Gabby Giffords to the Senate: Shame on you

Remove all ads!

"Please note that if a private person wants to obtain a firearm from a private person who resides in another State, the firearm will have to be shipped to an FFL in the buyer’s State. The FFL will be responsible for record keeping."
Above is directly from the ATF website (http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/unlicensed-persons.html).

If one wants to purchase a weapon inside their state from a private citizen, such a purchase is bound by state law (besides the obvious federal limitations on felons, the mentally ill, etc--such limitations of course still pertain to private buyers and sellers, though I suppose a private seller could easily argue that he didn't know that nice young man was a felon, since he wasn't actually required to do a federal background check on the nice young man). I have no idea what all 50 states say about private weapons purchases, but it seems like a state rights issue. (These sales are also called "private party" sales). I believe California, for instance, heavily governs private-party sales so that, at least in CA, they are the same thing basically as buying a weapon from a federally-licensed dealer. Other states, maybe, maybe not. (See link to Huff Post, below).

An unlicensed dealer is a criminal. It's illegal to run a business selling firearms without being federally licensed. That being said, what constitutes a "business" remains shadowy. Is a man who sells all 10 of his deceased grandfather's collectible rifles on-line running a business, or is the man who sells the only pistol he owns running a business, or is it the guy who lists 20 weapons at a time and has sold over a 100 weapons in a six-month period, all of whom he bought for less money in one state and can sell for a profit in his home-state? (One could argue that's turning around an investment--turning $4000 in savings into $5000 in savings in less than 6 months--rather than a business). None of them may consider themselves a dealer, and I'm not sure how federal law would perceive any of them in particular, either. My understanding is that the law is written so that it actually says "business" and doesn't really identify what that specifically means. That being said, ATF must have pretty solid ways of interpreting this, because otherwise there probably wouldn't be as many licensed dealers across the country as there are.

CNN has a real quick discussion here: http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/10/politics/background-checks-explainer.

While I'm not a big fan of the Huffington Post, this article seems to do a fair job of digging into the issues with state laws and claims that 75% of states have no laws regarding checks during "private-party" sales: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/21/private-gun-sales-sandy-hook_n_2347420.html.

There is apparently an internet loophole. None of my friends chose to use unlicensed "personal sellers" in their home state to obtain their weapons so they didn't have anything to say about it beyond what I already wrote. Maybe, rather than a "internet loophole," it's more correctly identified as a "states' law" loophole. Not sure.

 

I think it would be best described as a 'private sale' loophole, since a private seller is under no obligation to do a background check. It's really just an extension of the gun show loophole -- just another instance where a determined buyer can flout a background check.

 

I would say that requiring a private citizen (who is selling a gun) to ensure that the customer has no criminal record or other serious barrier to ownership is not overly onerous. If that private citizen considers himself to be a responsible gun owner, he will want to take steps to keep guns out of the hands of crazies.

I'm all for gun ownership and don't see the need to unduly burden citizens owning what is their right, but even I think the NRA is a little wonky sometimes.

 

Such a law would aid in stimulus ... it would create jobs as weapons brokers. Now Bubba would need to go to Roscoe's office to fill out a bit of paperwork and pay $20 to buy Billy Joe Jim Bob's Bushmaster. Not bad if Roscoe is a cousin (or brother ... or perhaps daddy's momma's ex-boyfriend's second cousin twice removed ... like I said the first time - brother).

 

Why would our fundamental rights suddenly cease to exist due to the internet? Should the First Amendment not apply to the internet?

 

Assuming you’re referring to the freedom of speech aspect of the First Amendment, what does that have to do with that situation being discussed? Are you saying that any transactions that would otherwise be restricted (or outright prohibited) be somehow permitted if done through the internet under some Freedom of Speech exemption? And how does the internet cause the cessation of fundamental rights? If anything, the internet helps to facilitate those rights, not diminish them.

 

No, but if he's saying that the Second Amendment shouldn't apply to the internet, then does that also mean the First Amendment shouldn't apply to the internet?

 

That is so loopy, I’m not even sure how to respond. But I’ll try.

First, assuming Aldeth says the Second Amendment doesn’t apply to the internet (which he is not, in fact, saying – more on that in a bit), why would you conclude that he also thinks the First Amendment doesn’t apply?

Second, he is not saying the Second Amendment doesn’t apply to the internet. He is just saying that the same proper restrictions that apply to non-internet transactions should also apply to the internet, and he was unclear on how those restrictions could be in fact applied to internet sales. After explanations from Gaear and dogsoldier, he acknowledges in post #39 that his initial impression was mistaken.

 

Yeah - exactly as Splunge stated. I was unaware that a sale of a firearm via the internet required the gun to be shipped to a registered Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL) in your state. The FFL would then facilitate the sale, including the background check before you can get a weapon.

Assuming you are of the opinion that convicted felons or mentally unstable individuals should not be allowed to purchase firearms (or those under the legal age, or non-US citizens), then a system where such a purchase is largely annonymous - especially with identity theft - that there would be no means of confirming the person is who he/she says he/she is.

My point of contention wasn't to try to take away your gun - it was questioning the sense of background checks in the first place if they could be completely circumvented by purchasing via the internet. After dogsoldier and Gaear explained that purchasing a gun via the internet requires it to go to one of these FFL, and they conduct the check, it made a lot more sense.

 

Well, as explained above is indeed the case IF the weapon was purchased in another state--because then the sale of the weapon is governed by the federal government and the gov't makes buyers and sellers comply by the law.

After Arkite's comments, above, I did more research and realized that in-state sales of weapons are bound by state laws. And that apparently about 75% of our great states have no real laws on the books governing "local" sales. I still don't think you can mail a weapon, though; I think that if a weapon goes through the mail, it's supposed to go to a FFL. But there is nothing stopping a guy in Tombstone from buying a weapon from a guy in Phoenix and then driving there over the weekend to pick it up (I am using that as a hypothetical example--for all I know, Arizona does have laws that would prohibit that, but from what I understand, I don't think so).

 

Fair enough. How would you propose we apply background checks to online transactions, without hurting or inconveniencing law abiding citizens?

 

I don't see the issue. In, say, 1980, law-abiding citizens weren't hurt or inconvenienced by not being able to buy guns online. How would they be hurt or inconvenienced by not allowing guns to be purchased online now if there are no means to apply background checks to those transactions?

 

I think it should be pointed out here that the background check-less-ness of intra-state transactions applies only to so-called private sales. Licensed firearms dealers (such as any retail outlet) still have to conduct background checks before any sales are finalized. That in a nutshell is the 'loophole,' as it were - private intra-state sales.

 

But why would you ban online firearms sales to begin with? Why punish millions of law abiding gun owners out of some misguided anti-gun crusade?

 

I don't know that inconveniencing law abiding citizens is or ever really has been the issue, AD. It seems as though it's been pretty well maintained (and even affirmed in the 2008 ruling - the most recent law we have to go on) that while the government is not at liberty to infringe on citizens' rights to keep and bear arms, they are entitled to enact reasonable precautions to ensure that those who can't do so safely (criminals, the insane, etc.) can't get them lawfully. That may or may not be inconvenient for law-abiding citizens, depending on if you see waiting a day or two before your background check comes back as inconvenient, but it's not an infringement on your Second Amendment rights. The government is not stopping law-abiding persons from owning guns by subjecting them to background checks.

In other words, I don't know that potential laws governing the application of background checks for online firearms sales have to be inconvenience-free.

 

The right to bear arms does not imply in the least the right to not be inconvenienced in buying arms.

 

I suppose the only way to do this without banning online sales would be to have the seller mail the firearm to the buyer's local gun store or the buyer's local sheriff's office, and have the background check performed there when the buyer goes to pick up his gun.

This has several problems, however:
1. There is no way to enforce such a law.
2. Local police departments will have to devote money, resources and personnel to such background checks.
3. Law abiding gun owners will be inconvenienced for no good reason.
4. It gives the federal government more power and helps them build a de facto database of gun owners. Sure, they claim they delete all of the information after the background check was performed, but does anybody actually believe that?

Of course, we all know that the gun control lobby wouldn't try to be reasonable. The gun control lobby doesn't care about background checks, they care about hurting gun owners, and as thus, they would much rather completely ban all online firearms sales.

How could anyone even think of this as being a "big deal?" Most of the people in this thread didn't even know online sales were legal prior to reading this thread, so why do they care? It's not like the planet Earth was being obliterated prior to this "new discovery." How many criminals bought their guns online anyway?

 

1. Then ban online sales. There are other ways for law-abiding citizens to easily buy guns, and as has been said, the Second Amendment doesn't deal with convenience. In fact, I'm pretty sure it's silent with respect to buying guns over the internet.
2. That applies to any background checks.
3. See above.
4. What is the problem with a gun owner database?

 

Canada hated the gun registry in that it is seen by many gun owners as step one toward the confiscation of legally owned guns. I see the value of such a list but also worry it would be used to harass law abiding owners rather than deal with criminals. Wouldn't it be better to just monitor the criminals, or keep the bastards locked up, rather than go through all these hoops?

That said, though, since we have an imperfect world, selling guns online should not be allowed to go on legally because it is to easy to mis-represent oneself. There should be hoops to getting ones hands on a gun, but once they have been jumped through,the government theoretically has no right (or need) to know if you own a gun if you are not a criminal.*

*Funny, though, because may categories of guns already DO require registration to own in both Canada and the US -- handguns come to mind. But hunting rifles and shotguns are seen by many Canadians (and Americans, too) as being a bridge too far when it comes to registering the weapon. Lots of distrust towards the government here in North America (can't speak for Mexico, mind you, though I bet they are more concerned about the cartels attacking them rather than the government.)