In preparation for the Senate vote on Monday which may or may not involve extending background checks to private transactions, I thought I would take a look at Armslist, a national website that allows, indeed encourages private sales of guns. And when you go to the website, the first thing that greets you is a ‘disclaimer’ which says that anyone using the site should follow all laws regarding the sale and transfer of firearms. But what if there are no laws? What if you happen to live in one of the 40 states that does not require a background check except at the initial point of sale?
Here are some examples of what you can do.
- A resident of Birmingham, AL, wants to buy a Glock 27, which holds 10 rounds of S&W 40 ammo and is less than 6 ½ inches long. So it’s a very concealable gun, the ammunition is extremely lethal, and if you want to ‘load up’ as we say in the gun business, you can get magazines that hold 13, 15 or 22 rounds! Imagine that – a handgun that hold 22 rounds. Slip into a club some night with this gun and 4 extended mags and you can equal the body count that was registered at the Pulse. The guy who wants to buy such a gun is named Josh and he says that he’s “not a paranoid gun owner” and will give someone $450 for the gun but doesn’t require a ‘bill of sale’ or a ‘photo ID.’ But we know he’s a law-abiding citizen because at the end of the notice he makes sure to add: “God Bless America!” and that takes care of that.
- There’s a fellow who lives in Broward. FL, who wants to sell or trade his Bushmaster ACR. This gun happens to be a look-alike for the Sig MCX, except it has more design options and can be ‘adapted’ to more shooting environments, hence the acronym ‘ACR’ which means ‘Adaptive Combat Rifle.’ So if you’re ready to go into combat in a nightclub, or a schoolyard, or anywhere else where terrorists are running amok, just shoulder your Bushmaster ACR and you’re ready to go. The seller of this gun says it “has never been fired” and he has “no practical use for it.” Well at least he’s admitting that there’s no real reason for anyone to shell out $1,400 for this gun.
- Maybe rather than an AR-15 or the ACR I’d rather like to go with a Yugo SKS. I was always partial to the SKS because most AR-15 rifles shoot the .223 shell but the SKS takes a 30-caliber round which basically means more tissue damage for each pop. And if I happened to live in Nebraska, there’s a guy in Central Nebraska who’s got a Yugo with a folding stock for $600 bucks. And what makes this gun really neat is it also comes with a real bayonet, so if I run out of ammo I can still defend myself with this sharp, metal stick. The seller, incidentally, says that the buyer has to pay ‘shipping,’ and while the Feds say he can’t ship the gun directly to me if I live in another state, ho-hum, ho-hum, ho-hum.
Now don’t get wrong. I’m not saying that anyone who buys or sells a gun on Armslist is trying to evade the law. Because the truth is that I have purchased 4 or 5 guns that were listed on Armslist and in every, single case the transaction not only occurred in a completely legal way, but the sellers all insisted that we fill out an online gun transfer form that is required for private sales in my state.
What I am saying is that requiring background checks for transfers of such lethal weapons as 22-round Glocks or AR and AK-style guns is in no way, shape or form a violation of 2nd-Amendment rights. Tell that to Senator Grassley. Yea, right.
Jun 18, 2024 @ 13:51:52
The holding in the Heller case (not words “we hold”):
” In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment , as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.”
“is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights”=background check
“to register his handgun”-registration
“issue him a license”-licensing
This decision only allowed for licensed and registered handguns in the home-nothing more. McDonald extended that to the States (as opposed to Heller being the “federal” government).
Heller said ” Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” This was a list the court made clear was not purported to be exhaustive.
IOW, the Second Amendment as reinterpreted by the Heller and McDonald decisions is very amenable to regulation of firearms. The Interpretation held by US v, Miller was amenable to the ability to impose blanket prohibitions on the ownership of firearms outside the militia context.
Callen Blackmon
Jun 19, 2024 @ 05:36:59
President Obama is on the wrong side of gun control. So is the usual gang that wants to strip the U S of the ability of self-protection. A terrorist doesn’t attack where the are armed resistance. Instead goes after gun free zone or countrys that been stripped of gun ownership.
I’m really sick and tired of these position who do know much about firearms tell me what I can and can’t own or how many round I can have.
Lest remember the gun running justice department under Obam:/Holder administration that are still turns up. Lest also remember releasing felon some of which also had gun charges too.how dare the Federal Government lecture me.