HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Gun Pandemonium as No Bac...

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 08:31 PM

Gun Pandemonium as No Background Needed for Web Sales


(Bloomberg) The ad features an AR-15 semi- automatic rifle, similar to a gun used in the Newtown, Connecticut, school shootings for $2,000. “No background check required. Just cash face to face with valid PA Drivers License. It’s Pandemonium!”

The classified ad was posted Dec. 20 on Armslist.com, a website for gun enthusiasts. Closely held Armslist LLC’s site and others like it offer an easy way for gun buyers to avoid background checks, gun-control advocates say. While some sellers on the site require one, most don’t because federal law doesn’t require background checks for guns sold privately. In a disclaimer, the site places the responsibility on users to comply with laws and doesn’t certify or investigate any person or transaction.

“People need to realize there is a permanent gun show every day online that is accessible to anyone with a computer,” Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said in an interview.

Armslist, which matches buyers and sellers and doesn’t sell guns itself, didn’t respond to e-mails seeking comment. .................(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-21/gun-pandemonium-as-no-background-needed-for-web-sales.html



56 replies, 2670 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 56 replies Author Time Post
Reply Gun Pandemonium as No Background Needed for Web Sales (Original post)
marmar Dec 2012 OP
NickB79 Dec 2012 #1
jberryhill Dec 2012 #5
pipoman Dec 2012 #12
jberryhill Dec 2012 #15
pipoman Dec 2012 #17
jberryhill Dec 2012 #19
pipoman Dec 2012 #22
jberryhill Dec 2012 #23
pipoman Dec 2012 #39
jberryhill Dec 2012 #40
pipoman Dec 2012 #48
bossy22 Dec 2012 #2
pipoman Dec 2012 #18
jpak Dec 2012 #27
pipoman Dec 2012 #36
jpak Dec 2012 #45
pipoman Dec 2012 #46
jberryhill Dec 2012 #30
pipoman Dec 2012 #37
jberryhill Dec 2012 #42
pipoman Dec 2012 #49
jberryhill Dec 2012 #50
pipoman Dec 2012 #54
shadowrider Dec 2012 #28
pipoman Dec 2012 #38
ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2012 #3
samsingh Dec 2012 #8
pipoman Dec 2012 #13
jberryhill Dec 2012 #20
samsingh Dec 2012 #24
cantbeserious Dec 2012 #4
samsingh Dec 2012 #9
cantbeserious Dec 2012 #11
samsingh Dec 2012 #25
Fumesucker Dec 2012 #6
NightWatcher Dec 2012 #7
samsingh Dec 2012 #10
ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2012 #52
samsingh Dec 2012 #56
former-republican Dec 2012 #21
jberryhill Dec 2012 #31
pipoman Dec 2012 #14
jpak Dec 2012 #29
pipoman Dec 2012 #34
jberryhill Dec 2012 #32
pipoman Dec 2012 #35
jberryhill Dec 2012 #41
Dr Hobbitstein Dec 2012 #43
jberryhill Dec 2012 #44
pipoman Dec 2012 #47
TheMadMonk Dec 2012 #51
pipoman Dec 2012 #53
TheMadMonk Dec 2012 #55
former-republican Dec 2012 #16
Lizzie Poppet Dec 2012 #26
JDPriestly Dec 2012 #33

Response to marmar (Original post)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 08:37 PM

1. It sounds like they're obeying the law, actually

The fact that the guy listing the gun requires a face-to-face meeting with a valid PA driver's license implies that this is an in-state sale between two private individuals. That is perfectly legal to do. Every day you can open the classified section of the local newspaper and find guns for sale in that same fashion. I had to sell a few hunting rifles to pay for college textbooks one year, and did exactly that.

HOWEVER, if a gun is shipped over state lines, it must be shipped to someone holding a Federal Firearms License, who is then required by federal law to do a background check before letting the final purchaser take possession.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NickB79 (Reply #1)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 09:05 PM

5. That's why it is called a "loophole"


The private sale loophole is called a "loophole" BECAUSE they are obeying the law, yet reaching a result which while thought to be a small exception has, in the course of the law, swallowed the whole thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #5)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 12:54 AM

12. Then the "loophole" is oft referred to as "the commerce clause"..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipoman (Reply #12)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 01:02 AM

15. Not since Wickard v. Fillburn

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #15)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 01:07 AM

17. A narrow decision which has no bearing on the

application of the commerce clause for the trading or selling of private property intrastate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipoman (Reply #17)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 01:50 AM

19. When 40% of the market is "gun shows"

...and these "gun shows" are practically permanent fixtures, the management of which most certainly operates interstate, then we are well within Wickard v. Fillburn in which the impact on interstate commerce is much less palpable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #19)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 09:22 AM

22. Any link to the 40% stat?

I'm not buying it. Further organizers who sell nothing but venue space being interstate doesn't equal interstate commerce.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipoman (Reply #22)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 10:40 AM

23. Lol...


And if I make and sell electronics in state, you would, wrongly, argue I was exempt from FCC Part 15.

As you know, there are no background checks for gun show sales, which have become more or less permanent fixtures in the aggregate national market for guns. As you also know, precise figures are difficult to determine exactly because of the unregulated nature of the shows themselves. Hence, the most reliable data is based on survey methods, which is why Politifact rates the claim as "mostly true":

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jul/25/michael-bloomberg/mayor-michael-bloomberg-says-40-percent-guns-are-s/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #23)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 12:12 PM

39. Completely False..

The vast, vast majority of gun sales at gun shows are made by FFL dealers. Every one requires a NICS check...every one. The only sales which do not require an NICS check at a gun show or anywhere else is a private individual selling a gun to another private individual who are both residents of the same state and the transaction is being done within that state. A private individual in one state cannot sell one to a resident of another without shipping the gun to a FFL in the buyers state, and then the buyer has to pass an NICS check. You have been lied to about the "gun show loophole".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipoman (Reply #39)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 12:21 PM

40. Yeah....

And you can't move fireworks across borders either, which is why all those fireworks stores in PA are right next to the border.

I live five minutes from Maryland in one direction and three minutes from PA in another direction. We all have lots of friends.

It is very important to you to insist that people be able to transfer title to firearms without a background check. We all understand that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #40)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 05:41 PM

48. Actually it isn't

you are just too busy thinking of snark to listen. I prefer background checks on private sales. I simply know why they aren't required now, and likely will never be required at the federal level. You OTOH seem to be a wishful thinker trying to reinvent the wheel. No, I stated many times here, ideas for improving the background check on private sales issue. Gun controllers are often so involved in making up shit that can't work to actually be interested in possible solutions.


Oh, about the fireworks...maybe if we made it double dog illegal we can stop criminals from doing illegal shit, eh?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmar (Original post)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 08:38 PM

2. Solution: Open up the NICS to non-FFLs

and then mandates its use when anyone is selling a gun (FFL and non-FFL).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bossy22 (Reply #2)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 01:20 AM

18. The mandate would have to come at the state level..

the feds don't have the authority to make such a mandate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipoman (Reply #18)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 11:03 AM

27. Oh yes they do - and this is a great idea

Make ALL privvate sales subject to FEDERAL background checks. and register ALL guns in a FEDERAL data base.

Make failure to do so a FELONY and take the guns from the non-law abiders.

and fine them.

yup

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Reply #27)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 12:04 PM

36. They don't now because of that pesky commerce clause...but you know that..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipoman (Reply #36)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 01:25 PM

45. Congress has the power to regulate commerce between states

duh

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Reply #45)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 04:25 PM

46. When we are talking about commerce between the states

I'll remember to call on you,...till then...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipoman (Reply #18)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 11:10 AM

30. Those guns didn't get to PA on the Star Trek transporter

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #30)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 12:05 PM

37. And they were subject to NICS when purchased new.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipoman (Reply #37)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 12:37 PM

42. Fine. Install checks at the on ramps of interstate highways.

It'll back up traffic a bit here and there, but we surely wouldn't want the federal government overstepping its bounds.

Oh, and the US highways.


Oh, and any county or state road for which federal funds were used.

Walk the trails with all you can carry, Daniel Boone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #42)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 06:15 PM

49. You don't seem to understand..

I am not saying what I wish, or what I think it should be, I'm stating how it is. You apparently can't understand the limitations of the federal government in the states...that's OK, it's complicated, but every time this issue has come to a Democratically controlled congress, it hasn't ever made it out of committee. It isn't the NRA boogie man, beyond the law may be challenged by the NRA, it is the Constitution of the US which keeps the private sale issue from being addressed. There are possible solutions that nobody is interested in.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipoman (Reply #49)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 08:20 PM

50. How many courses in Constitutional Law did you pass?

Because I took three on the way to getting a JD, instead of learning Con Law from the back of an ammunition box. Commerce in firearms will be subject to increased federal regulation, within the scope of the current Constitution, and you can take that to the bank, my friend.

And I love the "I know how to fix this, but won't tell you" thing. How about you start an OP with what, in your mind, can and should be done.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to bossy22 (Reply #2)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 11:04 AM

28. As a gun owner, I personally would never buy anything used from anyone. That said,

I also don't have a problem with NICS checks for private sales. I would not want personal information provided to the seller. Let the FFL do the check.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shadowrider (Reply #28)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 12:06 PM

38. I agree...it just can't be federally mandated.

The first step is to make ity possible..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmar (Original post)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 08:39 PM

3. More hyperbole and falsehoods from the Brady Bunch

The majority of states allow private party sales. Calling the gun show loophole is fraudulent. Anything from an FFL requires a NICS check.

I support NICS checks for private transactions. I also support truth in media, and the cited story is crap.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #3)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 10:20 PM

8. on the contrary, the Brady Foundation does excellent work

and has to put up with a lot of abuse from people who have not suffered a fraction of what their membership suffers.

online sales should be strictly controlled. i don't think the 2nd amendment said anything about the web.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to samsingh (Reply #8)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 12:56 AM

13. Nor does the first amendment..

should it not apply to the web too?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipoman (Reply #13)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 01:52 AM

20. Go ahead, advertise cigarettes

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipoman (Reply #13)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 10:57 AM

24. have you talked to fox news?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmar (Original post)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 08:56 PM

4. Just Another Sterling And Compelling Reason To Ban All Firearms In America

eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cantbeserious (Reply #4)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 10:20 PM

9. or control them more closely - and start a gun tax to pay for the hiring of extra policing

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to samsingh (Reply #9)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 10:25 PM

11. I Am Past Half Measures Personally - I Think America Needs To Become A Gun Free Society

eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cantbeserious (Reply #11)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 10:58 AM

25. i just want gun related deaths to be dramatically reduced

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmar (Original post)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 09:09 PM

6. Do a search for "home defense" or "bang" on Craigslist n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmar (Original post)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 09:14 PM

7. straw purchasers should be put under the jail.

That gun sells for $600- $1000 with bells and whistles and for someone to then go and advertise to use the loophole to get the gun into the hands of someone who cannot pass a background check, this should be highly illegal.

It's one thing to sell a privately held weapon, but to purposefully bypass the background check to get the gun to a criminal for a huge profit is just wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NightWatcher (Reply #7)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 10:21 PM

10. i think shooting someone with the guns is the crime - i think the guns should be taxed to pay for

extra policing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to samsingh (Reply #10)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 10:14 PM

52. It can also be legal self defense

and no matter how many cops we have at practical level, they cannot always be there in real time

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #52)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 10:24 AM

56. not sure any of the massacres we're trying to stop with extra police are examples of self defense

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NightWatcher (Reply #7)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 02:12 AM

21. If it's sold within state it's legal for a long gun in most states

 

If the purchaser and buyer meet there' no law being broken.

The price is inflated because of the potential gun ban and everything has skyrocketed in price

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former-republican (Reply #21)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 11:13 AM

31. You are really missing the point

Everyone agrees no law is being broken.

As a democratic society, we can make new laws.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmar (Original post)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 01:02 AM

14. Silliness

This is so very simple,

Private sales of legal private property are not within the jurisdiction of the federal government. The "commerce clause" prohibits the feds from imposing laws on intrastate commerce. States can require background checks on private sales, the feds can't, never will be able to, and the "loophole" meme is either dishonesty or ignorance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipoman (Reply #14)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 11:07 AM

29. Make it a felony to transport guns across state lines for "private sales" without background checks

Take the guns away from the convicted felons.

yup

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Reply #29)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 12:02 PM

34. It is already a federal crime

to transport firearms across statelines and sell them without a NICS check. The only thing which doesn't require a NICS check is a private citizen selling a firearm to another private citizen of the same state, within the state they both live. Some states require checks for that too, it is up to each state.

Convicted felons are prohibited already from possessing firearms, and they should already be in the NICS system resulting in a denial if they try to buy one. Not enough is being done when they do try to buy one and are denied. Less than 5% of denials are even investigated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipoman (Reply #14)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 11:14 AM

32. How did the guns get to PA?

Are all private sale guns sold in PA also manufactured in PA?

Did they fall from space?

We have a refinery near me which makes gasoline that, indeed, is loaded on trucks and sold in stations here.

The federal excise tax on gasoline is assessed on every pump, even though the gasoline is refined right here in state.

How is this possible, oh Con Law scholar?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #32)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 12:03 PM

35. All new guns require a NICS check.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipoman (Reply #35)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 12:27 PM

41. That is irrelevant to whether they are items in interstate commerce

The USPS delivers a lot of intrastate mail, too.

Go ahead and drill for petroleum, refine it, and sell gasoline all in one state, and see if the Feds don't take a - perfectly lawful - interest in it.

Your view of the interstate commerce clause is nowhere near its scope.

I asked you a question, dear. Answer it. Why is federal tax assessed on gasoline manufactured and sold in my state?

I'll wait all day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #41)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 01:05 PM

43. I think what you're missing here is...

Guns are sold by FFL's and a background check is done. The new owner of said gun decides to sell it privately, and does so without a background check as it is not required to sell his NOW private property.
The origination of the gun in PA is via FFLs. Once it is purchased, it is now private property and can be sold within the same state to someone from the same state legally. To ship it over state lines would require the FFL to handle the transaction.
I think you're reading too much into this. Just my $0.02

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dr Hobbitstein (Reply #43)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 01:11 PM

44. Try that with a pack of cigarettes.

Last edited Sun Dec 23, 2012, 01:59 PM - Edit history (1)

Federal law can indeed reach private transactions which do not cross state laws. This is not the 19th Century.

The corn mash and the still are all my private property too. Are you seriously suggesting that I can sell whiskey to my in-state neighbor without violating a federal law?

I have news for your buddies in the woods.

Kinda odd that we seem to have no problem doing this with alcohol and tobacco, but not firearms. It would almost make sense to have one agency, or perhaps a bureau, doing it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #44)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 05:30 PM

47. Go ahead and pretend

what I am saying is made up. Doesn't matter to me what you don't understand. Sometime while you are pondering your superior stands-to-reason skills, ponder why the fictitious "gun show loophole" is still around, even after several congresses with Democratic rule. Why a Democratic lead house judiciary committee would reject bringing private sales into the NICS system and not even allow it to go to a vote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipoman (Reply #14)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 09:10 PM

51. Let's see? Jarts? Private sale of legal property 100% regulated...

 

...FEDERALLY.

So fucking much for CAN'T BE DONE.


And even if not. Feds could simply require that all firearms be registered, and then fuck the commerce clause entirely, if the seller wants to take his chances in being automatically on the ticket (with zero defence) as the REGISTERED OWNER of a gun subsequently used in a crime then fine by me.

Same goes for stolen weapons later used in a crime. If you didn't report it stolen at the time, your finger is still on the trigger when it kills a thousand miles and three states away.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheMadMonk (Reply #51)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 11:51 PM

53. ..I wish I may, I wish I might...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipoman (Reply #53)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 12:58 AM

55. Ah, and so "can't" morphs into "won't".

 

It's only wishful thinking because 4 million arseholes make more noise than 40 sobbing parents.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmar (Original post)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 01:07 AM

16. That's the going price right now for AR's

 

I have seen stock no modification Bushmasters and Colts selling for up to $3000.00

I wouldn't buy it at that price if it was a stock.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmar (Original post)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 10:59 AM

26. Online sales only avoid background checks if they're completed face-to-face...

...between private individuals. Anything involving an interstate sale or an intrastate sale by an FFL-holder requires a check. I'd like to see private sellers have access to the NICS system, personally...although I realize that might be an easily-ignored requirement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmar (Original post)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 11:21 AM

33. My suggestion on guns. Let people have what they want provided they register them

and everyone who might have access to them has to complete an anger management class.

A lot of people with tremendous anger problems are not at all mentally ill.

And it is anger that is the problem, not mental illness or even guns. Although I do think that everyone should know who has the guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread