search
top

AK-47 SKS Swap on Craigslist Causing a Stir

Curt has an interesting story from Philadelphia about someone proposing an AK-47 SKS swap on Craigslist.  I agree with Curt this is likely someone seeking attention, and quite possibly an anti-gunner looking to raise an issue in the media.  Whoever is proposing it, pretty clearly knows little or nothing of guns, and nearly nothing about their value.  That makes me skeptical it’s a gun enthusiast, and a gang member wouldn’t be using craigslist.

But I have to wonder about the mentality of city officials here, especially given that the paper incorrectly suggests that the transaction requires use of an FFL (true for handguns in Pennsylvania, but not for long guns).  One has to wonder if people can legally buy and transfer guns, even if an FFL is required, what’s the outrage about trading a gun for rims?  Or does such a transaction make allusions to certain demographics that people don’t want buying guns?

8 Responses to “AK-47 SKS Swap on Craigslist Causing a Stir”

  1. Skullz says:

    Yep, probably a stunt.

    However, if people really wanted to make a big deal of this, they could view any of the many gun owner forums on the net. Most have classified sections – and pretty active ones at that.

    With the standard lack of media research, it’s not surprising how many people don’t knw (including gun owners) that long guns in many states don’t require an FFL transfer as long as the transfer is between the residents of that state – i.e. PA. Of course, there is nothing saying that you can’t use an FFL if you are so inclined and want to CYA.

    I probably wouldn’t do a non-FFL trade with someone from Craigslist, but have no problem doing it with other forum members on the boards I’m a member of (reputation on the board required) -but that’s me.

    I think the supposition of your last sentence is dead on.

  2. Carl in Chicago says:

    Craigslist specifically prohibits the listing/trading/advertisement of weapons.

    Much like ebay.

    I am cynical, but I too suspect it’s some anti-gun person looking for attention on how “easy” it is to legally buy/sell/trade firearms.

  3. Bruce says:

    Follow-up Brady Campaign press release in 10…9..8…

  4. Scott in Phx Az says:

    Whats the outrage?

    Per the anti-gunners (and most of the media) the outrage is that anyone has a gun, anyone wants to sell it (or trade) for any reason or to anybody.

    Pathetic.

  5. Jay G. says:

    You need an FFL to transfer handguns? Interesting… We don’t in MA.

  6. Chuck B. says:

    I once traded a set of slightly-used and never-used power tools for a double-barrel 12 gauge coach gun at a weekly swap meet up in the Poconos a few years ago. No 4473 form was done for this trade, since this 12 gauge was a long gun with a legal-length 20″ barrel.

    The guy I traded these power tools to also had a M1 Carbine and a .40 caliber S&W pistol on his table, but I felt that he was asking too much for either one of these guns, and since the swap meet was on a Sunday, there was no local law enforcement available to conduct the background check for a handgun transfer anyway. I think he found a buyer for his M1 Carbine the following weekend though.

    It’s a good thing for myself and the trader guy that we were not down in Philadelphia on that day of this swap meet. Otherwise that trader guy might have been swept up in a bogus media controversy for trying to put an “assault weapon” (the M1 Carbine) out on the city streets.

  7. Carl in Chicago says:

    Regarding private trades or transfers of arms …

    Among several of Heller’s vague or poorly defined holdings, is:

    The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on … laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

    Now, I suppose that in the broadest sense “commercial sale” or more generally “commerce” includes any sort of sale, trade, or barter of goods or objects for other goods or objects (including money). Yet in a contemporary context, nearly everyone views “commerce” as pertaining to production of goods and retail sale.

    Clearly, whether in legislative bodies or in courtrooms, those that wish to diminish our right to arms will take the former definition (and thus push to prohibit private sales and trades), while those of us who favor a robust right to arms will take the latter definition (and argue that private transfers or trades are among aspects of our rights that are protected constitutionally).

top