The 40% guestimate is wrong

"Only 4 percent of gun sales were thought to have come through gun shows or flea markets — a corner of the market that is a top concern today for those who want to expand background checks to close the “gun-show loophole,” as Obama’s proposals would do. More than 17 percent of guns acquired in 1993 and 1994 came from a family member, according to the poll — a source of weapons that would remain largely unregulated in pending Senate legislation calling for expanded checks. "  washpost

-------------------------------------

There is evidently nothing that the anti-gun crowd will not stoop to in their eagerness to disarm Americans.

BTW, I have never bought a firearm on-line but is it not true that the seller in that case must send the weapon to a FFL dealer for pick up.  Is it not true that the dealer must conduct the on-line check on the buyer?  pl  

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/federal_government/fact-check-its-anyones-guess-how-many-gun-buyers-elude-background-checks/2013/03/13/151f7692-8bad-11e2-af15-99809eaba6cb_story_1.html

Comments

[Peter C]

I live in California, super regulation of firearms.
If a firearm is ordered through the internet, a FFL dealer must take delivery of firearm to do the waiting and back ground check before delivery to customer. In general a FFL dealer will charge for this handling service. Service charge varies from a flat rate to 10% value of firearm.

In California when taking delivery of handguns an authorized trigger lock or proof of an authorized weapons safe is required at delivery time. California wants micro stamps on the firing pin to identify the firearm from shell casings, or some other stamping method of identification is being battered about.

[John Minnerath]

I never buy guns on-line either. The reason being I want to be able to actually look over any gun before I pay for it.

As far as back ground checks for on-line gun sales, any and all cartridge type firearms have to be sent to an FFL. Once the FFL receives said gun he has to fill in the ATF form and run the BG check before he can deliver the gun to the new owner.
Add to those Federal regulations some dealers will not even ship to certain states or jurisdictions because they may have further restrictions.

No doubt there are probably a few guns sold via the internet without lawful transfers, but I bet it's very few.
Someone looking to get an untraceable gun isn't going to try and use something like internet dealers.

[The Twisted Genius]

There appears to be several "Craigslist-like" sites to facilitate online private gun sales without the FFL middleman. My totally unscientific guess is that these kinds of private sales are fairly widespread. With two million denied background checks for firearms purchases since 1998, there's definitely a market for this kind of sale.

That 40% figure does appear to be bullshit. Seems it was based on a sample of only 2,500. And those 2,500 were state prisoners involved in gun crimes. Of course they got their weapons outside the FFL/background check system.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/want-buy-gun-without-background-check-armlist-can-help

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/12/senate-dems-ready-to-push-expanded-gun-background-checks-through-committee/

[turcopolier]

TTG

"There appears to be several "Craigslist-like" sites to facilitate online private gun sales without the FFL middleman" IMO that should be made a criminal enterprise. On the other hand I will be interested to see what exceptions are included the final version of Shumer's bill. pl

[John Minnerath]

I'm immediately suspect of anything Mother Jones publishes about guns.
I looked at Armslist for my own state and just under handguns. What I saw were listings for "in state" only which is perfectly legal here and some stating they were through an FFL only, also legal.
Since that listing is out in public in front of God and everybody I would be willing to bet ATF or other LE also keeps an eye on is going on at such sites.
I know if I was interested in one of the guns I saw there and it seemed the least bit shady, I wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole. But, I'm honest.
So, there you go, crooks don't follow the laws no matter what they are.

[r whitman]

Pat , you might want to censor this message but check out the individual ads on texasguntrader.com. Some trades require FFL, some a BOS with a drivers lic or CHL, some nothing. The site os owned and operated by a FFL holder.

[turcopolier]

r. whitman

As I said, this is a loophole worth closing. You notice that there is a label at the bottom of Texas Gun Trader's page that says. "Report Illegal Firearms Activity 1-800-ATF-GUNS." pl

[rossesq]

http://www.policefoundation.org/content/guns-america

This report, written for the police community in 1997, is based on the 1994 National Survey of Private Ownership of Firearms in the United States.... EXACTLY what can be defined as "an anti-gun crowd" that will stoop at nothing in their eagerness to disarm Americans.... NOT!~

The data is old-ish. The collection method looks to be thin. However, the report acknowledges that "it visits familar territory, well mapped by previous surveys - redundancy helps provide a check in its validity."

If you peruse the report, and not the Wash Post fragment, you will find a more rational, informative report that has little apparent bias to either side of the current gun violence/control debate. I did not find it to be something that should be derisively dismissed out-of-hand by most reasonable people.

[RM]

I bought a number of guns through the mail using the FFL at the Quantico Gun Club. The selling FFL must send a copy of their FFL with an original signature on it with the gun. The gun is sent to the receiving FFL who adds it to his bound book (required records). He then does a background check, waiting period if required locally and you fill out a federal firearms purchase form. When you get the firearm your info goes on the FFL's bound book.

Essentially no different than any purchase from an FFL.

[turcopolier]

rossesq

"EXACTLY what can be defined as "an anti-gun crowd" that will stoop at nothing in their eagerness to disarm Americans.... NOT!~" If you mean that we gun guys should trust prple like Feinstein, Shumer, Joe Scarborough and Mika, then you will wait a long time. People say "we are not tsalking about confiscation." that's true. you are not talking about it yet. In fact, the goals you set for gun control will not be met by any legislation that you can achieve. In the end you will want confiscation. pl

[The Twisted Genius]

I'm sure most of these internet facilitated sales are legal and in good faith. However, after having spent nearly a decade dealing with those on the internet that do not operate legally or in good faith, I can see the ease of selling firearms to those who shouldn't have them. I don't see how those running these sites can prevent this. Nor do I see these sites as criminal. As John Minnerath said, "crooks don't follow the laws no matter what they are."

[DH]

Speaking of firearms, what do we think about the DHS order for 1.6 billion rounds of ammo (some of them hollow point) and "an undetermined number of the recently retrofitted 2,717 ‘Mine Resistant Protected’ MaxxPro MRAP vehicles for service on the streets of the United States.”" "These MRAP’s ARE BEING SEEN ON U.S. STREETS all across America by verified observers with photos, videos, and descriptions.”

Regardless of the exact number of MRAP’s being delivered to DHS (and evidently some to POLICE via DHS, as has been observed), why would they need such over-the-top vehicles on U.S. streets to withstand IEDs, mine blasts, and 50 caliber hits to bullet-proof glass? In a war zone… yes, definitely. Let’s protect our men and women. On the streets of America… ?”" "“They all have gun ports…"

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ralphbenko/2013/03/11/1-6-billion-rounds-of-ammo-for-homeland-security-its-time-for-a-national-conversation/

[scott s.]

There are no special (federal) requirements concerning the "internet". The law deals with transfers (discounting here NFA "firearms") between instate and interstate transferees. Basic setup is that two unlicensed persons residing in the same state can transfer a firearm in the state by whatever means they can come up with. (On a practical basis, getting a common carrier or USPS to actually accept a firearm for shipment is another problem.) Interstate transfers (except for bequests) require buyer to appear in person at licensed dealer's licensed premises (long guns only) or transfer to an appropriate licensee in state for final transfer. Due to the shipping problems, most common scenario is seller transfers to a dealer in his state (in person), that dealer does a licensee to licensee transfer to a licensee in buyer's state who does the final transfer (and runs NICS or state POC). Note that there are certain exceptions if the transfer is to/from a gunsmith for purposes of repair or gunwork. In light of ebay ban on any firearm related business, there are various alternative sites for finding sellers/buyers in secondary market. Also note that there is a class of firearm defined as "antique" which is mostly exempt from rules at the federal level. Also there exists a category of "licensed collector" AKA 03 FFL. Licensed collector is allowed to receive "curio & relic" firearms interstate from licensees or non-licensed persons. 03 FFL has no special privilege when selling (and of course, cannot be "in the business" of selling).

At one time it was common for so-called "table top" dealers to do transfers, mainly to get wholesale pricing on new firearms. During Clinton admin, ATF changed policy to require dealer FFLs to have business hours, have licensed premises in a commercially-zoned area, have any required state business licenses etc in an effort to get the "table top" FFLs to surrender their licenses (and byproduct to force them to turn in their 4473s/bound book to ATF). That was largely successful (from a gun control point of view). Of course the stocking dealers didn't mind losing the competition either.

[Walrus]

Having been through this process in Australia, I agree 100% with Col. Lang - the goal is confiscation at the earliest opportunity.

In Australia as a boy, I could walk down the street with a military rifle on my shoulder and no one thought anything of it. When I played cops and robbers with the kids next door, one of them had a real Schmieser, brought back from the war.

....Then there was registration of all firearms - just a "formality" we were told to help the police to find guns used in crimes.

.......then there was " licensing" and gun safes - sold as keeping firearms out of the hands of children.

......after the next nutcase massacre, it was sale restrictions on ammunition , only to licensed shooters.

......and aft that, it was "hand in all semi automatic weapons" - and they could enforce it because the new the owners of 99.9% of legal firearms.

.......and after that it was draconian regulation on ownership of handguns, you have to be a registered member of a club and must shoot every six months to maintain permission to own.

......and the latest thing they want to do is restrict ammunition sales limiting both the amount and constraining it to only the calibres you have registered.

........and no doubt plans are afoot for the next measure when the time is right.

Meanwhile criminals have unfettered access to any firearm they want, either through smuggling or theft.

[Fred]

Yes, as your key point says:

"Meanwhile criminals have unfettered access to any firearm they want, either through smuggling or theft."

[DH]

Interesting times. This looks interesting:

http://www.amazon.com/World-2050-Shaping-Civilizations-Northern/dp/0452297478

[DH]

Coincidentally found this in my massive saved-to-read bookmarks:

[Pepe Escobar reviews Mike Davis' book, 'Planet of Slums.']

"...And this is happening while virtually nobody in positions of political power is examining the terrifying geopolitical implications of a planet of slums.

So back to the standing order - to repress, repress, repress. Davis embarks on a short, brilliant analysis of the Pentagon's take on global urban poverty. He inevitably has to talk about MOUT - Military Operations on Urbanized Terrain. As the journal of the Army War College declared, Davis quotes, "The future of warfare lies in the streets, sewers, highrise buildings and sprawl of houses that form the broken cities of the world." The Santa Monica, California-based Rand Corporation - which helped to set strategy for the Vietnam War in the 1960s - has added a little more concept to MOUT.

Rand has concluded that the urbanization of world poverty has produced "the urbanization of insurgency"; insurgents are "following their followers into the cities, setting up 'liberated zones' in urban shantytowns". The Rand experts are obviously talking about Baghdad's Sadr City - one of the world's largest slums - where the young and the wretched join Muqtada al-Sadr's Mehdi Army to make life hell for the American occupier (no wonder Sadr City's squalid main boulevard is nicknamed "Vietnam Street").

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/HE20Aa01.html

[turcopolier]

rick

My mind reading is rarely bullshit. pl

[turcopolier]

rick
Do you take what the NRA or other pro gun people say at face value or do you try to understand what their true motives are? pl

[SAC Brat]

An article on gun registration in California:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-12/california-seizes-guns-as-owners-lose-right-to-bear-arms.html

[Laura Wilson]

Of course the "professional" criminals will break the law. You are using a straw man argument...the issue in Australia and in the US is not the criminal---it is the mass murderer/family violence/workplace revenge folks.

Those are "crimes" but not in the sense of a professional criminal. I don't think anyone has any illusions about them--that is why we have trained and armed police.

[Laura Wilson]

Of course there is a reason that California is removing guns from those owners:

California is the only state that tracks and disarms people with legally registered guns who have lost the right to own them, according to Attorney General Kamala Harris. Almost 20,000 gun owners in the state are prohibited from possessing firearms, including convicted felons, those under a domestic violence restraining order or deemed mentally unstable.

What other way do you suggest to make sure that legal gun owners "gone bad" no longer have their guns? This is especially an issue in cases of domestic violence. There may be other solutions....do you know of any?

[turcopolier]

LW

This is an answer to Rick's jibe about reading minds. pl

[Fred]

The article states that most seized weapons are destroyed. What compensation is given to the owner? In the case of the referenced article the husband, who still had a right to own firearms. Presumably he could have moved them elsewhere. What restoration of rights process does the state of California have for those no longer deemed "mentally unstable" or is that a permanent designation.

[Laura Wilson]

Good questions, Fred--something I will look into. It is important to have a restoration of rights process. It is, however, still important to get the guns out of their hands when appropriate as well. Compensation is another issue...if the people are no longer supposed to have the guns due to legal/restraining order issues, it's not exactly like a voluntary buy-back program. If someone has been asked officially to turn-in their registered guns and they do so, then compensation makes sense, perhaps. Unfortunately, in some of the CA cases, there are non-registered guns as well in the home. Complicated...like life.