JRH6856
Member
Only interstate transactions. Intrastate transaction currently do not have to go through an FFL.
"Gun ban basically dead"
- Thread starter KMatch
- Start date
- Status
Only interstate transactions. Intrastate transaction currently do not have to go through an FFL.
hAkron
Member
I think when any of us uses the phrase 'online' sale, we mean that the money and goods are exchanged in a way other than face to face. Arranging for a private party face to face transfer of a firearm using electronic communication shouldn't change the type of transaction -- which is a private party, face to face deal.
X-Rap
Member
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2006
- Messages
- 6,657
You must elaborate, conventional wisdom says that any time a transaction is not face to and there is shipping involved it requires a FFL on at least the recieving end and that would require a 4473 before an individual could could walk out the door with the gun.
Of course if internet sales mean that that is how the initial contact for a FTF private transaction was made the they are correct.
To me it is just more deception by the antis in gov and press to dupe the masses into thinking that guns are being sent all over without any control which is false.
JRH6856
Member
OK, I'll elaborate. From the ATF FAQ page:
Q: May a nonlicensee ship a firearm through the U.S. Postal Service?
A nonlicensee may not transfer a firearm to a non-licensed resident of another State. A nonlicensee may mail a shotgun or rifle to a resident of his or her own State or to a licensee in any State. The Postal Service recommends that long guns be sent by registered mail and that no marking of any kind which would indicate the nature of the contents be placed on the outside of any parcel containing firearms. Handguns are not mailable. A common or contract carrier must be used to ship a handgun.
[18 U.S.C. 1715, 922(a)(3), 922(a)(5) and 922 (a)(2)(A)]
Q: May a nonlicensee ship a firearm by common or contract carrier?
A nonlicensee may ship a firearm by a common or contract carrier to a resident of his or her own State or to a licensee in any State. A common or contract carrier must be used to ship a handgun. In addition, Federal law requires that the carrier be notified that the shipment contains a firearm and prohibits common or contract carriers from requiring or causing any label to be placed on any package indicating that it contains a firearm.
[18 U.S.C. 922(a)(2)(A), 922(a) (3), 922(a)(5) and 922(e), 27 CFR 478.31 and 478.30]
A nonlicensee may not transfer a firearm to a non-licensed resident of another State. A nonlicensee may mail a shotgun or rifle to a resident of his or her own State or to a licensee in any State. The Postal Service recommends that long guns be sent by registered mail and that no marking of any kind which would indicate the nature of the contents be placed on the outside of any parcel containing firearms. Handguns are not mailable. A common or contract carrier must be used to ship a handgun.
[18 U.S.C. 1715, 922(a)(3), 922(a)(5) and 922 (a)(2)(A)]
Q: May a nonlicensee ship a firearm by common or contract carrier?
A nonlicensee may ship a firearm by a common or contract carrier to a resident of his or her own State or to a licensee in any State. A common or contract carrier must be used to ship a handgun. In addition, Federal law requires that the carrier be notified that the shipment contains a firearm and prohibits common or contract carriers from requiring or causing any label to be placed on any package indicating that it contains a firearm.
[18 U.S.C. 922(a)(2)(A), 922(a) (3), 922(a)(5) and 922(e), 27 CFR 478.31 and 478.30]
I trust that is "elaborate" enough. :banghead:
JRH6856
Member
Apparently conventional wisdom says we do.
However that is only private sales of used guns between individuals.
You cannot buy a new gun from a store in state or out of state, online or otherwise.
An FFL holder, as required to have a business involving buying and selling guns, is not allowed to make sales to individuals even in thier own state without a background check.
A private individual buying any guns with the intent to resell them can be determined to be unlawfully in the business of buying and selling firearms without an FFL.
So neither an FFL holder nor a private individual can legally set up a web page and legally sell guns without them going through a background check or being transferred to a dealer which would do one, whether they are in your state or outside of it.
So legally it is limited to those individuals with a used firearm that they want to sell to someone in thier own state, within states that allow that (several do not.)
You cannot buy a new gun from a store in state or out of state, online or otherwise.
An FFL holder, as required to have a business involving buying and selling guns, is not allowed to make sales to individuals even in thier own state without a background check.
A private individual buying any guns with the intent to resell them can be determined to be unlawfully in the business of buying and selling firearms without an FFL.
So neither an FFL holder nor a private individual can legally set up a web page and legally sell guns without them going through a background check or being transferred to a dealer which would do one, whether they are in your state or outside of it.
So legally it is limited to those individuals with a used firearm that they want to sell to someone in thier own state, within states that allow that (several do not.)
Last edited:
JRH6856
Member
Yes, that is what I said.
And FWIW, I can set up a website to sell the one gun I want to sell. Or I could just list it on the sites I already have. I have the server space, I have the domains. I could probably even sell 3 or 4 more legally without ATF deciding it was a business. But realistically, I would get more hits if I listed it somewhere else as long as limited the sale to in state in any case.
X-Rap
Member
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2006
- Messages
- 6,657
Learn something every day. I was aware of the interstate long and handgun regulations regarding sale and shipping but not the other. I also get the shipping a gun to yourself at another location but this is something all new to me. I am guessing I haven't heard of it since I don't or haven't lived in a state that allows it. Is there a list of states that allow this or can people who have done it in their respective states chime in and give us some info?
Under the so called compromise bill currently offered, if a gun is advertised for sale in a print or visual venue, one would have to submit buyer to a BGC. Even if for sale notice was only put on a church or club bulletin board, but then found it's way onto the Internet, a buyer BGC would then be required.
The devil is always in the details.
JRH6856
Member
^^^ Perhaps, but I was describing what I can do now, not after a new law is passed.
SSN Vet
Member
If you had said that on THR two years ago, you would have had your post censored and a chastising PM sent to you... not to mention a dog pile of "liberal with a gun" types firing back at you.
maybe.... just maybe.. people are starting to get it... let's just hope it's not too late.
But immigration reform is being railroaded through this week and will hand the DNC 15 million new loyal voters.
BryanDavis
Member
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2010
- Messages
- 85
I'm glad someone pointed this out. Both the immigration issue and the changes at THR.
The DNC's party plank back in 2008 was fairly obvious, they just didn't have the political oomph at the time to act on it. Now Newtown victims and their families are being paraded around like prize-winning pigs and the gun rights crowd is struggling for air.
On the contrary they tested the waters of Gun Control or expanding firearm restrictions a couple times already, but have merely had more success this time.
In 2007 the Virginia Tech thing resulted in an attempt, and predominantly failed. At a very high time in pro gun rights momentum it simply was not going to work.
They tested the water again after the shooting involving Senator Giffords in 2011.
From what I have seen in pieces of evidence here and there is that is when many politicians that were not in favor of firearms but quiet on the issue decided to make a big push in the future when the chance presented itself.
Primarily Democrats, with some Republicans from locations that won't have enough representative backlash to concern them.
The Aurora shooting in Colorado happened just prior to the presidential election. So they chose not to use that as thier push for new gun control as it could impact Obama's reelection. They made a big deal about it, but then didn't follow with a push because it could impact the election.
But after the election they were primed and ready. The very next time they would pounce on it and make all they could out of it.
That it was a bunch of children was all the better, as everyone cares about children and would be even more sympathetic.
In reality it really does seem that it was the Giffords shooting that turned the minds of the politicians to reignite gun control. When they started preparing for a big future anti-gun push.
Probably partially by reminding them of thier own vulnerability to firearms because it was one of the most powerful in government that was shot. Thus striking close to home. Controlling and dealing with a bunch of well armed citizens is less desirable and more dangerous than a disarmed population. Even with private bodyguards.
However they needed something that they could turn the public with, and the Giffords shooting was not it. Aurora was at a bad election time, and Newtown was the perfect opportunity once that was done with.
World leaders have never desired an armed population. Going back thousands of years they have wanted thier personal guards and loyal armed men better armed than the population. It is more challenging to manage and means that ultimately you cannot just force any new law or edict against the will of the people into place with minimal manpower.
You have to actually convince a well armed population.
However when only those under your direct control have the effective or modern arms, then the many unarmed or lesser armed can easily be managed by the few who are well armed when necessary.
It is mainly representatives that know thier constituents are hard core pro firearm citizens that don't want to upset them or get a bad NRA rating and stick to opposing expansion of firearm restrictions.
Though some reach positions of power and still manage to really maintain pro-gun rights for the average man beliefs over the years, they are the minority.
In 2007 the Virginia Tech thing resulted in an attempt, and predominantly failed. At a very high time in pro gun rights momentum it simply was not going to work.
They tested the water again after the shooting involving Senator Giffords in 2011.
From what I have seen in pieces of evidence here and there is that is when many politicians that were not in favor of firearms but quiet on the issue decided to make a big push in the future when the chance presented itself.
Primarily Democrats, with some Republicans from locations that won't have enough representative backlash to concern them.
The Aurora shooting in Colorado happened just prior to the presidential election. So they chose not to use that as thier push for new gun control as it could impact Obama's reelection. They made a big deal about it, but then didn't follow with a push because it could impact the election.
But after the election they were primed and ready. The very next time they would pounce on it and make all they could out of it.
That it was a bunch of children was all the better, as everyone cares about children and would be even more sympathetic.
In reality it really does seem that it was the Giffords shooting that turned the minds of the politicians to reignite gun control. When they started preparing for a big future anti-gun push.
Probably partially by reminding them of thier own vulnerability to firearms because it was one of the most powerful in government that was shot. Thus striking close to home. Controlling and dealing with a bunch of well armed citizens is less desirable and more dangerous than a disarmed population. Even with private bodyguards.
However they needed something that they could turn the public with, and the Giffords shooting was not it. Aurora was at a bad election time, and Newtown was the perfect opportunity once that was done with.
World leaders have never desired an armed population. Going back thousands of years they have wanted thier personal guards and loyal armed men better armed than the population. It is more challenging to manage and means that ultimately you cannot just force any new law or edict against the will of the people into place with minimal manpower.
You have to actually convince a well armed population.
However when only those under your direct control have the effective or modern arms, then the many unarmed or lesser armed can easily be managed by the few who are well armed when necessary.
It is mainly representatives that know thier constituents are hard core pro firearm citizens that don't want to upset them or get a bad NRA rating and stick to opposing expansion of firearm restrictions.
Though some reach positions of power and still manage to really maintain pro-gun rights for the average man beliefs over the years, they are the minority.
Last edited:
In an urban setting, I don't think that there is much leverage as far as their bodyguards being better armed than the population. Only if a mad man were to try to assonate a politician, and only had the use of a small limited weapon. This analogy doesn't make sense to me, as there are so many guns "out there" already. The majority of this only comes into play if there were a "civil war". and you were talking about force on force confrontations.
I saw a video that really explained how if we couldn't get the 50,000 Insurgents under control with all of our military might, it would be next to impossible to engage a country with a population like ours, even if they had single shot rifles, let alone all of the weapons out there. There are probably more guns that have been traded over the past hundred years, thus untraceable than purchased and kept by the original owners.
I saw a video that really explained how if we couldn't get the 50,000 Insurgents under control with all of our military might, it would be next to impossible to engage a country with a population like ours, even if they had single shot rifles, let alone all of the weapons out there. There are probably more guns that have been traded over the past hundred years, thus untraceable than purchased and kept by the original owners.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
