7 ms·

> Amazon is pretty reasonable (knives are fine, firearms accessories are fine, but firearms and ammunition are out As a target shooter, I don't find this any m

by tjic 14y ago

> Amazon is pretty reasonable (knives are fine, firearms accessories are fine, but firearms and ammunition are out As a target shooter, I don't find this any more reasonable than a gay person might find "personal ads are fine, but not gay personal ads". All too often our definition of "reasonable" is "gores HIS ox but not mine".

ori_b 14y ago
You ignored the important part: "Due to compliance issues". I'm not familiar with the legal issues. However, it is perfectly reasonable for Amazon to comply with the law. Perhaps the laws are stupid, but that's not Amazon's fight.
- wyager 14y ago
  The compliant issues you mention (for the most part) do not exist. There are very few extra legal limitations for selling ammunition over the internet. These legal limitations could be shifted to third-party retailers, with Amazon as a middleman only. There are literally no extra legal limitations or regulations for a company selling (non-firearm) firearm parts, which Amazon does not allow. Selling ammunition requires roughly the same amount of legal red tape as selling knives or tasers (which Amazon already does).
  - rdl 14y ago
    I didn't realize Amazon didn't allow non-firearm firearms parts, since I've bought ~10k in knoxx stocks, slings, sidesaddles, ammo holders, holsters, etc. through their marketplace. It's possible they just don't enforce it very well. Apparently their policy (http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=200277700 http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=2...) allows a lot of things, but not other things, in a not entirely consistent way. Primers and brass are ok, but not bullets. Stocks are fine, but not barrels. wtf. There are some parts where Amazon would have liability. Magazines, for instance, especially since Amazon likes to be able to warehouse items wherever it finds most convenient. 30 round magazines would be really complex given that some states ban them.
    - wyager 14y ago
      Sorry, I should clarify. I mean things that are functional pieces of a firearm ("functional" is hard to define here), even if completely legal and unregulated, are not allowed on the Amazon marketplace. Example: FCGs or upper receivers. Cosmetic parts like stocks and handguards seem to be allowed, as you noticed. As for Magazines introducing liability, Amazon stocks thousands of items like Knives, Tasers, Pepper spray, etc. that are illegal in some states but legal in others (just like magazines).
      - rdl 14y ago
        I wonder if the massive increase in sales demand for firearms, accessories, and ammunition over the past 4 years (and especially in the past 4 months) could cause Amazon to rethink things.
Spooky23 14y ago
I think the difference is that firearms are heavily regulated by localities in different ways. For example, transport over state lines may require coordination with the shipper. For Amazon, having attorneys stay up to date on the law in multiple jurisdictions doesn't fit with their operating model. Knives are less difficult regulatory-wise, and where there are local legal issues, they usually aren't serious felonies.
- pionar 14y ago
  Generally, when selling a gun over state lines, a federally-registered local arms dealer must act as the "seller" and follow normal procedures for selling a firearm, as only dealer to dealer sales are permitted.
- koenigdavidmj 14y ago
  > For Amazon, having attorneys stay up to date on the law in multiple jurisdictions doesn't fit with their operating model. They already calculate local taxes (city and county taxes too!) for the states in which they choose to tax.
  - cdjk 14y ago
    The penalties for messing up on on local taxes are a lot less severe than messing up federal firearms laws.
- hfsktr 14y ago
  I used to work at a shop that sold firearms (among many other things) online. I didn't see all the laws we had to follow but quite a few I noticed (I worked on the intranet site). Unless the customer was coming to pick up the weapon themselves (at our location) we would only ship guns to FFL's[1]. The FFL was also the one who did the background check as far as I'm aware. I don't know what percentage of our sales were local pickups but I am guessing we did the background for those (we had an FFL). They shut down but the company made it up to 70 or so employees. I don't know how we kept up on the laws. Our suppliers might have done that as we were sort of a middleman from the suppliers to the customers. I do remember that we needed to track a lot of things for the ATF and they had to be very accurate. The ATF would come in once a year or so and audit the logs and other things related to shipping. I never saw them but I remember the boss(es) being stressed during those weeks. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Firearms_License http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Firearms_License
btilly 14y ago
You may think there is unreasonableness here, but is that unreasonableness Amazon's? For Amazon to enter online sales of weapons, they have to address a mess of state and local compliance issues which are not their core competency. No matter what your opinion is on firearms and ammunition, Amazon's reticence as a business to get involved with that seems very reasonable to me.
- betterunix 14y ago
  Not really -- Amazon would just have to have a policy along the lines of, "We only sell guns via gun stores in your local area," and their legal team would only have to ensure compliance with regulations in 50 states (and whatever other countries they do business in). The last rifle I purchased was from a friend in New York, and he mailed the rifle and the case to a local gun store, which is basically what the law requires. Amazon could do the same in the USA if they were willing to enter that market or were willing to allow third parties to use Amazon for such transactions; I suspect that their corporate image is a bigger issue than the law.
  - rdl 14y ago
    Amazon doesn't do alcohol, either, which could also be for "corporate image" reasons, but does also have compliance issues (federally but mostly state-by-state). It could also just be an economic decision, but given that Amazon prohibits certain firearms parts which aren't regulated anywhere (except maybe APO mailing to military, or internationally) like trigger assemblies, it seems more likely a corporate image thing.
  - btilly 14y ago
    A big part of Amazon's branding is that they sell online, and ship direct to you. Doing as you suggest would involve special messaging and a custom workflow to select the local gun store that they are willing to ship the gun to. Also custom workflow for potential problems and complaints (including a mapping ability to locate those stores, and resolution mechanism if the store chosen turns out to not be there, not willing to participate, etc.) Not impossible, to be sure. But it sounds like a lot of work and potential customer problems.
msrpotus 14y ago
Knives are a lot less lethal than guns.
- shasta 14y ago
  Citation?
- kamjam 14y ago
  That's bullsh*t, knives kill just as guns do. In the UK we have many more knife related crime than we do gun related crime. That said, the issue here is not how lethal one is over the other, but Google playing judge,jury and executioner for something they should have no right to jurisdict over.
  - vacri 14y ago
    The UK has knife crime but not knife murder, despite what the fearmongering press would have you believe. The UK murder rate is a quarter that of the US, and is in line with similar countries.
    - greyboy 14y ago
      The UK also has 1/5 the US' population - what does all this mean?
      - arethuza 14y ago
        Murder rates are often given per 100,000 inhabitants - so size of country isn't really a factor: United States: 4.8 United Kingdom: 1.2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentiona... vacri's statement seems completely accurate.
        rdl 14y ago
        While I agree the US is far more violent than the UK, most of the US's incremental violence is explained by the drug war. Even if we had zero guns and the UK had US-style gun possession and laws, I suspect US drug laws (and other forms of extreme economic/political/legal inequality) would give us a higher murder rate.
notahacker 14y ago
Maybe I'm biased on the issue, but I don't find discriminating between categories of personal ads based on level of social prejudice provoked to be remotely comparable to discriminating between categories of object based on lethality and legal restrictions.
xenophanes 14y ago
No, it's different. There's lots of laws about firearms and dealing with them can be painful, so it can be reasonable not to do it. For another example, the pawnshop on Pawn Stars doesn't deal with modern firearms. Because they don't have a license. Because they decided it wasn't worth the hassle/effort/expense. Dealing with firearms can be hard/expensive compared to selling other things (like knives and accessories). Dealing with gay personal ads is no more hard or expensive than regular personal ads.

by tjic 14y ago

ori_b 14y ago

You ignored the important part: "Due to compliance issues". I'm not familiar with the legal issues. However, it is perfectly reasonable for Amazon to comply with the law. Perhaps the laws are stupid, but that's not Amazon's fight.

wyager 14y ago
The compliant issues you mention (for the most part) do not exist. There are very few extra legal limitations for selling ammunition over the internet. These legal limitations could be shifted to third-party retailers, with Amazon as a middleman only. There are literally no extra legal limitations or regulations for a company selling (non-firearm) firearm parts, which Amazon does not allow. Selling ammunition requires roughly the same amount of legal red tape as selling knives or tasers (which Amazon already does).
- rdl 14y ago
  I didn't realize Amazon didn't allow non-firearm firearms parts, since I've bought ~10k in knoxx stocks, slings, sidesaddles, ammo holders, holsters, etc. through their marketplace. It's possible they just don't enforce it very well. Apparently their policy (http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=200277700 http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=2...) allows a lot of things, but not other things, in a not entirely consistent way. Primers and brass are ok, but not bullets. Stocks are fine, but not barrels. wtf. There are some parts where Amazon would have liability. Magazines, for instance, especially since Amazon likes to be able to warehouse items wherever it finds most convenient. 30 round magazines would be really complex given that some states ban them.
  - wyager 14y ago
    Sorry, I should clarify. I mean things that are functional pieces of a firearm ("functional" is hard to define here), even if completely legal and unregulated, are not allowed on the Amazon marketplace. Example: FCGs or upper receivers. Cosmetic parts like stocks and handguards seem to be allowed, as you noticed. As for Magazines introducing liability, Amazon stocks thousands of items like Knives, Tasers, Pepper spray, etc. that are illegal in some states but legal in others (just like magazines).
    - rdl 14y ago
      I wonder if the massive increase in sales demand for firearms, accessories, and ammunition over the past 4 years (and especially in the past 4 months) could cause Amazon to rethink things.

Spooky23 14y ago

I think the difference is that firearms are heavily regulated by localities in different ways. For example, transport over state lines may require coordination with the shipper. For Amazon, having attorneys stay up to date on the law in multiple jurisdictions doesn't fit with their operating model. Knives are less difficult regulatory-wise, and where there are local legal issues, they usually aren't serious felonies.

pionar 14y ago
Generally, when selling a gun over state lines, a federally-registered local arms dealer must act as the "seller" and follow normal procedures for selling a firearm, as only dealer to dealer sales are permitted.
koenigdavidmj 14y ago
> For Amazon, having attorneys stay up to date on the law in multiple jurisdictions doesn't fit with their operating model. They already calculate local taxes (city and county taxes too!) for the states in which they choose to tax.
- cdjk 14y ago
  The penalties for messing up on on local taxes are a lot less severe than messing up federal firearms laws.
hfsktr 14y ago
I used to work at a shop that sold firearms (among many other things) online. I didn't see all the laws we had to follow but quite a few I noticed (I worked on the intranet site). Unless the customer was coming to pick up the weapon themselves (at our location) we would only ship guns to FFL's[1]. The FFL was also the one who did the background check as far as I'm aware. I don't know what percentage of our sales were local pickups but I am guessing we did the background for those (we had an FFL). They shut down but the company made it up to 70 or so employees. I don't know how we kept up on the laws. Our suppliers might have done that as we were sort of a middleman from the suppliers to the customers. I do remember that we needed to track a lot of things for the ATF and they had to be very accurate. The ATF would come in once a year or so and audit the logs and other things related to shipping. I never saw them but I remember the boss(es) being stressed during those weeks. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Firearms_License http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Firearms_License

btilly 14y ago

You may think there is unreasonableness here, but is that unreasonableness Amazon's? For Amazon to enter online sales of weapons, they have to address a mess of state and local compliance issues which are not their core competency. No matter what your opinion is on firearms and ammunition, Amazon's reticence as a business to get involved with that seems very reasonable to me.

betterunix 14y ago
Not really -- Amazon would just have to have a policy along the lines of, "We only sell guns via gun stores in your local area," and their legal team would only have to ensure compliance with regulations in 50 states (and whatever other countries they do business in). The last rifle I purchased was from a friend in New York, and he mailed the rifle and the case to a local gun store, which is basically what the law requires. Amazon could do the same in the USA if they were willing to enter that market or were willing to allow third parties to use Amazon for such transactions; I suspect that their corporate image is a bigger issue than the law.
- rdl 14y ago
  Amazon doesn't do alcohol, either, which could also be for "corporate image" reasons, but does also have compliance issues (federally but mostly state-by-state). It could also just be an economic decision, but given that Amazon prohibits certain firearms parts which aren't regulated anywhere (except maybe APO mailing to military, or internationally) like trigger assemblies, it seems more likely a corporate image thing.
- btilly 14y ago
  A big part of Amazon's branding is that they sell online, and ship direct to you. Doing as you suggest would involve special messaging and a custom workflow to select the local gun store that they are willing to ship the gun to. Also custom workflow for potential problems and complaints (including a mapping ability to locate those stores, and resolution mechanism if the store chosen turns out to not be there, not willing to participate, etc.) Not impossible, to be sure. But it sounds like a lot of work and potential customer problems.

msrpotus 14y ago

Knives are a lot less lethal than guns.

shasta 14y ago
Citation?
kamjam 14y ago
That's bullsh*t, knives kill just as guns do. In the UK we have many more knife related crime than we do gun related crime. That said, the issue here is not how lethal one is over the other, but Google playing judge,jury and executioner for something they should have no right to jurisdict over.
- vacri 14y ago
  The UK has knife crime but not knife murder, despite what the fearmongering press would have you believe. The UK murder rate is a quarter that of the US, and is in line with similar countries.
  - greyboy 14y ago
    The UK also has 1/5 the US' population - what does all this mean?
    - arethuza 14y ago
      Murder rates are often given per 100,000 inhabitants - so size of country isn't really a factor: United States: 4.8 United Kingdom: 1.2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentiona... vacri's statement seems completely accurate.
      - rdl 14y ago
        While I agree the US is far more violent than the UK, most of the US's incremental violence is explained by the drug war. Even if we had zero guns and the UK had US-style gun possession and laws, I suspect US drug laws (and other forms of extreme economic/political/legal inequality) would give us a higher murder rate.

notahacker 14y ago

Maybe I'm biased on the issue, but I don't find discriminating between categories of personal ads based on level of social prejudice provoked to be remotely comparable to discriminating between categories of object based on lethality and legal restrictions.

xenophanes 14y ago

No, it's different. There's lots of laws about firearms and dealing with them can be painful, so it can be reasonable not to do it. For another example, the pawnshop on Pawn Stars doesn't deal with modern firearms. Because they don't have a license. Because they decided it wasn't worth the hassle/effort/expense. Dealing with firearms can be hard/expensive compared to selling other things (like knives and accessories). Dealing with gay personal ads is no more hard or expensive than regular personal ads.