I thought online gun sales already required a background check, isn't that why they have to be shipped to an FFL? So that they can run a background check before ownership is transferred to you.
This is correct. In addition all sales at gun show from a licensed FFL to a customer currently also require a background check. Currently the main two kinds of transfers that don't require federal background checks nationwide are private party sales and gifts. Eg. Selling your neighbor a shotgun or gifting your dad a hunting rifle. I believe these were both carved out exceptions as a result of the limitations on the Feds due to the commerce clause. Several states have tighter restrictions.
The private sales were excluded because they didn't want to give access to NICS to just anyone. States with more restrictions require you to pay a dealer or go to the sheriffs office to get approval.
I would expect too that the inability to effectively enforce those expectations was a motivating factor. The last time I bought a gun off some one I don't know we went to a FFL to comply with state background law. Really only because neither of us knew for sure if the other was a cop. If you know the other person. It can be very hard to prove a transfer ever happen.
Yep.
Even the "gun show" part isn't doing a lot, anyone that pays for a table is likely to make you do a background check anyways, because they are an FFL.
This does nothing about the actual problem.
"Private" sales which are done in the parking lot of gun shows.
It's just some bullshit before an election so Biden can say he's done something about the gun violence pandemic
I’ve only ever purchased a single gun at a gun show, but they had a big ass table full of guns (and other junk) and I was not subject to a background check. This is definitely going to force more background checks, which is a good thing.
If it's more than a few guns from a private collection that's already illegal. The ATF would happily show up and ram the law up their ass if notified.
That’s a pretty significant “if”. This was a gun show in Phoenix 5+ years ago. I’m gonna go out on a limb here and say it’s unlikely they were openly violating the law at such a large event.
I can't speak to everywhere or anyone else's experience, but I've got about the same experience as you. The gun shows here tend to have a lot of "private collectors" selling guns. Some are legit private collectors, some should be gun shops but only sell at shows so no one makes them do shit.
It’s just some bullshit before an election so Biden can say he’s done something about the gun violence pandemic
Yeah, I'm noticing a lot of posturing from the democrats this year.
It's always funny when a common sense comment gets massive down votes just because at the very end I put something about how Dems aren't doing as much as they need to.
Everyone knows that certain gun shows are massive laundering operations for stolen weapons. The FBI has straight up stated that a large number of guns which are used in crimes in the Northeast can be traced back to gun shows in Virginia specifically. If you "look the part" it is trivial to get basically any common enough gun at a gun show just by doing a deal in a parking lot, since it's completely legal for an FFL to gift any gun to an associate, and completely legal for that associate to sell it to you in the parking lot. Cops literally watch this happen because it is legal.
How long before our corrupt Supreme Court strikes this down?
In before “requiring a trigger pull for every shot infringes on the use of constitutionally protected arms”
It’s hard NOT to think about how they could make it even worse than expected.
They do.
I believe the framing is something like buying locally on armslist.com, where the buyer and seller agree to meet up face-to-face to make the sale. No mailing it.
Reading the article and a few others, this new regulation seems like election year posturing that doesn’t actually change much for the average person. The regulation is expanding who must register as an FFL from “making their livelihood from gun sales” to selling guns “predominantly to derive a profit”. Whatever that means. But it seems like it is specifically meant to exclude the occasional sale by a private person, which means that a private person happening to sell a gun at/near a gunshow or through armslist seems like they are still in the clear.
Where that line is will surely be hashed out in court, but it seems like the simple sale of a single gun from one person to another is unaffected.
Obviously, this is woke Nazi communist satanic slavery.
The rule, which clarifies who is considered to be “engaged in the business” as a firearms dealer, will take effect in 30 days’ time, and follows a three-month consultation period that attracted almost 388,000 comments to the website of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).
...
I mean, it's better than nothing, but still doesn't do anything about the people outside the gun show with a trunk full of Glocks they're selling for $100 over sticker price.
If a gun show table was for a store, they always had you do a background check.
This is a huge loophole, but this isn't fixing it.
Hell, we don't even enforce straw purchase laws when it involves a minor, moving the guns over state ligns, and murdering multiple people...
Even when the illegal buyer testifies on the stand that he intentionally planned and completed a straw our hase to illegally gain possession of a gun.
All the laws in the world don't matter if no one enforced them.
We need a background check on every sale, and to prosecute people for flagrantly breaking gun laws.
Incremental progress is unsatisfying and better than nothing. And this one is a little satisfying so I'll take it.
Can you enforce a background check on every sale without a national gun registry?
LiberalGunNut™ here. I sure as hell don't want a national registry. As we slide further into fascism, you want a man like Trump knowing who has what?
And no, it really can't be enforced. Guys like me will obey the law and other won't, just as it is now.
This has always been my conundrum.
Do we give into the "sacrifice your liberty for safety" type thinking or do we see the actions of a man like Trump for what it really is: writing on the wall for something much worse to come.
One day it won't be a buffoon like Trump, it will be a calculated and intelligent person. It's not a conspiracy theory anymore, Trump showed us the cracks in the foundation, we can choose to ignore it whenever the guy in office wears a blue tie, or we can take note for whats to come.
But again, on one hand, kids dying isn't cool, but on the other, setting ourselves up for a potential systematic oppression also sounds pretty bad. We have enough systematic oppression as it is
Not to say Trump is my sole factor for having these beliefs, I've always tangled with the issues of safety and liberty when it comes to gun laws.
The thing is, kids dying is a cultural and social problem, not a gun problem. Mass shootings didn't start until the early 90s and they didn't really become "popular" until after Columbine. Mass shootings have been accessible and practical for far longer than that.
I want to stop then as much as the next person, but the source of the problem is the isolation and perceived injustice of a particular demographic within whom mass shootings are a popular form of lashing out. E.G. "They've made me feel small and impotent for too long! I'll show them how much of a man I really am!" Taking away the guns, even if it were practical, would just cause a shift in tactics (see: Toronto van attack).
We need to make these people feel valued and supported. We need to fix so many different aspects of our social services and economic landscape. The problems they're facing are the same problems a lot of other people are facing, so fixing them would lead to a better life for a huge pile of people.
As a liberal gun owner myself I agree with you 100%. The closet thing to enforcement, I think, would be what I posted earlier: hold the seller legally liable in some sense for any crime committed with a gun that was sold to an individual without a background check. Add additional penalties for if the background check would have disqualified the buyer from purchase.
Obviously the sale would have to be proven, but that's the only thing I can come up with to "enforce" or encourage compliance.
Further, you could pass laws to hold gun owners liable for not reasonably or responsibly securing their firearms in a similar fashion. Sure if someone breaks into your house, prys open your safe or lock box and takes your gun, then you are protected. But if you let your 18 year old have cart blanche access to all of your guns (unlocked or maybe given him access) and he shoots up a school? You are an accessory/liable/criminally negligent.
I'm not a lawyer so I don't know what that law would need to look like but it does seem like some level of progress.
Even without a registry, that makes selling it without a check a clear crime.
Now as long as the seller "doesn't know" the buyer can't pass a background, that gives them plausible deniability. Which has the unintended effect of sellers not even asking the name of the buyer.
If every "private seller" knew they were breaking the law, and there was a good chance they'd be prosecuted if caught, they'd be a lot more likely to follow the law and go thru a FFL.
We don't need to only do something that works 100% of the time, working 90% is still pretty good too...
I wonder if you could make it where you could be considered an accessory to a crime if you sold a gun without a background check to a person who then committed a crime with it.
But I hear you, dont let perfection be the enemy of good.
That wouldn't be reliable to trace gun ownership history without the GOP-contested national gun registry. I'd even be for a "states' rights" solution similar to how vehicle ownership is tracked via the Title with the state's DMV. It will never be perfect, but "not perfect" shouldn't be the blocker of "any action at all".
Most of us who private sale do not sell to people who don't have ccws, or aren't in good standing with the communities we all take part in. On top of that, criminals will not follow this law and those that do will just do what they already do. Straw purchases.
I have never witnessed any seller give any thought to wether the buy had a CCW or not.
Anecdotal, but I've read comments in the past exactly like OPs.
We really do need a registry.
Even a background check on every sale wouldn't be enough to catch some previous offenders, those on watch lists, or people with serious mental illness issues because the system is woefully incomplete. The whole thing is ridiculous. You shouldn't be able to buy guns at conventions or on websites to begin with. Honestly, I'm amazed licensed gun dealers haven't been pushing congress to make it so that people have to buy guns through them- or if they have, I haven't heard about it.
I don't think it is realistic to get guns out of the equation in America any time soon, but it's become such an insane free-for-all. Nothing enforced, everything has a loophole.
Guns bought online require a bgc and shipped to an FFL. Why are you assuming they don't?
When did I say they didn't?
What's the qualm with online sales? They get shipped to an FFL and a background check is performed before the transfer anyways. Online sales add more competition to the market and increases consumer choice.
As for why FFLs don't lobby for protectionist practices beyond principal, FFLs have terrible margins, are generally small businesses without much lobbying power, and lobbying for anti consumer practices generally doesn't go well in that market. People are still mad at Springfield Armory (the company) for rescinding opposition on a failed Illinois bill after they got a carve out exemption so it wouldn't apply to them (unlike their competition).
I mean, it’s better than nothing, but still doesn’t do anything about the people outside the gun show with a trunk full of Glocks they’re selling for $100 over sticker price.
It makes it easier to prosecute them for not being private sales, so not nothing.
It doesn't tho. They can just say they're furthering their collection. Feds would have to show a strong pattern of sales and if the person was buying and selling out of their own collection it gets gray.
The actual text of the rule (all 466 pages) does a decent job of closing out loopholes, but it does (in theory) provide an avenue to address unlicensed dealers.
pg. 457
Whether a person is engaged in the business as a dealer under paragraph (a) of this section is a fact-specific inquiry… there is no minimum number of transactions that determines whether a person is "engaged in the business" of dealing in firearms. At all times, the determination of whether a person is engaged in the business of dealing in firearms is based on the totality of the circumstances.
This is a good framework for a prosecutor to build from, but it’s not a firm line that immediately introduces legal peril like say, a “10 guns max per year sold” limit would once crossed. This will prevent bad enforcement against honest sellers, but lets off the ‘smaller fish’ who aren’t in flagrant violation and a prosecutor may not feel is a good case to try for conviction.
It will likely survive in a post-Mock v. Garland legal landscape, but its timidity was doubtlessly influenced by the legal beatdown the DoJ got on that other issue the last few years. ATF needs primary legislation to build from for enforcement, especially as scotus are eying up the Chevron doctrine that has guided courts and bureaucrats for decades.
It seems like this has less to do with where (gunshow) or how (internet) the guns are being sold, and more about the volume being moved.
The “loopholes” are still intact for the private person making an occasional sale. These regulations are looking at people selling, in any way, guns in volumes that the government feels should be regulated as an FFL.
Unsurprisingly, the article’s title and the general framing leads people to focus away from what the regulation is actually doing. It’s a story and a political move that manages to bring out the emotion in both pro and anti gun people, but where the change to the legal reality seems honestly boring.
The occasional private party sale from a "personal collection" isn't what this is designed to stop. It's intended to close the loopholes that required no background checks in certain transactions, which:
Allowed people to function like online dealers, buying and selling volumes of guns, but claiming they are selling from personal collections.
Allowed for the very common "gun shows," which are frequent and widespread, to be used by #1 to sell guns to people in person not just online but to large, interested, and gathered crowds of people. These things are basically pop-up malls for guns, with a mixture of legitimate firearm businesses running background checks and tables of guns from a "private collection."
It prevents the "fire-sale loophole," where gun stores, often ones that lose their license for other violations, close their business and liquidate their guns at steep discounts without background checks by claiming that the guns revert to private collection.
The purpose of this rule revision is to get rid of those loopholes, which is how the overwhelming majority of guns sold without background check happen.
The occasional sale between private parties from a personal collection, defined as a collection whose purpose is study, comparison, exhibition, or in pursuit of hobby like hunting and sport shooting isn't the issue here. That doesn't appear to be where most guns involved in crime that were purchased without a background check originate from.
Yes I read the article. I was pointing out how that was the case rather than, as the article title frames with its title, something to do specifically with posting guns online, or selling privately on gunshow grounds.
Buy this vase and get a free gun
The Justice Department isn't stupid. The purchase of the vase is obviously incidental in the transaction.
To all the gun owners/advocates out there who used rational thinking to back this: Thank you.
I've bought firearms online for years. I don't know how the loophole works and at this point I'm afraid to ask.
The article’s title is misleading. The regulation isn’t “closing” the “loophole” of buying a gun without a background check from somewhere like armslist where you meet up in person for the exchange.
The article title, and some politician comments want people to think that this a loophole to be worried about, and that it has been closed in a “historic” move.
The regulation is going after people selling in such a volume, in any manner, that the government deems that they should be FFLs.
In practical terms what that volume qualifies as is still vague, but the manner or location of sales isn’t something being touched.
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.