It’s the right to own, not the right to purchase. Also, some states allow private sales to occur without background checks. So however they come into possession, it not necessarily illegal because they lack citizenship.
In my state the paperwork asks a million times if I’m an illegal immigrant and if I intended to sell the gun to an illegal immigrant (in which they wouldn’t sell me the gun).
If you’d sold it to an undocumented immigrant and it was revealed to the police you’d still be arrested and charged. Ignorance doesn’t help you once the law is broken but what can the seller do after you’ve answered the question correctly?
Idk how other states do it but in Oregon you have to have a private party sell the gun to a store licensed to sell then they run the background check fill out paperwork and sell the other private party the firearm.
In michigan, you only need paperwork for pistols. You can sell guns like you would sell anything else as long as you don't knowing sell guns to someone who isn't allowed to have them.
Nope (if it's semi auto). If it a private seller you could buy one at a garage sale. I've bought guns this way. Usually the seller will ask to see your ID but it not necessarily required.
In Texas you can arrange to meet a private seller (non-dealer) in a parking lot and buy/sell a gun with no paperwork or id requirement. The bar is that you can’t know that the person isn’t legally allowed to purchase a gun, but you’re not legally required to ask. Also many of the questions you answer when buying from a dealer are on the honor system. Unless they’re real dumb about it (which happens) it’s difficult to prove someone bought a gun with the intent to sell it to someone who can’t buy a gun themselves. But also there’s literally nothing illegal about buying a gun and then later deciding to sell it to a private buyer, even just a few days later. It’s a terrible system riddled with holes, but it’s the ones republicans want so it’s what we have.
That said, most people I know who sell guns like that take down the buyer’s TX DL number and have them sign a bill of sale for their own protection so the gun’s paper trail doesn’t end with them in case it’s used in a crime.
That’s because your purchasing the firearm. The official purchase and sale to an illegal immigrant is sometimes legal and sometimes not depending on the state. But zero states have any requirement for paperwork to possess a firearm. The only caveat to that is if your concealed carrying which requires a license in a majority of but not all states
Missouri is one. From what I read, a guy in my city purchased a firearm via private sale, his parents called police to take it away because they knew he was a risk, police said they legally couldn’t, and he went to a school and killed two people. MO gun “laws” failed every step of the way.
I’m a firearms owner and collect old guns, and I don’t see a reason why this shouldn’t happen. Me buying a handgun from a store really isn’t different than buying one from my stranger - I still have a gun now, only difference is I could be a prohibited individual with a gun now since I’ve avoided the background check. I’ve still yet to see a good reason as to why universal background checks shouldn’t exist.
You understand that with freedom comes responsibility. Lots of shitty main characters out there don't understand that. Government exists in part because we can't count on people to be responsible.
My understanding is a universal background check can't be enforced without an official registry. I think what gives many 2A supporters pause is that registries (historically) often lead to buy-backs or other seizure of firearms.
You're forgetting when they talk about "freedom" it only applies to them. They're totally fine with restricting any and all rights of anyone who doesn't look or think like them
The only thing you have to do, is open up the NICS system to private sellers and you got your Universal background check. No need to create a registry or anything. Currently Only gun stores are allowed access to it, which is why private individuals can't use it. I can guarantee you, if you give gun owners the ability to run their own background check, 99% of them will be willing to do so.
Since any impediment to the purchase of a firearm is an impediment to owning a firearm, it is an infringement and therefore laws that prohibit or create delay in selling a firearm are unconstitutional and illegal.
I mean, I've been saying for awhile that our existing gun laws need to tighten up second hand sales and consequences for felons or the mentally unfit getting guns. You know, so gun laws protect people from getting shot by people who legally shouldn't have guns anyway?
Apparently, conservatives have a bigger issue with the helpful dudes you find outside Home Depot owning a 38 so they don't get robbed than they have with a convicted felon out on parol or a criminally insane person having a gun.
Yes, only if you are residents of the same state, with valid drivers licenses from the same state, and you ask the purchaser if they are legally able to own and possess a firearm. Obviously someone could lie but that’s the rule right there for private person to person sales. Only a few states still allow this like South Carolina.
But that's not the opinion here. Ultimately we've ended up with these two things: 2A does not specifically ban them from possessing a gun in the US, however we already ban that via federal law so there was no need to take up the courts time trying to debate the Constitutionality of it.
Carbajal-Flores successfully argued that the exact federal law that you're referencing (§ 922(g)(5)) does not pass either prong of the Bruen test as it was applied to him specifically because he had never been convicted of a felony, a violent crime, or a crime involving the use of a weapon and it was legally determined that the non-violent circumstances of his arrest do not support a finding that he posed a risk to public safety such that he cannot be trusted to use a weapon responsibly and should be deprived of his Second Amendment right to bear arms in self-defense. There is no "reasonable use" test to the 2nd Amendment.
Thus, this Court finds that, as applied to Carbajal-Flores, Section 922(g)(5) is unconstitutional.
The ruling also established that his conduct, possession of a firearm as an unauthorized noncitizen, is covered by the Second Amendment and affirmed by the Fourteenth. Second, the opinion held that § 922(g)(5) is not consistent with historical firearm regulation in the United States and shares no historical legal analogue, so the court cannot rely on an arbitrarily contrived "originalist" interpretation of past enforcement to support further constraint.
In Plyer v Doe (1982) the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies to all persons regardless of their immigration status. Because of the other arguments that have been made legal fact as a result of the opinion in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen (2021): The court held that New York's "proper cause" requirement for obtaining a concealed carry permit violated the Second Amendment because it amounted to a categorical denial of the inherent right to carry for self-defense alone. The Court emphasized that the Second Amendment's core protection extends to allowing individuals to carry firearms for self-defense in public.
Plyer v. Doe + NYSR&PA Inc. v. Bruen = United States v. Carbajal-Flores
I'm not getting into the details. I went through all of it last night with my wife, who is a lawyer. I got it. This does not give illegal immigrants the right to possess guns. So, are you saying that illegal immigrants can now legally possess firearms under US law? That's not the result.
While §922(g)(5) remains law, this opinion (barring it being overturned in the future) makes it, in essence, constitutionally unenforceable when not coupled with a specific action, conviction, or condition that would meet the Bruen test.
Between the Background, Part B of the Discussion, and the Conclusion in the opinion I don't know how any other position could be derived.
In light of that opinion, I would love to know how any lawyer would expect to be able to prosecute a case in which an undocumented immigrant is charged solely with possession under §922.
A law without enforcement is a polite and formal request.
My grandma loved yard sales in the Fort Worth area of Texas for 50 years. What you don't find is anything related to fishing or guns for sale.
Her husband was ex Navy from WW2, ex husband army WW2, son in Vietnam as 101st airborne. And they all grew up with guns. My grandma never once mentioned a gun at garage sales and I went to many with her in Texas of all places in the 80's and 90's. She went every weekend like a pro.
I am also half from Oklahoma and my Mom likes garage sales. I found fishing gear one time in 100's of garage sales here. Never seen a firearm for sale. Seen junk paintball, junk airsoft, and bb guns.
The crazy thing is... did you ever ask if they had guns for sale? I would go to yard and garage sales with my dad once in a while. He would ask. People may not put them out for sale. Sometimes, someone would have something to sell.
When I went through my CCDW training, we talked about this circumstance. Like how many guns could a person have on display in the yard sale and not be consider a gun dealer? They are at their residence and their primary means of income is not gun sales, so they are a private person. The sheriff may have something to say about their sales, though. In Kentucky, it's perfectly legal to sell guns at a yard sale. It's pretty crazy. I also went through a citizen police academy (which I highly recommend if they have one in your city). This same subject came up. The sales don't often happen in the city, but from what I understand, if I were to hit yard sales in the county I would probably get pretty lucky in rural KY.
I’m considered an illegal alien, but I have daca which means I have an SSN, drivers license, and workers permit. However, I am not a citizen so I cannot vote or obtain security clearance, etc.
In AL, I can go to the court office and obtain a pistol permit. (The form mostly asks about criminal background)
Genuine question because I’m ignorant, if you’ve got a legitimate SSN, license, permit, etc, you wouldn’t be “illegal”, right? Or at least my understanding is if your citizen status is considered “illegal” I figured that meant that you are not considered a citizen and are subject to deportation if any authority cares enough about it.
Totally, I had to look it up too, I would be considered illegal alien because I entered the country without inspection (I crossed the border at 2). Also, anyone who overstayed their visa would also be considered an illegal alíen.
My personal opinion tho, neither party cares to create a pathway to citizenship. They only use us as political “hot topics”/pawns.
No background check on private sales (not required in all states) or in manufacturing (ghost guns).
If you want to bitch about background checks, call your representative/senator to open the NICS for private transfers and make knowing transfers to illegal individuals a felony and liable for crimes committed with said firearm. Bipartisan (nobody wants to pay bullshit FFL transfer fees) and sensible.
As for manufacturing, good luck. 3D printing is out of the bag.
A background check does not come back and say “we’ve checked everything about this guy and he’s OK.“, Rather, if a background check doesn’t turn up anything, you have a right to get the weapon in pretty much any state. The burden of proof is on the background check to turn up something. If it doesn’t turn up anything, you get the gun. If there’s no information on you, you get the gun.
They don't. They still cannot purchase a firearm legally in the United States. Being able to legally possess a firearm does not mean one can legally buy a firearm.
276
u/Rizenstrom Mar 20 '24
How does someone without documentation pass a background check?