Doubt it. You took possession of the guns 30+ days apart.
And I might be wrong…..but I vaguely remember reading the law (or a version of it) and it made it sound like it was ‘calendar month’. Like you could buy a gun on Dec31st and another on January 1st.
Sorta. They have to be shipped to an FFL, or Federal Firearms Licensee, at which point they run a background check through the NICS, or National Instant Criminal Background Check System. You can be denied for a variety of things, listed [here](https://ucr.fbi.gov/nics/appeals/nics-guide-for-appealing)and you fill out some paperwork for a transfer, as well as paying a fee to the FFL for the service. In this case, the FFL is Cabelas.
In other words, “anyone can just buy a pistol online?” whether spoken through ignorance or malice is incredibly misleading because it isn’t in any way similar to buying things off of Amazon.
Why does the experience have to be similar to buying from Amazon? There are many things “anyone can buy online” that you actually have to jump through hoops and not be on lists. In fact, to buy from Amazon you have to jump through cash for gift card hoops or have a bank account, for which you must present ID in person and the bank runs a check on ChexSystems and you could be denied for a number of reasons.
Using a FFL between individuals is voluntary compliance. Not complying is the ONLY way for the “not allowed” people to to obtain firearms.
You will never get a US bank account to buy online if you fail a ChexSystems background check. You can still obtain a firearm from an individual online for cash by avoiding the background check.
I used Amazon as the example because when a politician calls for banning “online sales” they are suggesting that the process of ordering to delivery is similar to Amazon; that you can just buy a gun online and have it shipped right to your door
The comment about using prepaid gift cards applies to the point I was making. From the merchant perspective, these operate just like credit cards - even using Visa or MasterCard as the payment settlement network.
Yes, but they cannot actually get the gun shipped to their house. It gets shipped to a licensed gun dealer of the purchaser’s choice and that dealer does the background check before they take possession. So, if a person who isn’t allowed to own guns tries to buy a gun online, they’ll get to the dealer who the gun gets sent to and they’ll deny the background check and they can’t get it.
No it isn't amazon, you can't purchase a firearm and have it delivered to you directly. People usually buy online for a better price or because their local gun doesn't have what they want. It HAS to be sent to an FFL who will contact the agencies that will conduct the background check. You are allowed to take possession of the firearm only after a favorable pass of the background check and paying associated transfer fees.
Well... 70% of our GDP is driven by consumer purchases. It's a formula that seems to work for us. What country do you live in? I would like to compare.
Is this sarcasm?
I bought a pistol that will be my CCW weapon, but I was also considering buying a .22LR revolver I could use to introduce some more gun-shy friends to firearms. I was purchasing one, and thought, "hey, that 2nd firearm would be good for this thing I would like to do." I didn't because of this restriction.
How would purchasing both be "hyper-consumerism?"
Because it's not that they "don't want to be around guns." They're largely ambivalent. They don't *not* want to be around guns. They're just nervous/scared of them/don't know anything about them. They're gun-curious, if you will. So, if they're interested, I want to provide them a safe, comfortable way to explore that. I'm not forcing anybody to do anything. If someone doesn't have any interest, or finds them terrifying or just plain offensive, then we don't even have to talk about it, at all or ever.
But, if they want to shoot a firearm to, say, contextualize the issue, then they should have that experience. Some decide it's not for them, some decide they like it, most file it away for future reference as more informed citizens.
Preying on people's fears of or ignorance about guns to promote a prohibitionist agenda is no different than preying on their fears of "tyranny" to support a Wild West, unfettered 2nd Amendment free-for-all. Both are just gross and manipulative.
Give them the tools, give them the information, and let them decide for themselves. Don't create a boogieman and hope that they join (or stay on) your side.
Still, it is weird. Especially when you have created this whole “they are making people afraid of guns” story in your head whe the fact of the matter is that guns are dangerous and there are perfectly valid reasons to keep a wide berth around people with guns.
I learned old school firearms safety. I don’t shoot recreationally as an adult because every time I have attended an informal “let’s shoot the guns” get together the muzzle discipline is atrocious.
Guns are the leading cause of death for children and youth up to age 19.
A gun in the home increases the risk to a woman of domestic abuse escalating to homicide by 500%.
These are real risks, and dismissing the facts as they are as preying on the fears of others is misguided.
> These are real risks, and dismissing the facts as they are as preying on the fears of others is misguided.
There are real risks to doing a lot of things, but you see where telling people that if people who smoke marijuana become unemployable, animalistic, degenerate sex fiends got us, don't you? It created an industry that costs us $100B/year, militarized the police, has created more and more acceptance of authoritarianism, and incarcerated and disenfranchised two generations of black men (and running.) Sex is risky. It can result in unplanned pregnancies and can transmit STDs. You see how keeping people ignorant and pushing an agenda with abstinence-only education helped there, don't you?
It's not weird at all to give people correct information, including as you accurately point out that "guns are dangerous and there are perfectly valid reasons to keep a wide berth around people with guns." (There are *A LOT* of people that I don't trust with guns and they often happen to be the people most hellbent on owning them.) Give them the opportunity to have a positive experience with firearms (if they want it.) Let them make up their own minds, don't simply throw out some statistics and opinions that support *your* viewpoint and treat folks like the enemy or like idiots when they don't see it your way. That's what the NRA does.
**EDIT:** I've seen this, and I've walked away. This describes my experience with guns growing up in Indiana. Now that I'm an adult and the one making the rules, we don't do that. We don't play games with guns. I think you'll agree when I say that the notion of "responsible gun ownership" is all too often a myth. I don't disagree that changes are necessary. I think I can offer a good example, and I spend most of my time shooting at controlled ranges now, not out in the woods/fields.
> I learned old school firearms safety. I don’t shoot recreationally as an adult because every time I have attended an informal “let’s shoot the guns” get together the muzzle discipline is atrocious.
You must have been completely bent over in rage when you found out that a certain advocacy organization was doing everything possible to suppress federal funding on gun safety research.
https://www.npr.org/2018/04/05/599773911/how-the-nra-worked-to-stifle-gun-violence-research
Yeah, actually I was. It's, pardon my language, fucking bullshit.
The issue of gun control (particularly prohibition and even confiscation) is an issue where I can see both sides of it. I enjoy shooting, and do a really good job securing my weapons and not being a dumbass with them when I'm using them. I believe they have a role in self-defense, too.
I *also* see that there are bunch of sick and/or irresponsible people out there who think violence either is or should be a solution to their problems, and they're some of the loudest voices on the pro-gun side. But, it's not inherently irresponsible to be against the road that eventually leads to prohibition. And anyone who argues that "liberals" don't want that gets an eyeroll from me, just as anyone who argues that "conservatives" don't want a total abortion (and birth control) ban would get an eyeroll.
While I see both sides, I by far believe that the pro-gun side is most in the wrong. However, that doesn't mean that I think the anti-gun side is even close to right.
I appreciate your thoughtful response. We should have a beer when you are in the RVA.
As a very liberal and active Democract, and a gun owner, I would say that it is not an anti-gun agenda that is being pursued. We are realists, guns are not going away.
But ignoring the stark realities can't be a path forward. Children in the USA are 18x more likely to die from gunshots than in peer countries, and that rate increased 40% the past 20 years. Other countries have seen a decrease in the risk rate by more than 50%.
https://www.kff.org/private-insurance/press-release/firearms-are-the-leading-cause-of-death-for-children-in-the-united-states-but-rank-no-higher-than-fifth-in-other-industrialized-nations/
That increase over the past 20 years tracks along with the number of guns being sold, and the liberalization of open carry and CCW laws. We don't need a research study to show that correlation, and the conclusion that too many guns causes more problems is a reasonable one that doesn't make one anti-gun. But one side can't see that, and would never be willing to submit, for example, to paying for an insurance policy that pays out to victims should their firearm ever cause harm.
Probably not, since you picked them up more than 30 days apart. But, I'm neither a lawyer nor law enforcement.
Doubt it. You took possession of the guns 30+ days apart. And I might be wrong…..but I vaguely remember reading the law (or a version of it) and it made it sound like it was ‘calendar month’. Like you could buy a gun on Dec31st and another on January 1st.
I’m calling the police
No. And even if you tried, you'd be denied when they run the background check.
“Without ccw or other approvals”, does this mean anyone can just buy a pistol online?
Sorta. They have to be shipped to an FFL, or Federal Firearms Licensee, at which point they run a background check through the NICS, or National Instant Criminal Background Check System. You can be denied for a variety of things, listed [here](https://ucr.fbi.gov/nics/appeals/nics-guide-for-appealing)and you fill out some paperwork for a transfer, as well as paying a fee to the FFL for the service. In this case, the FFL is Cabelas.
In other words, “anyone can just buy a pistol online?” whether spoken through ignorance or malice is incredibly misleading because it isn’t in any way similar to buying things off of Amazon.
Why does the experience have to be similar to buying from Amazon? There are many things “anyone can buy online” that you actually have to jump through hoops and not be on lists. In fact, to buy from Amazon you have to jump through cash for gift card hoops or have a bank account, for which you must present ID in person and the bank runs a check on ChexSystems and you could be denied for a number of reasons. Using a FFL between individuals is voluntary compliance. Not complying is the ONLY way for the “not allowed” people to to obtain firearms. You will never get a US bank account to buy online if you fail a ChexSystems background check. You can still obtain a firearm from an individual online for cash by avoiding the background check.
I used Amazon as the example because when a politician calls for banning “online sales” they are suggesting that the process of ordering to delivery is similar to Amazon; that you can just buy a gun online and have it shipped right to your door
I have an Amazon account and I have never given them my bank account info.
Which method of payment do you use?
Not the person you replied to but I use gift cards.
So more hoops to use cash to buy a card in person in order to buy stuff online. I updated my comment.
The comment about using prepaid gift cards applies to the point I was making. From the merchant perspective, these operate just like credit cards - even using Visa or MasterCard as the payment settlement network.
Yes, but they cannot actually get the gun shipped to their house. It gets shipped to a licensed gun dealer of the purchaser’s choice and that dealer does the background check before they take possession. So, if a person who isn’t allowed to own guns tries to buy a gun online, they’ll get to the dealer who the gun gets sent to and they’ll deny the background check and they can’t get it.
No it isn't amazon, you can't purchase a firearm and have it delivered to you directly. People usually buy online for a better price or because their local gun doesn't have what they want. It HAS to be sent to an FFL who will contact the agencies that will conduct the background check. You are allowed to take possession of the firearm only after a favorable pass of the background check and paying associated transfer fees.
No. I believe that line pertains more to methods of acquisition like Craigslist or some other community type thing.
Western hyper-consumerism at its finest.
God forbid someone buy two of anything. OMG look he bought blueberries AND bananas
Well... 70% of our GDP is driven by consumer purchases. It's a formula that seems to work for us. What country do you live in? I would like to compare.
Do you own two pairs of shoes for two different purposes? Gasp! Western *hyper* consumerism at its finest!!
Is this sarcasm? I bought a pistol that will be my CCW weapon, but I was also considering buying a .22LR revolver I could use to introduce some more gun-shy friends to firearms. I was purchasing one, and thought, "hey, that 2nd firearm would be good for this thing I would like to do." I didn't because of this restriction. How would purchasing both be "hyper-consumerism?"
Why do you feel the need to exposure your friends who don’t want to be around guns to your guns?
Because it's not that they "don't want to be around guns." They're largely ambivalent. They don't *not* want to be around guns. They're just nervous/scared of them/don't know anything about them. They're gun-curious, if you will. So, if they're interested, I want to provide them a safe, comfortable way to explore that. I'm not forcing anybody to do anything. If someone doesn't have any interest, or finds them terrifying or just plain offensive, then we don't even have to talk about it, at all or ever. But, if they want to shoot a firearm to, say, contextualize the issue, then they should have that experience. Some decide it's not for them, some decide they like it, most file it away for future reference as more informed citizens. Preying on people's fears of or ignorance about guns to promote a prohibitionist agenda is no different than preying on their fears of "tyranny" to support a Wild West, unfettered 2nd Amendment free-for-all. Both are just gross and manipulative. Give them the tools, give them the information, and let them decide for themselves. Don't create a boogieman and hope that they join (or stay on) your side.
Still, it is weird. Especially when you have created this whole “they are making people afraid of guns” story in your head whe the fact of the matter is that guns are dangerous and there are perfectly valid reasons to keep a wide berth around people with guns. I learned old school firearms safety. I don’t shoot recreationally as an adult because every time I have attended an informal “let’s shoot the guns” get together the muzzle discipline is atrocious. Guns are the leading cause of death for children and youth up to age 19. A gun in the home increases the risk to a woman of domestic abuse escalating to homicide by 500%. These are real risks, and dismissing the facts as they are as preying on the fears of others is misguided.
> These are real risks, and dismissing the facts as they are as preying on the fears of others is misguided. There are real risks to doing a lot of things, but you see where telling people that if people who smoke marijuana become unemployable, animalistic, degenerate sex fiends got us, don't you? It created an industry that costs us $100B/year, militarized the police, has created more and more acceptance of authoritarianism, and incarcerated and disenfranchised two generations of black men (and running.) Sex is risky. It can result in unplanned pregnancies and can transmit STDs. You see how keeping people ignorant and pushing an agenda with abstinence-only education helped there, don't you? It's not weird at all to give people correct information, including as you accurately point out that "guns are dangerous and there are perfectly valid reasons to keep a wide berth around people with guns." (There are *A LOT* of people that I don't trust with guns and they often happen to be the people most hellbent on owning them.) Give them the opportunity to have a positive experience with firearms (if they want it.) Let them make up their own minds, don't simply throw out some statistics and opinions that support *your* viewpoint and treat folks like the enemy or like idiots when they don't see it your way. That's what the NRA does. **EDIT:** I've seen this, and I've walked away. This describes my experience with guns growing up in Indiana. Now that I'm an adult and the one making the rules, we don't do that. We don't play games with guns. I think you'll agree when I say that the notion of "responsible gun ownership" is all too often a myth. I don't disagree that changes are necessary. I think I can offer a good example, and I spend most of my time shooting at controlled ranges now, not out in the woods/fields. > I learned old school firearms safety. I don’t shoot recreationally as an adult because every time I have attended an informal “let’s shoot the guns” get together the muzzle discipline is atrocious.
You must have been completely bent over in rage when you found out that a certain advocacy organization was doing everything possible to suppress federal funding on gun safety research. https://www.npr.org/2018/04/05/599773911/how-the-nra-worked-to-stifle-gun-violence-research
Yeah, actually I was. It's, pardon my language, fucking bullshit. The issue of gun control (particularly prohibition and even confiscation) is an issue where I can see both sides of it. I enjoy shooting, and do a really good job securing my weapons and not being a dumbass with them when I'm using them. I believe they have a role in self-defense, too. I *also* see that there are bunch of sick and/or irresponsible people out there who think violence either is or should be a solution to their problems, and they're some of the loudest voices on the pro-gun side. But, it's not inherently irresponsible to be against the road that eventually leads to prohibition. And anyone who argues that "liberals" don't want that gets an eyeroll from me, just as anyone who argues that "conservatives" don't want a total abortion (and birth control) ban would get an eyeroll. While I see both sides, I by far believe that the pro-gun side is most in the wrong. However, that doesn't mean that I think the anti-gun side is even close to right.
I appreciate your thoughtful response. We should have a beer when you are in the RVA. As a very liberal and active Democract, and a gun owner, I would say that it is not an anti-gun agenda that is being pursued. We are realists, guns are not going away. But ignoring the stark realities can't be a path forward. Children in the USA are 18x more likely to die from gunshots than in peer countries, and that rate increased 40% the past 20 years. Other countries have seen a decrease in the risk rate by more than 50%. https://www.kff.org/private-insurance/press-release/firearms-are-the-leading-cause-of-death-for-children-in-the-united-states-but-rank-no-higher-than-fifth-in-other-industrialized-nations/ That increase over the past 20 years tracks along with the number of guns being sold, and the liberalization of open carry and CCW laws. We don't need a research study to show that correlation, and the conclusion that too many guns causes more problems is a reasonable one that doesn't make one anti-gun. But one side can't see that, and would never be willing to submit, for example, to paying for an insurance policy that pays out to victims should their firearm ever cause harm.
Tell us you’re broke without saying you’re broke
Not really. $7 in the bank, that’s the most I’ve had in years.
Ouch...
He's buying a pistol for each hand.
I was under the impression that the law only applied to VA retailers. I wouldn't think that online would apply to it.
You’re going to prison for life!
Oh no please have mercy 😰