I support this but it doesn't go far enough. I feel any transfer of ownership/loan of firearm should require a background check. My brother has the habit of giving guns as gifts. He gave one to my stepfather once and stepfather. Stepfather says thanks and if any asks, you gave this to your mom. My brother didn't know that stepdad had a non-violent felony conviction on his record from 40 years prior.

There should be a way for anyone to validate the intended recipient of a firearm can legally possess one.

I'be been to three gun shows to look around asd see wht they were like...The supposed loophole does nots exist at gun shows and just another dem hone talking-point.
#5 | POSTED BY MSGT

There are more than 4,000 gun shows in the US per year. If the three you went to were all during the same year then your sample is size is less than 0.075% of the whole.

If you are interested in presenting your findings then I can arrange for you to come to St. Louis and explain the results of your definitive study to the students and faculty of St Louis Central Visual and Performing Arts High School where my niece was a student. Two years ago the school fell victim to a shooter who had first attempted to purchase a rifle from a licensed dealer at a gun show in St. Charles Mo. After failing a background check he tracked down a private seller at the show who sold him the AR-15 that he went on to use to shoot six people, killing two, just a few days later.

But can Biden unilaterally require background checks on intrastate commerce? Probably not. That's a power reserved to the state, no matter how retarded the state.
#19 | POSTED BY SITZKRIEG

That's a question for the courts. Even if not, this still has broad reaching implications. It would still effect internet sales, anyone traveling outside of their state to buy/sell and depending on how the courts define what is intrastate, it could also factor in whether the gun was originally manufactured or sold in a different state or and how payment was made, i.e. paypal/venmo/etc.

Ultimately this rule is meant to counter what the ATF has identified as the leading source of firearm trafficking which is through unlicensed dealers. If I were a person who engaged in such activity then I would want to make sure I am compliance else I risk opening myself to prosecution should a gun I sell end up involved in a crime and traced back to me. As far as I know, the person who sold the gun involved in the CVPA shooting that I mentioned above was not subject to prosecution but would be under this regulation.
On the flip side, I would hope that law abiding gun purchasers would recognize that a seller not performing a required check is probably involved in some shady doings and not someone you want to buy a gun from.

Is it a question for the courts when we already know the answer?
#24 | POSTED BY SITZKRIEG

You might be right. This change might not go anywhere. Gun rights groups may get a stay on it before it is enacted and then get it tossed out on review. But if a stay is not granted while pending review and you happen to be an unlicensed gun dealer are you going to be willing to risk being the first person the government attempts to prosecute under this provision?

It may not but if you are a law abiding would be gun purchaser buying from someone you don't know at flea market/gun show/web site/etc, are you going to be more likely to trust a private seller who performs the check or one who does not?
If it is enacted and you are a law abiding would be buyer who wants to make sure the gun they are purchasing is acquired legally then are you going to view anyone telling you they don't have to perform a check on you with a good deal of skepticism.

Secondly, law or not, absolutely unenforceable, so go ahead, as of course people will obey that rule [wink, wink] - just as much as biden is obeying the SCOTUS on the student loans ; )
#27 | POSTED BY MSGT

This is not unenforceable. For instance, investigators know who sold the gun to the shooter involved in the CVPA school shooting that I mentioned above. They just have no means to prosecute the person because the seller was under no obligation to run a background check. If this provision was in place at that time then they could take legal action.

Your logic is strange. The background check requirement isn't really about the seller. It's about the buyer (and straw purchasers).
#28 | POSTED BY SITZKRIEG

What is strange about the idea that consumers would be more willing to put their trust in sellers who are meeting legal requirements instead of those who ignore them? If you walk up to two tables at a flea market and one tells you the law requires a background check and other tells you they don't bother with that because they don't believe it can be enforce, which one of them are you more likely to suspect might be selling you a gun with a dirty past?

WHY THE ---- DID HE WAIT UNTIL THE FOURTH YEAR OF HIS PRESIDENCY TO DO SO? And I doubt there is a good answer to that question, 'cept election year politics.
#34 | POSTED BY MIRANDA7

Unlike some Presidential candidates, Biden does not believe himself to be a dictator. This change is one of Biden's campaign promises from 2020 but when he came into office the legislation was not in place to allow him to unilaterally make this sort of change.

I know this might be hard to remember for some but a long time ago we used to have a functional House of Representatives that was capable of passing legislation. During that time the Biden administration worked with Congress to pass what is known as the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act of 2022. Biden signed that into law during the summer of that year, one month and one day after the Uvalde massacre. Gun industry lobbying groups then sued the government because safer communities are not in the best interest of the bottom-line of companies that make weapons of death.
After some legal battles and a policy review process, this announcement is part of the administration's implementation of the provisions of that law. Expect more announcements over the months and years to come as more rules are finalized and we reach more of the dates for the provisions/funding to become available that are spelled out in that law.