How to Buy a Gun on the Internet

Yes, it's possible. With a major credit card (or a check, or money order) you can order a gun on the Internet. I was surprised too. I'm going through it now, so I thought I'd write about it.

Ordering a gun online is not an identical experience to picking out a book on Amazon and having it show up at your doorstep two days later (exception: a Curios and Relics license, to be defined later). An intermediary is required to stand between you and the online dealer. This intermediary is a Federal Firearms License holder, whom I will abbreviate as an FFL. Any brick and mortar gun store or pawn shop that deals in guns will have one of these licenses. So will small, one-man operations, like a guy who does gunsmithing work out of his home - if he wants to receive guns in the mail to work on, he'll have an FFL. The FFL does the transfer - the gun goes from its point of origin to the FFL, who handles a few administrative duties and then sends you on your merry way with your internet gun.

What are these administrative duties? The exact same things that happen when you buy a gun at a shop - filling out an ATF Form 4473 and waiting for the FBI NICS background check to clear. Buying a gun online, therefore, is not a way for a felon or someone adjudicated incompetent to pick up a piece "no questions asked." You still have to hit the streets for that - perhaps the streets of Chicago, or New York City.

Buying a gun online is also not a way for a law-abiding citizen to get around state or local regulations. Bud's Gun Shop, the online retailer where I bought my CZ, is extremely clear that it, for example, will not ship magazines with a capacity of more than 10 rounds to the states that forbid such things (MA, CA, etc.). I have no idea if a smaller operation would do so, but if they did they (and you, the recipient) would be breaking state and quite possibly federal law as well, which I do not recommend.

The FFL will charge for his time - all FFLs charge a transfer fee. The average seems to be $25. I found a guy who does it for $10. I have a feeling that if you went to a gun store they'd charge you a good deal more than $25, since you're taking away their business. I recommend sticking with the home businesses, or maybe a pawn shop.

In many states, face to face transfers (as long as both parties are residents of that state) with no background checks are entirely legal. This is when I, a private citizen, meet face to face with another private citizen in order to strike a deal that involves one party disposing of a piece of property and the other paying for it. In a nation that values private property rights, this strikes me as entirely appropriate and nothing to be worried about or scared of. Some jurisdictions require a record be kept of the transaction, like a bill of sale. I think that even when this is not required, it's a good idea. I would also consider asking the purchaser to produce a CCW or some kind of proof that he's not crazy. This concept is often described as the "gun show loophole," even though from what I have heard most gun shows these days are just filled with retail operations who charge full (or higher) price and who will run all the checks on you. The internet has apparently stolen all the good deals from the gun shows.

Note on Curio and Relic licenses. A C&R license is a particular type of FFL that allows an individual the ability to receive in the mail certain types of firearms, as defined by federal regulations and the ATF. One thing that puts a firearm into the C&R category is its age - if it's 50 years old or more, it's a C&R. If you're interested in WW2 firearms, for example, and a C&R holder, you can buy all kinds of things off of the internet without having to find an FFL to do the transfer - it can be sent right to you. There are restrictions, of course, but considering that guns made in 1962 and before are still popular and useful, a C&R FFL can be a worthy investment.

Barack Obama and Guns

Well here we go, after years of "Barack Obama is the most gun-friendly president in years" and "he's not going to touch your guns, what are you in the tea party or something?" the President has finally said things outright that indicate what he'd like to do in his second term.

I say "what he'd like to do" because what a president can do is severely limited based on things like Congress, what his priorities are, and the national mood. This goes for everything as well as guns, and it's why I personally don't put a ton of stock into specific promises that Presidential candidates (or incumbents) make. Instead I think about important things that Presidents actually can do, like appointing Supreme Court Justices; I also think about things like "if the President had unlimited power to mold the United States into whatever he wanted, what would it look like?" 

At the 2nd Presidental Debate the other day, Barack Obama said a couple of things about guns. One is that he'd like to push for a new Assault Weapons Ban like we had under Clinton. The other, though it was more of an observation, was a recognition that the shootings that happen every day on his home turf of Chicago aren't carried out with "assault weapons," they're carried out with cheap handguns.

This is tough. On the one hand I'm happy that he recognizes that "assault weapons" (I'm putting it in quotes because it's a bullshit term invented by politicians to make modern rifles sound scarier than they are) are used in an extreme minority of crimes. But this brings up two questions: 1.) why, then is he still pushing for an AWB and 2.) what is his solution for this "problem" of "cheap handguns?"

I cannot think of a position in support of an AWB that is not unconstitutional, overbearing, or insulting in some way. ARs are not used in the hugely overwhelming majority of crimes. The AWB regulated guns based on cosmetic features and the fact that they're "scary black guns" that look like guns soldiers use. Do I have a "need" for an AR-15 rifle in 5.56? Perhaps not, but it is nobody's business to tell me that I can't have something that the Constitution says I can. Maybe I'll just use it for putting holes in paper, maybe it'll gather dust in my rack, or maybe I'll use it when the Chinese send paratroopers into the cornfields - what business is it of yours? When was the last time you petitioned the government for a redress of grievances? Do you need that right?

"The founders didn't imagine Bushmaster AR-15s with 30-round magazines and EOTech holographic sights." That's right, they didn't. They imagined the citizens of their new republic in possession of the exact same weapons as the military. They drew no distinction between military and civilian arms - they had just been through a war won in no small part due to a civilian 'militia' in possession of tools that gave them a fighting chance against the army of an empire. This is a better argument for undoing the restrictions on full-autos than anything else. The founders didn't imagine Twitter, either - heavens, someone's "hate speech" (put in quotes for the same reason as "assault weapon") can be instantaneously broadcast to people all over the world! Better put some restrictions on it!

As for handguns - Obama recognized publicly that cheap handguns are the weapon of choice for Chicago's criminal element. In an ideal world, this would lead to a public repudiation of Chicago's onerous handgun ownership requirements and the state of Illinois' refusal to join the other 49 and allow some form of concealed carry. The President would publicly acknowledge that in Chicago the criminals are the only ones armed on the streets, and that it is at least worth a shot to legitimize concealed carry for the law-abiding citizen in the hopes of instituting a deterrent effect, as well as make it easier for law-abiding citizens to obtain firearms to keep in their home.

This is not my ideal world, though, and I have no doubt that this will be another call for more laws. DC v. Heller is happily on the books and is a basis, however shaky, for the unconstitutionality of total handgun bans - meaning that he will probably limit it to empty platitudes, as is his wont as President. But don't you think that if he had the ability - if he had the magical power to make whatever laws he wanted - he'd push for some kind of restriction? Based on the things he's said and the kind of things he believes in?

Look, I'm not one of these guys who thinks that as soon as Obama wins (if he wins!) he's going to unleash all his secret crypto-Marxist security forces, take everyone's guns away, and install electric motors in our cars. That's nonsense and it won't happen. But I don't like the idea of a President who is so willing to impose policy based on fear and emotion (the basis for most liberal policies), and I don't like the idea of a President who thinks that more laws are the answer when it comes to guns. 

I'd like to return to my earlier point about Supreme Court justices. This is an extremely important thing that Presidents do, and it doesn't get a lot of press. Obama appointed two Justices in his first term - Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. Both are liberals, and Kagan has zero experience on the bench - she has worked in politics, including a time as President Obama's solicitor general, and has held high posts in legal academia, and now she'll be on the Supreme Court for decades. At least two and perhaps more justices will likely retire in the 2012-2016 presidential term - think about how the court would look over the next several decades with a couple more fresh, young Obama appointees (SCOTUS Justices serve for life, remember) versus Romney appointees. Think about how DC v. Heller was a 5-4 decision - one vote away from doing away with the 2nd Amendment - infringing the right of the people to keep and bear arms - for the entire population of the District of Columbia. Think about what this means for other spheres of American life. The Supreme Court is extremely important, and it the next president has a major opportunity to affect its leanings for decades. This is huge. 

I'm not over the moon about Romney. Detractors will point out that he is the reason for Massachusetts' own brand of right-to-keep-and-bear-arms-infringing. But to me there is a difference between being the Governor of one of the bluest states versus being the Chief Executive of an entire country while being beholden to the Republican party. In my opinion, when it comes to the 2nd Amendment, Romney's the man. 

What's next?

The collection is already taking on a mind of its own, yearning to grow.

I have my .22 rifle (and my Mosquito, though it's already starting to gather dust in favor of the rifle), and I'm looking ahead to my next purchase. The rifle handles fun range time or plinking, and now I'm looking to something for protection. This will be a 9mm handgun, specifically a CZ P-07. In this piece I will explain why I'm going with a handgun and why specifically the CZ.

THE HANDGUN

Handguns/pistols (if there's an actual distinction I don't know it, so I use both terms interchangably) need little introduction and are common choices for self-defense or home defense. They are small; maneuverable; a full-size semi-auto with a stock magazine can hold as many as 18 rounds of ammunition; and they do the job. Rimfire handguns exist (my Mosquito is one) but any kind of serious defensive use of a handgun will use a centerfire cartridge. As mainstream semi-automatic handguns go, the main choices are 9mm, .40 S&W, and .45 ACP. Handguns intended for CCW will fire these or perhaps .380. When you expand the search out to revolvers, you get cartridges like .38 Special, .357 Magnum, and .45 Long Colt. There are also handguns that fire more exotic cartridges like 10mm or 5.7.

Semi-automatic handguns can be divided based on how the gun activates the cartridge and initiates the chemical reaction that results in the bullet leaving the barrel. Many handguns (and all revolvers) have a hammer, mostly exposed but some carry models have it hidden (to avoid clothing snags). This is the thing that people always cock back in movies to emphasize their point. Cocking back the hammer may turn the trigger into a "single-action" rather than a "double action" - this means that less pressure is required to drop the hammer and have it strike the cartridge and fire the round. I believe this depends on the gun - some guns are double action only, some guns do not allow you to pull the hammer back, and some older revolvers require the hammer be pulled back before every shot. Semi-autos with hammers usually have external safeties as well as a "decocking" lever, which allows the user to put the hammer down without actually firing the gun.

Some types of semi-autos - Glocks and their imitators - have done away with the external hammer in favor of an internal "striker." These newer guns, possibly due to mechanical reasons stemming from this choice, often also do not have external safeties (i.e. a switch you click to turn the safety on and off). Glocks, for example, have a switch in the middle of the trigger, so when you pull the trigger and there's a round chambered it WILL fire. They compensate by building multiple internal safeties into the gun, to the point where you can drop it out of a moving car and it won't accidentally discharge. Smith & Wesson's M&P is similar (a hinged part of the trigger acts as the safety), and Springfield's XD has a pressure switch on the back of the handle that accomplishes the same thing.

The venerable revolver is still a popular choice as well. Far more mechanically simple than a semi-auto, a wheelgun is the best choice for reliability and ease of maintenance; it also allows for use of cartridges that have real stopping power. A .357 Magnum, for example, is not at all fun to shoot - it's one of those things that you feel all the way into your teeth when you shoot it, and if you stand behind someone shooting one you'll feel a shockwave on your face. That kind of firepower will end a threat in fewer shots than even a .45 ACP. Certain revolvers can also fire multiple cartridges - a .357 revolver will also be able to shoot the cheaper and much more fun to shoot .38 Special, owing to the similar dimensions of the cartridges and the mechanical simplicity of the gun.

9mm is, in my opinion, the best choice. Since I'm not interested in a revolver or any of the more exotic pistol cartridges, my choice is between 9mm, .40, and .45, and 9mm wins for a few reasons. Most important is cost - cheaper ammo means I'll practice more which means I'll be a better shot. Recoil is also more manageable than the bigger cartridges, which contributes to the "fun factor" of practicing and also means my wife will want to practice with me more, which is very important. Also I don't believe that I'm really sacrificing anything by going with 9mm - "stopping power," despite engendering hundreds of gigabytes' worth of internet arguments, doesn't change too much among the 3 major rounds. When you're dealing with one of these three - as opposed to .357 mag or one of the other big ones - the most important factor is shot placement if you're looking to immediately end a threat. And the only way to proper shot placement is practice, which is most affordable with a 9mm.

OK, so a 9mm handgun it is. Now what kind? 

This kind: the CZ P-07. http://www.cz-usa.com/products/view/cz-p07-duty/

I will break down the reasons I'm going with the CZ P-07, in no particular order.

1. Reliability/Reputation. CZ has been around for a while. They produce the CZ-75 (of which the P-07 is a more modern, polymer-framed variant with a redesigned trigger) and have been doing so for decades - this gun is one of the most heavily used firearms among police departments and armed forces around the world. CZs have a reputation for being well-built and those who own them swear by them.

2. Size/weight. The P-07 is a polymer-framed variant of the 75, which means it's lighter than its metal-framed progenitor. It is not so light, however, that the shooter is terribly bothered by recoil (I thought it was metal-framed when I first used it, as I felt way less recoil with it than with an M&P or Glock). This is doubly impressive when one considers the size of the gun - it is smaller than "full-size" guns like the Glock 17, yet my experience is that the recoil is less with the P-07 than the 17. This means it will do well as a carry gun if I decide to carry concealed, but not at the expense of being easy and fun to shoot at the range.

3. Aesthetics. It looks cool. I'm only human and having a cool-looking gun, while not the sole criterion, is nice. As a bonus, since the USA division of CZ (they're based in the Czech Republic) is in Kansas City, Kansas, the gun will say on its side "CZ-USA KANSAS CITY, KANSAS" which I think is kind of neat.

4. Cost. This gun retails for about $450. M&Ps go for about $550, and Glocks and Springfield XDs are usually above $600. While I would probably go for an HK if money was no object, that's not the world I live in at the moment. Cost isn't everything - otherwise I'd get a $200 Hi-Point - but the P-07 by all accounts appears to be an extremely well-built and reliable firearm for a terrific price.

One final note. I didn't decide on this gun just by watching YouTube videos and reading feature lists - I went to the range and shot it, a number of times. I also shot Glocks, XDs, M&Ps, HKs, and other CZ models. All the nifty features and advertising copy don't mean anything if the gun isn't a good fit for your hand, or if you can't work the slide, or if the sights just don't work with your eyes, etc. There's no substitute for actually putting some rounds through it. Rental guns might be dirty and poorly-kept and not represent the gun's potential, but actually shooting the gun is still essential before purchase. Be it at a range, borrowing your friend's, or seeking out an owner in your area on the internet, do everything you can to actually put the firearm in your hand and make some holes in paper with it.