Facebook Wants To Block Illegal Gun Sales

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Facebook Wants To Block Illegal Gun Sales

Posted by Soulskill on Wednesday March 5, 2014 @10:33AM from the time-to-mistakenly-invoke-the-constitution dept.

Nerval's Lobster writes "Most of the time, Facebook allows its users to hawk goods or solicit donations on Pages or Timeline postings, comparing such activity to placing a physical note on a bulletin board at a supermarket. Now it plans on regulating users who rely on this method to sell what it calls 'regulated' items, which includes firearms. 'Any time we receive a report on Facebook about a post promoting the private sale of a commonly regulated item, we will send a message to that person reminding him or her to comply with relevant laws and regulations. We will also limit access to that post to people over the age of 18,' Facebook announced as part of the new rules. The social network will also prevent users from posting any sort of items 'that indicate a willingness to evade or help others evade the law,' which means no offers to sell firearms across state lines or without a background check. Presumably, Facebook will have filters in place that allow it to scan for such content. Facebook is a private network, of course, and not (despite its ubiquity) a public utility — meaning it can do whatever it wants with regard to Terms of Use. But that likely won't stop some people from complaining about what they perceive as the company overstepping its boundaries."

46 of 310 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

..or without a background check? by Pizza · 2014-03-05 10:37 · Score: 5, Informative

It's expressly legal for private inviduals to sell to other private individuals (without crossing state lines) without a background check; indeed it's *illegal* for said private individuals to perform such a background check, at least on the federal level.
Now you may have some sort of state/local law that requires checks between inviduals, but sheesh.

--
-- I ain't broke, but I'm badly bent.
1. Re:..or without a background check? by Lord+Kano · 2014-03-05 11:49 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  That's not necessarily true.
  I can pass a background check. I have passed a lot of them.
  I still understand how someone could like the idea of the government not having a record that they own a gun.
  BTW, that's what opposition to "Universe Background Checks" is about. It would create a backdoor registry.
  LK
  
  --
  "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
2. Re:..or without a background check? by Lord+Kano · 2014-03-05 12:01 · Score: 2
  
  Another question that works just as well is
  "No sales tax, right?" private sellers don't charge sales tax either so there's pretty much a one to one relationship between background checks and sales tax.
  Solves your dilemma, right?
  LK
  
  --
  "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
3. Re:..or without a background check? by Bartles · 2014-03-05 12:06 · Score: 2
  
  They are not Liberal. Even though you capitalized it, I feel it is disingenuous to use that term to describe anyone who constantly works to restrict rights and freedoms.
4. Re:..or without a background check? by Bartles · 2014-03-05 12:06 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  How does a database keep someone from shooting up a school?
5. Re:..or without a background check? by Bartles · 2014-03-05 12:09 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  I think we need a federal database of everyone that has had an abortion. How would you like that?
6. Re:..or without a background check? by CrimsonAvenger · 2014-03-05 12:18 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  There is no federal law restricting private individuals from running a criminal background check prior to selling a firearm. I guess what you mean to say is that private individuals can't use the federal NICS system [fbi.gov] to perform the check unless they are Federal Firearms Licensees registered with the FBI.
  Which makes it impossible for a private individual to do a Background Check. Remember, a background check for firearms sale purposes is DEFINED as using the NICS system.
  
  --
  
  "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
7. Re:..or without a background check? by hondo77 · 2014-03-05 12:18 · Score: 2
  
  We might like it better if you gave an actual reason for wanting such a thing.
  
  --
  I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
8. Re:..or without a background check? by Arker · 2014-03-05 12:21 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Your assumption is that any expression of distaste for a background check is an indication the buyer would not pass one. It's an errant assumption. No one wants to go through the background check because that creates a paper trail that any future administration could then use as a list of people that need to be rounded up. So quite naturally people are not willing to go through it in a situation where it is not legally required. You are required to keep a record of the transaction with the serial number. If the weapon you sold were used in a crime later, it will be traced back to you. The original retail sale is on record, that person (if not you) will then produce the name of the person he sold it to, which is either you or will lead to you via reiterating the same process. If you cannot produce the weapon or produce a receipt showing who you sold it to, then you're in trouble. But until and unless there is a criminal investigation to justify the intrusion, that information is no one's business.
  
  --
  =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
  Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
9. Re:..or without a background check? by hondo77 · 2014-03-05 12:33 · Score: 2
  
  Ah, so you don't have a good reason. Thanks for playing. You can go now.
  
  --
  I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
10. Re:..or without a background check? by reboot246 · 2014-03-05 14:59 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  He's not saying that. What he's saying is that it's hypocritical for politicians (and their minions) to have armed guards, and for us peons to not have the same means to protect ourselves. Even if all guns were confiscated, criminals would still have guns. That's why they're criminals - they don't obey the law.
  
  I've always thought that somebody who has their own armed guards (politicians, celebrities, sports stars, etc) speaking out against firearms was hypocrisy to the extreme.
  
  Oh, why do nearly all of the Federal agencies have their own armed officers now? Why have they been buying millions of rounds of hollow point ammunition? Why have they been buying sniper ammunition? Why does an FDA agent need a firearm? How long before they decide that they're the only ones who have firearms. Hmmm?
  
  Stay in your country if you like it so much, and stay out of our discussions. You don't vote here.
11. Re:..or without a background check? by s.petry · 2014-03-05 15:01 · Score: 2
  
  This isn't just Zuckerberg's plaything anymore. There are investors to whom they must answer.
  You think Facebook is worried about investors, or that the investors are any different than the people demanding censorship? Does the current political powers have say in this regardless of the investors desires? Facebook has already stated that they plan to censor. Not only sales mind you but any pro 2nd amendment discussion could be blocked to anyone under 18.
  Facebook has already been banning members and hiding discussion regarding pro 2nd amendment rights (as well as other topics the Government does not want people discussing). The bans stick method of censorship has been used for a couple years already. Censorship is not only happening there, Reddit had a nice article about the same thing, and Slashdot could suffer similar problems to Reddit and Digg.
  In all of the yelling about 2nd amendment we should not lose sight of the real problem which is censorship and conditioning.
  
  --
  -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
12. Re:..or without a background check? by x0ra · 2014-03-05 15:08 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  It doesn't. The only thing a database provide is for gun confiscation by an authoritarian state. This objective is the real objective of nowadays anti-gun movements, complete disarmament of law abiding citizens. Cf. the behavior of the RCMP in Canada during the High River flood, they used the then-illegal former long gun registry to invade homes an cease guns. They are doing the same now with the recent prohibition of the Swiss Arm Classic Green, and the CZ-859.
  It was also rather fun in the intro scene of the original Red Dawn to see the invading force get all the 4473 form to cease gun from citizens.
13. Re:..or without a background check? by x0ra · 2014-03-05 15:12 · Score: 2
  
  Yes. I do believe that there will be civil unrest due to authoritarian tendencies of the US government in the next 50 or so years. The second amendment is the very crucial amendment of the Bill Of Rights, it is protecting all the other amendment. Freedom of expression, and protection against unreasonable search and seizure are pretty weak without an armed population. Remember that what is given by the pen can also be taken by the pen.
14. Re:..or without a background check? by bigfinger76 · 2014-03-05 15:25 · Score: 2
  
  And this is the classic "I don't care about effectiveness. WE MUST DO SOMETHING!!!" line of thinking.
15. Re:..or without a background check? by Zordak · 2014-03-05 16:21 · Score: 2
  
  You know and I know that it's impossible to prove that a database has stopped any instance of someone shooting up a school. But it logically follows that a database can identify someone who is a felon, mentally unstable, has a PFA against them, etc. It raises the barrier and makes it more difficult for any of these people to get a weapon. Could they get one elsewhere? If they tried hard enough, probably. It's likely it has stopped several mass violence events by at least stopping some of the less motivated potential mass killers, the low hanging fruit. But using the logic behind your often cited argument, we should just have gun and ammo stands outside schools, because, hey, these people are going to get a weapon somehow and shoot up a school, right?
  You seem to be confusing the database for background checks, which most certainly does exist, and which is run on me whenever I purchase a gun, with a national gun registry. The former may be reasonably expected to prevent gun violence at some level, and most gun rights advocates that I know don't object to it. The latter has no logical relation to preventing gun violence, but every possible relation to confiscating guns from law-abiding citizens.
  
  --
  
  Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
16. Re:..or without a background check? by QuantumPion · 2014-03-06 01:23 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  We should have laws for things that are inherently wrong, like murder. Owning a gun is not inherently wrong, and therefore should not be prohibited since the attempt to do to won't prevent criminals from getting guns illegally anyway.
17. Re:..or without a background check? by MBGMorden · 2014-03-06 02:29 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  No - laws should punish things that are actually wrong. Theft, rape, murder, etc. Anything that it is claimed simply facilitates the breaking of another law without causing direct harm itself should not be illegal.
  In the terms of this site - the DMCA is wrong, because (as is obvious) the pirates are gonna pirate stuff regardless. The law only prevents legitimate uses.
  Banning guns or complicating the process is wrong, because murderers are going to get guns and kill people anyways.
  Put simply, laws do not PREVENT crime. Never have, never will. All they do is define what crime is, so that we can identify those that have done society wrong and punish them accordingly.
  
  --
  "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
Encryption... by canadiannomad · 2014-03-05 10:41 · Score: 3, Insightful

So if I were to try to promote the use of encryption in private communications, would that be "a willingness to evade or help others evade the law?"
Nothing to hide, and all that...

--
Hmm, the humour and sarcasm seem to have been be lost on you.
Selling assult weapons by Lumpy · 2014-03-05 10:43 · Score: 3, Insightful

I can sell assault weapons for cash all day long in my state to private people without even getting their name. and "GASP" most of my "DANGEROUS ASSULT WEAPONS" are unregistered as well..
Oh the horror....
That said, the last place I would sell them is to twits on Facebook. Cripes even ebay twits are not worth dealing with. There are plenty of great private gun selling sites that have people that understand the values and have clues...

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
1. Re:Selling assult weapons by Lumpy · 2014-03-05 11:04 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Yes, I love selling to criminals, you know most gangbangers love buying $1500 AR-15's and $4500 AR-50 sniperrifles, you see them all over the place with these guns in the street. They paint Converse logos on them, and get them gold plated to match their spinner rims YO! The Gangers love big guns that attract attention and are expensive as hell!
  Why do you think they wear big baggy pants, that is the only way to hide a 6 foot long gun while you walk the streets looking for targets. I now offer to sellers getting them engraved with "thug life" and gold plating the Uppers.
  
  --
  Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
2. Re:Selling assult weapons by harrkev · 2014-03-05 11:05 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  First, how do you even define an "assault weapon." An "assault rifle," as defined by Wikipedia is capable of select-fire (AKA machine gun). Those are 100% not OK to just sell, as you need a $200 federal permit, and the approval of a local law-enforcement agency.
  However, the term "assault weapon" is more fuzzy, at least according to Wikipedia.
  What I absolutely love is how the definition (to borrow from Wikipedia again) includes:
  
  In discussions about firearms laws and politics in the U.S., assault weapon definitions usually include semi-automatic firearms with a detachable magazine and one or more cosmetic, ergonomic, or safety features, such as a flash suppressor, pistol grip, or barrel shroud, respectively.
  Wow. Adding a safety feature and cosmetic features changes the categories. This makes as much sense as taking a street-legal car, painting it red, adding a rear spoiler, roll bars, and suddenly it is a race car that is not legal for street use.
  Seriously, all of this talk about assault weapons gets tiresome. If somebody was shooting at me, the color of the rifle and the presence or absence of a pistol grip would be the last thing on my mind.
  
  --
  "-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
3. Re:Selling assult weapons by Lumpy · 2014-03-05 11:06 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  I use the liberal definition. It's scary and black.
  
  --
  Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
4. Re:Selling assult weapons by harrkev · 2014-03-05 11:13 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I use the liberal definition. It's scary and black.
  That definition did not work out so well when applied to people. Nothing makes me think that it will work much better here.
  After a shooting, the government tries to make us safer by restricting the rights of the 99.999% of the people who did nothing wrong.
  
  --
  "-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
5. Re:Selling assult weapons by Lord+Kano · 2014-03-05 11:18 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Liberals find every black person terrifying if they are not actively pandering to said black person at that moment.
  LK (A big black guy)
  
  --
  "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
6. Re:Selling assult weapons by Ungrounded+Lightning · 2014-03-05 11:19 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  However, the term "assault weapon" is more fuzzy, at least according to Wikipedia.
  Wikipedia has it right, in its own "being unbiased in the wording" way.
  "Assault Rifle" is a technical term in warfare. It first applied to a particluar select-fire rifle short enough to avoid getting hung up when popping up through the hatch of a tank to fire at surrounding infantry (or otherwise going through tight spaces), and since has been applied to others with simiilar characteristics. This trades away some accuracy for rapid fire and rapid movement.
  "Assault Weapon" is a term invented by antigunners and defined in particular laws, to confuse the population about proposed gun control laws by making them appear to be banning military design Assault Rifles when they actually ban a hodge-podge of civilian guns based on some arbitrary (and juristiction-specific) set of characteristics typically unrelated to any objective standard of danger or functionaity.
  
  --
  Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
7. Re:Selling assult weapons by CrimsonAvenger · 2014-03-05 12:26 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  What's really pathetic about the definition of "assault weapon" is the "exception list" that the assault weapon ban(s) included.
  For instance, an AR-15 clone is an evil assault weapon.
  A Mini-14 is on the exempt list, so it's not. Even if you modify the Mini-14 to have a pistol grip, a large capacity magazine, a flash suppressor, a tac-rail, it is STILL EXEMPT!
  So even if it looks just like the AR-15 clone from more than five feet, the AR-15 is an EVIL ASSAULT WEAPON!!1!1, and the Mini-14 is a prefectly legal varmint rifle....
  
  --
  
  "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
8. Re:Selling assult weapons by Lord+Kano · 2014-03-05 12:41 · Score: 2
  
  Pride, when poked becomes petty.
  
  --
  "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
FB is lying, yet again by Cammi · 2014-03-05 10:48 · Score: 5, Interesting

FB is lying, yet again. They are currently deleting ALL firearms for sale/buy posts.
... And Nary a Thing Will Change by CanHasDIY · 2014-03-05 10:49 · Score: 4, Interesting

So, Facebook will start harassing people who sell guns... and people will just go somewhere else to buy and sell guns.
Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if a number of sites cropped up for just that purpose - the legal transfer of a firearm from one private citizen to another.
You can't stop the signal.

--
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
1. Re:... And Nary a Thing Will Change by turkeydance · 2014-03-05 11:14 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  my favorite was on Craig's List: shotgun choke: $400 with a FREE gift.
Fackebook prohibits all weapons sales by tlambert · 2014-03-05 11:01 · Score: 2

Fackebook prohibits all weapons sales. They always have. I don't see why illegal weapons sales are a big deal here, given that "illegal" is a subset of "all".
This is not news, because it's not new.
1. Re:Fackebook prohibits all weapons sales by coinreturn · 2014-03-06 01:00 · Score: 2
  
  Fackebook prohibits all weapons sales. They always have. I don't see why illegal weapons sales are a big deal here, given that "illegal" is a subset of "all".
  This is not news, because it's not new.
  But is nice bait to stir up the gun-nuts.
Re:What's the big deal? by x0ra · 2014-03-05 11:08 · Score: 4, Insightful

And we, gun owners, are free to criticize FB to do so.
Zuck in 2011: "I just killed a pig and a goat." by theodp · 2014-03-05 11:11 · Score: 3, Interesting

FORTUNE: When he's not too busy connecting people across the universe, Mark Zuckerberg is pursuing a new "personal challenge," as he calls it. "The only meat I'm eating is from animals I've killed myself," says the Facebook founder and CEO...Zuckerberg's new goal came to light, not surprisingly, on Facebook. On May 4, Zuckerberg posted a note to the 847 friends on his private page: "I just killed a pig and a goat."
Re:What's the big deal? by Nimey · 2014-03-05 12:04 · Score: 2

And we other gun owners are free to mock you for being idiots.

--
Hail Eris, full of mischief...

E pluribus sanguinem
Wrong way of looking at it... by Lawrence_Bird · 2014-03-05 12:39 · Score: 2

Facebook does not want to be hounded by the anti-gun/do-it-for-the-children/omfg-i'm-scared lobby.
Illegal gun sales? by jcr · 2014-03-05 12:57 · Score: 2

What are they going to do, delete Eric Holder's account?
-jcr

--
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Re:Simply put... by x0ra · 2014-03-05 15:02 · Score: 5, Insightful

I'm gonna be negatively commented out, but I disagree with that law. It has become too damn easy to create "felon" out of non-violent crime. Heck, you can become a felon over sheer copyright infringement, or because you were in the wrong place when you were 15 and got caught smoking marijuana... As a result, your constitutional right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness is made void, without any chance to redeem yourself.
Re:What's the big deal? by Nimey · 2014-03-05 15:06 · Score: 2

Meh. The NRA does /not/ speak for me, those people are batshit crazy. My rifles are for target shooting and hunting; nothing like blowing the shit out of a recalcitrant printer with eighty rounds from one's Mosin-Nagant.

--
Hail Eris, full of mischief...

E pluribus sanguinem
Re:Simply put... by sycodon · 2014-03-05 16:18 · Score: 3, Insightful

Did you REALLY just cite Venezuela as some kind of utopia brought about by gun laws?
That's a special kind of stupid you got going there.

--
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Re:Simply put... by x0ra · 2014-03-05 16:44 · Score: 4, Insightful

What we called today the "Wild West" was probably more civilized than some poor metropolitan area today... As for the gun ban argument, have a look to Australia and UK, whose rate of violent crime has never been so high, while they have utter strict gun law.
Re:Simply put... by wonkey_monkey · 2014-03-05 19:19 · Score: 2

have a look to Australia and UK, whose rate of violent crime has never been so high*, while they have utter strict gun law.
Right! And since the US, Australia, and UK are absolutely identical in all other aspects of their society, it can only be down to the gun laws!
Wait...
(*not true in the case of the UK)

--
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Re:Simply put... by xenobyte · 2014-03-05 21:50 · Score: 2

Much more interesting is the discussion on the whole 'perpetual felon' idea. In my book you are a felon while serving your punishment or on parole, but once your debt is paid, you're a free man and should have all the same rights as anyone else, which include the right to vote and the right to own firearms. Only exception to this rule should be sex offenders who should be registered and pedophiles should be banned from working with children and living near schools and similar child-dense areas.
The felon restrictions doesn't make sense in themselves. If you drive drunk and kill someone, you're still allowed to buy new cars and to re-acquire your drivers license, but a felon cannot own firearms or vote for life even when all they did were fraud, counterfeiting or similar non-violent while-collar crime.

--
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
Re:Simply put... by ai4px · 2014-03-06 01:27 · Score: 3, Insightful

Shockingly, recently release stats say that by the age of 25, 40% of men will have been arrested. Could it have anything to do with us continuing to pass more and more laws which in turn make ordinary citizens into criminals? Naww....
There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted—and you create a nation of law-breakers—and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with.
I have a little legal news for FB by RogueWarrior65 · 2014-03-06 03:41 · Score: 2

There is no legal requirement to run a background check for interstate sales of long guns. Period. Interstate sales of handguns must go through an FFL dealer. There is no legal requirement to perform a background check or go through a dealer for INTRAstate sales from person to person. That's the law. If Facebook doesn't like that, who the f*ck are they to make their own laws that supersede federal laws? Imagine how ugly things would get if someone decided that a photo ID was required to vote. Oh, wait, that did happen and the feds stomped all over it. Bottom line is that if someone wants to get a gun without going through legal methods, they are going to find a way. Criminals don't care how many laws they break.
Beyond this issue, this is an illustration of Facebook thinking it's important.