Democrat-ordered gun study to expose illegal online gun sales backfires

Article

I know some members are gonna cry because I linked to Fox, but for some reason I can't seem to find coverage of this on CNN or MSNBC.

Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., as well as Sens. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, had commissioned the Government Accountability Office report to look into how online private dealers might be selling guns to people not allowed to have them.

Over the course of the two-and-a-half year investigation, agents tried to buy firearms illegally on the “Surface Web” and the “Dark Web,” generally by sharing their status as “prohibited individuals” or trying to buy across state lines.

But the GAO revealed that their 72 attempts outside of the dark web were all “unsuccessful.”

“Private sellers on Surface Web gun forums and in classified ads were unwilling to sell a firearm to our agents that self-identified as being prohibited from possessing a firearm,” the GAO reported, noting that in their “72 attempts ... 56 sellers refused to complete a transaction once we revealed that either the shipping address was across state lines or that we were prohibited by law from owning firearms.” In the other cases, the investigators' website was frozen or they encountered suspected scammers.

On the dark web, GAO agents successfully purchased two guns illegally, as the serial numbers on the weapons were “obliterated” and “shipped across state lines.” But in the attempt to purchase, the GAO agents “did not disclose any information indicating they were prohibited from possessing a firearm.”

So all 72 attempts to illegally purchase a gun on the surface web failed, and they were only able to purchase 2 guns illegally through the dark web. But only 56 of the 72 sellers on the surface web refused to sell. What about the other 16 sellers? Doesn't that mean 16 sellers were willing to make an illegal sale?

Well, no, as it turns out.

GAO Report

In our 72 attempts to purchase firearms from private sellers on the Surface Web, 56 sellers refused to complete a transaction once we revealed that either the shipping address was across state lines or that we were prohibited by law from owning fi rearms. The scenarios we applied to the purchases were derived from provisions in the GCA. The five scenarios disclosed status information that would disqualify our agents from purchasing a firearm. For example, in one scenario we stated that we were a convicted felon; in another scenario, we informed the seller that we had a dishonorable discharge from the military. 29 In these 56 attempts, 29 sellers refused because they would not ship a firearm and 27 refused after we presented the scenario. Furthermore, i n five of these attempts, the accounts we set up on several forums were frozen by the websites, which prevented us from using them after we disclosed our prohibited status or requested interstate shipment
and attempted to make a purchase.

In the 11 remaining attempts, we encountered private sellers that appeared to have scammed us, or attempted to scam us, after we disclosed our prohibited status or asked to avoid using an FFL.

So 56 sellers outright refused to conduct an illegal firearms sale, five sales were stopped by the website so there's no way of knowing whether those sellers would've gone through with it, and 11 were just scams.

The "internet loophole" doesn't exist. All that was demonstrated in this test is that no matter what laws you pass, criminals will still be able to obtain guns illegally through the black market (the 2 successful sales through the dark web).

Won't stop liberal politicians from parroting about it though...

a reply to: face23785

These types of sting operations will, in general, always fail because the narrative that we gun owners and those who sell firearms are nothing but a bunch of law-skirting criminals is a fallacy of the biggest order.

I have traded a firearm once and sold a few to neighbors, and I ensured that the person had a concealed-carry permit--my only way to intelligently believe that someone is not on a cannot-own list--and I would never sell/trade/give to anyone who didn't have a CCDW permit, let alone someone who openly told me that they could not legally own a firearm.

Every firearm owner with whom I have ever discussed this issue with feels the same way, and for the most part, it's not because we want to cover our own ass, but it's because we don't want those who shouldn't own firearms having access to them. Here in the Cincinnati area, we see nearly daily on the news why some people should not have access to them.

I will always do what little part I can to ensure that firearm transfers that deal with me (which are relatively few) are within the law. There is no way that anyone can convince me that the vast majority of firearm owners/dealers don't have the same approach.

So in summation.

1. Law abiding, legal gun owners, followed the law and refused to put guns in "criminals" (per their disclosure of not being legally able to buy a gun) hands.

2. Criminals operating on the dark web were more than happy to sell guns to anyone, even criminals.

I know what this calls for...MORE LAWS....errr nevermind.

How much of my tax money was wasted on this nonsense?

On a different note. I'll give them credit for not completely falsifying the results in order to fit their narrative.

That's, atleast in some small way, a step forward.

Furthermore, i n five of these attempts, the accounts we set up on several forums were frozen by the websites,

Wouldn't be surprised if certain government agencies ran these websites as a way to sell off confiscated contraband..

Black budgets need their money too.

originally posted by: underwerks

Furthermore, i n five of these attempts, the accounts we set up on several forums were frozen by the websites,

Wouldn't be surprised if certain government agencies ran these websites as a way to sell off confiscated contraband..

Black budgets need their money too.

How so? If that where the case why would they freeze accounts and shut people out from engaging in or attempting to buy from the forum?

originally posted by: MisterSpock

originally posted by: underwerks

Furthermore, i n five of these attempts, the accounts we set up on several forums were frozen by the websites,

Wouldn't be surprised if certain government agencies ran these websites as a way to sell off confiscated contraband..

Black budgets need their money too.

How so? If that where the case why would they freeze accounts and shut people out from engaging in or attempting to buy from the forum?

Ran out of stock? Who knows?

Just a thought I had. The same goes for the drug sites on the dark web as well. It just seems too easy.

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: MisterSpock

originally posted by: underwerks

Furthermore, i n five of these attempts, the accounts we set up on several forums were frozen by the websites,

Wouldn't be surprised if certain government agencies ran these websites as a way to sell off confiscated contraband..

Black budgets need their money too.

How so? If that where the case why would they freeze accounts and shut people out from engaging in or attempting to buy from the forum?

Ran out of stock? Who knows?

Just a thought I had. The same goes for the drug sites on the dark web as well. It just seems too easy.

I think you misunderstood. It was the clearnet forums that shut down the account because they were going around trying to buy weapons while telling everyone they could not legally own them. I'm sure some forum members reported the account and it was shut down.

originally posted by: MisterSpock

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: MisterSpock

originally posted by: underwerks

Furthermore, i n five of these attempts, the accounts we set up on several forums were frozen by the websites,

Wouldn't be surprised if certain government agencies ran these websites as a way to sell off confiscated contraband..

Black budgets need their money too.

How so? If that where the case why would they freeze accounts and shut people out from engaging in or attempting to buy from the forum?

Ran out of stock? Who knows?

Just a thought I had. The same goes for the drug sites on the dark web as well. It just seems too easy.

I think you misunderstood. It was the clearnet forums that shut down the account because they were going around trying to buy weapons while telling everyone they could not legally own them. I'm sure some forum members reported the account and it was shut down.

My bad, I thought that was about the darknet forums. Still, it's strange they weren't able to buy more guns off the dark web.

They really must take people for idiots as if one would go around on the internets telling people they weren't allowed to own one.

People can smell a rat even if it's on the internets.

Lol this is a joke post right ?

Criminals does not mean stupid .
Really just how stupid would you have to be to go on teh net dark or not and order a weapon like a gun?

Mr criminal just cant find the hood ( dumb comes to mind already )
so mr dumb goes on net ( assuming he knows how )
and stumbles on a web site Buy guns here no questions asked ( now mr dumb thinks o wow graet so gets out his credit card ( yea he is mr dumb for a reason )
and orders said gun .

wates a week checks mail ( umm mail ?? ok well .) no gun wates another week still no guns .
Mr dumb checks his credit card wonder if it was charged and sees it has now been maxed out .

God people really fell for the dark web thing the Government pushed o so scary drugs that never arrive or are baby powder guns that never arive or are nurff guns .

Only one type of crime can incress and be made easier using the net any one want to hazzered a guess what it is ?
even then no money changes hands until the people committing the crime ( in what ever fashion ) meet .

In related news guns sold by police wind up in criminals' hands. Read this: komonews.com... So who, exactly, is selling guns to criminals? The cops.

I think it is interesting to note that, even if they tried to hide the fact they are a prohibited person from an internet sale, they would fail when they will out the form for an interstate transfer through an FFL if they were in fact prohibited. I don't think the investigation made that known, even though it is already generally known.

The only one that could have worked, is if they tried to make a person to person sale after communicating online and NOT disclosing they were a prohibited person. In almost every instant though, the seller will request an ID and bill of sale. It may not stop the sale altogether, as the seller is likely not going to run that name through a background check. But if there was criminal intent, the identity would be easy to gather from the BOS and ID on file.

Very seldom if ever does an online seller actually proceed with a person to person transfer without some kind of proof of transaction and identity. This should be common knowledge, but politicians with an axe to grind are not the brightest.

The ATF frequently tries to setup stings through online classifieds, and is exactly why law abiding citizens are demanding documentation . Nobody wants to be entrapped by bloated federal agencies attempting to justify their budgets by turning good people into criminals.
a reply to: midnightstar
The Dark web does not solicit for credit card payments, they ask for crypto currency, of which Bitcoin is still for whatever reason the most popular.

"Yessss seelllll meee yyooouurr ggguuunnnnnssss
I'mmm noooo naaarrrqqqqq...."

How embarrassing if they managed to buy a gun and it turns out the seller was the police as part of an undercover sting.

Legal firearms owners don't want criminals from getting hold of guns, they don't want someone who's blacklisted to possess guns and they dont want someone who is a nutter from possessing guns.

This was like the CDC study liberals say doesn't exist.

I wonder how long it will be before liberals deny the existence of this investigation altogether.

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: MisterSpock

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: MisterSpock

originally posted by: underwerks

Furthermore, i n five of these attempts, the accounts we set up on several forums were frozen by the websites,

Wouldn't be surprised if certain government agencies ran these websites as a way to sell off confiscated contraband..

Black budgets need their money too.

How so? If that where the case why would they freeze accounts and shut people out from engaging in or attempting to buy from the forum?

Ran out of stock? Who knows?

Just a thought I had. The same goes for the drug sites on the dark web as well. It just seems too easy.

I think you misunderstood. It was the clearnet forums that shut down the account because they were going around trying to buy weapons while telling everyone they could not legally own them. I'm sure some forum members reported the account and it was shut down.

My bad, I thought that was about the darknet forums. Still, it's strange they weren't able to buy more guns off the dark web.

Most of the dark web stores are con artists. Or a law enforcement sting. You can't find the actual stores through a simple search on one of the many deep web search engines/indexing things. You have to meet/know the right people.

a reply to: midnightstar

The point of the investigation was to prove it was relatively easy for those who shouldn't be able to buy a gun to buy one online. Of course criminals will sell other criminals a gun...but their whole talking point is that online sales contribute to sales going to people who shouldn't be allowed to buy them. Or that online sellers could and would skirt the law...like selling across state lines without using an FFL licensed dealer. Come to find out they were very wrong.

a reply to: face23785

Web sales aren't a loophole. Buying an illegal gun is not that difficult in person...a criminal isn't going to buy a gun in a traceable manner. He/she is gonna get it from one of their friends or friends of friends.

Silly waste of money.

originally posted by: kelbtalfenek
a reply to: face23785

Web sales aren't a loophole. Buying an illegal gun is not that difficult in person...a criminal isn't going to buy a gun in a traceable manner. He/she is gonna get it from one of their friends or friends of friends.

Silly waste of money.

I'm well aware of this. Apparently, anti-gun extremist leftists aren't though, which is why they wanted this study done. That's the point of the article. The actual results of the investigation aren't really news to anyone who was informed on this issue. Anti-gun extremists aren't informed. That's the news here.