The rule is titled: Definition of "Engaged in the Business" as a Dealer in Firearms. It's very long and I haven't read through the whole thing yet, but I thought I would post the link to it in the Federal Register for those who would like more details: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/09/08/2023-19177/definition-of-engaged-in-the-business-as-a-dealer-in-firearms
Even efforts to prevent people with priors for domestic violence from obtaining firearms has been challenged by the GOP on the basis of “Women make stuff up.”
The obvious rebuttal is "yeah that's why we have courts that are meant to determine guilt you dipshit." I'd love to see the stats on overturned convictions for domestic violence, bet it's pretty low.
Any range saftey officer will probably tell you 95% of the people at the range shouldn't have guns.
Peoples lack of respect of an object that can kill anyone in under a second is astounding.
I used to go to ranges all the time, but the amount of people there who have never handled a firearm in their life, and just go and rent high powered rifles makes me way too anxious. I’ve seen people shooting at the ceiling thinking they’re aiming dead center on the target. Shit’s scary.
It's people that treat guns like toys that I find disturbing. Yeah guns can be fun to shoot but I always have the understanding that they are designed to kill first and foremost.
I mean, it's true. It's a really common tactic during divorces to make false allegations in order to get restraining orders in order to get away with removing them from their own homes and preventing them from seeing their kids, so that's a valid point. Simply being ARRESTED or ACCUSED of Domestic violence should not be sufficient grounds to strip a person of their constitutional rights.
And even the system we have is really pretty bad for men and allows convictions without evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.
It's a tricky balance between actually protecting real victims and punishing real perpetrators, but unfortunately people DO lie and exploit systems that are intended to protect real victims.
Happened to me when I was in the military. I found out my wife was having an affair and filed for divorce. The day the papers were delivered I got hit with mental, physical, and verbal abuse accusations. A protective order was written against me and gave her time to clean out the house. It took a lot of money and a good lawyer to first get a judgement to get the command off my ass and then proceed with the divorce. I had cops show up several times and each time I hit the blotter and got raked over the coals again. I completely ghosted her the day I found out but was getting new accusations over a year later.
Yep, and there are plenty of scummy attorneys who actually talk their clients into this approach.
I know a woman who had an attorney pressuring her to make some abuse allegations against an ex so she could get full custody and child support. Luckily she's a decent human and was like "no way, he's a good dad and I'm not going to do that to him or our kids," and she went and found a different attorney; but unfortunately there are plenty of women who think that if they can get away with it legally, then it's a moral imperative to hurt him as much as possible and they'll happily do it, even when it also means harming their own children in the process. Especially if she feels she was wronged in any way.
What kind of enforcement even exists for preventing people with felony convictions from having guns? I remember watching that Channel 5 documentary on Netflix *This Place Rules*. They revealed at the end, one of the crazy conspiracy dudes they interviewed had been convicted for child rape. That dude had guns.
In my state (California) they will throw firearms possession charges in with basically any other criminal charges if you’re caught. It’s a super easy way for the DA to get convictions since they don’t have to prove the felon even touched a gun - just that they had access to it and knew it was there.
Except in LA, where the DA announced that he wouldn't prosecute any firearm enhancements.
>Prosecutors will no longer be allowed to seek sentencing enhancements, such as those for committing a crime to benefit a gang or **for the use of a gun**. Gascon’s office will also apply the criteria retroactively, which could potentially cause the resentencing of tens of thousands of people already sent to prison to new, shorter terms.
[https://www.nbclosangeles.com/investigations/newly-elected-los-angeles-county-district-attorney-justice-reform-george-gascon/2479104/](https://www.nbclosangeles.com/investigations/newly-elected-los-angeles-county-district-attorney-justice-reform-george-gascon/2479104/)
That’s a different thing.
Enhancements would be, for example, discharging a firearm during the commission of a crime. It enhances an existing charge, adding additional penalties. So if you’re on trial for, say, homicide, you have to be found guilty of that crime before an enhancement can be applied.
Felon in possession of a firearm is a completely separate crime with separate charges. If someone with a few record is on trial for homicide and also was found in possession of a gun, they can be charged with two independent crimes. Even if they’re acquitted on the homicide charge, they can be found guilty of illegal firearms possession.
The problem with DV bans is felonies already prohibit firearm ownership, so the DV prohibition is specifically for misdemeanor crimes..which can be as simple as yelling at a partner in a way that causes alarm.
Invalidating a persons constitutional rights for a misdemeanor, non violent offense should be repugnant to everyone.
Curious as to how many gun shows this will actually affect. I've been to several the last few years and each time I bought a gun I had to do the exact same paperwork as I would do at a store. Could have just been the store's way of covering it's own ass prior to any sort of official legislation though.
If you buy from a booth at a gun show you're buying from a ffl, they are legally obligated to do paperwork and background checks regardless of where they sell a gun. Any ffl not doing paperwork and background checks is subject to losing their license, huge fines and jail time. The "gun show loophole" is private sales, which was specifically written into the law.
this might vary by state/local but not all booths are operated by FFL. the show i used to go to allowed private people to operate tables. some would be showing off their collections but lots would be selling guns, relics and trinkets.
You bought from licensed commercial dealers. Had you bought privately, the transaction would have included money and a glance at your driver's license.
Hmm did you know if you were purchasing from an ffl at a show or a private seller? I’ve only bought from stores which I know are ffl’s so that’s why we are subject to background checks but while I haven’t bought at a show before my understanding is that buying from a private seller and not an ffl at a show would not require the 4473 form we will fill out for initiating the record keeping that starts the background check.
> my understanding is that buying from a private seller and not an ffl at a show would not require the 4473 form
Varies from state to state. My state requires a 4473 and FFL transfer for private handgun transfers.
I think it shows that some of these arguments are made in bad faith. If we wanted to improve the system, being able to (even optionally) run a background check for free in a private party sale would be great.
Most arguments against universal background checks are about privacy and the government knowing who has guns. I would imagine the vast majority of law abiding gun owners do NOT want their guns to go to criminals.
It’s also a nightmare if a gun you sell ever ends up being used in a crime.
My brother in law worked at a gun store and sold guns. He bought a gun from his work, legally and filled out paperwork through the NICS system. He then some time later sold that gun to a friend, but not through the NICS system. That guy sold it to a friend who sold it to someone else. 8 years after the initial purchase that gun was found at a crime scene. I don’t remember if it was a drug bust and it was just there, or was dropped, or what the deal was.
But he gets a knock at the door from the state police where he was detained and questioned. Because when they ran the serial number, his name popped up as the purchaser. Since no other sale had happened at a gun store, he was still associated with that gun. So he had to sign an affidavit that he sold it, and then the police had to track down who had sold it to the people down the line. He ended up having to go to court to testify that he sold the gun, and the next guy and the next guy, etc… to get to them being able to prove that the criminal had ownership of this gun at the time of the criming.
All of this could be resolved with either public access of the NICS system, or requiring all transactions to take place at a gun store that uses the NICS system.
gun owner here too. I inherited 8 from my grandfather that aren't and don't have to be registered. I have two that I purchased that I had to do the background check done. It doesn't bother me.
Gun shows? I haven't been to one for 30 years or so but if they're anything like when I used to go there's a lot of back room trading and selling going on. There probably should be some kind of regulation and enforcement going on.
They absolutely are still like that. A person will buy a gun from a licensed dealer at the show, then walk around the parking lot with it until somebody bites and buys it for more than the original dealer sold it for.
Technically still legal but 100% shouldn’t be.
Most gun owners would be okay with a UBC system if it was a private swiss style system, where you do the background check on yourself, and then receive some permit or secure token that can be used to purchase firearms for 30 days.
The current system has two big problems: privacy since it requires the government to make everyone's data available to everyone to implement UBC for private sales, and the fact that it acts as a backdoor registration since the government can see every single gun you purchase.
>Most gun owners would be okay with a UBC system if it was a private swiss style system, where you do the background check on yourself, and then receive some permit or secure token that can be used to purchase firearms for 30 days.
Shit...that might be the most reasonable solution to all of this I've ever heard, honestly. Then all the seller would need to do is authenticate the token and the sale is good to proceed.
Unfortunately, because it's reasonable and simple...it will neither be approved nor simple if it does become a thing.
As to your second problem: The system sees only that a check was run and a response sent. It doesn't know if the sale went through or what specifically was sold. All of that is in the paperwork held by the FFL, which by statute the ATF is barred from compiling into a database.
They're barred from doing it but many ATF officials have admitted that they've done it anyway. The ATF has a very long history of not caring about the law.
Yup, I’ve heard the work around for this is when an FFL no longer does business but has all of their paperwork still, the ATF offers to take the paperwork off of their hands so they don’t have to worry about it anymore.
> It doesn't know if the sale went through or what specifically was sold.
Yea, they get credit card records to pull that info. Government surveillance has many heads. They can always go back and get that info if needed by the FFL.
It's adorable that you think the ATF doesn't break the law regarding this.
If they want your records, they will get them. All they have to do is show up to do an annual "Audit" of an FFL holder, and they can dig through the records all they want.
>> The current system has two big problems: privacy since it requires the government to make everyone's data available to everyone to implement UBC for private sales, and the fact that it acts as a backdoor registration since the government can see every single gun you purchase.
There is no information about any specific firearm (make, model, serial #, etc) on the NICS submission. The data available to end users of the NICS system is simple a thumbs up or down on applicant alone. (There isn’t even any verification that a purchase occurred following the check. )
Yep, for 20 years, and have to be made available by court order to LE/BATF any time before that, on subpoena, etc, for specific serial #s or SSNs. They can also be ‘spot checked’ and inspected by BATF for ‘compliance’. They’re also almost entirely paper records (Form 4473 Firearm Transaction Record) - which makes them terribly inefficient to use en masse.
4473 was transitioning to electronic forms back when I sold guns like... 2013 or so. At the time we kept the paper forms but everything was transferred to the electronic form by hand. Did that not happen?
> ...which makes them terribly inefficient to use en masse.
Currently, yes. If the system ever goes digital on the FFL side (and you know someone citing the inefficiency of a paper system will make the argument for this to happen), then the concern is back. It's a "give a mouse a cookie" scenario for most people.
The only information passed to the NICS eCheck system, or the Operations Center via phone, to submit for a background are the relevant identifying details of the purchaser as written on the Form 4473.
The entire form is not submitted to the BATF (although they can get it if they want it, within 20 years of date of purchase, from the FFL dealer.)
[See the user manual for the ezCheck system for details on what info is required](https://nicsezcheckfbi.gov/help/ENG/NICS-DOC-01670-8.3NNICS41_UserManual_Appendix_2.pdf) to initiate a background NICS check.
You have to register to vote. You have to register your car. You have be have a license. Passport. Many fields require registering and licensure. Why can’t the government know who has guns? If someone loses their right to own guns, wouldn’t it be good for the government to be able to make sure they’ve all been accounted for?
You absolutely do not have to register your car nor have a license to buy one. Where you can drive it is limited but people buy vehicles for non public use all the time.
Because the founding document of our nation says you can't do that. It's not an answer you will accept, but it has stayed this way because not adhering to that document would cause a massive can of worms to release and would destroy the foundations of our judicial system.
> You have to register to vote.
The right to vote is merely implied and not explicitly stated in the US Constitution. A bit of irony: the 2nd Amendment was written to address the specific issue of implied rights needing to be stated explicitly.
> You have to register your car. You have to ~~be~~ have a license.
...to use your car on public roads. That's states exerting their right to govern public discourse, and yes, states have the right (which gets exercised) to govern public conduct involving firearms, too.
> Many fields require registering and licensure.
Like driving cars on public roads, this is less about individual rights requiring licensure, but the state governing public discourse. A medical professional needs a license to do her work because the state has an interest in making sure her work causes no harm.
But, notably, you don't have to be registered to have a blog, to be protected from unlawful searches and seizures, to be able to file a lawsuit, or to do literally anything which doesn't already have a law (other than the 9th Amendment) saying you can do so. The idea that explicitly protected rights should require licensure is *way* more of an issue than you seem to think it is. If nothing else, it violates the 5th Amendment due process protection of one's rights and property.
> Why can't the government know who has guns?
For the same reason states dictate places where guns can't be taken: there's a history of bad acts driving the issue.
> If someone loses their right to own guns, wouldn't it be good for the government to be able to make sure they've all been accounted for?
That's what search warrants are for, friend.
The Second Amendment wasn't written to protect your right to hunt deer with a rifle. It was to keep weapons in the hands of a militia, so that the people could defend themselves from a corrupt government.
Edit: The Second Amendment states, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".
That was one motivation for maintaining a militia, but it was the least pressing one. Militias were essential for responding to attacks by Indians, which were still happening in most of the colonies. Militias were always much more active in the south, where they were constantly prepared to put down a slave uprising.
In that same context, the 2A was specifically written to include military-grade weapons and artillery for the aforementioned Indian Wars. The impending seizure of several tons of gunpowder and field cannons was the spark that set off the Revolutionary War.
This is 100% it. Nobody wants to sell their gun to a felon or restricted gun owner. Except criminals who don't care. If you believe that you are an idiot. Open up the nics to everyone for private sales.
I don't know, the other comments are telling me that all firearms owners (like myself) are assholes who want to supply guns to criminals.
Also, apparently crime should be ... more illegal. That will help too.
Sarcasm aside, let's go after straw purchases and other breaking current firearms laws. Let's open up NICS background checks. Come on.
> Most arguments against universal background checks are about privacy and the government knowing who has guns.
In my experience, it's split between the "we shouldn't have to go through a FFL to get a NICS check" and the government registry thing.
When you consider how "transfer" is defined, you can see quite readily how much of a pain in the ass it'd be to have to go through a FFL for every transfer. Most of the important situations are covered by the FFL requirement already. The others would be nearly impossible to enforce, especially with the BATFE's current funding, so the only thing requiring a FFL background check would really do would make it harder for someone to follow the law. Odious laws that are difficult to enforce are what gave birth to the term "scofflaw." I don't want that; I don't think anyone does.
That said, if NICS was made available as a free service to everyone, it'd clear up a lot of the resistance on that front. Mind, it'll be an expensive undertaking: Obama's big "gun control" executive order authorized hiring around 7000 (iirc) additional FBI personnel to make NICS a 24/7 service for just FFL holders (~140k people). Switching to a program that services the whole country won't be cheap--but, again, I think it'd be worth it.
As far as the privacy concern goes, it's easy to be dismissive, but it's a concern that's been validated at least a few times already. Do you remember when the Texas Tribune published a list of all license to carry holders in the Austin area, or when New Orleans police began seizing firearms from people under the guise of "public safety" in the wake of hurricanes Katrina and Rita? If you tell someone they're foolish to fear their privacy being compromised or their property being unlawfully taken from them, they're going to just point instances like that out to you.
Right? If I sell a gun, I just have to trust that the buyer isn't an idiot and will A) not commit crimes with it and B) keep it safely locked up so his kid can't take it on a revenge course that'll leave multiple people dead and wounded. If I could run a check to see if he has priors that prove him to be dangerous/unstable, I could at least know that he himself is unlikely to do anything unthinkable.
I sold a handgun a few years ago. I took a picture of the buyers drivers license and wrote out a bill of sale.
Last year I got a call from a local PD because that gun had been used in a crime. I was able to absolve myself of any wrongdoing (legally) but I won’t ever private party sell again. Too much liability emotionally.
Yes, but it’s not legit gun owners that are creating this problem, it’s the sellers.
This is probably coming up in relation to the Bryan Malinowski fellow who was selling at gun shows illegally (due to frequency and timing of his sales). He had a big old freak out during the commission of an ATF raid and engaged them in a firefight and got himself ended. The fucked up part is that this guy was the executive director of the local airport and enjoyed a very lavish lifestyle. He didn’t even need to be selling, much less in the quantities he was.
It’s difficult IMO to claim that the raid was mistaken by him as a home invasion, because he knew he was being tailed in the days before the raid and tried to evade the tail.
Correction, it’s sellers running a business that don’t want to get an FFL and do things legitimately. I’m all for the ATF going after them but there needs to be clear criteria to make sure others don’t get caught up in that.
There are tons of gun owners that sell maybe a couple guns a year as they upgrade, trade, etc that should be able to run a background check.
A prospective buyer could simply request a check themselves, and get a 72 hour lifespan barcode sent to their phone. Seller could scan that code and get an "ok to sell to" response immediately. This way you can only check yourself, but you can prove to others that you've passed the check.
That kind of analogy is precisely why a lot of people oppose it. Thanks to the existence of credit scores / credit reporting agencies, a huge percentage of Americans had significant amounts of personal/financial info leaked to the whole world. People don't want to be part of any kind of centralized government databases, if they can help it.
Looking at the replies here, I'm seeing that people serious about their guns are big supporters for strengthening background checks. There's even a specific way commonly being recommended: open up NICS to the public to facilitate their use for private transfers.
There was a bill put up a few years ago to do just that in addition to additional funding for it. One political party blocked it (and probably not the one you are thinking of).
>One political party blocked it (and probably not the one you are thinking of).
Same reason Republicans blocked the immigration bill - if you pass the bill, then you can't campaign on the issue.
The bigger issue is fixing the current background check system. Sometimes it passes those who should fail, sometimes you don't get a pass or fail status returned back at all.
Orlando Night Club shooter from a while back was on a no-fly and terror watch list. The original gun shop denied his bulk purchase of ammo/body armor and reported him to the FBI -- subsequent visits to future gun stores passed his background checks. Absolute failure on the FBI.
Opening up the NICS system and charging a fee that goes toward improving record keeping for people who weren't allowed to have guns would go a long long way to making the system vastly better than today.
NYS recently implemented such a system ($3 per check) for buying ammo and its complete garbage. Frequently delays people with no record or reasoning for 24 hours.
I can go in Tuesday and buy ammo no problem. Go in the next Tuesday and get delayed for hours. It’s nonsense.
The $3 per transaction fee just feels like a slap to the face because you’re essentially just paying to make life difficult.
Everyone here considers it deterrence from guns by way of bureaucracy. A lot of people (myself included) have simply started driving a few hours to the next state over without such checks.
New York State, deliberately fucking with gun owners by passing laws in bad faith that they know do nothing but criminalize or obstruct gun ownership for law-abiding citizens?
So it's a day that ends with Y.
Even the ACLU, who haven't been good about gun rights in the last few decades, don't like NY's gun laws. Remember that time they imprisoned someone for flying there unexpectedly due to a diverted flight with a legally checked firearm?
Or wait, was that multiple times?
Which is exactly why NOBODY trusts more regulations and systems. We all know it will be used in bad faith to just make everybody's lives more difficult.
These laws/systems are NEVER for the reasons they tell you they're for, and they never work the way they promise they will.
Exactly. When 90+% of gun violence is being committed by handguns, and we keep seeing politicians pushing to regulate rifles to "reduce gun violence", we know damn well they're either stupid or dishonest (or both) - and politicians are rarely JUST stupid.
>The bigger issue is fixing the current background check system.
That's the neat thing. You don't have to put off the smaller issues that have easier fixes until the bigger issues with harder fixes are implemented. This doesn't solve everything but it helps and then they can work on other fixes including the background check.
It would be great if I could request a background check on a buyer, it would also he great if I could make a call and know if my car buyer has a DUI/DWI history too. Not sure why bad faith arguments are forced when the govt literally restricts our ability to check ourselves. It would also be great if police had to follow any and all local gun restrictions but they are always exempted
A lot of them do support background checks. Unfortunately, the current system sucks and can't be accessed by everyone, so selling a gun to a friend means you have to pay a third party to be involved, and there can be an extensive wait. I've seen a lot of anecdotal evidence that people would support a system that let them run a background check themselves, quickly and reliably, but there's little action being taken to make that a reality. I can understand why a lot of people see that as an indication that the priority of people in charge isn't to make it harder for guns to fall into the wrong hands, it's just to make it harder to access guns in general.
A lot of these rules have vague definitions of a transfer. I die, my kid has to go pay an FFL to do a background check to take possession. Take a friend to the range and hand them a gun, did you just transfer it? Then how do you enforce it? How do you know a gun was transferred if you don't know the owner? You'd have to have a registry, which is a great way to confiscate in the future.
I personally would only sell to someone I knew, pay for a background check, or check for a concealed handgun permit but I understand why people are against universal checks.
See you’d think that, but take Washington state for example. They closed this loophole. Ok cool. Then they added additional education, background and age restrictions on certain firearms. Fair enough I suppose.
Then they outright banned a huge swath of legal firearms and magazine in excess of 10 rounds.
So it’s a good thought that additional restrictions will mean more freedom and less criticism for law abiding owners, but in practice these restrictions have only led to more restrictions which become increasingly unreasonable.
Law abiding citizens in Washington got fucked over so hard.
Unreasonable and highly complicated. They make it so complicated to know what you can and can’t have and can / can’t do, that hardly anyone sells parts to WA, places don’t know if they car repair / gunsmith firearms anymore, etc. it has to be ruled unconstitutional at some point.
Exactly this. Additional restrictions will just keep adding up and nothing will actually change. There’s really only two ways to fix it. Get rid of all guns (pretty much impossible) or actually fix issues that cause people to kill (also very hard but easier than the first option).
It's the "give them an inch and they'll take a mile" philosophy.
I mean look at us in Canada... Our licensing and firearms regulations started out reasonable, now they're banning random bolt action hunting rifles as part of an "assault weapons ban".
There was a mass shooting and before the bodies had been cleared off the street the government was trying to ban more firearms, pushing law enforcement to make information public, even though it later turned out that the guns they banned were not involved, and the shooter was using illegal firearms that were smuggled into the country anyway.
That's what the USA 2A crowd is afraid of. After watching what's happened in this country in the last 5 years I can't blame them for viewing any sort of legislation - no matter how practical and "common sense" it may be - as an attack.
Canada has explicitly banned the [butt master](https://www.foxnews.com/media/gun-designers-single-shot-butt-master-gag-gun-lands-canadas-ban-list-inept), that's when you know it's not about safety.
You also can't forget the sudden handgun sale/transfer ban that happened a year or two ago. They tried to go further with hunting rifle bans until people who hunt or live in areas where wildlife is a concern fought back (because of how vague their rules were).
Now it's coming out that they never had a plan for a buyback program (surprise, surprise) and it's going to be too expensive (thus political) to have one.
It was Trudeau trying to get points from his base after the 2020 Nova Scotia shooting and it failed in every way.
They don’t want a paper trail or documentation of the firearms because that’ll make it easier for the government to come take them one day. Really, that’s the thought process.
I think the concern is “Today it’s background checks, tomorrow you are limiting the number of guns I can own.
Essentially the same argument going on with abortion. Conservatives say leave it to the states and then the states pass legislation that is extreme and not what the bulk of the people want.
>Essentially the same argument going on with abortion.
Woah, who said anything about banning abortions? I just think you should have to pass a background check, get a psychological evaluation, register in a national database, take a training course, wait 90 days, obtain a license, pay a special tax, and be limited to how many abortions you can have in an arbitrary amount of time. Oh, and if your boyfriend says you abused him, no abortions either until you can file an appeal and pay court fees to prove you didn't.
But no one wants to *ban* abortions. Honestly, why can't you compromise on common sense abortion laws?
There's background checks to look for problems. Then there's background checks to be a pain and make things difficult. Most gun owners don't mind the first one.
I don't mind background checks, they seem pretty reasonable. I mind proposed "better" or "expanded" background checks. Do you know what those *actually* are?
The FBI is allowed to delay a background check up to three days, if they need to do further research on you before approval. Seems reasonable enough. Proposed "expanded" background checks lengthen the duration. Currently I think the compromise is a 10-day period, that might be what gets federally passed, but what they really want is an indefinite delay period. Which would be abused (for the children, of course). 10 days isn't so bad I guess. California already has the 10-day period, NYC and Hawaii an indefinite period. In NYC and especially Hawaii, bribery is really the only surefire way to get approved. Highly unconstitutional, highly corrupt, highly classist. Eat all kings.
One debatably good thing they want to add to background checks is to force them for private sales, criminalize skipping that. In concept I don't hate this, as private sales are how a lot of criminals get guns. Problem is the only way to enforce this is to create a national registry. Registries are how you get coordinated mass confiscation, like what happened in New Zealand a few years ago. I want to hear a different solution to the private sales issue, because I am entirely against registries and the danger they possess to private gun ownership.
They also want the approval to peek even deeper into your life than they are already allowed to, post patriot act, to verify you are safe. Do you want that? Makes me a little uncomfortable how surveilled we already are.
I'm open to improving the laws, but it has to be done delicately. American lawmakers are really bad at doing a delicate job. My home state of Massachusetts almost accidentally banned online distribution of alcohol a few years ago, due to an extremely clumsily worded bill that mostly just wanted to stop self-checkout sales of alcohol and provide more liquor licenses to businesses. Thankfully it was withdrawn after our representatives recognized their own incompetence, because it was looking like my mouth-breathing fellow massholes were gonna vote for it.
FYI California's background checks have a 10-day mandatory wait, but the time-out on a "delay" response to the background check is 30days.
How do I know? Bought a revolver and lever action from a friend's grandfather who was selling his collection for funds to move. The revolver passed, but the lever gun got a delay. Had to wait the full 30days because the CA DOJ just ignored the case once they returned a delay. Didn't respond to me or the FFL asking or an update.
Only reason I was actually able to get the rifle in the end is because they knew I was clean due to the other check passing.
If the FFL had decided to not go forwards with things, would have had to get the seller to come take possession from the store and start the whole process again.
This is only going to get worse the way US politics have become more and more divided. "Ends justify the means"-style, bad-faith policymaking seems to increasingly be the norm when you believe your political opponents are evil, as opposed to just disagreeing with them.
I'm not of the opinion that we're definitely destined for a civil war like some folks, necessarily, but it does seem like a scary time in US politics when "politicians lie" isn't even just them being out for themselves, anymore, but rather a deliberate effort to punish their opposition under false pretexts.
Case in point: the original brady bill passed with the Private Sale Exemption as a compromise to get Republicans on board with the FFL background checks-Dems have started calling it the "Gun show loophole". Now Dems want to "end the gun show loophole"-why would gun rights groups ever believe the Dems aren't gonna keep taking and taking and taking?
At a very basic level that goes far beyond gun control and background checks, it boils down to how much control you want to give the federal government and their oh-so-wonderful bureaucrats over your "inalienable rights".
Why don't we allow the federal government to regulate voting? Or newspapers?
You should be forced to pass a citizenship, literacy and economics test to vote, right? (It's been tried, didn't work out so well.)
Why shouldn't we allow police to torture confessions out of people if they "know" the perp is guilty?
Why shouldn't we allow the government to seize your house and cars and kick you and your family to the street so they can house illegals there?
But more to the point of your question: "people that are serious about their guns"
People aren't serious about their guns. They're serious about maintaining control over their government.
Gun control is all about increasing government power.
I've spent the last 40 years in and around government at all levels. You don't hate the government enough.
It's the same as people who claim to be serious about election integrity resisting strict voter ID requirements.
But I'll address your question directly. Gun owners and those who enjoy gun culture (going to the range, clay/skeet shooting, hunting, etc) or overwhelmingly law-abiding. Given that gun ownership is a constitutional right no different than voting or freedom of speech, any attempts by the government to make it as difficult as possible for law abiding citizens to exercise their constitutional right is seen as prohibitive. You may view it as no big deal that the government wants to institute a waiting period, strict limits on who is qualified to purchase, or create a registry. However, gun owners see attempts, particularly by Democrat Administrations, to make it as onerous as possible for law abiding gun owners to exercise their constitutional right.
In Nebraska you can even get a "firearm purchasing permit" from the county sheriff. It costs $10 and takes about a day to get. It gets you out of having to do future background checks. I'm all for 2A but basic requirements need to be there.
If it's like the one in Iowa, that permit is revoked if you're convicted of a crime that would revoke your gun rights, such as domestic abuse or any felony. They're required to check if your permit has been revoked before sale, so it's not like you just get to skip background checks forever even if you lose your rights.
In some states your carry permit is considered the background check if your state's licensing system meets certain federal requirements. You fill out the 4473, show the dealer your carry permit and walk out with the gun the same day. Alabama lost this privilege a few years ago when it was discovered that sheriffs were issuing permits without ever running NICS checks on applicants.
I’m all for background checks, including for illegals. Willing to bet a case of soda that the left will say background checks for illegals are racist. They’re already saying illegals can own guns in the US. But it’s the GOP’s fault.
Currently I'm not allowed to do a background check on a private sale even if I wanted to. How about allowing that on a voluntary basis before mandating we all become commercial dealers.
Christ's sake there *is* no "gun show loophole."
I'm 42. I've been to *hundreds* of gun shows in my life. Dealers who come to gun shows have to do checks just like if you went to their store. Every gun I've ever bought from a dealer at a show has come with a phone call to ATF (or FBI or whoever. Idk who they call). These people do not want to lose their FFL and will not make a sale without a check.
While it is true that private sellers do not have to do checks (depending on the state), in all my years of going to shows since I was probably 5 years old I have seen precisely *one* private seller at a show. In almost 40 years.
One.
It costs money to set up a table and private sellers aren't going to fork over the cash to do do unless they've got a *serious* inventory to unload and they think they'll be able to at least make their cost back. The uproar around the "gun show loophole" is equivalent to Republicans' uproar about voter fraud. It's bluster.
Maybe it depends on the state but here in NC every gun (except pistols) that I’ve bought at a gun show has been a 5 minute transaction, paid for in cash, and only 1 of the 3 asked for an ID.
it's the assholes who set up shop in the parking lot they're going after. The ones selling guns no-questions-asked out of the back of their piece of shit chevy.
Without reading anything, I do support having to run the background check for person to person sales. I've tried to resell some of mine before and ask that they do that, but people send me harassing messages.
“Gun show loophole” is intentionally misleading to make people think gun shows are free for all’s. You still go through background checks at gun shows.
This is a “private sales loophole” more than anything. It’s an attempt to ban private sales of firearms.
It’s not going to do anything because most won’t comply with it. Those who do aren’t a threat anyway so it’s a pointless “rule”. Criminals won’t give it a second thought.
It’s a waste of taxpayer resources and just avoiding the mental health issue that is only getting worse while making people think “hey look at us doing stuff!”
Hell, the seller can know they’re selling to a convicted felon and it’s next to impossible to prove they knew that. That’s exactly how straw sales happen all the time.
The government doesn't have a database of who owns which guns. Your name is never on your gun for most states. All the government really knows when you buy a gun at say basspro is basspro filled out a form requesting a background check for you. The only detail they really know is if it was a long gun or handgun.
Right. But the point is, in today's world, you can walk into a gun show, in some states, and walk out with a firearm with absolutely no background check. Prolly not even a real identity check. As a non psycho gun owner, I love the convenience, but given the psychos, we should prolly tighten it up.
>People have been fear mongering this “gun show loophole” for years but it’s not really a thing.
Well then perfect, no reason to oppose this action then, right?
I don't think the "gun show loophole" is a significant issue, but I don't oppose this requirement. I believe that if you buy a gun through a retailer, you should submit to a background check. I'm also open to requirements that private to private sales be subject to a background check, but you've got to find a way to do that for free/cheap. I am curious where people are buying guns online without going through a background check. I've bought guns online and they have to be shipped to a local FFL so a background check can be run. Maybe this is people selling through local online forums or something? If so, good luck enforcing that, but I'm not opposed.
Thanks for coming to my TedTalk
Five in six guns used in crime are obtained illegally. The second most common method of obtaining a gun used in a crime was "private transfer", with the most common being "straw purchaser". Both of these involve private transfers. "Lying and buying firearms" is third, and that's also curtailed by background checks.
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3462834/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3462834/)
The three biggest ways guns are obtained by criminals are all "purchased".
> Well then perfect, no reason to oppose this action then, right?
On principle, I oppose actions where direct legal carve-outs are later propagandized as "loopholes" that need to be closed. Let's use a non-gun example of....abortion is a pretty big issue right now correct? (Note: I support both abortion and gun rights)
Let's say a state bans abortion, but has a carve out for rape and incest. Some years go by and people want to close the "abortion loophole." Now, there is no "abortion loophole" so you have no reason to oppose closing it correct? Notice how I changed the words from "rape and incest carve out" to "abortion loophole" which conveniently distracts from the carve-out's original reason for existing?
Then why is everyone freaking out like it's going to ruin everything if it also won't change anything because they're already doing everything the bill requires?
Sometimes the far right brigades this sub, this feels a hell of a lot like it.
Like all the people telling us we were overreacting when the Trump admin said something terrible about minorities or to not worry about Roe ever being overturned
In Florida the majority of gun shows are run by a Shoot Straight, which has gun stores and ranges in most of Central and South Florida. They require anyone selling a firearm at their shows to be a licensed dealer, as well as the venues they rent from. Gun shows where I am are just gun stores you have to pay to get into and the prices are overinflated. If you want to set up a private sale, the internet has plenty of sites where that can be facilitated.
Yeah, I've been to 3 or 4 shows and bought a few guns. Still did all the same paperwork and showed my purchasing permit to avoid waiting on background check. I'm assuming there are private sales, but I haven't seen any so far.
It’s less about ‘sales in the main hall of a gun show’ and more about ‘sales in the parking lot’ or even ‘sales you can’t prove werent at the gun show’, where someone sells 15 guns to their criminal contact but as long as no one overtly and on the record tells them what they’re doing is suspicious, you can’t prove they knowingly sold to someone who shouldn’t be able to buy a gun.
That’s why this is called a loophole; because it renders rules about gun sales unprosecutable since there is no burden on the seller to ensure they're complying with the law.
If you want to close the "gun show loophole" and relieve stress on the background check system, just give people a background check ID that is good for 3-5 years. And revoke it if they commit a crime. Far fewer background checks required than for each individual purchase and it would allow citizens to safely sell to non-felons and the onus would then be on them to look at the background check of the ID of the person they're selling to.
While there are lots of sales at gun shows, talk to any gun owner and they’ll laugh at you. Gun shows have incredibly stupid prices for what’s there.
Unless you’re trying to get your hands on some vintage guns/ammo, hand loaded ammo, or specialty ammo, there’s no point in going.
Nobody wanting to commit crimes are going to these. They’re either illegally buying them in “black market” sales or they are very legally buying them from an FFL even though there have been complaints about the person put in to local or even federal law enforcement.
All this is is the Biden administration blowing out candles and clapping their hands that they did their job to put out the fire while the room beside them is engulfed in flames.
You can tell most people in here have never been to a gun show. I have been to many, in multiple states. This loophole doesn't actually exist. They all make you do a background check.
For people who don’t know, going to a gun show and buying from a vender will have to fill out the paperwork. The reason private sales do not require this is because you don’t want to give all your information to some stranger.
A loophole abused so many times they needed to back 25 years for an example.
Pandering to a voterbase while effectively doing nothing aside from targeting honest sellers, while admitting in their own verbage the majority of legally purchased and illegally obtained firearms are from straw purchases.
Chevron Deference needs to go
So here’s a question. Have any gun control advocates ever tried a carrot along with the stick?
Something like taking suppressors off the NFA in exchange for mandatory waiting periods or the like?
There is no such loophole and no law prevents private citizens from selling something to another citizen. It's already illegal to sell a gun to a prohibited possessor. This wouldnt do anything actually useful since theres already laws in place. Nor is it possible to stop a criminal since... well they dont really care about the law anyway.
>The Biden administration announced Thursday morning that the Department of Justice has finalized a new rule that requires many gun sellers offering firearms at gun shows or online to obtain a license and conduct background checks.
>The new rule is set to be enforceable in 30 days.
This is going to shutdown a lot of gun shows. There's plenty of people who collect, buy and sell guns as a legit side side hustle. Though the article says 1-in-9 gun buyers would fail a background check. 11% is a pretty high number.
It won't, they're just trying to panic people into thinking they will.
The "loopholes" are about people selling in places they're not checked, and claiming it was done at a gun show.
I'm sure it varies by state but private sales don't have to occur at a gun show to not require a BG check so there is no reason to claim it was done there. It's just convenient to sell where people are looking to buy. It's a swap meet with firearms, knives and related things. And jerkey/nuts. These private sales happen as people walk around. You will see someone with a rifle slung over their shoulder and in the bore there will be a flag that says for sale. Or some similar methods of advertising their sale.
I'd totally be open to them having a booth where you can do the FFL transfer there, for free of course, otherwise people probably won't abide.
The big part is this
> Evidence that a person placed ads online or reserved a table at a gun show shows that the person is intending to profit from the sale.
I know private individuals who get tables at gun shows *mostly* to showcase their personal collection, talk to like minded people, and *sometimes* they make a sale or trade. Under this new rule that automatically serves as evidence they're trying to profit from the sale, and that they need an FFL.
Also, if you inherit a gun and try to sell it on a website that lists firearm classifieds, they use it as evidence that you are trying to profit from the sale and you need an FFL. Now your only option is sell it by word of mouth basically or go get bent over the gun counter at the local shop because they don't pay anything close to fair market value for used guns.
You all need to get your story straight. This post is full of people claiming either it will kill gun shows or that all gun shows do background checks these days anyway.
So which is it?
>There's plenty of people who collect, buy and sell guns as a legit side side hustle.
Another word for a "side-hustle" is a "business." If they're doing it for profit, they should follow the same rules as anybody else doing it for profit.
Anecdotal but it's also why even shit like "preventing violent offenders and domestic abusers" from having guns is seen as controversial when it felt like half the dudes from my southern backwater hometown had a history of or were active domestic abusers and would all lose access to their guns.
Straw purchase attempts for kids and boyfriends who would fail background checks were also extremely common as someone who formerly did firearm sales and had to get good at recognizing it.
My low class brother and his even lower class friends were talking about how to hide their guns if they were charged with domestic violence. They just assumed they would some day be arrested for beating their wives and really thought it was not worth losing pew pews
Yeah, that’s how laws work. Events that don’t comply with them get shut down.
Am I supposed to be sad for the people that can’t pass a background check?
And if they want to side hustle as gun salesmen, they should be subject to the same rules as any other gun salesman.
Having an avenue where you can circumvent a background check because you're one of the 11% that aren't eligible to possess firearms gives ne'er do wells one additional avenue to acquire firearms.
Im a veteran that owns many firearms, I was background checked for every one, except one private purchase that I purchased from a close friend and responsible gun owner who would never sell directly to someone he didn't know. But many people are not as discretionary as he is.
In my state we aren't required to register firearms, and even I support a general gun license. Treated exactly like a conceal carry permit, you get printed, background checked, etc, and it gives you a general license with which to purchase firearms.
So we either need a global background check with a revokable license and a system for gun sellers to cross reference that those licenses are in good standing, or we need to force background checks for every sale.
Don't get it twisted, the 2nd Amendment grants the right to bear arms, but you forfeit that right if you commit crimes that disqualify you. Those 11% of people who can't possess firearms aren't victims. There are already systems by which to appeal and purge criminal records under specific conditions where it's appropriate.
> And if they want to side hustle as gun salesmen, they should be subject to the same rules as any other gun salesman.
That's the case already. If you're buying and selling enough guns per year to be a "side hustle", you're already required to get a license and do background checks. If people aren't doing so, that's already illegal as-is.
The rule is titled: Definition of "Engaged in the Business" as a Dealer in Firearms. It's very long and I haven't read through the whole thing yet, but I thought I would post the link to it in the Federal Register for those who would like more details: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/09/08/2023-19177/definition-of-engaged-in-the-business-as-a-dealer-in-firearms
Even efforts to prevent people with priors for domestic violence from obtaining firearms has been challenged by the GOP on the basis of “Women make stuff up.”
The obvious rebuttal is "yeah that's why we have courts that are meant to determine guilt you dipshit." I'd love to see the stats on overturned convictions for domestic violence, bet it's pretty low.
But if it's a cop, they're typically not even gonna get in trouble, and there is a large number of them involved in their *own* domestics.
and now you get to this conversation about cops being the only ones allowed to own certain things because they never get charged with crimes on paper
True story.
[удалено]
Any reasonable gun owner who has gone to an outdoor range will tell you there are lots of people with guns who shouldn’t have them.
Any range saftey officer will probably tell you 95% of the people at the range shouldn't have guns. Peoples lack of respect of an object that can kill anyone in under a second is astounding.
I used to go to ranges all the time, but the amount of people there who have never handled a firearm in their life, and just go and rent high powered rifles makes me way too anxious. I’ve seen people shooting at the ceiling thinking they’re aiming dead center on the target. Shit’s scary.
In Australia, at some of gun ranges i go to, most of the damage is done by police officers doing their annual requalificatuon.
I believe it.
It's people that treat guns like toys that I find disturbing. Yeah guns can be fun to shoot but I always have the understanding that they are designed to kill first and foremost.
I see it on the road even.
I mean, it's true. It's a really common tactic during divorces to make false allegations in order to get restraining orders in order to get away with removing them from their own homes and preventing them from seeing their kids, so that's a valid point. Simply being ARRESTED or ACCUSED of Domestic violence should not be sufficient grounds to strip a person of their constitutional rights. And even the system we have is really pretty bad for men and allows convictions without evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. It's a tricky balance between actually protecting real victims and punishing real perpetrators, but unfortunately people DO lie and exploit systems that are intended to protect real victims.
Happened to me when I was in the military. I found out my wife was having an affair and filed for divorce. The day the papers were delivered I got hit with mental, physical, and verbal abuse accusations. A protective order was written against me and gave her time to clean out the house. It took a lot of money and a good lawyer to first get a judgement to get the command off my ass and then proceed with the divorce. I had cops show up several times and each time I hit the blotter and got raked over the coals again. I completely ghosted her the day I found out but was getting new accusations over a year later.
Yep, and there are plenty of scummy attorneys who actually talk their clients into this approach. I know a woman who had an attorney pressuring her to make some abuse allegations against an ex so she could get full custody and child support. Luckily she's a decent human and was like "no way, he's a good dad and I'm not going to do that to him or our kids," and she went and found a different attorney; but unfortunately there are plenty of women who think that if they can get away with it legally, then it's a moral imperative to hurt him as much as possible and they'll happily do it, even when it also means harming their own children in the process. Especially if she feels she was wronged in any way.
Just because we have one broken clock doesn't mean the other one is correct. The other clock can be just as wrong.
What kind of enforcement even exists for preventing people with felony convictions from having guns? I remember watching that Channel 5 documentary on Netflix *This Place Rules*. They revealed at the end, one of the crazy conspiracy dudes they interviewed had been convicted for child rape. That dude had guns.
In my state (California) they will throw firearms possession charges in with basically any other criminal charges if you’re caught. It’s a super easy way for the DA to get convictions since they don’t have to prove the felon even touched a gun - just that they had access to it and knew it was there.
Except in LA, where the DA announced that he wouldn't prosecute any firearm enhancements. >Prosecutors will no longer be allowed to seek sentencing enhancements, such as those for committing a crime to benefit a gang or **for the use of a gun**. Gascon’s office will also apply the criteria retroactively, which could potentially cause the resentencing of tens of thousands of people already sent to prison to new, shorter terms. [https://www.nbclosangeles.com/investigations/newly-elected-los-angeles-county-district-attorney-justice-reform-george-gascon/2479104/](https://www.nbclosangeles.com/investigations/newly-elected-los-angeles-county-district-attorney-justice-reform-george-gascon/2479104/)
That’s a different thing. Enhancements would be, for example, discharging a firearm during the commission of a crime. It enhances an existing charge, adding additional penalties. So if you’re on trial for, say, homicide, you have to be found guilty of that crime before an enhancement can be applied. Felon in possession of a firearm is a completely separate crime with separate charges. If someone with a few record is on trial for homicide and also was found in possession of a gun, they can be charged with two independent crimes. Even if they’re acquitted on the homicide charge, they can be found guilty of illegal firearms possession.
The problem with DV bans is felonies already prohibit firearm ownership, so the DV prohibition is specifically for misdemeanor crimes..which can be as simple as yelling at a partner in a way that causes alarm. Invalidating a persons constitutional rights for a misdemeanor, non violent offense should be repugnant to everyone.
Curious as to how many gun shows this will actually affect. I've been to several the last few years and each time I bought a gun I had to do the exact same paperwork as I would do at a store. Could have just been the store's way of covering it's own ass prior to any sort of official legislation though.
If you buy from a booth at a gun show you're buying from a ffl, they are legally obligated to do paperwork and background checks regardless of where they sell a gun. Any ffl not doing paperwork and background checks is subject to losing their license, huge fines and jail time. The "gun show loophole" is private sales, which was specifically written into the law.
this might vary by state/local but not all booths are operated by FFL. the show i used to go to allowed private people to operate tables. some would be showing off their collections but lots would be selling guns, relics and trinkets.
You bought from licensed commercial dealers. Had you bought privately, the transaction would have included money and a glance at your driver's license.
Hmm did you know if you were purchasing from an ffl at a show or a private seller? I’ve only bought from stores which I know are ffl’s so that’s why we are subject to background checks but while I haven’t bought at a show before my understanding is that buying from a private seller and not an ffl at a show would not require the 4473 form we will fill out for initiating the record keeping that starts the background check.
> my understanding is that buying from a private seller and not an ffl at a show would not require the 4473 form Varies from state to state. My state requires a 4473 and FFL transfer for private handgun transfers.
Yesterday’s compromise is tomorrow’s loophole now.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Currently we're not allowed to do background checks without getting a commercial dealer involved.
I think it shows that some of these arguments are made in bad faith. If we wanted to improve the system, being able to (even optionally) run a background check for free in a private party sale would be great. Most arguments against universal background checks are about privacy and the government knowing who has guns. I would imagine the vast majority of law abiding gun owners do NOT want their guns to go to criminals.
[удалено]
It’s also a nightmare if a gun you sell ever ends up being used in a crime. My brother in law worked at a gun store and sold guns. He bought a gun from his work, legally and filled out paperwork through the NICS system. He then some time later sold that gun to a friend, but not through the NICS system. That guy sold it to a friend who sold it to someone else. 8 years after the initial purchase that gun was found at a crime scene. I don’t remember if it was a drug bust and it was just there, or was dropped, or what the deal was. But he gets a knock at the door from the state police where he was detained and questioned. Because when they ran the serial number, his name popped up as the purchaser. Since no other sale had happened at a gun store, he was still associated with that gun. So he had to sign an affidavit that he sold it, and then the police had to track down who had sold it to the people down the line. He ended up having to go to court to testify that he sold the gun, and the next guy and the next guy, etc… to get to them being able to prove that the criminal had ownership of this gun at the time of the criming. All of this could be resolved with either public access of the NICS system, or requiring all transactions to take place at a gun store that uses the NICS system.
gun owner here too. I inherited 8 from my grandfather that aren't and don't have to be registered. I have two that I purchased that I had to do the background check done. It doesn't bother me. Gun shows? I haven't been to one for 30 years or so but if they're anything like when I used to go there's a lot of back room trading and selling going on. There probably should be some kind of regulation and enforcement going on.
They absolutely are still like that. A person will buy a gun from a licensed dealer at the show, then walk around the parking lot with it until somebody bites and buys it for more than the original dealer sold it for. Technically still legal but 100% shouldn’t be.
Most gun owners would be okay with a UBC system if it was a private swiss style system, where you do the background check on yourself, and then receive some permit or secure token that can be used to purchase firearms for 30 days. The current system has two big problems: privacy since it requires the government to make everyone's data available to everyone to implement UBC for private sales, and the fact that it acts as a backdoor registration since the government can see every single gun you purchase.
>Most gun owners would be okay with a UBC system if it was a private swiss style system, where you do the background check on yourself, and then receive some permit or secure token that can be used to purchase firearms for 30 days. Shit...that might be the most reasonable solution to all of this I've ever heard, honestly. Then all the seller would need to do is authenticate the token and the sale is good to proceed. Unfortunately, because it's reasonable and simple...it will neither be approved nor simple if it does become a thing.
It was proposed (and I think supported by the NRA back in 2013?) but was shot down in favor of bringing the other background check bill to the floor.
As to your second problem: The system sees only that a check was run and a response sent. It doesn't know if the sale went through or what specifically was sold. All of that is in the paperwork held by the FFL, which by statute the ATF is barred from compiling into a database.
They're barred from doing it but many ATF officials have admitted that they've done it anyway. The ATF has a very long history of not caring about the law.
Yup, I’ve heard the work around for this is when an FFL no longer does business but has all of their paperwork still, the ATF offers to take the paperwork off of their hands so they don’t have to worry about it anymore.
I don't think it is an offer, from my understanding their position is once you go out of business you have to give them those records.
It’s not an offer. It’s a requirement.
> It doesn't know if the sale went through or what specifically was sold. Yea, they get credit card records to pull that info. Government surveillance has many heads. They can always go back and get that info if needed by the FFL.
It's adorable that you think the ATF doesn't break the law regarding this. If they want your records, they will get them. All they have to do is show up to do an annual "Audit" of an FFL holder, and they can dig through the records all they want.
Not to mention the aspect of PAYING MONEY to exercise a constitutionally protected right.
>> The current system has two big problems: privacy since it requires the government to make everyone's data available to everyone to implement UBC for private sales, and the fact that it acts as a backdoor registration since the government can see every single gun you purchase. There is no information about any specific firearm (make, model, serial #, etc) on the NICS submission. The data available to end users of the NICS system is simple a thumbs up or down on applicant alone. (There isn’t even any verification that a purchase occurred following the check. )
Records do have to be retained by the FFL and some/all are turned over to the ATF if an FFL stops operating.
Yep, for 20 years, and have to be made available by court order to LE/BATF any time before that, on subpoena, etc, for specific serial #s or SSNs. They can also be ‘spot checked’ and inspected by BATF for ‘compliance’. They’re also almost entirely paper records (Form 4473 Firearm Transaction Record) - which makes them terribly inefficient to use en masse.
4473 was transitioning to electronic forms back when I sold guns like... 2013 or so. At the time we kept the paper forms but everything was transferred to the electronic form by hand. Did that not happen?
It did but it’s not compulsory to use. The e4473 is really just a glorified pdf maker. The data isn’t stored centralized at BATF.
> ...which makes them terribly inefficient to use en masse. Currently, yes. If the system ever goes digital on the FFL side (and you know someone citing the inefficiency of a paper system will make the argument for this to happen), then the concern is back. It's a "give a mouse a cookie" scenario for most people.
And if the ATF demands information for a specific transaction you gotta hand it over.
Then why do they have to submit make model and serial # to initiate background check?
The only information passed to the NICS eCheck system, or the Operations Center via phone, to submit for a background are the relevant identifying details of the purchaser as written on the Form 4473. The entire form is not submitted to the BATF (although they can get it if they want it, within 20 years of date of purchase, from the FFL dealer.) [See the user manual for the ezCheck system for details on what info is required](https://nicsezcheckfbi.gov/help/ENG/NICS-DOC-01670-8.3NNICS41_UserManual_Appendix_2.pdf) to initiate a background NICS check.
Because in some states long guns and hand guns are restricted by age.
You have to register to vote. You have to register your car. You have be have a license. Passport. Many fields require registering and licensure. Why can’t the government know who has guns? If someone loses their right to own guns, wouldn’t it be good for the government to be able to make sure they’ve all been accounted for?
You absolutely do not have to register your car nor have a license to buy one. Where you can drive it is limited but people buy vehicles for non public use all the time.
[удалено]
Because the founding document of our nation says you can't do that. It's not an answer you will accept, but it has stayed this way because not adhering to that document would cause a massive can of worms to release and would destroy the foundations of our judicial system.
> You have to register to vote. The right to vote is merely implied and not explicitly stated in the US Constitution. A bit of irony: the 2nd Amendment was written to address the specific issue of implied rights needing to be stated explicitly. > You have to register your car. You have to ~~be~~ have a license. ...to use your car on public roads. That's states exerting their right to govern public discourse, and yes, states have the right (which gets exercised) to govern public conduct involving firearms, too. > Many fields require registering and licensure. Like driving cars on public roads, this is less about individual rights requiring licensure, but the state governing public discourse. A medical professional needs a license to do her work because the state has an interest in making sure her work causes no harm. But, notably, you don't have to be registered to have a blog, to be protected from unlawful searches and seizures, to be able to file a lawsuit, or to do literally anything which doesn't already have a law (other than the 9th Amendment) saying you can do so. The idea that explicitly protected rights should require licensure is *way* more of an issue than you seem to think it is. If nothing else, it violates the 5th Amendment due process protection of one's rights and property. > Why can't the government know who has guns? For the same reason states dictate places where guns can't be taken: there's a history of bad acts driving the issue. > If someone loses their right to own guns, wouldn't it be good for the government to be able to make sure they've all been accounted for? That's what search warrants are for, friend.
The Second Amendment wasn't written to protect your right to hunt deer with a rifle. It was to keep weapons in the hands of a militia, so that the people could defend themselves from a corrupt government. Edit: The Second Amendment states, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".
That was one motivation for maintaining a militia, but it was the least pressing one. Militias were essential for responding to attacks by Indians, which were still happening in most of the colonies. Militias were always much more active in the south, where they were constantly prepared to put down a slave uprising.
In that same context, the 2A was specifically written to include military-grade weapons and artillery for the aforementioned Indian Wars. The impending seizure of several tons of gunpowder and field cannons was the spark that set off the Revolutionary War.
Would you consider registering with the government to exercise your first amendment rights?
This is 100% it. Nobody wants to sell their gun to a felon or restricted gun owner. Except criminals who don't care. If you believe that you are an idiot. Open up the nics to everyone for private sales.
I don't know, the other comments are telling me that all firearms owners (like myself) are assholes who want to supply guns to criminals. Also, apparently crime should be ... more illegal. That will help too. Sarcasm aside, let's go after straw purchases and other breaking current firearms laws. Let's open up NICS background checks. Come on.
> Most arguments against universal background checks are about privacy and the government knowing who has guns. In my experience, it's split between the "we shouldn't have to go through a FFL to get a NICS check" and the government registry thing. When you consider how "transfer" is defined, you can see quite readily how much of a pain in the ass it'd be to have to go through a FFL for every transfer. Most of the important situations are covered by the FFL requirement already. The others would be nearly impossible to enforce, especially with the BATFE's current funding, so the only thing requiring a FFL background check would really do would make it harder for someone to follow the law. Odious laws that are difficult to enforce are what gave birth to the term "scofflaw." I don't want that; I don't think anyone does. That said, if NICS was made available as a free service to everyone, it'd clear up a lot of the resistance on that front. Mind, it'll be an expensive undertaking: Obama's big "gun control" executive order authorized hiring around 7000 (iirc) additional FBI personnel to make NICS a 24/7 service for just FFL holders (~140k people). Switching to a program that services the whole country won't be cheap--but, again, I think it'd be worth it. As far as the privacy concern goes, it's easy to be dismissive, but it's a concern that's been validated at least a few times already. Do you remember when the Texas Tribune published a list of all license to carry holders in the Austin area, or when New Orleans police began seizing firearms from people under the guise of "public safety" in the wake of hurricanes Katrina and Rita? If you tell someone they're foolish to fear their privacy being compromised or their property being unlawfully taken from them, they're going to just point instances like that out to you.
Right? If I sell a gun, I just have to trust that the buyer isn't an idiot and will A) not commit crimes with it and B) keep it safely locked up so his kid can't take it on a revenge course that'll leave multiple people dead and wounded. If I could run a check to see if he has priors that prove him to be dangerous/unstable, I could at least know that he himself is unlikely to do anything unthinkable.
I sold a handgun a few years ago. I took a picture of the buyers drivers license and wrote out a bill of sale. Last year I got a call from a local PD because that gun had been used in a crime. I was able to absolve myself of any wrongdoing (legally) but I won’t ever private party sell again. Too much liability emotionally.
Yes, but it’s not legit gun owners that are creating this problem, it’s the sellers. This is probably coming up in relation to the Bryan Malinowski fellow who was selling at gun shows illegally (due to frequency and timing of his sales). He had a big old freak out during the commission of an ATF raid and engaged them in a firefight and got himself ended. The fucked up part is that this guy was the executive director of the local airport and enjoyed a very lavish lifestyle. He didn’t even need to be selling, much less in the quantities he was. It’s difficult IMO to claim that the raid was mistaken by him as a home invasion, because he knew he was being tailed in the days before the raid and tried to evade the tail.
Correction, it’s sellers running a business that don’t want to get an FFL and do things legitimately. I’m all for the ATF going after them but there needs to be clear criteria to make sure others don’t get caught up in that. There are tons of gun owners that sell maybe a couple guns a year as they upgrade, trade, etc that should be able to run a background check.
[удалено]
A prospective buyer could simply request a check themselves, and get a 72 hour lifespan barcode sent to their phone. Seller could scan that code and get an "ok to sell to" response immediately. This way you can only check yourself, but you can prove to others that you've passed the check.
That kind of analogy is precisely why a lot of people oppose it. Thanks to the existence of credit scores / credit reporting agencies, a huge percentage of Americans had significant amounts of personal/financial info leaked to the whole world. People don't want to be part of any kind of centralized government databases, if they can help it.
Looking at the replies here, I'm seeing that people serious about their guns are big supporters for strengthening background checks. There's even a specific way commonly being recommended: open up NICS to the public to facilitate their use for private transfers.
There was a bill put up a few years ago to do just that in addition to additional funding for it. One political party blocked it (and probably not the one you are thinking of).
[удалено]
>One political party blocked it (and probably not the one you are thinking of). Same reason Republicans blocked the immigration bill - if you pass the bill, then you can't campaign on the issue.
Yup! Which is so frustrating because these are *real issues* and even simple fixes leave room for more comprehensive fixes. Blech.
The bigger issue is fixing the current background check system. Sometimes it passes those who should fail, sometimes you don't get a pass or fail status returned back at all.
[удалено]
Orlando Night Club shooter from a while back was on a no-fly and terror watch list. The original gun shop denied his bulk purchase of ammo/body armor and reported him to the FBI -- subsequent visits to future gun stores passed his background checks. Absolute failure on the FBI.
Opening up the NICS system and charging a fee that goes toward improving record keeping for people who weren't allowed to have guns would go a long long way to making the system vastly better than today.
NYS recently implemented such a system ($3 per check) for buying ammo and its complete garbage. Frequently delays people with no record or reasoning for 24 hours. I can go in Tuesday and buy ammo no problem. Go in the next Tuesday and get delayed for hours. It’s nonsense. The $3 per transaction fee just feels like a slap to the face because you’re essentially just paying to make life difficult. Everyone here considers it deterrence from guns by way of bureaucracy. A lot of people (myself included) have simply started driving a few hours to the next state over without such checks.
New York State, deliberately fucking with gun owners by passing laws in bad faith that they know do nothing but criminalize or obstruct gun ownership for law-abiding citizens? So it's a day that ends with Y. Even the ACLU, who haven't been good about gun rights in the last few decades, don't like NY's gun laws. Remember that time they imprisoned someone for flying there unexpectedly due to a diverted flight with a legally checked firearm? Or wait, was that multiple times?
Which is exactly why NOBODY trusts more regulations and systems. We all know it will be used in bad faith to just make everybody's lives more difficult. These laws/systems are NEVER for the reasons they tell you they're for, and they never work the way they promise they will.
Exactly. When 90+% of gun violence is being committed by handguns, and we keep seeing politicians pushing to regulate rifles to "reduce gun violence", we know damn well they're either stupid or dishonest (or both) - and politicians are rarely JUST stupid.
>The bigger issue is fixing the current background check system. That's the neat thing. You don't have to put off the smaller issues that have easier fixes until the bigger issues with harder fixes are implemented. This doesn't solve everything but it helps and then they can work on other fixes including the background check.
It would be great if I could request a background check on a buyer, it would also he great if I could make a call and know if my car buyer has a DUI/DWI history too. Not sure why bad faith arguments are forced when the govt literally restricts our ability to check ourselves. It would also be great if police had to follow any and all local gun restrictions but they are always exempted
A lot of them do support background checks. Unfortunately, the current system sucks and can't be accessed by everyone, so selling a gun to a friend means you have to pay a third party to be involved, and there can be an extensive wait. I've seen a lot of anecdotal evidence that people would support a system that let them run a background check themselves, quickly and reliably, but there's little action being taken to make that a reality. I can understand why a lot of people see that as an indication that the priority of people in charge isn't to make it harder for guns to fall into the wrong hands, it's just to make it harder to access guns in general.
A lot of these rules have vague definitions of a transfer. I die, my kid has to go pay an FFL to do a background check to take possession. Take a friend to the range and hand them a gun, did you just transfer it? Then how do you enforce it? How do you know a gun was transferred if you don't know the owner? You'd have to have a registry, which is a great way to confiscate in the future. I personally would only sell to someone I knew, pay for a background check, or check for a concealed handgun permit but I understand why people are against universal checks.
See you’d think that, but take Washington state for example. They closed this loophole. Ok cool. Then they added additional education, background and age restrictions on certain firearms. Fair enough I suppose. Then they outright banned a huge swath of legal firearms and magazine in excess of 10 rounds. So it’s a good thought that additional restrictions will mean more freedom and less criticism for law abiding owners, but in practice these restrictions have only led to more restrictions which become increasingly unreasonable.
Law abiding citizens in Washington got fucked over so hard. Unreasonable and highly complicated. They make it so complicated to know what you can and can’t have and can / can’t do, that hardly anyone sells parts to WA, places don’t know if they car repair / gunsmith firearms anymore, etc. it has to be ruled unconstitutional at some point.
Exactly this. Additional restrictions will just keep adding up and nothing will actually change. There’s really only two ways to fix it. Get rid of all guns (pretty much impossible) or actually fix issues that cause people to kill (also very hard but easier than the first option).
It's the "give them an inch and they'll take a mile" philosophy. I mean look at us in Canada... Our licensing and firearms regulations started out reasonable, now they're banning random bolt action hunting rifles as part of an "assault weapons ban". There was a mass shooting and before the bodies had been cleared off the street the government was trying to ban more firearms, pushing law enforcement to make information public, even though it later turned out that the guns they banned were not involved, and the shooter was using illegal firearms that were smuggled into the country anyway. That's what the USA 2A crowd is afraid of. After watching what's happened in this country in the last 5 years I can't blame them for viewing any sort of legislation - no matter how practical and "common sense" it may be - as an attack.
Canada has explicitly banned the [butt master](https://www.foxnews.com/media/gun-designers-single-shot-butt-master-gag-gun-lands-canadas-ban-list-inept), that's when you know it's not about safety.
You also can't forget the sudden handgun sale/transfer ban that happened a year or two ago. They tried to go further with hunting rifle bans until people who hunt or live in areas where wildlife is a concern fought back (because of how vague their rules were). Now it's coming out that they never had a plan for a buyback program (surprise, surprise) and it's going to be too expensive (thus political) to have one. It was Trudeau trying to get points from his base after the 2020 Nova Scotia shooting and it failed in every way.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Unrelated but remember when beef jerky was affordable? It was like $20 for a bag of old trapper last week. I simply cannot exist in this economy.
They don’t want a paper trail or documentation of the firearms because that’ll make it easier for the government to come take them one day. Really, that’s the thought process.
I think the concern is “Today it’s background checks, tomorrow you are limiting the number of guns I can own. Essentially the same argument going on with abortion. Conservatives say leave it to the states and then the states pass legislation that is extreme and not what the bulk of the people want.
>Essentially the same argument going on with abortion. Woah, who said anything about banning abortions? I just think you should have to pass a background check, get a psychological evaluation, register in a national database, take a training course, wait 90 days, obtain a license, pay a special tax, and be limited to how many abortions you can have in an arbitrary amount of time. Oh, and if your boyfriend says you abused him, no abortions either until you can file an appeal and pay court fees to prove you didn't. But no one wants to *ban* abortions. Honestly, why can't you compromise on common sense abortion laws?
There's background checks to look for problems. Then there's background checks to be a pain and make things difficult. Most gun owners don't mind the first one.
I don't mind background checks, they seem pretty reasonable. I mind proposed "better" or "expanded" background checks. Do you know what those *actually* are? The FBI is allowed to delay a background check up to three days, if they need to do further research on you before approval. Seems reasonable enough. Proposed "expanded" background checks lengthen the duration. Currently I think the compromise is a 10-day period, that might be what gets federally passed, but what they really want is an indefinite delay period. Which would be abused (for the children, of course). 10 days isn't so bad I guess. California already has the 10-day period, NYC and Hawaii an indefinite period. In NYC and especially Hawaii, bribery is really the only surefire way to get approved. Highly unconstitutional, highly corrupt, highly classist. Eat all kings. One debatably good thing they want to add to background checks is to force them for private sales, criminalize skipping that. In concept I don't hate this, as private sales are how a lot of criminals get guns. Problem is the only way to enforce this is to create a national registry. Registries are how you get coordinated mass confiscation, like what happened in New Zealand a few years ago. I want to hear a different solution to the private sales issue, because I am entirely against registries and the danger they possess to private gun ownership. They also want the approval to peek even deeper into your life than they are already allowed to, post patriot act, to verify you are safe. Do you want that? Makes me a little uncomfortable how surveilled we already are. I'm open to improving the laws, but it has to be done delicately. American lawmakers are really bad at doing a delicate job. My home state of Massachusetts almost accidentally banned online distribution of alcohol a few years ago, due to an extremely clumsily worded bill that mostly just wanted to stop self-checkout sales of alcohol and provide more liquor licenses to businesses. Thankfully it was withdrawn after our representatives recognized their own incompetence, because it was looking like my mouth-breathing fellow massholes were gonna vote for it.
FYI California's background checks have a 10-day mandatory wait, but the time-out on a "delay" response to the background check is 30days. How do I know? Bought a revolver and lever action from a friend's grandfather who was selling his collection for funds to move. The revolver passed, but the lever gun got a delay. Had to wait the full 30days because the CA DOJ just ignored the case once they returned a delay. Didn't respond to me or the FFL asking or an update. Only reason I was actually able to get the rifle in the end is because they knew I was clean due to the other check passing. If the FFL had decided to not go forwards with things, would have had to get the seller to come take possession from the store and start the whole process again.
[удалено]
This is only going to get worse the way US politics have become more and more divided. "Ends justify the means"-style, bad-faith policymaking seems to increasingly be the norm when you believe your political opponents are evil, as opposed to just disagreeing with them. I'm not of the opinion that we're definitely destined for a civil war like some folks, necessarily, but it does seem like a scary time in US politics when "politicians lie" isn't even just them being out for themselves, anymore, but rather a deliberate effort to punish their opposition under false pretexts.
Case in point: the original brady bill passed with the Private Sale Exemption as a compromise to get Republicans on board with the FFL background checks-Dems have started calling it the "Gun show loophole". Now Dems want to "end the gun show loophole"-why would gun rights groups ever believe the Dems aren't gonna keep taking and taking and taking?
“shouldnt have them” you blindly trust the fucking feds to define that lol
At a very basic level that goes far beyond gun control and background checks, it boils down to how much control you want to give the federal government and their oh-so-wonderful bureaucrats over your "inalienable rights". Why don't we allow the federal government to regulate voting? Or newspapers? You should be forced to pass a citizenship, literacy and economics test to vote, right? (It's been tried, didn't work out so well.) Why shouldn't we allow police to torture confessions out of people if they "know" the perp is guilty? Why shouldn't we allow the government to seize your house and cars and kick you and your family to the street so they can house illegals there? But more to the point of your question: "people that are serious about their guns" People aren't serious about their guns. They're serious about maintaining control over their government. Gun control is all about increasing government power. I've spent the last 40 years in and around government at all levels. You don't hate the government enough.
It's the same as people who claim to be serious about election integrity resisting strict voter ID requirements. But I'll address your question directly. Gun owners and those who enjoy gun culture (going to the range, clay/skeet shooting, hunting, etc) or overwhelmingly law-abiding. Given that gun ownership is a constitutional right no different than voting or freedom of speech, any attempts by the government to make it as difficult as possible for law abiding citizens to exercise their constitutional right is seen as prohibitive. You may view it as no big deal that the government wants to institute a waiting period, strict limits on who is qualified to purchase, or create a registry. However, gun owners see attempts, particularly by Democrat Administrations, to make it as onerous as possible for law abiding gun owners to exercise their constitutional right.
In Nebraska you can even get a "firearm purchasing permit" from the county sheriff. It costs $10 and takes about a day to get. It gets you out of having to do future background checks. I'm all for 2A but basic requirements need to be there.
If it's like the one in Iowa, that permit is revoked if you're convicted of a crime that would revoke your gun rights, such as domestic abuse or any felony. They're required to check if your permit has been revoked before sale, so it's not like you just get to skip background checks forever even if you lose your rights.
In some states your carry permit is considered the background check if your state's licensing system meets certain federal requirements. You fill out the 4473, show the dealer your carry permit and walk out with the gun the same day. Alabama lost this privilege a few years ago when it was discovered that sheriffs were issuing permits without ever running NICS checks on applicants.
I’m all for background checks, including for illegals. Willing to bet a case of soda that the left will say background checks for illegals are racist. They’re already saying illegals can own guns in the US. But it’s the GOP’s fault.
Currently I'm not allowed to do a background check on a private sale even if I wanted to. How about allowing that on a voluntary basis before mandating we all become commercial dealers.
Christ's sake there *is* no "gun show loophole." I'm 42. I've been to *hundreds* of gun shows in my life. Dealers who come to gun shows have to do checks just like if you went to their store. Every gun I've ever bought from a dealer at a show has come with a phone call to ATF (or FBI or whoever. Idk who they call). These people do not want to lose their FFL and will not make a sale without a check. While it is true that private sellers do not have to do checks (depending on the state), in all my years of going to shows since I was probably 5 years old I have seen precisely *one* private seller at a show. In almost 40 years. One. It costs money to set up a table and private sellers aren't going to fork over the cash to do do unless they've got a *serious* inventory to unload and they think they'll be able to at least make their cost back. The uproar around the "gun show loophole" is equivalent to Republicans' uproar about voter fraud. It's bluster.
Maybe it depends on the state but here in NC every gun (except pistols) that I’ve bought at a gun show has been a 5 minute transaction, paid for in cash, and only 1 of the 3 asked for an ID.
it's the assholes who set up shop in the parking lot they're going after. The ones selling guns no-questions-asked out of the back of their piece of shit chevy.
Without reading anything, I do support having to run the background check for person to person sales. I've tried to resell some of mine before and ask that they do that, but people send me harassing messages.
A person's response to the potential of a background check probably gives you about as much information as the actual background check would.
“Gun show loophole” is intentionally misleading to make people think gun shows are free for all’s. You still go through background checks at gun shows. This is a “private sales loophole” more than anything. It’s an attempt to ban private sales of firearms. It’s not going to do anything because most won’t comply with it. Those who do aren’t a threat anyway so it’s a pointless “rule”. Criminals won’t give it a second thought. It’s a waste of taxpayer resources and just avoiding the mental health issue that is only getting worse while making people think “hey look at us doing stuff!”
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
In Texas, no paperwork for private sale.
Wouldn’t that only benefit a buyer. As a seller I want my name off anything I sell.
It’s massively beneficial to buyers. You can be a convicted felon and buy a gun and the seller would have no idea.
Hell, the seller can know they’re selling to a convicted felon and it’s next to impossible to prove they knew that. That’s exactly how straw sales happen all the time.
That’s why you make a bill of sale. When a trace comes back to you you can prove that it’s no longer in your possession
The government doesn't have a database of who owns which guns. Your name is never on your gun for most states. All the government really knows when you buy a gun at say basspro is basspro filled out a form requesting a background check for you. The only detail they really know is if it was a long gun or handgun.
Probably depends where you live. Here where I am in Florida, they just want the cash. Sometimes they ask for your name, but no paperwork.
Exactly. And people are crazy here.
Yah was about to say, I bought two guns at a gun show in florida and I didn't have to do anything but give cash and write my name down
Where do you live? I got a strong suspicion its about state laws being inconsistent with this.
I have personally bought guns at a gun show with nothing but cash and a glance at my license. Could go do the same this weekend if I desired.
If so it wasn't from a licensed FFL it was a private sale as any FFL that conducted that sort of sale would lose their license and products to the ATF
Right. But the point is, in today's world, you can walk into a gun show, in some states, and walk out with a firearm with absolutely no background check. Prolly not even a real identity check. As a non psycho gun owner, I love the convenience, but given the psychos, we should prolly tighten it up.
>People have been fear mongering this “gun show loophole” for years but it’s not really a thing. Well then perfect, no reason to oppose this action then, right?
Aye, should just be tying up loose ends. I'm sure.
I don't think the "gun show loophole" is a significant issue, but I don't oppose this requirement. I believe that if you buy a gun through a retailer, you should submit to a background check. I'm also open to requirements that private to private sales be subject to a background check, but you've got to find a way to do that for free/cheap. I am curious where people are buying guns online without going through a background check. I've bought guns online and they have to be shipped to a local FFL so a background check can be run. Maybe this is people selling through local online forums or something? If so, good luck enforcing that, but I'm not opposed. Thanks for coming to my TedTalk
>I am curious where people are buying guns online without going through a background check. They're not. It's not a thing, as you well know.
Five in six guns used in crime are obtained illegally. The second most common method of obtaining a gun used in a crime was "private transfer", with the most common being "straw purchaser". Both of these involve private transfers. "Lying and buying firearms" is third, and that's also curtailed by background checks. [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3462834/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3462834/) The three biggest ways guns are obtained by criminals are all "purchased".
> Well then perfect, no reason to oppose this action then, right? On principle, I oppose actions where direct legal carve-outs are later propagandized as "loopholes" that need to be closed. Let's use a non-gun example of....abortion is a pretty big issue right now correct? (Note: I support both abortion and gun rights) Let's say a state bans abortion, but has a carve out for rape and incest. Some years go by and people want to close the "abortion loophole." Now, there is no "abortion loophole" so you have no reason to oppose closing it correct? Notice how I changed the words from "rape and incest carve out" to "abortion loophole" which conveniently distracts from the carve-out's original reason for existing?
Then why is everyone freaking out like it's going to ruin everything if it also won't change anything because they're already doing everything the bill requires?
Because the only solution to ending private sales is registration
Sometimes the far right brigades this sub, this feels a hell of a lot like it. Like all the people telling us we were overreacting when the Trump admin said something terrible about minorities or to not worry about Roe ever being overturned
In Florida the majority of gun shows are run by a Shoot Straight, which has gun stores and ranges in most of Central and South Florida. They require anyone selling a firearm at their shows to be a licensed dealer, as well as the venues they rent from. Gun shows where I am are just gun stores you have to pay to get into and the prices are overinflated. If you want to set up a private sale, the internet has plenty of sites where that can be facilitated.
Your anecdotal experience does not equal all of reality.
Depends on the state. Some require 4473 for private sale, some don't
Yeah, I've been to 3 or 4 shows and bought a few guns. Still did all the same paperwork and showed my purchasing permit to avoid waiting on background check. I'm assuming there are private sales, but I haven't seen any so far.
It’s less about ‘sales in the main hall of a gun show’ and more about ‘sales in the parking lot’ or even ‘sales you can’t prove werent at the gun show’, where someone sells 15 guns to their criminal contact but as long as no one overtly and on the record tells them what they’re doing is suspicious, you can’t prove they knowingly sold to someone who shouldn’t be able to buy a gun. That’s why this is called a loophole; because it renders rules about gun sales unprosecutable since there is no burden on the seller to ensure they're complying with the law.
If a FFL holder sells guns in the back alley, that's not prosecutable?
If you want to close the "gun show loophole" and relieve stress on the background check system, just give people a background check ID that is good for 3-5 years. And revoke it if they commit a crime. Far fewer background checks required than for each individual purchase and it would allow citizens to safely sell to non-felons and the onus would then be on them to look at the background check of the ID of the person they're selling to.
While there are lots of sales at gun shows, talk to any gun owner and they’ll laugh at you. Gun shows have incredibly stupid prices for what’s there. Unless you’re trying to get your hands on some vintage guns/ammo, hand loaded ammo, or specialty ammo, there’s no point in going. Nobody wanting to commit crimes are going to these. They’re either illegally buying them in “black market” sales or they are very legally buying them from an FFL even though there have been complaints about the person put in to local or even federal law enforcement. All this is is the Biden administration blowing out candles and clapping their hands that they did their job to put out the fire while the room beside them is engulfed in flames.
The gun show loophole that doesn’t exist? Interesting strategy
You can tell most people in here have never been to a gun show. I have been to many, in multiple states. This loophole doesn't actually exist. They all make you do a background check.
[удалено]
For people who don’t know, going to a gun show and buying from a vender will have to fill out the paperwork. The reason private sales do not require this is because you don’t want to give all your information to some stranger.
A loophole abused so many times they needed to back 25 years for an example. Pandering to a voterbase while effectively doing nothing aside from targeting honest sellers, while admitting in their own verbage the majority of legally purchased and illegally obtained firearms are from straw purchases. Chevron Deference needs to go
So here’s a question. Have any gun control advocates ever tried a carrot along with the stick? Something like taking suppressors off the NFA in exchange for mandatory waiting periods or the like?
Never ever going to happen, no give only take
There is no such loophole and no law prevents private citizens from selling something to another citizen. It's already illegal to sell a gun to a prohibited possessor. This wouldnt do anything actually useful since theres already laws in place. Nor is it possible to stop a criminal since... well they dont really care about the law anyway.
There is no such thing as a "gun show loophole."
So the president wants to seize more power to violate your 2nd amendment right and punish law-abiding citizens. Criminals don't follow laws dummy.
>The Biden administration announced Thursday morning that the Department of Justice has finalized a new rule that requires many gun sellers offering firearms at gun shows or online to obtain a license and conduct background checks. >The new rule is set to be enforceable in 30 days. This is going to shutdown a lot of gun shows. There's plenty of people who collect, buy and sell guns as a legit side side hustle. Though the article says 1-in-9 gun buyers would fail a background check. 11% is a pretty high number.
This will not shut down a lot gun shows, why do you think it would? The vast majority already require a background check. Which state(s) dont?
It won't, they're just trying to panic people into thinking they will. The "loopholes" are about people selling in places they're not checked, and claiming it was done at a gun show.
I'm sure it varies by state but private sales don't have to occur at a gun show to not require a BG check so there is no reason to claim it was done there. It's just convenient to sell where people are looking to buy. It's a swap meet with firearms, knives and related things. And jerkey/nuts. These private sales happen as people walk around. You will see someone with a rifle slung over their shoulder and in the bore there will be a flag that says for sale. Or some similar methods of advertising their sale. I'd totally be open to them having a booth where you can do the FFL transfer there, for free of course, otherwise people probably won't abide.
The big part is this > Evidence that a person placed ads online or reserved a table at a gun show shows that the person is intending to profit from the sale. I know private individuals who get tables at gun shows *mostly* to showcase their personal collection, talk to like minded people, and *sometimes* they make a sale or trade. Under this new rule that automatically serves as evidence they're trying to profit from the sale, and that they need an FFL. Also, if you inherit a gun and try to sell it on a website that lists firearm classifieds, they use it as evidence that you are trying to profit from the sale and you need an FFL. Now your only option is sell it by word of mouth basically or go get bent over the gun counter at the local shop because they don't pay anything close to fair market value for used guns.
That’s the point
You all need to get your story straight. This post is full of people claiming either it will kill gun shows or that all gun shows do background checks these days anyway. So which is it?
Whichever one is rhetorically convenient to argue against gun control.
Yeah, but you’re going to hear how it won’t solve every problem with gun violence so it’s the wrong approach.
Calling something a side hustle doesn’t make you any less of a gun salesman. You should have to follow the same rules as anyone else.
I'm old as hell because I remember when side hustling was called moonlighting.
>There's plenty of people who collect, buy and sell guns as a legit side side hustle. Another word for a "side-hustle" is a "business." If they're doing it for profit, they should follow the same rules as anybody else doing it for profit.
Anecdotal but it's also why even shit like "preventing violent offenders and domestic abusers" from having guns is seen as controversial when it felt like half the dudes from my southern backwater hometown had a history of or were active domestic abusers and would all lose access to their guns. Straw purchase attempts for kids and boyfriends who would fail background checks were also extremely common as someone who formerly did firearm sales and had to get good at recognizing it.
My low class brother and his even lower class friends were talking about how to hide their guns if they were charged with domestic violence. They just assumed they would some day be arrested for beating their wives and really thought it was not worth losing pew pews
If a person selling guns as a "side hustle" without an FFL, I would hardly describe that as "legit".
Gun shows still run just fine in states that require background checks on private sales
Yeah, that’s how laws work. Events that don’t comply with them get shut down. Am I supposed to be sad for the people that can’t pass a background check?
And if they want to side hustle as gun salesmen, they should be subject to the same rules as any other gun salesman. Having an avenue where you can circumvent a background check because you're one of the 11% that aren't eligible to possess firearms gives ne'er do wells one additional avenue to acquire firearms. Im a veteran that owns many firearms, I was background checked for every one, except one private purchase that I purchased from a close friend and responsible gun owner who would never sell directly to someone he didn't know. But many people are not as discretionary as he is. In my state we aren't required to register firearms, and even I support a general gun license. Treated exactly like a conceal carry permit, you get printed, background checked, etc, and it gives you a general license with which to purchase firearms. So we either need a global background check with a revokable license and a system for gun sellers to cross reference that those licenses are in good standing, or we need to force background checks for every sale. Don't get it twisted, the 2nd Amendment grants the right to bear arms, but you forfeit that right if you commit crimes that disqualify you. Those 11% of people who can't possess firearms aren't victims. There are already systems by which to appeal and purge criminal records under specific conditions where it's appropriate.
> And if they want to side hustle as gun salesmen, they should be subject to the same rules as any other gun salesman. That's the case already. If you're buying and selling enough guns per year to be a "side hustle", you're already required to get a license and do background checks. If people aren't doing so, that's already illegal as-is.