by The gun prohibitionists are always in a tizzy about “the Internet sale of guns”. Everytown Moms for Illegal Mayors is making a big deal about “Internet sales” in the campaign for the Washington State universal background check initiative I-594. That initiative, if passed, would mandate universal background checks for all sales and transfers of firearms. Of course, they are being helped by their allies in the Seattle media with articles like this giving the impression that Facebook is just one big gun exchange.
Here is what the Brady Campaign sent out to their true believers in their Toolkit 2014 which provides suggestions for contacting legislators and letters to the editor along with their general campaign strategy.
Unfortunately, when the bill (Brady Law) was created legislators could not have dreamed of the booming internet
market and rising gun shows as a means for gun sales. Current law does not require a background
check through these venues, meaning that a dangerous person could order a firearm online, meet
someone in a parking lot to pick it up, and commit a crime that same day. In fact, there are several
instances of this exact tragedy happening.
Gabby Giffords and the Space Cowboy are not to be outdone. Their “in-depth” report purportedly shows how the Internet is being used to circumvent laws banning firearm possession by the mentally ill. They are also pushing background checks as an issue in the race for Giffords’ former Congressional set in their ads against Col. Martha McSally.
The Violence Policy Center has been on this bandwagon since the late 1990s as have anti-gun politicians such as Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY).
You and I realize that companies like CDNN, Bud’s Gun Shop, Cheaper Than Dirt, and Kentucky Gun Company among others are not shipping firearms willy-nilly across the country like they are living in some pre-GCA 68 world where anyone could mail order a gun and get it delivered to their home. Moreover, as traditional classified advertising is dying in newspapers due to the cost and declining readership, it is being replaced with online venues ranging from the general to the specific. Many gun forums maintain their own classifieds.
It is within this context that I was surprised by a new question on the ATF Form 8 ((5320.11) Part II. This form is for the renewal of a Federal Firearms License I have circled it in the photo below. Having had my Curios & Relics FFL for going on 18 years, this will make my sixth renewal of my collector’s license. My last renewal was in 2011 and it did not have this question on it.
It asks, “Have you conducted or do you intend to conduct internet sales of firearms? If yes, list the websites from which you conduct your internet business.” If you go to this link, you can see that the prior version of ATF Form 8 did not have this question on it.
As best as I can determine, this is a recent change. The Federal Register contains a notice from ATF dated January 30, 2014 stating that they were submitting a request for review and approval of Form 8 (5310.11) and that the public had 60 days to comment. No draft of the form was shown. A subsequent notice extended this comment period to May 2, 2014.
The final revision was approved on June 26, 2014 according to this OMB database. (If you click on the form name in the link above, it will pull up a PDF of this form.) Reading the justification letter for this revision of Form 8, much ado was made about why they changed this or that question to make it more readable or easily understood. That said, there was absolutely no mention of Q. 8 and the inquiry about Internet sales of firearms. None.
So the question remains: why this question and why now? Is this a prelude to some future restrictions on the advertising for sale of firearms on the Internet? Why is this question not asked on initial applications for either a FFL or a Collector’s License? I don’t know because the ATF slipped it by OMB without any justification of it and they haven’t said anything publicly about Internet sales that I am aware.
As with all things ATF, this bears keeping a watchful eye on them and this issue.
It is there for 2 reasons John:
1) Taxes – so they can try to ascertain if you are commercial seller and should be reporting more to IRS
2) Regulation – they want to know who else is making sales over the web so they can tax them . . . . they are asking you to rat out others by showing where you advertise and who is really a re-seller that should be paying more taxes.
-Dirk Diggler
Dirk – The number of acquisitions and dispositions would give them a much better idea if I was a commercial seller or not. I agree about regulation. The question is absolutely about regulation one way or another.
define "commerical" . . . . you say more than 10 per month, for example, but they may say 2 per month . . .
this is the same reason they went after Michael Vick (gambling) and go after internet sales of tobacco from indian reservations (they struck a deal with Mastercard/Visa to get info). . . it is all about the $$$$
-Dirk Diggler
Frankly, I think this form is also the same one they use for Class 01 FFLs. Much of the verbiage is written in such a manner as to indicate a commercial enterprise. See Q5 where they ask about storage and then say to check "N/A" if you are a Class 03 Collector.
I think Dirk is correct. And one more way to 'track' all those 'illegal' internet sales…
Amazon.com
Craigslist.com
eBay.com
FaceBook.com
(none of which allow gun sales through their respective sites)
B Woodman
III-PER and
smartass
"Have you conducted or do you intend to conduct internet sales of firearms?"
No. The sale will be face-to-face with the customer using standard ATF form 4473. GFY. KTHXBI.
We can play their stupid fucking word games too.
I answered with a simple NO. I've only sold one firearm in my 18 years of being a Cruffler so why would I need to sell via the Internet.
If ATF did not properly follow the requirements of the U.S. Administrative Procedures Act (APA) by fully disclosing its intended rule change for public comment prior to approval, the new rule (i.e. question 8) should be challenged and will likely be nullified in Fed. court.
What part of "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" does the government fail to understand. Every gun control act that has become law, is unconstitutional, yet the government has been getting away with it for all these years. The NRA does not seem to be bothered by all the "common sense" gun laws enacted since 1900, and so are they really defenders of the 2nd Amendment ? Complacency on the part of the people always results in the the same acts by the government. They slowly and quietly take bits and pieces of whats not theirs, and over time, perhaps even a century later, they have taken the whole thing, in this case the 2nd Amendment. Once the government is no longer restrained by the Constitution, then what will the people do ? I cannot predict what they will do, but I can tell you what they have become. Lambs. Lambs headed to be slaughtered.
I can't speak to intrastate transfers, but when it comes to interstate transfers, my reaction is, "what loophole?" I live in Pennsylvania, and in 2013 purchased a long gun via ARMSLIST from a man in Florida. Payment is the first issue. PayPal and many other payment systems, prohibit their use for firearm sales. Shipping is another issue. The way we handled the sales was this: Seller took the gun to a local FFL. I sent payment to the FFL, who then shipped the gun to a PA FFL, and paid the seller. The PA FFL ran the required insta-check on me, before releasing the firearm to me. (as is proper) One extra step I took was to have the seller send me the serial number before the sale, which I then ran past the manufacturer, so I could be sure it wasn't a stolen gun.
Maybe they are looking forward to the day when they can ban gun advertising the way they banned cigarette ads.
Gotta start somewhere…
I certainly appreciate your stuff provided in the blogs. maxblagg.net