"A violent felon can buy (a gun) over the Internet with no background check..

Obama said this and PF rates it mostly true. Thoughts?
Obama: Violent felons can buy guns online without background checks | PolitiFact

Under the current system, dangerous people are able to buy firearms far too often, President Barack Obama said in a speech announcing new executive action on gun policy.

"The problem is some gun sellers have been operating under a different set of rules," he said Jan. 5. "A violent felon can buy the exact same weapon over the Internet with no background check, no questions asked."

Quite a few readers flagged Obama’s claim that a violent felon can buy a gun online without a background check, so we decided to fact-check it.

Some readers seemed to think Obama was suggesting such transactions were legal. We don’t see that in Obama’s comments. (The grammarians at PolitiFact would note that Obama said "can," not "may.") To be clear, such a transaction would be illegal. What Obama said is that such transactions are possible. That is accurate, but it’s also a little more complicated than Obama’s comment suggests.

Click to expand...

It's my understanding that all online gun sales must have the gun shipped to a FFL seller in order to finalize the transaction (background checks, etc.).

azgreg said:

It's my understanding that all online gun sales must have the gun shipped to a FFL seller in order to finalize the transaction (background checks, etc.).

Click to expand...

That would be requirement necessary to make the transaction legal, yes. The PF review work under the assumption that Obama also included illegal transactions when making this point. Now, whether his proposed policy adjustments would help to address these types of illegal transactions is another issue.

What that article misses, and frankly what Obama intentionally misses is three fold. A background check is only as good as the list being checked against. Enforcement of the law is only as good as the frequency of laws being broken to a charge being filed against someone for doing so. And we have little evidence that closing various loopholes will convince someone who wants a gun to no longer pursue getting one.

Said another way. If the list is flawed so is any check, even if the check is expanded to include "everyone" in the so called Internet buyer and "gun show" loopholes. If we do not charge people all that often for trying to buy a gun but still failed the background check, then why bother as that person is still out there to pursue other means to obtain one. We were taught this lesson with prohibition and again with the so called War on Drugs. If no one deals with demand, the result is an inflation of criminal enterprise to fulfill that demand.

In the gun control debate itself, expanded background checks and closing loopholes sounds like the right answer. When you really look into how that is being handled across the board there is too much question on effectiveness.

I have no choice but to conclude that Obama's executive actions here are nothing short of "doing something" for the simple sake of doing so, and without any real potential for a meaningful impact on the wrong person obtaining a weapon.

Seriously, is there anything out there in reporting, or evidence, or study that here in the US a background check stopped someone from pursuing other means to obtain a gun? If we never deal with the person, dealing with the tools in a half-assed manner will result in little gain.

azgreg said:

It's my understanding that all online gun sales must have the gun shipped to a FFL seller in order to finalize the transaction (background checks, etc.).

Click to expand...

That is mine as well, but it appears we have discrepancy where the online gun seller does not always follow through. I would agree that becomes an enforcement issue with that gun seller, which begs the question how many of those people are we charging with a crime?

MrT said:

That would be requirement necessary to make the transaction legal, yes. The PF review work under the assumption that Obama also included illegal transactions when making this point. Now, whether his proposed policy adjustments would help to address these types of illegal transactions is another issue.

Click to expand...

If we are talking about illegal transactions, then what makes us think that we can make them legal someway? A felon has already proven that laws, regulations, and procedures do not and cannot deter them from doing what they want - hence the Felony Conviction.

So, all we can deduce at this point, is that this is meant to hamper legal law abiding gun owners, because felons aren't going to be deterred.

MrT said:

That would be requirement necessary to make the transaction legal, yes. The PF review work under the assumption that Obama also included illegal transactions when making this point. Now, whether his proposed policy adjustments would help to address these types of illegal transactions is another issue.

Click to expand...

They won't. The fact of the matter is the new "rules" will do little to change criminals for getting a gun illegally, after all they do not follow the law, why would they follow a new one.

azgreg said:

It's my understanding that all online gun sales must have the gun shipped to a FFL seller in order to finalize the transaction (background checks, etc.).

Click to expand...

OrphanSlug said:

That is mine as well, but it appears we have discrepancy where the online gun seller does not always follow through. I would agree that becomes an enforcement issue with that gun seller, which begs the question how many of those people are we charging with a crime?

Click to expand...

That's true for interstate sales, but not for intrastate state sales between private citizens (collectors and the like), although in those sales a face to face transaction IS required.

OrphanSlug said:

That is mine as well, but it appears we have discrepancy where the online gun seller does not always follow through. I would agree that becomes an enforcement issue with that gun seller, which begs the question how many of those people are we charging with a crime?

Click to expand...

I have never met a dealer that is willing to lose their license/livelihood and face prison time simply to see someone a gun, the entire Internet sales thing is Bogus from the get go. Has anyone you know ever bought a gun on the Internet, I never have and do not know anyone that has. try it and see how that works, I would suggest that all that believe it can be done try to do it, you can always cancel your order at the last minute if you can get anyone to bite.

Beaudreaux said:

That's true for interstate sales, but not for intrastate state sales between private citizens (collectors and the like), although in those sales a face to face transaction IS required.

Click to expand...

And the person is not a gun Dealer. Private sales between private citizens is not going to change with the new rules nor would they even if someone wrote some regulation that addressed it, people have the right to sell their own property without the government getting their greedy fingers in the pie, well they should be able to anyway.

David_N said:

Obama said this and PF rates it mostly true. Thoughts?
Obama: Violent felons can buy guns online without background checks | PolitiFact

Click to expand...

The article is indulging his dishonesty.

He says online as if felons are buying from freaking reputable online vendors instead of the deep web or something else shady as hell.

azgreg said:

It's my understanding that all online gun sales must have the gun shipped to a FFL seller in order to finalize the transaction (background checks, etc.).

Click to expand...

No. If the internet, like any other media, is used simply to advertise a gun for sale then the resulting private, in person, gun sale within that state (buyer is a resident of the seller's state) is legal (under federal law). Some states, like CA, have such a law but the federal law required only "gun dealers" to get a FFL. Obama simply wishes to redefine what makes selling 2 (or more) guns constitute "dealing in guns as a business".

OrphanSlug said:

That is mine as well, but it appears we have discrepancy where the online gun seller does not always follow through. I would agree that becomes an enforcement issue with that gun seller, which begs the question how many of those people are we charging with a crime?

Click to expand...

I'd like to see some stats on how often that happens, and how often that happening results in someone getting shot illegally. Along with similar stats concerning guns purchased using the so called gun show loophole. I expect the number is near zero.

Why would a criminal drive across town to a gun show, pay the $10 entry fee, then seek out someone willing to violate the law, where there are multiple LEO on premises watching the transactions, or go online and look for a person willing to violate the law, when you can pick up an already illegal weapon from the street corner gun vendor for cash, and with no questions asked? And next, how is yet another restriction on law abiding citizens going to prevent this?

Casper said:

And the person is not a gun Dealer. Private sales between private citizens is not going to change with the new rules nor would they even if someone wrote some regulation that addressed it, people have the right to sell their own property without the government getting their greedy fingers in the pie, well they should be able to anyway.

Click to expand...

Let's see. Right now you are correct, but Obama already wants to change the definition of "Dealer." I think he wants it defined as 50 sales a year, which a collector or hobbyist could easily do at one gun show. This is just more of the drip, drip, drip...

Luftwaffe said:

The article is indulging his dishonesty.

He says online as if felons are buying from freaking reputable online vendors instead of the deep web or something else shady as hell.

Click to expand...

Felons are buying from Cletus down the street. Cletus gets his from Bubba down in the holler, and Bubba gets his from guys that steal the damned things from the homes they burglarize. Just as an example, the sources of course vary widely.

Obama indicated that he wanted to put more teeth into internet and gun show sales. My guess is that the results of his action will be multiple frivolous prosecutions, a handful of legitimate prosecutions and some very expensive legal costs for a few web sites and gun show organizers.

1. It is against the law for a violent felon to purchase a firearm whether that purchase is handled online or in person. It's illegal for a violent felon to purchase a firearm from an FFL or from a private seller.
2. It is illegal for anyone to sell (or even give) a firearm to someone they reasonably believe to be a violent felon. That rule applies to FFL's as well as private sellers.
3. Private sellers are not required to perform the same "due diligence" as FFL's but they are prohibited from making transactions across state lines.

Yes, a violent felon could purchase a firearm from a private seller without a background check. That is absolutely true. Doing so, however, is illegal. That being said, part of the deal with criminals is that they generally don't care if what they are doing is illegal. Therefore universal background checks will have no impact on criminals but will have lots of impact on buyers and sellers who are already doing things legally.

Beaudreaux said:

Let's see. Right now you are correct, but Obama already wants to change the definition of "Dealer." I think he wants it defined as 50 sales a year, which a collector or hobbyist could easily do at one gun show. This is just more of the drip, drip, drip...

Click to expand...

Actually he wants to define a dealer as 2 guns a year if "other criteria" are applicable, whatever that means. we shall see how it is applied but no matter what the new rules will not reduce violent crime or make anyone one bit safer than they already were. It is all about the Feel Good thing, in other words he is blowing smoke of someone dress so that they will say he did something.

OrphanSlug said:

That is mine as well, but it appears we have discrepancy where the online gun seller does not always follow through. I would agree that becomes an enforcement issue with that gun seller, which begs the question how many of those people are we charging with a crime?

Click to expand...

The problem seems to be one of scale and (or?) intent. If I sell one gun "from my collection" then it is clearly not dealing. The problem, as I see it, is how long before a second sale (just like that first legal sale) becomes "illegal" and would trigger questions (allegations?) of criminal activity? Many folks buy things (e.g. books) use them and later resell them yet are clearly not (book) dealers, in any "reasonable" sense, even if they do so "frequently" for profit (buy at Goodwill, thrift store or other low price source and later sell at a flea market or garage sale). Should we require each of these "loophole" (book) dealers to get a business license and collect sales taxes?

ttwtt78640 said:

The problem seems to be one of scale and (or?) intent. If I sell one gun "from my collection" then it is clearly not dealing. The problem, as I see it, is how long before a second sale (just like that first legal sale) becomes "illegal" and would trigger questions (allegations?) of criminal activity? Many folks buy things (e.g. books) use them and later resell them yet are clearly not (book) dealers, in any "reasonable" sense, even if they do so "frequently" for profit (buy at Goodwill, thrift store or other low price source and later sell at a flea market or garage sale). Should we require each of these "loophole" (book) dealers to get a business license and collect sales taxes?

Click to expand...

I deal with the government on this type of issue all the time.

If you make even trivial amounts of money on your hobby the IRS wants to call it a business and assess Self Employment tax. If, however, you lose money on your hobby and treat it as a business loss they want to disallow the expenses and penalize you for taking the deduction.

The bottom line with this newest proposal is that they won't be able to go after private sellers too much at all unless they have an online presence or a table at gun shows. They also won't be able to convict most of the ones they do prosecute because "being engaged in the business" is necessarily (and should remain) broadly defined.

ttwtt78640 said:

No. If the internet, like any other media, is used simply to advertise a gun for sale then the resulting private, in person, gun sale within that state (buyer is a resident of the seller's state) is legal (under federal law). Some states, like CA, have such a law but the federal law required only "gun dealers" to get a FFL. Obama simply wishes to redefine what makes selling 2 (or more) guns constitute "dealing in guns as a business".

Click to expand...

Which is BS and will change absolutely nothing when it comes to crime, the sheep lap it up in the false illusion that it somehow has accomplished something.

Lutherf said:

I deal with the government on this type of issue all the time.

If you make even trivial amounts of money on your hobby the IRS wants to call it a business and assess Self Employment tax. If, however, you lose money on your hobby and treat it as a business loss they want to disallow the expenses and penalize you for taking the deduction.

The bottom line with this newest proposal is that they won't be able to go after private sellers too much at all unless they have an online presence or a table at gun shows. They also won't be able to convict most of the ones they do prosecute because "being engaged in the business" is necessarily (and should remain) broadly defined.

Click to expand...

The problem is that the state has unlimited resources to question (investigate?) your activities yet you must defend them on your own dime (and time).

David_N said:

Obama said this and PF rates it mostly true. Thoughts?
Obama: Violent felons can buy guns online without background checks | PolitiFact

Click to expand...

Totally true. But so what? EX felons have a right to bear arms too, to defend their children. I tear up thinking about their children being defenseless. But if they are violent they belong in jail.

David_N said:

Obama said this and PF rates it mostly true. Thoughts?
Obama: Violent felons can buy guns online without background checks | PolitiFact

Click to expand...

Some people sell their personal firearms online through several internet sights. That is no different than selling them through a newspaper want ad, hanging a for sale sign up on a supermarket bulletin board or asking your brother in law if he wants to buy your shotgun. A background check is not required for private sales. You only need to verify to the best of your ability that the person buying the firearm is not from out of state. The internet site does nothing more than allow a buyer and seller to connect. If the buyer is in state, the seller and buyer meet in person and the transaction occurs just as you would sell a washer/dryer through Craigslist. If the buyer is from out of state, the seller has to send the firearm to an FFL holder located in the buyers state. In that case, a background check is done.

Casper said:

Which is BS and will change absolutely nothing when it comes to crime, the sheep lap it up in the false illusion that it somehow has accomplished something.

Click to expand...

If it increases both federal government power and expense then it must be good for society.

After all, Obama himself said that it was "the right thing to do". He has the pen, phone and teleprompter to prove it.

Here is the law

If I see a firearm for sale by a private seller on an internet site, I can PAY for the firearm via the internet. IF THE SELLER is in Ohio, I have to meet him face to face. It is a felony for him to send me that firearm via UPS, FED EX, DHL. He cannot even place a firearm into the USPS mail unless he has an FFL and is shipping to another FFL

So the sale can be paid for over the net but not the delivery. That is no different than what happens if I see an add in my local newspaper or on the bulletin board at the gun club. I have to meet the seller to take possession

now if the seller is in Kentucky or Indiana or Idaho, the weapon has to be sent to a licensed dealer in my home state and I have to physically appear in front of the dealer even if I paid for the weapon via the net. and then the dealer must conduct the federally required background check

so Obama is mainly lying or pretending that PAYING for something is what matters when in reality it is obtaining possession