this post was submitted on 11 Apr 2024
578 points (98.7% liked)

News

31410 readers
2691 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

‘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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Omgboom@lemmy.zip 108 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (14 children)

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.

[–] FireTower@lemmy.world 77 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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.

[–] ryathal@sh.itjust.works 26 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] Everythingispenguins@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Fredselfish@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

How long before our corrupt Supreme Court strikes this down?

[–] Zink@programming.dev 6 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] sepulcher@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 year ago
[–] setsneedtofeed@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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.

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] kibiz0r@midwest.social 34 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Obviously, this is woke Nazi communist satanic slavery.

[–] Drewelite@lemmynsfw.com 18 points 1 year ago

That's putting it lightly.

[–] setsneedtofeed@lemmy.world 24 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] WoahWoah@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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:

  1. Allowed people to function like online dealers, buying and selling volumes of guns, but claiming they are selling from personal collections.

  2. 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."

  3. 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.

[–] setsneedtofeed@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 24 points 1 year ago (16 children)

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.

[–] maniclucky@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago

Incremental progress is unsatisfying and better than nothing. And this one is a little satisfying so I'll take it.

[–] snooggums@midwest.social 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Dkarma@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] FontMasterFlex@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

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.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Milk_Sheikh@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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.

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.com 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

To all the gun owners/advocates out there who used rational thinking to back this: Thank you.

[–] SHOW_ME_YOUR_ASSHOLE@lemm.ee 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I've bought firearms online for years. I don't know how the loophole works and at this point I'm afraid to ask.

[–] setsneedtofeed@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] sirico@feddit.uk 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Buy this vase and get a free gun

[–] KevonLooney@lemm.ee 9 points 1 year ago

The Justice Department isn't stupid. The purchase of the vase is obviously incidental in the transaction.

load more comments
view more: next ›