‘Historic’ action by justice department closes ‘doggone dangerous’ loophole in Biden administration’s fight against gun violence
The sale of firearms on the internet and at gun shows in the US will in future be subject to mandatory background checks, the justice department said on Thursday as it announced a “historic” new action to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals.
The closing of the so-called gun show loophole, which exempts private transactions from restrictions that apply to licensed dealers, has long been a goal of the Biden administration, and is specifically targeted in the rule published in the federal register today.
…
The White House estimates that 22% of guns owned by Americans were acquired without a background check and that about 23,000 more individuals will be required to be licensed as a dealer after the rule’s implementation.
I thought online gun sales already required a background check, isn’t that why they have to be shipped to an FFL? So that they can run a background check before ownership is transferred to you.
This is correct. In addition all sales at gun show from a licensed FFL to a customer currently also require a background check. Currently the main two kinds of transfers that don’t require federal background checks nationwide are private party sales and gifts. Eg. Selling your neighbor a shotgun or gifting your dad a hunting rifle. I believe these were both carved out exceptions as a result of the limitations on the Feds due to the commerce clause. Several states have tighter restrictions.
The private sales were excluded because they didn’t want to give access to NICS to just anyone. States with more restrictions require you to pay a dealer or go to the sheriffs office to get approval.
I would expect too that the inability to effectively enforce those expectations was a motivating factor. The last time I bought a gun off some one I don’t know we went to a FFL to comply with state background law. Really only because neither of us knew for sure if the other was a cop. If you know the other person. It can be very hard to prove a transfer ever happen.
That’s an example of a state raising the floor for a personal sale. A good reason (depending on the state) for a current CCW/CHL permit too, as that paired with ID can in some states be sufficient verification without needing to go to an FFL for NICS.
How long before our corrupt Supreme Court strikes this down?
In before “requiring a trigger pull for every shot infringes on the use of constitutionally protected arms”
It’s hard NOT to think about how they could make it even worse than expected.
They do.
I believe the framing is something like buying locally on armslist.com, where the buyer and seller agree to meet up face-to-face to make the sale. No mailing it.
Reading the article and a few others, this new regulation seems like election year posturing that doesn’t actually change much for the average person. The regulation is expanding who must register as an FFL from “making their livelihood from gun sales” to selling guns “predominantly to derive a profit”. Whatever that means. But it seems like it is specifically meant to exclude the occasional sale by a private person, which means that a private person happening to sell a gun at/near a gunshow or through armslist seems like they are still in the clear.
Where that line is will surely be hashed out in court, but it seems like the simple sale of a single gun from one person to another is unaffected.
I commented elsewhere about this. I’ve always had a background check run whenever I’ve purchased a firearm. If there’s a way to bypass that I don’t know how.
The federal floor is no background check for personal sales. Some states raise that floor in various ways.
If you’re buying online in a way that orders the gun from an FFL, it will, as you probably know require a background check.
This regulation isn’t modifying that anyway.
Yep.
Even the “gun show” part isn’t doing a lot, anyone that pays for a table is likely to make you do a background check anyways, because they are an FFL.
This does nothing about the actual problem.
“Private” sales which are done in the parking lot of gun shows.
It’s just some bullshit before an election so Biden can say he’s done something about the gun violence pandemic
I’ve only ever purchased a single gun at a gun show, but they had a big ass table full of guns (and other junk) and I was not subject to a background check. This is definitely going to force more background checks, which is a good thing.
If it’s more than a few guns from a private collection that’s already illegal. The ATF would happily show up and ram the law up their ass if notified.
That’s a pretty significant “if”. This was a gun show in Phoenix 5+ years ago. I’m gonna go out on a limb here and say it’s unlikely they were openly violating the law at such a large event.
I can’t speak to everywhere or anyone else’s experience, but I’ve got about the same experience as you. The gun shows here tend to have a lot of “private collectors” selling guns. Some are legit private collectors, some should be gun shops but only sell at shows so no one makes them do shit.
It’s just some bullshit before an election so Biden can say he’s done something about the gun violence pandemic
Yeah, I’m noticing a lot of posturing from the democrats this year.
It’s always funny when a common sense comment gets massive down votes just because at the very end I put something about how Dems aren’t doing as much as they need to.
Everyone knows that certain gun shows are massive laundering operations for stolen weapons. The FBI has straight up stated that a large number of guns which are used in crimes in the Northeast can be traced back to gun shows in Virginia specifically. If you “look the part” it is trivial to get basically any common enough gun at a gun show just by doing a deal in a parking lot, since it’s completely legal for an FFL to gift any gun to an associate, and completely legal for that associate to sell it to you in the parking lot. Cops literally watch this happen because it is legal.
Obviously, this is woke Nazi communist satanic slavery.
That’s putting it lightly.
The rule, which clarifies who is considered to be “engaged in the business” as a firearms dealer, will take effect in 30 days’ time, and follows a three-month consultation period that attracted almost 388,000 comments to the website of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).
…
I mean, it’s better than nothing, but still doesn’t do anything about the people outside the gun show with a trunk full of Glocks they’re selling for $100 over sticker price.
If a gun show table was for a store, they always had you do a background check.
This is a huge loophole, but this isn’t fixing it.
Hell, we don’t even enforce straw purchase laws when it involves a minor, moving the guns over state ligns, and murdering multiple people…
Even when the illegal buyer testifies on the stand that he intentionally planned and completed a straw our hase to illegally gain possession of a gun.
All the laws in the world don’t matter if no one enforced them.
We need a background check on every sale, and to prosecute people for flagrantly breaking gun laws.
Can you enforce a background check on every sale without a national gun registry?
LiberalGunNut™ here. I sure as hell don’t want a national registry. As we slide further into fascism, you want a man like Trump knowing who has what?
And no, it really can’t be enforced. Guys like me will obey the law and other won’t, just as it is now.
As a liberal gun owner myself I agree with you 100%. The closet thing to enforcement, I think, would be what I posted earlier: hold the seller legally liable in some sense for any crime committed with a gun that was sold to an individual without a background check. Add additional penalties for if the background check would have disqualified the buyer from purchase.
Obviously the sale would have to be proven, but that’s the only thing I can come up with to “enforce” or encourage compliance.
Further, you could pass laws to hold gun owners liable for not reasonably or responsibly securing their firearms in a similar fashion. Sure if someone breaks into your house, prys open your safe or lock box and takes your gun, then you are protected. But if you let your 18 year old have cart blanche access to all of your guns (unlocked or maybe given him access) and he shoots up a school? You are an accessory/liable/criminally negligent.
I’m not a lawyer so I don’t know what that law would need to look like but it does seem like some level of progress.
We just got our first case law for just that - meet the Crumbleys.
I’m on board for safe storage laws and enforcement for those that break them, but it will be interesting seeing how this comes out from appeals, given the manslaughter charge.
This has always been my conundrum.
Do we give into the “sacrifice your liberty for safety” type thinking or do we see the actions of a man like Trump for what it really is: writing on the wall for something much worse to come.
One day it won’t be a buffoon like Trump, it will be a calculated and intelligent person. It’s not a conspiracy theory anymore, Trump showed us the cracks in the foundation, we can choose to ignore it whenever the guy in office wears a blue tie, or we can take note for whats to come.
But again, on one hand, kids dying isn’t cool, but on the other, setting ourselves up for a potential systematic oppression also sounds pretty bad. We have enough systematic oppression as it is
Not to say Trump is my sole factor for having these beliefs, I’ve always tangled with the issues of safety and liberty when it comes to gun laws.
The thing is, kids dying is a cultural and social problem, not a gun problem. Mass shootings didn’t start until the early 90s and they didn’t really become “popular” until after Columbine. Mass shootings have been accessible and practical for far longer than that.
I want to stop then as much as the next person, but the source of the problem is the isolation and perceived injustice of a particular demographic within whom mass shootings are a popular form of lashing out. E.G. “They’ve made me feel small and impotent for too long! I’ll show them how much of a man I really am!” Taking away the guns, even if it were practical, would just cause a shift in tactics (see: Toronto van attack).
We need to make these people feel valued and supported. We need to fix so many different aspects of our social services and economic landscape. The problems they’re facing are the same problems a lot of other people are facing, so fixing them would lead to a better life for a huge pile of people.
Even without a registry, that makes selling it without a check a clear crime.
Now as long as the seller “doesn’t know” the buyer can’t pass a background, that gives them plausible deniability. Which has the unintended effect of sellers not even asking the name of the buyer.
If every “private seller” knew they were breaking the law, and there was a good chance they’d be prosecuted if caught, they’d be a lot more likely to follow the law and go thru a FFL.
We don’t need to only do something that works 100% of the time, working 90% is still pretty good too…
I wonder if you could make it where you could be considered an accessory to a crime if you sold a gun without a background check to a person who then committed a crime with it.
But I hear you, dont let perfection be the enemy of good.
That’d be quite a bunch of bullshit if they did. Those should stay two separate laws with two separate punishments.
That wouldn’t be reliable to trace gun ownership history without the GOP-contested national gun registry. I’d even be for a “states’ rights” solution similar to how vehicle ownership is tracked via the Title with the state’s DMV. It will never be perfect, but “not perfect” shouldn’t be the blocker of “any action at all”.
We have that in Mich, for pistols anyway. Which is kinda surprising since this state is otherwise very pro-firearm (no waiting period, no mandatory safety stuff, etc)
Failure to update a transfer for a pistol in Michigan is a misdemeanor, so it’s not that oppressive, just really annoying.
Most of us who private sale do not sell to people who don’t have ccws, or aren’t in good standing with the communities we all take part in. On top of that, criminals will not follow this law and those that do will just do what they already do. Straw purchases.
I have never witnessed any seller give any thought to wether the buy had a CCW or not.
I have. Multiple times.
It does seem like a reasonable cya for selling to some one but I’ve just never seen it happen. The attitude around me tends to be indifference at best and more often contempt for performing any inquiries into the buyer’s eligibility.
Anecdotal, but I’ve read comments in the past exactly like OPs.
I get that argument “on paper” but i don’t know that there is evidence to support that in reality. I’d probably say most people already responsibly sell their guns, but there are plenty of people who don’t do any due diligence.
Those well intentioned people don’t have the tools to properly do a background check to confirm and those people that just don’t do any due diligence would both benefit from this type of law.
Obviously criminals who have no intent to ever comply would still do their thing, but it would be a good thing to give the well intentioned people the ability and requirement to do their due diligence.
Also, it sounds like those people that don’t sell to non-ccws already tacitly support this idea. They are using a CCW as a proxy for a background check.
We really do need a registry.
Incremental progress is unsatisfying and better than nothing. And this one is a little satisfying so I’ll take it.
I mean, it’s better than nothing, but still doesn’t do anything about the people outside the gun show with a trunk full of Glocks they’re selling for $100 over sticker price.
It makes it easier to prosecute them for not being private sales, so not nothing.
It doesn’t tho. They can just say they’re furthering their collection. Feds would have to show a strong pattern of sales and if the person was buying and selling out of their own collection it gets gray.
all the things you complain about are already illegal. it’s not that things aren’t enforced. it’s that CRIMINALS DON’T FUCKING FOLLOW LAWS.
Why wasnt Kyle Rittenhouse and the adult who bought the gun for him (illegally as a straw purchase) prosecuted?
Like, the issue is the laws aren’t enforced.
By your logic no law should exist, which might very well be what you meant to say
Why wasnt Kyle Rittenhouse and the adult who bought the gun for him (illegally as a straw purchase) prosecuted?
First because the DoJ simply doesn’t prosecute most of those crimes. They refuse to go after straw purchasers and their buyers who go on to illegally modify weapons for full-automatic and use them to commit murders much less some rando white boy out in the sticks.
Second because what Kyle and the purchaser did arguably wasn’t a “Straw Purchase”. Had the DoJ attempted a prosecution in such a high profile case they ran the serious risk of having the whole house of cards they’ve built around “Straw Purchases” collapse into a flaming pile of ash.
Like, the issue is the laws aren’t enforced.
Exactly and 2A Advocates, including the NRA (fuck them), have been screaming about this for decades.
He was held responsible.
"The man who bought an AR-15-style rifle for Kyle Rittenhouse pleaded no contest Monday to a reduced charge of contributing to the delinquency of a minor in a deal with prosecutors that allows him to avoid prison.
Kenosha County Circuit Judge Bruce Schroeder accepted Dominick Black’s plea during a six-minute hearing. Assistant District Attorney Thomas Binger dropped two felony counts of intent to deliver a dangerous weapon to a minor as part of the deal."
how does my logic say no law should exist? how the FUCK to you twist what I said to mean that? You’re delusional person who is afraid of an inanimate object. Yes, enforce the laws we have. making all these new ones does nothing but create more criminals.
The actual text of the rule (all 466 pages) does a decent job of closing out loopholes, but it does (in theory) provide an avenue to address unlicensed dealers.
pg. 457
Whether a person is engaged in the business as a dealer under paragraph (a) of this section is a fact-specific inquiry… there is no minimum number of transactions that determines whether a person is “engaged in the business” of dealing in firearms. At all times, the determination of whether a person is engaged in the business of dealing in firearms is based on the totality of the circumstances.
This is a good framework for a prosecutor to build from, but it’s not a firm line that immediately introduces legal peril like say, a “10 guns max per year sold” limit would once crossed. This will prevent bad enforcement against honest sellers, but lets off the ‘smaller fish’ who aren’t in flagrant violation and a prosecutor may not feel is a good case to try for conviction.
It will likely survive in a post-Mock v. Garland legal landscape, but its timidity was doubtlessly influenced by the legal beatdown the DoJ got on that other issue the last few years. ATF needs primary legislation to build from for enforcement, especially as scotus are eying up the Chevron doctrine that has guided courts and bureaucrats for decades.
Even a background check on every sale wouldn’t be enough to catch some previous offenders, those on watch lists, or people with serious mental illness issues because the system is woefully incomplete. The whole thing is ridiculous. You shouldn’t be able to buy guns at conventions or on websites to begin with. Honestly, I’m amazed licensed gun dealers haven’t been pushing congress to make it so that people have to buy guns through them- or if they have, I haven’t heard about it.
I don’t think it is realistic to get guns out of the equation in America any time soon, but it’s become such an insane free-for-all. Nothing enforced, everything has a loophole.
Guns bought online require a bgc and shipped to an FFL. Why are you assuming they don’t?
When did I say they didn’t?
What’s the qualm with online sales? They get shipped to an FFL and a background check is performed before the transfer anyways. Online sales add more competition to the market and increases consumer choice.
As for why FFLs don’t lobby for protectionist practices beyond principal, FFLs have terrible margins, are generally small businesses without much lobbying power, and lobbying for anti consumer practices generally doesn’t go well in that market. People are still mad at Springfield Armory (the company) for rescinding opposition on a failed Illinois bill after they got a carve out exemption so it wouldn’t apply to them (unlike their competition).
Just wondering, if you buy a gun online, how is it packaged? Would it for instance be evident to someone that might want to steal a gun?
Typically a cardboard box, maybe also a hard case in the box. Depends on who you are buying it from. They’ll be mailed via USPS directly to a FFL (think gun store) and delivered into the store (not just left on a porch).
I had this box laying around in case I ever needed to RMA.
In every year since 2018, there have been more than one million ads offering firearms for sale by unlicensed sellers in states that do not legally require a background check, a circumstance that creates endless opportunities for individuals with dangerous histories to easily acquire guns. Federal law requires a background check of a prospective gun buyer only when the seller is a licensed gun dealer, leaving all other sales—such as unlicensed gun sales negotiated over the internet—unregulated and with no background check required.
For more than a decade, the online firearm marketplace has emerged as a growing market for anonymous gun purchases through websites such as Armslist, the self-proclaimed “largest free gun classifieds on the web.” Everytown has worked to understand the scope and threat of this type of commerce. This report lays out the results of Everytown’s analysis of Armslist ads between 2018 and 2020, and the findings of our prior investigations examining the criminal backgrounds of buyers, how transactions are carried out, and whether unlicensed sellers would require a background check on a private gun sale.
https://everytownresearch.org/report/unchecked-an-investigation-of-the-online-firearm-marketplace/
Those kind of transfers aren’t online sales but face to face sales facilitated by a post. None of the actual transaction is online.
In an online sale a buyer pays a seller through e-commerce then the seller mails the firearms to an FFL near the buyer where they go and pick it up after a background check.
That source seems to unintentionally conflate the former with the latter.
states that do not legally require a background check
Bald faced lie, not even going to read the rest. Background checks are federally required. States can impose additional restrictions, but they cannot bypass this. It would be a Bulgarian cluster fuck if they did. They do not.
If you had read the rest, you would have seen that is literally mentioned in the next sentence of what I quoted…
It seems like this has less to do with where (gunshow) or how (internet) the guns are being sold, and more about the volume being moved.
The “loopholes” are still intact for the private person making an occasional sale. These regulations are looking at people selling, in any way, guns in volumes that the government feels should be regulated as an FFL.
Unsurprisingly, the article’s title and the general framing leads people to focus away from what the regulation is actually doing. It’s a story and a political move that manages to bring out the emotion in both pro and anti gun people, but where the change to the legal reality seems honestly boring.
The occasional private party sale from a “personal collection” isn’t what this is designed to stop. It’s intended to close the loopholes that required no background checks in certain transactions, which:
-
Allowed people to function like online dealers, buying and selling volumes of guns, but claiming they are selling from personal collections.
-
Allowed for the very common “gun shows,” which are frequent and widespread, to be used by #1 to sell guns to people in person not just online but to large, interested, and gathered crowds of people. These things are basically pop-up malls for guns, with a mixture of legitimate firearm businesses running background checks and tables of guns from a “private collection.”
-
It prevents the “fire-sale loophole,” where gun stores, often ones that lose their license for other violations, close their business and liquidate their guns at steep discounts without background checks by claiming that the guns revert to private collection.
The purpose of this rule revision is to get rid of those loopholes, which is how the overwhelming majority of guns sold without background check happen.
The occasional sale between private parties from a personal collection, defined as a collection whose purpose is study, comparison, exhibition, or in pursuit of hobby like hunting and sport shooting isn’t the issue here. That doesn’t appear to be where most guns involved in crime that were purchased without a background check originate from.
Yes I read the article. I was pointing out how that was the case rather than, as the article title frames with its title, something to do specifically with posting guns online, or selling privately on gunshow grounds.
-
To all the gun owners/advocates out there who used rational thinking to back this: Thank you.
I’ve bought firearms online for years. I don’t know how the loophole works and at this point I’m afraid to ask.
The article’s title is misleading. The regulation isn’t “closing” the “loophole” of buying a gun without a background check from somewhere like armslist where you meet up in person for the exchange.
The article title, and some politician comments want people to think that this a loophole to be worried about, and that it has been closed in a “historic” move.
The regulation is going after people selling in such a volume, in any manner, that the government deems that they should be FFLs.
In practical terms what that volume qualifies as is still vague, but the manner or location of sales isn’t something being touched.
Buy this vase and get a free gun
The Justice Department isn’t stupid. The purchase of the vase is obviously incidental in the transaction.
