# Firearm "Internet sales"? Do those actually happen? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 10, 2013, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/firearm-internet-sales-do-those-actually-happen/655353 "2013-04-10T21:30:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2013, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/firearm-internet-sales-do-those-actually-happen/655353/1 "2013-04-10T21:30:07Z")
[Link](http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/10/senators-to-unveil-proposed-compromise-on-gun-background-checks-as-vote-looms/) says: > [@](#): > > The proposal, which would be voted on as an amendment, would expand background checks for sales at gun shows and online but exempt some other transactions like personal sales among hunters and family members. 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](http://www.policeone.com/police-products/firearms/articles/6188462-PoliceOnes-2013-Gun-Policy-Law-Enforcement-Survey-Results-Executive-Summary/) is a survey of ~15,000 cops. Question #7 says: > [@](#): > > Do you think that a federal law prohibiting private, non-dealer transfers of firearms between individuals would reduce violent crime? 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. ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2013, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/firearm-internet-sales-do-those-actually-happen/655353/2 "2013-04-10T21:50:54Z")
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](http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/federal/gun_show.shtml)”. 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. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2013, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/firearm-internet-sales-do-those-actually-happen/655353/3 "2013-04-10T22:13:09Z")
> [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](#): > > 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. 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 … ---
**Author:** ![PastTense](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pasttense/32/14550_2.png) [@PastTense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PastTense)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2013, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/firearm-internet-sales-do-those-actually-happen/655353/4 "2013-04-10T22:14:37Z")
Hurricanedicta: Go to > **[Guns For Sale | Buy Guns Online | GunBroker.com](https://www.gunbroker.com/)** > > Find new and used guns for sale at the largest online gun auction site GunBroker.com. Sell and buy firearms, accessories, collectibles such as handguns, shotguns, pistols, rifles and all hunting outdoor accessories. Shop Now. 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: > **[Federal Firearms License](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Firearms_License)** > > A Federal Firearms License (FFL) is a license in the United States that enables an individual or a company to engage in a business pertaining to the manufacture or importation of firearms and ammunition, or the interstate and intrastate sale of firearms. Holding an FFL to engage in certain such activities has been a legal requirement within the United States since the enactment of the Gun Control Act of 1968. The FFL is issued by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATFE, ... They will verify you meet all local/state requirements and will probably charge you $25 or so. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2013, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/firearm-internet-sales-do-those-actually-happen/655353/5 "2013-04-10T22:24:45Z")
> [@PastTense](#): > > 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_! ---
**Author:** ![GaryM](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/garym/32/241_2.png) [@GaryM](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GaryM)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2013, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/firearm-internet-sales-do-those-actually-happen/655353/6 "2013-04-10T23:37:13Z")
> [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](#): > > 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. 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. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2013, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/firearm-internet-sales-do-those-actually-happen/655353/7 "2013-04-11T01:07:15Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Capt\_Kirk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/779978/32.png) [@Capt\_Kirk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Capt_Kirk)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2013, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/firearm-internet-sales-do-those-actually-happen/655353/8 "2013-04-11T01:11:19Z")
> [@XT](#): > > 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** ---
**Author:** ![Zakalwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zakalwe/32/270_2.png) [@Zakalwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zakalwe)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2013, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/firearm-internet-sales-do-those-actually-happen/655353/9 "2013-04-11T02:13:30Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > In a moderately-related note: I’m sick of the “90% of the public supports this” BS. [Here](http://www.policeone.com/police-products/firearms/articles/6188462-PoliceOnes-2013-Gun-Policy-Law-Enforcement-Survey-Results-Executive-Summary/) 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. 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? ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2013, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/firearm-internet-sales-do-those-actually-happen/655353/10 "2013-04-11T02:22:34Z")
> [@Zakalwe](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Mdcastle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/958977/32.png) [@Mdcastle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mdcastle)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2013, 4:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/firearm-internet-sales-do-those-actually-happen/655353/11 "2013-04-11T04:34:35Z")
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). ---
**Author:** ![Absolute](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b2d939/32.png) [@Absolute](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Absolute)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2013, 5:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/firearm-internet-sales-do-those-actually-happen/655353/12 "2013-04-11T05:30:24Z")
> [@Zakalwe](#): > > 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? 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. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2013, 5:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/firearm-internet-sales-do-those-actually-happen/655353/13 "2013-04-11T05:40:51Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > In a moderately-related note: I’m sick of the “90% of the public supports this” BS. [Here](http://www.policeone.com/police-products/firearms/articles/6188462-PoliceOnes-2013-Gun-Policy-Law-Enforcement-Survey-Results-Executive-Summary/) 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. Cops ain’t the public. ---
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2013, 5:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/firearm-internet-sales-do-those-actually-happen/655353/14 "2013-04-11T05:59:09Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Cops ain’t the public. I bet cops know more about factors related to violent crime than the public. ---
**Author:** ![tim314](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tim314/32/3468_2.png) [@tim314](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tim314)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2013, 6:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/firearm-internet-sales-do-those-actually-happen/655353/15 "2013-04-11T06:06:07Z")
> [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](#): > > 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. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Absolute](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b2d939/32.png) [@Absolute](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Absolute)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2013, 6:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/firearm-internet-sales-do-those-actually-happen/655353/16 "2013-04-11T06:13:09Z")
> [@tim314](#): > > 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”. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2013, 6:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/firearm-internet-sales-do-those-actually-happen/655353/17 "2013-04-11T06:16:38Z")
> [@Absolute](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![tim314](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tim314/32/3468_2.png) [@tim314](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tim314)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2013, 6:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/firearm-internet-sales-do-those-actually-happen/655353/18 "2013-04-11T06:32:55Z")
> [@Absolute](#): > > Right. They want to prohibit “private, non-dealer transfers.” Just like the question said. No one but you has used the word “sale”. 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. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2013, 6:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/firearm-internet-sales-do-those-actually-happen/655353/19 "2013-04-11T06:49:36Z")
> [@Zakalwe](#): > > Moderately not related? Really? The survey has absolutely NOTHING to do with the rest of your post. 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? > [@Zakalwe](#): > > 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? 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](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): > [@](#): > > Subtitle B–Requiring a Background Check for Every Firearm Sale > > SEC. 121. PURPOSE. > > ``` > The purpose of this subtitle is to extend the Brady Law background > > ``` > > check procedures to all sales and transfers of firearms. You really are ignorant on the topic, aren’t you? ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2013, 7:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/firearm-internet-sales-do-those-actually-happen/655353/20 "2013-04-11T07:06:45Z")
> [@tim314](#): > > 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. 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. > [@tim314](#): > > Claiming that every Dem in Congress wants to “prohibit private, non-dealer transfers of firearms” seems very misleading. 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. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/firearm-internet-sales-do-those-actually-happen/655353.md?page=2)