COMPLETE AND UTTER BULLSH|T.
If you buy a gun on the Internet, it has to go through the NICS check. If you buy a gun at a gun show from an FFL, it has to go through a NICS check.
I believe this whole thing is a ruse to get through a law that says all "transfers"--not sales--have to go through a licensed dealer. Therefore, I cannot lend my buddy or nephew or uncle a gun.
They KNOW this. ALL of them KNOW this. They aren’t about the truth. They are about getting a foothold law establishing a universal (of sorts) background check law nationally. You will then see, maybe before 2014, a hell-bent-for-leather push to translate that act into a NATIONAL REGISTRY, which is what they are really after. It is so because that registry is the foundation for an effective confiscation of guns from all Americans opposing Obama and the Democrats.
this is junk because ALL online sales have to go to an ffl FIRST then to you.
If we do an online check then there should be no middle ffl.
This is just to track via internet capture, ala illegal warrentless searches and credit checks for any transactions.
sort of the way the feds capture all email and internet communications.
Throughout this whole debate, it has amazed me how much misinformation is spread and how completely wrong people are when they try to present the facts.
As you stated, you CANNOT buy a firearm from a legit FFL, without the checks. If an FFL sells you a gun without one, then there are laws already on the books that deal with that.
The republicans in the Senate are getting played again, as usual. Either that, or Reid has something on them. Hoping that 2014 will usher in some new blood.
If you buy a gun on the Internet, it has to go through the NICS check.
Under this proposal, there would be no check if you found it from a free advertising site.
How bout IGNORE IT. They can make all the phony laws they want. Then try to enforce them!
The war has started and they are the enemy.
Yeh I keep waiting for the other shoe to drop. All internet sales and also gun show sales already require a background check. I just bought a weapon on the internet and it had to be shipped to my FFL dealer and I had to have the background check. There must be a little paragraph in this bill somewhere that they are not telling us about.
Either they are lying about it, or they are not. If they are not lying, then the words “commercial sale” means that it would not cover you transferring your gun.
If this story is to be believed, there is apparently a way for a commercial enterprise to NOT be a “licensed gun dealer” and to do the sale of a weapon. Maybe pawn shops? I don’t know, because I would have thought all commercial sales were already covered.
The one thing it says that could be problematic — if they define “commercial sale” as “advertising”, then they might argue that listing your gun on a craigslist-type site would be “advertising”. I guess they could argue that posting on a bulletin board at a gun range was “advertising”, so I hope the actual language makes it clear THAT is not what they mean.
I know everybody here will be hopping mad. And if the argument was “we should not have background checks at all”, I’d understand that. But it could just be that we are winning. The democrats are desperate to not look like they are incompetent. They might well agree to something that does absolutely NOTHING real, just to say they “did something”.
And the leftist activists are not totally clueless. They will see they were sold out, and will respond accordingly.
So, I will reserve screaming rants until we see exactly what this bill will do. If it does something bad, I expect the house won’t pass it.