You can not buy a gun online with out a background check. Federal law requires that any firearm purchased over the internet be shipped from a federally licensed firearms dealer to a federally licensed firearms dealer who then does a background check before transferring the firearm to it's new owner. if this wasn't done the entire sale was illegal and therefore didn't take advantage of any "loophole"

.. apparently this listing service facilitates the sale of a weapon between private parties. There is no background check required in that circumstance.

The scenario you describe would apply to a site like auctionarms or gunbroker, where you are buying from a dealer. The dealer must ship the firearm to a local dealer who will perform the background check.

While I am a strong gun rights advocate, I agree that the "private seller" scenario might need some work.

If the gun was shipped from anywhere to anywhere it had to go through an FFL or the sale was illegal period.

Now, if Armslist is like Craigslist in that (using an example from my own state) I can list a gun in CO Springs and have some guy from Denver meet me in Monument and buy the gun face to face, (completely legal in Colorado since the entire transaction occurs with in the state) that's different.

But if that was the case how is listing a gun on Armslist any different that listing it in the Denver post? The "internet" aspect had noting to do with the sale in that case.

If you want ban all private intrastate sales just be upfront and say "I want to ban all private intrastate sales"

Let us know how that works out for you

... I want a background check for ALL SALES.

But I don’t see how you could possibly enforce it without first registering every single gun in this country and that will guarantee a Republican government for the rest of our lives.

There are too many guns in this country that don't exist on paper anywhere to ever be able to track all sales

... to the "if this can't be perfect then lets' don't do it at all" theory. Reminds me of the lame argument "taxing the rich won't solve the deficit problem".

How enforceable it is it not the point. If we had such a law at least we'd be able to go back and prosecute the assholes that knowingly sell guns to people they shouldn't, right now we have nothing.

Knowingly selling a firearm to a prohibited person is already a violation of Federal Law (18 USC 922(d)) punishable by up to 10 years imprisonment

http://www.justice.gov/usao/ut/psn/documents/guncard.pdf

Do you want to make it more illegal?

upon which the Federal Firearms License and NICS test are based. Intrastate sales by non-FFL licensees are not covered by NICS and CAN'T be covered. One, because the sales are NOT interstate, and two, because even if you wanted to use the NICS test, if you are not an FFL, you cannot access the system.

I can live with a "universal" NICS test, but it has to be done constitutionally. There are some imaginative approaches:
(1) The feds could open up the NICS test for anyone who wants or is required by state law to meet the same requirements of the present NICS test; (2) encode on your driver's license a BG test pass so that if one wishes to purchase a gun, he/she could present the license; (3) have state compacts centered on "model legislation" which would standardize a universal NICS test without doing violence to the Interstate Commerce Clause.

But this suit appears to be in the same league of suing gun manufacturers, not for producing defective/dangerous arms (which is actionable now as with other product liability laws), but to somehow implicate gun manufacturers/dealers in damages & deaths due to the actions of a maniac. Those kinds of suits are now kaput, one court ruling after another.

You need to have a firearms license to call in and run someone's background.

So, if you have a gun you want to sell, you can either sell it in a private sale with no background check to another individual, find a gun store that does transfers for a fee, or sell it to a gun store that will give you a greatly reduced price for it, since they have to turn around and sell it for a profit.

The only time you need to go through an FFL is if you ship across state lines.

It's interesting to me that you correct me and I have no problem with that but if a pro control person gets corrected we're all a bunch of RW troll gun nutz

For example, I sold a handgungun to a guy in another state and shipped to his FFL from my home. The FFL returned it because it did not originate from an FFL.

I had already called the BATFE in both Washington and in my state and in his state and they said this was not necessary. The recipient has to receive it from an FFL, but it does not have to originate from an FFL.

I really lost money on that deal as I had to pay overnight shipping twice.

My understanding is that Craigslist has banned gun sales via its website. So maybe some other website allows you to do this?

Actually, my understanding is that "Armslist" came into being because craigslist prohibits gun sales

if it is an interstate transaction. No requiement for a background check in most states if it is an intrastate transaction. If the site merely facilitates intrastate transactions then no law is broken.

For handguns.

Private sales are not, and cannot, be regulated by the federal government, as they would be interfering with intra-state commerce.

In most states, you do not need a background check if you buy a firearm from a private seller. You can even ship it to them without involving an FFL or a background check as long as they are in the same state.

This situation is not unique to Armslist. You can go look in the Sporting Goods section of any local newspaper or printed classified ads and see guns for sale by private individuals. All you have to do is meet up with them and pay cash and you are done. Or, if they are in your state, you can mail it to them. However, most people prefer to meet in person prior to the sale to examine the gun.

I sold a gun this way via Gunbroker just a few weeks ago. I listed it nationally, but the guy who bought it lived in my same town, so we met up and did the deal out of the back of my car. Gunbroker has no control over this.

i'm disappointed.

need to find a gun-grabber site.

And what is meant by "support RKBA"? Are you saying that 60-70% of Dems support unrestricted access to any and all firearms, or that they support the right to keep and bear arms as long as it's regulated? This is one of those instances where the devil is in the details. I'm a Dem and, if you ask me whether I think that Americans should be allowed to own guns provided that they obtain licenses, subject to vigorous background checks, undergo mandatory safety instruction, be required to store their arms safely, and subject themselves to periodic relicensing and inspections to ensure that they are keeping and bearing their arms safely and responsibly, then sure, great, I support RKBA. But, somehow, I don't think that's quite what you had in mind.

Sorry, I know it's annoying, but it's such a favorite trick of the gungeon to demand specific citations for everything from gravity to the spherical shape of the planet and then to scoff contemptuously when the OP is disinclined to go to the trouble of doing the questioner's research, I couldn't help myself.

educating others.

I don't know what it is about guns, but people are so disposed to picking their facts and figures selectively to support their starting assumptions, it sometimes seems like there's hardly any point in trying to have a discussion about it. Since there's no consensus on what the facts are, how can you have a meaningful conversation?

by local LEOs.

CDC reports that, of the 30,000 annual gun deaths that occur each year, only 400 of them are ultimately found to be lawful uses of deadly force, such as self defense or intervention to protect some other innocent party. To me, that seems like a pretty telling figure. But then gun proponents will claim that there are countless cases where a gun was used to defuse a potentially violent situation that never gets reported. Admittedly, if it's never reported, it's not going to become part of any statistical reports, so I can't really know whether that's true or not. And even among those unreported incidents, how reliable are the accounts going to be? Some seedy looking character approaches a nervous woman at night in a dark alley, she points her gun at him and he goes away. Did she just use her gun to save her life? Or was the guy just coming up to her to ask for a smoke? We'll never know.

That was done by the Delicate Flowers (gun-nuts too scared to walk in public without a gun). They loaded up the votes so it would appear that DU favors guns. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Delicate Flowers have many things in common with Fox "news". One of them is "bending" the truth to fit their religious beliefs (AKA, The Almighty Gun)

Show us your proof. As with most of your statements, they come from vapor. And your insinuating that those of us that disagree are "gun-grabbers" is downright fucking insulting. Your constant use of Right-wing taking points in your posts alarms me.

"Two-thirds of Americans still support the Second Amendment right to bear arms,"

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/ballot-2012/2012/08/15/public-support-for-second-amendent-remains-strong

I selected the first news article I goggled.

Have a great day.

One day .....


You should also post all of the article instead of using the GOP tactic of cherry picking;


narrow majority also supports passing stricter gun control laws

nice try gunny.

"Firearms. We recognize that the individual right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans’ Second Amendment right to own and use firearms."

I believe Obama who promised: "I believe in the Second Amendment. I believe in people's lawful right to bear arms. I will not take your shotgun away. I will not take your rifle away. I won't take your handgun away. ... There are some common-sense gun safety laws that I believe in. But I am not going to take your guns away."

I posted that portion of the article that pertained to my earlier post,

I cannot post the entire article so I gave a link to it.

It's childish to call the platform and Obama's statements right wing talking points.

Stupak comes to mind

No legitimate gun owner wants banned individuals to have access to firearms. However the current law prevents private party transactions from using the established tools to verify eligibility. Fix that and things will change

Its a records thing...and that is a valid concern

extreme.

Laws will always matter. They should be clear demarcation lines.

They define legal and illegal conduct. Get on the wrong side, go to jail. Stay on the right side and things are fine, no matter what whiners say.

Which lines do you think the culture pushes and which needs are they trying to satisfy?

Many Democrats and other liberals own firearms, myself included.

just look at a DU'ers profile if you suspect one. if it shows that their favorite group is Gun Control/RKBA, they are a gun nut, imo. makes it very easy for me to place them on my ignore list too, in fact, most of the people on my ignore list have the Gungeon as their favorite forum, and there are a lot of them!

mantra of the DU Gungeon crowd: Guns for everyone! The more guns floating around, the safer we will all be. Guns are the answer to all of America's social problems, because after we kill all of the bad guys, there will only be the good gun-carrier guys left and we know that they never shoot unarmed or innocent people.

I'm ashamed for DU that we have so many right-wing Republican trolls advocating more gun violence and the absolute Constitutional "right" to kill other Americans by standing their fucking ground, or protecting their fucking castle. And that theory that some have about giving them the Gungeon to play in ain't working. Lately, they've been everywhere, and they're stinkin' up the place.

RKBA.

You say:

"I'm ashamed for DU that we have so many right-wing Republican trolls advocating more gun violence."

Nice. No wonder the caliber (ahem) of gun-control thought is so small.

You seem to be saying: A gun prohibitionist can post anywhere (including the "Gungeon&quot , but pro-2A people can only stay in the Gungeon. Is that correct? Just checking on your "liberal" philosophy.

BTW, if you smell a "stink," (your words), check yourself.

propaganda piece. The "reporter" apparently did no research what so ever or else they would have found out that in-state guns sales between residents of that state are governed by STATE law, not Federal law and vary from state to state. For example CT does not require a back ground check for long gun sales between state residents, but DO require them for handgun sales between state residents and allow state residents to call the CT State police for the background check. (CT has it's own NICS database, although I presume that CT's NICS and the Federal NICS system shares data).

was in-state or inter state, and did or did not go through a dealer. Odd that, it's a pretty simple fact to research. My guess is they didn't publish that bit because the truth wouldn't support their agenda.

Irresponsible journalists are a danger to the public and should be background checked or banned outright.

The daily beast provided a link tot he original story in the Tribune...

Definitely an illegal sale.

But there's no loophole. It's a specific construction of law that private Citizens aren't allowed to use the NICS. IIRC, this was insisted on by the Brady team. I'm very willing, even eager to change that. Open the system to the public and even make its use manditory, no problem. But it's not a "loophole".

Edit: Not sure that can be done at the Federal level as a requirement, as intrastate sales aren't interstate commerce, thus not subject to Federal regulation. However, Federal law changes could open the NICS to the public, then the states could make its' use manditory.

Privacy as well. Too easy for folks to use system to snoop on people and see if they have a record.

But since your goal is actually to end all Civilian posession of firearms, that's not something you care about.

Have a great day.

In the meantime, these kind of lawsuits need to be encouraged to be launched en masse. The goal being to make that firearm and accompanying ammunition as expensive as possible for the "end user" or purchaser of handguns and assault rifles, which is almost uniformly either (a) a criminal or (b) some right-wing NRA gump with Red Dawn fantasies or (c) cop-wannabes like George Zimmerman who like to strut down to the local Wal Mart with a pistol perched in their pants because it makes them feel tough.

In fact, when the House of Representatives turns Blue, which it will at some point, I would encourage the Democratic majority in both the House and Senate to fund NGO's to legally go forward with as many lawsuits as possible against the merchants of death in the gun industry. Also: a $100 per round ammo tax, which would make your average box of .40 caliber ammo cost upward of $5,000 per box. It would be a delight to hear the NRA squeal about such a progressive and socially-responsible tax.

These are stop-gap measures until meaningful gun control legislation can be enacted, and new members of the Supreme Court not in the Scalia-mold all of our "law-abiding gun owners" just luuuvvv can be appointed by a Democratic president.

Minneapolis Star Tribune Company v. Commissioner found that taxing printer's ink and paper was an infringement of the first amendment's protection of freedom of the press.

No, you can't restrict a fundamental right by taxation just because you don't like it.

Didn't know that before you posted, eh?

Well now you know: I guess that means you're going to run right out and get yourself one of them "2nd amendment lawyers" ( ) and sue the Federal government to get that tax repealed, right? Right?

Funny stuff.


Edit: typo.

It also doesn't just cover guns and ammunition. Bet you didn't know that, did you? Pittman-Robertson was passed in 1937, and covers sporting goods, bows, arrows, hunting equipment, hunting licenses.. not *just* guns and ammunition.

You should run right out and talk to a constitutional lawyer about 'fundamental rights' and 'strict scrutiny'- it might help improve the quality of your posts.

Wait, who am I kidding? Of course, it wouldn't.

Really, it's like shooting fish in a barrel (excuse the pun.)

And I love how you leave out "just because you don't like it." -- which changes the meaning altogether.

Transparently ridiculous.

your false assertion above that Congress does not have the power to impose a tax on ammunition, doubly laughable since they already do.

"Really, it's like shooting fish in a barrel...Transparently ridiculous."

And here we enter the stage every "pro gun progressive"* eventually gets to in a debate when the facts overwhelm him: Projection.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

Oh, well: anytime you're ready to return to discussing the issue under debate instead of trying to change the subject, let me know.


*( )


Edit: smiley-man added.

Here, let me highlight it for you:

that there was, in fact, a tax on ammunition RIGHT NOW, you just attempted to change the subject. Nice try, but it's a no-go.