Someone explain this to me, please!

[Dave T]

Our state senator Joe Manchin says he will introduce his background check bill again at a later date. Manchin says the bill will stop online gun sales that don't require a background check. Please someone explain this to me, I thought if I buy a gun on GunBroker.com or an individual on this forum that the gun had to be shipped to an FFL dealer and then we had to pass a background check just like any other gun purchase. Is this correct?
Dave T

 

[Lapua40X]

In every state I'm aware of, your understanding is correct. If there is a state where an FFL transfer is completed without a background check I'm not aware of it. Perhaps someone else can expand on it if they know of one. ???
He may be wanting to ensure the sales of firearms between private individuals via the Internet cannot be completed without background (FFL dealer transfer) checks. But his bill isn't very well written, IMO.

 

[ridgeway]

Yep, has to be shipped to an FFL. I too, don't understand where they are coming from in reference to online sales and gun shows. I would think knowing the current laws would be a prerequisite in becoming a Senator! Its a pure political agenda and they will do anything to make it suceed. We are in the same boat with flip floppin Toomey.

 

[Lapua40X]

We share you anxiety out here on the left coast. We have Feinstein, Boxer and Pelosi out here. Pray for us brothers.

 

[DennisH]

Manchin says the bill will stop online gun sales that don't require a background check.

Just proves the ones making the laws have no clue what their talking about.

It's a Federal Law and applies in all states.

 

[jonbearman]

They are tightening regs to ensure that they have a registry of all transactions so they know where and who owns them.You get the picture.

 

[KMart]

the bill will stop online gun sales that don't require a background check.

A major percentage of the registered voters probably think that guns can be bought over the intenet without background checks. This is a smoke screen to get those uninformed people on his side.
The sad part is none of the media, including Fox, has called his hand and asked him what that means.

 

[pikespeakgoat]

This is a smoke screen to get those uninformed people on his side.

Sadly, I'm afraid the vast majority of our electorate would fall into that category.

 

[jelrod1]

the bill will stop online gun sales that don't require a background check.

A major percentage of the registered voters probably think that guns can be bought over the intenet without background checks. This is a smoke screen to get those uninformed people on his side.
The sad part is none of the media, including Fox, has called his hand and asked him what that means.

I agree with the smoke screen comment. Flat out lies and deceit are par for the course for these folks. It doesn't have to be true, you just have to get enough people to believe it. Also it is a great distraction for them to keep milking this. The more the media keeps after this the less they talk about real problems like the economy.

 

[25AI260]

like backround checks online.. offline... gunshow... wherever is gona stop some Deranged mental case with loss of contact with reality psychiatric person from accruing a firearm
the public in general needs to wake up an stop being leade around like cattle from the likes of Manchin
ya just get really pee'd off after awhile listening to all this BullS

 

[DennisH]

They are tightening regs to ensure that they have a registry of all transactions so they know where and who owns them.You get the picture.

I don't think there is enough Federal Personnel to implement this program!

 

[Taildrag15X]

Our state senator Joe Manchin says he will introduce his background check bill again at a later date. Manchin says the bill will stop online gun sales that don't require a background check. Please someone explain this to me, I thought if I buy a gun on GunBroker.com or an individual on this forum that the gun had to be shipped to an FFL dealer and then we had to pass a background check just like any other gun purchase. Is this correct?
Dave T

As mentioned prior it'[s all smoke and mirrors to make it look like they are doing something to protect the public......

In most every State (for now) it is still legal to put an ad in a Newspaper, Free Trader or online and sell that firearm with in the same State without a NICS Check, this is what they are after.

We here in New York we now fall under this due to the new NY SAFE Act which is all about registration, "Starting on March 15, 2013, all private handgun, rifle or shotgun sales or transfers will require a background check of the buyer" with a provision for sales or transfers to spouses, domestic partners, children and step-children.

Now it's another thing to get a Dealer to do the transfer as the State set a max charge of $10 per firearm, this has most outraged and refusing to do them.

 

[rvn1968]

It has been illegal since 1968,fallout from L.H.Oswald using a mail order Carcano.The magic carbine that enabled a poor shooter to outshoot the experts of his day.We know this is true because our politicians told us so.Some things never change.

 

[TonyR]

I read on the BATF website that the Federal law only requires shipment to an FFL if the buyer is in another state. According to what I read, long guns can be shipped between individuals in the same state without an FFL involved unless state law prohibits it.


http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/unlicensed-persons.html#shipping-firearms-carrier

Scroll down to this question:

Q: May a nonlicensee ship a firearm by common or contract carrier?


Some states have their own requirements for private transfers on long guns between buyers and sellers in their own state.

 

[Phil3]

I read on the BATF website that the Federal law only requires shipment to an FFL if the buyer is in another state. According to what I read, long guns can be shipped between individuals in the same state without an FFL involved unless state law prohibits it.


http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/unlicensed-persons.html#shipping-firearms-carrier

Scroll down to this question:

Q: May a nonlicensee ship a firearm by common or contract carrier?


Some states have their own requirements for private transfers on long guns between buyers and sellers in their own state.

This is the issue as I understand it. A private owner could bring a collection of guns to a gun show, and sell without an FFL or background check to anyone who walked in. Also, can happen between private owners within the same state. Not here in my California, because nobody can sell anything that goes bang to anybody else, without an FFL under any circumstance. The FFL can charge up to $25 I think for the background check. If I recall, the check itself is $10, for a grand total of $35 in fees.

Phil

 

[Lapua40X]

A lot of anxiety expressed here, but who is going to get the truth out there if we don't? Write letters to editors of every paper you can identify within your region. Write and call your representatives and tell them what "you" know and tell them where they can verify the truth. Contact the media, Fox New included, and give them the information on the Federal statute that already requires FFL control over Internet gun sales, and every gun show I've ever visited, so their people can work with the truth. Whining and complaining about reality isn't going to anything worthwhile.
I mentioned this to one guy who said, "yeah, I would do that, but I don't have a lot of time". Well, OK then. Don't complain when they've taken all your guns away.

 

[jhord]

The best I saw it explained was by the 2nd Amendment Foundation guy. He called the M-T bill a "trojan horse for gun rights." In return for giving up a couple of mostly ineffective things, many other rights were expanded. It's a sucker play. The hysterical, ignorant antis would feel like they get a "win" but the reality is it would be (mostly) a win for gun rights. Not that I agree with that sentiment 100%, just passing along how it was explained. Truthfully, 98% of my firearm acquisitions/dispositions have been with a FFL check so it wouldn't bother me a whole lot, but I do understand the opposition to it. (UBC)

 

[DennisH]

Individuals can sell between each other without a FFL involved is most states. It's best to call in the serial number to your local sherrif to cover yourself (buyer).

Personally, I always like to go through a FFL to cover all sides of the transaction. Many people do this as insurance on the transaction to cover themselves.

Dennis

 

[Phil3]

A lot of anxiety expressed here, but who is going to get the truth out there if we don't? Write letters to editors of every paper you can identify within your region. Write and call your representatives and tell them what "you" know and tell them where they can verify the truth. Contact the media, Fox New included, and give them the information on the Federal statute that already requires FFL control over Internet gun sales, and every gun show I've ever visited, so their people can work with the truth. Whining and complaining about reality isn't going to anything worthwhile.
I mentioned this to one guy who said, "yeah, I would do that, but I don't have a lot of time". Well, OK then. Don't complain when they've taken all your guns away.

I mostly agree, but you do have to recognize what battles are winnable and whether or not it makes sense to do some things. In my state of California, writing Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxes is a complete waste of time, unless maybe there were a LOT of people doing that. And in CA, there aren't. ALL bad gun bills recently passed through a committee in CA and ALL good bills failed, by a straight party line vote. The head of the Senate even said to his colleagues not to worry about the Constitutionality, let that settle out in the courts. Translation? Make our side spend money to over turn it.

There is debate on whether to always stand and fight vs recognize when you are Custer and you have lost with no way to win. But if the former, using best strategies is critical, especially when the odds are severely against you. In CA only, there are NRA Member Councils. I belong to one. They make it clear how you can have an effect. For instance, my chapter has a "Women on Target" event, where women sign up to learn how to shoot. The $40 cost includes class room instruction, range fees, firearms, eye protection, hearing protection, targets, ammunition, and refreshments. These women almost always have a good time, buy a gun later, go to other classes, but most importantly, tell other women and friends. In person, on Facebook, Twitter. That breaks down barriers and begins to turn the tide. These people are voters and while guns may not be a litmus test for them, it can begin to have an effect.

I still don't think CA is winnable, but if the infringement can be slowed, that is worth something. Still, moving out of state to a someplace free is powerfully appealing.

Phil

 

[dickn52]

The only time an FFL is not needed is within a single state and between individuals, at the current time that is. In other words, you could meet someone at your local range and make a transfer there without the FFL requirement. BUT, and this is a biggy in my mind, check ID and draw up a bill of sale to protect yourself if there is anything wrong later.