Mother Jones: Guns Bought Online Don’t Require Background Checks

Mother Jones Gun Background Checks Democrats Congress DERP

courtesy Mother Jones

House Democrats plan to prioritize a bill that will require a background check for every gun sale, according to multiple sources close to the matter. The legislation represents an aggressive shift in strategy by Democrats and their gun reform allies, who in previous years had tended to pursue more modest background check bills that would have exempted large numbers of gun purchases.

Federal law currently only requires licensed firearm retailers, such as gun stores or hunting shops, to run the would-be buyer through the FBI’s National Instant Background Check System. This means any firearms purchased outside those venues—on the internet or from a private dealer at a gun show, for instance—can be sold without taking that step.

According to a 2017 study in the Annals of Internal Medicine, which was funded in part by supporters of gun control, 22 percent of US gun owners obtained a firearm without a background check over the past two years. – Mother JonesHouse Dems Will Push for Background Check On Every Gun Sale

comments

  1. avatar Leigh says:

    So I guess they want the same checks for illegal drugs or precursors bought on the internet as well?
    Makes as much sense.
    Background checks get done when you pick up the gun from the dealer.
    At least when you do it legally of course.

    1. avatar Big Sky says:

      I buy guns all the time off Armslist and only once did I need so much as my business card. Half the time we don’t even exchange first names. I want to keep it that way.

      1. avatar BluesMike says:

        You might be able to do that legally if you both live in the same state. Otherwise, it is quite illegal and you should turn yourself in.

        1. avatar Nickel Plated says:

          Hope that last part was sarcasm. Turning yourself in kinda defeats the whole point of buying stuff private party.

        2. avatar Omer says:

          There is a judicial ruling that felons are not required to register their firearms.
          Haynes v. United States, 390 U.S. 85 (1968)

        3. avatar B-Rad says:

          The NFA was subsequently amended to get rid of the loophole.

      2. avatar Gustavo giggle says:

        Depends on your state. That’s a private sale not an online purchase. No online sale will ever go through without a background check unless your breaking federal law.

        1. avatar Don from CT (used to be a FFL there) says:

          Gustavo – you are 100% completely absolutely wrong.

          If you are in a free state that does not have a state law requiring background checks. Like most of the southwest and north central, south east, ME, NH, VT.

          If you see a gun for sale on the internet or in a newspaper and said gun is in the same state as you. You can quite literally paypal the guy money and he can ship it to your house. No dealer required.

          Of course, in all interstate deals, which is how 99% of internet transactions are, the gun must be shipped to a dealer local to the buyer who does the transfer, 4473, and NICS check.

        2. avatar B-Rad says:

          “If you see a gun for sale on the internet or in a newspaper and said gun is in the same state as you. You can quite literally paypal the guy money and he can ship it to your house. No dealer required.”

          That is only true for person to person sales, and paypal bans gun sales, not like they can actually check though.

          It’s also against the rules for all the shipping companies to ship firearms to anyone other than yourself. If your package crosses a state line to sort, you are also guilty of both state and federal crimes, in whatever states your firearm traverses.

          If you are selling person to person, you should absolutely avoid shipping anything or taking anything other than cash, there is just way too much risk.

        3. avatar B-Rad says:

          If you’re shipping it, it better go to an FFL.

        4. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Maybe so, but I was not taught that in school, no one has advised me of that, I didn’t know that, and I believe you are lying to me right now. And I want a jury trial, right now (I am guaranteed a speedy trial), can’t afford a lawyer, and imprisoning me will cost you $40K per year, for what? Ignore stupid and unenforceable laws.

        5. avatar matt says:

          B-Rad. No, that is a USPS rule and FFLs are exempt on that end also.

          UPS and FedEx you can ship firearms to other people. That said, LEGALLY it is going to have to be an FFL or intrastate shipment.

          Legally I could sell a gun to someone on the other side of my state of residency, take it to UPS and have them ship it to the person. Nothing illegal and it doesn’t even violate UPS rules (which aren’t law).

          Being a person in posession of an FFL-03, I can have anyone anywhere in the US ship me a C&R through any of the carriers who can/will do that.

          Someone else mentions CMP and doing a backgound check to cover their butts. That isn’t accurate as they are required by law to run that background check. It is just that they aren’t required to do an IN PERSON background check, unlike a regular FFL. But that is also why a notary is required on your application to purchase a firearm from them. The notary is checking to ensure that it looks like your state issued ID and birth certificate/passport match the person in front of them and they sign off on all of that for sending it in to CMP.

          My FFL-03 required me sending some stuff in to the ATF and them running a deeper background check on me. That is maybe the most lax way to purchase a firearm “over the internet” and interstate as providing an FFL-03 to someone, there is no current way to check that as the ATF doesn’t allow FFL-03s access to their FFL checker application and FFL-03s are not on it either. So if you buy a C&R from an FFL-01 they have to (well, they can choose to and usually do) accept your FFL-03 at face value. It could be a forgery. Any other FFL and they can use the ATF online application to look it up. Just like if I sell a firearm to another FFL-03, I have no way to check to see if their FFL is legitimate or a forgery.

          I am guessing the ATF figured that was all pretty low hanging fruit as if you are looking at trying to gain a firearm for nefarious purposes and were a prohibited person, forging an FFL-03 to buy a gun over 50 years old or a curio seems like quite the lengths when there are WAY easier ways to illegally obtain a firearm.

        6. avatar B-Rad says:

          USPS only allows you to ship firearms to yourself, or to a license holder, unless it’s a curio or relic, and CMP. UPS and FedEx you can ship only to a license holder.

          UPS has special restrictions on who individuals can ship firearms to, as well as who an individual can receive them from. Currently, shipment and receiving are limited to:

          Licensed importers
          Licensed manufacturers
          Licensed dealers
          Licensed collectors
          Only the above licensed personnel are able to use UPS to ship firearms, in addition, these transactions are subject to federal, state and local law.

          FedEx will transport and deliver firearms as defined by the United States Gun Control Act of 1968, between certain areas served in the U.S.

          Limited to:
          Licensed importers
          Licensed manufacturers
          Licensed dealers
          Licensed collectors
          Law enforcement agencies of the U.S., any department or agency
          Law enforcement agencies of any state or any department, agency or political subdivisions thereof.
          Where not prohibited by local, state and federal law, FedEx will ship firearms from individuals to licensed importers, licensed manufacturers or licensed dealers (and return of same).

    2. avatar ALandry says:

      Technically in many states you can purchase a firearm in a private sale without any BG check because it’s legal to sell face to face without a dealer. This sounds like a Universal BG check system trying to be implemented nationwide…

  2. avatar ‘liljoe says:

    I’ve sold one gun without a BC locally a few years ago, turned out the guy was less than trustworthy and I regretted it. Now I only do sales through FFL’s, but that is by choice, not decree.

    When I gift my children my guns when they are of age I don’t want to have to treck down to the local GS to do it.

    “Don’t tread on me” comes to mind.

  3. avatar Geoff "Kill a Commie for Mommy" PR says:

    “Inside the GOP Fact-Free Nation”.

    Brought to you by, the same fuckwits that believe in ‘The Power of Healing Crystals’, that GMO foods will mutate you, and foods treated with radiation will make you radioactive. Oh, and that vaccines cause autism. (Yeah, pg2, talking to *you*)…

    1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

      And they call people who believe in antibodies ‘science deniers’!

    2. avatar Koolhed says:

      For something that “doesn’t cause autism,” there sure are a lot of payouts to people whose children become autistic within a few days of being vaccinated.

      Just because Mother Jones writers smoke weed by the bale doesn’t make them wrong about EVERYTHING.

      http://healthimpactnews.com/2015/u-s-media-blackout-italian-courts-rule-vaccines-cause-autism/

      1. avatar Phil Wilson says:

        Many leftist sources offer quality information on a number of topics. Just not on any topic related to current leftist dogma. Though, they do their best to make as many things as they can about politics.

      2. avatar Eric in Oregon says:

        A California court recently ruled that Roundup causes cancer, but that doesn’t make it true either.

  4. avatar Rick Taylor says:

    That would be bad enough but when they require it for every gun “transfer” things really get sticky. If you pick up my rifle to admire it thats been in past past proposed legislation described as a transfer. We would all be felons under such laws.

    1. avatar Napresto says:

      This is, in practice, how NYS pistol laws work. If it isn’t listed on YOUR permit, holding it is a crime. Want to teach someone to shoot handguns? Forget it. Want to go to the range with a buddy and try out something different? Forget it. Need to defend yourself with someone else’s pistol? Forget it. Reason #1,137 why gun registries of all kinds must be abolished.

      (An aside: long guns in NY have NONE of these asinine rules and yet somehow the state hasn’t yet descended into anarchy… except for its out of control gangster government)

      1. avatar HP says:

        Chancellor Cuomo now has the Senate in addition to the Assembly in the hands of his party, he’s only limited by his imagination. You can rest assured long guns are on their list of things that should be registered and regulated.

        1. avatar Napresto says:

          Well… long guns have their own DIFFERENT set of asinine rules: see “SAFE” act. However I’m still allowed to let other people look at my rifles without committing a felony, which is something, I suppose… for now.

        2. avatar Sora says:

          That’s a blessing in disguise.
          He will put all things BAN on NYC, that Democrats in future want to put on at Federal level or other states.
          Now he can be sued in Fed Court, and Supreme Court to preempt all those bans.

      2. avatar David Stevens says:

        Your statements “If it isn’t listed on YOUR permit, holding it is a crime. Want to teach someone to shoot handguns? Forget it. Want to go to the range with a buddy and try out something different? Forget it.” are INCORRECT.
        Please refer to NYS Penal Law section 265.20 paragraph 7-a.

        1. avatar Jack Rice says:

          NYS Penal Law section 265.20 paragraph 7-a
          ” a duly commissioned officer of the United States army, navy, air force, marine corps or coast guard, or of the national guard of the state of New York”
          Not sure how this applies.

        2. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Maybe quoting legal sources is like quoting statistics! You know, 96% of the time the quote is made up on the spot.

  5. avatar MouseGun says:

    Haven’t studies shown that most of the guns used in crimes are either stolen or straw purchased?

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      You expect democommies to care about facts? This is yet another reason why democrats shouldn’t be allowed to vote.

    2. avatar Ark says:

      Nope. Every single crime ever was committed with a gun bought on the internet or at the mythical gun show where dudes at card tables are slinging unregistered machine guns to people with felonies.

    3. avatar DDay says:

      Not the guns from eric holders fast and furious program. LOL

    4. avatar Scoutino says:

      They don’t care about crimes. Fighting “gun crimes” and “gun violence” is just convenient pretense. It’s us, regular folks, whom they want to disarm.
      Even so, straw purchased and stolen guns are technically also acquired without background check.

  6. avatar Operation Gunwalker says:

    FAST & FURIOUS again is ignored. BATF really is a convenience store …. For Drug Cartels and MS – 13 Gangs , how many background checks were done there ?

    ATF is a constructive FRAUD on the people since its unlawful creation.

    DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY :
    NO ONE IN GOVERNMENT IS ALLOWED TO DO ANYTHING UNLESS THEY HAVE BEEN GIVEN SPECIFIC WRITTEN AUTHORITY, OR SOMEONE WHO HAS BEEN GIVEN AUTHORITY IN THE LAW, GIVES THAT PERSON A DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY ORDER SPELLING OUT EXACTLY WHAT THEY CAN AND CANNOT DO UNDER THAT SPECIFIC ORDER. We combed the Department of the Treasury’s Handbook of Delegation Orders and we found that no one in the I.R.S. or B.A.T.F. has any authority to do most of the things they have been doing for years.

    http://usa-the-republic.com/revenue/BATF-IRS%20Criminal%20Report.html#tgotm

  7. avatar former water walker says:

    Dumb and dumberer..and who(or what soy boy) reads Mother Jones?!?

  8. avatar GS650G says:

    Since they are not supposed to keep records of purchase permanently how will they prove you didn t do a BC years ago on a gun?
    Unless they are keeping all the records in violation.
    Of course they have a huge database of guns and buyers at their fingertips. It’s just not complete.

    1. avatar Southern Cross says:

      It’s not a database. It is an archive.

    2. avatar Rick says:

      An FFL is required to keep your 4473 for 20 years.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Your point? I have quite a few guns which I have owned *far* longer than 20 years, some close to 50 years. Assuming we could rely on an FFL actually destroying all 4473s after 20 years, any “registration” depending on that is laughably incomplete.

        1. avatar Rick says:

          The point was, an FFL is required to keep your 4473 for 20 years.

  9. avatar sound awake says:

    if its the mainstream media or a democrat
    -but i repeat myself-
    i now just assume theyre either lying or they dont have their facts straight
    because theyre propagandists mostly but also theyre not that smart

  10. avatar GunnyGene says:

    We should be used to the fact that Liberals/Progressives/Dems/Socialists attack everything indiscriminately and without reason, that doesn’t wholeheartedly support them. It’s their MO, and leaves no room for any other point of view, logic, or normal behavior. They’re like a hoard of Terminators.

    Listen, and understand. Those terminators are out there. They can’t be bargained with. They can’t be reasoned with. They don’t feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And they absolutely will not stop, ever, until we are dead.

    1. avatar Jackal says:

      Common dude. Don’t make them out to be invincible. Remember John Allen Muhammad and lee Malvo? They shut down DC with 13 bullets…. There will be more of this in the future, I guarantee it.

      1. avatar Michael says:

        That’s exactly what we don’t need or want. I want to know where the $ is coming from. In any investigation, SOP is to follow the money. Maybe it’s being done here, I don’t know. How do so many of these drifter/dropout/losers afford the firearms and gear, lodging and travel. They’re not paying for these things by workin’ minimum wage and not one of these fiascos was done on the cheap. -30-

      2. avatar GunnyGene says:

        You’re missing the point. The movie terminators were not invincible, and neither are the libs, etc. I referred to above. But we are not going to win this fight by playing “nice”.

        In order to slay a monster, one must become a monster.

  11. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

    As ignorant as it is, if they replaced internet with face to face purchases it would be correct in most states. This is because the politicians in 1968 didn’t want to test the limits of how much abuse the commerce clause would take. Simply put, selling a used gun to someone else within your own state is NOT interstate commerce, it’s intrastate commerce which the federal government has no authority to regulate. Therefor, ‘universal background checks’ from the federal government would be unconstitutional and likely get thrown out by the newly right leaning SCOTUS (or any SCOTUS that doesn’t use the Constitution for toilet paper).

    1. avatar Scoutino says:

      /\This. Federal government doesn’t have authority to regulate intrastate gun purchases. That’s why only federally licensed dealers have to run background checks and private persons don’t.

      Anyone engaged in business of buiyng or selling firearms has to get FFL. I have no idea what MJ means by “private dealer”. ATF would get quickly interested in such person.

  12. avatar Jamie in North Dakota says:

    Here in North Dakota we have a website called bismanonline.com, you can sell all sorts of things on there including guns and it doesn’t require a BGC and it’s legal. I’m sure the same thing is legal in many other states. Having said that I am 100% against BGC for all firearm transfers, that’s an infringement to me.

    1. avatar DDay says:

      That’s not a sale, that’s an ad.

      You would need to meet the seller in person and make a face to face transaction. There are no SALES on the internet as the article suggests like you buy a cordless drill from amazon and get it sent to your house.

      Internet gun sales have been studied by the gov’t, I think it was an inspector generals office in the Fed gov’t a few years ago, they tried to buy guns online and could not, even on the dark web areas.

      Internet gun sales are as real as hillary clinton’s sex appeal.

      1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

        I believe there’s no federal law against shipping a firearm within your state to a non-FFL. Same as face to face, the 1968 Gun Control Act only addressed interstate transfers as the federal government doesn’t have the constitutional authority to regulate intrastate trade. I’m guessing that shipping that firearm via USPS is a federal crime though.

      2. avatar Toni says:

        she must have had a little of it once unless the guy that got her pregnant with her daughter had a bad case of the beer goggles being on. I think the latter is more likely

      3. avatar possum says:

        Wait a minute now, I’ve spent many an hour with a hot jar of Vaseline and my Hilorally Limited Edition Swimsuit Edition® calendar.

        1. avatar Vance Jackson says:

          You might want to check out the Hilanally calendar…

      4. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

        I know people who have bought guns off the internet and they either meet face to face later or in some cases the seller simply sends the gun to them by not telling the carrier what is in the box. On many gun discussion web sites there is always a “trader or for sale” page and guns get sold through the mail with no paper work. It goes on all the time. And when it crosses state lines its illegal according to Federal Law. As far as internet sales within the state it would depend on which state you live in. I think too that if I was a crook or a nut case It would be all too easy to buy a second hand gun with no paperwork. I have seen many guns change hands at gun shows down through the years with nothing more than a wink and a nod with people not even bothering to look at each others drivers licenses even though in most states they are supposed to verify that the purchaser is a resident of their state but again many do not check and even if they did how would they know if the purchaser was not a felon or nut case. Answer: they would not.

        Case two. I was much astonished after watching Fareed Zakaria and they went to Japan and interviewed an American living there as well as a Japanese Skeet Shooter and his daughter. The American owned a semi-auto shotgun and semi-auto rifle and the Japanese man owned an expensive over under shotgun and his daughter a semi-auto shotgun and she was training for the Olympics with the help of her father who was a member of the local gun club. The vetting process is very thorough there which requires as many as 3 interviews with the police, the police interviewing your neighbors as to your character and reputation, a psychological test, safe storage at home with surprise inspections to see if you are complying with the safe storage laws and of course safety training courses so you know how to safely handle firearms. Since Japan has the lowest of homicide rates with guns in the world obviously they have achieved what they set out to do. They have low crime with firearms and low accidents with firearms and people can own firearms for hunting and target shooting if they are willing to jump through all the hoops to get one.

        I am not saying I would want this here in the U.S. but I cannot argue with the success of the Japanese gun laws as they have definitely accomplished what they set out to do.

        1. avatar Unrepentant Libertarian says:

          Japan also has one of the highest suicide rates in the world. (Without guns.) Does Japan count suicides with a firearm as a murder? Two thirds of all firearm deaths in America are suicides.

        2. avatar LarryinTX says:

          I mailed a rifle to a repair shop and they mailed it back to me. I did not expect that, but of course I did not complain, could not care less.

        3. avatar Scoutino says:

          @Unrepentant Libertarian
          Japan counts cases where parent kills his whole family and then suicides as zero murders, all suicides. That might skew the stats a bit.

  13. avatar Jean-Claude says:

    I’ve sold a few guns privately.

    Sold a slant cut Norinco MAK-90 to an old biker because I found one with AK hardware already installed. He and his wife seemed like nice people. I was carrying my pistol concealed just in case, but he was a super nice guy and everything went smoothly. When I say “biker” I don’t mean he was a 1%er, but he was a grizzled old guy with a Harley.

    Sold a SIG P239 to a guy who was walking out of a gun show as I was walking in. He had a new in box rifle in his hands. He asked me what I had and how much, and I was $500 richer before walking into the show. I figured since he had a new rifle he just passed a BG check.

    Had a guy show up to buy my Ruger P90. Young guy. Didn’t balk at my price, but asked if I could sell him some ammunition. I said, “How much do you want?”, thinking he wanted a box. “Eight rounds.”, he said. So I told him I was going to deny the sale unless he could show me his CCW permit and I could scan it for my records. He didn’t have one, so off he went. No, dude, you can’t ask me to sell you essentially a loaded gun.

    Now when I sell I only sell to people with CCW permits. I write them a receipt and take a photo of it after we both signed it. Unless they’re personally known to me.

    Someone with a valid CCW permit has passed all the background checks he needs. I think it’s pretty lame that I have to undergo a background check every time I buy a firearm. I have a CCW permit AND have traded in guns, still have to pay the state $5.

    1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

      Good practice. If you sell a weapon to someone who misuses it it will at the very least bring a few men with badges and guns to your door to ask you some rather uncomfortable questions. At worst you’ll be sent up on providing a felon with a firearm (although that’s only supposed to be illegal if you knowingly do it).

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Bull. How would these men with badges know I sold that gun?

    2. avatar Wheel Gun Guy says:

      The fine folks in the “Peoples Republic of Illinois” who have FOID cards routinely buy and sell guns under the radar to other like minded folks who have FOID cards…..yes we have already been vetted by the state of Illinois so the fear of selling to prohibited persons is pretty much a non factor as long as the fellow you are selling to shows you a FOID card or Concealed carry License…..we have a thriving underground gun market here in downstate Illinois among law abiding citizens of the gun community….don’t imagine the politicians who enacted the Illinois FOID card legislation figured this would ever happen….stay safe out there.

      1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

        Next door here in IA we have a ‘permit to purchase a handgun’, and without it or a ‘permit to carry a weapon’ it’s illegal to purchase a handgun, but I don’t think it’s expressly illegal to sell one to a non permit holder. The purchase permit is good for a year and the carry permit for 5. Either way the background check is made by the sheriff’s department and further checks aren’t required.

        I’m guessing the big difference between IA and IL is it’s probably a felony in IL to acquire a firearm without the FOID card.

        1. avatar GunnyGene says:

          I continue to be astounded by the dramatic differences between the States concerning firearms. In many cases the rules are polar opposites.

          In MS the only and I mean the ONLY requirement to purchase is that you can pass the Fed. NICS check for purchase from a FFL and have a MS DL or other form of recognized ID. Private transactions don’t even require that. No permit is required for carry of any firearm openly or concealed, and you don’t have to be a MS resident. There are no limits or restrictions on ammo. We have a annual 2A tax holiday. I can shoot and hunt on my property without any tag or license, and I do so regularly. And nobody calls the cops. Our Castle doctrine encompasses any shelter I may be legally occupying temporarily or permanently, including a tent out in the woods. We have no duty to retreat. I can legally shoot a thief on my property whether he’s inside my house or committing a felony anywhere on my acreage. I can legally carry multiple loaded and unsecured firearms within my reach in my vehicle and do.

          Any one of these freedoms would cause leftist heads to literally explode.

        2. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

          The one upside to requiring the permit is that you don’t have to wait around for the NICS check when making a purchase. Other than that, IA is pretty cool about how and where you carry. Even bar carry is legal and you can drink until your BAC hits 0.08%. No firearms signs on the doors of businesses don’t carry the weight of law. Just remember to put the gat away before walking into a school, federal building, some courthouses or the state fairgrounds (because someone got murdered there 40 years ago) and you’re fine. I think I’d prefer the permit over having to worry about carrying in the wrong place and running afoul with the law.

        3. avatar Jbw says:

          In Iowa do you need the sherrif to approve the gun purchase? What happens if he refused to issue the purchase permit?

        4. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

          Iowa is ‘shall issue’ so he can only deny a permit for cause, and there’s an appeals process. At one point a sheriff denied a permit because he didn’t think a free 20 minute online course met the requirements and the denial was overturned. There was another case where a blind man applied and I think that one was denied and overturned as well.

  14. avatar Freebird says:

    Best summary of where we are headed I’ve seen so far :

    ” Outrageous, outlandish, lawless trampling of the Fifth Amendment takings clause but no court in America appears limited by the Constitution anymore.

    In under 10 years some state will ban semi-autos outright and courts won’t do shit.

    Uncompensated confiscation is the future of “gun rights”.Courts: We stole your shit. What are you going to do about it, peon?

    Trump is OK with the concept. He is doing the exact same shit with bump stocks. “

  15. avatar John Galt says:

    But…but….. Donald Trump…..

    Wheres my national reciprocity?????????.

  16. avatar Ralph says:

    Subscribing to or reading Mother Jones is clear evidence of a mental disease or defect and the individual so affected should be reported immediately to the FBI for inclusion in a NICS database.

    Anyone stupid enough to believe MoJo is clearly too stupid to touch a gun, or even less-lethal devices such as butter knives and can openers.

    1. avatar Southern Cross says:

      The readers of Mother Jones are probably in danger of stabbing themselves in the eye with a plastic spork.

    2. avatar DrDKW says:

      ….or ignition keys!

  17. avatar jakee308 says:

    What many seem to miss is that requiring all sales to go thru a back ground check will require a national registration scheme to also be enacted. The only way a private sale included back ground check could be accomplished is to have a registry of all firearms so that a check can be done to make sure the seller is authorized to sell that firearm.

    That’s already done by the BATF and the FFL’s inventory books to show that the firearm being sold is legal and is the type being sold (can’t sell handguns to under 21’s).

    And this is that part that the left is salivating over. If they can just get a national registration enacted and in action, they can then take the next step which is confiscation.

    Remember that every, every national registration scheme always always stresses that it’s required for the safety of the citizens and is only sensible to have the knowledge of who owns what firearms.

    These are the excuses that have lead to confiscation in the past and will do so in the future.

    1. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

      I used to think the same way you do when I was young and naive and only wanted unregistered guns but lets face facts it does not matter if all of your guns went through a back ground check or you bought them second hand under the table with no checks because if the Feds outlaw a certain type of firearm the penalties are usually so severe no one in their right mind would keep one knowing they not only would lose all their financial assets but go to prison for years when caught.

      Case in point. A man in New York many decades ago had a fire. The fire department rushed in and saw a handgun by his beside. They immediately called the police in and it was unregistered. Of course the guy went to jail even though he only had it for self defense but the example shows you how often some unforeseen circumstance will get you caught if you have broken a gun law.

      I think the machine gun law of the 1930’s proved how well that law also worked. I have seen a few people in the past turn down the purchase of stolen and or converted machine guns because they knew how much trouble they would be in if they were caught with one. In other words the law restricting them worked very well because the majority of people obeyed it. The same would happen if the Feds outlawed a certain type of weapon as the majority of people would turn them in even if they had been unregistered for decades and decades as the risk of keeping it would not be worth it when you were caught. Even a big mouth former friend seeking revenge or simply running off at the mouth could get you caught.

      1. avatar Toni says:

        yes that is true, however, the only people that it deters are the law abiding and not the criminal. If it does not deter the criminal then how is the law in any way effective. If it is not effective against the criminal and only deters the law abiding it is an infringement on the law abiding persons rights

      2. avatar Scoutino says:

        “I have seen a few people in the past turn down the purchase of stolen and or converted machine guns because they knew how much trouble they would be in if they were caught with one.”

        Do you often have people trying to sell stolen stuff and contraband in your presence? Or was it you selling?

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Background checks have accomplished exactly nothing. UBC is not expected to accomplish anything at all, except to begin that national database of who owns what, and what is that mofo’s address?

  18. avatar Tom T says:

    The most I would be willing to support (but not necessarily like) would be private sales through an FFL. Both parties show up at your LGS, an instant check on the buyer is co ducted (and he/she pays the fee for the service). Any paper forms are immediately shredded. The digital records would only show that a check was performed, not what exchanged hands. This could be a minor source of revenue for gun shops, and the seller is protected.

    Again, I don’t endorse ANY government interference, but if it is inevitable lets make it reasonable.

    1. avatar GunnyGene says:

      “Reasonable” is a subjective term. What’s reasonable to you, I guarantee would not be reasonable to others.

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      The entity requiring the background check should pay for it.

      1. avatar Shallnot BeInfringed says:

        Great, so that means “the government” pays for it – cool!

        Except for one little detail… “the government” gets their money from what source? Oh yeah…

  19. avatar possum says:

    Am I reading this right? I can buy a gun off the internet, have it shipped straight to my address without any BC check of any kind. Just send Harry the money and the gun goes right to Joe’s door? Cool, who needs a gunshop? Why bother with FFL’s?

  20. avatar Joe says:

    I’ve only sold one gun and when I advertised it I stated that I would ONLY sell to a ccl holder or a lawman with proper I.D.

    1. avatar possum says:

      I don’t care who you are, if I’m asking $20 and X has the money it’s sold

  21. avatar 2WarAbnVet says:

    Even the stupidest Democrat knows that whatever law they pass will mean nothing to criminals. They’re perfectly aware that they’re targeting honest Americans, and that’s their objective..

  22. avatar Daniel says:

    Internet gun sales huh?… Lol, the only “company ” authorized to actually sell you a gun online, and ship it direct to your house is the CMP… and even they still do background checks as policy just to cover their butts!

    No dealer, wether online or in a shop, can ship you a gun until you passed a background check…. which is why they don’t ship it to you… They ship it to your local FFL so you still have to physically go in person to do a *gasp* background check!

    Article is junk!!!!

    1. avatar Dan says:

      Exactly right..I’ve bought 2 handguns and an AR15 the past 4 yrs during Black Friday sales online and every single time i purchased them i had to have them shipped to my local FFL dealer.Then i had to pass a background ck.Three are a couple of people in these comments are lying or committed a felony.

  23. avatar joefoam says:

    As noted, criminals tend to ignore laws, hence they are criminals. Private sales are common but the MSM and Mother Jones claim that millions of guns are sold that way. How did they come up with that number if the sales were private? More preying on the fear and ignorance of the general public, having them think that the streets are awash with guns.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Right on. Article claims 22% of gun owners have obtained a firearm without a background check in the past 2 years. I contend that fewer than 22% of gun owners have obtained a firearm *at all* in the past 2 years.

      1. avatar Scoutino says:

        Maybe the poll results showed that 22% of gun owners, who have obtained a firearm in the past 2 years, did so without a background check. ‘Jurnalist’ twists it just a little to sound scarier.

  24. avatar Sua Sponte says:

    “House Democrats plan to prioritize a bill that will require a background check for every gun sale”

    You mean the one that’s already in place and has been for quite some time? The last place to look for any insight concerning firearms is a democrat, leftist or progreSSive. Much the same the last place to look for anyone with any form of critical thinking skills is on a college campus.

  25. avatar Ed Schrade says:

    How about requiring comprehensive background checks for all members of congress and a requirement of military service before running for office.

  26. avatar Wbigly says:

    Gotta give Democrats credit. At least they try to get things done. Don’t see them high tailing it out of state when the going gets rough.

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