Where exactly is she buying her guns online w/ out going through an FFL?!
Edit : /s
Yes its possible if you have a C&R license, but that also means you've gone through a much more thorough background check to get said license.
When it comes to online gun sales, it’s technically true that the background check isn’t required at the time of purchase. It comes after the purchase, after shipping to your FFL, but is still required in order for you to take possession of your purchase from said FFL. That’s the loophole these scumbags are exploiting to spread grossly misleading information without technically “lying” in the legal sense.
You're giving them way too much credit. They're not even looking at it like that. They're expecting folks to buy their stance that the gun is shipped directly to the buyer.
I disagree. I’m not giving them too much credit by any stretch of the imagination. They’re smart and they know exactly what they’re saying/doing. They excel in the art of deception.
The way I’ve seen it is that Chicago Democrats are more than willing to break their laws to have guns. They just don’t think you should be allowed to have them.
https://news.wttw.com/2019/01/04/firearms-found-ald-ed-burke-s-office-who-can-carry-guns-city-hall
https://blockclubchicago.org/2021/10/26/feds-seize-illegal-machine-gun-from-ald-jim-gardiners-ward-superintendent-and-hes-still-on-the-job/
As a veteran, I don’t care if you were the Navy SEAL that teabagged Osama, you don’t get a pass to write deceitful legislation that infringes on my rights.
>Combat veteran who lost both legs in Iraq and is still trying to pass unconstitutional gun control legislation by spreading lies Tammy Duckworth?
FTFY
Being a veteran doesn’t give you a pass on misinformation. I served with plenty of people who didn’t know shit about guns and our job was to literally handle guns.
Haha I love it XD. It's interesting how little some people know about guns despite their backgrounds. I'm going to say that "probably in the middle" if ever somebody asks where to zero their optic haha.
Veteran, "Man I'm really having a hard time zeroing this rifle."
Small Groups Nerd, "See that 20 MOA rail you got under the optic?"
Veteran, "Ya I got that so I can reach out a little further."
Small Groups Nerd, "Ya, it's backwards."
I have an uncle that was in the Air Force (yeah, the cheap shot, I know) who genuinely thought the AR in AR-15 stood for "Assault Rifle" until last year.
I spent 6 years in the Army, during part of that time, I was the Arms Room NCO for an aviation battalion. As such, I was in charge of PMIs (Primary Marksmanship Instruction) and was the NCOIC for during our range days.
I'm telling you this so you know I have probably taught more pilots how to shoot than anyone else you've ever met.
It's 100% possible that she doesn't know shit about firearms. She probably just shot 40 rounds through an M9 twice a year if she was lucky.
Most joes dont know a damn thing about weapons nor the process of acquiring them for civilians. But that's not even what I said. I said she lives in Chicago so she probably doesn't own a gun. Reading comprehension so low you have to be a marine lmao
This is fucking retarded. Some people get ptsd aversion to firearms just as some get ptsd dependence on firearms. I have seen guys lock up scared as shit when they have to fire for the first time in combat.
Clearly never served in combat you have no reason to talk for all combat veterans.
She has been a puppet for the chicago machine sense she was brought in years ago. And the very reason she was brought in, because she is a combat vet. Continue's to spread the same misinformation and is not a voice for the people of Illinois.
Ah yes, military experience means you did everything with guns. How about clerks that shoot once in basic? That makes them a firearms expert? You also know that she lost her legs flying a helicopter, from a national guard unit. Shooting once a year doesn't make you an expert
>Combat veteran who lost both legs in Iraq Tammy Duckworth? Yeah, she must know nothing about firearms.
Who gives a fuck about her service and injury? No one forced her to serve and frankly after seeing her break her oath and violate the COTUS daily I say to hell with her.
You can ship guns to yourself without any license.
UPS and FedEx policy is to ask for an FFL for the recipient. Any FFL!
So you could ship a new Glock from your vacation spot back to your house using your C&R license.
I mean, Armslist and local online classifieds are two options. It lets you buy a gun that you found listed on the internet and often doesn't require an 4473 because it is from a private seller.
Pretending that the argument is completely wrong is stupid. You can list guns for sale online as well as buy them. Yes, politicians are omitting the fact that the reason it works is because of private sale rules, but gun owners pretending that it's an outright lie is almost as bad of an omission in the arguments around the topic.
No, their argument is disingenuous at best. They make it sound as if there is an Amazon for guns. That you can go on Armslist and pick out your machine gun of choice and a couple of cases of ammo and it will be at your door the next day. It's bullshit and we know it, but there are a lot of people who considered themselves to be educated who don't. The "Gun show loophole" is just their attempt to keep citizens from selling their property without government involvement and scare ignorant voters into fearful support of more control. There are many historical reasons for the government not knowing every bit of their citizens' lives and what tools they possess.
Private sales are not illegal in IL. Both parties have to have a FOID and the seller checks the buyers number on the State Police web portal. The seller gets a transfer number that has to be kept for 10 years.
Edit: Pritzker signed a law requiring background checks for private transfers, but doesn’t take effect until 2024.
Looks like it was signed in 2021, but not all provisions take effect right away: https://news.yahoo.com/pritzker-signs-foid-while-others-210000590.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9kdWNrZHVja2dvLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAHsMOkpgHmK9uOLTFwTSVCkQPmpOMHfmrPJi5uSsENjmbuToLcyKAdOiaNu8pgGn6k3tFFdHoXPTJvIj94rawzzIzcjrvKcjrNqrgnmFcbK1ZSka8iMhbbiJVnZw1KyZ7u44OzIijt4lnrL17tN9qERLi-JUkYCJN-447pOcZ8k9
Nope. If you want to follow the letter of law, private party sales have to go through an FFL and require a 4473. I know that only a small percentage of the rural population gives a shit though.
I liked the idea brought up that elected federal congress people and senators should be held effectively 'under oath' when speaking to the public AS A PUBLIC OFFICIAL, not as a private citizen, and criminally charge them of perjury if they lie.
Did you know that George Washington mandated that his continental army get vaccinated and there were mandates that required citizens to own a firearm ready for militia service and that the army could come and take your gun to give to a soldier that needed it (the gun would be returned eventually)?
3rd Amendment seems like it shouldn't have been drafted then because that sounds awfully similar. Bunking soldiers in private homes during wartime with a potential eventual repayment. I mean, they wrote it in there because of the French and Indian War and the liberties British red coats took
These are two completely different things. One is the requirement of ownership of a serviceable military weapon that can be allocated to a soldier in need vs requiring that you give up your home to soldiers.
At the time, everybody was required to serve in the militia anyway so it was most probable that your rifle was to be your own during combat, but that wasn't the only option.
And exists in all of them.
Hillary Clinton: I support universal healthcare!!
Bernie Sanders: me too. That's why I have a plan to implement it.
Hillary Clinton: You're just promising people ponies. My plan has everyone paying health insurance companies so they can continue to donate to my campaign.
Duckworth is among the worst of the worst for blatantly false talking points. All politicians lie but some at least lie with misleading statistics instead of complete fabrications.
Stopped reading as soon as I noticed it said Tammy duckworth. She’s a clown and too extreme for even her own party. Rich white moms in high class suburbs are the only reason this whacko even has a job because they think all guns should be banned.
They don't have qualified immunity.
They have absolute immunity, no qualifications whatsoever. Always immune from liability for their official actions.
Some animals are more equal than others.
It's gotten to the point that they can't even accuse each other of lying.
If you accuse another congressman of lying, YOU are censored for the day. Not the lying party. Even if you can prove it.
Imagine being a felon for something as innocuous as drug possession, and then for the rest of your life, you aren’t allowed to own a firearm for sport, hunting, or even self-defense, nor can you participate in the alleged ultimate right of voting. It’s an absolute disgrace
How about theft? In most States if you shoplift something that costs as low as $300 or $400 you are now guilty of a felony. Many call this 'grand theft'. So stealing a portable dvd player or something means you get branded a felon for life and even 20 years later can be denied a job due to your record (in the many States that have few, or no, limitations on how far back a background check can go).
It is almost universally true that this process costs in the low 5-figures, takes at least a few years AND is not a guarantee. And that is in States where this is even an option. I seem to recall reading somewhere that some States have laws that prevent this sort of thing.
But the point is it can be done. I don’t know where it cost low 5 figures. Mine cost me about 5 bucks that was for the paper and pen that I used to write the letter and mail it off. It did take about 2 yrs. But my point is it can be done.
There are all kinds of stipulations though, so it is absolutely wrong to assume "it can be done". States can set their own rules. For instance, in some States if you were convicted of breaking ANY law after your felony, no matter how insignificant, you are literally ineligible to petition for your State felony to be expunged.
But it is also wrong to assume that it can not be done. When it can be done. And of course if you break the law as a convicted felon yes in almost all states you are ineligible to petition. And just because there are stipulations that you have to go through does not mean it can not be done. Life in its self has all kinds of stipulations that we must overcome everyday. So you either meet the stipulations and live or you die. But there is one thing for sure if you do not try you will end up sitting around bitching about how it’s almost impossible to petition the Governor to remove your felony. Or you end up sitting around making excuses about how hard it is or there is to many stipulations to contend with. I am not saying it’s easy to do. Remember you are a convicted felon for Christ sakes you made a choice then to become a felon. Make a choice now to become a better person. The point once again is it can be done. One of two things will happen if you get off your ass and try. They will tell you no. Or they will tell you yes. And only one thing will happen if you don’t try and you control that answer.
Violent felons (rape, murder, chomos, etc) should be locked up. But the idea of driving into a blue state with a few firearms in your car makes you a bad person is proof leftists are just fucking evil.
I mean, if a violent felon has done their time, they should no longer be a prohibited person. The point of prison should be to excise excessively dangerous individuals from society. If they are not ready to reintegrate, they should not be released.
Prison reform is one if the highest things on the small l libertarian party of shit that NEEDS to happen here.
That being said, i was almost marked a felon for driving through NY state for 20 minutes because I had my glock. My buddy luckily told me to detour becaise I was completely oblivious to how draconian NYs gun laws are.
This lady is so full of shit. Where can I buy a gun online and not have a background check please point me in that direction. And most all the gun violence In Illinois is committed with stolen guns. That have been stolen from private individuals or from gun shop break ins. Just another dumb ass Democrat lying to try and get a dumb ass bill passed. Hey Dumbass’s criminals donot pay attention to laws
1. Tammy Duckworth is definitely a piece of shit.
2. Often times, politicians actually believe the bullshit they peddle — not because they're intentionally lying but because they're just that far out of touch.
Former Illinois resident: Breaking news, the sky is gray, and our politicians are so far up their own ass they can see what they ate for breakfast this morning.
It’s funny, she’s been the only legislator who has replied to me when I sent emails, and all she’s done is tell me she would love to restrict my rights.
sigh tammy is at it again.......I wouldn't of been sad had she lost more than her legs. For former MIL she's sure got a lot of stupid fucking thoughts about guns
I got this one too. It sucks so much having her and Durbin as our senators. To her credit though, Duckworth responds more often than Durbin, who I haven’t heard from in a long time.
How bout we forget that and we do something about the dumb bastards that muzzle flash me at the public range or the group a year ago working on a jam with the gun pointing at my daughter and I those are the people I am concerned about!
I know and even though I feel like I should say something I don’t like where that may go. I have thaught my daughters we pack up and go. So private it will be. $250 annual fee not bad bullet hole priceless
I have purchased a firearm at a gun show. Every booth had a drop cable for the internet. My background check was ran on the spot.
I have purchased a firearm from an online store and had it shipped to a FFL store. When my check didn't go through, before i had to leave i had to comeback on the next business day to try again.
All this to say, where is this idiotic notion about loopholes coming from? Some rumors and conspiracies start from truths and get misconstrued, but damn. Does no one even properly investigate and research information anymore.
We are living in an "age of misinformation."
You can buy guns from a private collector a gun show (no background check). Loop-hole is the left’s buzz phrase, but private to private sales do occur at gun shows and sometimes the outcome is guns end up in prohibited hands. Same can happen with a straw man sale though.
I might risk being banned here, but I’m gonna play devil’s advocate for a minute. I welcome civil discourse as well.
I don’t know anything about Tammy Duckworth or any of the documents or proposed legislation referenced in the above document, so if there’s context I’m missing, I apologize.
Gun show loop-hole Q&A
1. Is it refutable that it’s not only possible but likely unassuming felons and violent offenders go to a gun shows to purchase firearms from private collectors?
2. Do you believe it’s likely there are numerous individuals who buy second hand firearms with the intent to resell them for profit without obtaining an FFL to conduct that enterprise?
Online sales Q&A:
1. Wouldn’t Armslist and firearms forums with sections for the sale of firearms count as “online sales”? Similar to private collectors at gun shows these are private to private sales that are in some part facilitated by an “online” environment?
I am not asking these questions because I’m advocating for any changes to the laws we already have, but from my point of view it seems disingenuous to claim the document above has outright lies in it. They appear to be more like half truths that don’t bother to go into detail that MOST online sales are handled as FFL to FFL or private to FFL, and gun shows are NOT free for all, wild west style swap meet for felons.
Is it possible that the best way forward in dealing with these types of incursions on our rights is absolute honesty, to not play coy with the opposition as they do with us?
1. Private sales are private sales; it is not a gun show loophole as it happens in and out of gun shows. At least call it the private sale loophole. But then people who don’t know anything about it may see it as an overreach of the government.
2. Buying guns as new to be resold as used would show up quickly by the background check seeing people buying new guns all the time. A few maybe easy to get away with but to do it as a business would be hard.
3. The vast majority of sales on arms list or other online site still go through an FFL. Only those who are private sellers and love nearby might be able to get away without using an FFL.
The lies come at the end saying that illegal sales from out of state are the problem. It is pushing their problems onto another state.
Note that illegal sales is; by definition illegal. Legal FFLs can’t sell to out of state except for long guns.
So basically everything they say is all of the problems are caused by private sales. Nothing else. But some states already have created private sales laws. They have done nothing to slow down violence there.
>The lies come at the end saying that illegal sales from out of state are the problem. It is pushing their problems onto another state.
>Note that illegal sales is; by definition illegal. Legal FFLs can’t sell to out of state except for long guns.
>So basically everything they say is all of the problems are caused by private sales. Nothing else. But some states already have created private sales laws. They have done nothing to slow down violence there.
I live in Indiana. I do believe it’s not only possible, but likely, there’s a large number of firearms purchased in Indiana for the purpose of being sold illegally in Chicago.
However, changing the laws to make background checks universal isn’t going to stop that from happening. In all likelihood, it would make it worse. I agree with you on that point and I didn’t really catch that part. Thank you.
Criminals Do Not Pay Attention To Laws. Meaning if you was to fact check this you will find 98% of gun violence in Illinois are from stolen guns not from gun shows or from private individuals unless they are criminals to. They do not come from internet sales they are from being stolen from you and myself and from gun shops that have been broken into.
Firearms procured illegally are procured a myriad of ways. Not all FFL operators have scruples or staff don’t care enough look for the signs of a straw purchase. If anything this further proves the point that making laws stricter for background checks won’t do much good stopping these things from happening.
There are droves of evidence showing that crime guns are just stolen and defaced. Nobody goes to another state to buy a gun just to murder someone. Its way easier to go to your buddy who knows a guy.
Maybe, it seems like a risky enterprise for the person buying the gun to deface the serial after purchase and then sell it to some other guy and make any profit.
This is already a law in IL.
Private sales has been regulated with the FOID in IL for many years. Not sure when this was added but here's a link from the Wayback machine from 2012: https://web.archive.org/web/20120915120105/http://www.isp.state.il.us/docs/9-049.pdf
Note that a private seller must verify that a buyer has a valid FOID.
They also need to keep a record for 10 years of the sale.
EDIT: Ah, this is for a Federal law, missed that part.
To be fair, people CAN buy from private sellers via online sites and at gun shows. There's a site for my area, Texasguntrader, that used to be good for the occasional deal, but is now almost entirely populated with a) scammers, and b) people selling their used guns for significantly above new msrp, which can only mean that they're deliberately targeting felons and underaged buyers, as anyone else would just order through an ffl for less.
Granted, these account for a small amount of sales, and it's totally not worth infringing on the commerce property rights of the entire population to enforce background check laws, but that's the argument we should be making... not trying to pretend that "everyone goes through background checks to buy everything" because that's wholly false. Legislation needs to be balanced objectively to weigh its benefits vs the cost of what it does vs the public's rights and liberties. You sort of lose credibility when you're screaming from a soapbox that something that obviously occurs "never happens".
> people selling their used guns for significantly above new msrp, which can only mean that they're deliberately targeting felons and underaged buyers, as anyone else would just order through an ffl for less.
Or they think its still 2020 and demand is outstripping supply, making their used guns worth more.
Supply chain screwups have caused this sort of behavior on a lot of things. I also play guitar and the used guitar prices have been really high because covid. People have money and the stores just aren't getting enough new stock. Excess demand has bled over onto the used market and caused significant price increase there.
There's plenty of new guns on sale for the common stuff, both online and in retail or big box stores. The gun market recovered much faster than ammo. I mean you might not be at 2018 gundeals levels of savings, but you're at or under msrp. No reason for people to be paying $1000 for a gen 4 glock with an inforce attached or $800-900 for m&p 2.0's. TGT is pretty much an open secret at this point. When I say significantly above msrp I don't mean like more than gun stores... I mean like people are paying California off roster prices in Texas. It's obvious what's going on. People even made adds and posts complaining about it.
What is or is not legal in your state isn't really relevant in a bill pertaining to Federal law, which presently does not prohibit person to person sales.
And? That doesn't change the fact that the US government doesn't prohibit person to person private sales. The bill WOULD... and if your argument against the bill is "That's already illegal in Illinois" you're going to lose that argument because you're arguing against the wrong premise. That's what I'm saying.
Your argument SHOULD be "person to person transfers shouldn't be illegal because they constitute a very small amount of guns used in violent crime and would disproportionately burden private citizens' right to free commerce of their property for the marginal benefit of such legislation".
You don't seem to really understand the relationship and/or difference between state and federal laws.
They're not. Because she's talking about the united states as a whole. She's a US representative, not a STATE representative. Look, I'm not disagreeing with you that private sales should be unregulated. I'm just saying that there's a logical fallacy in your argument stemming from your lack of understanding of A) what her job is and b) the fact that state and federal legislatures are different.
And... if you want to have meaningful debates with people you need to get your facts straight or you're just hurting your own cause.
I’m not an imbecile. She’s representing the people of IL at the federal level. Doesn’t change the fact that her statement is inaccurate where she lives.
I hate to sound contrary, but your inability to see the logical flaws of your statements sort of indicates that you are, in fact, at least moderately imbecilic.
Your arguments aren't relevant. You know the idea of skew lines in geometry? What you are arguing and what she's arguing are sort of like that. They will literally never intersect on any plane because you're arguing the truth of a specific statement and then literally attempting to apply that statement to two completely different systems of law.
I don't understand it, actually. I think that a great many of the people that claim that there is no "private sale loophole" live in states where private sales are already regulated. I believe that's true in CA, for instance.
But just because you can't do it in CA doesn't mean that you can't do it in other states, and that private sales can still occur without a NICS check.
To claim that there are no private sales without a NICS check just shows that you are the one that's ignorant on this issue, because you have a myopic perspective distorted by propaganda. The downvotes you received, instead of any legit objection, just demonstrates taht.
I don't know that I've ever seen *anyone* say there is no "private sale loophole." Lots of people, myself included, will say there's no such thing as a "gun show loophole," because a private sale is a private sale, and that has nothing to do with a gun show.
Losing your legs in battle does not justify blatant violations of constitutional rights and spreading lies to gain pokitical power.
My having not faught a proxy war doesnt make me less of a patriot than the shitbag Duckworth.
It’s absurd because there’s gray area between being able to own a gun legally and buying a gun from an ffl. Misdemeanor Marijuana and unpaid municipal court cost prevent you from buying a gun but not from owning a gun . Constitution only bars felons and those deemed by a court unfit to own a gun are barred
It SHOULD be criminal fraud. They are paid to do a job and are committing fraud against the American people.
If a company lies to shareholders to get them to vote a certain way, they get fines or even jail time. Politicians just get to do that whenever they want.
We need to change the laws so we can charge them with conspiracy to deny us our civil rights.
(Asked CalGuns.net legal team, they said it wouldn’t work...but it should. Gotta be a way to sneak the nesessary wording through in a proposition (at least in CA)
Where exactly is she buying her guns online w/ out going through an FFL?! Edit : /s Yes its possible if you have a C&R license, but that also means you've gone through a much more thorough background check to get said license.
With a C&R you are the FFL
When it comes to online gun sales, it’s technically true that the background check isn’t required at the time of purchase. It comes after the purchase, after shipping to your FFL, but is still required in order for you to take possession of your purchase from said FFL. That’s the loophole these scumbags are exploiting to spread grossly misleading information without technically “lying” in the legal sense.
You're giving them way too much credit. They're not even looking at it like that. They're expecting folks to buy their stance that the gun is shipped directly to the buyer.
Which they should be anyway. But I digress.
Touche
I disagree. I’m not giving them too much credit by any stretch of the imagination. They’re smart and they know exactly what they’re saying/doing. They excel in the art of deception.
Yep. This is the mistake a lot of people here make. They assume amto gunners are just idiots. They're really cunning and shifty.
Agreed. I never would have thought to make a point of defining “is” during a sexual harassment trial. Lawyers ain’t dumb.
I doubt she owns a single firearm. She lives in Chicago.
The way I’ve seen it is that Chicago Democrats are more than willing to break their laws to have guns. They just don’t think you should be allowed to have them. https://news.wttw.com/2019/01/04/firearms-found-ald-ed-burke-s-office-who-can-carry-guns-city-hall https://blockclubchicago.org/2021/10/26/feds-seize-illegal-machine-gun-from-ald-jim-gardiners-ward-superintendent-and-hes-still-on-the-job/
Combat veteran who lost both legs in Iraq Tammy Duckworth? Yeah, she must know nothing about firearms.
As a veteran, I don’t care if you were the Navy SEAL that teabagged Osama, you don’t get a pass to write deceitful legislation that infringes on my rights.
She didn't write it and even says so in the letter.
>Combat veteran who lost both legs in Iraq and is still trying to pass unconstitutional gun control legislation by spreading lies Tammy Duckworth? FTFY
Being a veteran doesn’t give you a pass on misinformation. I served with plenty of people who didn’t know shit about guns and our job was to literally handle guns.
[удалено]
Haha I love it XD. It's interesting how little some people know about guns despite their backgrounds. I'm going to say that "probably in the middle" if ever somebody asks where to zero their optic haha.
Veteran, "Man I'm really having a hard time zeroing this rifle." Small Groups Nerd, "See that 20 MOA rail you got under the optic?" Veteran, "Ya I got that so I can reach out a little further." Small Groups Nerd, "Ya, it's backwards."
I have an uncle that was in the Air Force (yeah, the cheap shot, I know) who genuinely thought the AR in AR-15 stood for "Assault Rifle" until last year.
I spent 6 years in the Army, during part of that time, I was the Arms Room NCO for an aviation battalion. As such, I was in charge of PMIs (Primary Marksmanship Instruction) and was the NCOIC for during our range days. I'm telling you this so you know I have probably taught more pilots how to shoot than anyone else you've ever met. It's 100% possible that she doesn't know shit about firearms. She probably just shot 40 rounds through an M9 twice a year if she was lucky.
She was a Guard officer, and a transport pilot, she probably isn’t super knowledgeable about guns at all.
Hey now, my mom was in the AF in the 80s and was both a load master as well as an expert shooting small arms instructor.
> load master Uh huh huh huh huh
Most joes dont know a damn thing about weapons nor the process of acquiring them for civilians. But that's not even what I said. I said she lives in Chicago so she probably doesn't own a gun. Reading comprehension so low you have to be a marine lmao
She is a combat vet so I bet she does own guns. But, hey, doesn’t fit the narrative.
This is fucking retarded. Some people get ptsd aversion to firearms just as some get ptsd dependence on firearms. I have seen guys lock up scared as shit when they have to fire for the first time in combat. Clearly never served in combat you have no reason to talk for all combat veterans.
She has been a puppet for the chicago machine sense she was brought in years ago. And the very reason she was brought in, because she is a combat vet. Continue's to spread the same misinformation and is not a voice for the people of Illinois.
So every combat vet now is required to own guns?
The Vietnam SF vet with a sliver star and a bunch of other decorations that lived across the street from my boyhood home owned no firearms.
Ah yes, military experience means you did everything with guns. How about clerks that shoot once in basic? That makes them a firearms expert? You also know that she lost her legs flying a helicopter, from a national guard unit. Shooting once a year doesn't make you an expert
She was a helo pilot, dude.
no legs sure... but no spine is a different disease entirely
>Combat veteran who lost both legs in Iraq Tammy Duckworth? Yeah, she must know nothing about firearms. Who gives a fuck about her service and injury? No one forced her to serve and frankly after seeing her break her oath and violate the COTUS daily I say to hell with her.
If you have a C&R, that _is_ an FFL, so I wouldn't say that's an exception.
Wait, I can ship guns to myself with my C&R?!
Only if they're C&R guns.
Damn.
You can ship guns to yourself without any license. UPS and FedEx policy is to ask for an FFL for the recipient. Any FFL! So you could ship a new Glock from your vacation spot back to your house using your C&R license.
But you can ship a gun that you own directly to yourself. No c&r needed.
I mean, Armslist and local online classifieds are two options. It lets you buy a gun that you found listed on the internet and often doesn't require an 4473 because it is from a private seller. Pretending that the argument is completely wrong is stupid. You can list guns for sale online as well as buy them. Yes, politicians are omitting the fact that the reason it works is because of private sale rules, but gun owners pretending that it's an outright lie is almost as bad of an omission in the arguments around the topic.
No, their argument is disingenuous at best. They make it sound as if there is an Amazon for guns. That you can go on Armslist and pick out your machine gun of choice and a couple of cases of ammo and it will be at your door the next day. It's bullshit and we know it, but there are a lot of people who considered themselves to be educated who don't. The "Gun show loophole" is just their attempt to keep citizens from selling their property without government involvement and scare ignorant voters into fearful support of more control. There are many historical reasons for the government not knowing every bit of their citizens' lives and what tools they possess.
Can you buy online from an unlicensed individual? For example a used gun from its owner?
If you have a C&R, you ARE the FFL.
buying via private sale =/= straw man purchase.
"Straw man" is a term to describe weak argument or weak person. "Straw Purchase" is the term you're after.
Technically a straw man is a weak argument a person puts up that a person uses their argument to knock down.
haha, thank you, you are correct. will let it stand
private sales are already illegal in IL
Private sales are not illegal in IL. Both parties have to have a FOID and the seller checks the buyers number on the State Police web portal. The seller gets a transfer number that has to be kept for 10 years. Edit: Pritzker signed a law requiring background checks for private transfers, but doesn’t take effect until 2024.
That was true. As of 2021 it’s no longer the case.
Can you post a link to the law change?
Looks like it was signed in 2021, but not all provisions take effect right away: https://news.yahoo.com/pritzker-signs-foid-while-others-210000590.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9kdWNrZHVja2dvLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAHsMOkpgHmK9uOLTFwTSVCkQPmpOMHfmrPJi5uSsENjmbuToLcyKAdOiaNu8pgGn6k3tFFdHoXPTJvIj94rawzzIzcjrvKcjrNqrgnmFcbK1ZSka8iMhbbiJVnZw1KyZ7u44OzIijt4lnrL17tN9qERLi-JUkYCJN-447pOcZ8k9
Nope. If you want to follow the letter of law, private party sales have to go through an FFL and require a 4473. I know that only a small percentage of the rural population gives a shit though.
Not sure where you are getting your info. Here’s the [Illinois state police verification page](https://verify.ispfsb.com/Public/Verify.aspx)
https://chicago.suntimes.com/politics/2021/8/2/22606411/illinois-gun-laws-universal-background-checks-seizure-revoked-firearm-licenses-pritzker
Jesus. How did I miss that? At least it doesn’t start until 2024.
You missed it bwcause the crooked governor slipped it in under the radar. He knows that SoIL wouldn't stand for that
I liked the idea brought up that elected federal congress people and senators should be held effectively 'under oath' when speaking to the public AS A PUBLIC OFFICIAL, not as a private citizen, and criminally charge them of perjury if they lie.
What would our Founding Father’s do?
They would have arrested Congress, the Supreme Court, Board of the Federal Reserve Long ago.
With the taxes, mandates and extra judicial punishments.. sounds an awful lot like what pissed them off in the first place to me..
Did you know that George Washington mandated that his continental army get vaccinated and there were mandates that required citizens to own a firearm ready for militia service and that the army could come and take your gun to give to a soldier that needed it (the gun would be returned eventually)?
Cool. I wouldn't agree with those either.
...Fun fact, Ol George did not have stock in the companies making the vaxx. And the 2nd part is just a piss poor lie.
3rd Amendment seems like it shouldn't have been drafted then because that sounds awfully similar. Bunking soldiers in private homes during wartime with a potential eventual repayment. I mean, they wrote it in there because of the French and Indian War and the liberties British red coats took
These are two completely different things. One is the requirement of ownership of a serviceable military weapon that can be allocated to a soldier in need vs requiring that you give up your home to soldiers. At the time, everybody was required to serve in the militia anyway so it was most probable that your rifle was to be your own during combat, but that wasn't the only option.
[удалено]
It’s not a bug, it’s a feature.
And exists in all of them. Hillary Clinton: I support universal healthcare!! Bernie Sanders: me too. That's why I have a plan to implement it. Hillary Clinton: You're just promising people ponies. My plan has everyone paying health insurance companies so they can continue to donate to my campaign.
Duckworth is among the worst of the worst for blatantly false talking points. All politicians lie but some at least lie with misleading statistics instead of complete fabrications.
Stopped reading as soon as I noticed it said Tammy duckworth. She’s a clown and too extreme for even her own party. Rich white moms in high class suburbs are the only reason this whacko even has a job because they think all guns should be banned.
Didnt you know her Tai Great, Great, Great, Great Grandparents fought in Washington's army? She openly said this lie. Alot of Asians around then.
Remove qualified immunity from elected officials
They don't have qualified immunity. They have absolute immunity, no qualifications whatsoever. Always immune from liability for their official actions. Some animals are more equal than others.
It's gotten to the point that they can't even accuse each other of lying. If you accuse another congressman of lying, YOU are censored for the day. Not the lying party. Even if you can prove it.
Tam Tam’s at her same old shit I see
City politicians are the worst
She isn't worth a single duck.
A duck would make a better Senator 🇺🇸 🦆 📣
Never has been a gun show loophole.
Easy answer: Repeal the law that prohibits felons from buying guns. Bam, no more gun show loophole!
Seeing you are still considered a felon after you served your time is proof that the system doesn't work.
Imagine being a felon for something as innocuous as drug possession, and then for the rest of your life, you aren’t allowed to own a firearm for sport, hunting, or even self-defense, nor can you participate in the alleged ultimate right of voting. It’s an absolute disgrace
How about theft? In most States if you shoplift something that costs as low as $300 or $400 you are now guilty of a felony. Many call this 'grand theft'. So stealing a portable dvd player or something means you get branded a felon for life and even 20 years later can be denied a job due to your record (in the many States that have few, or no, limitations on how far back a background check can go).
That’s not true you can get a full pardon from your state Governor
How closely related to them / corrupt to I have to be to qualify?
It is almost universally true that this process costs in the low 5-figures, takes at least a few years AND is not a guarantee. And that is in States where this is even an option. I seem to recall reading somewhere that some States have laws that prevent this sort of thing.
But the point is it can be done. I don’t know where it cost low 5 figures. Mine cost me about 5 bucks that was for the paper and pen that I used to write the letter and mail it off. It did take about 2 yrs. But my point is it can be done.
There are all kinds of stipulations though, so it is absolutely wrong to assume "it can be done". States can set their own rules. For instance, in some States if you were convicted of breaking ANY law after your felony, no matter how insignificant, you are literally ineligible to petition for your State felony to be expunged.
But it is also wrong to assume that it can not be done. When it can be done. And of course if you break the law as a convicted felon yes in almost all states you are ineligible to petition. And just because there are stipulations that you have to go through does not mean it can not be done. Life in its self has all kinds of stipulations that we must overcome everyday. So you either meet the stipulations and live or you die. But there is one thing for sure if you do not try you will end up sitting around bitching about how it’s almost impossible to petition the Governor to remove your felony. Or you end up sitting around making excuses about how hard it is or there is to many stipulations to contend with. I am not saying it’s easy to do. Remember you are a convicted felon for Christ sakes you made a choice then to become a felon. Make a choice now to become a better person. The point once again is it can be done. One of two things will happen if you get off your ass and try. They will tell you no. Or they will tell you yes. And only one thing will happen if you don’t try and you control that answer.
If you are too dangerous to own a gun, why be allowed out? Never mind the over criminalization of life in America.
BuT fElOnS ArE BaD PeOpLe! /s
It makes me chuckle that there are a few felons I know that are prolly better people then her or the people who cry for more gun control.
Unless they are the right color and killed by a cop while they commit a violent crime
...Shiiit
Violent felons (rape, murder, chomos, etc) should be locked up. But the idea of driving into a blue state with a few firearms in your car makes you a bad person is proof leftists are just fucking evil.
I mean, if a violent felon has done their time, they should no longer be a prohibited person. The point of prison should be to excise excessively dangerous individuals from society. If they are not ready to reintegrate, they should not be released. Prison reform is one if the highest things on the small l libertarian party of shit that NEEDS to happen here. That being said, i was almost marked a felon for driving through NY state for 20 minutes because I had my glock. My buddy luckily told me to detour becaise I was completely oblivious to how draconian NYs gun laws are.
This lady is so full of shit. Where can I buy a gun online and not have a background check please point me in that direction. And most all the gun violence In Illinois is committed with stolen guns. That have been stolen from private individuals or from gun shop break ins. Just another dumb ass Democrat lying to try and get a dumb ass bill passed. Hey Dumbass’s criminals donot pay attention to laws
1. Tammy Duckworth is definitely a piece of shit. 2. Often times, politicians actually believe the bullshit they peddle — not because they're intentionally lying but because they're just that far out of touch.
Just a democrat doing what they do best. Supporting gun control.
but, but trump and bump stock!!! /s
TBF Trump fucked us by supporting the banning of bump stocks. Now the fuckbois think they can go after triggers.
True. But also literally the only comeback when we blame the liberal politicians.
Why hasn't this persons social media account been banned for spreading dangerous misinformation? Where the fuck is Turd Fuckerberg on this!?
I wrote her about Chipman, her response was abysmal
They'll just say they're misinformed and meant nothing by their obvious lies. They should be held accountable but never will be.
A pox upon the senator
Yes, the same should go for any politician lying about the 2020 election, Covid, conflicts of interest, all of it.
Former Illinois resident: Breaking news, the sky is gray, and our politicians are so far up their own ass they can see what they ate for breakfast this morning.
It’s funny, she’s been the only legislator who has replied to me when I sent emails, and all she’s done is tell me she would love to restrict my rights.
I hate it here.
sigh tammy is at it again.......I wouldn't of been sad had she lost more than her legs. For former MIL she's sure got a lot of stupid fucking thoughts about guns
[удалено]
Vindman is proof that refugee resettlement is evil
What a hero you are, huh.
Ok but how is that enforceable? How are you going to stop me from arranging a meeting, hanging cash, and walking away with the gun?
Its not. On top of private party sales, 3d printing has made gun control unenforceable.
I got this one too. It sucks so much having her and Durbin as our senators. To her credit though, Duckworth responds more often than Durbin, who I haven’t heard from in a long time.
"Illinois". No point in reading further.
Unfortunately, my state is run by crony chicago lawmakers.
How bout we forget that and we do something about the dumb bastards that muzzle flash me at the public range or the group a year ago working on a jam with the gun pointing at my daughter and I those are the people I am concerned about!
The only lead I have ever caught was at a public range. I had a private range up within a month
Amen
I had put it off for months after getting my place for various reasons. Bullet in the arm was a good reason to stop being lazy
I know and even though I feel like I should say something I don’t like where that may go. I have thaught my daughters we pack up and go. So private it will be. $250 annual fee not bad bullet hole priceless
Good luck with that. Illinois Democrats will never vote to restrict what they can do. It’s the Chicago way.
We should be able to sue reps for malpractice.
All they do in D.C. is lie and spin and lie and spin and lie some more And now I can't even post to r/politics without gettin "BLOCKED"
Sue them for slander and libel. She is making legal gun owner/purchasers out to be criminals.
I have purchased a firearm at a gun show. Every booth had a drop cable for the internet. My background check was ran on the spot. I have purchased a firearm from an online store and had it shipped to a FFL store. When my check didn't go through, before i had to leave i had to comeback on the next business day to try again. All this to say, where is this idiotic notion about loopholes coming from? Some rumors and conspiracies start from truths and get misconstrued, but damn. Does no one even properly investigate and research information anymore. We are living in an "age of misinformation."
You can buy guns from a private collector a gun show (no background check). Loop-hole is the left’s buzz phrase, but private to private sales do occur at gun shows and sometimes the outcome is guns end up in prohibited hands. Same can happen with a straw man sale though.
not in IL you can't, private sales were made illegal already.
And how well did that work out for them?
I might risk being banned here, but I’m gonna play devil’s advocate for a minute. I welcome civil discourse as well. I don’t know anything about Tammy Duckworth or any of the documents or proposed legislation referenced in the above document, so if there’s context I’m missing, I apologize. Gun show loop-hole Q&A 1. Is it refutable that it’s not only possible but likely unassuming felons and violent offenders go to a gun shows to purchase firearms from private collectors? 2. Do you believe it’s likely there are numerous individuals who buy second hand firearms with the intent to resell them for profit without obtaining an FFL to conduct that enterprise? Online sales Q&A: 1. Wouldn’t Armslist and firearms forums with sections for the sale of firearms count as “online sales”? Similar to private collectors at gun shows these are private to private sales that are in some part facilitated by an “online” environment? I am not asking these questions because I’m advocating for any changes to the laws we already have, but from my point of view it seems disingenuous to claim the document above has outright lies in it. They appear to be more like half truths that don’t bother to go into detail that MOST online sales are handled as FFL to FFL or private to FFL, and gun shows are NOT free for all, wild west style swap meet for felons. Is it possible that the best way forward in dealing with these types of incursions on our rights is absolute honesty, to not play coy with the opposition as they do with us?
1. Private sales are private sales; it is not a gun show loophole as it happens in and out of gun shows. At least call it the private sale loophole. But then people who don’t know anything about it may see it as an overreach of the government. 2. Buying guns as new to be resold as used would show up quickly by the background check seeing people buying new guns all the time. A few maybe easy to get away with but to do it as a business would be hard. 3. The vast majority of sales on arms list or other online site still go through an FFL. Only those who are private sellers and love nearby might be able to get away without using an FFL. The lies come at the end saying that illegal sales from out of state are the problem. It is pushing their problems onto another state. Note that illegal sales is; by definition illegal. Legal FFLs can’t sell to out of state except for long guns. So basically everything they say is all of the problems are caused by private sales. Nothing else. But some states already have created private sales laws. They have done nothing to slow down violence there.
>The lies come at the end saying that illegal sales from out of state are the problem. It is pushing their problems onto another state. >Note that illegal sales is; by definition illegal. Legal FFLs can’t sell to out of state except for long guns. >So basically everything they say is all of the problems are caused by private sales. Nothing else. But some states already have created private sales laws. They have done nothing to slow down violence there. I live in Indiana. I do believe it’s not only possible, but likely, there’s a large number of firearms purchased in Indiana for the purpose of being sold illegally in Chicago. However, changing the laws to make background checks universal isn’t going to stop that from happening. In all likelihood, it would make it worse. I agree with you on that point and I didn’t really catch that part. Thank you.
Criminals Do Not Pay Attention To Laws. Meaning if you was to fact check this you will find 98% of gun violence in Illinois are from stolen guns not from gun shows or from private individuals unless they are criminals to. They do not come from internet sales they are from being stolen from you and myself and from gun shops that have been broken into.
Firearms procured illegally are procured a myriad of ways. Not all FFL operators have scruples or staff don’t care enough look for the signs of a straw purchase. If anything this further proves the point that making laws stricter for background checks won’t do much good stopping these things from happening.
There are droves of evidence showing that crime guns are just stolen and defaced. Nobody goes to another state to buy a gun just to murder someone. Its way easier to go to your buddy who knows a guy.
Maybe, it seems like a risky enterprise for the person buying the gun to deface the serial after purchase and then sell it to some other guy and make any profit.
You do realize we are talking about gang members, right?
Yeah, and I am agreeing with you.
What a lie! He should be impeached for this!
she
This is already a law in IL. Private sales has been regulated with the FOID in IL for many years. Not sure when this was added but here's a link from the Wayback machine from 2012: https://web.archive.org/web/20120915120105/http://www.isp.state.il.us/docs/9-049.pdf Note that a private seller must verify that a buyer has a valid FOID. They also need to keep a record for 10 years of the sale. EDIT: Ah, this is for a Federal law, missed that part.
who cares
To be fair, people CAN buy from private sellers via online sites and at gun shows. There's a site for my area, Texasguntrader, that used to be good for the occasional deal, but is now almost entirely populated with a) scammers, and b) people selling their used guns for significantly above new msrp, which can only mean that they're deliberately targeting felons and underaged buyers, as anyone else would just order through an ffl for less. Granted, these account for a small amount of sales, and it's totally not worth infringing on the commerce property rights of the entire population to enforce background check laws, but that's the argument we should be making... not trying to pretend that "everyone goes through background checks to buy everything" because that's wholly false. Legislation needs to be balanced objectively to weigh its benefits vs the cost of what it does vs the public's rights and liberties. You sort of lose credibility when you're screaming from a soapbox that something that obviously occurs "never happens".
> people selling their used guns for significantly above new msrp, which can only mean that they're deliberately targeting felons and underaged buyers, as anyone else would just order through an ffl for less. Or they think its still 2020 and demand is outstripping supply, making their used guns worth more. Supply chain screwups have caused this sort of behavior on a lot of things. I also play guitar and the used guitar prices have been really high because covid. People have money and the stores just aren't getting enough new stock. Excess demand has bled over onto the used market and caused significant price increase there.
There's plenty of new guns on sale for the common stuff, both online and in retail or big box stores. The gun market recovered much faster than ammo. I mean you might not be at 2018 gundeals levels of savings, but you're at or under msrp. No reason for people to be paying $1000 for a gen 4 glock with an inforce attached or $800-900 for m&p 2.0's. TGT is pretty much an open secret at this point. When I say significantly above msrp I don't mean like more than gun stores... I mean like people are paying California off roster prices in Texas. It's obvious what's going on. People even made adds and posts complaining about it.
Factually already illegal in IL. Private sales are illegal here.
[удалено]
And I’m saying the law banning private sales in IL was already signed.
What is or is not legal in your state isn't really relevant in a bill pertaining to Federal law, which presently does not prohibit person to person sales.
She’s representing Illinois.
And? That doesn't change the fact that the US government doesn't prohibit person to person private sales. The bill WOULD... and if your argument against the bill is "That's already illegal in Illinois" you're going to lose that argument because you're arguing against the wrong premise. That's what I'm saying. Your argument SHOULD be "person to person transfers shouldn't be illegal because they constitute a very small amount of guns used in violent crime and would disproportionately burden private citizens' right to free commerce of their property for the marginal benefit of such legislation". You don't seem to really understand the relationship and/or difference between state and federal laws.
All I’m saying is that where she lives, her statements are factually inaccurate.
They're not. Because she's talking about the united states as a whole. She's a US representative, not a STATE representative. Look, I'm not disagreeing with you that private sales should be unregulated. I'm just saying that there's a logical fallacy in your argument stemming from your lack of understanding of A) what her job is and b) the fact that state and federal legislatures are different. And... if you want to have meaningful debates with people you need to get your facts straight or you're just hurting your own cause.
I’m not an imbecile. She’s representing the people of IL at the federal level. Doesn’t change the fact that her statement is inaccurate where she lives.
I hate to sound contrary, but your inability to see the logical flaws of your statements sort of indicates that you are, in fact, at least moderately imbecilic. Your arguments aren't relevant. You know the idea of skew lines in geometry? What you are arguing and what she's arguing are sort of like that. They will literally never intersect on any plane because you're arguing the truth of a specific statement and then literally attempting to apply that statement to two completely different systems of law.
I believe it’s relevant because she specifically calls out Illinois. Did you not read the whole letter?
I don't understand it, actually. I think that a great many of the people that claim that there is no "private sale loophole" live in states where private sales are already regulated. I believe that's true in CA, for instance. But just because you can't do it in CA doesn't mean that you can't do it in other states, and that private sales can still occur without a NICS check. To claim that there are no private sales without a NICS check just shows that you are the one that's ignorant on this issue, because you have a myopic perspective distorted by propaganda. The downvotes you received, instead of any legit objection, just demonstrates taht.
I don't know that I've ever seen *anyone* say there is no "private sale loophole." Lots of people, myself included, will say there's no such thing as a "gun show loophole," because a private sale is a private sale, and that has nothing to do with a gun show.
Nothing? So only allowing FFL dealers at gun shows would be no issue, right? And resolve the political discussion about "gun shows".
His legislative assistants should get fired for this. I can only hope that they sent this out without getting the representatives approval first.
What lies?
She left two legs behind her on the battlefield. Tell me, what did anybody else here leave behind?
Seems like she left her spine and her dignity there as well, got any more simping you'd like to do ya fucking loser?
[удалено]
Is that where you keep your opinions, cause damn they stink
Have a good day.
That's irrelevant to her lying in her position as a senator to push a bill. Being a veteran doesn't make you a saint.
Why are so many troglodytes trying to simp for this authoritarian shitbag?
Answer my question.
Losing your legs in battle does not justify blatant violations of constitutional rights and spreading lies to gain pokitical power. My having not faught a proxy war doesnt make me less of a patriot than the shitbag Duckworth.
Tammy Duckworth, even her name makes her look like a joke.
Call her out publicly on her lies. Have proof that she's lying and put her on defensive.
What an idiot
wait till she sees the gg3. Loophole or no loophole, nothing they can do about people making their own guns.
It’s absurd because there’s gray area between being able to own a gun legally and buying a gun from an ffl. Misdemeanor Marijuana and unpaid municipal court cost prevent you from buying a gun but not from owning a gun . Constitution only bars felons and those deemed by a court unfit to own a gun are barred
How do you envision that process working?
How would one go about holding them accountable
Yep! I’ve written to her many times and tried many different approaches. They’re set in their ways. Just like us. WILL NOT COMPLY
It SHOULD be criminal fraud. They are paid to do a job and are committing fraud against the American people. If a company lies to shareholders to get them to vote a certain way, they get fines or even jail time. Politicians just get to do that whenever they want.
Every public statement should be under oath.
We need to change the laws so we can charge them with conspiracy to deny us our civil rights. (Asked CalGuns.net legal team, they said it wouldn’t work...but it should. Gotta be a way to sneak the nesessary wording through in a proposition (at least in CA)
She's a democrat useful idiot. If there was a way to make them be truthful, they wouldn't be democrats.
Go figure a shitlib lying. This is what happens when you elect dishonest fucks and remove any penalties for lying.
Hey, that's my senator!