HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » How I Was Able To Buy 4 A...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 02:29 PM

How I Was Able To Buy 4 AR-15s In 20 Minutes

Why Closing The Gun Show Loophole Isn’t Enough (Or How I Was Able To Buy 4 AR-15s In 20 Minutes)
By Scott Keyes on Feb 4, 2013 at 12:20 pm

One of the M&P15 assault rifles that can be bought online without a background check



Last week, four people in Colorado offered to sell me Smith & Wesson M&P15 assault rifles, the same weapon used by James Holmes in the Aurora theater massacre last year. In each case, the seller neither required nor requested a background check to make sure I wasn’t a criminal or mentally ill.

If that sounds bizarre, it should. 92 percent of Americans support a law requiring anyone who purchases a gun anywhere to first pass a background check. And yet, in Colorado and most states, private gun sales are exempted from such a requirement.

This was on full display last week when we visited ArmsList.com, a Craigslist-style site that deals solely in firearms. We searched “Smith & Wesson M&P15″ in the Colorado listings and instantly found dozens of sellers. A few emails later, we had four people willing to sell us the gun that same day, no questions asked. When we inquired whether we’d need to do a background check or any paperwork to obtain the assault rifle, we met the same response every time: no.

When I asked one man whether a background check was required, he said he was simply “assuming” I am not a felon and am “a good and decent person that will not use this carbine to commit a crime and of course a sane and normal human being.” “If that is indeed the case,” he continued, “no background check is required by law in the state of Colorado.” A few wanted to do a “bill of sale,” a personal document showing that they had sold the gun to me “in the event you do something stupid with the rifle,” as one seller wrote. However, they were careful to note that this is only for their own records, not the government’s.

See samples from their responses below:



MORE:
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/02/04/1534871/internet-gun-sales/

23 replies, 2157 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 23 replies Author Time Post
Reply How I Was Able To Buy 4 AR-15s In 20 Minutes (Original post)
kpete Feb 2013 OP
phantom power Feb 2013 #1
The Straight Story Feb 2013 #2
Recursion Feb 2013 #3
Paladin Feb 2013 #4
aikoaiko Feb 2013 #16
oldhippie Feb 2013 #11
Recursion Feb 2013 #13
slackmaster Feb 2013 #10
ellisonz Feb 2013 #5
krispos42 Feb 2013 #7
ellisonz Feb 2013 #8
krispos42 Feb 2013 #12
ellisonz Feb 2013 #15
krispos42 Feb 2013 #18
ellisonz Feb 2013 #22
krispos42 Feb 2013 #23
ThoughtCriminal Feb 2013 #9
ellisonz Feb 2013 #17
krispos42 Feb 2013 #6
appal_jack Feb 2013 #14
krispos42 Feb 2013 #19
appal_jack Feb 2013 #21
Canuckistanian Feb 2013 #20

Response to kpete (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 02:39 PM

1. seems to misunderstand the actual purpose of a background check


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 02:40 PM

2. This brings up an interesting question/scenario

Let's say those people are required to do background checks and have access to a system that allows them to do so.

What mechanism would be in place to ensure they don't just randomly punch in names to get information about someone?

Since technically anyone could sell guns, would all people have access to that system?

If so I am sure there would be a flurry by a few to dig up info on people and put it out there (so and so can't buy a gun...wonder why?)

For the FFL to initiate background checks with the NICS Section, the FFL MUST BE ENROLLED WITH THE FBI. Enrollment packets may be obtained by contacting the NICS Section via mail at 1000 Custer Hollow Road, Clarksburg, WV 26306, via e-mail at a_nics@leo.gov, or via telephone at 1-877-FBI-NICS (324-6427).

Persons holding firearm permits which qualify as alternatives, per the ATF, under the permanent provision of the Brady Act are not required to undergo a NICS check.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Reply #2)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 02:47 PM

3. This is the biggest problem with universal background checks

One option is to require that to be done by an FFL for a statutory fee

An option I like is for the ATF to issue "Federal Firearms Operator's Licenses" that you can carry with you and demonstrate that you are cleared to own a firearm.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #3)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 03:25 PM

4. How About Restoring A Director To The ATF, To Help Implement That Plan?


The agency has been without a Director for over six years, thanks to the efforts of gun militancy groups.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Paladin (Reply #4)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 08:24 PM

16. Yes, the president could have done a recess appointment, but didn't.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #3)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 08:14 PM

11. Should we get the DoJ, or ICE, to issue ...

...."Federal Voter's Licenses" that you can carry with you and demonstrate that you are cleared to vote?

A lot of people would like that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oldhippie (Reply #11)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 08:18 PM

13. I didn't say they should be required, but they would make private sales simpler

You could still go to an FFL if you didn't have one.

At any rate, I have no problem with saying that RKBA simply is a right that is more restricted than the franchise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Reply #2)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 07:48 PM

10. It would not be hard to build safeguards into the system. My suggestion, briefly...

 

Have a written notice automatically generated and sent by US Mail to the person whose background was checked.

That notice would include the name, address, SSN, and ID information for the person who requested the check; i.e. the same pieces of information that person had about the person whose background was checked.

That would be sufficient to discourage most forms of abuse - For example, a landlord misusing the system to check the background of a prospective tenant, or a customer of an online dating service to check out the background of a prospective date. And if someone did misuse the system in that manner, it would be a simple matter for the victim to report the incident to law enforcement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 06:30 PM

5. But noooo - we don't have an online arms-bazaar we should be shutting down.

THIS IS YOUR GUN CULTURE AMERICA

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #5)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 06:40 PM

7. And yet...these guns that are so hated are used in only a couple of hundred homicides a year.



I don't worry about the guy buying a $2,000 AR without a background check so much as I worry about the guy buying the $300 handgun.


See my proposal, above.


ETA: Errrr, below, I mean.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #7)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 06:46 PM

8. You ought to worry about those people

But you don't because you are still operating under the belief that "used in only a couple hundred homicides a year" is a question of measurement.

Also, how would your proposal have stopped or slowed down Adam Lanza one iota?

I guess it's progress for you to begin rejecting the "unlimited gun rights" argument.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #8)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 08:15 PM

12. Why?

They run around in the woods, buying mil-surp cameo. Every dollar they spend on ammo and guns and MREs and night-vision goggles is a dollar less they have to give to the Repubes. They spend all their time preparing, and precious little doing anything besides sticking "don't tread upon me" stickers on their vehicles and reading the latest on WorldNutDaily.


Second of all, my proposal, like Feinstein's proposal, was not intended to stop Fuckwad. The only proposals that would have stopped him are the ones that are impossible or impractical to institute.

My proposal, UNLIKE Feinstein's proposal, would reduce overall availability of guns to be used in crime without hurting legitimate owners & users.

3rd, I've never been for "unlimited gun rights". You seem to think that because I poke holes in your side's proposals, I'm part of that opinion. And you would be wrong.

I know it's fun, and useful, and probably reflexive at this point to call anybody that disputes any of your ideas

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #12)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 08:23 PM

15. Are you serious?

They run around in the woods, buying mil-surp cameo. Every dollar they spend on ammo and guns and MREs and night-vision goggles is a dollar less they have to give to the Repubes. They spend all their time preparing, and precious little doing anything besides sticking "don't tread upon me" stickers on their vehicles and reading the latest on WorldNutDaily.


You think domestic militia-movement style terrorism is a joke? Why don't you ask this Fuckwad about that? These people never do anything wrong, right? Jesus Fucking Christ - has it been that long since the OKC bombing?



Your comment almost deserves a thread of its own.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #15)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 09:31 PM

18. 44 Americans a day are murdered. How many are by these militia members?

A number very very close to zero.

Do they need to be watched? Absolutely. That's what domestic intelligence is for, after all. Strategic, political bombings and assassinations and such are foiled on a regular basis. And that's all well and good. Find them, infiltrate them, arrest them, and PUBLICLY try them.

But let's face it, the Michigan Militia is hardly FARC or the Zetas. It's members don't make their livings killing cops and blowing up judges and running drugs and terrorizing the locals.

But why are you pushing an AWB that will not curb everyday murders, will not stop or inhibit rampage shootings, but does happen to target the preferred guns of people you don't like politically? Of course, these people that you don't like will still be able to buy guns; they'll be running around in the woods with Mini-14s instead of AR-15s. Or hunting/sniper rifles.

You're putting in an awful lot of effort and political capital in an attempt to tell people buying AR-15s that the government doesn't like them. It's a stupid idea. It's been a stupid idea for most of my life.


MY idea helps shut down the "iron pipeline" that people like Rahm Emmanuel and Mike Bloomberg is always complaining about. Feinstein's bill... doesn't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #18)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 10:18 PM

22. And you support only the more limited measures to stop those...

But let's get back to your statements about assault rifles and domestic terrorism.

Do they need to be watched? Absolutely. That's what domestic intelligence is for, after all. Strategic, political bombings and assassinations and such are foiled on a regular basis. And that's all well and good. Find them, infiltrate them, arrest them, and PUBLICLY try them.

But let's face it, the Michigan Militia is hardly FARC or the Zetas. It's members don't make their livings killing cops and blowing up judges and running drugs and terrorizing the locals.


You want them watched, but you want to continue a society in which acquiring massively lethal weapons is a piece of cake? That's a contradiction, and the root of contradiction is hypocrisy.

But why are you pushing an AWB that will not curb everyday murders, will not stop or inhibit rampage shootings, but does happen to target the preferred guns of people you don't like politically? Of course, these people that you don't like will still be able to buy guns; they'll be running around in the woods with Mini-14s instead of AR-15s. Or hunting/sniper rifles.

You're putting in an awful lot of effort and political capital in an attempt to tell people buying AR-15s that the government doesn't like them. It's a stupid idea. It's been a stupid idea for most of my life.


That's a bunch of rubbish, and let them run around with hunting rifles, but at least they won't be running around with rifles designed to kill lots of people very quickly in enclosed spaces.

FYI - Your side opposes your proposal too. "Lies, damned lies, and statistics"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #22)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 08:21 AM

23. Yeah, I want them watched.

What do you want to do? Arrest all them and put them in "preventative detention"? Raid their homes and seize all their guns? Grind off the protruding pistol grips from their AR-15s? Revive the Alien & Sedition Act and have them all hanged as traitors?



...but at least they won't be running around with rifles designed to kill lots of people very quickly in enclosed spaces.

Yeah, they will. Only those rifles won't have handguards or protruding pistol grips. And even rifles not specifically designed for "tactical" use can still be used with good effect in that role. A Remington 7400 in the hands of Fuckwad would have killed just as many kids. Or even a lever-action in .357 Magnum.

I stand by my proposal. The NRA doesn't support; too bad for them. I'm not asking for their approval. Your side wants universal background checks and wants to cut the iron pipeline to crime-plagued cities; my proposal does that.

If it's not as sexy and flamboyant and as "taking on the NRA!!!! FUCK YEAH!!!" as you'd like it to be, well, too damn bad. MY proposal will save far more lives and keep gun owners politically calm compared to YOUR side's emotional desire to ban assault weapons.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #7)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 07:41 PM

9. Only in America

would we use the word "Only" when referring to "A couple of hundred homicides a year"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ThoughtCriminal (Reply #9)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 09:15 PM

17. It's okay

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 06:37 PM

6. This was my proposal; I posted it in another thread

I think it would require an all-or-nothing approach, though. Well, maybe we forget #1 and just do it through regular dealers. But everything else... all-or-nothing.

1) Universal background checks. The ATF should create a special kind of license. This license, which I'll call "Firearms Transfer Agent License" or FTAL, would be issued by the ATF to people that would make money acting as a transfer agent from a private seller to a private buyer. An FTAL would not be a stocking firearms dealer, but would have access to the NICS system and would have all the appropriate forms to purchase a firearm. The fee the FTAL could charge would be no more than 3x the federal minimum wage (currently, $21.45) to transfer a gun.

I think that there would be a lot of people that would make some extra money on the side by doing these transfers. A nice little kitchen-table business. Currently, only federal firearm licensees (FFLs) can access NICS.

I guess we could call the permit "FaTAL", too...

2) A purchase limit of 12 guns a year. After your 12th gun is purchased in a calender year, the NICS system will not approve any more transfers until January 1st of the next year. If you want to buy more guns than that, get a permit.

I'll even go lower, down to 10. I based the "12" on the fact that some states have a one-gun-a-month policy, or 12 per year total.

This should cut down on trafficking.

3) A sale limit of 12 guns per year, unless the sales are to a federally licensed dealer. Again, after you sell your 12th gun, the NICS system refuses to approve any more transfers until January 1st, unless you're selling them to an FFL.

Again, if you're selling this many guns to private individuals, you're really a dealer and should be licensed as such.. This also should cut down on trafficking.

4) The ATF should keep records of what guns are sold by who. Not bought; that would be national registration, which I am not for. But if the ATF knew a gun's sale history, they could track down the last owner of a gun recovered in a crime by paying a visit to the last seller of the gun. This would keep the DoJ and the various police forces from trolling through databases (or the newspapers from printing lists of gun owners), yet still provide them with the ability to quickly find the owner of a gun. And if the last seller didn't know... then they've collared a guy feeding guns illegal to criminals.

5) Start denying transportation funds to states that are not in compliance with reporting mental-health and criminal records to NICS. If you don't want to spend the money to keep NICS current, you can maintain your own damn highways. Give the money as a bonus to states that ARE compliant!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #6)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 08:19 PM

14. This is an excellent proposal, krispos, but beware of the slippery slope.

I like all the parameters you outline, including the 12 guns a year limit, but I'd discourage you (or anyone) proposing to reduce it to 10, or even less. Why? Because of my enthusiasm for surplus firearms. Surplus guns arrive in this country in batches, and the good deals are only around for a short time. So for the buyer of a Makarov, an Ishapore Enfield, or a CZ-75 (to name three good deals of the last five years), the smart thing to do (if money permits) is to buy three (or more) of a model when prices are at their cheapest. Then one can shoot each of their purchases at one's leisure. Since surplus firearms are quite variable in condition, accuracy, etc., one or more of the purchased firearms might yield a lower performance than desired. No matter, but the time one discovers that, the prices on that model of gun have all risen. One could then perhaps sell a single one of those firearms a few years later, and recoup the entire initial investment.

A limit of 12 firearms a year would allow one to buy four lots of good-deal surplus guns if one's 'lot' was three (or three lots of four, if one prefers more multiples...)

I've never had the money to do what I outline above, but if I'd had enough to buy four CZ-75's in 2009 (when the Czech police were surplusing them) or four Ishapore Enfields in 2006 (when India was surplusing them) or four Romy G AK-pattern rifles in 2005 (when surplused by Romania, then rebuilt here in the US by Century), I could sell just one of each right now, recouped my initial investment.

Of course, if money were no object, I'd probably just keep them all, and enjoy shooting them...

-app

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to appal_jack (Reply #14)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 09:34 PM

19. Well, I was referring to the initial legislation

When it's passed by Congress and signed by the President, the number could be either 10 or 12. I think 12 is a quite reasonable number, as most people only buy a gun or two a decade.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #19)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 09:56 PM

21. My point was to leave enough flexibility to pursue good opportunities.

My point was to leave enough flexibility to pursue good opportunities, such as have been presented by the surplus market over the past few years. I'll probably not buy another firearm for another decade or more (famous last words I know, but I'm recently married and we're planning a family, so guns are dropping in priority). I'm glad to have been able to purchase one or more guns per year between 2005 and the present, and have what I think is a perfectly good collection, thanks in part to the opportunities that the surplus market offered.

Had I been wealthier, I would have bought 12 Ishapore Enfields back when they were selling for $200 each. Alas, one was all I could afford, but she's a keeper.

-app

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 09:38 PM

20. "AND of course cash"

Of course. Don't want any pesky credit card records, do we?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread