Hahaahahahahahaha Ummmm Errrrrrrr hahahahahaha
(I fully realize not all my posts are this mature and eloquent)
(I fully realize not all my posts are this mature and eloquent)
Democrats Ordered ATF Study Fails
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...xpose-illegal-online-gun-sales-backfires.html
Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., as well as Sens. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, had commissioned the Government Accountability Office report to look into how online private dealers might be selling guns to people not allowed to have them.
Well I guess that puts an end to the undoubtedly-planned "Internet Loophole" press release from Cummings and Warren....Over the course of the two-and-a-half year investigation, agents tried to buy firearms illegally on the "Surface Web" and the "Dark Web," generally by sharing their status as "prohibited individuals" or trying to buy across state lines. But the GAO revealed that their 72 attempts outside of the dark web were all "unsuccessful."
1 - 20 of 50 Posts
The link to the study is below. It is in the article cited above. Print it. Share it. Get it spread around the Golden Dome to those who scream Universal Background Checks.
I will be sharing a pile on the 15th in Richmond on Lobby Day. Its been shared and spread among the team leaders for VCDL so I expect each Delegate and Senator in Richmond will get their own personal paper copy of the GAO report.
Nemo
https://www.gao.gov/assets/690/688535.pdf
I will be sharing a pile on the 15th in Richmond on Lobby Day. Its been shared and spread among the team leaders for VCDL so I expect each Delegate and Senator in Richmond will get their own personal paper copy of the GAO report.
Nemo
https://www.gao.gov/assets/690/688535.pdf
Poor uneducated common citizens couldn't possibly follow the law (G*d knows the lawyers in both Congress and the legislature work HARD to make it unintelligible and internally inconsistent) according to the gun grabbers. But wait, no illegal sales on the internet that non-criminals use and only 2 on the "dark web". Wow. How is that possible? The average sheeple aren't capable of moral and legal compliance without overseers.
And notice that they got scammed in 2 sales on the “Dark Web” too. :-D
Will Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., and Sens. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii give us our money back on this bogus and failed study?
Can President Trump start draining the swamp a little faster to help reduce if not outright stop nonsense and waste of taxpayer money such as this?
Can President Trump start draining the swamp a little faster to help reduce if not outright stop nonsense and waste of taxpayer money such as this?
I read the actual GAO report and to me it doesn’t prove or disprove what it was intended to do and that the study is flawed and anyone who thinks this helps the pro-gun side or puts a nail in the coffins on the gun control side wanting universal background checks is fooling themselves.
So how is this study flawed? When the prospective buyer (i.e. GAO) was asked or told the seller if he was prohibited from buying a firearm, he told the seller that he was. Once the buyer told them that, there was close to a zero chance any responsible seller would be willing to sell a firearm to that buyer.
In reality, the prohibited person would most certainly lie through his teeth and tell the seller that he could lawfully purchase a firearm. Because this was done not at a FFL but in person, in that being the case and most likely believing the buyer the seller would have certainly sold a firearm to a prohibited person.
This was a flawed study from the start
So how is this study flawed? When the prospective buyer (i.e. GAO) was asked or told the seller if he was prohibited from buying a firearm, he told the seller that he was. Once the buyer told them that, there was close to a zero chance any responsible seller would be willing to sell a firearm to that buyer.
In reality, the prohibited person would most certainly lie through his teeth and tell the seller that he could lawfully purchase a firearm. Because this was done not at a FFL but in person, in that being the case and most likely believing the buyer the seller would have certainly sold a firearm to a prohibited person.
This was a flawed study from the start
If the study shows that private party gun sellers respect the law and will uphold it where they are able and have sufficient information, THIS MEANS that a future law requiring sellers to check the qualifications of a potential buyer, either by phone, online, or bh visiting a local FFL, is a law that is likely to be obeyed, and thus will largely close the “private sales” loophole that currently lets plenty of prohibited persons get guns.
Bu, IF the study had gone the other way, and showed most sellers were willing to sell to prohibited persons, we can infer from that data that private-party sellers cannot be trusted to cooperate with any moderate gun-sales laws, leaving only a total ban on private sales and making it illegal to advertise guns for sale if you’re not an FFL dealer.
Thats what the anti-gunners want anyway. No used gun sales among the common people. Getting guns must involve the police and the ATF and a licensed brick-and-mortar gun shop, with a big stack of paperwork to document everything.
Thats what the anti-gunners want anyway. No used gun sales among the common people. Getting guns must involve the police and the ATF and a licensed brick-and-mortar gun shop, with a big stack of paperwork to document everything.
That was what was requested of the ATF. The study was supposed to prove that dealers/sellers would willing sell to someone that they knew couldn't legally own a firearm. Supposedly the ATF already conducts tests where they attempt to purchase firearms at stores where the buyer will fail the background check....the study is flawed...
When the prospective buyer (i.e. GAO) was asked or told the seller if he was prohibited from buying a firearm, he told the seller that he was. Once the buyer told them that, there was close to a zero chance any responsible seller would be willing to sell a firearm to that buyer.
There is no "loophole". The law explicitly allows for private party sales without a BG check.thus will largely close the "private sales" loophole that currently lets plenty of prohibited persons get guns.
Well, IF the definition of a "loophole" is exploiting a weakness in the law in a way the legislature (or whatever body passed the law or rule) envisioned, you're right. Congress knew that they were not regulating private-party sales between residents of the same state when they passed the GUn Control Act of 1968, and ATF is also well aware of this when it makes its rules and regulations.
I used the word "loophole" more broadly, to say an exception in the law that defeats the purpose of the law; provision in the law that undercuts the value of the main body of the law.
I used the word "loophole" more broadly, to say an exception in the law that defeats the purpose of the law; provision in the law that undercuts the value of the main body of the law.
I wonder what the success rate would be for a brand-new registered user at some gun website or buy/ sell/ trade site who shows up out of the blue (doesn't have any track record of posting or interacting with others) and replies to some ad for a concealable, modern, serious-caliber handgun.
What if this potential buyer doesn't volunteer any information about himself, or his purpose and intention for the weapon. He just says he wants one of that model (or type), and he's got the cash, and he'd like to buy it. He offers to meet face to face or take shipment of the gun to his home address (and, if asked, the address he gives is in the same state as the seller)?
Some private-party sellers would not sell a gun, or at least a handgun, to a person who doesn't have a GWL and is willing to let the seller take a quick peek at it.
But if this potential buyer is asked, he'll say he's willing to show his driver's license, but that he doesn't have any carry permit. Let's stipulate that if asked why not, he'll say that he only intends to carry or possess the gun in places where no license is needed (in Georgia, that would be one's own property, or a private passenger vehicle, or place of business).
What if this potential buyer doesn't volunteer any information about himself, or his purpose and intention for the weapon. He just says he wants one of that model (or type), and he's got the cash, and he'd like to buy it. He offers to meet face to face or take shipment of the gun to his home address (and, if asked, the address he gives is in the same state as the seller)?
Some private-party sellers would not sell a gun, or at least a handgun, to a person who doesn't have a GWL and is willing to let the seller take a quick peek at it.
But if this potential buyer is asked, he'll say he's willing to show his driver's license, but that he doesn't have any carry permit. Let's stipulate that if asked why not, he'll say that he only intends to carry or possess the gun in places where no license is needed (in Georgia, that would be one's own property, or a private passenger vehicle, or place of business).
I would image the guy would be walking away with a handgun.I wonder what the success rate would be for a brand-new registered user at some gun website or buy/ sell/ trade site who shows up out of the blue (doesn't have any track record of posting or interacting with others) and replies to some ad for a concealable, modern, serious-caliber handgun.
What if this potential buyer doesn't volunteer any information about himself, or his purpose and intention for the weapon. He just says he wants one of that model (or type), and he's got the cash, and he'd like to buy it. He offers to meet face to face or take shipment of the gun to his home address (and, if asked, the address he gives is in the same state as the seller)?
Some private-party sellers would not sell a gun, or at least a handgun, to a person who doesn't have a GWL and is willing to let the seller take a quick peek at it.
But if this potential buyer is asked, he'll say he's willing to show his driver's license, but that he doesn't have any carry permit. Let's stipulate that if asked why not, he'll say that he only intends to carry or possess the gun in places where no license is needed (in Georgia, that would be one's own property, or a private passenger vehicle, or place of business).
Possibly. There are certainly those that will do a private sale on a pretty-much don't-ask, don't-tell type of policy. They likely don't have a significant impact on guns used to commit crimes vs. black market guns. Someday one of these private sales guns will end up being used in a mass shooting, the media will ram the story down our throats for days, and Congress will immediately draft legislation to close the private sale "loophole". I think that is the only way that the law will change in the current political climate.I would image the guy would be walking away with a handgun.
I personally believe a lot of guns get to criminals by some person who knowingly sells it to a prohibited person. I am not saying the original gun owner is selling to a prohibited person.
I am saying after a multitude of private sales of the firearm to somebody where each person selling the gun sells it to someone a little let scrupulous as the prior owner it will eventually get to a person who doesn’t care who they sell it to.
Can’t prove it but that is my theory.
I am saying after a multitude of private sales of the firearm to somebody where each person selling the gun sells it to someone a little let scrupulous as the prior owner it will eventually get to a person who doesn’t care who they sell it to.
Can’t prove it but that is my theory.
Theories without data are very progressive.I personally believe a lot of guns get to criminals by some person who knowingly sells it to a prohibited person. I am not saying the original gun owner is selling to a prohibited person.
I am saying after a multitude of private sales of the firearm to somebody where each person selling the gun sells it to someone a little let scrupulous as the prior owner it will eventually get to a person who doesn't care who they sell it to.
Can't prove it but that is my theory.
Failing to be prohibited by the stated requirements of the law is not a loophole. i.e. There is not an "I paid for it" loophole in shoplifting law. And person over the age of 21 purchasing alcohol (or firearms) is not using the "age of majority loophole". The legislature never intended to those things, or regulate private party sales.I used the word "loophole" more broadly, to say an exception in the law that defeats the purpose of the law; provision in the law that undercuts the value of the main body of the law.
Words like "loophole" mischaracterize the intent of the legislature. Most often, they are used by opponents of a particular piece of legislation to deliberately mislead the audience into believing two things:
1. The actor is a shady character availing themselves off a technicality that was never intended to exist.
2. The loophole was a mistake that would not have been included if noticed prior to passage.
Right now, with internet-based gun sales sites abounding and at least some online classified ad sites willing to accept guns for sale, this is the the easiest way for a prohibited person to get a gun, and particularly if they want to be able to choose from a wide selection of various guns with various features. All they have to do is live in, or drive to, a major metropolitan area and answer some ads, and be ready to meet up.
I think this is a more attractive way for some criminals to get their choice of guns than the other historical way, which is a straw purchase from a friend (often a wife or girlfriend, or sibling). That straw purchase method involves exposing a friend or relative to liability, and that person might one day disclose what he or she did to help you get that gun. That straw purchase buyer may not be comfortable showing ID and filling out a form 4473.
With a private party sale ad and a face-to-face meeting, the felon doesn't have to expose anybody he likes to any legal danger, or expose himself to the danger of them not keeping their mouth shut about the straw purchase.
Before the internet, smart phones, and apps, straw purchases were easier, especially if the criminal was picky about what kind of gun he wanted.
OF COURSE CRIMINALS CAN ALWAYS GO TO A BLACK-MARKET DEALER... if they know where to find one! Not every prohibited person or future mass-murderer is well-connected to the kind of street-level thugs that sell stolen goods to strangers.
And when the buyer makes contact with the black market seller, there is still a very good possibility that the dealer will think this is a "sting" and won't make the delivery of the weapon. Finally, the choice of firearms available with any black market dealer is going to be really sparse compared to online shopping or taking a friend to an FFL dealer to make a straw purchase. If you just want "a small handgun" or "a large revolver" or "an AK type rifle" the black market dealer can probably set you up, but not if you want an M4 type carbine in semi-auto with a 120-round snail drum magazine.
I think this is a more attractive way for some criminals to get their choice of guns than the other historical way, which is a straw purchase from a friend (often a wife or girlfriend, or sibling). That straw purchase method involves exposing a friend or relative to liability, and that person might one day disclose what he or she did to help you get that gun. That straw purchase buyer may not be comfortable showing ID and filling out a form 4473.
With a private party sale ad and a face-to-face meeting, the felon doesn't have to expose anybody he likes to any legal danger, or expose himself to the danger of them not keeping their mouth shut about the straw purchase.
Before the internet, smart phones, and apps, straw purchases were easier, especially if the criminal was picky about what kind of gun he wanted.
OF COURSE CRIMINALS CAN ALWAYS GO TO A BLACK-MARKET DEALER... if they know where to find one! Not every prohibited person or future mass-murderer is well-connected to the kind of street-level thugs that sell stolen goods to strangers.
And when the buyer makes contact with the black market seller, there is still a very good possibility that the dealer will think this is a "sting" and won't make the delivery of the weapon. Finally, the choice of firearms available with any black market dealer is going to be really sparse compared to online shopping or taking a friend to an FFL dealer to make a straw purchase. If you just want "a small handgun" or "a large revolver" or "an AK type rifle" the black market dealer can probably set you up, but not if you want an M4 type carbine in semi-auto with a 120-round snail drum magazine.
"The findings were clear. Criminals do not engage in activities that would make them subject to any sort of a "universal" background check requirement or any of the other common proposals put forth by the anti-gun crowd.I personally believe a lot of guns get to criminals by some person who knowingly sells it to a prohibited person.
...
Can't prove it but that is my theory.
...
They do not buy guns in gun stores. They do not get guns at gun shows. They do not buy them from Internet sources. The study even found that criminals only rarely steal guns."
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20150904/study-criminals-don-t-get-guns-from-legal-sources
1 - 20 of 50 Posts
- This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Georgia Firearm Forums - Georgia Packing
A forum community dedicated to Georgia firearm owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about optics, hunting, gunsmithing, styles, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Explore Our Forums
Recommended Communities
