Link says:
Who buys a gun online and how do they avoid a background check? Where can I get a mail-order gun (or a dozen - for my future career with the ATF)?
In a moderately-related note: I’m sick of the “90% of the public supports this” BS. Here is a survey of ~15,000 cops. Question #7 says:
11.5% said ‘Yes’ and 79.7% said ‘No’ (there were also 8.8% that were ‘Unsure’).
4 out of 5 cops don’t think Bloomberg’s big idea will reduce crime.
I have purchased three handguns online. Two of them came from out of state and had to be transferred through a FFL holder, and one of them was a face-to-face that also had to be transferred through a FFL holder.
The “gun show loophole”, which is what this is a variant of, is largely a talking point, though I have no particular beef with closing it. Good thing, too, because that’s going to happen very soon. Anyway, there are big numbers bandied about by organizations like Mayors Against Illegal Guns (as if they are the only organization and the bulwark against illegal gun use…), who say that “One ATF study found gun shows involved with over 10,000 trafficked guns a year – about 30% of all criminal trafficking”. Neat trick, considering that handguns are overwhelmingly the instruments of crime and are almost without exception required to be transferred by a FFL holder. Thus we are faced with the inescapable conclusion that the lion’s share of these alleged transfers are in fact illegal transfers, and are therefore not facilitated by the “gun show loophole”.
Anyway, there is a way to illegally transfer firearms online. Simply package the firearm, hope UPS/FedEx or, if you’re really stupid, the US Postal Service (they will not ship firearms, ever) don’t find out that it’s a firearm, and send it directly to the purchaser rather than a FFL. I strongly advise against that, though. The other way is that you make a deal online and do a face-to-face without a FFL intermediary, which is illegal with handguns. Note that this is the current state of the law and the Internet does not create a new and worrying situation. At best it serves as a matchmaker, just as newspaper classifieds used to. It’s nothing more than a lobbying group FUD technique.
Thanks for the reply. I appreciate the detail. You made my point though: all of your “Internet” firearm purchases already included a background check at a FFL dealer. This “deal” is going to close a loophole that doesn’t exist, right? Maybe Toomey took the “alright, guys, we’ll agree to a ban on porcelain Glocks in exchange for some concessions” approach …
Hurricanedicta:
Go to
and see what is available. Note Gunbroker sellers have feedback (just like eBay).
As Airman Doors said the gun will be shipped to an FFL–Federal Firearms License, where you will pick it up in person. See:
They will verify you meet all local/state requirements and will probably charge you $25 or so.
They’re doing a background check as part of this. Why are “Internet sales” mentioned in conjunction with Toomey & Manchin’s “expanded background checks” bill. They already do background checks for Internet sales!
A non FFL holder can ship long guns via the USPS, and face to face sales of both long guns and handguns are legal in many states, including mine, with no paperwork involved.
Anecdote is all I have atm, but my dad buys a lot of guns. He’s bought guns and ammo on the internet several times in the last year, and whether he buys them online or in a story he’s ALWAYS had a background check done, regardless of the venue. Now, perhaps that’s because he’s hispanic with an odd name, but I think you are right…this is more a talking point that’s a perceived hole in the system than it is an actual hole in the system. My WAG is that most anti-gun folks THINK that you can just buy a gun online or in a store without a background check because they have never bought a gun in their lives, coupled with, perhaps, a few instances where there really was such a hole and it’s being blown all out of proportion. Perhaps if you buy a gun off of EBay or something like that, as it would be sort of kind of like a private gun sale/transfer? That’s the only way I could think of to get around it anyway, and that’s got to be a pretty small number of gun sales in the US.
IIRC Ebay does not allow guns sales as a policy
Capt
Moderately not related? Really? The survey has absolutely NOTHING to do with the rest of your post. AFAIC no one (other than Bloomberg - who isn’t in the Federal government) has proposed a law that resembles Question #7. Do you have a cite otherwise?
Are you aware that that is the precise definition of the “gun show loophole”? Private, non-dealer transfers of firearms between individuals is the entirety of it. As for who wants that banned, look for virtually the entire Congress with a (D) next to their names.
That’s correct, eBay bans guns, ammunition, magazines over 10 rounds, and even some accessories. This is part due to political correctness and part somewhat justified by all the local laws. For your nonpolitically correct transactions Auction Arms and Gunbroker are the eBay for stuff that goes bang. I bought my SKS-45 there and had it shipped to my door (but only because I have a collector’s license).
Colorado just passed such a law. All transfers must go through a Federal Firearms License holder (i.e., a gun dealer) and are subject to a background check.
Cops ain’t the public.
I bet cops know more about factors related to violent crime than the public.
They want to prohibit private sales?
I thought “closing the gunshow loophole” meant requiring a background check even on the private sales that take place at gunshows.
Right. They want to prohibit “private, non-dealer transfers.” Just like the question said. No one but you has used the word “sale”.
Private transfers could happen. They would just require you to head to your Friendly Neighborhood Gunstore to stamp the papers and do a background check.
Having to head to the gunshop doesn’t mean you can’t sell your gun to Uncle Timmy.
Sales are a subset of transfers, so I don’t understand your point.
I guess I would understand the term non-dealer sale (or transfer if you prefer) to mean that neither of the people who are exchanging possession of the gun is a gun dealer. Requiring them to walk one booth over to the licensed gun dealer to do a background check doesn’t change the fact that it is one private individual who doesn’t do this for a living selling his gun to another private individual.
Claiming that every Dem in Congress wants to “prohibit private, non-dealer transfers of firearms” seems very misleading.
You do realize that the Manchin-Toomey “deal” is about background checks, and Question #7 is about background checks, right? You really don’t see a connection there?
The bill under consideration right now, the one Harry Reid is going to bring up for a vote in a few hours, was proposed precisely to create “a federal law prohibiting private, non-dealer transfers of firearms between individuals.” [Here’s the text of S. 649](http://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/649/text?q=background check). It literally says in the bill (yes, the Senate bill that Harry Reid is sponsoring, not just something that Bloomberg wishes for at night):
You really are ignorant on the topic, aren’t you?
The fact that they’re required to document the transaction with an FFL would mean it is no longer a “private transfer”, at least as most knowledgeable individuals understand the term.
I didn’t see anyone make the claim about every Dem, at least not in this thread. However, I do suspect that most of them do. I believe every Dem on the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to do just that, in the form of Schumer’s S. 374, and I suspect that a strong majority of Democrats will vote in favor of whatever private-transfer-limiting bill Harry Reid brings up for a vote.