The Guardian: One in five Americans buy a gun without a background check
- Thread starter Nathan
- Start date
- Status
dogtown tom
New member
No one really knows how many firearms are sold or traded between nonlicensees. Not ATF, not the FBI.....no one.
Firearm transactions between residents of the same state DO NOT require transfer through an FFL nor do they require a background check per Federal law. (Some states do require a background check, registration or transfer only through an FFL)
Firearm transactions between residents of the same state DO NOT require transfer through an FFL nor do they require a background check per Federal law. (Some states do require a background check, registration or transfer only through an FFL)
carguychris
New member
It's impossible to say without examining exactly how the online survey was conducted and how the questions were phrased.Nathan said:
It's possible that the researchers (and possibly the article writer) are conflating true online sales with face-to-face transactions that were merely facilitated by social media.
I don't think its true but another way to look at this is who cares? Even if it was true the people the buy and sell privately are already legal to own/possess guns...
a couple years ago the University of Chicago did a study that showed that the vast majority of criminals get their guns from the black market. Not only that, they purposely avoided private sales as a means to acquire guns because their was too much risk of a sting. Stolen guns are cheaper too...
otherwise 1 in 5 is a lot of armed bad guys and our crime rate would reflect that. I think the article is just a bunch of anti-gun bias
a couple years ago the University of Chicago did a study that showed that the vast majority of criminals get their guns from the black market. Not only that, they purposely avoided private sales as a means to acquire guns because their was too much risk of a sting. Stolen guns are cheaper too...
otherwise 1 in 5 is a lot of armed bad guys and our crime rate would reflect that. I think the article is just a bunch of anti-gun bias
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
I'd just note that The Guardian acknowledges that article was written with assistance from Bloomberg's anti-gun website, "The Trace." I'd also note it commits the usual sin of discussing the overall number of NICS denials without ever discussing the complete lack of prosecutions for the same - which is kind of relevant if your "gun violence" efforts are directed at criminals.
shootbrownelk
New member
Bought online without a background check? Bullcookies.
More smoke and mirrors than a magic show. Typical liberal lies and misdirection to try and make a lie the truth.
If you buy a gun Online there is a form unless it is from an individual and you drive to met in the same state.
Besides there should be no forms or registrations to buy something that is legal to own or use. And yes I think that includes cars as well. Taxed once should b enough.
If you buy a gun Online there is a form unless it is from an individual and you drive to met in the same state.
Besides there should be no forms or registrations to buy something that is legal to own or use. And yes I think that includes cars as well. Taxed once should b enough.
turkeestalker
New member
I did purchase one bolt action rifle this year that I found through a state oriented online firearms buy sell and trade site.
Contacted the seller and we made arrangements to meet in order for me to inspect the rifle.
We met, negotiated the price and then parted company, me with his rifle and him with my money.
That in my mind does not constitute an online purchase without a background check, but I'd bet to the writers of this article it does.
I'll go with two other members responses...
Contacted the seller and we made arrangements to meet in order for me to inspect the rifle.
We met, negotiated the price and then parted company, me with his rifle and him with my money.
That in my mind does not constitute an online purchase without a background check, but I'd bet to the writers of this article it does.
I'll go with two other members responses...
and...
...as both seem appropriate.
dogtown tom
New member
Wrong. INTERSTATE firearm purchases must transfer through an FFL.
For example a guy in El Paso can sell a rifle to a buyer in Dallas and mail it directly to him. No FFL involvement required under Federal law.
Again, "online" really has nothing to do with Federal law. INTERSTATE shipments of a firearm must be received by a licensed dealer. Federal law doesn't restrict INTRASTATE sales between nonlicensees who reside in the same state, not otherwise prohibited by law. Such transactions do not require a Federal background check.
Strange (and probably horrifying to some) as it may seem, I remember a time when FIVE OF FIVE AMERICANS BOUGHT A GUN WITHOUT A BACKGROUND CHECK!
And, to be honest, I don't see us as being any better off today. Worse, if anything...
I think it more than just possible, I think it's quite likely. Remember these are the same kind of people who consider everyone who physically has a gun in their hands to be a "gun owner" and everyone who steps off the concrete with a gun to be a "hunter".
Meet someone online, and LATER do a face to face sale, they WILL count that as an internet sale. Just the same as if you meet someone at a gun show, and then, LATER buy/sell them something at a different location, they will count it as a sale "taking advantage of the gun show loophole". (or whatever buzz words they are using at the time)
Since 1968 we have been sold a bill of goods about prohibited persons, mail order sales, and many, many other things. (yes, I know the origins go back much further, but 68 was the first Federal law that affected virtually everyone in the country)
Today we have the idea that a background check is NEEDED for our SAFETY. EACH AND EVERY TIME a gun is transferred.
And the general public as eaten it up, with relish. Since it is still not universal in the US, we keep getting articles like the one in the OP, doing its best to convince us that we are at risk WITHOUT background checks being done on 100% of all gun transfers.
Its not true, and never will be, no matter how many times, or how many different ways they repeat it.
turkeestalker
New member
I'm not certain about laws regarding shipping from an FFL to an individual, but would think that if the firearm were already registered to the individual, say when a licensed service provider ships one back that was in for service, then all that would be required would be a signature upon receipt. If the firearm were not previously registered to the individual, then it would have to go through an FFL and the NCIS call made.
I say this because when Ruger replaced the revolver that I purchased for my youngest son, they shipped to my FFL transfer guy and destroyed the original revolver according to them. When Charter returned a revolver to me that they had done some warranty work on, they shipped it directly to me.
Here in Missouri, an unlicensed individual can ship any long gun, rifle or shotgun, to another unlicensed individual within the state using the USPS registered mail. Handguns can not be shipped via USPS by an unlicensed individual but may be shipped using what they call a contract or common carrier to another individual within the state. The carrier must be made aware of the contents and may not mark the package in a way that would indicate it's contents, and a signature is required upon receipt.
.... of course I wouldn't take my word for anything!!!
I say this because when Ruger replaced the revolver that I purchased for my youngest son, they shipped to my FFL transfer guy and destroyed the original revolver according to them. When Charter returned a revolver to me that they had done some warranty work on, they shipped it directly to me.
Here in Missouri, an unlicensed individual can ship any long gun, rifle or shotgun, to another unlicensed individual within the state using the USPS registered mail. Handguns can not be shipped via USPS by an unlicensed individual but may be shipped using what they call a contract or common carrier to another individual within the state. The carrier must be made aware of the contents and may not mark the package in a way that would indicate it's contents, and a signature is required upon receipt.
.... of course I wouldn't take my word for anything!!!
Last edited:
themalicious0ne
New member
Can confirm, Colt sent my 1911 straight back to me after repairs and not through an ffl. I do think I may have picked it up from fed-ex though. I can't remember. Either way, not through an ffl because I owned it. Also I do not live in the same state as Colt.
carguychris
New member
Photo ID is required to conduct a NICS check. It must be presented in person to the FFL at his or her licensed premises, or at his or her temporary premises at an organized gun show.Minorcan said:
There is a process (ATF Procedure 2013-2) that allows an FFL to ship firearms to the holder of an "alternate permit" (such as a state LTC) that would exempt the recipient from a NICS check during an in-person transaction. However, due to the extra paperwork involved (read the link), most FFLs choose not to do this, as is their right as independent business-critters.
Assuming that your cousin's end of the street is in the same U.S. state as yours, broadly speaking, you can and you're wrong.Minorcan said:
Some states and localities prohibit such transactions. There are legal limitations on using the U.S. mail to ship certain types of firearms; this is explained in the "How to ship firearms" sticky. However, if local laws permit it and a lawful shipment method is used, federal law allows such a transfer.
There is a narrow and specific exception in federal law that allows a firearm sent to a FFL for repair or customizing to be returned to the person from whom it was received without executing a Form 4473. No 4473 = no NICS check.themalicious0ne said:
Last edited:
carguychris
New member
Back on the original topic...
Read the article carefully. 1,613 adult gun owners were chosen using an unspecified method. Only those who reported purchasing a firearm without a BG check within the last 2 years were included in the no-BGC figure; 22% of 1,613 overall respondents is 355 "qualifying" buyers, so the actual number of such buyers must have been less than this. Of this less-than-355 people, a certain smaller number reported making an "online" purchase, whatever that means, without a background check.
This could potentially be a VERY small number of people when one considers that many laymen (as opposed to online gun forum regulars like me) don't even realize that online gun buying is really a thing, or if they do, they don't understand how to do it. Furthermore, given the small number of "qualifying" respondents, it's likely that they don't represent an accurate cross section of the U.S. population in general (a frequent criticism of the infamous "40%" study).
Consider a research study claiming that 90% of motorists drive too fast most or all of the time. On further examination, it turns out that the researchers recruited the respondents from online car forums. Oh wait, actually it was Mustang, Corvette, Mazda, BMW, and VW forums only. Oh yeah, they also didn't really define "drive too fast" clearly or check if the claims were verifiable. Do you think the 90% claim has any validity?
Perhaps, but this gets back to my assertion that the methodology of the researchers needs to be scrutinized.kozak6 said:
Read the article carefully. 1,613 adult gun owners were chosen using an unspecified method. Only those who reported purchasing a firearm without a BG check within the last 2 years were included in the no-BGC figure; 22% of 1,613 overall respondents is 355 "qualifying" buyers, so the actual number of such buyers must have been less than this. Of this less-than-355 people, a certain smaller number reported making an "online" purchase, whatever that means, without a background check.
This could potentially be a VERY small number of people when one considers that many laymen (as opposed to online gun forum regulars like me) don't even realize that online gun buying is really a thing, or if they do, they don't understand how to do it. Furthermore, given the small number of "qualifying" respondents, it's likely that they don't represent an accurate cross section of the U.S. population in general (a frequent criticism of the infamous "40%" study).
Consider a research study claiming that 90% of motorists drive too fast most or all of the time. On further examination, it turns out that the researchers recruited the respondents from online car forums. Oh wait, actually it was Mustang, Corvette, Mazda, BMW, and VW forums only. Oh yeah, they also didn't really define "drive too fast" clearly or check if the claims were verifiable. Do you think the 90% claim has any validity?
- Status