General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsCNN undercover agent purchases semi auto handguns & rifle without ID or paper work
Background checks are not required for private sales, but the seller is legally obligated to check the buyer's ID to verify that person is not from out-of-state.
The CNN crew that visited Tennessee, South Carolina and Georgia was able to purchase several weapons without having to prove residency or fill out paperwork, but not in every interaction with a seller. In once instance, a seller tells our producer that he got a gun "off a police officer."
The total weapon haul from the weekend was three semi-automatic handguns with extra magazines and one semi-automatic rifle with a 30-round magazine. The total spent was $2,800. No identification was given, leaving zero paper trails. The guns were turned over to CNN security to deal with.
http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2013/04/10/buying-guns-no-questions-asked/?hpt=ac_mid
This is so disgusting I don't even know where to begin. How republicans can defend the gun show & private seller loophole is mind boggling to me.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)Last edited Sun Apr 14, 2013, 01:57 PM - Edit history (1)
eom
99Forever
(14,524 posts).. but if you think it's just Republicans that are being bribed, then you aren't very well informed.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)slackmaster
(60,567 posts)They should indeed be reported to law enforcement.
doc03
(35,148 posts)slackmaster
(60,567 posts)...Otherwise known as a provision of the Gun Control Act of 1968 as amended.
With a few exceptions for long guns between specific states that have reciprocal agreements, you can't buy a firearm and transport it into another state unless the transaction goes through a federal firearms licensee.
There are no exceptions for handguns. A non-licensee cannot legally buy a handgun in any state and import it into another state. Any interstate transfer of a handgun has to be done through a dealer, and there has to be a background check on the buyer plus whatever other requirements are imposed by state law.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922
doc03
(35,148 posts)catch either one of us? What search cars at the state line?
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)premium
(3,731 posts)to search cars for guns and bullets.
spin
(17,493 posts)the Florida, Georgia line.
It would be legal as I have a Florida concealed weapons permit and Georgia has CCW reciprocity with Florida as does a number of other states. Still, I have to be careful not to have a concealed knife on my person which is legal in Florida with my permit but not in Georgia.
(source: http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/news/concealed_carry.html ... http://dps.georgia.gov/georgias-firearm-permit-reciprocity)
doc03
(35,148 posts)the only way anyone could be caught is to have a police state. The laws you say are on the books are nearly unenforceable.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)Bad people will.
Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)IveWornAHundredPants
(237 posts)opportunistic, well-intentioned, self-justifying, unsympathetic, empathetic and impulsive? That is to say, people outside the laughably simple-minded paradigm so frequently posited by popgun fans; which is to say, people, full stop?
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)Scofflaws at best.
IveWornAHundredPants
(237 posts)AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)in the context of this dicussion:
(1) for any person
(A) except a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer, to engage in the business of importing, manufacturing, or dealing in firearms, or in the course of such business to ship, transport, or receive any firearm in interstate or foreign commerce;
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922
If a buyer is not engaged in the "business of ...," 18 USC 922(a) doesn't apply to them.
petronius
(26,580 posts)(3) for any person, other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector to transport into or receive in the State where he resides (or if the person is a corporation or other business entity, the State where it maintains a place of business) any firearm purchased or otherwise obtained by such person outside that State, except that this paragraph (A) shall not preclude any person who lawfully acquires a firearm by bequest or intestate succession in a State other than his State of residence from transporting the firearm into or receiving it in that State, if it is lawful for such person to purchase or possess such firearm in that State, (B) shall not apply to the transportation or receipt of a firearm obtained in conformity with subsection (b)(3) of this section, and (C) shall not apply to the transportation of any firearm acquired in any State prior to the effective date of this chapter;
If the CNN crew is not on that list of exceptions, it seems that it would have been illegal for them to take the firearms home, without arranging for a licensed dealer in their home state to facilitate the transfer.
Hangingon
(3,071 posts)They should be cracking down on these regular//repeat private sellers. In the CNN piece, the guy with Bushmaster was the only legit private seller in my opinion.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)The law applies to everyone.
To simplify: It shall be unlawful for any person (except a dealer) to ship, transport, or receive any firearm in interstate or foreign commerce.
I live in California. If I buy a TV set in Arizona and bring it home, I have engaged in interstate commerce.
I have a type 03 Federal Firearms License, which allows me to acquire and dispose of curio or relic firearms through interstate commerce for the purpose of maintaining a collection. It explicitly prohibits me from engaging in a business.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)States in which they made the purchases has not been established by the events that were reported.
And to use your own analogy,
If you live in California and buy a TV set in Arizona, but do not bring it home, you have not engaged in interstate commerce.
If you have evidence that the CNN crew violated the law, do your civic duty and report them.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)Such as "We know this transaction would be illegal if someone who wasn't a resident of state X bought a gun in state x, so we were careful to ensure that the people who lived in the same state as each gun show actually did the transactions. Then, we turned the weapons in to law enforcement..."
Or something like that.
If you have evidence that the CNN crew violated the law, do your civic duty and report them.
That's not my job. My job is to criticize and heckle.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)And if it is your job to heckle the CNN crew, you're not doing a very good job of it. If you don't go to their web site, they won't even know that you posted here.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)Have a nice day.
DallasNE
(7,392 posts)These purchases were from a gun show. The article does not say at what point these buyers handed over the weapons to CNN security. Unless the buyer took these weapons into another State the buyers have broken no law with this purchase that I can see.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)DallasNE
(7,392 posts)If these weapons were turned over to CNN security after each purchase then no law was broken by the buyers. Without this knowledge it is a guessing game.
sl8
(13,584 posts)Unless the CNN employee making the purchase was a resident of the state where they made the purchase they (the purchaser) violated federal law.
Transferring the gun to CNN security just complicates matters. Was the member of CNN security to whom they transferred the gun a resident of the state in which they made the transfer? To my knowledge, "CNN security" is no more exempt from federal law than you or I.
DallasNE
(7,392 posts)Whether both the buyer and seller broke the law. The discussion is whether the seller broke the law and the evidence is pretty darn clear that they did. Changing the subject doesn't add to the discussion. Did the seller's break the law by not asking for identification. I will grant that the CNN article is poorly written because it leaves out important details and may even not accurately reflect the events that took place. Gun laws are not very straight forward because common usage of words and legal usage of the same words are sometimes at odds and lead to confusion on what exactly the law says.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)It's called an arms-length transaction.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)How can I get one of those?
DallasNE
(7,392 posts)So stop changing the subject. The article doesn't even say when they took control of the weapons nor what they did with them later or if they still have them. The pettiness of your post is disgusting.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)This isn't some minor point here, this is black letter law: if CNN bought the weapon in one state and then moved it to another without going through a Federally licensed dealer, they were illegally trafficking firearms. I don't see why you're getting so upset when people point that out.
DallasNE
(7,392 posts)And even if they were "trafficking" implies changing ownership which did not occur. The question has always been were the original sales legal, not whether CNN security was sloppy handling the weapons. The video supplied by CNN shows the purchases taking place at booths inside the gun show. Now I have never been to a gun show so I don't know if private "not in the business" sellers operate side-by-side with "in the business" sellers. If they do then CNN did a crap job of covering this story. It would also call into question whether these "not in the business" sellers were actually "in the business" sellers. (Check out the guy in the "toys for tots" t-shirt).
Recursion
(56,582 posts)That's what makes it illegal, not the fact that they weren't asked for an ID. You're right, it isn't really the handling afterwards that's the legal problem, it's the purchase in the first place: if they went to a state they did not live in and bought a firearm from anyone other than a licensed dealer, they were breaking the law.
DallasNE
(7,392 posts)And the guy making the purchase lives in Tennessee and I believe one of the buys was there. So lets focus on Tennessee. By your account were any laws broken with the purchase in Tennessee and by whom. Also, you never answered the question on whether "in the business" dealers have booths set up side-by-side with "not in the business" private sellers at gun shows? The video clearly shows cash changing hands at a booth inside the gun show building.
I will concede that the buyer broke the law when buying in a State he did not live in. But if the seller was a dealer he also broke the law by not complying with the paperwork, including checking for residency and that would be the case in all 3 States. The question then is technical as to whether these were all private sales or sales by licensed dealers and that hinges on the earlier question.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)As far as I can tell none of these sellers were licensed dealers. If they were, they would have had to perform a background check for any sale, whether in the store, at a gun show, or in a parking garage.
Assuming they are not licensed dealers, it varies by state what they have to do. It is a Federal crime to buy from a private seller outside of your own state. States may require private sellers to check ID (some do; I don't remember which ones), if one of these deals happened in one of those states, the seller also broke the law.
Also, you never answered the question on whether "in the business" dealers have booths set up side-by-side with "not in the business" private sellers at gun shows?
There's no single answer to that. States have different laws and gun show organizers will have different policies. I know in some states it really is a kind of swap meet mentality with people just pulling up card tables to sell their own stuff; in others they're just a place where people who like guns happen to all be in one spot (and, honestly, that's what actually bothers a lot of people on our side of the aisle about them) so it's easy to go out to the parking lot and buy a gun out of somebody's car.
premium
(3,731 posts)not FFL dealers.
No FFL dealer is going to sell a firearm to a buyer without a BGC, particularly at a gun show. There are lots of undercover cops and ATF agents walking around gun shows looking for just that.
CNN did a crappy, or dishonest job on that "investigative" piece, and if CNN security moved those firearms out of the states without going through an FFL dealer, they violated federal law.
DallasNE
(7,392 posts)So I agree about the crappy job of reporting by CNN, perhaps for different reasons. CNN did not establish who the sellers were, i.e., private sellers or licensed gun dealers, the condition of the weapon (new, near new/unfired, used/fired) and other critical information.
I have always thought that gun shows were organized events where an area was set aside for licensed gun dealers with another area in the room set aside for private sales. Apparently that is not the case and one wonder why. People need to know who they are dealing with. In fact I would think that dealers would insist on this for the integrity of the operation. But this is straying from the original story that in many ways falls apart because too many key details are missing.
One thing I do not accept is the cock-sure notion that these have to be private sales because no licensed dealer would sell without a background check. $1,150 for an AR-15 and case can cause strange behavior. Likewise I have backed away from the impression CNN tried to set up that these were licensed dealers to we simply don't know because it was not established either way. If these were all private sales then CNN has egg on its face for sensationalizing what is essentially a non-story. I hope CNN is smoked out to provide the essential missing details.
premium
(3,731 posts)There should be separation of FFL dealers from private sellers.
I've been to enough gun shows to know that no FFL dealer at a gun show is going to risk his license and jail time to sell to a buyer w/o a BGC, there are lots and lots of undercover cops and ATF agents there looking for just such violations.
Personally, no firearm should ever be sold, private or otherwise, without going through an FFL dealer.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Typical gun cultist activity.
premium
(3,731 posts)the CNN crew did do something immoral, unethical, and detrimental to society, etc.
Thank you for admitting that.
They mislead (read lied) when buying those firearms.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)CNN did nothing wrong. Exposing how irresponsible, immoral those marketing guns are, is laudable.
I know those interested in keeping their pipeline to more guns open, freak out when they are exposed for the threats to society they represent.
premium
(3,731 posts)That's the funniest thing you've said so far.
CNN misrepresented themselves, not the sellers, therefore, that makes CNN the immoral, unethical party to this transaction.
randome
(34,845 posts)'Immoral' and 'unethical' are not part of any laws on the books.
premium
(3,731 posts)I'm only pointing out the obvious to Hoyt.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)premium
(3,731 posts)but, what the heck, gotta try.
DallasNE
(7,392 posts)How did the CNN crew mislead or lie? They didn't answer questions not asked but how is that misleading or lying.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)They also illustrated the weakness of these laws.
However, I imagine many blinded idiots will pretend that CNN is the bad guy... it certainly would help me rationalize it were guns my sacred cow...
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)"the seller is legally obligated to check the buyer's ID to verify that person is not from out-of-state"
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)slackmaster
(60,567 posts)AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)illegal. The buyers did."
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)The OP is deficient in failing to mention that fact.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)basis for you to say that the "buyers most certainly did violate the law."
You don't anything beyond what was reported. Your claimed knowledge beyone what was reported is based upon speculation.
The OP WAS NOT deficient in failing to mention your speculation.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)I will say as I please.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)innocence.
It's also obvious that you don't have any factual basis for claiming, without evidence, that someone is guilty of a crime.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)DallasNE
(7,392 posts)To sell at a gun show you must be a licensed dealer and here is what Wikipedia says regarding those sales.
Sale of a firearm by a federally licensed dealer must be documented by a federal form 4473, which identifies and includes other information about the purchaser, and records the make, model, and serial number of the firearm. Sales to an individual of multiple handguns within a five-day period require dealer notification to the ATF. Violations of dealer record keeping requirements are punishable by a penalty of up to $1000 and one year's imprisonment.
Federal Form 4473 is retained by the dealer, and the ATF is not allowed to create an electronic registry of firearms purchases that could be used in law enforcement. Instead, the ATF queries dealers individually regarding purchases. The ATF obtains forms from dealers that have gone out of business, but it is not allowed to create an efficient electronic database of the information
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)Federal law has no such requirement.
DallasNE
(7,392 posts)Yet you provide no proof. Color me unconvinced.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)...that requires a non-licensee to ask for ID from a person to whom he or she is selling a used firearm.
sl8
(13,584 posts)Did these particular shows have that requirement?
DallasNE
(7,392 posts)Rather that out of the trunk of a car in the parking lot. Here dealer means "in the business". From Wikipedia:
U.S. federal law requires persons engaged in interstate firearm commerce, or those who are "engaged in the business" of dealing firearms, to hold a Federal Firearms License and perform background checks through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System maintained by the FBI prior to transferring a firearm. Under the terms of the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986, however, individuals "not engaged in the business" of dealing firearms, or who only make "occasional" sales within their state of residence, are under no requirement to conduct background checks on purchasers or maintain records of sale
sl8
(13,584 posts)Check at about 1:20, the correspondent says, "No background check, it's not needed for a private sale".
He does go on to say that the seller is required to ask for an ID. I'm not sure what requirement he's referring to. State law?
DallasNE
(7,392 posts)Now do "in the business" licensed dealers operate side-by-side with "not in the business" private sellers in booths inside the gun show? I have never been to a gun show so I don't know. But the video is clear that the sales take place at booths inside the gun show. If these aren't dealers then this is a crap piece of reporting by CNN. It also shows that the gun show loophole is much larger that the public realizes.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)For someone who has never been to a gun show, you sure seem to have some strong ideas about what happens there.
doc03
(35,148 posts)being enforced?
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)"the seller is legally obligated to check the buyer's ID to verify that person is not from out-of-state"
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)Passing new laws that also don't get enforced doesn't seem like a great idea. Put these people in jail, over and over again. Sting this weekly. That would do a lot more than passing new laws.
fried eggs
(910 posts)don't get their hands on a gun from a private seller or gunshow.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)I think universal background checks on all transfers would be a great law, but the way we ignore the laws we currently have doesn't make me optimistic.
moondust
(19,917 posts)If one tool doesn't always do its job maybe some other tool will compensate for it. Eventually the combination of tools will make a difference.
randome
(34,845 posts)TheCowsCameHome
(40,162 posts)They'll handle this.
fried eggs
(910 posts)The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)Is basically how things go.
fried eggs
(910 posts)don't go far enough with regard to background checks.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)...an individual's eligibility to acquire a firearm can only be used by gun dealers, i.e. people who have a Type 01 Federal Firearms License and are lawfully engaged in the business of buying and selling firearms. That system, flawed as it is, cannot legally be used by a non-licensee who has a used firearm to sell.
Some states allow private sellers to conduct transfers through dealers. A few states like California require it. Other than the prohibition against knowingly transferring a firearm to a person who is prohibited from receiving it, federal law is silent on intrastate, non-commercial transfers of used firearms.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)But some people are above the law. Like David Gregory.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)NickB79
(19,113 posts)First the high-capacity mag debacle, now this. CNN needs to hire a full-time ATF agent to give them better legal advice before they do something really, really bad.
At this rate, they'll be doing a live show with Wolfe Blitzer sawing the barrel off a shotgun and selling it for a bag of meth by the end of the week.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)That would be interesting.
petronius
(26,580 posts)actual crimes were committed by the CNN crew, if they traveled outside their individual states of residence to purchase firearms. I'm pretty sure federal law does not require a private seller to check ID - maybe these individual states have laws that do?
(And FTR, I do support a universal background check requirement.)
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Do not have a loophole.
Also, this might be hard to understand, but investigative units have a tad of leeway, since they are making a point.
A year or so ago NY cops did the same in AZ to prove the same exact point.
petronius
(26,580 posts)do not require an ID check, then I don't see what law the sellers broke by not requesting it...
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Buy a weapon at a gun show. They did make that point, didn't they?
Free huge freaking clue, it's not just a news crew doing this.
petronius
(26,580 posts)the likelihood that the reporters apparently:
1) do not accurately understand current law*, and
2) may have unnecessarily violated current law to make their already-well-known point?
(* On edit: note that I alluded to the question in my very first post. Does federal law require a private seller to check ID? I've always thought that it does not...)
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)If they broke the law like Bloomie did, they should face charges.
Then again, at least in Washington DC, some animals are more equal than others
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)When Bloomie sent his "investigators" south, all of them including Bloomie could have and should have been arrested on Federal gun charges.
The police are under the same delusion as you are about media privilege. That is why PINAC and other websites exist.
premium
(3,731 posts)And NY was sent a very pointed letter by the ATF informing them that they were breaking federal law and not to do it again, also, the states that NY did this to informed NY the next time, their cops would be arrested and prosecuted.
TheCowsCameHome
(40,162 posts)I'll bet the numbers are staggering.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)AndyA
(16,993 posts)Buy more guns guns guns -- everyone NEEDS them. Gotta have a semi-automatic rifle to go check the mail in the mailbox at the street. Amurika is DANGEROUS! Criminals EVERYWHERE. They're hiding in your shrubs, just waiting to attack you when you carry out the garbage.
Then there's the big, bad U.S. gubmint waiting to take your guns away. They want to remove your right to bear arms. So, gotta have twenty or thirty various weapons in the house, with enough ammo on hand to start a war. The more the better, of course. And no one needs to know that you have those guns, what they are, how many, what you intend to do with them (hey, no mass murders in a few hours--better get going!)
Yeah, I know there are bad areas where it may not be safe to check the mail or carry the trash out, but having weapons strapped on you isn't the answer. And while Americans are so concerned about the government taking their guns away from them, they seem oblivious to the fact that the government is indeed trying to take away rights--like privacy, voting, representation, and others.
Apparently no other rights are as important as the 2A rights, however, including the right to life.
DallasNE
(7,392 posts)Was to send out two teams, one white and the other black and have them go to the same seller about 1 hour apart then alternate who goes first. Would the results have been different for the two teams? What extent do we have two America's?
Revanchist
(1,375 posts)I would also like to see a male and female buyer, I wonder if the sellers would have any preconceived notions of knowledge of firearms and if there were any differences in the seller's asking price.
DallasNE
(7,392 posts)The asking price would also apply to the white/black teams in addition to the female teams.
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)are willing to break U.S. gun laws. Remember when they had a 30 round magazine in their Washington D.C. studio?
Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)"Undercover"? They are trying to play it as if they uncovered something shocking. It's a private sale at a gun show. Anyone can walk up and buy the thing and no one (certainly not the seller) is breaking any laws.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)most of us understand why universal background checks are needed.
krispos42
(49,445 posts)..the corporate media is shocked, SHOCKED to discover that something is legal and commonplace and has been for a while.
One_Life_To_Give
(6,036 posts)If it's so easy to find why hasn't BATF taken care of it? A few prosecutions should fix this real quick.