turkeestalker
New member
Just kind of makes me smile 
Feds Unable to Illegally Purchase Guns Online
- Thread starter Bartholomew Roberts
- Start date
Spats McGee
Administrator
In reference to my post above, it is also possible that a buyer (agent) might also indicate a desire for a sale across state lines, without using an FFL. That would also be an illegal transaction, even in the absence of one of the prohibiting factors (domestic violence, felony, etc.).
Double Naught Spy
New member
I got to reflecting in this article and the sting operation and I am not sure just how beneficial it is to the firearms community in regard to alleviating folks' concerns about illegal gun sales. This was a very narrow/limited parameter test.
So while a positive article that indicates the sample of sellers wanted to do not break federal firearms laws by selling to folks by selling to prohibited persons or under illegal conditions, the article and operation in no way address sales being made to prohibited persons who fail to disclose their status, ala Devin Patrick Kelley. We know guns are getting in the hands of bad guys, all this does is indicate that they are not getting in the hands of bad guys who are into full disclosure of their status or want for the sale to be overtly illegal...which is probably only going to be a very small percentage of the really stupid folks. With that said, the sting did reveal that while not wanting to violate firearms laws, a small percentage of sellers were dishonest.
So while a positive article that indicates the sample of sellers wanted to do not break federal firearms laws by selling to folks by selling to prohibited persons or under illegal conditions, the article and operation in no way address sales being made to prohibited persons who fail to disclose their status, ala Devin Patrick Kelley. We know guns are getting in the hands of bad guys, all this does is indicate that they are not getting in the hands of bad guys who are into full disclosure of their status or want for the sale to be overtly illegal...which is probably only going to be a very small percentage of the really stupid folks. With that said, the sting did reveal that while not wanting to violate firearms laws, a small percentage of sellers were dishonest.
DNS said:
I think it specifically refutes a popular notion that criminals handily skirt federal transfer restrictions by buying arms over the internet. You know that an unlicensed New Yorker can't internet/mail order an M60 from Nevada and have it delivered to his home by UPS, but it is a notion that recurs frequently in political discourse.
Last edited:
Aguila Blanca
Staff
And in the mainstream media.zukiphile said:
So, the failure of the operation to "prove" that vast numbers of criminals are using the internet to get all manner or firearms delivered to their door without the encumbrance of having to obey federal law means that the anti's can't/won't use the results to further their agenda.
And the thinking part of the country recognizes that if the illegal purchaser does nothing to intimate that they are an illegal purchaser, then they will be able to buy a gun, so, the Fed failure means nothing, in that regard, either.
Personally, I'd rather see the Fed waste their time, and my tax money on things like this, rather than on "allowing" (some say "requiring") guns to walk into Mexico, in the hope of tracing them, once they do... at least one death resulted from that fiasco. (Fast & Furious turned out to be half-fast, and stupid
)
And the thinking part of the country recognizes that if the illegal purchaser does nothing to intimate that they are an illegal purchaser, then they will be able to buy a gun, so, the Fed failure means nothing, in that regard, either.
Personally, I'd rather see the Fed waste their time, and my tax money on things like this, rather than on "allowing" (some say "requiring") guns to walk into Mexico, in the hope of tracing them, once they do... at least one death resulted from that fiasco. (Fast & Furious turned out to be half-fast, and stupid
)Aguila Blanca
Staff
Correction ... at least one death of a U.S. Border Patrol agent resulted from that fiasco. I think it's well established that numerous deaths of "civilians" in Mexico have been attributed to the F&F guns.44 AMP said:
Aguila Blanca
Staff
It does, gramatically -- but it also sounds like we don't already know there were actually a lot more than one.
reynolds357
New member
Why did they get scammed? My guess is they were intentionally dealing with the shadiest people out there in an attempt to find ones who would sell to them.
My singular problem with this "news" and any conclusions is the fact the BATF was obligated to disclose, in some way, the buyer was a "prohibited person"
I know it has been previously stated that this is NOT how a bad actor would behave in a internet purchase
Any rational person knows that firearms are purchased every day from private sellers, on line or person to person by prohibited persons.
There is no practical way to prevent such sales unless every seller was required to process a 4473
I have bought and sold over 50 firearms over the years...I have no personal idea if any I sold to were truly NOT prohibited... I suspect not because most guns went to folks I knew ---but a few went to total strangers who could have just lied to me when I asked their age and status.......personal note---I was never comfortable selling to complete stranger...... so have a policy for my sales, that requires a buyer to know some one that I also know
Same with many guns I bought...the old guy selling me a low cost Win 94 30-30 had no idea if I was or was not prohibited....took my cash gave me the rifle
IMO---- this BATF experiment, over 2 years, was a grand waste of time that no rational conclusion can be attributed to
I hate to say it, but the anti gunners are correct...any one can easily buy a firearm any day
Second part of my career's was Army Acquisition Testing as a Test Officer...designing and implementing TESTS tests
If I want to prove gun sellers were BASICALLY a stand up bunch who could be trusted to follow the law and NOT sell to "prohibited Persons" ... what the BATF did was proper and conclusions predictable IMO
BUT If I wanted to support the Anti Gunner theory that anyone any time can buy a gun...no matter their status... my on line purchasers would LIE and pretend to be every day Joe with a bunch of bucks to spend....
of course for the conclusion to be valid I would need to employ actual "prohibited persons" for the experiment so I could conclude how easy it is for such a person to make a deal and gain possession
I personally do not subscribe to any set of laws or processes that can keep any 0~100% reliability of preventing bad actors from possessing fire arms....there is no practical way to control it
I am always curious about the density of Firearms in possession relative to the general 350 Million+ population
My personal sphere of friends and acquaintances seem to have an average weapons count over 10 hand guns and rifles-with very few having zero
Hell I have some ultra liberal family members who have fire arms
I know it has been previously stated that this is NOT how a bad actor would behave in a internet purchase
Any rational person knows that firearms are purchased every day from private sellers, on line or person to person by prohibited persons.
There is no practical way to prevent such sales unless every seller was required to process a 4473
I have bought and sold over 50 firearms over the years...I have no personal idea if any I sold to were truly NOT prohibited... I suspect not because most guns went to folks I knew ---but a few went to total strangers who could have just lied to me when I asked their age and status.......personal note---I was never comfortable selling to complete stranger...... so have a policy for my sales, that requires a buyer to know some one that I also know
Same with many guns I bought...the old guy selling me a low cost Win 94 30-30 had no idea if I was or was not prohibited....took my cash gave me the rifle
IMO---- this BATF experiment, over 2 years, was a grand waste of time that no rational conclusion can be attributed to
I hate to say it, but the anti gunners are correct...any one can easily buy a firearm any day
Second part of my career's was Army Acquisition Testing as a Test Officer...designing and implementing TESTS tests
If I want to prove gun sellers were BASICALLY a stand up bunch who could be trusted to follow the law and NOT sell to "prohibited Persons" ... what the BATF did was proper and conclusions predictable IMO
BUT If I wanted to support the Anti Gunner theory that anyone any time can buy a gun...no matter their status... my on line purchasers would LIE and pretend to be every day Joe with a bunch of bucks to spend....
of course for the conclusion to be valid I would need to employ actual "prohibited persons" for the experiment so I could conclude how easy it is for such a person to make a deal and gain possession
I personally do not subscribe to any set of laws or processes that can keep any 0~100% reliability of preventing bad actors from possessing fire arms....there is no practical way to control it
I am always curious about the density of Firearms in possession relative to the general 350 Million+ population
My personal sphere of friends and acquaintances seem to have an average weapons count over 10 hand guns and rifles-with very few having zero
Hell I have some ultra liberal family members who have fire arms
Aguila Blanca
Staff
Filling out a 4473 doesn't prove anything. Anyone can lie on a 4473.fredvon4 said:
The Texas church shooter filled out 4473s and underwent background checks on at least two of his firearms. The "system" didn't stop him, because the "system" didn't work. Did he lie when he checked the box that said he had not been convicted of a felony? Maybe -- or maybe because it was a military court martial he didn't think it qualified as a felony. We can't ask him, so we'll never know.
And it doesn't matter. What matters is that blind reliance on a piece of paper is not foolproof.
"...blind reliance..."
(be it paper, electronic, or anything else)
Is the easiest way to get lied to.
Haven't we all been given enough examples of that in this life?
The only way to know when your being lied to is to know the truth going in. It does not matter what the subject is. Firearms or anything else.
(be it paper, electronic, or anything else)
Is the easiest way to get lied to.
Haven't we all been given enough examples of that in this life?
The only way to know when your being lied to is to know the truth going in. It does not matter what the subject is. Firearms or anything else.
And your guys would spend a bunch of bucks, and get a bunch of guns, without getting the sellers to break any laws. If the task is to catch people selling guns in violation of the law, that's not the way to go about it.
Take a look at what the law actually says, and remember it was written in a slightly less paranoid era than the present. The law does not require the seller to see proof the buyer is not a prohibited person. Indeed such proof cannot exist, only the opposite.
So long as the seller does not "know or reasonably believe", they are selling to a prohibited person, they aren't breaking the law. The lying buyer is, but the seller is not, as absent proof or a reasonable suspicion, the assumption is the buyer is not a prohibited person.
That's why agents had to drop hints /or outright tell the sellers they were prohibited, otherwise there would be no crime to charge the seller with, had the sale gone through.
5 or 6 years ago a local guy was selling firearms at shows and out of his house. I don't know what turned the BATF onto him but an agent and a prohibited person went to his house. While the prohibited person was buying a pistol the agent asked the seller if he realized the buyer was a prohibited person? The seller told the agent more or less, "I don't care who he is as long as he has the money."
A day or so later the seller was arrested, firearms and accessories seized, bank accounts seized, etc, etc, etc. He's still in prison as far as I know. The BATF also arrested his son and exwife and held the son at least for a week or so before releasing him. The son may have lived with him but the exwife hadn't for several years.
They also interrogated one of his friends who had set up with him at some of the shows. They scared that guy so bad he turned over all his firearms, reloading equipment, etc to the BATF.
A day or so later the seller was arrested, firearms and accessories seized, bank accounts seized, etc, etc, etc. He's still in prison as far as I know. The BATF also arrested his son and exwife and held the son at least for a week or so before releasing him. The son may have lived with him but the exwife hadn't for several years.
They also interrogated one of his friends who had set up with him at some of the shows. They scared that guy so bad he turned over all his firearms, reloading equipment, etc to the BATF.
Mag1911 that seller is obviously an idiot or just plain stupid
I have never knowingly sold to a prohibited person but did have a few buyers who did not give me a solid warm fuzzy so I just stopped selling to complete strangers.... also never sold across state lines, all sales semi local...sometimes I have met the buyer at a mutual location that I picked and always took a Armed friend to prevent me from begin robbed
I was selling a motorcycle some years ago...guy came, kicked tires, asked for test ride...OK then he was gone... bugger just simply drove away with my bike...police never recovered it...Insurance did pay
Had a dear buddy who had a guy over to look at a rifle he was selling...guy handles the arm, opens bolt, slips in a 30-06 cartridge and stole all of his stuff at gun point
Government or other institutions doing studies or stings or Fast n Furious non-sense are basically wasting our time and tax dollars for no real rational conclusions
I sure wish they would put more effort into voter fraud
I have never knowingly sold to a prohibited person but did have a few buyers who did not give me a solid warm fuzzy so I just stopped selling to complete strangers.... also never sold across state lines, all sales semi local...sometimes I have met the buyer at a mutual location that I picked and always took a Armed friend to prevent me from begin robbed
I was selling a motorcycle some years ago...guy came, kicked tires, asked for test ride...OK then he was gone... bugger just simply drove away with my bike...police never recovered it...Insurance did pay
Had a dear buddy who had a guy over to look at a rifle he was selling...guy handles the arm, opens bolt, slips in a 30-06 cartridge and stole all of his stuff at gun point
Government or other institutions doing studies or stings or Fast n Furious non-sense are basically wasting our time and tax dollars for no real rational conclusions
I sure wish they would put more effort into voter fraud
My other thread was closed but I can not find answers to my questions there so here are the questions I was asking.
1. If the sellers mentioned in the report had accepted money and sent the firearm to the FFL and the buyer was subsequently unable to pass a background check what liability does the seller have if any for selling to a prohibited person? Does knowing the person is not allowed to own a firearm or has concerns about the legality of owning a firearm change anything?
2. In the situation above if the seller had already received payment for the firearm what is the legal expectation in terms of the received funds and what legal responsibility does the FFL have to return the firearm to the original seller?
3. Again in the situation above does the buyer who failed the back ground check have any legal responsibility to ensure the FFL returns the firearm to the original seller?
1. If the sellers mentioned in the report had accepted money and sent the firearm to the FFL and the buyer was subsequently unable to pass a background check what liability does the seller have if any for selling to a prohibited person? Does knowing the person is not allowed to own a firearm or has concerns about the legality of owning a firearm change anything?
2. In the situation above if the seller had already received payment for the firearm what is the legal expectation in terms of the received funds and what legal responsibility does the FFL have to return the firearm to the original seller?
3. Again in the situation above does the buyer who failed the back ground check have any legal responsibility to ensure the FFL returns the firearm to the original seller?
Excellent questions.
To #1, I can speculate that if the seller insists that they ship to an FFL, knowing that the FFL will conduct a NICS check or otherwise screen for prohibited person status, they will not be in trouble for making the sell. Even if "hints" were dropped during the conversation leading up to the sale. Now if the buyer straight up said "I can't have a gun, I'm a felon," and the seller does it anyway? I don't know. I don't think anyone could really answer that question for certain but the prosecutor who would have to prosecute it.
For question 2: if the seller vocalizes in some way (preferably with documentation) that "all sales are final" I suspect the buyer would be out his money. Not 100% on this.
For question 3: I doubt it. Especially if he's already paid and "all sales are final."
For all questions, they would depend on specific circumstances and best answered by an attorney with all the details. I provided my layman perspective so my advice is worth what you paid for it. I tried to preface my responses with "I speculate, I suspect, I doubt." I am not speaking with authority.