It's proposed background checks for Internet Gun Sales

[OHCHUTE 0]

The politicians in Washington apparently don't have a clue about internet gun sales. Every gun that is sold off the internet usually is sent to a FFL for transfer to the person buying the gun. During the transfer the dealer does BATF background check and must get a PROCEED, prior to handing the gun to the buyer. It might be helpful if these politicians would actually review how guns are bought and sold in the USA before proposing rules, that the rules are already in place. By proposing rules that are already in place the general public, who knows nothing about gun buying and selling thinks people are trading guns off the internet with no governmental involvement.

[skinnay 0]

cool bro

[Kennedy 0]

Any reason this couldn't have gone into the thread that already exist for this very topic? The one on the front page. The one I think you already posted in.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[billvon 2,435]

> Every gun that is sold off the internet usually is sent to a FFL for transfer

Cool. Make that "is always sent" and you got yourself a deal.

[OHCHUTE 0]

Quote

> Every gun that is sold off the internet usually is sent to a FFL for transfer

Cool. Make that "is always sent" and you got yourself a deal.

You are expecting perfection, however dealing with humans this is unlikely. But again, there is not one new gun sales dealer that ships guns directly to their client. If they do, it might be by mistake only via shipping error. Point is: politician don't even know the business and they are out there recommending laws that if they looked into it, would find, people are already doing it. Background checks. I'm not sure why there is so much talk about completing background checks and most guns are sold via a background check via the NICS program.

[DougH 270]

Quote

> Every gun that is sold off the internet usually is sent to a FFL for transfer

Cool. Make that "is always sent" and you got yourself a deal.

Fine... every gun bought on the internet is "always sent" to an FFL.

And then in some circumstances people who can pass a background check pick up the gun from the FFL and later illegally sell or give them an ineligible person (gang banger minor nephew that needs "protection", ex con felon, etc).

You have solved what exactly by changing "usually" to "every"?

Do you honestly believe that the thugs in Chicago that are turning the place into Mogadishu are buying their guns online at gunbroker.com.

If only these pesky criminals would follow all these laws we toiled so hard to come up with!!!!

"The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall"
=P

[DanG 1]

So if every transaction is currently subject to a background check, why are people objecting? What's the change that will affect legal gun buyers? I honestly don't understand.

- Dan G

[OHCHUTE 0]

It seems like when politicians speak, their word is true. Fact of the matter is half the time they don't have a clue. There is not one FFL dealer in the USA that will ship a gun to a buyer directly. All guns go to FFL holders for transfer to the buyer. The FFL calls BATF, NICS to get a authorization to PROCEEED, or DENY transfering the gun. If they get a DENY then gun doesn't get transfered. All this talk about background checks is mostly about private sales but many states require a private sale to be registered as state police collect fees on transfers.

This is a political topic used by politicians to get votes. Facts are, background checks do happen every day for most gun sales, especially for sales where buyer is in different state than seller. The US Postal service will not accept packaged guns from Non FFL to NON FFL. All guns must be shipped to FFL. Or in the instance of gun repair, FFL may ship gun back to customer who sent gun to FFL to get repaired by signature receipt only by the owner of the gun.

Gun control will only hinder current gun transactions and ownership, not help it. It won't cure gun violence.

[OHCHUTE 0]

The comical thing about the whole debate on gun control is: there are so many controls already that politicians are having such a hard time finding something to control they are recommending doing things that are already in Place. MD for instance already bans 30 round mags and ban over 50 weapons already including AR that are not Sporter versions. Must not have flash suppressors etc. There's not much left to do really and that's gov't's problem. That is why they are recommending, fees, and training etc, as most assault guns are banned. Besides most state are broke and gun registration fees are appealing.

[DanG 1]

You didn't answer the question. If the sales are already covered, what is the onerous effect of this proposal? Do you simply object that it is a superfluous law, or do you think the proposed law will prevent or obstruct legitimate purchases?

- Dan G

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

So if every transaction is currently subject to a background check,.

I object to that. Every "Transaction" means they are vetting each purchase, not the buyer. So 'background checks' doesn't really mean what it's being sold as. not one bit.



If I passed the background check, why check for every purchase? Check the person once, or annually, or whatever. Not at every purchase.

The gov has no business tracking if I own zero guns, or 1000.

I've never had a felony, or even a complaint.
I'm sane.
I'm in a state that has ZERO laws on purchase and owning long guns. (we do have storage laws for households with minors - rightly so)
I even own permit to purchase handguns in my state. So the questionaire and background check was done for that.

But if I want to buy a hunting rifle from a guy in Colorado, the FFL still has to call in and check.

Simply speaking - I should just be able to present that permit to the FFL and be DONE. no phone call, no records.



they don't realize that they already have the means to de facto register all the gun "purchases' already today.

Who can promise me that the government right now doesn't have the ability to check and confirm that I own that hunting rifle? (even if they 'say' they don't keep records - who believes that?)

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[DanG 1]

So, if I understand correctly, your objection is that every transaction would be checked, instead of every buyer, which is not only less efficient (and possibly chilling to legal buyers because it it takes time and hassle), but also a backdoor to universal registration?

I get that, although if the government decides to confiscate all guns, it really doesn't matter if they know you own one or ten, they're coming to kick in your door anyway.

I appreciate the response, but my question still stands. How is this proposal any different from what is already being done? If you object to the status quo, then that's one thing, but the arguments here seem to say that the proposed universal background checks are somehow an incremental step toward registration. If the proposal doesn't change the de jure or de facto procedures, how can this be viewed as a threatening change?

- Dan G

[rehmwa 2]

I can't answer for the others. But I'm generally against redundant laws (slight changes in words could effectively stifle even more rights in application) and viscerally against congress issuing redundant laws just to look like they are doing something.

I know that is 99% of all new laws lately. I just think it needs to be changed.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[OHCHUTE 0]

Quote

You didn't answer the question. If the sales are already covered, what is the onerous effect of this proposal? Do you simply object that it is a superfluous law, or do you think the proposed law will prevent or obstruct legitimate purchases?

Proposed rules are combined with finger printing at a cost and fees. Now they already have your driver's license number and DOB as listed on US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE BATF Fire Arms Transaction Record among other affirmations on ATF Form 4473 prior to calling NICS to get PROCEED (OK you can transfer) or DENIED (line 21C) BEFORE YOU GET THE GUN. The record is retained by the FFL dealer, but BATF knows you got a gun as it is recored your name, DOB, US citizen, The type of gun etc. is with BATF.


Guns are controlled and there are background checks as a buyer could get: DENIED. Which means he doesn't get a gun.

Line 11f--- Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective etc. YES/ NO

Google the form: ATF 4473

[OHCHUTE 0]

The hilarous thing about the whole gun debate is that the democrats want people who know nothing about guns, that guns are traded freely, openly, without any type of controls which is not the case whatsoever. There are so many rules that politicians are proposing rules that already exist and making up new ones: like having a marine sniper trainer take an 8 hour training class from some state approved trainer that they've not even hired yet, before he can by a 100 year old designed 1911 Colt 45.

Now that is pathetic. After 3 tours in Afgan he might not need a training class but oh no, the democrats feel he should go through a state run training class.

[Andy9o8 0]

As long as you continue to cast this in terms of demonizing a "boogeyman" category of people, and not mainly a debate over policy, you will continue to sound silly.

Preaching to the choir is fine, but it does nothing to persuade those on the fence.

[billvon 2,435]

>You are expecting perfection, however dealing with humans this is unlikely.

Agreed. Some will violate the law and sell guns over the Internet to felons. No worries; put them in jail.

> I'm not sure why there is so much talk about completing background checks and most
>guns are sold via a background check via the NICS program.

Excellent point. Now change that "most" to "all" and you win the argument.

[wolfriverjoe 1,352]

Quote

You didn't answer the question. If the sales are already covered, what is the onerous effect of this proposal? Do you simply object that it is a superfluous law, or do you think the proposed law will prevent or obstruct legitimate purchases?

Well, to be perfectly fair, the only "internet" sales that go through an FFL, get background checks and all that are those that cross state lines. That's true for any sale. GCA '68 established the FFL, and rules for transfers. But it had to stay out of intra-state sales because the Federal gov't really couldn't regulate those.
So currently, stuff up on GunBroker or similar sites doesn't require a background check if the buyer and seller are in the same state. They can agree on price, ship the gun and send payment.
I don't know if the proposed law would require checks on intra-state internet sales. I think the argument could be made that if the host servers for the site are in a different state, the sale crosses state lines (kinda like this is a South African owned site hosted on Canadian servers).

Personally, I'm not against requiring some sort of evidence that the buyer is legal to own a gun.
Personally, I wouldn't sell a gun to a stranger without some sort of evidence that they are legal. A carry permit, being vouched for by someone I trust, that sort of thing.
But I'm not too keen on having each sale noticed by the government by a check on each purchase.

I know a few guys who have fairly extensive collections that have zero paper trail. All their guns were either bought pre-'68 or in private purchases. The government has no idea whatsoever that they are gun owners.
A little paranoid for me, but that's their choice.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[OHCHUTE 0]

Quote

>You are expecting perfection, however dealing with humans this is unlikely.

Agreed. Some will violate the law and sell guns over the Internet to felons. No worries; put them in jail.

> I'm not sure why there is so much talk about completing background checks and most
>guns are sold via a background check via the NICS program.

Excellent point. Now change that "most" to "all" and you win the argument.

So sons and daughters need go through background checks when given guns by parents. How about widow. In MD under proposed law. When the husband dies owning an AR she will be in immediate violation of being in possession of an AR, and illegal to own gun. How about that. YOur wife saddled with becoming a felon upon your death.

I don't need you or your laws telling me I can't give my gun to my kids. You will remember we gave them tennis rackets, skate boards etc. Why not guns without any background check if they are responsible?

[billvon 2,435]

>So sons and daughters need go through background checks when given guns by parents.

If they let them use their guns? No. If they GIVE them guns? Yes. No exceptions.

>When the husband dies owning an AR she will be in immediate violation of being in
>possession of an AR, and illegal to own gun. How about that. YOur wife saddled with
>becoming a felon upon your death.

Did you hurt yourself with that stretch?

>I don't need you or your laws telling me I can't give my gun to my kids.

You can indeed. But if you transfer ownership to them they get a background check.

(If you wonder why, google where the Sandy Point shooter got his guns.)

[wolfriverjoe 1,352]

Quote

>So sons and daughters need go through background checks when given guns by parents.

If they let them use their guns? No. If they GIVE them guns? Yes. No exceptions.

>When the husband dies owning an AR she will be in immediate violation of being in
>possession of an AR, and illegal to own gun. How about that. YOur wife saddled with
>becoming a felon upon your death.

Did you hurt yourself with that stretch?

>I don't need you or your laws telling me I can't give my gun to my kids.

You can indeed. But if you transfer ownership to them they get a background check.

(If you wonder why, google where the Sandy Point shooter got his guns.)

Well, Lanza got his guns by stealing them from his mother, whom he murdered.
And I thought that he was able to pass a background check. He didn't want to wait the 14 days because he thought his mom was going to institutionalize him. But he could have bought them legally if he had been willing to wait. (I could be wrong on this. If someone has a contradictory report, I'd like to see it).

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[OHCHUTE 0]

Quote

>So sons and daughters need go through background checks when given guns by parents.

If they let them use their guns? No. If they GIVE them guns? Yes. No exceptions.

>When the husband dies owning an AR she will be in immediate violation of being in
>possession of an AR, and illegal to own gun. How about that. YOur wife saddled with
>becoming a felon upon your death.

Did you hurt yourself with that stretch?

>I don't need you or your laws telling me I can't give my gun to my kids.

You can indeed. But if you transfer ownership to them they get a background check.

(If you wonder why, google where the Sandy Point shooter got his guns.)

No stretch. No provision for having AR in the house upon death of AR owner. Those remaining are in possession of an illegal firearm. Laza stole the guns from his mother in committing crimes. He was a nubjob and a perp.

[billvon 2,435]

>No stretch. No provision for having AR in the house upon death of AR owner.

There's no provision for owning a car without registration in the event of the death of the previous owner, either. I guess your wife will be going to jail for car theft.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Those remaining are in possession of an illegal firearm.

Please stop making shit up.

[champu 1]

Quote

In MD under proposed law. When the husband dies owning an AR she will be in immediate violation of being in possession of an AR, and illegal to own gun. How about that. YOur wife saddled with becoming a felon upon your death.

The assult weapon bans are retarded, but this is not one way in which Maryland's is retarded.

Quote

This subtitle does not apply to:

(5) the receipt of an assault WEAPON or detachable magazine by inheritance if the decedent lawfully possessed the assault WEAPON; or
(6) the receipt of an assault WEAPON or detachable magazine by a personal representative of an estate for purposes of exercising the powers and duties of a personal representative of an estate.