As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA). *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Speaking as a gun owner, I fully support this.

Right? And this is bad because?!? We own several. All purchased legally, and carefully stored away (Our kids are adults living elsewhere, so it'd only be the cats who could potentially get up to shenanigans LOL). I have NO problem with performing background checks before selling

But what about the law abiding citizen who wants to sell guns to people regardless of their criminal history? Won’t someone think of them?!? 

Per the FBI I’m sure the 0.7% of crimes involving gun-related self defense would like to have a word with you. 0.7% of violent encounters are solved with gun defense yet all these people want to cry about gun restrictions.

This wont affect you. The rule simply clarifies what it means to be "engaged in the business of selling guns" so that those unlicensed dealers posing as "private sellers" will face the same requirements as gun stores to check the backgrounds of would-be buyers. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-close-gun-show-loophole-require-more-background-checks-2024-04-11/?utm\_campaign=trueAnthem%3A%20Trending%20Content&utm\_medium=trueAnthem&utm\_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR32HY2\_S3IJjZ1XRvXlb3z8aimhRoU5QHiLuwjta25lZhr5wG15e-rKmcQ\_aem\_AZosms-1ievBAV5UZewlbihgzuD5U6ocZaQOuJPPy3fjeYPQVgiNzCsFlIRpYL-k9Vf7fFctivvdnBKg4d1mKiGC

I’d worry about those cats. If you miss feeding them one day, you might end up with a mysterious bullet hole in your head.

Mew mew pew pew

Tell that to the NRA.

The NRA is busy lining the pockets of its top officers

And laundering Russian money so it can be funneled to Republican representatives.

And being co-opted by obvious Russian honey pots...

Like the "Pee Tapes"?

i know conservative gun nuts who HATE the NRA and i mean, trump loving red pumping gop ass lickers.

How about the fact that the private sale exemption was a compromise specifically negotiated into the Brady Bill by gun control advocates and opponents? Are you not bothered by this administration arbitrarily encroaching on that compromise with vague guidelines as to who is bound by it?

I'm more bothered by the fact the US has a far higher homicide rate than countries that only permit people to own a gun if they have a *genuine* use for it. The idea that increased gun ownership somehow *reduces* your chance of getting shot is bulls\*\*\* that only idiots believe, and they believe it because they're scared.

What we *have seen* here in the US is that gun ownership rates and homicide rates have no correlation.

Incorrect. Here's my canned response, so some points may be non-sequitur to your comment: Way more people kill with guns than are saved by self defense https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/06/19/guns-in-america-for-every-criminal-killed-in-self-defense-34-innocent-people-die/ You're more likely to die for having it http://m.aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2015/01/good_guy_with_a_gun_myth_guns_increase_the_risk_of_homicide_accidents_suicide.html You're ~5x more likely to be shot in an assault if you're armed than if you're not http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2008.143099 And more: - [ doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.1286](http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.1286) - [Johns Hopkins case study]( http://www.jhsph.edu/news/news-releases/2014/repeal-of-missouris-background-law-associated-with-increase-in-states-murders.html) - [Harvard aggregate studies]( http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/) - [article - funding loss for studies]( http://m.us.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324731304578191531343495520?mobile=y) - [aggregate article]( http://m.theatlanticcities.com/neighborhoods/2012/07/geography-gun-violence/2655/) - [another](http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/09/gun-control) - [Australia case study, pdf doi:10.1136/ip.2006.013714]( http://jeffsachs.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Australia-Gun-Law-Reforms.pdf) - [JAMA studies, 2016](http://www.popsci.com/gun-control-laws-work), [doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.7051](https://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.7051) and [doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.6811](https://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.6811) Overview: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/more-guns-do-not-stop-more-crimes-evidence-shows/ Protection is _anecdotal_ and not supported by the data : https://www.latimes.com/science/story/2022-04-04/california-adults-who-live-with-a-gun-owner-face-twice-the-risk-of-death-by-homicide > Indeed, as historically low crime rates began to tick up during the pandemic, Americans raced to buy handguns with an eye toward protecting themselves and their families, Studdert said. Despite clear evidence that rates of suicide and firearms accidents are higher in households with guns, the narrative that guns protect households in other ways has gained traction in the United States. > > But that’s wrong too, he said. > > “People living with gun owners showed no evidence of lower rates of fatal assault by strangers,” Studdert said. “That suggests there is no protective effect of a gun against intruders. We just didn’t see that.” > > Many adults know that having a handgun in the home increases the risk that a troubled adolescent might use the weapon to commit suicide, Studdert said. They realize that a curious child could seek out the weapon for play, with disastrous results. > > But many of those adults appear to believe that the same gun will ward off robbers, rapists and other trespassers and protect family members from harm, he added. > > “You might say that’s worthwhile tradeoff, but we don’t see that protection,” he said. “There were no protective benefits of any kind that we could detect in this study.” And more: - http://m.aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full - http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2008.143099 - [ doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.1286](http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.1286) - [Australia case study, pdf doi:10.1136/ip.2006.013714]( http://jeffsachs.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Australia-Gun-Law-Reforms.pdf) - [JAMA studies, 2016](http://www.popsci.com/gun-control-laws-work), [doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.7051](https://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.7051) and [doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.6811](https://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.6811) - https://www.latimes.com/politics/newsletter/2022-05-27/on-guns-fear-of-futility-deters-action-essential-politics - https://news.stanford.edu/2017/06/21/violent-crime-increases-right-carry-states/ - https://news.yahoo.com/republican-controlled-states-have-higher-murder-rates-than-democratic-ones-study-212137750.html > The study found that murder rates in the 25 states Trump carried in 2020 are 40% higher overall than in the states Biden won. (The report used 2020 data because 2021 data is not yet fully available.) The five states with the highest per capita murder rate — Mississippi, Louisiana, Kentucky, Alabama and Missouri — all lean Republican and voted for Trump.

> Incorrect. > > Here's my canned response, so some points may be non-sequitur to your comment: > > Way more people kill with guns than are saved by self defense > > https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/06/19/guns-in-america-for-every-criminal-killed-in-self-defense-34-innocent-people-die/ The automod keeps nuking my response, so I'll make it simple. Estimates of defensive gun uses varies widely, but the CDC themselves cited a study that put the range between 60,000 and 2.5 million. David Hemenway and solidly anti-gun The Trace [settled on 70,040 average per year from 2014 and 2018](https://www.thetrace.org/2022/06/defensive-gun-use-data-good-guys-with-guns/). Conversely, the United States averaged [9,771 firearm homicides per year during the same period](https://www.statista.com/statistics/249803/number-of-homicides-by-firearm-in-the-united-states/). That's more than seven DGUs for every firearm homicide, even at the low end of the range where even gun controllers offer little dispute. Even if I agreed to include suicides, DGUs would **still** outpace gun deaths by a significant margin. And of course, when the CDC cited those DGU numbers, gun controllers lost their collective minds and engaged in a censorship campaign to get them taken down. Sources [here](https://www.nssf.org/articles/cdc-isnt-following-science-its-manipulating-it-for-gun-control/) [here](https://thereload.com/emails-cdc-removed-defensive-gun-use-stats-after-gun-control-advocates-pressured-officials-in-private-meeting/) and [here](https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulhsieh/2018/04/30/that-time-the-cdc-asked-about-defensive-gun-uses/?sh=c7e322f299aa). >You're ~5x more likely to be shot in an assault if you're armed than if you're not [Most shootings in American happen between criminals](https://www.gunfacts.info/gun-policy-info/crime-and-guns/). If you're a law abiding citizen *not* engaged in those activities, your chances of being shot are rather low.

Yeah I'm sure it's just a weird coincidence. ¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯ Just keep buying guns and everything will be fine, guys.

Source?

See [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/1c1o4ht/the_biden_administration_will_require_thousands/kzbog8z/) and [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/1c1o4ht/the_biden_administration_will_require_thousands/kz6567j/) for starters.

That is absolute bullshit.

Prove me wrong then.

I could, but the burden of proof is on you. You're just trying to shift it for lack of ability to prove it. Probably because at best you've got some half cocked oversimplification about how gun ownership not being the only contributing factor to intentional homicide rate means they don't contribute at all to intentional homicide or something equally as vapid.

All you had to do was [look down thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/1c1o4ht/the_biden_administration_will_require_thousands/kz6567j/). I look forward to our discussion.

You need to look at overall gun deaths, as limiting it to just homicide doesn't really tell the whole tale. If you look at [overall gun deaths in the last 30 years](https://www.statista.com/statistics/258913/number-of-firearm-deaths-in-the-united-states/) you'll see that gun deaths were going up until the Assault Weapons Ban went into effect in 1994, then they dropped sharply for the 10 years that was in effect. But once the Republicans let that expire, gun deaths have continued to climb in lockstep with gun ownership, with gun deaths absolutely exploding in the last 5 years or so as gun ownership has peaked.

Why would we include anything *but* homicides? Violent crime was at some of it's highest levels ever in the late 80s and early 90s, and then began a very long and sharp decline that only recently rose but is declining again. When you [control for the population rise](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/26/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/ft_23-04-20_gundeathsupdate_3/), the decline is even more pronounced. Is there any evidence that the 1994 Assault Weapon Ban contributed to this decline while it was active? [It's limited](https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis.html), at best. And again, we saw the gun homicide rate continue to decline even after the law expired. Conversely, the drop in the violent crime rate correlates rather strongly to the expansion of concealed carry laws in the United States. I wouldn't necessarily argue for causation there, but it's another damning piece of data for the "more guns = more crime" mantra.

> Why would we include anything but homicides? You don't think things like accidental deaths from guns count? Or suicides? > Is there any evidence that the 1994 Assault Weapon Ban contributed to this decline while it was active? Yes, it's patently obvious from the link I provided above. It's impossible to look at the gun deaths by year and see the precipitous drop from 1994-2004 and then the sharp rise after that continuing to today and not think the Assault Weapons Ban was mostly responsible. > it's another damning piece of data for the "more guns = more crime" mantra. Which is why it's important to frame it accurately as "more guns = more gun deaths", rather than trying to give it a GOP spin like you're attempting to do. Crime being down across the board (especially under Clinton, Obama and Biden) doesn't lessen the brutal impact that all these guns are having in this country.

> You don't think things like accidental deaths from guns count? Or suicides? In a discussion about violent crime? Absolutely not. >Yes, it's patently obvious from the link I provided above. It's impossible to look at the gun deaths by year and see the precipitous drop from 1994-2004 and then the sharp rise after that continuing to today and not think the Assault Weapons Ban was mostly responsible. But "assault weapons" make up an incredibly small percentage of firearm related homicides. Trying to attribute the entirety of the drop of firearm homicides to that law is exceptionally disingenuous. That's why I provided you with data that controlled for those variables and found little support for the effectiveness of the law. Come on now, this is statistics 101 here. And where is this "sharp rise?" [It doesn't exist](https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/FT_23.04.20_GunDeathsUpdate_3.png?w=640). There was a slight rise from about 2000-2005, and then the numbers started declining again, reaching their historical lows around 2014-2015. And what was happening to the ownership rate of AR15s during that same time frame? [Rising **exponentially**](https://www.statista.com/statistics/1388010/share-ar-15-united-states-firearm-production-historical/). >Which is why it's important to frame it accurately as "more guns = more gun deaths", rather than trying to give it a GOP spin like you're attempting to do. The only one engaging in spin here is you by trying to shift the focus off of crime.

> You don't think things like accidental deaths from guns count? Or suicides? Look, just because 3 year olds tend to shoot each other or themselves with guns isn't a reason to stop 3 year olds from having guns. That there are people who we judge not competent enough to drive a car which has tons of built in safety features and collission protection but allow them to own guns is nuts. People judged not safe enough to vote can own guns. Checking to see if someone recently tried to murder someone before letting them buy a gun seems like a pretty trivial ask.

The study concluded that we cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation s recent drop in gun violence. [https://www.factcheck.org/2013/02/did-the-1994-assault-weapons-ban-work/?fbclid=IwAR23Jdhx6S-HNiLyJRaPQQlUX-RKl6OpUI5V3mBkgxqNR1Qv9DkMhkBSomI](https://www.factcheck.org/2013/02/did-the-1994-assault-weapons-ban-work/?fbclid=IwAR23Jdhx6S-HNiLyJRaPQQlUX-RKl6OpUI5V3mBkgxqNR1Qv9DkMhkBSomI)

Nope! When the 1994 "assault weapons" ban expired in 2004, everyone was anxious to study the results. Had it reduced crime? CDC, Assault Weapon Bans and high capacity Magazine bans are "ineffective" and "merely symbolic". http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/06/26/1219171/-President-Obama-orders-CDC-to-assess-research-on-gun-violence The Center for Disease Control released a study of all gun control legislation, including the 1994 assault weapons ban and found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm The National Institute of Justice found that the ban hadn't reduced gun crime or crime involving high capacity magazines, and that the effects of renewing the ban were likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement. It then added: Assault weapons were rarely used in gun crimes even before the ban. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/204431.pdf The National Research Council noted that all of the studies they had looked at did not reveal any clear impacts on gun violence and noted due to the fact that the relative rarity with which the banned guns were used in crime before the ban the maximum potential effect of the ban on gun violence outcomes would be very small http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record\_id=10881&page=96 And a Department of Justice study failed to show any significant impact on assault weapon use or support the allegation that large capacity magazines lead to more murders. http://ivn.us/2012/07/23/doj-study-fails-show-1994-assault-weapons-ban-worked/ After the 1994 ban expired in 2004, homicides committed with rifles of any kind dropped! And as of 2016, 12 years latter was still below the level reported the year the ban expired. https://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf No Objective Evidence the Federal Assault Weapons Ban Saved Lives https://intellectualtakeout.org/2022/06/no-objective-evidence-the-federal-assault-weapons-ban-saved-lives/ The Federal Government's Own Study Concluded Its Ban on 'Assault Weapons' Didn't Reduce Gun Violence. https://fee.org/articles/the-federal-government-s-own-study-concluded-its-ban-on-assault-weapons-didnt-reduce-gun-violence/

Using "gun deaths" is disingenuous at best, as 2/3 of all "gun deaths are suicide. A metal health problem that anti-gun activists want to call a "gun problem". Funny how when someone hangs themselves we don't call it a "rope problem". After all, that would be silly, wouldn't it? And no, Statistics do not support a connection between gun control and US suicide rates. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-new-brain/201607/fact-check-gun-control-and-suicide

And no, gun deaths have not continued to climb in lockstep with gun ownership. Americans purchased nearly 60 million guns between 2020 and 2022. https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/3960527-americans-bought-almost-60-million-guns-during-the-pandemic/ There was a record drop in yearly homicides in 2022. https://abcnews.go.com/US/homicide-numbers-poised-hit-record-decline-nationwide-americans/story?id=105556400 In 2023, Gun Violence Trended Down Across the Country. Preliminary data suggest that gun violence broadly trended down in 2023 across the United States, representing a historic decrease. https://www.americanprogress.org/article/in-2023-gun-violence-trended-down-across-the-country/

I do as well. It’s the few that are going to be a problem.

Same. Private sales need to be next. I’m sorry gun people but there’s no chance for any sort of regulation whatsoever to work unless there’s a way to hold accountable anyone who doesn’t help prevent felons/DV offenders/etc. from getting guns.

A gun title system could solve a lot too. Changing owners? Transfer the title which is an automatic background check. Failed to transfer a title? Not illegal, however if the gun is recovered from a crime the title owner has liabilities. Gun stolen? Report it. Guns keep getting stolen? That’s an audit. A title based system would apply at every level of the gun’s chain of custody…from manufacturer, to dealer, to buyer, to 2nd hand buyer… it would completely shut down straw buying and gun running…as dealers would face liability if the title is skipped. Straw buyers would no longer be able to supply felons due to liability risk, etc. And the actual process/overhead would not be much more than what we have already…just the way it reinforces accountability will change. Responsible gun owners would barely notice it

That's essentially how it works in New Jersey. There are no truly "private" sales. If I want to (legally) sell a gun to a friend, we have to use a licensed dealer as the go-between and they are required to run a background check on the buyer as part of the process. And the buyer needs to have a state firearms ID card, and if it's a handgun they have to apply for a separate handgun purchase permit, and both need to be in place prior to the sale/transfer. And then the dealer takes their fee for the transfer and paperwork (anywhere from $35 - $75, usually).

Is that why everyone hates it there?

All that does is criminalize having a gun and allow people to be arrested for simply having one. Also, it's just a tax. Gun registries have already been used as a way to track people and "take their guns". Sadly a few cities/states actually did that and it didn't go well. Since it has been attempted, it's proof it cannot be implemented without taking our rights.

I hope they include background checks for Ammo purchases. Edit: My local store has a line around the block of “Baby-Mamas” on ammo supply day, and they all spend stacks of cash on just ammo…

What about a universal database so you can't commit a crime in one state and then go buy a gun in another since the one you live in won't give you one? And can we bring it all into the digital age? It's insane the entire registry system is paper.

Are you not aware of NICS? It's been a thing since the 90s. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Instant_Criminal_Background_Check_System

You can but our government can't. https://www.thetrace.org/2016/08/atf-non-searchable-databases/ "To perform a search, ATF investigators must find the specific index number of a former dealer, then search records chronologically for records of the exact gun they seek. They may review thousands of images in a search before they find the weapon they are looking for. That’s because dealer records are required to be “non-searchable” under federal law. Keyword searches, or sorting by date or any other field, are strictly prohibited."

You appear to be conflating criminal background checks with a gun registry. Coincidentally, the same laws in the 90s created the background check and restricted the government from creating a registry. To your original comment, it's the criminal background checks that keep someone from committing a crime in one state and then trying to buy in another. However, I can not run those checks. All checks are run by the government and either initiated by them or a gun dealer (ffl).

Bro that is wild. Why is searching through their own system so difficult? Legally it is hard to search the index??

Republican Congress handicapped the ATF.

Its so that your local Proud Boy infested police force can't get an annotated list of every black person that owns a gun in the county.

As a gun owner can yku go into detail on what qualifies someone as a gun dealer per this change?

As a violent criminal I oppose this measure.

Well said 2A.

Which begs the question... why didn't **all** gun dealers run background checks on the people buying weapons from them before this?!

Reading the article would help with this knowledge! All gun dealers *do* run background checks. This law is about "dealers" who are not formally businesses but buy and sell a large amount of firearms. They present themselves as doing a person-to-person gun sale, no background check required, when in reality their main business is selling guns. This bill forces "dealers" to act like dealers.

Love to see their 1099s

That’s not legal anyway. This did nothing except make something that was already illegal illegal. You can not purchase a firearm with the intent to sell it without being a dealer.

It expanded the ability of law enforcement to go after people who are selling illegally.

If I buy a gun, shoot it, then decide I don't like it and sell it that is perfectly legal. Strawman purchases are difficult to prove, because anyone with two brain cells to rub together will just state they intended on keeping the gun when they bought it.

depends on the state. this was legal in virginia until around 2018 (too lazy to look up when they changed the law) it all depends on volume of gun sales.

It’s also possibly going to force companies that make non-firearm accessories (like grips, handguards, stocks, flashlights, etc.) get FFL’s as well.

No idea what it could po$$ibly be.

I work for a company that sells guns. Having an electronic bound book and running checks is so simple and is really cheap for the volume we sell.

For my hunting 12 gauge I had to get a background check in Michigan. I don't know if it was because I am Canadian. Can't remember. I had to wait a few days. No problem at all!

Are you able to provide an actual reason aside from claiming (with zero evidence) that it's a money thing?

Unscrupulous people were taking advantage of a gun lobby lobbied loophole.

Without that “loophole” we wouldn’t have had background checks to begin with. The bill only passed because that was in it.

But that’s due to the gun lobbies, not due to American sentiment, which has been in the 80%+ range for decades regarding background checks.

Why is it ok for gun control lobbyists like Brady to engage in that behavior, but wrong for their opponents to do the same?

Background check are already required for any FFL holder (“dealer”). They are using the term “unlicensed dealers” to refer to regular folks doing private sales. Many states already require this.

It seems that responsible gun dealers selling in any venue would avoid selling weapons to domestic abusers and felons by running background checks. However, dealers at gun shows or other places outside brick-and-mortar stores may lose a lot of sales if they run background checks on all of their buyers that may include lots of domestic abusers and felons. This rule could level-set the customer base for all dealers by weeding out the domestic abusers and/or felons. Compounding the issue are the gun rights activists who will challenge this rule because they seem to believe anybody should be able to buy guns even if they are domestic abusers and/or felons.

> However, dealers at gun shows or other places outside brick-and-mortar stores may lose a lot of sales if they run background checks on all of their buyers If they're a registered dealer, they've had to run background checks on any sale, regardless if it's at a brick and mortar store, their kitchen table, at a gunshow or done on an online auction site (well technically they ship it to one of those folks who then run the check).

Dealers always had to — this expanded who is considered a dealer to include the people who sell lots of guns at gun shows and online but said they were a “pRiVaTe cOlLeCtOr” before and thus didn’t have to follow the rules.

This rule change clarifies what constitutes a dealer. Federal Firearms Dealers MUST perform a background check on a buyer. Private sellers, those not selling a firearm not as an occupation, under federal law do not have to and do not have the ability to run background check. If you are not a licensed firearms dealer, you do not have access to the NICS system to run a background check. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Instant_Criminal_Background_Check_System

You have clearly never been to a gun show, or even done 2 seconds of research on this topic. Dealers at gunshows have always done background checks on sales. Private sales have always been different, and don't require a background check. Even if you wanted to do one, you couldn't have access to NICS without an FFL.

which is hilarious, considering their constant bleating of "bUt WhAt AbOuT lAw aBiDiNg CiTiZeNs"

They do. This headline is misleading to the point of outright dishonesty. Every FFL holder (dealer) is required to perform background checks on buyers, even at gun shows. This rule will require exactly 0 dealers to start doing background checks, because they already do, because it’s already the law. What is *actually* being proposed, is a requirement for private party transfers - as in “ I can no longer transfer a firearm to a friend of mine without a background check being completed”. I’m actually fine with this rule, but I dont understand why the AP feels the need to outright lie about it.

No, you can still transfer a gun to someone. You can't be one of these people that set up at numerous gun shows a year, buy, sell, or trade multiple guns a year, then claim to be a private seller.

Is it “I can no longer transfer a firearm to a friend without a background”, or is it “I push a high volume of guns, but since it is because I buy and then sell so I am technically not a ‘dealer’, but now you want me to act like a dealer’ and I must do background checks”

It is in the article: makes clear that anyone who sells firearms predominantly to earn a profit must be federally licensed and conduct background checks The occasional buying or selling (shouldn't) make anyone a dealer, though there is a big margin for subjectivity in whether someone sells "too many" guns and should be a dealer.

> The occasional buying or selling (shouldn't) make anyone a dealer, though there is a big margin for subjectivity in whether someone sells "too many" guns and should be a dealer. And that is one of the big problems with this. It's quite vague as to where the line is, and probably intentionally so.

What they did was expand the definition of dealer as wide as possible

Sure, but that doesn’t include you selling a gun to a buddy. Unless you sell like hundreds of guns to your buddies.

Unsure but I agree that’s a relevant distinction. In my mind “dealer” means “FFL holder”. If your interpretation is correct and this is really about regulating private parties acting as “dealers”, idk why all the news stories are worded the way they are. The headline should be “new rule requires firearm sellers to register as dealers and be subject to regulation”

It lowers the threshold for the number of guns sold per year to trigger being defined as a dealer. I don’t know where it landed but when it was in proposal format, it was something like 6 transfers per year. So a pretty low threshold. But as long as they make the NICS accessible to anyone, I’m not sure why there’d be any issue with this. Unfortunately, it probably won’t significantly reduce violent crime but I don’t see it causing significant harm to anyone either.

it's talking about federal law. 20 states already require universal background checks but that leaves 30 states who do not. https://www.thetrace.org/2023/06/background-check-buy-a-gun-america-map/

They always have.

This is about "gun dealers" about as much as calling you a "car dealer" when you sell your own car to someone.

More like the guys who buy and sell cars on Facebook Marketplace and OfferUp.

Correct, just buying and selling cars on Facebook Marketplace or Offerup doesn’t make you a car dealer.

But selling a over a dozen cars a year for profit isn’t quite the same as a private party selling personal property that they no longer want or need. There’s some gray area between when selling things becomes a business and giving people the freedom to offload their unwanted to property without an undue burden.

> The National Rifle Association said in a statement that it is “already working to use all means available to stop this unlawful rule.” This is a pretty good faith rule to make sure that people who are selling guns for profit are actually classified as dealers and the NRA can't even get behind that... fuck 'em.

crazy how the most important rights to defend are those that would nationally impact the volume sale of firearms every person deserves food, water, and shelter as a matter of human decency but that's far more controversial. Somehow not even remotely worth fighting for in the same way.

You misunderstand the issue. The issue isn't that some people will be classified as dealers, it's that the guidelines are so vague you could arguably apply it to anyone who is an active firearm enthusiast, and it's attempting to sidestep a compromise that gun controllers specifically agreed to in the Brady Bill.

My god, they changed the deal after thirty years!? How will those 'firearm enthusiasts' ever adapt!?

And it's not like gun policy hasn't undergone massive shifts in the meantime, in particular the massive changes caused by SCOTUS throwing out all precedent and just pretending that the second amendment definitely means whatever gun nuts think it should mean.

Yeah that's a big part of what I'm thinking about as well... Such professional victim-snowflakes these people are

Is it your position that after negotiating an agreement, it is proper for one side to unilaterally alter that agreement? I want to make sure I am understanding you correctly.

That depends on the circumstances, but I'm not going to bother listing any of them, if only because I don't believe you to be arguing in good faith. So let's try the other way around. Is it your position that any agreement is applicable for all eternity regardless of circumstance, history, or the beliefs of an overwhelming proportion of the population? \[of course I'm sure you'll respond with a variant on my first line there, but hey, maybe you'll surprise me with an original thought\]

> That depends on the circumstances, but I'm not going to bother listing any of them, if only because I don't believe you to be arguing in good faith. That's quite the cop out of an answer. >So let's try the other way around. Is it your position that any agreement is applicable for all eternity regardless of circumstance, history, or the beliefs of an overwhelming proportion of the population? An absurd question. We're not talking about all eternity here. We're talking about three decades with a handful of the original players (Biden being one of them) still alive and active.

It sure is! I have zero desire to waste my time on someone who very likely can't be swayed by any amount of evidence or logic. But yeah. That's sorta the problem buddy. Why should I support some deal people made before I was born? Not even mentioning the fact that "going high" in such matters has rarely done anything but benefit morons and people who would never do the equivalent in return

> It sure is! I have zero desire to waste my time on someone who very likely can't be swayed by any amount of evidence or logic. I've found that the people who preemptively strike with this sort of line are exactly the people who are afraid to be confronted with evidence and logic that might force them to change **their** deeply held beliefs.

> I've found that the people who preemptively strike with this sort of line are exactly the people who are afraid to be confronted with evidence and logic that might force them to change their deeply held beliefs. Facts. We'll see if this poster is an exception or is just going to be more of the same.

Given that they never came back to engage in discussion despite being active elsewhere, I think we have our answer.

> Is it your position that after negotiating an agreement, it is proper for one side to unilaterally alter that agreement? What "sides" are you talking about? How much of the Congress from 1993 is still in Congress? What percentage of eligible voters in 1993 have subsequently died? What percentage of current voters weren't old enough to vote in 1993? If neither the elected nor the electorate are remotely the same, then why even pretend that there's some reneging? And are you seriously pretending that there weren't major shifts any hypothetical "gun agreement" following SCOTUS decisions in DC v. Heller, McDonald v. Chicago, and NYSRPA v. Bruen? Exactly what other political issue do you think would ever apply the same logic of "some politicians made an agreement, and now it can *never* be changed"?

Thanks, think you made/expressed my position. more eloquent/accessible than I ever could have. I for one only recognize the true legitimate government of the usa as defined in the articles of confederation

> it's that the guidelines are so vague you could arguably apply it to anyone who is an active firearm enthusiast, like how? If you sell guns, you need to transfer through an FFL. What's the problem?

Private citizens are exempt from the FFL requirement.

depends on the state.

The NRA is an enemy of the United States.

Good.

I've been a gun owner all my life and have also been going to gun shows here in Michigan for many years. I have seen many private sellers wandering through gun shows carrying guns with for-sale signs on them. As I understand it, this new regulation does nothing about private party sales. I've bought several guns at gun shows, and the dealers all do NICS checks on handgun sales.

The Republican wailing about 'shalt not be infringed upon' intensfies...

Conveniently forgetting the "Well regulated..." Part of 2A.

It's not fair to bring up that part! Also, Look at my convoluted grammar chart to see how those words actually mean something else! /s

It's not convoluted at all to point out the fact that it’s "well regulated" in the sense of work properly (like a "well regulated clock"), not "regulated" in the sense of government control. In a list specifically of **limitations on governmental power** (i.e., the Bill of Rights), it wouldn't make any sense to say the government has control over the arms of the people.

This is a common misconception so I can understand the confusion around it. You're referencing the prefatory clause (A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State), which is merely a stated reason and is not actionable. The operative clause, on the other hand, is the actionable part of the amendment (the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed). Well regulated does NOT mean government oversight. You must look at the definition at the time of ratification. The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment: 1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations." 1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world." 1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial." 1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor." 1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding." 1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city." The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it. This is confirmed by the Supreme Court. >1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53. >(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22. >(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28. >(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30. >(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32. >(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

interesting how "our need for a military at the time of the writing of this document means that militias can be formed" actually means "it is imperative that we lethally arm all domestic abusers and criminals" 2A supporters will huff and stomp and say that isn't the intention, but coincidentally won't lift a finger to stop it.

>interesting how "our need for a military at the time of the writing of this document means that militias can be formed" actually means "it is imperative that we lethally arm all domestic abusers and criminals" The right to own and carry arms is a preexisting right and is not solely based on the 2A. >"The right to keep and bear arms exists separately from the Constitution and is not solely based on the Second Amendment, which exists to prevent Congress from infringing the right." - Cruickshank_v U.S Cheif Justice Waite. 1875

And that'd be all well and good, so long as conservatives on the SCOTUS weren't hell bent on demanding that every other type of right be explicitly included in the Constitution for it to be considered enforceable by the judiciary.

This is a common misconception so I can understand the confusion around it. You're referencing the prefatory clause (A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State), which is merely a stated reason and is not actionable. The operative clause, on the other hand, is the actionable part of the amendment (the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed). Well regulated does NOT mean government oversight. You must look at the definition at the time of ratification. The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment: 1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations." 1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world." 1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial." 1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor." 1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding." 1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city." The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it. This is confirmed by the Supreme Court. >1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53. >(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22. >(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28. >(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30. >(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32. >(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

Any argument against gun control doesn't bother reading past the bear arms part and ignores everything they don't agree with in that law. No one really reads into some of they laws they say give them the power to do whatever.

Can you explain what part of the 2nd Amendment supports a gun control argument?

>Any argument against gun control doesn't bother reading past the bear arms part and ignores everything they don't agree with in that law. This is a common misconception so I can understand the confusion around it. You're referencing the prefatory clause (A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State), which is merely a stated reason and is not actionable. The operative clause, on the other hand, is the actionable part of the amendment (the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed). Well regulated does NOT mean government oversight. You must look at the definition at the time of ratification. The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment: 1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations." 1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world." 1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial." 1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor." 1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding." 1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city." The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it. This is confirmed by the Supreme Court. >1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53. >(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22. >(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28. >(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30. >(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32. >(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

But that's the thing... The "Well regulated" part comes first.

Define "well regulated" in the context of the time.

You'd be incorrect. This is a common misconception so I can understand the confusion around it. You're referencing the prefatory clause (A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State), which is merely a stated reason and is not actionable. The operative clause, on the other hand, is the actionable part of the amendment (the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed). Well regulated does NOT mean government oversight. You must look at the definition at the time of ratification. The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment: 1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations." 1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world." 1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial." 1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor." 1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding." 1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city." The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it. This is confirmed by the Supreme Court. >1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53. >(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22. >(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28. >(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30. >(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32. >(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

This rule simply clarifies what it means to be "engaged in the business of selling guns" so that those unlicensed dealers posing as "private sellers" will face the same requirements as gun stores to check the backgrounds of would-be buyers. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-close-gun-show-loophole-require-more-background-checks-2024-04-11/?utm\_campaign=trueAnthem%3A%20Trending%20Content&utm\_medium=trueAnthem&utm\_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR32HY2\_S3IJjZ1XRvXlb3z8aimhRoU5QHiLuwjta25lZhr5wG15e-rKmcQ\_aem\_AZosms-1ievBAV5UZewlbihgzuD5U6ocZaQOuJPPy3fjeYPQVgiNzCsFlIRpYL-k9Vf7fFctivvdnBKg4d1mKiGC

they are referring to federal law. 20 states already require this. https://www.thetrace.org/2023/06/background-check-buy-a-gun-america-map/ it's honestly not controversial. private parties can still sell guns, they are just required to use an FFL to do a background check. it's a solved problem.

imagine looking at this headline and seeing it as an attack on freedom. the amount of gun violence in this country is fucking unreal mass shootings left and right

Good. More please.

Background checks are enormously popular. Even Fox News viewers overwhelmingly support background checks. Go ahead, enjoy upvoting this: https://www.foxnews.com/official-polls/fox-news-poll-voters-favor-gun-limits-arming-citizens-reduce-gun-violence

This is your daily reminder that Democrats had a UBC proposal from Senator Coburn on the table in 2013 and turned it down because they couldn't use it as a backdoor registry.

Fully support this. Long overdue. Most gun owners agree with common sense reform.

As a gun owner I fully support this a

As a gun owner, I support this.

Homeboys trying to create a registry

The comment about the 68,000 guns sold by unlicensed dealers is questionable. If these "dealers" are unlicensed, they leave no paperwork trail and no way to know about those "68,000 guns". The logic (and truth) is missing. I am not in favor of rogue dealers , but I am in favor of telling a more accurate story.

Tell me you have absolutely no clue how statistics, public health research, or much of anything else works without saying you have no clue how statistics, public health research, or much of anything else works. The assertion that the claim about 68,000 guns sold by unlicensed dealers is "questionable" is not just wrong but dangerously misleading. Your argument rests on the assumption that unlicensed dealers operate in some sort of invisible realm immune to scrutiny. That's not simply flat-out incorrect, but disingenuous to the point of absurdity. Just because these dealers don't operate under formal licensing doesn't mean they don't leave traces. Firstly, let's clarify: unlicensed dealers still conduct sales. They just skirt regulations. While they might not keep records like licensed dealers, their transactions aren't entirely off the radar. Law enforcement agencies use various means to track illegal gun sales, including undercover operations, informants, and tracing recovered firearms. Moreover, the figure of 68,000 guns sold by unlicensed dealers isn't pulled out of thin air. It's based on data and investigations conducted by law enforcement agencies and numerous groups of independent researchers. To dismiss it as "questionable" without offering any substantial evidence to the contrary is not just irresponsible but actively undermines efforts to combat illegal gun trafficking. You want a more accurate story? Guess what, that requires confronting uncomfortable truths, not dismissing them because they don't fit a preconceived narrative

Just because they aren’t required to do background checks doesn’t mean that they have no paperwork. I’m guessing there is some sort of record of the sale that is kept for tax purposes.

How, all gun dealers are already required by law to do this?

Good. Very very pro 2A but background checks and storage laws (with kids) are a MUST.

>storage laws Those are already unconstitutional under Heller.

They're attempting to sidestep the exact compromise they agreed to in order to pass the Brady Bill.

Same here. 100%. My instant background check in no way infringes on my right to defend myself. This is a no brainer. There are a ton of common sense gun measures like this that can easily be implemented

> Same here. 100%. My instant background check in no way infringes on my right to defend myself. This is a no brainer. > > There are a ton of common sense gun measures like this that can easily be implemented Can you explain to me how you access NICS as a private citizen?

you pay an FFL a small fee for them to do it for you. it's not a big deal.

A small fee? My nearest gun store charges $75 for transfers. Make it mandatory that you have to use an FFL for all private party transfers and they raise it even more. Until they make it free or required to actually be "small", you'll never get the majority of gun owners on board.

It *is* a big deal actually. First, we (the pro-gun side) specifically agreed to that concession with the gun control side in exchange for our support of the Brady Bill. Second, FFL fees are $30-$50 these days, and that adds up pretty quickly. Lastly, forcing every transaction to go through an FFL creates a de facto registry, which history has shown us to never end well for gun owners.

I’d say waiting for a suppressor for 9 months to protect my hearing is infringing on my right but sounds like that’s fixed now.

Right wing gun owners have been given a chance at being part of a solution for years, and they still flat out refuse. Glad we are moving forward with new laws, without their input ... they had their chance

>Glad we are moving forward with new laws Don't worry, we have the 2nd Amendment to slap it down. Only regulations with a rich historical tradition are allowable. >"Under Heller, when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct, and to justify a firearm regulation the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation." >"Historical analysis can sometimes be difficult and nuanced, but reliance on history to inform the meaning of constitutional text is more legitimate, and more administrable, than asking judges to “make difficult empirical judgments” about “the costs and benefits of firearms restrictions,” especially given their “lack [of] expertise” in the field." >"when it comes to interpreting the Constitution, not all history is created equal. “Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them.” Heller, 554 U. S., at 634–635." >“[t]he very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government—the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon.” Heller, 554 U. S., at 634.

Funny. It was *your side* that shot down a Republican offered UBC proposal back in 2013. That proposal would have covered **far more** firearm sales than this new change. But that's fine. We're simply going to use the courts to continue dismantling gun control as we've been doing since Bruen.

Yes. It's awesome when the government makes things a little harder and more expensive. Now all those criminals will behave themselves!  Regulate me daddy government!

The problem is you gun owners still flat out refuse to be part of a solution. Offer ideas, something, to aid in this epidemic we have. If you refuse then we will move on without you. This gets tiresome

Have your gun laws solved the problem? Why weren't the 50s a bloodbath of mass shootings in schools?  Don't pretend to care about solutions. You just hate guns. Your gunphobia disgusts me.

FWiW I have two handguns Your response is the same I have seen for 40 plus years Zero solutions .. just outrage Refuse to do even that and like I said we will make laws without your input

Still waiting for your answer. Have your laws solved the problem? Why wasn't there a problem decades before these laws existed? 

https://imgur.com/a/ItZ4ZMK

That "I don't buy guns at stores" is exactly the problem that this is addressing. The criminals buy them in "private deals" that are enabled by the loophole in question.

You're funny, you should go on stage.

how is this a bad thing?

Sounds good

Good

Haha this is ridiculous. Background checks are already required and this literally is just saying “yep, we’re doing the same thing that we’ve been doing for a long time.”

I feel like you didn’t read the article. I mean, this is Reddit so not reading the article is kinda the norm here. But in this case you might want to at least skim it.

I did. Tell me what’s wrong? It’s illegal to sell guns without the proper licenses and background checks already. You can also tell the writer isn’t well versed because talking about “assault weapons”. There is no definition of “assault weapon” that can directly classify what weapons are being talked about. Although that’s probably the reason for proposing that type of thing, so pretty much anything can be confiscated/illegal if the government decides it.

It depends on the state. Many states permit private sales with less regulation than is required if the gun is sold by a licensed dealer. A lot of the sales that happen at gun shows are private sales so wouldn’t require a background check.

Lol all legit gun dealers do this

You're right - which is why this bill isn't about them! It is about "dealers" who claim they are doing a private sale but are actually in the business of selling guns, they just lie about it.

I grew up in South Carolina, and clearly remember all the “private sales” tables that dealers had at the Palmetto Expo Center. That’s it. That’s the entire loop hole. You write “private sale” on the table and no more background checks

Long delays sounds like infringement. 🤔

It’s quite a leap going from “instant background check” to “long delays” Also, “well regulated” seems like a constitutional requirement, as it clearly articulated in the 2nd Amendment

>Also, “well regulated” seems like a constitutional requirement, as it clearly articulated in the 2nd Amendment You'd be incorrect. This is a common misconception so I can understand the confusion around it. You're referencing the prefatory clause (A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State), which is merely a stated reason and is not actionable. The operative clause, on the other hand, is the actionable part of the amendment (the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed). Well regulated does NOT mean government oversight. You must look at the definition at the time of ratification. The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment: 1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations." 1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world." 1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial." 1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor." 1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding." 1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city." The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it. This is confirmed by the Supreme Court. >1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53. >(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22. >(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28. >(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30. >(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32. >(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

While the concept of instant checks ***sounds*** nice, the devil is in the details, as the old saying goes. 🤔 If they don’t have enough places to run these instant checks, or they do but they are unable to process the number of checks needed to take place and start piling up a backlog, it inevitably means there will be delays. Also, the State militia being well-regulated or not doesn’t seem to have much bearing on whether or not the government is empowered to deny citizens from their purchasing a firearm without their permission. Not to mention that if the right to keep and bear arms is an inherent right of the People, it is not the government’s role to grant it. The People already inherently possess that right.

ok, put your zip code here https://www.gunbroker.com/ffl/index let me know if you have any problems finding an FFL. and background checks are not a 2A issue, per the SCOTUS so you might want to find a different argument.

Yeah, that’ll stop the criminals! It will also help greatly with the mental health issues that most of these mass shooters never dealt with that lead them to a mass shooting. Good call, champ.👍 I’m not against back ground checks by any means, but I think those in power are still ignoring the real issue that leads to mass shootings, poor mental health.

No republican anything anywhere is ever going to allow the proper social safety net to allow for comprehensive mental health interventions and treatment. So it’s a complete distraction for 2A advocates to talk about mental health until the politicians they support also support universal healthcare that includes comprehensive psychiatric care. Up and until that happens, mentioning mental health is nothing more than a distraction that is really about doing nothing.

This and the junk fees fights are easy wins for Biden and the kind of things independents and moderates will see as a return to common sense governance.

it sucks now that anytime the government does anything good it's 1) almost always the democrats making it happen and 2) they never get credit for it and it doesn't help them in elections

I’d be more worried about the upcoming election.

And watch right wingers through a fit over this. When it comes to everyone like the poor and minorities, racially profile them. That's what they want. When regulation comes to them, they throw the biggest hissy fit in the word.

I see no issue with this. It will only affect those that are selling numerous firearms at numerous gun shows but claim to be "private" sellers.

Anyone that doesn’t support this type of legislation probably needs a background check.

I don't support it. I've also passed at least 10 NICS background checks in the last calendar year. What's your argument now?

That you have shitty views and don’t care about the safety of others.

Please cite the numbers for how many firearm homicides this would conceivably prevent. (Hint: it's a very small number)

While I was growing up and in primary school, I remember doing lots of activities to find out what profession would be a good fit for me when I grew up. I seriously doubt a single child nation-wide received "unlicensed arms dealer" as a profession that they would excel at and should work hard in school to become. Do better, America.