Internet Sales

[G26ster]

In every report about the Toomey/Manchin "compromise" they keep saying that buying a gun on the Internet should be the same as buying it in a gun shop, and a background check completed. Other than an intrastate sale between residents of the same state, it's already required for the gun to be transferred through a FFL and a background check completed (except for CHLs). Where do these lawmakers get their information? Just what do they think the current law is? Has no one told them this is already federal law? Has anyone seen a lawmaker, or anybody, explain just what the problem is with Internet sales? The press just parrots the words of those feeding them this line, but no explanation is given. So, someone enlighten me. What I am missing, and please, please, please, no general rants on gun grabbing, antis, and lawmakers. Just tell me what you have heard specifically is the lawmaker's problem with Internet sales. Thanks.

[apostate]

A legal private sale between friends, family, or neighbors is precisely the "problem" which vexes them. The internet sales lie is simply a new twist on the gun show loophole lie used in their previous attempts to ban private sales.

[TexasGal]

Craigslist. Armslist. And what about the gun sales section here on the forum and many other forums? Technically, I believe it would fall under this. So how does one find out a gun is for sale? It's not by airmail. If you are not going to a gun store and it's not from one of your friends, how many of you buy a gun somehow by going on the internet even it is within Texas? This is what they are after.

[G26ster]

Craigslist? Armslist?

You could list all the gun auction sites as well, but if you buy a gun off any of those sights from another state, current law requires a FFL transfer and background check (except for CHLs) for you to actually receive the gun. Private sales between parties in the same state, no matter how they are advertised, are still legal without a FFl transfer or background check. How they were advertised has nothing to do with how federal law currently requires them to be transferred.

I truly believe the politicians and the media believe that anyone can buy a gun that is on the internet from anyone, anywhere with no FFL and background check involved. That simply is not true, and it is being left hanging out there as fact by those on our side, with no rebuttal whatsoever.

[TexasGal]

Yes, I know this. If this is passed as a federal law, you are saying it still would not cover an internet sale of a firearm between individuals within a state? They are seeking to stop a sale between two individuals within a state at a gun show without a back ground check. How would expanding that same law to include those same two people from doing the same thing through craigslist for example not be what they are seeking to also do?

[Beiruty]

They do require proof of sale too, as a record. Without an proof, enforcement is impossible.
No private seller will keep records unless he is running an unlicensed gun selling business. There are many who are now profiting by reselling Ammo and AR/AK patterned rifles, on the side.

[TexasGal]

So what would stop a fed from just posing as a buyer on Craislist and pop on the cuffs when the seller who is selling his own gun hands over the gun without an FFL? They don't need anyone to keep records to do that.

[mr surveyor]

and I remember when you could order a firearm from the Sears and Roebuck catalogue, send a money order, and have it delivered to your front door.

and I'm only 60!

what have we let our country become?

[baldeagle]

and I remember when you could order a firearm from the Sears and Roebuck catalogue, send a money order, and have it delivered to your front door.

and I'm only 60!

what have we let our country become?

A cesspool of tyranny.

[G26ster]

I don't know if I'm missing the point, or what, so let me try again.

It seems like the Senate is trying to pass a law prohibiting the sale of a gun advertised on the Internet, without going through an FFL and background check, for which there is already a law in place requiring a FFL transfer and background check no matter how or where the gun is listed for sale, if it's coming from another state. My query was if anyone had seen the specifics of this proposed law, and how it differs from what we have now, as it appears that the legislators and media believe it's still the 1960's and that anyone can buy a gun advertised on line from any state and have it delivered to their door with no FFL transfer or background check. To me it is a clear indication that the legislators, including many on our side of the issue (and the media - as usual), who are passing laws that affect us all, have no clue as to current gun laws, and the media just keep saying, "expand the background checks to include internet sales." I think between the two of them, they leave the general public under that impression, and NO ONE on our side of the issue has spoken out, or asked to clarify what they mean by "Internet sales." So far I have not received, or seen any evidence to the contrary, hence I asked the question here. "Have you?" As I have said before, this is a heck of a way to win a debate, when bold statements in the media are left unchallenged and not questioned.

[JJVP]

I don't know if I'm missing the point, or what, so let me try again.

It seems like the Senate is trying to pass a law prohibiting the sale of a gun advertised on the Internet, without going through an FFL and background check, for which there is already a law in place requiring a FFL transfer and background check no matter how or where the gun is listed for sale, if it's coming from another state. My query was if anyone had seen the specifics of this proposed law, and how it differs from what we have now, as it appears that the legislators and media believe it's still the 1960's and that anyone can buy a gun advertised on line from any state and have it delivered to their door with no FFL transfer or background check. To me it is a clear indication that the legislators, including many on our side of the issue (and the media - as usual), who are passing laws that affect us all, have no clue as to current gun laws, and the media just keep saying, "expand the background checks to include internet sales." I think between the two of them, they leave the general public under that impression, and NO ONE on our side of the issue has spoken out, or asked to clarify what they mean by "Internet sales." So far I have not received, or seen any evidence to the contrary, hence I asked the question here. "Have you?" As I have said before, this is a heck of a way to win a debate, when bold statements in the media are left unchallenged and not questioned.

If the new law does not differ from what we have now, let them pass it and claim victory, when in reality they have not done anything. Maybe that is the reason nobody is contradicting them. Let them pass a law that bans what is already banned. Now, if it is something else, then lets continue the fight.

[mewalke]

Or maybe they are doing what politicians do best? Appearing to do something while seemingly doing nothing. Allowing them to claim "I voted for Gun Control but the evil NRA got the bill watered down" and at the same time claim "I only voted for the bill because it didn't change the current requirements but added some minor section that strengthened your gun rights".

Of course I don't think anyone has actually seen the written bill as amended - so what Toomey and crew have said is all to be taken with a grain of salt.

[G26ster]

I don't know if I'm missing the point, or what, so let me try again.

It seems like the Senate is trying to pass a law prohibiting the sale of a gun advertised on the Internet, without going through an FFL and background check, for which there is already a law in place requiring a FFL transfer and background check no matter how or where the gun is listed for sale, if it's coming from another state. My query was if anyone had seen the specifics of this proposed law, and how it differs from what we have now, as it appears that the legislators and media believe it's still the 1960's and that anyone can buy a gun advertised on line from any state and have it delivered to their door with no FFL transfer or background check. To me it is a clear indication that the legislators, including many on our side of the issue (and the media - as usual), who are passing laws that affect us all, have no clue as to current gun laws, and the media just keep saying, "expand the background checks to include internet sales." I think between the two of them, they leave the general public under that impression, and NO ONE on our side of the issue has spoken out, or asked to clarify what they mean by "Internet sales." So far I have not received, or seen any evidence to the contrary, hence I asked the question here. "Have you?" As I have said before, this is a heck of a way to win a debate, when bold statements in the media are left unchallenged and not questioned.

If the new law does not differ from what we have now, let them pass it and claim victory, when in reality they have not done anything. Maybe that is the reason nobody is contradicting them. Let them pass a law that bans what is already banned. Now, if it is something else, then lets continue the fight.

That well may be the reason, but if it gives a victory, even a hollow one, to those that are trying to erode the Second Amendment further, then that only fuels their fire to keep at it. They will see it as a "gain" and go for more, and more, but the next "more" may well have profound results. Exposing their ignorance to the public, is much better to oppose their agenda, than to allow them a hollow victory. Of course just MHO.

[O6nop]

If the new law does not differ from what we have now, let them pass it and claim victory, when in reality they have not done anything. Maybe that is the reason nobody is contradicting them. Let them pass a law that bans what is already banned. Now, if it is something else, then lets continue the fight.

If no one really knows what is in the bill then how can we "let" them pass it? It seems there is way too much disinformation to just let it be said that Internet sales are allowed. People are going to demand passage of all of the other restrictions thinking that particular one needs to be addressed, when it really doesn't.

[Syntyr]

My query was if anyone had seen the specifics of this proposed law

And here is the issue at hand... No, no one has seen the bill. We don;t have any idea what it is or is not other than what people "think" it is based upon what has been said about. I went on to Tommeys facebook pages and constantly posted to his wall - RELEASE THE TEXT OF THE BILL.

Of course no response yet. Until I see the bill the vote from me, like I matter..., is NO!