasy equation, my equation that you call “half” is the actual real day situation.

Yes.

I doubt it, mobs are mobs, guns or not, and mob mentality will win out over any individual assessment.

.........

[jimnyc]

i just heard Trump on Fox say that he and others are looking very closely at new background check and red flag laws.

Well, I'll tell ya what... he fucks around with red flag laws and makes back ground checks mandatory for EVERY gun sale, even private citizens, and I guarantee you, you can mark my words here, his next rally after he signs some shit like that and he'll have HALF the people there he normally does, and when he sees that, he'll know he doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of being reelected. He fucked up. He's railed about protecting the second amendment at EVERY rally he's ever had, and it states "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." He's playing with fire, seriously. He signs some expansive new bull shit back ground checks that includes private sales, and we get red flag laws, he won't get my vote again.

I don't have much of an issue with certain types of background checks - kind of like it is now though, with a limited check via the FBI and what not, and a 3 day wait if needing further investigation, or 3 day weight in general at many places. Ways already to be disqualified:

Convicted crime of more than 2 year sentence
You have renounced your USA citizenship
In the country illegally
Convicted of domestic violence
Are a fugitive
Have a warrant
Are an addict
Dishonorably discharged from military
Diagnosed mentally ill or found not guilty by reason of insanity or unfit for trial

You get a background check if purchasing from someone with an FFL.

Private sales of any sorts must meet restrictions for possessing firearms under Federal law. And you think it's all private, so you can just lie, right?

And even via the NICS. Accidentally check off wrong box in criminal history? You're facing 18-36 in the slammer. Issues with your mental health, and you lie about it and get caught? That'll get your sentence increased!

An example of laws already in place for law abiding citizens and associated penalties. MANY states already have the NICS bg checks as mandatory, but the libs don't tell you that, do they? You know, places like Illinois. There, the buyer must have a valid firearm owner's identification card. State police MUST do a background check. And then the seller "May not knowingly transfer firearms to anyone who is ineligible to possess a firearm or who lacks a valid FOID card. All transfers of firearms must be recorded and maintained for 10 years." ----- that sure has worked out as a 10 out of 10, absolutely perfect in places like Chicago!!! Those criminals came up on so many police checks, and littered allllll over those kept records!! Alaska, Alabama Lousiana, Missouri.... and others..... must ensure the buyer fits within all laws and regulations, and must keep records.

This will cover a few examples:

Internet Gun Sales and Background Checks, Explained

Advocates of gun violence prevention have praised Facebook over the past week for its decision to ban private gun sales from the social network. Facebook’s new policy, enforced by reports from users, was announced at the end of a month that began with President Obama’s week of speeches and executive actions aimed at reducing gun violence. One of the most parsed moments in Obama’s speech unveiling his executive actions on guns on January 4th was a sentence that drew little interest from pundits and mainstream reporters.

“A violent felon can buy [a gun] over the Internet with no background check, no questions asked,” he said from the East Room, echoing a familiar refrain of advocates. Almost immediately, conservative critics pounced.

A writer at The Federalist said Obama’s remark was “so plainly not true.” The National Review writer Charles C.W. Cooke called the president’s statement “what is classically called a lie.”

...

You have a few options. If you Google “online gun store,” you’ll find a slew of websites with names like Grabagun.com, Impactguns.com, and Budsgunshop.com that act like digital versions of physical gun stores. Websites like Gunbroker.com, in contrast, host auctions, much like eBay. Then there are sites that don’t conduct gun sales, but rather allow individuals to arrange sales. The most well known is Armslist.com — essentially a Craigslist for guns — but discussion boards like Glocktalk.com also often have sections dedicated to classified ads.

...

You go through a background check.

Customers who purchase weapons from the website of a Federally Licensed Firearms dealer (FFL), like Kentucky-based Buds, can’t just enter their credit card and address and have a gun shipped to their doorstep. Instead, the seller will mail the gun to a local FFL, which will then perform a background check on the buyer before handing over the gun. In most cases, the local FFL will charge a transfer fee, usually $25–$50, for facilitating the transaction.

These rules apply to sellers with brick and mortar locations, like Bud’s, and those that conduct all their sales online, like Grabagun, which is based out of a Texas industrial park and has no storefront.

Rest - https://www.thetrace.org/2016/01/int...ground-checks/

Another read:

Top Gun Stats Liberals Don’t Want You to Know

In the wake of the Orlando terror attack–carried out by a gunman who ignored the Pulse Orlando’s gun-free designation–liberals are eagerly working to limit the Second Amendment rights of citizens throughout the country.
In so doing, they are pushing numerous gun controls that are not only theoretically troublesome but which have already been proven practical failures. Moreover, proponents of more gun control are glossing over facts and evidence that undermine claims about the AR-15 and other firearms, as well as facts and evidence regarding the manner in which guns are primarily used.

Here are the top stats liberals don’t want you to know:

1 - Background Checks Do Not Stop High Profile Attackers–Although gun grabbers relentlessly push background checks as the solution to stopping high profile attacks on innocent Americans, the facts are that background checks do not hinder high profile attackers in the least. Alleged Orlando attacker Omar Mateen passed a background check for his guns, as did UCLA gunman Mainak Sarkar and almost every high profile attacker in the past 10 years.

Breitbart New previously published a list of attackers and alleged attackers who passed background checks for their guns, and that list stands as evidence that background checks are no hindrance to evil persons dedicated to murder. The list includes: “Sayed Farook and Tashfeen Malik (San Bernardino), Noah Harpman (Colorado Springs), Chris Harper Mercer (Umpqua Community College), Vester Lee Flangan (Virgina), John Russell Houser (Lafayette), Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez (Chattanooga), Dylann Roof (Charleston), Elton Simpson and Nadir Soofi (Garland), Jared and Amanda Miller (Las Vegas), Elliot Rodger (Santa Barabara), Ivan Lopez (Fort Hood 2014), Darion Marcus Aguilar (Maryland mall), Karl Halverson Pierson (Arapahoe High School), Paul Ciancia (LAX), Andrew John Engeldinger (Minneapolis), Aaron Alexis (DC Navy Yard), Tennis Melvin Maynard (West Virginia), Wade Michael Page (Sikh Temple), James Holmes (Aurora theater), Jared Loughner (Tucson), Nidal Hasan (Fort Hood 2009), Jiverly Wong (Binghamton), Seung-Hui Cho (Virginia Tech), Naveed Haq (Seattle), and Mark Barton (Atlanta).”

2. More People Killed With Clubs, Hammers Than Rifles–Amid the push for an “assault weapons” ban following the Sandy Hook attack, Breitbart News consulted FBI numbers for the years 2005-2011 and found that the number of murders by hammers and clubs constantly topped the number of murders by rifle. For example, In 2005 the number of murders committed with a rifle was 445, while the number of murders committed with hammers and clubs was 605. In 2006, the number of murders committed with a rifle was 438, while the number of murders committed with hammers and clubs was 618. In 2011, there was 323 murders committed with a rifle but 496 murders committed with hammers and clubs.

And it should be noted the rifles in view here include all kinds of rifles–bolt-actions, semiautomatic hunting rifles, semiautomatic target rifles, etc.–so the percentage of deaths in which a rifles like an AR-15 were used would be even smaller than the overall number quoted for the years above.

3.AR-15s Are Not “Automatic” Rifles–Although politicians like Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, celebrities like Seth MacFarlene, and too many media pundits to number have referred to the AR-15 as an “automatic” weapon during last few months, the fact remains that AR-15s are semiautomatic firearms. They shoot one round–and only one round–each time the trigger is pulled. This means an AR-15 shoots no faster than a Smith & Wesson M&P 9mm handgun, or a Glock or Sig Sauer .40 caliber handgun, or an H&K or Ruger .45 caliber handgun. Claims to the contrary are either based on ignorance or are part of a focused attempt to demonize the AR-15.

4. Guns Are Legally Used For Self-Defense Purposes Approximately 760,000 A Year–Staggering isn’t it? Especially when you consider the way the mainstream media covers gun crime after gun crime, giving the impression that guns are just bad things which bad people use to hurt good people. Yet Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck has demonstrated that guns are used for defensive purposes approximately 760,000 a year in the United States.

5.Gun-Free Zones Are Killing Fields–The Orlando terror attack to place in gun-free zone. Result? Approximately 50 dead. The attack in the Umpqua Community College gun-free zone (October 2015) left 9 dead, the attack on the gun-free Chattanooga military offices (July 2015) left five dead, the attack in Fort Hood’s gun-free zone (April 2014) left 3 dead, the earlier attack in Fort Hood’s gun-free zone (November 2009) killed 13, the attack in the gun-free DC Navy Yard (September 2013) killed 12, the attack on gun-free Sandy Hook Elementary (December 2012) killed 26, the attack in the gun-free Aurora movie theater (July 2012) killed 12, and the attack on the gun-free Virginia Tech campus (April 2007) killed 32. Think about it–Eight gun-free zones, 207 firearm-related deaths.

6. More Children Under 10 Killed By Fire, Drowning Than Accidental Gun Deaths—Breitbart News previously reported Centers for Disease Control and Prevention numbers for 2010. The figures were compiled by John Lott, they showed the number of children under the age of 10 unintentionally killed in fire-related deaths was over seven times higher than the number of children killed in unintentional gun-related deaths, and the number of children killed in unintentional drowning deaths was sixteen times higher than the number of children killed in unintentional gun-related deaths. The raw numbers were as follows: Number of children killed in unintentional fire-related deaths was 262, the number of unintentional drowning 609, the number of accidental gun-related deaths was 36.

Rest - https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...ont-want-know/

If and when the time comes I will need to read exact specifics on any proposal or changes, but if he somehow demands or forces more than that, and it's unreasonable in any way, he will not have my support on that issue. Not voting for him and allowing one of the socialists to take office instead? Not sure I can do that. But I would be extremely vocal about the issue. But the fact is, a liberal would likely try the same crap if not worse. I think I would still support him overall to to get another 4, but then push as hard as possible to keep that from happening. OR, if it happens prior, no way in hell I support too much change if at all, and then he will have a problem come election time. I'll still prefer him over any of the nitwits on the left, without a thought, but also no doubt a ton more simply stay away over such an important issue.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

@jimnyc... I can go to local gun shows all around WI here and buy and sell guns LEGALLY. Sales and purchases between private citizens is legal here. $20 a day buys you a table at one of these gun shows and bring whatever you want to sell, and as a private citizen, you're not required to do any check on someone purchasing anything. It's often referred to on the news as the "GUN SHOW LOOP HOLE." Well it's really got nothing to do with gun shows, it's simply private citizens being legally able to purchase and sell guns without a background check.

And I can tell you this, that is a VERY important issue to MANY, because if background checks are expanded to EVERY gun sale, even PRIVATE, then the government knows about EVERY firearm, and that's really what they NEED to be one step closer to being able to CONFISCATE THEM ALL.

I guarantee, if Trump and the republicans go there and eliminate private sales without a background check, HE, WILL, LOSE, in 2020... GUARANTEED... and the repubs would probably lose the senate too.

One other thing, you can have a warrant out on you and still own a firearm in WI. Warrants can issued for failure to appear for a speeding ticket, but it's still a misdemeanor. Only felony convictions prohibit someone from owning a gun.
But myself, I don't think that's even fair. I think felons should still be able to own a gun. I think anyone convicted of a non violent offense should not lose their 2nd amendment rights. I think being convicted of ANY sort of violence is where you have to look. If you've been convicted of felony assault in the first degree, you attacked someone and beat them senseless, and it wasn't self defense, that's when you lose your 2nd amendment rights.

[jimnyc]

@jimnyc... I can go to local gun shows all around WI here and buy and sell guns LEGALLY. Sales and purchases between private citizens is legal here. $20 a day buys you a table at one of these gun shows and bring whatever you want to sell, and as a private citizen, you're not required to do any check on someone purchasing anything. It's often referred to on the news as the "GUN SHOW LOOP HOLE." Well it's really got nothing to do with gun shows, it's simply private citizens being legally able to purchase and sell guns without a background check.

And I can tell you this, that is a VERY important issue to MANY, because if background checks are expanded to EVERY gun sale, even PRIVATE, then the government then knows about EVERY firearm, and that's really what they NEED to be one step closer to being able to CONFISCATE THEM ALL.

I guarantee, if Trump and the republicans go there eliminate private sales without a background check, HE, WILL, LOSE, in 2020... GUARANTEED... and the repubs would probably lose the senate too.

Oh, absolutely. But the guys selling still has rules/laws to follow, even if the liberals scream otherwise. Wisconsin too, a private seller must ensure the age requirements are met, and that the buyer isn't otherwise prohibited by law in any way.

Liberals don't understand that the overwhelming majority of gun owners are RESPONSIBLE people, they KNOW what personal responsibility is. Liberals couldn't possibly imagine others being responsible outside of the government or police direct enforcement. It's a foreign concept to them.

And I agree about the horrid record keeping/tracking laws getting out of hand. Outside of ensuring legality, I don't think records should ever be transferable in any way to the government or police. Nothing that allows for confiscation down the road should be allowed. I know my brother Jeff in Georgia has the EXACT stance as you, as he's bought guns in such a manner in Georgia. And their laws are almost identical to Wisconsin.

[jimnyc]

Really a damn good idea if you think about it. PROVE to America that it's the right choice. Maybe even start somewhere large like California. See if very tough regulations stem the flow of blood from gun crimes, and see if such laws and regulations get the criminals to lay their weapons down, or not use them in crimes since they are now further regulated.

Perhaps somewhere like Chicago? Oh wait, they already have some of the toughest laws and regulations in the country. Perhaps not the worst.... but lots of what the liberals want. Then we have Baltimore, Maryland, where ALL weapons must go through a FFL, or law enforcement for background checks.

Six Shot in Less than Two Hours in Gun-Controlled Baltimore

Six people were shot in less than two hours late Friday night to early Saturday morning in heavily gun-controlled Baltimore, Maryland.
WBALTV reports that the first of the shooting incidents occurred around 11:18 p.m. Friday and the last occurred around 1:00 a.m. Saturday.

The 11:18 p.m. incident resulted in a 34-year-old being shot, and the 1:00 a.m. incident resulted in a 37-year-old man being shot.

At 11:43 p.m., three people–a 31-year-old man, a 44-year-old woman, and a 15-year-old boy–were all shot and left with non-life-threatening injuries.

Additionally, a 32-year-old man was treated for gunshot wounds around midnight.

On July 29, 2019, Breitbart News reported that Baltimore is on track to top 300 homicides for the fifth consecutive year.

Baltimore, like all of Maryland, has a ban on “assault weapons” and “high capacity” magazines. It also has a registration/fingerprint requirement for would-be purchasers of new handguns.

Rest - https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...ed-baltimore/#

[High_Plains_Drifter]

Oh, absolutely. But the guys selling still has rules/laws to follow, even if the liberals scream otherwise. Wisconsin too, a private seller must ensure the age requirements are met, and that the buyer isn't otherwise prohibited by law in any way.

I don't think so, pard. If I sold a gun to someone, I'm not required to do any sort of investigation into any of that person's past or legal issues. If the person buying the gun had any issues as to why he isn't supposed to posses one, then it's on him for illegally buying and possessing a firearm, not me for selling it to him.

Far as age goes, the age for purchasing and carrying, hunting, etc in WI is 12, but again, I think that only pertains to sales from an FFL individual or business. A don't believe a private citizen is required to check anyone's age. Of course, a 12 year old is going to be accompanied by an adult when buying a gun, and if they're not, I surely wouldn't sell them anything. I wouldn't sell a gun to anyone that doesn't at least look 16.

Hunting is MAJOR industry here in WI. It keeps our state going. If deer hunting alone were to all of a sudden stop, not to mention small game, our economy would be in the toilet, and I think even the gun hating democrats in this state realize that.

I know I'm the only here that's said that Trump is playing with fire talking about expanded background checks and red flag laws. I'll take the hit if I'm wrong, but I'd bet my bottom dollar I'm not. He can screw himself so fast it'll make his head spin if he dicks around and goes too far, and considering how he won so many states by such small margins, that too far really isn't that far.

[jimnyc]

I don't think so, pard. If I sold a gun to someone, I'm not required to do any sort of investigation into any of that person's past or legal issues. If the person buying the gun had any issues as to why he isn't supposed to posses one, then it's on him for illegally buying and possessing a firearm, not me for selling it to him.

Far as age goes, the age for purchasing and carrying, hunting, etc in WI is 12, but again, I think that only pertains to sales from an FFL individual or business. A don't believe a private citizen is required to check anyone's age. Of course, a 12 year old is going to be accompanied by an adult when buying a gun, and if they're not, I surely wouldn't sell them anything. I wouldn't sell a gun to anyone that doesn't at least look 16.

Hunting is MAJOR industry here in WI. It keeps our state going. If deer hunting alone were to all of a sudden stop, not to mention small game, our economy would be in the toilet, and I think even the gun hating democrats in this state realize that.

I know I'm the only here that's said that Trump is playing with fire talking about expanded background checks and red flag laws. I'll take the hit if I'm wrong, but I'd bet my bottom dollar I'm not. He can screw himself so fast it'll make his head spin if he dicks around and goes too far, and considering how he won so many states by such small margins, that too far really isn't that far.

It may be more of that personal responsibility system, but a seller/buyer can still be held responsible. In Wisconsin, for example, a seller must still ensure the buyer is over 18. They must ensure the buyer is not otherwise restricted by federal law. Now, they can do this via simply asking them, and that's what most do, and the majority know people or know a friend of a friend. But yes, others can simply sell and not have a care in the world, and the same from the buyer. But still severe penalties if caught. AND potentially other associated charges.

948.60  Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.

(1)  In this section, “dangerous weapon" means any firearm, loaded or unloaded; any electric weapon, as defined in s. 941.295 (1c) (a); metallic knuckles or knuckles of any substance which could be put to the same use with the same or similar effect as metallic knuckles; a nunchaku or any similar weapon consisting of 2 sticks of wood, plastic or metal connected at one end by a length of rope, chain, wire or leather; a cestus or similar material weighted with metal or other substance and worn on the hand; a shuriken or any similar pointed star-like object intended to injure a person when thrown; or a manrikigusari or similar length of chain having weighted ends.
(2) 948.60(2)(a)(a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.
(b) Except as provided in par. (c), any person who intentionally sells, loans or gives a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age is guilty of a Class I felony.
(c) Whoever violates par. (b) is guilty of a Class H felony if the person under 18 years of age under par. (b) discharges the firearm and the discharge causes death to himself, herself or another.
(d) A person under 17 years of age who has violated this subsection is subject to the provisions of ch. 938 unless jurisdiction is waived under s. 938.18 or the person is subject to the jurisdiction of a court of criminal jurisdiction under s. 938.183.
(3) (a) This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon when the dangerous weapon is being used in target practice under the supervision of an adult or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the supervision of an adult. This section does not apply to an adult who transfers a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age for use only in target practice under the adult's supervision or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the adult's supervision.
(b) This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who is a member of the armed forces or national guard and who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon in the line of duty. This section does not apply to an adult who is a member of the armed forces or national guard and who transfers a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age in the line of duty.
(c) This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593. This section applies only to an adult who transfers a firearm to a person under 18 years of age if the person under 18 years of age is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593 or to an adult who is in violation of s. 941.28.
History: 1987 a. 332; 1991 a. 18, 139; 1993 a. 98; 1995 a. 27, 77; 1997 a. 248; 2001 a. 109; 2005 a. 163; 2011 a. 35.
Sub. (2) (b) does not set a standard for civil liability, and a violation of sub. (2) (b) does not constitute negligence per se. Logarto v. Gustafson, 998 F. Supp. 998 (1998).

---

I just read this on a gun site from a guy in Wisconsin on what he does/asks in selling privately:

1) are you a felon?
2) are you the subject of a restraining order?
3) have you been to the loony bin?
4) are you legally permitted to purchase and posses a handgun?

If you're worried, you can run a criminal records search on WI CCAP.
Then i take a photo of their WI Drivers Lisc for my records in case the po-po comes looking.

---

Another question that is state specific:

Would a person be civilly liable if he unknowingly sells a gun to an ineligible person and that person commits a crime with it-if it could be proven that the instant background would have identified the person as ineligible? Would be the background check be considered necessary due diligence?

The answers all appear to point in the state specific direction.

---

I guess what I was trying to say:

In general, people who make the occasional sale, exchange, or gifting of a firearm are not required to have a Federal Firearms License (FFL), which gun shop owners need, however, they are still required to know and abide by local, state, and federal laws.

Another good blog article - https://www.nrablog.com/articles/201...les-explained/

---

I wouldn't even question you or any other gun owners outside of NJ/NY! I was solely pointing out that the sellers/buyers must still follow the laws, even if not using NICS or handing over personal information to the DOJ/FBI.

[Gunny]

You are both correct. Jimbob on a technical, legal level. HPD at the "how it's usually done" level. It's the same here. You are supposed to abide by the law. However, most people just take the buyer's word for it.

I have always gotten at least a receipt that shows the other person is in fact liable for the use and possession of the firearm. Admittedly, it's been quite a few years since I have sold a gun to an individual and it was my brother. I do know the rules have stiffened here. If I was going to sell a firearm I would definitely have to update my knowledge of the law.

I also take into account of the above that HPD lives in the country. People in the country pretty much don't pay attention to stupid city people laws. When you see a cop about once a week or so where you live, you aren't waiting on them to take care of your business or they'll just be investigating your murder.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

It may be more of that personal responsibility system, but a seller/buyer can still be held responsible. In Wisconsin, for example, a seller must still ensure the buyer is over 18. They must ensure the buyer is not otherwise restricted by federal law. Now, they can do this via simply asking them, and that's what most do, and the majority know people or know a friend of a friend. But yes, others can simply sell and not have a care in the world, and the same from the buyer. But still severe penalties if caught. AND potentially other associated charges.

948.60  Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.

(1)  In this section, “dangerous weapon" means any firearm, loaded or unloaded; any electric weapon, as defined in s. 941.295 (1c) (a); metallic knuckles or knuckles of any substance which could be put to the same use with the same or similar effect as metallic knuckles; a nunchaku or any similar weapon consisting of 2 sticks of wood, plastic or metal connected at one end by a length of rope, chain, wire or leather; a cestus or similar material weighted with metal or other substance and worn on the hand; a shuriken or any similar pointed star-like object intended to injure a person when thrown; or a manrikigusari or similar length of chain having weighted ends.
(2) 948.60(2)(a)(a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.
(b) Except as provided in par. (c), any person who intentionally sells, loans or gives a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age is guilty of a Class I felony.
(c) Whoever violates par. (b) is guilty of a Class H felony if the person under 18 years of age under par. (b) discharges the firearm and the discharge causes death to himself, herself or another.
(d) A person under 17 years of age who has violated this subsection is subject to the provisions of ch. 938 unless jurisdiction is waived under s. 938.18 or the person is subject to the jurisdiction of a court of criminal jurisdiction under s. 938.183.
(3) (a) This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon when the dangerous weapon is being used in target practice under the supervision of an adult or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the supervision of an adult. This section does not apply to an adult who transfers a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age for use only in target practice under the adult's supervision or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the adult's supervision.
(b) This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who is a member of the armed forces or national guard and who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon in the line of duty. This section does not apply to an adult who is a member of the armed forces or national guard and who transfers a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age in the line of duty.
(c) This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593. This section applies only to an adult who transfers a firearm to a person under 18 years of age if the person under 18 years of age is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593 or to an adult who is in violation of s. 941.28.
History: 1987 a. 332; 1991 a. 18, 139; 1993 a. 98; 1995 a. 27, 77; 1997 a. 248; 2001 a. 109; 2005 a. 163; 2011 a. 35.
Sub. (2) (b) does not set a standard for civil liability, and a violation of sub. (2) (b) does not constitute negligence per se. Logarto v. Gustafson, 998 F. Supp. 998 (1998).

---

I just read this on a gun site from a guy in Wisconsin on what he does/asks in selling privately:

1) are you a felon?
2) are you the subject of a restraining order?
3) have you been to the loony bin?
4) are you legally permitted to purchase and posses a handgun?

If you're worried, you can run a criminal records search on WI CCAP.
Then i take a photo of their WI Drivers Lisc for my records in case the po-po comes looking.

---

Another question that is state specific:

Would a person be civilly liable if he unknowingly sells a gun to an ineligible person and that person commits a crime with it-if it could be proven that the instant background would have identified the person as ineligible? Would be the background check be considered necessary due diligence?

The answers all appear to point in the state specific direction.

---

I guess what I was trying to say:

In general, people who make the occasional sale, exchange, or gifting of a firearm are not required to have a Federal Firearms License (FFL), which gun shop owners need, however, they are still required to know and abide by local, state, and federal laws.

Another good blog article - https://www.nrablog.com/articles/201...les-explained/

---

I wouldn't even question you or any other gun owners outside of NJ/NY! I was solely pointing out that the sellers/buyers must still follow the laws, even if not using NICS or handing over personal information to the DOJ/FBI.

Private Sales in Wisconsin

Last updated October 8, 2018.
Wisconsin has no law requiring a background check on the purchaser of a firearm when the seller is not a licensed dealer.

https://lawcenter.giffords.org/priva...-in-wisconsin/


Minimum Age to Purchase & Possess in Wisconsin

Last updated October 8, 2018.
Wisconsin generally prohibits the intentional transfer of any firearm to an individual under age 18.1

The state also generally prohibits the possession of a firearm by any person under age 18.2

These restrictions do not apply, however, when the firearm is being used by a person under age 18 when supervised by an adult during target practice or a course of instruction.3

Wisconsin law generally provides that for hunting purposes, the minimum age for possession or control of a firearm is age 12.4 A person age 12 but under age 14 may not hunt without being accompanied by his or her parent, guardian or a person at least 18 years of age who is designated by the parent or guardian.5 A young person 12 to 14 years of age also may possess a firearm if he or she is enrolled in instruction under the state hunter education program and is carrying the firearm in a case, unloaded, to or from that class, or is handling or operating the firearm during that class under the supervision of an instructor.6

https://lawcenter.giffords.org/minim...-in-wisconsin/

[Mr. P]

Well, I have a lot to say about this issue but CSM has pretty much covered everything I'd say.

So, all I'll say is that it's not the guns people, it is the people !!!!! That's what needs addressed not (gun control) the inanimate object used.

At this time I oppose Red Flag laws...remember Hate crime laws? Gotten outta hand don't you think? I see the same occurring for Red Flag. Just sayin

[Kathianne]

I think it's going to matter what they put together as 'controls.'

https://bearingarms.com/tom-k/2019/0...ond-amendment/

President Abandoning His Promise To Defend Second Amendment
Posted at 8:30 am on August 12, 2019 by Tom Knighton

President Donald Trump made a lot of campaign promises, promises he’s done a pretty good job of keeping. While there were some promises I didn’t support, the man did what he said he was going to do.


However, there’s one big promise he doesn’t seem to be keeping, and that’s to defend the Second Amendment.


Now, I’m willing to let the bump stock thing slide. After all, I remember the legislation that was being considered and was also likely to pass. The reclassification of bump stocks by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) averted a near disaster. I don’t like it, but I don’t have to.


The problem is, the president is once again talking gun control legislation and signaling his willingness to sign such laws.


The debate over gun control continues, with President Trump again calling for stronger background checks.


The President says it’s time for Congress to act—and also says he hopes the NRA will get on board.


But the President and the nation’s gun lobby could be in for a tough fight ahead.


President Trump on Friday was confident that some kind of gun reform is possible, even in the face of NRA resistance.


“We have tremendous support for really common sense, sensible, important background checks. I think we can get something really good done,” said President Trump.


This has only emboldened gun control groups like Brady, which now see a golden opportunity before them.


These groups see a president who is willing to give them what they’ve long wanted. However, we also see that despite the anti-gun establishment’s long claims of wanting to compromise, what they really want is to take from our right to keep and bear arms with nothing in return. Not even their typical version of “compromise.”


“If we are talking about universal background checks, we need that to be a true universal background check so that any gun purchased in this country is bought with a background check,” said Christian Heyne, of Brady.


Heyne is optimistic, but warns any legislation needs to be loophole-free.


“In the past, there has been proposals on the table that have allowed for a lot of gun lobby carve outs.”


In other words, gun control groups want it all and any exceptions. Loaning a gun to a friend or passing a firearm on to your children will require a background check if they get their way.


And worse, it looks like President Trump is willing to work with them on this. He’s willing to give them at least some of this.


President Trump promised us that he would work with the National Rifle Association to save the Second Amendment. Well, now is his chance. He can step up and recognize what gun rights activists have known all along, that guns are not the problem with mass shootings, or he can capitulate with the anti-gun crowd, win zero votes for 2020 and lose quite a few.


Look, President Trump was the choice for most gun rights advocates because the alternative was Hillary Clinton, who we knew damn good and well was coming for the guns if she got half a chance. However, if we’re going to get hammered by anti-gun laws from our federal government anyway, a lot of pro-gun folks are just going to stay home in November.


That’s not good for President Trump, and I’m sure his advisors know it. They would do well to remind the president that he was elected in significant part thanks to the gun rights movement. He would do well to remember that.