Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Facebook Wants To Block Illegal Gun Sales

Posted by Soulskill on 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."

27 of 310 comments (clear)

  1. ..or without a background check? by Pizza · · 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 · · 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 Bartles · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How does a database keep someone from shooting up a school?

    3. Re:..or without a background check? by CrimsonAvenger · · 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"
    4. Re:..or without a background check? by Arker · · 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.
    5. Re:..or without a background check? by reboot246 · · 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.

    6. Re:..or without a background check? by x0ra · · 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.

    7. Re:..or without a background check? by QuantumPion · · 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.

    8. Re:..or without a background check? by MBGMorden · · 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
  2. Encryption... by canadiannomad · · 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.
  3. Selling assult weapons by Lumpy · · 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 · · 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 · · 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 · · 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 · · 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 · · 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 · · 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 · · 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"
  4. FB is lying, yet again by Cammi · · Score: 5, Interesting

    FB is lying, yet again. They are currently deleting ALL firearms for sale/buy posts.

  5. ... And Nary a Thing Will Change by CanHasDIY · · 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 · · Score: 3, Funny

      my favorite was on Craig's List: shotgun choke: $400 with a FREE gift.

  6. Re:What's the big deal? by x0ra · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And we, gun owners, are free to criticize FB to do so.

  7. Zuck in 2011: "I just killed a pig and a goat." by theodp · · 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."

  8. Re:Simply put... by x0ra · · 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.

  9. Re:Simply put... by sycodon · · 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.
  10. Re:Simply put... by x0ra · · 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.

  11. Re:Simply put... by ai4px · · 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.