The Online Gun Purchase Loophole??

[GCF]

I keep hearing about the need to shut down the "online gun purchase loophole". The idea (apparently) is that the "loophole" enables felons - & others who are not legally able to buy firearms, to avoid the normal background check.

The usual anti-gun suspects keep going on & on about this. It's really starting to get old...

Last time I checked, any online buyer needs to have the online purchased firearm transferred to him by a local FFL dealer - any applicable background check to be included.

Am I missing something here???

[raymo2u]

unless people are buying from armslist in there area i dont see hole to jump through

[JSR III]

The only thing that I can think of would be the ability to use a C&R to purchase guns anywhere in the country as long as they are 50 years old or on the list. However, getting a C&R requires a background check by the ATF, so not sure what they are referring to.

In many cases, the arguments used by the antis are not based on facts.

[raymo2u]

yes most reports are BS made to strike fear with no real evidence...but many uninformed people will beleive it

[S&W45Colt]

Just more false propaganda by the Anti's designed to stir the patently clueless.......ignore it.

[Autococker07]

Originally Posted by raymo2u

unless people are buying from armslist in there area i dont see hole to jump through

So why has it become prevalent today to call buying a gun from a private party without the paid assistance of an FFL a "loophole"?

The corrosion of our rights is horrible, and as past laws dictate, those that wish to regulate will not stop with banning machine-guns, or banning new guns to private individuals, or banning home-FFLs....

[raymo2u]

they have too much time and money and there own family cant stand them so they resort to a new form of bullying

[GCF]

Originally Posted by raymo2u

yes most reports are BS made to strike fear with no real evidence...but many uninformed people will beleive it

To me, that is the heart of the problem. We have way to many blissfully ignorant, uninformed voters...

[CowboyKen]

Last night Piers Morgan had a fellow on his show who he had sent to a Virginia gun store to buy an AR. PM says - just like the store in the same state that the Navy Yard shooter got his gun at (ignoring the fact the Navy Yard shooter bought the SHOTGUN legally and went through the background check that PM loves so much).

PM says so you see how easy it is to buy an assault rifle! All you need is two forms of ID and some cash. He totally ignored, and pretended it didn't happen, that they did the required background check on the fellow.

The fellow he had on blew it by saying that the store, in fact, did the full background check, but of course PM ignored him.

If you have an agenda, you have an agenda and there is no good reason to let the facts get in the way.

Ken

[Budasac]

I just saw that Bloomberg and his team went through Armslist and did background checks on everyone who had a WTB ad. (They used the contact info posted for the background check). They claim that 1 in 8 who have a WTB posting are convicted felons. Unfortunately for them there is no evidence that any of those people were able to purchase a gun. So they proved that criminals desire guns. Big surprise there.

[JJEH]

There's only a loophole if two crooks find each other. And the sad part is that laws and regulations won't change it!

[Aticus]

If you use some logic with this "online purchase" loophole think of this: when you purchase a gun online you are "buying" it from the actual seller, you "receive" it from an FFL. Therefore you are using the "online loophole".

This is what the spin doctors do for a living. They're not lying they're just leaving facts out to support they're agenda.

Mods, if this got too political just delete.

[Vom Brunhaus K9]

Pier Morgan is about an EXTREMISIT as it can get. Lie, Deny, until one die.

[bluegrassarms]

Originally Posted by raymo2u

unless people are buying from armslist in there area i dont see hole to jump through

This is the "loophole" most seem to describe when pressed for specifics.

What it is really is the private sale "loophole", the internet just being a way for private buyers and sellers to find each other more efficiently and then meet in person to make the exchange.

All other internet sales were regulated before the internet existed thanks to the wording of the GCA, which addressed interstate sales, residency and shipping all in great detail in part to address the mail order of guns. Mail order was the evil practice of that day, Jack Ruby having used mail order to get the gun he used, and the internet has really not changed anything or created any loopholes.

What it has done is make it easier for a private buyer and seller to hook up. That is in some way a "problem" in that in 1968 more private gun sales were going to be between people who knew each other, so the seller would know "Ol' Joe" and know he was OK. Same logic behind having the local LEO sign off on NFA weapons, the idea being the local sheriff would know if a guy was OK or not. With modern transience those things aren't nearly as true, and the internet does let two guys who don't know each other from Adam transact a gun, but that's a marginal problem compared to the past as the DOJ's own prisoner survey data shows.

People who use guns in crimes are still getting them the vast amount of the time from stealing them, buying stolen ones, or from friends/family. They aren't operating on armslist as buyers in any significant numbers. Probably some are felons, but very few.

The way to close the "loophole" for all private sales is to change the NICS rules so a private seller can voluntarily have a buyer checked out with a FFL but without having to go through the hoops of the FFL taking possession of the gun. That way if you're worried about it you can check a guy out with minimal hassle but without the guy having to get tracked by the government (NICS data is deleted after 48 hours). With no FFL involvement other than running the check there's no 4473 record, no stone in the future gun registry being laid.

[bluegrassarms]

Originally Posted by Budasac

I just saw that Bloomberg and his team went through Armslist and did background checks on everyone who had a WTB ad. (They used the contact info posted for the background check). They claim that 1 in 8 who have a WTB posting are convicted felons. Unfortunately for them there is no evidence that any of those people were able to purchase a gun. So they proved that criminals desire guns. Big surprise there.

I'd like to see where they published that data. Needless to say I don't trust an organization that cites criminals killed by police in self defense as "gun violence victims" without seeing the raw data.

I went on one of their sites when the dust up happened when they listed the Boston bomber as a "gun violence victim" in a New Hampshire rally. the background image on that site is a list of names. I ran google on the first 6 I saw. One was a guy shot by his girlfriend in self defense. She'd left him and gone to a shelter, he was abusive. He followed her, they were together again, he attacked her, no charges filed. One was guy who got out of jail that month for killing a 16 year old and was shot in a drug deal gone bad by another felon. It was a joke.

So I KNOW they distort the data with willful glee. I'd have to see the numbers, real proof of any of their claims.

[Dikinalaska]

Soon they'll be after the newspaper classified loophole, grocery store for-sale board loophole, and garage sale loophole. As stated above, it's all hype to make the uneducated feel like you can just get a gun anywhere. It's all a joke. Now if only I could figure out how to use the "someone dropped off a safe full of guns at my house because they couldn't read the handwriting for the address" loophole...

[bobermo]

Originally Posted by Dikinalaska

Soon they'll be after the newspaper classified loophole, grocery store for-sale board loophole, and garage sale loophole. As stated above, it's all hype to make the uneducated feel like you can just get a gun anywhere.

They already are. The Manchin-Toomey bill S. 649 included language regarding advertisement, posting, display or other listing in a publication.

"it shall be unlawful for any person other than a licensed dealer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed importer to complete the transfer of a firearm to any other person who is not licensed under this chapter, if such transfer occurs-
"(A) at a gun show or event, on the curtilage thereof; or
"(B) pursuant to an advertisement, posting, display or other listing on the Internet or in a publication by the transferor of his intent to transfer, or the transferee of his intent to acquire, the firearm."

[mkk41]

More disinformation from the people who want more "laws against illegal guns"!?!?

[b727capt]

The only loophole I see is the inability of the states to collect sales tax on the transaction.

[AR_Black]

Originally Posted by S&W45Colt

Just more false propaganda by the Anti's designed to stir the patently clueless.......ignore it.

Yes it is false propaganda, but we better not ignore it. Educate! Since the mainstream media controls the output to the masses, we can only do this one person at a time.

I'm a dealer and sell a lot of guns on Gunbroker.
My Sister's Husband - do gooder yuppie - is scared of the idea that I'm a dealer. I don't really know them, but I do like to yank their chain. He thinks he can order a gun and it will be shipped to his house, I told him to go ahead and try it (he won't).
1. YES, you can order a gun online and pay for it.
2. NO, it will not be shipped to your home. *

Then you should of seen his face when I told him guns were not for self defense - they were to keep the gov't in check. End of conversation.


* certain exceptions apply: Black Powder and Antiques (depending on state and local laws).

[gdnagle]

Close Online Gun Purchase Loophole easy shut down the internet. OH NO !! we would all have to find something else to do preferably outside.

Disclaimer this was a joke. People are like sheep they follow the one with the loudest mouth right or wrong.

[Travis15R]

I bought my AR-15 off Gunbroker and my .40 M&P off GunsAmerica. Both were sent to an FFL for a back ground check.

But not all online guns sales are from gun sites either. We have a local online site for Maine, NH, VT called uncle Henerys. It started off as a weekly print for items for sale ranging from cars to electronics, bikes, realestate, guns exc exc.. pretty much everything but over the years it has expanded to online. People leave their contact info either e-mail or phone number and that's how sales are conducted. Very easy to buy a gun this way and if the seller did not want to meet and have a back ground check done before hand then one would not need to be done. Also anyone can get on FB and put up their gun(s) for sale if they choose to. So overall the online loop hole does not directly refer to online gun sites where it is required that guns are sent to an FFL dealer before being released to the buyer.

[bobermo]

Originally Posted by Travis15R

But not all online guns sales are from gun sites either. We have a local online site for Maine, NH, VT called uncle Henerys. It started off as a weekly print for items for sale ranging from cars to electronics, bikes, realestate, guns exc exc.. pretty much everything but over the years it has expanded to online. People leave their contact info either e-mail or phone number and that's how sales are conducted. Very easy to buy a gun this way and if the seller did not want to meet and have a back ground check done before hand then one would not need to be done. Also anyone can get on FB and put up their gun(s) for sale if they choose to. So overall the online loop hole does not directly refer to online gun sites where it is required that guns are sent to an FFL dealer before being released to the buyer.

Intrastate unlicensed private sale transfers are regulated by state or local laws, not Federal Laws. Some states do not require background checks for non-FFL unlicensed private sale transfers who live in the same state, but some states do. In any case, an unlicensed private seller can NOT legally ship a firearm to a different state without going through a FFL.

The Gun Control Act of 1968 regulates interstate commerce of firearms. According to Wikipedia...

"Private sales between residents of two different states are also prohibited without going through a licensed dealer, except for the case of a buyer holding a Curio & Relic license purchasing a firearm that qualifies as a curio or relic.

Private sales between unlicensed individuals who are residents of the same state are allowed under federal law so long as such transfers do not violate the other existing federal and state laws. While current law mandates that a background check be performed if the seller has a federal firearms license, private parties living in the same state are not required to perform such checks under federal law. State laws however can prohibit such sales."

The Manchin-Toomey bill attempted to create a Federal Law that would regulate intrastate commerce by requiring a background check between private sellers within the same state, which is now only regulated by state or local laws.

[Travis15R]

Originally Posted by bobermo

Intrastate unlicensed private sale transfers are regulated by state or local laws, not Federal Laws. Some states do not require background checks for non-FFL unlicensed private sale transfers who live in the same state, but some states do. In any case, an unlicensed private seller can NOT legally ship a firearm to a different state without going through a FFL.

The Gun Control Act of 1968 regulates interstate commerce of firearms. According to Wikipedia...

"Private sales between residents of two different states are also prohibited without going through a licensed dealer, except for the case of a buyer holding a Curio & Relic license purchasing a firearm that qualifies as a curio or relic.

Private sales between unlicensed individuals who are residents of the same state are allowed under federal law so long as such transfers do not violate the other existing federal and state laws. While current law mandates that a background check be performed if the seller has a federal firearms license, private parties living in the same state are not required to perform such checks under federal law. State laws however can prohibit such sales."

The Manchin-Toomey bill attempted to create a Federal Law that would regulate intrastate commerce by requiring a background check between private sellers within the same state, which is now only regulated by state or local laws.

I do realize that state to state transfer is different but my main point was that there are many ways to sell a gun online that does not require the gun being sent to an FFL dealer for the check to be done. Granted not every state may have a publication like the Uncle Henerys catalog that I mentioned but there are lots of other options for online sales of firearms that are not on sites like gunbroker or gunsAmerica where FFL checks are required.

This is mainly what this bill is aimed to stop and with much legislation it is usually just a foot in the door and the tip of the ice berg.

[geewho]

Please forgive my ignorance, but after reading this thread and the one "Federal Gun Registration" I am confused about whether there is any advantage to owning registered over non-registered firearms. Please do not assume anything from my question, and I apologize in advance if this is considered hijacking the thread. Thank you.

[S&W45Colt]

The Gun Show loop hole, Elvis and Sasquatch, often referred to, never actually proven.

[S&W45Colt]

Originally Posted by geewho

Please forgive my ignorance, but after reading this thread and the one "Federal Gun Registration" I am confused about whether there is any advantage to owning registered over non-registered firearms. Please do not assume anything from my question, and I apologize in advance if this is considered hijacking the thread. Thank you.

This one is more complicated than it seems, people are discussing Federal gun laws for the most part. but I'll give you may take, for what it's worth. You did not state which State you live in. Technically speaking, Federal Law does not require "registration," of anything other than NFA guns(SBR's, machine guns etc). It does require background checks before purchase.

1. Some states require registration, I'm no lawyer, but if I lived in MA, CA, IL NY or any other anti-gun State, I'd make sure I understood the registration requirements of that State very well and if registration is required.

2. From a Federal law standpoint, as long as the guns were never legally required to be registered, grandfathered, bought in state etc, I'd sit on them, smile and be quiet. No one will be looking for your guns if we ever have a gun grab attempt in this country. You have an Ace in the hole.

There are other on here who are better versed and are FFL's. You can always PM them and ask specific questions, Bluegrass Arms never seems to mind gun law questions.

[johngalt]

Originally Posted by geewho

Please forgive my ignorance, but after reading this thread and the one "Federal Gun Registration" I am confused about whether there is any advantage to owning registered over non-registered firearms. Please do not assume anything from my question, and I apologize in advance if this is considered hijacking the thread. Thank you.

What's this gun registration of which you speak? There isn't any at the federal level, except for NFA weapons. A handful of states register firearms, but they are the minority.

There is some speculation that the ATF has illegally created a registry from the 4473 forms that must be filled out when purchasing from a licensed dealer.

The "Federal Gun Registration" was just yet another "what if" thread.

Since registration is the first step toward confiscation, the obvious advantage to owning firearms that don't have paperwork that can be traced back to you is that when the gun banners start confiscating, they won't know what you have. Of course, you then run the risk of getting caught with it at the range, hunting, etc.

[Pasifikawv]

Online or offline; gun show or parking garage; retail or relative; from the safe or from the trunk; to a neighbor or a nobody; dealer or private: IT IS ALREADY ILLEGAL UNDER EXISTING LAW TO KNOWINGLY SELL, TRADE, LEND, GIVE, OR OTHERWISE TRANSFER A FIREARM TO ANY PROHIBITED PERSON.

There is no "online loophole" or "gun show loophole" or any other "loophole."

There is, however, a lack of enforcement of illegal transactions by thugs and criminals.

There is also over-enforcement of paperwork violation such as "check-box felonies" - i.e. being arrested on felony charges for form-filling errors or being arrested for a "straw purchase" for gifting a firearm to your law-abiding uncle even when transferred to him thru a FFL after a bg check (true story - visit NRA-ILA for links).

[Pasifikawv]

Originally Posted by johngalt

What's this gun registration of which you speak? There isn't any at the federal level, except for NFA weapons. A handful of states register firearms, but they are the minority.

There is some speculation that the ATF has illegally created a registry from the 4473 forms that must be filled out when purchasing from a licensed dealer.

The "Federal Gun Registration" was just yet another "what if" thread.

Since registration is the first step toward confiscation, the obvious advantage to owning firearms that don't have paperwork that can be traced back to you is that when the gun banners start confiscating, they won't know what you have. Of course, you then run the risk of getting caught with it at the range, hunting, etc.

Be careful here: When the ATF sent demand letters to all dealers in the southwest states that they must register with the feds the information (persons and arms) of all purchasers who acquire more than one long gun, the FFL Dealers with the NRA, NSSF etal. sued the gov't.

NSSF/FFLs/etal contended that the ATF demands to register all legal buyers of more than one long-gun was a violation of the law that prohibits the feds from keeping a "national registry."

The federal courts ruled that since the federal registration requirements detailed in the demand letters was "limited" to SW states - not the entire nation, the ATF demand for registering the transaction with the feds was not in violation of the law that prohibits a "national registry." In theory, based on federal court rulings, there can be a "federal registry" so long as the ATF maintains it by separate states and not as a "national registry."

Of course the intent of the law was to prohibit a "federal" registry, but the court interpreted the law as prohibiting only a nation-wide registry. The court has no problem with the feds maintaining registration lists "limited" to each state.

There is a now a defacto federal registry that encompasses the entire south west on a state-by-state basis, but since the list is by state and not all the states are lumped together on the same list, the courts found the back-door registration scheme lawful.

ATF puts the info for each state in a single database/filing cabinet: unlawful "national" list; ATF separates the registration lists by state: A-Okay.

NRA-ILA | Federal Court Upholds ObamaHolder Gun Registration Scheme