The Internet Gun Sale Loophole Is (Mostly) A Myth

One of the most frequently-used talking points for gun control activists is something often referred to as the “Internet Gun Sale Loophole,” which may or may not be somehow related to the “Gun Show Loophole” in their minds. It’s all part of their argument for “universal background checks.” There’s only one problem. Both of these supposed loopholes and their effect on “gun violence” can be classified as pure bunk. Well mostly. 

The online gun sale loophole does, however, contain a tiny kernel of truth, in that it is possible for a person to buy a gun without a background check, but only in very limited circumstances. The Huffington Post, the Washington Post and the New York Times won’t actually tell anyone that, because that would require journalistic integrity it would undermine the “we need more gun control” narrative.  

Context, though, is important, as are the details. A lightning bug, after all, isn’t the same thing as lightning.

Any gun sale is, by its nature, either private or commercial. In other words, you either buy a gun from some…person…who is selling their privately-owned firearm or you buy one from a retail gun seller, be it a gun store, sporting goods store, outdoor store, pawn shop, whatever.

Most people buy from one of the latter. Any dealer that sells firearms has to hold a Federal Firearms License to do so. Any entity holding an FFL is required, by law, to conduct a background check on any person who purchases a gun from them. An FFL that doesn’t conduct a background check for a gun sale is subject to prosecution and the loss of the license. They’re also required to keep those Form 4473s – the firearms transaction record – on file for no less than 20 years.

In short, any person or business that sells guns for a living has to run a background check on anyone to whom they transfer a firearm. Period.

Furthermore, there’s a law governing the transfer of firearms over state lines. It’s only permitted to transfer a gun across state lines between FFL holders. In other words, a gun can only be shipped from one FFL holder to another.

So, if you want to buy a gun over the internet, and you find the one you want at, say, Cheaper Than Dirt or Gun Broker or Buds Gun Shop, it can’t be shipped directly to your door. You pay for the gun, and then they ship it to a gun store with an FFL that will then transfer the gun to you. After performing the required background check. 

In some states, the background check is waived if you already hold a concealed carry permit, but you had to have a background check to get the permit in the first place. And you still have to complete a 4473, no matter what. In short, the online gun sale loophole simply doesn’t exist for anyone who buys a firearm from an online gun seller.

So where is there a “loophole?” Potentially, there’s one in online classifieds. Hypothetically, a private seller can advertise a gun for sale and a private buyer responds. If the two are in close enough proximity that they’re willing to meet, then and only then could a no-background-check sale take place. 

Of course, that would only be legal if the two reside within the same state. If one crosses a state line to meet the other and the gun is sold, that would be a violation of the law.

As far as background checks go, let’s not mince words. They aren’t as effective as many people think. They do work; felons and other prohibited people are often prevented from buying firearms because of NICS checks. But there are some holes in that net.

Lapses in the background check system have allowed some mass shooters to gain access to firearms when they shouldn’t have (Dylan Roof, Devin Patrick Kelley). No system is foolproof. 

And the ability of those willing to break the law to get their hands on a firearm isn’t impacted by the background check system at all. Criminals never seem to mind going around the system in order to get the their hands on a firearm. All the gun laws in the world won’t change that. 

Still, despite the number of civlian-owned firearms increasing by more than 50%, violent rate been falling precipitously since the early 1990s. So all the arguments about increased access to firearms resulting in an epidemic of gun violence are inventions of civilian disarmament advocates and their willing accomplices in the media. 

Regardless, eliminating the ability of private sellers and private buyers to find each other online is still a priority for gun control advocates, who never seem to let facts get in the way of making an argument. Whether or not “universal background checks” would do anything to reduce “gun violence” is at least debatable and, more likely, extremely doubtful. 

What do you think, though? Do you think the supposed “loophole” is actually a problem? Or are the gun-grabbers missing the point again?

comments

  1. avatar MLee says:

    I always wonder why when some blowhard says something about buying guns online without a background check, nobody ever pounces and challenges them on that line of BS?

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      It has happened where a private seller (who likely didn’t know any better) shipped a gun to a prohibited person across state lines, and the buyer used the gun to kill his ex-girlfriend. Needless to say, both went to jail.

  2. avatar Mark N. says:

    There is one other loophole–antiques and curios, e.g black powder guns that can be shipped to your door. Except in New Jersey, and probably New York. I’ve purchased five that way.

    1. avatar samuraichatter says:

      There are several legal end-arounds of various legality to the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the ban of mail order/internet sales (I wished would have mentioned the source of the ban). I will not mention them here as I do not want to give gun grabbers and would be criminals bad ideas but they do exist.

    2. avatar Big Bill says:

      A C&R license will even let you buy an AR-15 without any FFL, even across state lines.
      The license costs $30, and is good for three years. It allows you to buy firearms over 50 years old, and have it shipped to your door (check local laws; this is a federal license).
      Many shops (such as pawn shops) don’t have the information on this, so they won’t do a C&R sale, only a FFL sale. However, many online commercial sellers will do this no problem.
      This license doesn’t negate any NFA classifications, though.

      1. avatar Ams says:

        Um no. A C&R is an FFL of sorts to allow for enhancement of a collection of curios and relics. An AR15 can’t be shipped to your house just because you have a C&R because it is neither.

        1. avatar Jay Dunn says:

          “Um no. A C&R is an FFL of sorts to allow for enhancement of a collection of curios and relics. An AR15 can’t be shipped to your house just because you have a C&R because it is neither.”

          Unless it is a 50yo AR15. Colt started manufacture of its version of the AR15 in December of 1959. So there are lots of C&R ARs out there.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          FFL, C&R….are lists. Stay off lists.

    3. avatar Dave says:

      A C&R license is NOT a loophole. All C&R license holders had to pass a background check before a license was issued. A C&R license is a privilege extended by the ATF to lawful gun collectors.

  3. avatar strych9 says:

    The “loophole” is about as big of a problem as the interstate private transfer law.

    I know people who have broken that law because they didn’t know it existed and sold a gun to a buddy during a hunting trip. Dangerous? No. Illegal? Yeah.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      Heck, in Washington and California, it is illegal to even loan a gun to your buddy, or to go out with a group of kids to go shooting with your guns. I think there is an exception in California for “close family relatives,” but that excludes cousins and your kids’ “significant others” to whom they are not married. I understand that in Washington the law is observed int eh breach, because it is so patently ridiculous.

      1. avatar MLee says:

        @ Mark N
        Washington State fixed the law as far as loaning a gun for specific reasons, like to your buddy while hunting:
        “while hunting if the hunting is legal in all places where the person to whom the firearm is transferred possesses the firearm and the person to whom the firearm is transferred has completed all training and holds all licenses or permits required for such hunting, provided that any temporary transfer allowed by this subsection is permitted only if the person to whom the firearm is transferred is not prohibited from possessing firearms under state or federal law”

        Also, training kids under 18 has been addressed also by legislature.
        You just have to sit back and read the RCW
        https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41.113

  4. avatar MarkF says:

    It actually is, or was as I haven’t done this in 3 years or so, possible to purchase a gun online and have it shipped to your house. Three ways, actually. Buy an antique firearm, I think made before 1889. Buy a black powder firearm, which is not actually a firearm, so no 4473 required. Or have a Curios & Relics collectors license from ATF and buy a C&R rated weapon, usually at least 50-70 Year’s old.

    Some of these details may have changed, but they used to be exceptions, mostly due to how .gov defines a firearm.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      1898, and does not chamber a generally available cartridge. So 1873 Colt “Peacemakers” are not within the scope of the exception. The modern black powder firearms you mention are deemed “reproductions” of antique weapons and thus subject to the same rule, and not deemed “firearms” for the purpose of the background check law.

    2. avatar Michael says:

      Taylor’s and Company Firearms for Blackpowder Pistol and Rifle Conversion Kits.

  5. avatar Marty says:

    I live in Utah. I was looking at a rifle in a shop in Idaho. I told him is was a nice rifle, but I was from Utah. He told me the across state line law only applied to handguns, not to rifles or shotguns. As long as it was a bordering state. Was he right?

    1. avatar strych9 says:

      The bordering state thing is incorrect so far as federal law is concerned.

      The long gun aspect is correct. FFL’s can’t sell you a pistol/revolver but long guns are good to go.

      Back in the day I used to buy rifles in New Mexico all the time. On an Ohio license. Vice versa too before I got Ohio residency.

      Then I moved out of that shithole called “The Midwest”.

      1. avatar Big Bill says:

        “The long gun aspect is correct. FFL’s can’t sell you a pistol/revolver but long guns are good to go.”

        Not the way the law reads, as I understand it.
        True, he can sell it to you, but you can’t take it across a state line; it must be transferred FFL to FFL.
        As for pistols, he can’t sell it to you, but he can transfer it to an FFL in your state, who can then sell it to you.
        Of course, you pay the costs involved.

        1. avatar Big Bill says:

          Well, I learn something every day, if I’m lucky.
          After checking, it appears that a long gun interstate sale in person is easier than I thought.
          It requires the buyer to use an FFL in the seller’s state to do the transfer as required by the feds, and as long as the transfer follows the laws of both states, the buyer is good to go.
          Of course, if the buyer travels through states other than the seller’s state and the buyer’s state with the gun, local laws still apply.
          So, I was wrong. Mark your calendars. 🙂

        2. avatar Eric in Oregon says:

          You’re wrong again, Bill. Long guns can be purchased in any state because bringing them home isn’t a transfer.

        3. avatar Chris Mallory says:

          Close. The FFL sale of long guns to an out of state buyer is legal as long as the sale follows the laws of both states.
          I live in a city that borders Illinois. Kentucky FFL dealers have to hold a long gun bought by an Illinois resident for the Illinois waiting period (24 hours or 48 hours, I don’t remember which). That is a major reason why my local Wal Marts posted that they would not sell firearms to Illinois residents.
          A California resident cannot buy a model of an AR in Texas, unless that AR would be legal to buy in California.

        4. avatar Big Bill says:

          “You’re wrong again, Bill. Long guns can be purchased in any state because bringing them home isn’t a transfer.”

          No, Eric, I’m right.
          The sale must follow the laws of the state the gun is sold in because that’s where the gun *is*. It must follow the laws of the state the buyer lives in because that’s where the gun “will be*.
          So, while you can, indeed, buy a long gun in any state (as long as the sale is legal of course), it must also be legal in the state you reside in, because, by federal law, the seller can’t facilitate an illegal sale of a firearm (or, to put it a different way, the sale of an illegal firearm) (which it would be if the firearm isn’t legal in your state).
          So, if I live in AZ (and I do), and I find myself in CA (unlikely, but possible),and I’m in a store and find a rifle there I want to buy, I can,because (if I’m in a legal FFL’s shop), the gun is legal in CA. It’s also legal in AZ, because in AZ, if it’s federally legal, it’s state legal.
          However, if you live in CA, and find yourself in AZ (Welcome!), and you see an AR-15 you just have to have, it’s probably not legal in CA,so the shop can’t sell it to you, because, unless it’s a CA-legal AR (unlikely), it’s illegal in CA, so you can’t own it, so it can’t be transferred to you. (As far as I know, there’s no provision for you swearing you won’t take it to CA.)

        5. avatar Eric in Oregon says:

          Bill, your original post that I was calling BS on is still BS, but go ahead and move the goalpost if you’re happy with your participation trophy. 🙂

    2. avatar Texican says:

      Most states allow purchasing long guns from states that are contiguous with your home state. Not applicable in some. YMMV.

    3. avatar Mark N. says:

      Mostly. Yes, there are exception for long guns. The law requires only that the transaction be completed according to the law of your home state. If you live in an illiberal state like California, the dealer cannot conduct the required California background check, and in any event would have to hold the rifle for the mandatory ten day waiting period. So if Idaho and Utah only require a NICS check, you are good to go (assuming you pass).

      1. avatar Marty says:

        Yes, but Utah does not go thru NICS. All backgrounds go thru our State DOJ. And Utah is one of those states which doesn’t do a background check on persons with a concealed weapons permit. They still call in to State DOJ, but only give them the concealed weapons permit number and if it’s good, the sale goes thru. What a great state huh?

      2. avatar strych9 says:

        “The law requires only that the transaction be completed according to the law of your home state.”

        I don’t believe this to be true. It might be in some states but I don’t think it’s a federal law.

        I’ve bought rifles in New Mexico on a Colorado license and Colorado requires a CBI background check as well as NICS before a gun can be sold by an FFL in this state. No way the FFLs down in NM are calling up the CBI for a secondary background check. In fact, having stood there buying the rifle I know damn well that they aren’t calling, or even informing, the CBI that I’m buying a rifle.

        1. avatar Chris Mallory says:

          From the ATF website:

          Generally, a person may only acquire a firearm within the person’s own State. Exceptions include the acquisition pursuant to a lawful bequest, or an over–the–counter acquisition of a rifle or shotgun from a licensee where the transaction is allowed by the purchaser’s State of residence and the licensee’s State of business. A person may borrow or rent a firearm in any State for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes.

          [18 U.S.C 922(a)(3); 27 CFR 478.29]

          Kentucky dealers hold long guns bought by Illinois residents for the Illinois waiting period.

  6. avatar Rick the Bear says:

    Not to pick a nit: a non-FFL can ship to an FFL in another state. I have done that for sales via Gun Broker.

    Also, as noted, C&R FFLs can get direct delivery from another C&R FFL.

  7. avatar oldandshaky says:

    There is a paradox. Turning individual sellers into government background check agents is at one level what the gun grabbers would like. Joe Seller and Pete Buyer meet in a popular diner and Joe calls the FBI and gives them Pete’s information. The transaction proceeds and finishes successfully. But do the gun grabbers stop there? No. Their arguments will be determined by whatever specious conditions will prevent the transaction. So making this concession will bring private and corporate sales into alignment and yet solve nothing, given the fear and ignorance and stupidity of the gun grabbers. You can’t satisfy people who hate freedom. They will always resort to the Brezhnev doctrine: what’s mine is mine and what’s yours is negotiable. Compromise means yielding another mile, to them. The paradox arrives when you satisfy them and they change the topic, or the conditions. The desired destination of the gun grabbers is confiscation. This is a truth universally acknowledged by honest people.

    1. avatar Terclinger says:

      “Joe Seller and Pete Buyer meet in a popular diner and Joe calls the FBI and gives them Pete’s information. The transaction proceeds and finishes successfully AFTER the s/n of the firearm is registered with the Federal Bureau of Incompetence”.

      /fixed it.

      Registration leads to confiscation.

      1. avatar David says:

        Actually, on the proposed call to the FBI, which can indeed be a thing if you hold an FFL (which I do), the information given to the agent does NOT include a serial number, nomenclature, or description of the weapon. Only “long gun” or “handgun.” The record of the weapon’s description and serial number is on the paper 4473, which is retained by the FFL until if and when they terminate their business.

  8. avatar former water walker says:

    Welllll…I belong to a FB group where they attempt to skirt fakebook by posting pics and zipcodes. I haven’t bothered mostly over $ but I have NO idea what goes on. I HAVE bought several shotguns and rifles across the border in Indiana no problems. Just the BS Illinoisistan 24hr. wait…

  9. avatar Marty says:

    Yup, I came from Kalifornia. Still have lot’s of friends and co workers there. They just sent me an article where a long time farmer tried to do the right thing and register his AR. He had a question about it, and sent State DOJ a photo with the question. Apparently, the AR wasn”t KA legal so they raided his farm and he is now charged with 12 state felonies due to the otherwise legal firearms any place else. They did say two of the charges were possession of 2 suppressors. It didn’t say if he obtained them legally in another state with the xfer stamp. Any clue as to why I moved to Utah after retiring.

    1. avatar Gator says:

      You really believe that story?

      1. avatar Marty says:

        Gator, it was a local news station. No, I don’t believe lame stream news, but when it is Kalifornia, yup I believe it. I spent 52 years in that socialist state.

        1. avatar Gator says:

          Why would a guy with two off-the-books suppressors try and register an AR?

          Somebody turned him in, if the story is true.

        2. avatar Marty says:

          Gator, you miss understood, or I miss stated. There were a total of 12 felony charges. One was the AR which didn’t meet KA standards. 2 of the charges were what KA called possession of a suppressor. The article didn’t specify whether the suppressors were even on a weapon. The remaining 9 charges weren’t specified, just possession of illegal firearms. I know since I left KA almost 13 years ago, a lot of my firearms would make me a felon. Such as my Judge. A felony in KA, considered a short bbl. shotgun. My AR, not registered so is a felony. I could go on and on. The point being, KA has passed so many anti firearms laws in the past several years, there is no way the residents can keep up with them all. Go ahead, search KA firearms laws, 2014-2018. You’ll lose your mind.

  10. avatar Joe R. says:

    Background checks are the honor system. They catch how many per year? How many of those didn’t even know they were on some list?

    Anywho, how many criminals are ‘picked-up’ by law enforcement, while trying to purchase a gun? . . . And . . . how many criminals have obviously gotten guns anyway?

    How much protection are they promising you, for you sh_tting all over your rights to play their stupid game? . . .And . . . how much protection are you actually receiving, for you sh_tting all over your rights to play their stupid game?

    The FBI does the “NICS Check”, that they’re dying to have everyone use for every handgun purchase. . . And . . . the FBI can’t even keep it’s upper-echelon leadership from shitting all over the Constitution, and it’s failure to maintain law-and-order amongst even its highest ranks: http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/05/chris-wray-and-rod-rosenstein-look-somber-as-they-arrive-at-white-house-for-trump-meeting-on-deep-state-spies-in-trump-campaign/

    The DOJ is no better: http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/05/just-in-doj-agrees-to-allow-congress-to-review-requested-classified-docs-after-trump-meets-with-rosenstein-wray/

    The CIA is even worse. http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/05/john-brennan-fires-warning-shot-to-paul-ryan-and-mitch-mcconnell-after-trump-orders-doj-to-investigate-fbis-campaign-infiltration/

    And the MFn POS (D) are, well, the same old scourge of MFn POS satan’s cack-sacking (D): http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/05/chris-wray-and-rod-rosenstein-look-somber-as-they-arrive-at-white-house-for-trump-meeting-on-deep-state-spies-in-trump-campaign/

    They can all pack their sh_t and go home quietly.

    1. avatar Chris Mallory says:

      You have to be careful. Illinois based ATF agents have run stings where they answer ads in neighboring states and attempt to buy a handgun across statelines. Refuse the sale, require the buyer to pay for shipping to an Illinois FFL or presto changeo become an over night Federal felon.

  11. avatar Sam I Am says:

    Fact is, any sale of guns that are not done through the FFL system (which guarantees no bad guys can buy a gun). Anything (law) that allows anyone to sell a gun undetected is a “loophole”, and must be closed. The elegant thing about requiring background checks for personal-to-person sales of guns is that there is no means to conduct said background check. Therefore, the person-to-person loophole is closed, and no one can conduct such a sale (except in crime areas, where “good people” never go, so who cares about that?).

    1. avatar When Liberal Trolls Collide says:

      Huh?

      1. avatar Joe R. says:

        “Huh” should have been capitalized.

      2. avatar RogueVal says:

        He’s saying, I think, that if you force background checks onto person to person sales, but you don’t provide a means for said background check, you are in fact banning person to person sales.

        That would require a law to pass to do it, and there’s no way that process break would be in that law, so he’s talking about zero chance outcome.

        1. avatar Gator says:

          His point is, it’s a feature, not a bug.

        2. avatar Big Bill says:

          The means for such transfers is already in place. All you need to do is use an FFL to do the transfer.
          At a cost.

        3. avatar RogueVal says:

          Yes, but then its not person to person, its via an FFL.

        4. avatar Big Bill says:

          Rogueval:
          The sale is still person to person, it’s just facilitated by an FFL.
          The transfer is person -> person, not person -> FFL -> person.

        5. avatar Sam I Am says:

          A sale/transfer through an FFL is a transaction involving a third-party. This is not the common understanding of “person-to-person” interaction.

          No FFL is required to offer transfer service for firearms not directly sold by that FFL. There are three gun stores in our area that refuse to conduct any private transfer. If that catches on, or is mandated by state or federal law, “private sales”, or “person-to-person” sales are eliminated.

          Again, my question: “How does NICS checks prevent me from being legal today, but crazy next week?

          NICS checks are like testing light bulbs by turning them on and off. All you might know is that the bulb worked that time.

    2. avatar Ken says:

      Sam, take your meds please.

    3. avatar Newshawk says:

      Sorry, SamIAm–the 4473 form already has a section that allows you to indicate that the background check is to facilitate a private firearm sale… So, you lose this time, SamIAm, but thanks for playing.

      1. avatar RogueVal says:

        Yes, but that is only for a 4473 which is a form filled out by an FFL to facilitate a transfer, that is not a person to person sale. There is currently no provision for anything about a 4473 for person to person sales without going to an FFL, person to person is you drive over to Bob’s house and trade him your Marlin 336 for a kegerator, as long as that’s in state, and your state allows person to person sales, that’s perfectly fine.

      2. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “Sorry, SamIAm–the 4473 form already has a section that allows you to indicate that the background check is to facilitate a private firearm sale… So, you lose this time, SamIAm, but thanks for playing.”

        Pay attention, smart ass: private individuals CANNOT access the NICS database to do a background check for the purpose of person-to-person gun sales. Could that be why federal law exempts person-to-person gun transfers?

        Personal sales through an FFL do not constitute a “loophole” sale because the background check is what the gun grabbers want. It is the sales not requiring a background check the anti-gunners want forced through NICS.

        The push for “universal background checks is all about making it illegal to sell a gun to your brother without a background check. Forcing people to transfer guns only through FFLs is somehow supposed to ensure that bad guys and crazy people cannot buy guns.

        Thanks for playing.

        1. avatar Leroy Jenkins says:

          Jeez, even when you’re right about something you’re a dick.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          When someone is unnecessarily discourteous (“Sorry, SamIAm–the 4473 form already has a section that allows you to indicate that the background check is to facilitate a private firearm sale… So, you lose this time, SamIAm, but thanks for playing.” ), they deserve a response in like terms. Getting tired of superficial thinking that is displayed around here. People should carefully read the postings, and the thoughtful responses, then make responsible observations and counter-observations. All this childish “gotcha” is textbook liberal fool. Have we won the race to the bottom in public discourse?

        3. avatar binder says:

          Sorry to tell you this Sam, but Illinois figured it out. I will leave it to you to look up the particulates. If a state can do it……

        4. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Not sure this (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-obama-gun-control-illinois-impact-met-20160105-9-story.html” is “figuring it out”. FOID cards do not allow access to NICS by private citizens. Illinois has essentially required any gun sale be subject to state authorities. Thus, the “private sale”/”gun show loophole” is eliminated, though permitted by federal law. Yes, all the states can simply require that all gun sales, regardless of venue or familial relationship must receive state approval. Indeed, States can pass laws that prohibit the transfer (in the state) of firearms between private individuals, regardless of familial relationship.

          What is being lost in this string is that the so-called “loopholes” are not. A “loophole” is an inadvertent failure to cover a specific activity/transaction. When laws set out specific exemptions to that law, such is not a “loophole”, but conscious operation of that law.

          The demonstration of mental illness suffered by gun-grabbers is that the events getting their attention are “mass” shootings (whatever that means) in public places. Anyone know how many of the shooters obtained the gun(s) through unregulated private sale? If none, what is the point of UBC? I can legally purchase a gun today. a month/year from now, I go crazy and use that gun on the public. How would NICS prevent that?

        5. avatar Big Bill says:

          Sam: “What is being lost in this string is that the so-called “loopholes” are not. A “loophole” is an inadvertent failure to cover a specific activity/transaction. When laws set out specific exemptions to that law, such is not a “loophole”, but conscious operation of that law.”

          If I don’t like it, it’s a loophole.
          But if I like it, it’s a feature.
          Simple as that.

        6. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “If I don’t like it, it’s a loophole.
          But if I like it, it’s a feature.
          Simple as that.”

          Aaaaahhhhhh. Thanks for clarifying; now, I understand the code.

    4. avatar Chris Mallory says:

      No. Your move statist.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        May I recommend you dust off your reading skills, and try again?

  12. avatar Ken says:

    There will ALWAYS be a black and gray market in whatever it is the nannies want to ban/control/eliminate. I wonder how many packages of weed and other cannabinoid-containing items are sent, undetected/ignored, from Colorado to other states not as “enlightened”. As noted elsewhere above, Jim Bob, from TN, meets up with his buddy Mark, from WA, on their annual pheasant hunt in South Dakota. Jim Bob takes a shine to Mark’s old Browning 20 gauge Superposed and makes an offer Mark can’t refuse. Jim Bob takes his new toy back to TN with him. Neither one of them is an FFL and it wouldn’t matter since the transaction didn’t take place in either one’s home state. They may or may not know the transaction isn’t permitted under federal law. Nobody is ever the wiser and there will be no way to prove that the transaction even took place. Regardless, a violation of federal dictate has occurred. This type of thing will continue, regardless of federal, state, or local laws. And, of course, the real bad guys are just laughing their heads off as they pass their ordnance around like ice cream at a birthday party like they always have and ALWAYS will.

  13. avatar Aaron M. Walker says:

    Loopholes “Liberty 🗽, and freedom?” Regardless of Constitutional rights…Maybe we should start demanding “Universal background checks ” for Cars…Any reckless, ex-drag racer , terrorist , or previous drunk driver can purchase one “without a license, or permit…” Could kill 1000’s on a daily basis…Maybe we should talk about tightening up those lose ends…?
    What about “cellphone devices”? Nevermind about the 1st Amendment…These devices weren’t around in the 17th-18th century…Political Representatives back then couldn’t realize these future devices could be used for crime like terrorism, 💉 drug trafficking, Kidnapping/Ransom calls, Telephonic Threats, or even the more common, deadly “Texting-while-Driving 🚗”. How about Knives! Any person can walk 🚶 into a retail store and without any kind of resistance…A person can purchase an 8 inch long , pointy, sharp chef’s knife 🔪!? Absolutely deadly….Or worse, any person can walk right into a retail store and purchase without any kind of roadblock…Containers or bottles of accelerants…Or matches, or lighters or all various means to cause a fire 🔥!!! It is unbelievable that a modern society would allow that to happen !!! Someone could be a Arsonist, burning down house, buildings, businsess and schools!!! How can we let this happen….We need “Universal Background check–now!!! ” We a need to sit down…All sides and have a meaningful discussion about these loopholes known as “🗽 Liberty and Freedom” !!! For the CHILDREN !!!

    1. avatar Leroy Jenkins says:

      Gun grabbers are going to create klout.com, that we already had in the US that just failed. But even if the thing that existed were to exist again, what in the world would that have to do with guns?

      You’re klout score is -infinity.

  14. avatar Blkojo says:

    Excellent summary. Should be shared far and wide.

  15. avatar Cooter E Lee says:

    I’ll catch some crap from most of you, but that’s ok.

    Firstly, I’m not infringing my rights or yours for nothing. I demand national reciprocity to even consider this:

    It will be illegal to knowingly make a private gun sale (excluding family) where money exchanges hands (to prevent gun loans to be construed as transfers) without the seller meeting the following conditions:

    Visually ensuring the buyer has a valid conceal carry permit

    OR

    Seller visually seeing a state issued photo identifications and making a call to A toll free and fee free number where the buyers social security or drivers license number to get back an immediate YES or NO if they are legal to buy firearms. Perhaps make it where seller can give a code to be verified through phone that they are OK to sell to.

    OR

    transferring the firearm through FFL for anyone that wants to pay the fees and have records.

    No paperwork to keep, no serial numbers to record. NO REGISTRATION of serial number transferred. Limit of 3 personal transfers per year for non FFL citizens, any over 4 must go through FFL.

    Law is only enforced when there is clear evidence it was deliberately broken.

    1. avatar Marty says:

      Cooter, so what you want is registered firearms owners. Sorry, but that is just as bad as registered firearms.

      1. avatar Cooter E Lee says:

        I guess I see your point but I don’t feel like that’s what I’m asking for.

        The government wouldn’t have any inventory of what you currently own or what (if any) guns that you bought. I don’t have a problem with the .gov knowing I have a CCDW permit. In fact, I’d like them to learn about 50% of Americans are packing so they do the job we elected them for.

        1. avatar Marty says:

          Cooter, I like it the way we have it in Utah. The Feds have no record of the transaction. Yea, there is the 4473 form, maintained by the local FFL. The state maintains no record of the sale, does not even have any details of the sale. Only the retailer has details of the sale. If the weapon turns up at a crime scene, law enforcement contacts the manufacturer, the manufacturer tells LE where the sent the weapon to and the retailer checks his/her files and gives all the buyers info to LE. Is that such a bad way to do it? The end result, LE gets the info they need.

        2. avatar Joe R. says:

          Yeah, I think I’m w/Marty on this, but let me describe it this way.

          F ALL YOU DUMB ASSES THAT CAN’T MAKE THE MENTAL LEAP TO THE END [STATE] OF THE ARGUMENT. Let’s just say Fuck this “America” thing and have-at right the fuck now, because if you wanna chuck this little bit of our agreement, I wanna chuck the rest an beat you to it. You wanna bounce down the garbage chute, hitting all the sides and making a lot of noise, I just wanna meet ya in the dumpster at the bottom with a thank you for making is go there. “America” is an ‘idea’ and a place, but it’s also a solemn agreement, you want to renegotiate here and there (to make our agreement closer to what the fuckstains elsewhere have) and I want to make sure that you fear for your life, and the lives of yours, and fear for everything that is important to you, instead. And MY way, should be what is mutual, you are moonlighting, and fucking the cat. We don’t need America, that’s fucked to death incrementally, so, decide now and let me know. I’ll wait.

          (And a note to the rest of the fucking world, stand clear if shit breaks out here, cause it’ll be open season on you next, as long as we’re clearing the air, and cleaning house).

        3. avatar Big Bill says:

          I like the way it works in AZ.
          The state doesn’t care; if I pass the federal rules, I’m good to go.
          If I have a CCW, I don’t even have to do the NICS thing.
          And even if I don’t have a CCW, I can still carry concealed.
          And nobody of any consequence cares if the guy buying a few thousand rounds of ammo at a gun show is driving a car with CA plates.

      2. avatar Sich says:

        As I recall, all firearms manufactured in the United States are Barrel Proofed before shipment to Gun Stores nationwide. And “Barrel Proofs” are sent to Data Brokerage in Birlingham Gun Barrel Proof House in the UK within 48 hours after a firearm is manufactured. Which would probably qualify as a recorded record of the firearms existence. Whether that information is readily available to Law Enforcement Wordwide is anyone guess, but a record is filed.

    2. avatar Cooter E Lee says:

      Well I don’t like the idea a private seller and buyer would have to go to an FFL and pay for a 4473. It doesn’t affect me though as I only buy, never sell.

      If we get National reciprocity where everyone that wants a CCDW can obtain one that is good all over the US, that would be such an easy way to check if someone passed a background check.

      1. avatar binder says:

        A National FOID card is NOT something the majority of people on this site would go for. I would not say the feeling would be the same for a National Voter ID. But look up the way private transfers are done in Illinois.

        1. avatar Joe R. says:

          We should do National Constitutional Carry, that way the bona fide citizens would have a marginal parity with the crooks who don’t give a fuck. And, by that, I include our POS neighbors who needed a job (the FBI/DOJ/CIA/EVIL (D) holier than thou MFrs) .

    3. avatar Chris Mallory says:

      No, thanks. I like Kentucky law on the matter. We meet at an agreed on spot. You give me the cash, I give you the firearm and we go on our merry way. No government IDs required.

  16. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

    This is the stupid part of this stupid law(s).
    A few years ago I could not buy a firearm from a private person in Washington.
    But if I moved to Washington, or the seller moved to Oregon, I could buy that gat the next day. No hassle.
    I did that, moving for a day, scoring a super nice Costa Mesa AR7, in the chocolate swirl camo. It remains a safe queen to this day. Fired to confirm function.

    “Stupid is as stupid does.”

  17. avatar John Gancho says:

    Wrong. There are thousands of guns sold online without a background check annually. But on the dark web. By definition an illegal transaction. I don’t think any of these proposed laws will curb this activity; more like spur it. Interesting that most liberals will agree the way on drugs has been been an abject failure, but somehow think a gun ban could be effective.

  18. avatar Chris Poche says:

    If you search deep enough in the dark web, I’m sure you could find an individual willing to break every law to sell you a firearm. Of course, in the dark web, you can actually buy people.

    Gun grabbers like to throw out this loophole myth to get people, who don’t know any better, concerned enough to believe that their disarmament agenda has Merit. It’s not about guns and it never was. It is totally about control, that is the one thing the left desires more than anything is control over the population.

  19. avatar GS650G says:

    There are different rules for inherited firearms. If you inherit a gun from another state and it’s not banned (nor are you) it can be brought back. Long guns are transferable across lines in many cases, handguns are another matter

  20. avatar Richard Steven Hack says:

    And there are a lot of people who went to jail buying a gun off the Dark Web.

    Granted, the Feds have limitations. But anyone selling firearms on the Dark Web – unless their OPSEC is REALLY good – is likely under surveillance by one or more Federal agencies and any sale made there is likely recorded as evidence for a future bust once they physically locate the guy. And all his buyers end up in the pokie, too.

    As a computer security knowledgeable person, let me assure you that concealing yourself on the Internet is not as easy as people think. And even if the Dark Web seller is good at that, most people buying from there aren’t. And then there’s the issue of receiving it via the mails or courier services, who are on the lookup for suspicious packages.

  21. Of course they are missing the point. Most gun control supporters are getting their info from gun control groups that – nearly universally – lie to them about nearly everything. This issue is no exception,

  22. avatar cisco kid says:

    I have been buying guns since 1962 when I was only 14 years old. Yes you read that right. A 14 year old buying guns and my first one was a revolver an H&R 6 shot .22 Rim Fire, like new for $10 bucks. Yes things were both different back in 1962 and also the same i.e. you can buy guns today even if you are only a kid no change at all since 1962 exactly zero change. The only difference is back in those days we kids did not use guns for committing crimes or massacring our fellow students at our school.

    We do not vet all gun purchases so people can get them through private sales at gun shows or on line or from news paper adds or simple word of mouth. Its that easy. It all makes State Gun Laws an absolute joke.

    The primary source of illegal and unregistered guns flowing into our big cities with tough gun control laws are unregulated private sales and stolen guns both the result of our not vetting all gun sales and the fact that we do not also have a federal safe storage act.

    Now before you ignorant hill jack nut cases all start screaming that people do not obey laws well its true but does that mean we should not have laws against murder or theft or child endangerment or kidnapping. In other words your counter argument holds no validity. The real truth is that the majority of people do obey laws and when you cut down on the avalanche of guns that get sold to criminals, nut cases and people prohibited from buying guns its just pure insanity that we have allowed this to go on as long as we have. We can thank the NRA for gutting the original Brady Bill which would have vetted all gun sales not just new gun sales for being primarily responsible for the crime wave of so many illegal guns finding their way into our bigger cities.

    I have been to Europe and Japan and I am very familiar with their civilized gun laws that vet all purchases very strictly and its very difficult to buy unregistered weapons. When a terrorists attack does occur its most always one that was financed and supplied by a foreign country with both money, training and guns. This is an act of war not a failure of civilian gun control laws something way over the head of the ignorant American Hill Jack when he makes asinine statements about the failure of gun control laws in Europe because of terrorist attacks or the excellent successful gun laws Japan has. They do not have mass killings nor do they kill off 1,300 of their children a year because of loaded guns lying around the house not being locked up.

    1. avatar GeorgiaBob says:

      Cisco, I gotta say your position is idiotic! Any attempt to regulate private, person to person sales is guaranteed to fail all the way to the US Supreme Court (except – of course – in the Ninth circuit) and would be almost completely unenforceable! Your description of Europe’s “very civilized” gun laws should include Switzerland where almost every home has a functioning combat proven rifle – and home burglary rates are very, very low! Comparing the US to either European nations or Japan, which, in every case, were previously feudal nations, and are still controlled by centralized governments, is further idiocy. The USA is a constitutional republic, with a framework designed to give the individual citizen the power to resist an oppressive federal government.

      If you believe what you wrote – you are a fool!

      1. avatar little horn says:

        +1

    2. avatar little horn says:

      so you think coming in here and insulting everyone will make them take your advice? let me know how that works out for you.

  23. avatar little horn says:

    i would have made a point to point out that even if its a person to person in state transfer, and the buyer is a felon, the seller is still liable. worth noting that is a risk they take.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “i would have made a point to point out that even if its a person to person in state transfer, and the buyer is a felon, the seller is still liable. worth noting that is a risk they take.”

      Doesn’t it depend on the state, and the “private sale” law in place? My state only requires the seller not have a reason to believe the buyer is a prohibited person. There is no requirement to even ask the buyer about their legal status (of any kind). I would imagine that should one sell a gun to a fleeing robber, the presumption would be the seller had no excuse to not have a reason to suspect the buyer was prohibited. (in the required gun safety course, the instructor, who is a cop, had no example where a legal owner sold a firearm to a prohibited person – known or unknown).

      1. avatar little horn says:

        yes it does but it still should be stated.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Agree that a person-to-person sale of a gun to someone you do not know well is a risk that should not be taken lightly.

  24. avatar GeorgiaBob says:

    Of course there is a “loophole.” I have personally purchased a half dozen firearms on line and had them shipped to my house without any background check! And the leftist anti-gunners completely ignore the weapons I purchased using the only real firearms purchase “loophole” that exists. Muzzleloaders can be bought and sold on line without any background check, because the BATFE specifically excludes black powder muzzleloaders from their list of firearms. – THAT is a LOOPHOLE. But the liberals refuse to talk about it because black powder muzzleloader sales are the ONLY retail sales of firearms that do NOT require a background check – and they do not want to admit their “loopholes” do not exist!!!!!!!

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      The common understanding of “loophole” is the idea that an activity that should have been included in a law isn’t. An action specifically included in a law, by definition, is not a loophole. For instance, if your state permits right turns when the traffic light is red, that is not a “loophole” in the requirement to stop at a red traffic light. Right turn on red is a specific activity permitted by the traffic law. You may call it an “exception”, a special circumstance, but not a “loophole”.

      Similarly, a successful defensive use of a gun that results in the death of the attacker is factually a “homicide”. “Self-defense” is an admission that a “homicide” occurred. The only thing that prevents the defender from being charged with murder is that “self-defense” (justifiable homicide) is a legally established exemption from a charge of murder. But “justifiable homicide” is not a “loophole”.

  25. avatar badwolf says:

    We need data. Of all illegal use of guns, how many of those are legal possession. My guess is vast majority of illegal use are also illegal possession (stolen, prohibited person, gun free zone, illegal immigrant, etc.). And if so then as usual Leftists are barking up the wrong tree. More gun registration, checks, laws are NOT gona work.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email