• dejected_warp_core@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        Exactly. And while we’re educating the forum here, Wikipedia has the details on the loophole that circumvents this:

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_show_loophole#Provenance

        Sometimes referred to as the Brady bill loophole,[9] the Brady law loophole,[10] the gun law loophole,[11] or the private sale loophole,[12][13][14] the term refers to a perceived gap in laws that address what types of sales and transfers of firearms require records and or background checks, such as the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act.[15] Private parties are not legally required by federal law to: ask for identification, complete any forms, or keep any sales records, as long as the sale is not made in interstate commerce (across state lines) and does not fall under purview of the National Firearms Act. In addition to federal legislation, firearm laws vary by state.[16]

        I am not a lawyer. I do not sell firearms.

        The gist I get is that this opens up enough loopholes to permit unlicensed mules/fences on either side of the transaction. Depending on what political leanings and circumstances are in play, this legal framework might actually encourage that behavior.

        • Liz@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          7 months ago

          It’s not a loophole, it’s a private sale exception. A loophole would be an unintended result, but private sales have were intentionally exempted from background checks.

          Anyway, the problem isn’t that private sales don’t require background checks, it’s that some people are running businesses pretending to be private sellers. Those are the people the Biden administration is trying to target, not random people selling off a few old guns from their private collection.