Prohibited Firearm Users Amass Weapons from Oregon Online Gun Market

golocalpdx.com ^ | 4/7/2015 | Annie Ellison

[rktman]

“This investigation highlights something we’ve known for a long time – that the online market for guns leaves a gaping loophole for criminals and other dangerous people to buy a gun without a background check,” said Sarah Finger McDonald, one of 50,000 Oregon members of the group Moms Demand Action.

According to Everytown’s research, gun sales online eclipsed sales at gun shows by a factor of four. More guns were sold by unlicensed vendors online in a week than at a year of Oregon gun shows.

[rktman]

Moron the momunists and nannie bloomers wool pulling. Internet "loophole" to eclipse gunshow "loophole". A gazillion on line sales go unchecked.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

Beware of women with three names.

[ConservativeWebServant]

The website, "Armlist.com" is down. :-) What a threat...

[thorvaldr]

So, some guy breaking the law means that they need to make more laws instead of prosecuting this guy for the law he broke?

[DanielRedfoot]

Er.. the last time I checked, if you buy a gun online, it has to be shipped to a licensed dealer of your choice where the requesite background check then happens, just as if you were buying it from the gun shop.

Or did that all change and I missed it?

[PapaBear3625]

that the online market for guns leaves a gaping loophole for criminals and other dangerous people to buy a gun without a background check

It's called "private sale". If I decide to sell my rifle, as a private citizen not engaged in the business of being a firearms vendor, to a friend or acquaintance, I am not obligated to do a background check, or even make a record of the sale.

[rktman]

RUH ROH! Guess the bad guys will have to go back to those unregulated gun shows. Or heck, maybe the momunists can get them some guns. Just to prove a point of course.

[taxcontrol]

I am of the opinion that the loss of gun rights should be a punishment considered by the Jury after conviction of a violent felony. It should be a secondary vote to the conviction. Like wise, the loss of voting rights.

IOW, after the jury has found that the convicted is guilty of a violent crime, the Jury should be asked to vote on the removal of gun rights and voting rights, each as a separate vote. Both the Prosecution and the Defense should be able to present mitigating testimony before the Jury.

For mental competency, a temporary (until a trial) Judge issued restraint could be put in place. This would be in effect, similar to a person being held in county jail. However, loss of rights should be again, determined by a jury with evidence presented by both sides.

Absent a jury trial, no rights should be taken.

[rktman]

Well, according to the “study” by the momunists, it’s a wide open market place now with no regulation whatsoever. Guess I missed the memo too.

[rktman]

LOL! You will be.

[corlorde]

try this:

http://www.armslist.com/

[Kirkwood]

It’s just a list of people selling their guns. You don’t actually buy online. Probably 99% of the resulting sales are in person and local.

[Secret Agent Man]

working with obamaand false’flaggers to gin up the gun takeaway agenda of the left.

[pabianice]

Good thing they don’t know that nuclear explosives and poison ammunition are also available on line with no background check.

[Yo-Yo]

Maybe in your state you’re not obligated to perform a background check, but in several others including California, Washington, Colorado, New York, and others a face-to-face sale without a background check is illegal. Bloomberg is trying to add Oregon, Nevada, and Arizona to the list with stories like this designed to gin up support for ballot initatives.

I suggest that you should care more about these ballot initatives in other states because your state may be next. Bloomberg has struck out at the Federal level, and the blowback from Colorado has chilled action at the State legislature level, but they have found success with the ballot initative approach.

[Starstruck]

People look for loopholes to purchase weapons not necessarily because they are criminals but because they don’t trust the government to respect gun rights. I hate the fact that the majority of my guns (those which were lost in the boating accident) were purchased with a background check and information being kept by the dealer which is subject to ATF inspection.

[bunkerhill7]

Say "New York, and others a face-to-face sale without a background check is illegal"-

we been don selling guns here for 275 years-face to face back to back belly to belly- upn here in them mountains- we`uns just ignore this illegal "law" crap from the commies in Albany.

We are armed to the teeth here with several million weapons and ain`t no piece of paper gonna do anything except the USA Constitution herself.

[MCF]

If an individual purchases a firearm from another individual in the same state then it is subject only to state laws, unless it’s a class III firearm.

[Vendome]

“More guns were sold by unlicensed vendors online in a week than at a year of Oregon gun shows.”

Uhmmmm, Boo Chit.

That is a lot of people willing to risk serious jail time and mathematically improbable.

[Myrddin]

I was looking for a specific rifle in 2013. None of the local dealers had one. They were on allocation. I found a dealer in Washington state. I had to take care of helping my local FFL and the WA state FFL exchange paperwork, then paid the WA FFL for the rifle and shipping cost. I had to pay my local FFL for sales tax and transfer fee along with doing the Form 4473 before I could take my purchase home. I have an ID CCW, so my CCW permit number was recorded on the Form 4473. All the required paperwork was done by all parties. Money exchanged for goods, taxes, transport and service fees. It was a "wash" from a cost perspective vs finding the rifle in stock at the local retail store. No prohibited persons involved. The dingbat behind the article would screw up the free market commerce.