Muscatine

Are you asking your reps in congress to get on this?

Looks like its not too hard to get the weapon you like.

Some say it’s a major loophole in the law. At gun stores, you have to get a background check before you can buy a weapon. But online in most states, anyone from law-abiding citizens to dangerous criminals – even terrorists – can get just about any weapon they want, no questions asked. Our hidden camera investigation shows the deals going down in broad daylight, in suburban mall parking lots.

Hundreds of thousands of guns are for sale, on hundreds of websites. We responded and set up meetings at popular shopping malls. We bought everything from a police-grade pistol to a semiautomatic assault rifle. We did it over and over again, even hinting that our buyer is a criminal.

Within 12 hours, we bought eight dangerous guns – even a 50-caliber weapon so powerful it could take down a helicopter.

Jeff Rossen questions a gun seller.

Remember, at gun stores, background checks are required, but online – nothing. Believe it or not, in most states it’s completely legal.

‘A bazaar for criminals’
NBC News hired Steve Barborini, a former supervisor for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, to help with our investigation. Barborini said that the online sales loophole permits what he called “a weapons bazaar for criminals. There’s no background check: Anybody that has a murder conviction can simply log on, email someone, meet ’em in a parking lot, and buy a freaking AK-47.”

In fact, 34 people are murdered every day in gun violence, with many of the weapons traced back to private sales. Jitka Vesel, for example, was killed by a stalker – a Canadian man who crossed into the U.S., bought a gun online in Seattle, then shot her 11 times as she got in her car. No legitimate gun store would have sold this man a gun, because he’s not a U.S. citizen. He wouldn't have passed a background check, yet he was easily able to buy a gun online.

To find out what kind of dangerous weapons we could buy, we went online and responded to gun ads in Phoenix, Ariz., one of the many states where such sales are legal. Within minutes we had meeting set up. Our gun buyers were two Arizona security experts we hired, posing as husband and wife.

We were watching from nearby vans as our buyers paid cash for a tactical assault rifle modified to use bullets for an AK-47, along with an easy-to-conceal pistol – no questions asked.

For our next meeting, we bought a Glock-23 with hollow-point bullets, made to inflict serious internal damage, even telling the seller point-blank that we probably couldn’t pass a background check. Another seller showed up with a tactical shotgun, an assault rifle and his 7-year-old son. Remember, our buyers could have been dangerous felons!

But the scariest transaction came after dark in a pharmacy parking lot. The online ad was for a 50-caliber sniper rifle, the most powerful gun legally sold in the U.S.: bullet range 5 miles. It can pierce armored vehicles, even bring down a helicopter. But the seller was so laid-back, you’d think he was hocking a used bicycle.

And it’s happening nationwide. In New York, Mayor Michael Bloomberg led another investigation, buying guns in 14 states, even after the buyers said they couldn’t pass a background check.

Weapons powerful enough to pierce armor or down helicopters can be purchased without background checks.

So what’s the government doing about it? It turns out there's a bill that would close this loophole, and require background checks for all gun sales, even online. But that bill has been tied up in committee for nearly a year. Its sponsor, New York senator Chuck Schumer, told us: “The NRA is one of the most powerful lobbies in Washington, and despite the overwhelming evidence that we should do something … the odds of us being able to do something are not high.”

The NRA says it opposes the bill because it has “many serious flaws,” but wouldn’t comment about online gun sales. In the past the NRA has fought background checks for any private sales. But victims say: Until the law is changed, more innocent people will die.

Remember: This is legal, and lots of people in this country support private gun sales without background checks. They say it’s not about making money; it’s about individual rights. As for the eight guns we bought, we turned them over the the Phoenix police department... where they will be destroyed.

I say again:   How do you propose to make them unavailable?  The same way it was done for booze during prohibition?   You do know that those who ignore history are bound to repeat it, right?)   Same goes for private sales.   How will any Chucky Schumer law actually work?   How well did it work with booze?

By the way, according to current law: 

In Illinois, a buyer is required to show his Firearms Owner’s Identification Card (FOID) when purchasing any firearms or ammunition. Any seller is required to withhold delivery of any handgun for 72 hours, and of any rifle or shotgun for 24 hours, after the buyer and seller reach an agreement to purchase a firearm. The waiting period does not apply to a buyer who is a dealer, law enforcement officer, or a nonresident at a gun show recognized by the Illinois Department of State Police. The seller must retain for 10 years a record of the transfer, including a description of the firearm (including serial number), the identity of the buyer, and the buyer’s FOID number.

In California: All firearms sales, transfers, including private transactions and sales at gun shows, must go through a California licensed firearms dealer.

So, private sales, by current law in these two states, are already strictly controlled!      And according to the statistics available, California is 4th and Illionis is 7th highest among all states in the gun violence rate per  100,000 population!   So much for your stricter gun laws.

You have to come up with something better than just speculation and throwing more new "laws" at the wall to see if they'll stick.

Rather than concentrating on "guns", in order to make an impact on gun violence, you really ought to demand that studies be made to find out what types of individuals are most responsible for gun violence -  and action taken based on those studies.   But you woulnd't do that.  The outcome would be politically detrimental to the democrats voter base.