....Many comments have been made in this thread which question the necessity, feasibility and the sagacity of instituting a proof house in the United States.
...I think this is understandable considering many Americans fear of the ulterior motives of our government...
....It's primary goal would be that of consumer safety and to prevent fraud.
....It's cost would be offset by the increase in value of a gun as 'in proof' as compared to one 'out of proof'...
....their liability reduced because much of the onus would be placed with the Proof House in terms of liability. And, a legitimate Proof House would and should share reciprocity with foreign Proof Houses.
Don't you think proof house proponents in this thread have shown plenty of ulterior motives. You're on board with backdoor gun control just because it's going to happen anyway.
When have you shown that values will increase or that current proof houses will accept even the slightest liability for gun damage or personal injury. Was it shown anywhere that consumer safety would be improved or that fraud could be prevented.
Would you want an American proof mark stamped on to your British best gun. I believe the ole horse gets beaten because some folks make personal agenda assumptions and pass them off as fact without justification.
How you going to force compliance. If you run into a bargain that's out of proof, are you going to buy it and proof it, or are you going to turn in the seller.
Last but not least, why do you want foreign laws or regulations applied to Americans in our own country. No disrespect intended to you, just disagree with the ideas and reasoning presented.
