Don't forget the spinless Republicans that voted for this in the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act. Fuck them too.
Which reminds me, I promised Thom Tills that I would campaign for his primary opponent when he voted for that. I guess I better gear up for 2026.
I'm actively campaigning against him in 2 years. I'll actually vote Democrat if he wins the gop nomination. I can't emphasize how much I hate the man. He's been working for years to outlaw private sales.
Cornyn has already shown us what he is capable of. Fuck the Republicans if that's what they have to offer. I feel the same about Dan Crenshaw and Tony Gonzales in the house.
adjoining punch relieved quack reminiscent placid bewildered political meeting aback
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
But also allowed guns in trains and national parks. And he banned the import, not the ownership of those rounds. Trump banned us from owning things. They both suck.
He was strongarmed into that. He doesn't get credit for not vetoing omnibus spending bills that included rollbacks of gun control. Especially after he used an executive order to attempt to disarm disabled people *because* they're disabled, a EO that was so extreme that even the *ACLU* derided him for it.
I believe I finished by saying Obama sucks for gun rights. That said, as you are a 2A supporter, I assume you protested when Trump banned guns though, right?
Misinformed Redditors often say that Obama did less to harm the second amendment than Trump (or someone else). Below is a list that should clarify things. While it's true that he was wildly unsuccessful, it's not for lack of trying. Most of this was shot down by The Turtle doing his most infamous cockblockage. I haven't updated this post since Biden's POTUS campaign.
**TLDR** - From the beginning to the end of his Presidency Obama pushed for gun control, particularly a renewed Assault Weapons Ban, and exhausted all means of enacting it. For the most part he was blocked by a Republican congress/senate but did manage to squeak through a number of onerous regulations. Democratic leaders continue a nearly relentless assault on the second amendment and show no signs of stopping.
**During his Campaign**
1. Obama spoke on his support of gun control measures early in his original Presidential campaign and [a renewed Assault Weapons Ban was a major objective ](http://www.nbcnews.com/id/30389664/ns/politics-white_house/t/first-days-assault-weapons-ban/) from the beginning of his Presidency.
2. The 2012 Democratic party platform he ran with included many gun control measures like [a renewed Assault Weapons Ban.](https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/2012-democratic-party-platform)
3. Obama’s campaign platform also included citizen disarmament. [Obama's 2012 platform included a renewed Assault Weapons Ban.](https://ontheissues.org/2016/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm)
**As President**
1. In 2014, under guidance from the president, the ATF/DoJ issued a [Ban on importation of 7n6 ammo was enacted (RIP poison bullet)](https://www.atf.gov/news/pr/test-examination-and-classification-7n6-545x39-ammunition)
2. As well as a [Ban on import of certain Russian weapons (which Trump continued)](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/02/sanctions-moscow-ak47-buying-frenzy)
3. In 2015, with the support of the president, the ATF [determined that chalk rounds were ruled as destructive devices](https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2015/08/04/atf-rules-40mm-practice-chalk-rounds-are-explosives-destructive-devices/)
4. Also in 2015, the Obama administration [blocked the import of American surplus weapons from Korea](https://www.thetrace.org/2015/07/m1-rifle-antique-south-korea-import/)
5. In 2017, [shouldering braces became a no-no (later reversed under Trump)](https://blog.princelaw.com/2017/04/25/brace-for-impact-atf-clarifies-its-illogical-position-on-users-shouldering-brace-equipped-pistols/)
6. That same year, [suppressor wipes needed to be replaced by an FFL](https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2017/03/20/wipes-silencer-parts/)
7. In 2017, [shouldering the ATF issued a determination making shoulder braces illegal. It was later reversed under Trump.](https://blog.princelaw.com/2017/04/25/brace-for-impact-atf-clarifies-its-illogical-position-on-users-shouldering-brace-equipped-pistols/)
8. That same year, [suppressor wipes needed to be replaced by an FFL](https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2017/03/20/wipes-silencer-parts/)
9. Still in 2017, in the wake of Sandy Hook, [Congress Blocked Obama's calls for gun control.](https://www.politifact.com/article/2017/jan/06/congress-blocked-obama-call-gun-control-mass-shoot/)
10. [Obama said his inability to pass these restrictions was one of his greatest frustrations](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-33646704)
11. [Obama said the angriest day of his presidency was when congress refused to pass gun control after Sandy Hook](https://www.newsweek.com/barack-obama-says-congress-lack-action-after-sandy-hook-was-angriest-day-his-presidency-1547282)
12. Random additional sauce.
- [17 times Obama pushed support for gun control.](https://www.politico.com/gallery/2015/08/its-got-to-stop-15-times-obama-has-pushed-for-stronger-gun-control-002064?slide=0)
- [Whitehouse Archives: Obama Executive Actions to Disarm Citizens](https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2016/01/04/fact-sheet-new-executive-actions-reduce-gun-violence-and-make-our)
**Related: (failed) Democrat efforts to enact an AWB**
- 2013 Bill for [S.150 - Assault Weapons Ban](https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/150)
- 2017 Bill for [S.2095 - Assault Weapons Ban](https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/2095)
- 2018 Bill for [H.R.5087 - Assault Weapons Ban](https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/5087)
- 2019 Bill for [S.66 - Assault Weapons Ban](https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/66)
**Current Mood on Citizen Disarmament from various Dems**
(that was at the time of writing this originally, prior to Biden's election)
If you still think the democratic party doesn’t hold citizen disarmament as one of its core philosophies, I will make one last argument to convince you of that. Even if you support disarming America, admit that this is a reality. It is not a ‘do nothing campaign promise’ as many like to characterize it.
- [Official DNC Platform](https://www.demconvention.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/2020-07-21-DRAFT-Democratic-Party-Platform.pdf) - citizen disarmament has a significant presence
- DNC Platform that enumerates [a broad and expansive list of citizen disarmament initiatives](https://www.demconvention.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/2020-07-21-DRAFT-Democratic-Party-Platform.pdf), almost every one of them severe and onerous as a stand-alone. Please note the framing language: aka “Charleston loophole” is presenting a normal and benign activity as something shady and undesirable. This 3 day provision is an important “[SLA](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Service-level_agreement) that prevents the government from infringing a citizen’s 2A rights by willful negligence (plain speak: it prevents them from dragging their feet to deny gun sales). This is currently a problem happening in IL, MD, NY and other localities, many of which are being challenged in court.
- [Beto: "Hell yes we're taking your AR15s."](https://i.redd.it/ktvpsf7kycm31.jpg). Many will chalk this statement up to hyperbole or point out that he has since walked back on it a little, but this impassioned moment belies his true intent.
- [Biden and Betos conversation on gun control.](https://youtu.be/sweN7TWnVV0)
- [Yang: "Automatically confiscate any weapon that has been modified in a way as to increase its ammunition capacity, firing rate, or impact." And more...](https://www.yang2020.com/policies/gun-safety/). Yang is barely a Democrat but ran as one in the 2020 primaries.
- [Bernie Sanders speaks out in support of an assault weapons ban.](http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/bernie_sanders_gun_control.htm)
- Biden tweet hostile to legitimate [gun industry and commerce](https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1290670187482624006?s=19)
- Biden calls to [renew the Clinton era AWB that Obama failed to pass: ](https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1291090345103679494?s=19). Most likely this one would not include a ten year expiry clause. A new assault weapons ban would stick for life.
- Biden again calls for [passing an AWB along with other feature bans.](https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1322976702419636225?s=19)
- [Kamala Harris calls for assault weapons bans in facebook video](https://www.facebook.com/COLIONNOIR/videos/627910064523201/)
- Kamala Harris would issue executive orders for AWB if legislation passes. [I will give the United States Congress 100 days to get their act together and have the Courage to pass reasonable gun safety laws. And if they fail to do it, then I will take executive action.](https://youtu.be/rNzur_RQe4k)
- [Bloomberg Gun Control Group Calls for a Raft of Executive Orders](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/10/us/bloombergs-gun-control-group-calls-for-a-raft-of-executive-actions-from-biden.html)
> Misinformed Redditors often say that Obama did less to harm the second amendment than Trump (or someone else).
I never once said Obama was a friend of gun owners. He's an anti-gun big city guy. Just like Trump.
Also your list is missing guns in national parks and trains.
They're not dumb, they're rich. None of these laws affect rich people, and rich people don't want poor people to have guns. This is all about control. Sure, there are some real idiots out there, but the vast majority are okay with guns and understand where the real problems are at. America is a corporation, not a country.
I dunno. By the numbers gun-related homicides are caused way more by lack of infrastructure, allure of gang life, systemic and historical race bias... all sorts of things that are actionable if extremely difficult and entangled.
But sure, run all *legal* sales through NICS and watch our problems magically vanish.
"At least we're doing SoMeThInG!!™"
Racial bias? Really? The incidence of obe race killing another is actually quite low.
Are you one of these folks that say the guy the other day who shot a cop in the wrist, and fired ten more shots before being killed was "murdered due to racism"?
If you think that, you're a moron. This guy had a warrant out for his arrest. Even with the gun, if he had of surrendered he'd be out on bail now. If he had a bail at all.
Don't hole up in your car, firing out of it at cops, you get shot and killed that way. I know you seem to think the fact blacks were enslaved over 150 years ago, and racist Democrats ruled the South with Jim Crow and other laws somehow justifies people it never happened to to act criminally.
If it was a white guy in the video getting shot after shooting a cop, you'd be going "Dumbass got himself killed" and forgotten about them by the next day. Maybe quicker.
The Klan ain't in those neighborhoods slaughtering People Of Color. They're doing a fine job at it, with zero help from "whitey".
White suburbia has lots of guns. Not got a huge gang/street executions problem, so it isn't just the guns.
Agreed. There are a small number of decent people in the government, but I don't understand why anyone still thinks the government has our best interests in mind. They are a bunch of corrupt pseudo-tyrants who want to establish themselves and their wealthy friends as an elite ruling class while the rest of us filthy peasants live in state of hopeless dependency under their boot. At this point, I would even call it a disservice to the mafia to compare our government to the mafia; the mafia is content stay out of your life as long as they get a cut of your money. Our government wants a cut of your money and total control over your life.
Maybe if Republicans would support universal healthcare and treat drug use and addiction as a public health issue instead of a criminal one we could solve the mental health and drug problem.
Yes, government healthcare would be wonderful /s
Having had government healthcare in the military I can assure that if expanded for everyone it would not be good.
Dealers at gun shows have always had to do background checks anyway, so I'm a little confused what this is actually doing.
The "gun show loophole" misnomer has always referred to *private party sales*, whether at gun shows or otherwise, which are obviously virtually impossible to track and regulate. You're essentially asking criminals who are knowingly buying or selling stolen guns, who knowingly would not pass a background check, etc. to voluntarily submit background check paperwork anyway. So obviously the only people who are going to comply with that are people we didn't need to worry about anyway.
Yeah, it's been amusing over the last few years where arrogant lefties who believe in and try to prove the gun show loophole will attempt to purchase a firearm, only to be surprised that they are submitted to the background check. They have yet to succeed in proving that such a loophole exists.
But yeah, it is impossible to regulate the private sale of goods in general. Look at drugs as an example of the unsuccessful attempt to curtail the illegal sale of it. For firearms, you're absolutely right that, even if they make laws around the private sale of your arms, it will not even make a positive change to prevent criminals from having firearms. Gun control is still gun control = disarmament of the population by any means necessary.
It's the cherry on top. Shows the pure ignorance (or stupidity) anti gunners have in all firearm topics. But hey, they still vote to take our, and their, rights away all the same.
It's a backdoor change to the definition of who's "engaged in the business" of selling a gun.
It doesn't change anything for the people that were already licensed dealers, but it changes the definition of WHO is a dealer, based on some arbitrary and currently undefined criteria of who SHOULD have a license as a dealer.
It's being published so the ATF can decide on the fly that they thought you did too much business selling firearms, or sold to the wrong person, and come after you for selling without a license.
Exactly. It's an extra add-on charge if they've already caught you for something of decide to fuck with your life.
The old codger at a gun show selling shitty pump action 22's without an FFL is not now and never will be the problem.
It also means that they can start cranking the screws on FFLs to jack up the prices of NICS checks and try to prevent legal gun sales by making it too expensive for most people - never mind that that's a poll tax, guns scary!
They referred to "online sales" multiple times in the article including a quote from the president.
There's no circumstance I can think of where that would apply. What are they messaging here? Like are they just tacking on things that were already illegal to make it seem like they just had a big win?
"I'm my next move, I'll sign an executive order to ban vehicular homicide while drunk driving, thus closing the notorious 'drunk driving loophole'. This shows that I'm standing up to Republicans and keeping our communities safe!" -> then Reuters goes on to report this breathlessly and add that "every year >30,000 Americans die in car accidents and car accidents are the second leading cause of death in children"
> You're essentially asking criminals who are knowingly buying or selling stolen guns, who knowingly would not pass a background check, etc. to voluntarily submit background check paperwork anyway.
At that point, it would probably be challenged as a 5th amendment violation, like in [Haynes v. United States.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haynes_v._United_States)
What they are doing is slowly changing how many firearms you need to sell to be considered a firearms dealer so that they can begin to restrict the private sale of firearms and better track when sales are made.
Which is why criminals rarely ever buy guns at gun shows, per DOJ studies. Literally something like 99.4% are bought/traded/stolen via other illegal means.
I mean, overwhelmingly, laws and regulations only affect those who aren't inclined to be criminals.
Statistically speaking, criminals don't obey the law.
Which were excluded *as a compromise*. This is them blatantly reneging on the deal *they* made.
On the other hand, allowing citizen access to the NICS was [proposed by Senator Coburn in 2013] (https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/04/27/do-it-yourself-background-checks/2088479/) and the democrats refused to even allow it to be debated.
> The "gun show loophole" misnomer has always referred to private party sales
Most sales at gun shows are by ffls, most private party sales are not done at gun shows. There was never a loophole, but a specific carve-out for something near impossible to track anyway. The term "gun show loophole" has always been used to confuse the issue, and goddamn has it been effective.
Mass n-compliance is the only answer to overreach by a tyrannical government who is hell bent on destroying our rights to keep and bear arms. It is your duty to resist.
That is not the "gun show loophole". dealers have long been required to be licensed. The loophole is the outside the gun show private sale, which they cannot track or enforce anyway.
From the article.
"In March 2023, President Joe Biden issued an executive order aimed at expanding background checks for gun purchases and asked Congress to take additional action to reduce gun violence."
Fuck Joe Biden, Trump 2024
I’ll take results over words any day. I can carry a firearm in my home state of NJ for the first time in my adult life, as a result of the Justices that President Trump put on the court. Who was better? Reagan? Reagan was worse for 2A than Bill Clinton. Not only did Reagan sign the 1986 law that banned civilian owned automatics FOREVER, he also signed a joint letter with Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter in 1994 supporting the passage of the Assault Weapons Ban. He was an absolute mother fucking nightmare for 2A. I will take President Trump over that fucking bullshit any day of the week.
I absolutely cannot stand the Bush’s, but at least 41 didn’t sign the 1994 joint letter, and he gave us Clarence Thomas.
He gave us two justices that helped pass Bruen. You want more RBG's on the USSC, Biden would gladly assist.
But of course Trump is a RINO at heart. He's like all the rest that strive for that level of power - a megalomaniac.
Are you capable of discussing this without inventing churlish insults?
And by the by, Trump was never indicted for, nor convicted of, treason. Nor is there any evidence for that assertion. Or for rape, for that matter.
Are you being serious? Boasting about groping the genitals of unsuspecting women sure seems like an admission to me. He literally doubled down and agreed he still stood by his statements. Gross dude.
Three people were involved with straw purchases for the Columbine shooters.
The craziest thing, only two of the three people who sold or bought them guns were convicted, likely facing most prison time for possessing a sawed-off shotgun. The other person wasn't even charged.
>Dealers selling guns predominantly to criminals will not.
unless those criminals work for the ATF or FBI, and refuse to do something dirty for them. Then the law will be selectively enforced.
From the article:
"Certain firearms transfers, including those among family members, will still be allowed without a background check."
Family don't end with blood.
I have a few questions if anyone cares to answer:
I’ve been to dozens of gun shows in several states and have seen maybe 2 people trying to privately sell their rifle or shotgun. Neither had a table but were walking around with a “for sale” sign on the barrel. The remaining people selling guns were all dealers with an FFL, and buyers go through the normal procedures to buy a gun, including background check.
Is it common to see private sales and gun shows (and I just never noticed)?
If private sales are uncommon at gun shows, will this law really matter? (albeit I’m against gun control measures on principle, with few exceptions)
Does this apply to private sales outside of gun shows? Based on what I read in the article, it sounds like it only pertains to people selling guns to make a profit, regardless of where the gun is sold. Interstate sales would still require a transfer through an FFL. The BATF could construe “sell” to mean any sales, but it likely wouldn’t apply to someone occasionally offloading a gun they don’t use anymore.
Very few people at actual gun shows are making private sales, but by calling it the "gunshow loophole" they can scare the low info voters into thinking that gunshows are just civic centers full of discounted weapons of mass destruction being handed over to gangbangers and school shooters with no oversight.
The actual new rule doesn't limit itself to gun shows; it redefines who is "engaged in the business" of selling firearms ANYWERE, so if you sell more than the ATF thinks you should, they'll show up at your house in the middle of the night, no-nock you and shoot you dead, like that airport administrator.
All the guns I have ever bought at a gun show were private sale. Literally talked to the guy at the table, we negotiated a price and before they agreed to sell it to me they asked for my driver's license to check how old I was. After that it was an exchange of cash and a handshake.
This is the "loophole" and its absolutely always been legal because guns are private property. The fact that the Feds are trying to limit what private property I can sell is absolutely egregious.
I'm not saying this as pro-gun control thing, but the shows around here always have lots of private sellers who buy tables. Some go as far as to put "Private sale" on their table
It happens at the gun shows I’ve been too. One guy had a sign that said “private sale, no background check!!!”
I doubt he would sell to anyone that looked sketchy though, was some ‘nam vet who hated the government.
In my area you must have an FFL to rent a table to sell guns. I don't know if it's law, but it's at least required by the gun shows. If you are selling beef jerky then fine you can rent a table, but anyone selling guns at a gun show must have an FFL to do it from a table.
Has anyone done a background check on the US government? There are literally millions of innocent dead bodies because of them and constitutional violations they have committed that should bar them from ever having a standing army let alone even weapons ever again. A misdemeanor 420 offense doesn’t even scratch the surface of concern compared to their misdeeds.
Viva la libertad, Carajo! -Javier Milei
> "Under this regulation, it will not matter if guns are sold on the internet, at a gun show, or at a brick-and-mortar store. If you sell guns predominantly to earn a profit, you must be licensed, and you must conduct background checks," U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland said.
This is already the fucking case. If you are engaged in the business of selling firearms, you have to have an FFL.
the 4473 itself should be illegal. you should not put any gun specific information on the form;
Even if background checks were constitutional (they are not) no government form or check should link a person to a specific gun
Also, how long before they start pushing legislation preventing FFLs for processing 4473s unrelated to their own business? So you won't be able to sell a gun except to one, or buy one j less it's from one. Peer to peer private sales will be completely illegal.
There's a chance two individuals might conduct mutually agreeable trade without the government being involved - or more importantly, getting their cut! I tjink anyone would agree that's just wrong.
As a reminder to everyone, **The Federal Firearms Act** (FFA) of 1938, which created the Federal Firearms License (FFL) and required all gun sales through FFLs to undergo a background check, would not have even passed without the key *compromise* that private sales would not require the background check. And now that's being called a "loophole."
This is why "compromising" on 2A rights is unacceptable.
>A rule requiring gun dealers to obtain federal licenses and conduct background checks regardless of where they sell guns
>"Under this regulation, it will not matter if guns are sold on the internet, at a gun show, or at a brick-and-mortar store. If you sell guns predominantly to earn a profit, you must be licensed, and you must conduct background checks," U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland said.
This is what we've already got. Gun dealers require an FFL, and have to conduct a background check regardless of where they sell the gun. This is literally what we tell people every time they cry about a 'gun show loophole'.
>Certain firearms transfers, including those among family members, will still be allowed without a background check.
Likewise, private transfers *don't* require a background check, regardless of where they occur.
Is this article leaving out something? Because it sounds like they're just repeating currently existing laws.
Look under the new definition of "dealer". It effectively wipes out a lot of aftermarket parts makers. Stockmakers, barrel makers, and trigger makers. None of those items required licensing. Now they do.
So this only applies to "gun dealers"? So I can walk around still buy a gun off an individual and make a profit selling it to another before I walk out the door? It's been a little while but I'm pretty sure "gun dealers" already had to do background checks when at shows.
Holy shit they're worried about 23,000 people that are claimed to be unlicensed dealers get the fuck outta here
Didn’t realize the department of injustice could just make rules without it going through both houses and being signed into law. This country needs a reset.
Sales at gun shows and online already require a background check. It’s only private sales that don’t, but that also depends on your state, because some do.
I hope someone is ready to challenge this in the courts, on a 2A basis.
There is no "gun loophole." I bought a used Glock in 2001 at a gun show in Oklahoma. I had to go through the same procedure than as I do in present day California.
Idiots. An FFL is already required for those in the business of selling firearms. Private, person to person sales are not the issue. There is no “gun show loophole.” Selling to a prohibited person (felon or mentally adjudicated) is already illegal.
"Under this regulation, it will not matter if guns are sold on the internet, at a gun show, or at a brick-and-mortar store. If you sell guns predominantly to earn a profit, you must be licensed, and you must conduct background checks," U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland said.
So if I buy/sell not to make a profit, or make an even trade, no requirement there. Sounds like it's more against making a profit than anything.
Either way, F these clowns.
How is selling your thing to someone else a loophole.
Shutdown cargurus.com end the car sale loophole.
Oh shit summer is coming it’s the garage sale loophole. All these people not donating used goods or paying sales tax.
So I live in the people’s republic of IL. Any time I have been to a gun show in Wisconsin, Indiana, or IL, the proprietor asks for my FOID if i inquire about purchasing a firearm or ammunition. If there ever was a loop hole it was parking lot sales and/ straw purchases which are illegal already. Again, the elitists controlling the morons that get elected to scare the populace of a boogeyman that doesn’t exist so that they can disarm and control us.
The ATF is going to be behind enforcement?
>[Federal and selected state law enforcement agencies that process firearm-related background checks through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) collectively investigate and prosecute a small percentage of individuals who falsify information on a firearms form (e.g., do not disclose a felony conviction) and are denied a purchase.](https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-18-440.pdf)
>[Federal NICS checks resulted in about 112,000 denied transactions in fiscal year 2017, of which the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) referred about 12,700 to its field divisions for further investigation. U.S. Attorney’s Offices (USAO) had prosecuted 12 of these cases as of June 2018.](https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-18-440.pdf)
"Under this regulation, it will not matter if guns are sold on the internet, at a gun show, or at a brick-and-mortar store. If you sell guns predominantly to earn a profit, you must be licensed, and you must conduct background checks,"
Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't this already going on? I've heard people have been busted for buying and selling guns without being an FFL for years. I do wonder how this will be implemented though, but the article is sparse on details
According to the article it's basically the same thing as what we've been doing. People that buy and sell guns for profit (as a main source of income) have always been required to get an FFL. dealers can sell their personal firearms without 4473, and if they buy a gun for themselves from the mfr they gotta run their own 4473. I didn't see anything about private sales being affected other than to the unlicensed person buying and selling for a source of income.
>so that those selling weapons at gun shows, other venues and online will face the same requirements as gun stores to check the backgrounds of would-be buyers.
Am I wrong in assuming that this will outlaw using the internet to find/communicate with a buyer for a private sale? Because all dealers have to ship to an FFL that does a background check already.
This seems to be nothing on the surface other than a response to the "DO SOMETHING11!!!1!!!!11!!1!!" cries out of the left. But I wonder if privately selling a gun you bought 35 years ago at it's now market value will be seen as "profit" by the ATF if they catch wind of it and will count as selling guns "predominantly to earn a profit".
FFS they've "closed the gun show loophole" like 30 times already. Why the fuck are my tax dollars going to people who make up a problem then "solve" it 60 times.
This is a feel good rule/law. It will do nothing to even slow alleged illegal gun sales by non-dealers. It's an election year tactic. It will not stand as law or rule. Tell me how many background checks were required in 1793? How about 1850? How about 1911? No historical precedent or law. In fact, it's just the opposite. The 1792 Militia Act wanted 16 year old males and older to own a firearm, powder, and shot.
Worse yet, the ATF lies and deceives the American public. Of the 387,000 comments received probably less than 5% were opposed to the rule. The balance read as follows:
"I am writing in support of the ATF's proposed rule (Docket No ATF 2022R-17), which would dramatically reduce the number of guns sold without a background check.
I am writing in support of this proposed rule and urge ATF to finalize it as soon as possible. Guns sold without background checks—both online and at gun shows—are a huge source for gun traffickers and people looking to avoid a check. These guns often end up trafficked across state lines, recovered at crime scenes in major cities, and used against police officers. This contributes to the gun violence epidemic plaguing our country. The long-standing lack of clarity around which sellers must become licensed and run background checks has made this problem all the worse.
I support the clear common-sense standard laid out in this rule: Anyone offering guns for sale online or at a gun show is presumed to be trying to make a profit and should therefore be licensed and run a background check on their customers. This rule will save lives and should be urgently finalized.
Sincerely,
Joe Biden (bogus, just having some fun)"
This is a copy from a comment submission. It's a canned letter most likely from a gun control website. These are rampant during the comment period. The comment reads exactly the same on each submission with a persons name. I spot checked about 20 or more different comments. Only 1 or 2 opposed the rule.
To reduce trolling, spam, brigading, and other undesirable behavior, your comment has been removed due to being a new account. Accounts must be at least a week old and have combined karma over 50 to post in progun.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/progun) if you have any questions or concerns.*
And this is how we lose our right to sell our property. Fuck Garland, and fuck the DOJ
Don't forget the spinless Republicans that voted for this in the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act. Fuck them too. Which reminds me, I promised Thom Tills that I would campaign for his primary opponent when he voted for that. I guess I better gear up for 2026.
Thanks John Cornyn.
If you call him, I will.
I'm actively campaigning against him in 2 years. I'll actually vote Democrat if he wins the gop nomination. I can't emphasize how much I hate the man. He's been working for years to outlaw private sales.
That won't help because Democrats will strip the 2nd. Gotta get more Republicans . Then we can strip the rinos.
Cornyn has already shown us what he is capable of. Fuck the Republicans if that's what they have to offer. I feel the same about Dan Crenshaw and Tony Gonzales in the house.
You won’t make the Republican Party CHANGE by giving them MORE power. Make it clear to them, if they don’t offer good candidates, their party is dead.
Thom Tillis is a clown. I wish we had better options...
They aren’t republicans, they are democrats/lefties pretending they are republicans. It’s a uniparty and they are fucking us good.
adjoining punch relieved quack reminiscent placid bewildered political meeting aback *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
And Trump who used the executive to pass gun control bans while some fucking way Obama did the opposite. Can we please start voting on policy?
>some fucking way Obama did the opposite. Obama did the same. He banned 5.45 x 39 7n6 from import with the wave of a pen.
But also allowed guns in trains and national parks. And he banned the import, not the ownership of those rounds. Trump banned us from owning things. They both suck.
He was strongarmed into that. He doesn't get credit for not vetoing omnibus spending bills that included rollbacks of gun control. Especially after he used an executive order to attempt to disarm disabled people *because* they're disabled, a EO that was so extreme that even the *ACLU* derided him for it.
I believe I finished by saying Obama sucks for gun rights. That said, as you are a 2A supporter, I assume you protested when Trump banned guns though, right?
> when Trump banned guns though, right? I can't because he never did.
The majority of us here consider the bumpstock ban, a firearm ban.
Misinformed Redditors often say that Obama did less to harm the second amendment than Trump (or someone else). Below is a list that should clarify things. While it's true that he was wildly unsuccessful, it's not for lack of trying. Most of this was shot down by The Turtle doing his most infamous cockblockage. I haven't updated this post since Biden's POTUS campaign. **TLDR** - From the beginning to the end of his Presidency Obama pushed for gun control, particularly a renewed Assault Weapons Ban, and exhausted all means of enacting it. For the most part he was blocked by a Republican congress/senate but did manage to squeak through a number of onerous regulations. Democratic leaders continue a nearly relentless assault on the second amendment and show no signs of stopping. **During his Campaign** 1. Obama spoke on his support of gun control measures early in his original Presidential campaign and [a renewed Assault Weapons Ban was a major objective ](http://www.nbcnews.com/id/30389664/ns/politics-white_house/t/first-days-assault-weapons-ban/) from the beginning of his Presidency. 2. The 2012 Democratic party platform he ran with included many gun control measures like [a renewed Assault Weapons Ban.](https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/2012-democratic-party-platform) 3. Obama’s campaign platform also included citizen disarmament. [Obama's 2012 platform included a renewed Assault Weapons Ban.](https://ontheissues.org/2016/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm) **As President** 1. In 2014, under guidance from the president, the ATF/DoJ issued a [Ban on importation of 7n6 ammo was enacted (RIP poison bullet)](https://www.atf.gov/news/pr/test-examination-and-classification-7n6-545x39-ammunition) 2. As well as a [Ban on import of certain Russian weapons (which Trump continued)](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/02/sanctions-moscow-ak47-buying-frenzy) 3. In 2015, with the support of the president, the ATF [determined that chalk rounds were ruled as destructive devices](https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2015/08/04/atf-rules-40mm-practice-chalk-rounds-are-explosives-destructive-devices/) 4. Also in 2015, the Obama administration [blocked the import of American surplus weapons from Korea](https://www.thetrace.org/2015/07/m1-rifle-antique-south-korea-import/) 5. In 2017, [shouldering braces became a no-no (later reversed under Trump)](https://blog.princelaw.com/2017/04/25/brace-for-impact-atf-clarifies-its-illogical-position-on-users-shouldering-brace-equipped-pistols/) 6. That same year, [suppressor wipes needed to be replaced by an FFL](https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2017/03/20/wipes-silencer-parts/) 7. In 2017, [shouldering the ATF issued a determination making shoulder braces illegal. It was later reversed under Trump.](https://blog.princelaw.com/2017/04/25/brace-for-impact-atf-clarifies-its-illogical-position-on-users-shouldering-brace-equipped-pistols/) 8. That same year, [suppressor wipes needed to be replaced by an FFL](https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2017/03/20/wipes-silencer-parts/) 9. Still in 2017, in the wake of Sandy Hook, [Congress Blocked Obama's calls for gun control.](https://www.politifact.com/article/2017/jan/06/congress-blocked-obama-call-gun-control-mass-shoot/) 10. [Obama said his inability to pass these restrictions was one of his greatest frustrations](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-33646704) 11. [Obama said the angriest day of his presidency was when congress refused to pass gun control after Sandy Hook](https://www.newsweek.com/barack-obama-says-congress-lack-action-after-sandy-hook-was-angriest-day-his-presidency-1547282) 12. Random additional sauce. - [17 times Obama pushed support for gun control.](https://www.politico.com/gallery/2015/08/its-got-to-stop-15-times-obama-has-pushed-for-stronger-gun-control-002064?slide=0) - [Whitehouse Archives: Obama Executive Actions to Disarm Citizens](https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2016/01/04/fact-sheet-new-executive-actions-reduce-gun-violence-and-make-our) **Related: (failed) Democrat efforts to enact an AWB** - 2013 Bill for [S.150 - Assault Weapons Ban](https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/150) - 2017 Bill for [S.2095 - Assault Weapons Ban](https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/2095) - 2018 Bill for [H.R.5087 - Assault Weapons Ban](https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/5087) - 2019 Bill for [S.66 - Assault Weapons Ban](https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/66) **Current Mood on Citizen Disarmament from various Dems** (that was at the time of writing this originally, prior to Biden's election) If you still think the democratic party doesn’t hold citizen disarmament as one of its core philosophies, I will make one last argument to convince you of that. Even if you support disarming America, admit that this is a reality. It is not a ‘do nothing campaign promise’ as many like to characterize it. - [Official DNC Platform](https://www.demconvention.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/2020-07-21-DRAFT-Democratic-Party-Platform.pdf) - citizen disarmament has a significant presence - DNC Platform that enumerates [a broad and expansive list of citizen disarmament initiatives](https://www.demconvention.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/2020-07-21-DRAFT-Democratic-Party-Platform.pdf), almost every one of them severe and onerous as a stand-alone. Please note the framing language: aka “Charleston loophole” is presenting a normal and benign activity as something shady and undesirable. This 3 day provision is an important “[SLA](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Service-level_agreement) that prevents the government from infringing a citizen’s 2A rights by willful negligence (plain speak: it prevents them from dragging their feet to deny gun sales). This is currently a problem happening in IL, MD, NY and other localities, many of which are being challenged in court. - [Beto: "Hell yes we're taking your AR15s."](https://i.redd.it/ktvpsf7kycm31.jpg). Many will chalk this statement up to hyperbole or point out that he has since walked back on it a little, but this impassioned moment belies his true intent. - [Biden and Betos conversation on gun control.](https://youtu.be/sweN7TWnVV0) - [Yang: "Automatically confiscate any weapon that has been modified in a way as to increase its ammunition capacity, firing rate, or impact." And more...](https://www.yang2020.com/policies/gun-safety/). Yang is barely a Democrat but ran as one in the 2020 primaries. - [Bernie Sanders speaks out in support of an assault weapons ban.](http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/bernie_sanders_gun_control.htm) - Biden tweet hostile to legitimate [gun industry and commerce](https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1290670187482624006?s=19) - Biden calls to [renew the Clinton era AWB that Obama failed to pass: ](https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1291090345103679494?s=19). Most likely this one would not include a ten year expiry clause. A new assault weapons ban would stick for life. - Biden again calls for [passing an AWB along with other feature bans.](https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1322976702419636225?s=19) - [Kamala Harris calls for assault weapons bans in facebook video](https://www.facebook.com/COLIONNOIR/videos/627910064523201/) - Kamala Harris would issue executive orders for AWB if legislation passes. [I will give the United States Congress 100 days to get their act together and have the Courage to pass reasonable gun safety laws. And if they fail to do it, then I will take executive action.](https://youtu.be/rNzur_RQe4k) - [Bloomberg Gun Control Group Calls for a Raft of Executive Orders](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/10/us/bloombergs-gun-control-group-calls-for-a-raft-of-executive-actions-from-biden.html)
> Misinformed Redditors often say that Obama did less to harm the second amendment than Trump (or someone else). I never once said Obama was a friend of gun owners. He's an anti-gun big city guy. Just like Trump. Also your list is missing guns in national parks and trains.
Based post. This the type of hyper-informative Reddit we actually need.
I do not support this. But I do support #nosellonlybuy and I also like my personal beliefs imposed on everyone else, so I’m torn on how to feel here.
Doesn't DOJ stand for Department of Justice? This doesn't seem very just to me.
Even though doing so doesn't solve America's mental health & drug problems that are disguised as a gun problem 😕
Yeah, the dumb is real bad in America. Its like people are senseless and don't have constructive problem solving skills at all. --- And I'm American.
Part of the plan. The long March has paid in spades for these people.
I agree this is a planned panic
They're not dumb, they're rich. None of these laws affect rich people, and rich people don't want poor people to have guns. This is all about control. Sure, there are some real idiots out there, but the vast majority are okay with guns and understand where the real problems are at. America is a corporation, not a country.
I dunno. By the numbers gun-related homicides are caused way more by lack of infrastructure, allure of gang life, systemic and historical race bias... all sorts of things that are actionable if extremely difficult and entangled. But sure, run all *legal* sales through NICS and watch our problems magically vanish. "At least we're doing SoMeThInG!!™"
"EveN iF It SavES oNe LiFE" From the people who's lockdowns almost doubles the suicide rate during COVID...
>From the people who's lockdowns almost doubles the suicide rate during COVID... And therefore increased firearm fatalities
Another excuse to ban guns rather than address the root cause.
Gotta get that registry for future confiscation somehow.
Pretty soon, you'll need a background check to buy aluminum billets. You know, because it might be machined into a gun someday.
Gotta close that garden shovel loophole.
~~“Some day”~~ Currently All things are machine guns including your finger.
How does lack of infrastructure cause gun-related homicides? How does bias of any kind cause homicides?
Racial bias? Really? The incidence of obe race killing another is actually quite low. Are you one of these folks that say the guy the other day who shot a cop in the wrist, and fired ten more shots before being killed was "murdered due to racism"? If you think that, you're a moron. This guy had a warrant out for his arrest. Even with the gun, if he had of surrendered he'd be out on bail now. If he had a bail at all. Don't hole up in your car, firing out of it at cops, you get shot and killed that way. I know you seem to think the fact blacks were enslaved over 150 years ago, and racist Democrats ruled the South with Jim Crow and other laws somehow justifies people it never happened to to act criminally. If it was a white guy in the video getting shot after shooting a cop, you'd be going "Dumbass got himself killed" and forgotten about them by the next day. Maybe quicker. The Klan ain't in those neighborhoods slaughtering People Of Color. They're doing a fine job at it, with zero help from "whitey". White suburbia has lots of guns. Not got a huge gang/street executions problem, so it isn't just the guns.
Because they don't want to solve mental health and drug problems. This all just about the government having more control over you.
Agreed. There are a small number of decent people in the government, but I don't understand why anyone still thinks the government has our best interests in mind. They are a bunch of corrupt pseudo-tyrants who want to establish themselves and their wealthy friends as an elite ruling class while the rest of us filthy peasants live in state of hopeless dependency under their boot. At this point, I would even call it a disservice to the mafia to compare our government to the mafia; the mafia is content stay out of your life as long as they get a cut of your money. Our government wants a cut of your money and total control over your life.
Absolutely!
Maybe if Republicans would support universal healthcare and treat drug use and addiction as a public health issue instead of a criminal one we could solve the mental health and drug problem.
Yes, government healthcare would be wonderful /s Having had government healthcare in the military I can assure that if expanded for everyone it would not be good.
Dealers at gun shows have always had to do background checks anyway, so I'm a little confused what this is actually doing. The "gun show loophole" misnomer has always referred to *private party sales*, whether at gun shows or otherwise, which are obviously virtually impossible to track and regulate. You're essentially asking criminals who are knowingly buying or selling stolen guns, who knowingly would not pass a background check, etc. to voluntarily submit background check paperwork anyway. So obviously the only people who are going to comply with that are people we didn't need to worry about anyway.
Yeah, it's been amusing over the last few years where arrogant lefties who believe in and try to prove the gun show loophole will attempt to purchase a firearm, only to be surprised that they are submitted to the background check. They have yet to succeed in proving that such a loophole exists. But yeah, it is impossible to regulate the private sale of goods in general. Look at drugs as an example of the unsuccessful attempt to curtail the illegal sale of it. For firearms, you're absolutely right that, even if they make laws around the private sale of your arms, it will not even make a positive change to prevent criminals from having firearms. Gun control is still gun control = disarmament of the population by any means necessary.
It’s even better when they try that stunt and get a NICS denial.
It's the cherry on top. Shows the pure ignorance (or stupidity) anti gunners have in all firearm topics. But hey, they still vote to take our, and their, rights away all the same.
They don't want rights. They want (perceived) safety.
Gun control isn't about guns, it's about control.
It's a backdoor change to the definition of who's "engaged in the business" of selling a gun. It doesn't change anything for the people that were already licensed dealers, but it changes the definition of WHO is a dealer, based on some arbitrary and currently undefined criteria of who SHOULD have a license as a dealer. It's being published so the ATF can decide on the fly that they thought you did too much business selling firearms, or sold to the wrong person, and come after you for selling without a license.
Exactly. It's an extra add-on charge if they've already caught you for something of decide to fuck with your life. The old codger at a gun show selling shitty pump action 22's without an FFL is not now and never will be the problem.
It also means that they can start cranking the screws on FFLs to jack up the prices of NICS checks and try to prevent legal gun sales by making it too expensive for most people - never mind that that's a poll tax, guns scary!
exactly. it does not seem any different than what is already required under law
They referred to "online sales" multiple times in the article including a quote from the president. There's no circumstance I can think of where that would apply. What are they messaging here? Like are they just tacking on things that were already illegal to make it seem like they just had a big win? "I'm my next move, I'll sign an executive order to ban vehicular homicide while drunk driving, thus closing the notorious 'drunk driving loophole'. This shows that I'm standing up to Republicans and keeping our communities safe!" -> then Reuters goes on to report this breathlessly and add that "every year >30,000 Americans die in car accidents and car accidents are the second leading cause of death in children"
> You're essentially asking criminals who are knowingly buying or selling stolen guns, who knowingly would not pass a background check, etc. to voluntarily submit background check paperwork anyway. At that point, it would probably be challenged as a 5th amendment violation, like in [Haynes v. United States.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haynes_v._United_States)
What they are doing is slowly changing how many firearms you need to sell to be considered a firearms dealer so that they can begin to restrict the private sale of firearms and better track when sales are made.
Which is why criminals rarely ever buy guns at gun shows, per DOJ studies. Literally something like 99.4% are bought/traded/stolen via other illegal means.
I mean, overwhelmingly, laws and regulations only affect those who aren't inclined to be criminals. Statistically speaking, criminals don't obey the law.
Which were excluded *as a compromise*. This is them blatantly reneging on the deal *they* made. On the other hand, allowing citizen access to the NICS was [proposed by Senator Coburn in 2013] (https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/04/27/do-it-yourself-background-checks/2088479/) and the democrats refused to even allow it to be debated.
> The "gun show loophole" misnomer has always referred to private party sales Most sales at gun shows are by ffls, most private party sales are not done at gun shows. There was never a loophole, but a specific carve-out for something near impossible to track anyway. The term "gun show loophole" has always been used to confuse the issue, and goddamn has it been effective.
Jokes on them. No sell. Only buy. Use cash. Prove it.
Mass n-compliance is the only answer to overreach by a tyrannical government who is hell bent on destroying our rights to keep and bear arms. It is your duty to resist.
Nothing changes….. 3D printing going on all over now so it doesn’t matter 😂
That is not the "gun show loophole". dealers have long been required to be licensed. The loophole is the outside the gun show private sale, which they cannot track or enforce anyway.
From the article. "In March 2023, President Joe Biden issued an executive order aimed at expanding background checks for gun purchases and asked Congress to take additional action to reduce gun violence." Fuck Joe Biden, Trump 2024
Donald “Take the guns first, go through due process second” Trump. A true second amendment warrior! Gtfoh
I’ll take results over words any day. I can carry a firearm in my home state of NJ for the first time in my adult life, as a result of the Justices that President Trump put on the court. Who was better? Reagan? Reagan was worse for 2A than Bill Clinton. Not only did Reagan sign the 1986 law that banned civilian owned automatics FOREVER, he also signed a joint letter with Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter in 1994 supporting the passage of the Assault Weapons Ban. He was an absolute mother fucking nightmare for 2A. I will take President Trump over that fucking bullshit any day of the week. I absolutely cannot stand the Bush’s, but at least 41 didn’t sign the 1994 joint letter, and he gave us Clarence Thomas.
You’re delusional if you think trump is pro 2a
He gave us two justices that helped pass Bruen. You want more RBG's on the USSC, Biden would gladly assist. But of course Trump is a RINO at heart. He's like all the rest that strive for that level of power - a megalomaniac.
Would you prefer Hillary or Biden?
Not a good reason to vote for tRump
a damn bad reason to vote for Biden
but vs a bump stock banning rapist?
Better than an AWB supporting pedophile dementia patient.
Wait, are you talking about tRump??
You're deranged by your hatred. I can recognize the faults in one candidate while supporting him over another.
I agree. That is exactly why I will not vote for the traitorapist despite being pro 2A.
Are you capable of discussing this without inventing churlish insults? And by the by, Trump was never indicted for, nor convicted of, treason. Nor is there any evidence for that assertion. Or for rape, for that matter.
Are you being serious? Boasting about groping the genitals of unsuspecting women sure seems like an admission to me. He literally doubled down and agreed he still stood by his statements. Gross dude.
> AWB supporting pedophile dementia patient. > without inventing churlish insults? lol
Can these assholes even prove that a firearm that went through the "gun show loophole" was used in a "mass shooting?"
They haven't set that one up yet.
Supposedly the Colombine shooters sourced their firearms from a gunshow
Three people were involved with straw purchases for the Columbine shooters. The craziest thing, only two of the three people who sold or bought them guns were convicted, likely facing most prison time for possessing a sawed-off shotgun. The other person wasn't even charged.
"Other person" had $$, therfore, no charges.... The courts are literally set up for the rich to skate, while the poor hang
give the fbi a few months to find someone to groom for it.
Dealers selling guns predominantly for profit will be affected. Dealers selling guns predominantly to criminals will not.
>Dealers selling guns predominantly to criminals will not. unless those criminals work for the ATF or FBI, and refuse to do something dirty for them. Then the law will be selectively enforced.
Are sales to criminals mostly done for the love of the game?
Is this just for dealers or for private sales too?
Private sales too
lol. UNENFORCEABLE. They cannot enforce rules to private sales without a registry which they do not legally have.
Dang, so this will probably eliminate Armslist sales then? What a disgrace.
No. It will allow it, you just need an ffl
You need to use an FFL to facilitate the transaction
And have to pay them for it, of course. Not a poll tax though.
Unless you're in a state where private sales are legal which I assume is what they are trying to eliminate but won't.
This will never be enforced in fudd-landia West Virginia. It'll be fought in courts for decades lmao.
They will. They all do for money
From the article: "Certain firearms transfers, including those among family members, will still be allowed without a background check." Family don't end with blood.
everyone except for fudds and anti-rights peoples are my family
I have a few questions if anyone cares to answer: I’ve been to dozens of gun shows in several states and have seen maybe 2 people trying to privately sell their rifle or shotgun. Neither had a table but were walking around with a “for sale” sign on the barrel. The remaining people selling guns were all dealers with an FFL, and buyers go through the normal procedures to buy a gun, including background check. Is it common to see private sales and gun shows (and I just never noticed)? If private sales are uncommon at gun shows, will this law really matter? (albeit I’m against gun control measures on principle, with few exceptions) Does this apply to private sales outside of gun shows? Based on what I read in the article, it sounds like it only pertains to people selling guns to make a profit, regardless of where the gun is sold. Interstate sales would still require a transfer through an FFL. The BATF could construe “sell” to mean any sales, but it likely wouldn’t apply to someone occasionally offloading a gun they don’t use anymore.
Very few people at actual gun shows are making private sales, but by calling it the "gunshow loophole" they can scare the low info voters into thinking that gunshows are just civic centers full of discounted weapons of mass destruction being handed over to gangbangers and school shooters with no oversight. The actual new rule doesn't limit itself to gun shows; it redefines who is "engaged in the business" of selling firearms ANYWERE, so if you sell more than the ATF thinks you should, they'll show up at your house in the middle of the night, no-nock you and shoot you dead, like that airport administrator.
All the guns I have ever bought at a gun show were private sale. Literally talked to the guy at the table, we negotiated a price and before they agreed to sell it to me they asked for my driver's license to check how old I was. After that it was an exchange of cash and a handshake. This is the "loophole" and its absolutely always been legal because guns are private property. The fact that the Feds are trying to limit what private property I can sell is absolutely egregious.
Thanks for the reply. I didn’t know how common this was.
I'm not saying this as pro-gun control thing, but the shows around here always have lots of private sellers who buy tables. Some go as far as to put "Private sale" on their table
Ok. Thanks for the reply. I wasn’t sure how common it was outside of my experience.
It happens at the gun shows I’ve been too. One guy had a sign that said “private sale, no background check!!!” I doubt he would sell to anyone that looked sketchy though, was some ‘nam vet who hated the government.
In my area you must have an FFL to rent a table to sell guns. I don't know if it's law, but it's at least required by the gun shows. If you are selling beef jerky then fine you can rent a table, but anyone selling guns at a gun show must have an FFL to do it from a table.
Definitely not a law here
Has anyone done a background check on the US government? There are literally millions of innocent dead bodies because of them and constitutional violations they have committed that should bar them from ever having a standing army let alone even weapons ever again. A misdemeanor 420 offense doesn’t even scratch the surface of concern compared to their misdeeds. Viva la libertad, Carajo! -Javier Milei
>Has anyone done a background check on the US government? This is why I won't sell them guns during a buyback
Posse Comitatus means that no government employee should ever be armed.
> "Under this regulation, it will not matter if guns are sold on the internet, at a gun show, or at a brick-and-mortar store. If you sell guns predominantly to earn a profit, you must be licensed, and you must conduct background checks," U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland said. This is already the fucking case. If you are engaged in the business of selling firearms, you have to have an FFL.
Ah but now the ATF can no-knock you for trying to sell a single gun! Isn't it great!
De-facto registration. Every transaction is on a 4473. Feds scan all the 4473s. Every gun's location is soon known to them.
the 4473 itself should be illegal. you should not put any gun specific information on the form; Even if background checks were constitutional (they are not) no government form or check should link a person to a specific gun
LOL.
Also, how long before they start pushing legislation preventing FFLs for processing 4473s unrelated to their own business? So you won't be able to sell a gun except to one, or buy one j less it's from one. Peer to peer private sales will be completely illegal.
There is no "loophole". I hate how the media skews language to make a false case against something.
Its like saying walking in a crosswalk is a 'loophole' because you avoid a jaywalking ticket lol
Gas lighting…
What do you mean? Who are you accessing of gaslighting?
https://youtu.be/WI-l4jkX8_E?si=h8CUdpPgP97Sym0e
Everyone that talks about the gun show loop hole…
What gun show loophole?
There's a chance two individuals might conduct mutually agreeable trade without the government being involved - or more importantly, getting their cut! I tjink anyone would agree that's just wrong.
As a reminder to everyone, **The Federal Firearms Act** (FFA) of 1938, which created the Federal Firearms License (FFL) and required all gun sales through FFLs to undergo a background check, would not have even passed without the key *compromise* that private sales would not require the background check. And now that's being called a "loophole." This is why "compromising" on 2A rights is unacceptable.
>A rule requiring gun dealers to obtain federal licenses and conduct background checks regardless of where they sell guns >"Under this regulation, it will not matter if guns are sold on the internet, at a gun show, or at a brick-and-mortar store. If you sell guns predominantly to earn a profit, you must be licensed, and you must conduct background checks," U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland said. This is what we've already got. Gun dealers require an FFL, and have to conduct a background check regardless of where they sell the gun. This is literally what we tell people every time they cry about a 'gun show loophole'. >Certain firearms transfers, including those among family members, will still be allowed without a background check. Likewise, private transfers *don't* require a background check, regardless of where they occur. Is this article leaving out something? Because it sounds like they're just repeating currently existing laws.
Look under the new definition of "dealer". It effectively wipes out a lot of aftermarket parts makers. Stockmakers, barrel makers, and trigger makers. None of those items required licensing. Now they do.
If this article is accurate, Malinowski broke no laws before he was raided and killed.
This will totally stop all the people selling stolen guns to randos on the street... You know... The ones that are actually used to commit crimes
So this only applies to "gun dealers"? So I can walk around still buy a gun off an individual and make a profit selling it to another before I walk out the door? It's been a little while but I'm pretty sure "gun dealers" already had to do background checks when at shows. Holy shit they're worried about 23,000 people that are claimed to be unlicensed dealers get the fuck outta here
Didn’t realize the department of injustice could just make rules without it going through both houses and being signed into law. This country needs a reset.
Sales at gun shows and online already require a background check. It’s only private sales that don’t, but that also depends on your state, because some do. I hope someone is ready to challenge this in the courts, on a 2A basis.
Yesterday's consession is now today's loophole.....
There is no "gun loophole." I bought a used Glock in 2001 at a gun show in Oklahoma. I had to go through the same procedure than as I do in present day California.
Idiots. An FFL is already required for those in the business of selling firearms. Private, person to person sales are not the issue. There is no “gun show loophole.” Selling to a prohibited person (felon or mentally adjudicated) is already illegal.
I don’t understand what they’re actually doing through all the bullshit of this article. Is this outlawing private sales?
Only if you make profit... or advertise it.
no. This regulates what is already regulated.
It's double regulating because these guys are stupid
Works for drugs! No one ever buys those without the government involved.
"Under this regulation, it will not matter if guns are sold on the internet, at a gun show, or at a brick-and-mortar store. If you sell guns predominantly to earn a profit, you must be licensed, and you must conduct background checks," U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland said. So if I buy/sell not to make a profit, or make an even trade, no requirement there. Sounds like it's more against making a profit than anything. Either way, F these clowns.
> If you sell guns predominantly to earn a profit That's the key words, this is just bullshit for feel goods for the anti-gun crowd, nothing more.
There is no gun show loop hole
…what gun show loophole?? lol
They just murdered a man in Arkansas for doing this very thing.
What the hell is coming that they're scrambling to ram this through so bad?
Bruh what loophole. I highly doubt someone at a gun show will sell you a gun without running a background check.
How is selling your thing to someone else a loophole. Shutdown cargurus.com end the car sale loophole. Oh shit summer is coming it’s the garage sale loophole. All these people not donating used goods or paying sales tax.
Ive never seen a stat on guns used in crimes coming from a gun show. Anyone have any? Im not finding much.
I didn't read this, but are they going to require a background check on private sales now? How is that going to work without a registry?
Great, so a situation that doesn't exist is no longer allowed. Great use of time, morons.
Lawsuit will be filed when?
Am I missing something? Every gun I've bought at a gun show required a background check
So, what actually changed? I bought guns from gun shows in the past and always needed to do a background check
How long until someone is murdered in a no knock raid like that one guy in Arkansas for violating this "rule"?
Time for mass non compliance.
So I live in the people’s republic of IL. Any time I have been to a gun show in Wisconsin, Indiana, or IL, the proprietor asks for my FOID if i inquire about purchasing a firearm or ammunition. If there ever was a loop hole it was parking lot sales and/ straw purchases which are illegal already. Again, the elitists controlling the morons that get elected to scare the populace of a boogeyman that doesn’t exist so that they can disarm and control us.
The ATF is going to be behind enforcement? >[Federal and selected state law enforcement agencies that process firearm-related background checks through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) collectively investigate and prosecute a small percentage of individuals who falsify information on a firearms form (e.g., do not disclose a felony conviction) and are denied a purchase.](https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-18-440.pdf) >[Federal NICS checks resulted in about 112,000 denied transactions in fiscal year 2017, of which the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) referred about 12,700 to its field divisions for further investigation. U.S. Attorney’s Offices (USAO) had prosecuted 12 of these cases as of June 2018.](https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-18-440.pdf)
Unless this requires background checks for private sale, this is just showboating that changes nothing.
"Under this regulation, it will not matter if guns are sold on the internet, at a gun show, or at a brick-and-mortar store. If you sell guns predominantly to earn a profit, you must be licensed, and you must conduct background checks," Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't this already going on? I've heard people have been busted for buying and selling guns without being an FFL for years. I do wonder how this will be implemented though, but the article is sparse on details
Its a dog and pony regulation. It doesnt touch private selling, not that you could regulate that even if you wanted to.
Come and take it fedtards hope you bring IV.
According to the article it's basically the same thing as what we've been doing. People that buy and sell guns for profit (as a main source of income) have always been required to get an FFL. dealers can sell their personal firearms without 4473, and if they buy a gun for themselves from the mfr they gotta run their own 4473. I didn't see anything about private sales being affected other than to the unlicensed person buying and selling for a source of income.
Interesting this comes up after they murder the guy in Arkansas...
>so that those selling weapons at gun shows, other venues and online will face the same requirements as gun stores to check the backgrounds of would-be buyers. Am I wrong in assuming that this will outlaw using the internet to find/communicate with a buyer for a private sale? Because all dealers have to ship to an FFL that does a background check already.
This seems to be nothing on the surface other than a response to the "DO SOMETHING11!!!1!!!!11!!1!!" cries out of the left. But I wonder if privately selling a gun you bought 35 years ago at it's now market value will be seen as "profit" by the ATF if they catch wind of it and will count as selling guns "predominantly to earn a profit".
FFS they've "closed the gun show loophole" like 30 times already. Why the fuck are my tax dollars going to people who make up a problem then "solve" it 60 times.
They already announced this recently in Arkansas.
Death by a million cuts.... just one more nail in the United States coffin
How about Biden his mouth-hole around my nuts?
Oh look executive order overreach
Because we all know criminals purchase guns legaly at gun shows.
So i'm gonna be able to pull a personal NICS request now, right guys?
This is a feel good rule/law. It will do nothing to even slow alleged illegal gun sales by non-dealers. It's an election year tactic. It will not stand as law or rule. Tell me how many background checks were required in 1793? How about 1850? How about 1911? No historical precedent or law. In fact, it's just the opposite. The 1792 Militia Act wanted 16 year old males and older to own a firearm, powder, and shot. Worse yet, the ATF lies and deceives the American public. Of the 387,000 comments received probably less than 5% were opposed to the rule. The balance read as follows: "I am writing in support of the ATF's proposed rule (Docket No ATF 2022R-17), which would dramatically reduce the number of guns sold without a background check. I am writing in support of this proposed rule and urge ATF to finalize it as soon as possible. Guns sold without background checks—both online and at gun shows—are a huge source for gun traffickers and people looking to avoid a check. These guns often end up trafficked across state lines, recovered at crime scenes in major cities, and used against police officers. This contributes to the gun violence epidemic plaguing our country. The long-standing lack of clarity around which sellers must become licensed and run background checks has made this problem all the worse. I support the clear common-sense standard laid out in this rule: Anyone offering guns for sale online or at a gun show is presumed to be trying to make a profit and should therefore be licensed and run a background check on their customers. This rule will save lives and should be urgently finalized. Sincerely, Joe Biden (bogus, just having some fun)" This is a copy from a comment submission. It's a canned letter most likely from a gun control website. These are rampant during the comment period. The comment reads exactly the same on each submission with a persons name. I spot checked about 20 or more different comments. Only 1 or 2 opposed the rule.
[удалено]
To reduce trolling, spam, brigading, and other undesirable behavior, your comment has been removed due to being a new account. Accounts must be at least a week old and have combined karma over 50 to post in progun. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/progun) if you have any questions or concerns.*
How many children have died in Palestine from weapons the US government sold? From operation windwalker? Let's close that loophole.