PDA

View Full Version : Let's Close The Gunshow Loophole


Pages : [1] 2

orchidhunter
January 19, 2009, 08:58 PM
Are you with us on this?

LucifersPants
January 19, 2009, 09:00 PM
Generally speaking I'm with myself and my family.

Who exactly constitutes 'us'?

hoytinak
January 19, 2009, 09:03 PM
I still don't understand what the whole "gunshow loophole" is.....how is it different than any other FTF deal?

dmwphoto
January 19, 2009, 09:05 PM
I am definitely not with you on this.
This is the start to the end of private gun sales and that has no place in america.

dmwphoto
January 19, 2009, 09:06 PM
to answer Hoytinak they wish to ask private citizens to apply for a vendors license and pay a large tax to sell privately at gun shows.

LucifersPants
January 19, 2009, 09:06 PM
I still don't understand what the whole "gunshow loophole" is.....how is it different than any other FTF deal?

There's nothing to understand...the gun-grabbers invented the 'loophole' to use as another sound-bite and talking point to sell gun control to the general public, most of whom no nothing about firearms or gun shows.

LucifersPants
January 19, 2009, 09:08 PM
Orchidhunter is strangely silent....hmmm. Maybe the Bat-signal was switched on, and he had to run out and save another life.

orchidhunter
January 19, 2009, 09:13 PM
A lot of FFL dealers ar now starting to lobby for the change, and we need all the support we can get. orchidhunter

DonR101395
January 19, 2009, 09:15 PM
The ever elusive gunshow loop hole. I've asked every anti-gunner who has approached me to tell me what that loop hole consists of and to date not one has been able to tell me what it actually is. It's simple, there is no such thing.

LucifersPants
January 19, 2009, 09:17 PM
to answer Hoytinak they wish to ask private citizens to apply for a vendors license and pay a large tax to sell privately at gun shows.

Ah yes, lets not forget the TAX...so I pay sales tax when I buy the gun in the first place, then I have to pay the governement AGAIN when I sell the thing. Fantastic...what's next? An air tax? How about mandatory pay toilets in private residences? I wonder what they'd do with the money...pass it out to deadbeats perhaps?

orchidhunter
January 19, 2009, 09:29 PM
dmwphoto, Your right on target, all firearm sales must be thru a FFL dealer. It's your FFL dealers that are going to do this to you. orchidhunter

hoytinak
January 19, 2009, 09:33 PM
The ever elusive gunshow loop hole. I've asked every anti-gunner who has approached me to tell me what that loop hole consists of and to date not one has been able to tell me what it actually is. It's simple, there is no such thing.

Bingo....someone gets it.

alloy
January 19, 2009, 09:34 PM
A lot of FFL dealers ar now starting to lobby for the change, and we need all the support we can get. orchidhunter

:barf:

B. Lahey
January 19, 2009, 09:46 PM
No.

orchidhunter
January 19, 2009, 09:53 PM
Well, I got to get back under the bridge, here comes one on foot. orchidhunter

kirpi97
January 19, 2009, 10:43 PM
I have been red carded for stepping over the line. I will spend my time in the penalty box for my infraction. But my answer remains the same, "No." I do not support it. I like my privacy being just that, mine.

Since politics and religion are forbidden, ____ save us from our stupidity.

jfrey123
January 19, 2009, 11:25 PM
Let's not, and say we did.... Since there is not a real loop hole to be concerned with.

Dealers are already required to run checks on all transfers, and forcing private parties to run checks will only cause them to sell in back alleys.... Where unsavvy people are known to congregate....

NavyLT
January 19, 2009, 11:28 PM
A. There is no gun show loophole.

B. Don't mess with private sales.

azredhawk44
January 19, 2009, 11:29 PM
Orchidhunter, I'm not sure if you're a troll or a secret Bradyite, but it's just wrong.

There is no gunshow loophole. There is only private party transfer. Which I whole-heartedly support and will always support.

MosinM38
January 19, 2009, 11:41 PM
I think his one post answered that.

Although I will say they are amusing to watch.,

hillbillyshooter
January 20, 2009, 12:16 AM
OrchidHunter,
I am very against you on this. No, I am not with you on this and hope few are.

BillCA
January 20, 2009, 12:44 AM
The only FFL's I know of that might support it, do so only because the sale of "used" guns between private parties can become another revenue stream by which they can make a profit.

Sales of legal products, conducted between private citizens, are not the business of the government. That's regardless of whether it's a TV, drill press or a firearm.

Al Norris
January 20, 2009, 12:45 AM
Interesting way to stir the pot, orchidhunter. If that is what you are doing, you just aren't long for TFL.

Specifically, who is the us you are referring to? The only FFL's I can think of that would buy into this, are already residents of restrictive States.

Cerick
January 20, 2009, 01:13 AM
I love my rights and all but aren't FTF transfers/sales the way alot of criminals obtain guns? Correct me if im wrong, because they sure cant buy guns from a store.

vranasaurus
January 20, 2009, 01:25 AM
I love my rights and all but aren't FTF transfers/sales the way alot of criminals obtain guns? Correct me if im wrong, because they sure cant buy guns from a store.

It's not the face to face sales that represent the problem with criminals getting guns. Many times it is a straw purchase that leads to the criminals getting the guns which is already illegal under federal law.

Some guy goes to a gun store passes the background check and purchases two pistols with the intent to sell them to some criminals this is a straw purchase, and this is how many criminals get their guns.

Criminals don't look at classifieds, internet forums, or gun shows to get their guns. They know how to get around the law and the best way is to know someone with a clean record that can pass the background check.

The ways criminals get guns today, theft or straw purchase, is already illegal under federal law. Closing this feaux loophole will do nothing to stop the problem since the criminals will continue to have someone purchase the guns for them. Do you think they are going to go to the FFL to get them transferred especially since they and their accomplices have already violated federal law?

boatmonkey82
January 20, 2009, 02:25 AM
correct me if im wrong but it sounds like ... if i got to a junk yard to buy a part i can only do so thur a local repair shop , or was this a bad example ?

vranasaurus
January 20, 2009, 02:35 AM
correct me if im wrong but it sounds like ... if i got to a junk yard to buy a part i can only do so thur a local repair shop , or was this a bad example ?

Think of it like this:

You want to sell you 1999 Toyota Camry to you neighbor in order to do so you would have to go to your local delaer to process the transaction.

If you want to use Autoparts it would go like this:

Your friend Joe has a water pump for a car you own and he doesn't want it so he is selling it to you. In order for him to transfer said water pump you need to go to your local parts store to process the transaction.

It is about face to face sales being prohibited without going through a dealer.

bikerbill
January 20, 2009, 10:38 AM
Just sold two handguns to a lovely lady in Austin ... FTF, no taxes, no paperwork, no FFLs involved ... the gunshow loophole, as I understand it, is aimed at FTF sales at gunshows that don't go through the Feds ... but closing that tiny door would close a far larger one, like the sale I just completed ... this is one of those slippery slopes you don't even want to see started ... no to govt intrusion in my private business ...

buzz_knox
January 20, 2009, 10:53 AM
the gunshow loophole, as I understand it, is aimed at FTF sales at gunshows that don't go through the Feds ... but closing that tiny door would close a far larger one, like the sale I just completed ... this is one of those slippery slopes you don't even want to see started ... no to govt intrusion in my private business ...


The legislation to close the loophole typically is so onerous and expansive that all gun shows would be shut down, private sales would themselves would be banned, gatherings of a few shooters would be classified as gun shows, or some combination of the above.

Musketeer
January 20, 2009, 11:30 AM
orchidhunter said:

Well, I got to get back under bridge, here comes one on foot. orchidhunter

TROLL. SELF ADMITTED TROLL.

I am all for discussing the topic of the so called gun-show loophole. Unlike many here I believe there is such a thing and it is a problem, but not in the way the antis say. I believe it exists because enough of the voting public believe it does and it is a problem because that same voting public will support legislation on the matter.

Sorry folks, this is going to be like fighting the tide. The best you can do is to redirect it. The tone in Washington is almost entirely against us. Standing our ground on this will cause us to be brushed aside entirely. I would suggest we bite the bullet and forward legislation that would provide for publicly funded checks at organized gun shows for all while protecting FTF transactions outside of that event.

As long as 60 Minutes can show footage of someone looking like he is a gang banger, Aryan Nation member, Hells Angel, "suspected terrorist" etc. buying an "AK-47" at an "Arms Bazaar" in Middle America with no background check then this problem will exist. If we simply oppose it in its entirety then the legislation will be written to require FFLs for everything.

Tennessee Gentleman
January 20, 2009, 11:33 AM
Well, I would like to try and address this thoughtfully (and may get flamed) but I think I see the issue the Antis raise but it begs another question I will ask.

First, there is no such thing as a "Gun Show Loophole". That is a misnamed tag the issue has and it won't go away. The real issue is private sales. I think the Gun Show part creeps in because it seems that Gun Shows are where these sales seem to take place most visibly and publicly. I know they take place thru other means like the classified sections of some newspapers but I have been to many many gun shows where there are folks walking around or even sitting at tables in the show who will sell guns privately to anybody with the cash without a backgorund check.

What I think the antis fear (and I can see their point) is that private sales are a place where people who are not legally allowed to own or possess firearms can circumvent the background check and buy a firearm anyway.

What I don't know is how many criminals obtain their crime guns in this manner. I think for me that is the real issue. Is the "loophole" the major aveneue where criminals get their crime guns. If so, then the policy argument changes. If it becomes a crime to sell anyone a gun who has not had a background check will it deter those who would sell to anybody from doing so?

Tennessee Gentleman
January 20, 2009, 11:36 AM
The legislation to close the loophole typically is so onerous and expansive that all gun shows would be shut down

buzzknox, How would this legislation shut down gun shows? The vast majority of sales go thru dealers anyway right? The show itself gets no cut from the private sales other than an admission ticket.

garryc
January 20, 2009, 11:58 AM
Most of the FTF transactions I've done have been in the parking lot. You have to be careful about those. If you buy a gun don't resell it that day. You might just be dealing with an ATF set up.

hoytinak
January 20, 2009, 12:03 PM
Yeah, for some reason most of my FTF deals have been in a Wal-Mart parking lot. Meeting halfway in different towns, Wal-Mart always seems to be a place that both parties could find easy. ;)

vranasaurus
January 20, 2009, 12:12 PM
As I said most criminal get their guns through a straw purchaser as it is. Adding a prohibition on FTF sale is just adding one more law that the criminals will violate.

It may keep a few guns out of the hands of those that are prohibited but not that many. Most who want guns but are disqualified will continue to use a straw purchaser as they do now.

Musketeer
January 20, 2009, 12:30 PM
Just for reference...

All the shows I have been to in New York have the requirement of a check for ALL firearm purchases, both long arms and handguns. We have a permit system for handgun ownership but not one for long arms where you can easily do FTF sales across the state with no paperwork. You are not allowed to circumvent the check by doing the sale in the parking lot outside the show.

It seems to work fine.

Al Norris
January 20, 2009, 12:41 PM
From the latest GunFacts 5.0 (http://www.gunfacts.info) (pages 19 & 20 of the pdf):

Myth: Gun shows are supermarkets for criminals

Fact: Only 0.7% of convicts bought their firearms at gun shows. 39.2% obtained them from illegal street dealers.(86)
Fact: Less than 1% of “crime guns” were obtained at gun shows(87). This is a reduction from a 1997 study that found 1.7% - 2% of guns used in criminal offenses were purchased at gun shows.(88)
Fact: The FBI concluded in one study that no firearms acquired at gun shows were used to kill cops. “In contrast to media myth, none of the firearms in the study were obtained from gun shows.”(89)
Fact: Only 5% of metropolitan police departments believe gun shows are a problem.(90)
Fact: Only 3.5% of youthful offenders reported that they obtained their last handgun at a gun show.(91)
Fact: 93% of guns used in crimes are obtained illegally (i.e., not at gun stores or gun shows).(92)
Fact: At most, 14% of all firearms traced in investigations were purchased at gun shows.(93) But this includes all firearms that the police traced, regardless of if they were used in crimes or not, which overstates the acquisition rate.
Fact: Gun dealers are federally licensed. They are bound to stringent rules for sales that apply equally whether they are dealing from a storefront or a gun show.(94)
Fact: Most crime guns are either bought off the street from illegal sources (39.2%) or through family members or friends (39.6%).(95)
_______________

86 Bureau of Justice Statistics, “Firearm Use by Offenders”, February 2002
87 Ibid
88 National Institute of Justice, the research arm of the U.S. Department of Justice. According to an NIJ study released in December 1997 "Homicide in Eight U.S. Cities"
89 U.S. Department of Justice, "Violent Encounters: A Study of Felonious Assaults on Our Nation's Law Enforcement Officers", August 2006
90 Center to Prevent Handgun Violence survey of 37 police departments in large cities, reported in a CPHV report titled “On the Front Line: Making Gun Interdiction Work”, February 1998
91 Timothy S. Bynum, Todd G. Beitzel, Tracy A. O’Connell & Sean P. Varano, “Patterns in Gun Acquisition and Use by Youthful Offenders in Michigan”, 1999
92 BATF, 1999
93 BATF, June 2000, covers only July 1996 through December 1998
94 BATF, 2000
95 “Firearm use by Offenders”, Bureau of Justice Statistics, November 2001
_______________

Now you have some of the facts, by which to attack any such legislation, on its merits... or lack thereof.

Tennessee, the last couple of bills (which never made it out of committee) were stuffed with a bunch of crud. Like declaring any more than 3 gun owners to be a "gun show," if all they did was to meet and discuss guns (just as one example - there are many more equally appalling "rules").

Hkmp5sd
January 20, 2009, 12:45 PM
It seems to work fine.


Here in Florida, we have a system where anyone can sell a firearm to anyone they think can legally purchase it at any location they desire.

Seems to work fine.

Wonder why my state has such a low gun crime rate than those that don't allow free trade.

kayakersteve
January 20, 2009, 12:55 PM
He must be confused - happens this time of year!! Must be overwhelmed with the political times! Oh well, if he checks back, here is their website:
http://www.bradycampaign.org/

ZeSpectre
January 20, 2009, 12:56 PM
Just for reference...

All the shows I have been to in New York have the requirement of a check for ALL firearm purchases, both long arms and handguns. We have a permit system for handgun ownership but not one for long arms where you can easily do FTF sales across the state with no paperwork. You are not allowed to circumvent the check by doing the sale in the parking lot outside the show.

It seems to work fine.

Seems to work fine for what? The cost to operate the system is tremendous, the burden is carried by the law abiding people of NY, the criminals simply ignore the "mandatory registration" and the registration of firearms and the related trace data has been used to solve....wait for it.... ZERO crimes since it was enacted in 1936.

Al Norris
January 20, 2009, 12:56 PM
Now, having laid out the facts about gun shows, everyone should go and download the GunFacts pdf. There is so much more very well researched information contained in this, to counter almost every new law proposed.

What good that does, is often in question. But just writing to your congress people without the facts at hand, is less than worthless.

Last item on this particular agenda.

Prohibiting private transfers, nationwide, at gun shows does in fact lead to nationwide prohibition of FTF transfers. It is only a short "hop" from one to the other. All in the name of "fighting crime," which it does not do. It merely makes another class of activity into a criminal class. Do we really need more criminals?

Musketeer
January 20, 2009, 02:41 PM
Facts mean nothing. The opposition is arguing based on emotion and will win because there is one indisputable fact:

Anyone can buy a gun FTF without a check at a gunshow in most of the nation.

We all know that the actual occurrence of crimes with weapons from gun shows is next to nothing but that does not matter. Argue those facts all you want, public opinion is based on emotion. The emotion is against this practice and the party most supportive of restrictions controls the Legislative and Executive branches.

The FACT is the legislation is going to come and we can not stop it but we can craft it if we act first.

ZeSpectre
January 20, 2009, 02:50 PM
"A Republic...if you can keep it" - Ben Franklin

Sorry Ben, we tried.

vranasaurus
January 20, 2009, 02:51 PM
Facts mean nothing. The opposition is arguing based on emotion and will win because there is one indisputable fact:

Anyone can buy a gun FTF without a check at a gunshow in most of the nation.

We all know that the actual occurrence of crimes with weapons from gun shows is next to nothing but that does not matter. Argue those facts all you want, public opinion is based on emotion. The emotion is against this practice and the party most supportive of restrictions controls the Legislative and Executive branches.

The FACT is the legislation is going to come and we can not stop it but we can craft it if we act first

If we somehow support a bill that prevents FTF sales at a gunshow it will simply be used as a foot in the door to prevent all FTF sales.

The past has shown us that gun control is a slippery slope. When newly passed laws do nothing to prevent crime, as both sides know they won't, the antis will always seek to pass more. We must fight every attempt to curtail the sale and possession of firearms as there are already to many restrictions on the books.

If we give an inch now the other side will eventually use that inch to get a mile.

Eskimo
January 20, 2009, 02:57 PM
Private sales will never go away - I will willingly break the law if it comes down to it.

Cerick
January 20, 2009, 03:14 PM
I have a proposed solution to some of these problems, which I'm sure a bunch of you guys wont agree with, but hear me out.

I'm thinking that a large number of guns used by criminals are obtained through straw purchases. While illegal already, a person selling the gun shortly after buying it, pretty much needs to be caught red handed, or snitched out to be arrested for said crime. The people "legally" buying these guns to straw sell them need to be held accountable. The easiest way I can see to do this is, ready, to have guns registered to their owners. Easy now, I know many of you dont like this idea, but if your not going to be using the gun in an illegal way, whats the big deal? That wouldn't prevent us from owning guns or limit in any way our use of them, it would simply hold people responsible for the guns they bought ending up in the hands of criminals. FTF transfers/sales would require one to go to your local FFL dealer with the other person involved in the transfer and simply get a backround check, and to have the registration transfered to the new owner. All previously bought guns need not be registered, only guns bought after the law was put in place.

Why is that such a bad idea I ask?

Technosavant
January 20, 2009, 03:23 PM
Easy now, I know many of you dont like this idea, but if your not going to be using the gun in an illegal way, whats the big deal?

A few things you have obviously overlooked.

1) It is already possible to chase down the chain of possession of a firearm. Once recovered, the agency checks the serial number with the maker, follow that to the distributor, then to the FFL who sold it, and can find the first purchaser from there. If that purchaser does not say who they transferred it to, then even if the gun were registered the trail ends.

2) Registration is ALWAYS step one of any confiscation effort. While they can still track the guns down, the intermediate steps are a form of protection. The moment you allow full registration, you give a list that can be run down if they ever decide to even give gun owners grief (even if ownership is legal).

3) It flat won't stop crime. Period. The person can always say "oh, I didn't even know the gun was stolen." What can be done? Not a single thing.

Sorry, registration or a ban on private sales is not the magic wand to crime reduction that you are looking for. It gives the antis something they dearly love for absolutely no benefit to our side.

ZeSpectre
January 20, 2009, 03:37 PM
Cerick, Re-Read post #40 to see how a 73 year experiment in gun registration has worked out so far.
(short summary, SEVENTY-THREE YEARS of taxpayer dollars thrown down a black-hole to track law abiding citizens to no useful purpose).
Additionally (adding insult to injury) stolen firearms, even those not used in a crime, were never returned to their rightful owners even though the registration system told police who those rightful owners were.

Musketeer
January 20, 2009, 04:02 PM
The past has shown us that gun control is a slippery slope.

AWB had a sunset clause.

3 Day waiting period expired with instacheck.

More Americans can carry a gun legally than in several generations.

Sorry but the "things only go downhill" argument does not hold water.

Mike Irwin
January 20, 2009, 04:16 PM
So, what you're saying is that because things have been getting better on some fronts, they will ALWAYS continue to get better?

And nothing will ever change that?

Sorry, but that kind of complacent indifference is a recipe for absolute disaster.

The only reason the AWB had a sunset clause in it is because a Republican minority that was MUCH stronger than it is today managed to force it into the bill.

vranasaurus
January 20, 2009, 04:17 PM
AWB had a sunset clause.

3 Day waiting period expired with instacheck.

More Americans can carry a gun legally than in several generations.

Sorry but the "things only go downhill" argument does not hold water.

You're telling me that the antis will stop at only prohibiting FTF sales at gunshows?

They use the word gunshow to elicit an emotional response with their ultimate goal being the banning of private sales. Once they have gunshow specific legislation they will push for more.

I'm thinking that a large number of guns used by criminals are obtained through straw purchases. While illegal already, a person selling the gun shortly after buying it, pretty much needs to be caught red handed, or snitched out to be arrested for said crime. The people "legally" buying these guns to straw sell them need to be held accountable. The easiest way I can see to do this is, ready, to have guns registered to their owners. Easy now, I know many of you dont like this idea, but if your not going to be using the gun in an illegal way, whats the big deal? That wouldn't prevent us from owning guns or limit in any way our use of them, it would simply hold people responsible for the guns they bought ending up in the hands of criminals. FTF transfers/sales would require one to go to your local FFL dealer with the other person involved in the transfer and simply get a backround check, and to have the registration transfered to the new owner. All previously bought guns need not be registered, only guns bought after the law was put in place.

Registration will do nothing to prevent crime and will only create a list that can be used later to confiscate certain firearms. What happens when they ban all semi autos or some other type of firearm, say handguns. At that point they will know where a lot of them are and can send agents to get them. And if you tell them you transfered said firearm I am certain they will want to know what delaer did the transfer, because by the time they have a registration they will certainly prohibit FTF sales.

They want to register firearms so they can come get certain ones when they feel the need.

The ultimate goal of the antis is not crime prevention it is the abolition of firearm ownership in the US.

No registration ever.

Tennessee Gentleman
January 20, 2009, 04:20 PM
Al,

Actually, I have downloaded my own copy of Gunfacts and it is great. However, per private sales, do the statistics they quote (and maybe I am missing it) about the low percentage of crime guns coming from gun shows refer to those guns purchased from FFLs and not private sales? See I am not sure if private sales is or can be measured well at gun shows since there is no records kept of them. Maybe I am nit picking but the nub of the issue is private sales not all gun show sales. Is that clear? Anyway, the law the anti's say they want should not prohibit private sales or hurt gun shows. It would add to the expense of selling a firearm privately and probably be stupid for a grandfather handing down his shotgun to his grandson. But the way I understand it you could not sell a gun to anyone without the buyer going through a background check.

Like declaring any more than 3 gun owners to be a "gun show," if all they did was to meet and discuss guns (just as one example - there are many more equally appalling "rules").

I am also not sure what the fallout of that would be and it also sounds stupid. Three of us get together at te range to talk about guns and maybe fire each others weapons and that is a gun show:confused: I can see why that one never got out of committee. But if all the law did was require private sellers to run their purchase through an FFL for a fee, what other consequences would occur? Or you would then say the requirement to FFL the purchase "destroys" the private sale?

buzz_knox
January 20, 2009, 04:21 PM
buzzknox, How would this legislation shut down gun shows? The vast majority of sales go thru dealers anyway right? The show itself gets no cut from the private sales other than an admission ticket.


It depends on the legislation. Some of the proposals require notifying the Attorney General (yes, of the United States itself) whenever you are planning a gun show. Along with the notification requirement is increased documentation requirements for dealers, requiring licenses to hold a gun show, sending the AG a list of every vendor at the show, etc.

Basically, nearly all of the proposals burden gun show partcipants and hosts to the point that the shows aren't worth the trouble.

Tennessee Gentleman
January 20, 2009, 04:27 PM
It depends on the legislation.

I agree and we must be vigilent but the issue is FTF sales with no background check. They might put all types of stuff in there but I fear if they do then that might backfire politically.

vranasaurus
January 20, 2009, 04:40 PM
Any law declaring more than 3 gun owners to be a gun show and then requireing some sort of additional hurdle in order to assemble as such would seem to me to be a clear violation of the the right to assemble.

Rich Miranda
January 20, 2009, 06:40 PM
I love my rights and all but aren't FTF transfers/sales the way alot of criminals obtain guns? Correct me if im wrong, because they sure cant buy guns from a store.

Dude, you been in Jersey FAR too long. Move to Texas or Arizona as soon as you can before your nads retract completely and permanently. :D

Seriously though. Criminals are, um, CRIMINALS! They are going to get guns period. That's why gun control doesn't work. Because criminals errrr, BREAK THE LAWS. All of them! Whenever they feel like it.

Gun control laws often only work against the law-abiding citizen such as when he unknowingly and accidentally does something without knowing that he's breaking the law.

The anti-gun propaganda works so well that we don't even know what is legal and most people think everything is illegal!

azredhawk44
January 20, 2009, 08:52 PM
Dude, you been in Jersey FAR too long. Move to Texas or Arizona as soon as you can before your nads retract completely and permanently.

Dude, I LOL'ed. Then I LOL'ed some more. From the safety and freedom of my flyover state living room and my safe occupied by a mix of 4473'ed and FTF'ed firearms that would scare most hoplophobes. Thank you for making my night just a bit brighter.:D

The only point I "might" concede in regards to FTF transfers is that an honest law abiding guy might have a gun to sell, and a scumbag dresses himself up decently and acts responsibly just long enough to pass the visual inspection and interview associated with a firearms sale.

Or, reverse the rolls. I'd hate to buy a hot gun, or a murder weapon.

I'd love to see a VOLUNTARY, free NICS system accessible by private parties for my own satisfaction. It would not log a transaction from buyer or seller, or care what type of gun is being transferred. It would just take a (Driver's License #?) and respond with "Eligible to buy" or "Not eligible to buy." Right now I only sell to those who carry CCW cards, which acts as an informal background check... and many do the same.

The second it becomes as trace-able and onerous as a 4473 NICS system though, I don't support it. Records, logs, traces... bleh.:barf:

divemedic
January 21, 2009, 08:36 AM
add to that is the fact that criminals who own a weapon will be protected from having to register it, because it is illegal for a felon to own a gun, and registering the gun would be self incriminating. Therefore, the 5th amendment protects felons from gun registration.

Musketeer
January 21, 2009, 09:49 AM
So, what you're saying is that because things have been getting better on some fronts, they will ALWAYS continue to get better?

No, I am saying that the hysteria some throw out that any legislation on the issue of gun control inevitably leads to more restrictive legislation is nonsense.

Mike Irwin
January 21, 2009, 10:11 AM
"No, I am saying that the hysteria some throw out that any legislation on the issue of gun control inevitably leads to more restrictive legislation is nonsense."

Funny, in the late 1980s and early 1990s many people were claiming the same thing about the proposals then being floated for an AW ban.

Hysteria!

Fear mongering!

NRA only trying to scare people to raise money!

Then came that wonderful little day in late 1994 when it actually passed, and was signed into law.

I remember selling AR-15s and standard-capacity magazines to many of those people, at a significant mark up that was a direct result of the law.

Many of them were saying things like "I never thought it would happen!"

Many of them, most who had never even lifted a finger to do anything to make their position known to their legislators, were screaming bloody murder about how "NRA LET ME DOWN!"

Well, what did you do to help yourself? "What? Why should I have done anything? NRA was supposed to do it all!"

Fools. Imbecillic, moronic fools who should have just signed on with the Democrats and Brady Campaign for all the good they did for themselves and their fellow gunowners.

Fools. Imbecillic, moronic fools who should not be allowed to own firearms if all they can do is whine.

Unfortunately, that same sense of complacency and dogged determination to believe that nothing will ever change for the worse seems to have taken root again, and worse, flourished.

How quickly people forget, how quickly people are WILLING to forget.

And if a new AW ban passes?

They'll again be the people crying loudest and longest about how "X let me down," or "I never thought this would happen so I didn't bother to do anything!"

Pathetic.


The FIRST thing I did the day after the November election?

Contacted my new Senator and Representative, even before they were sworn into office, making my position on gun rights known, and tellling them what I expect out of them.

Unfortunately, that seems to be too much trouble for most people.

ZeSpectre
January 21, 2009, 10:55 AM
I remember selling AR-15s and standard-capacity magazines to many of those people, at a significant mark up that was a direct result of the law.

Many of them were saying things like "I never thought it would happen!"

Many of them, most who had never even lifted a finger to do anything to make their position known to their legislators, were screaming bloody murder about how "NRA LET ME DOWN!"

Well, what did you do to help yourself? "What? Why should I have done anything? NRA was supposed to do it all!"

Yup. I remember that clearly as well.
Fool me once, shame on you
Fool me twice, shame on ME!

boatmonkey82
January 21, 2009, 05:53 PM
the only thing that concerns me about it is a felon coming to a show and buying said gun with no check . and or mr honest buying a ak that was last used by a cop killer . now i know it would be a pain in the ass but but background checks should be done befroe show entry

Rich Miranda
January 21, 2009, 06:55 PM
Unfortunately, [writing their congressman] seems to be too much trouble for most people.

Agreed.

Over at www.shotgunworld.com another forum member and I challenged all the members to do just that. I even provided a link that will give you your congressman's name and contact information AND provided a sample letter.

The silence was deafening.

maestro pistolero
January 21, 2009, 07:25 PM
I think someone here should help author the legislation.

It should require that all Federally licensed firearm dealers doing business at gun shows be required to conduct transactions the same as if they were conducted at a permanent location, i.e. a gun store. This would eliminate the gun show loophole.

The new bill should further require that any background checks and waiting periods mandated by state and federal law be observed by the licensed dealers, just the same at the gun show as at any other place of business.

Now, quick, let's hurry up and pass it, so we may begin keeping illegal guns off the streets.

By the way, while campaigning to pass the new bill, let's not forget to run a PR campaign that demonizes anyone who refuses to support this life-saving legislation.


We can not get this through fast enough so that we are able to quickly turn our attention to the next piece of important legislation, the new AWB. Ths bill permanently forbids felons, the mentally ill, and users of illegal drugs from owning, acquiring, or having possession of any automatic assault weapon.

Now let's get to work.

Orchid Hunter, are you with us on this?

vranasaurus
January 21, 2009, 08:45 PM
the only thing that concerns me about it is a felon coming to a show and buying said gun with no check . and or mr honest buying a ak that was last used by a cop killer . now i know it would be a pain in the ass but but background checks should be done befroe show entry

That would suck for me because I always get delayed from the NICS. They always call two days later with a proceed.

So under your system I would have to wait for 2 days before being allowed entry.

P5 Guy
January 21, 2009, 10:14 PM
I heard several dealers complaining about all the people walking the rows of tables selling their personal guns was driving the dealers profits down.
This was 1-17-9 at the Lakeland Gunshow just down Interstate 4 from the SHOT show on the same weekend.:barf:

Mike Irwin
January 21, 2009, 10:49 PM
"Over at www.shotgunworld.com another forum member and I challenged all the members to do just that. I even provided a link that will give you your congressman's name and contact information AND provided a sample letter.

The silence was deafening."

Not surprising.

Shotgunners, as a class, and in my experience, are largely antigun.

But, they don't see their shotguns as guns. They're "sporting implements" of such rarity and beauty that no right-thinking congressman would ever come looking to ban them.

They're implements of the GENTLEMEN'S SET.

I can't tell you how many shotgunners I have met who fall into that category.

Wildalaska
January 21, 2009, 11:00 PM
Now mind you I have been to shows where prominently displayed at the table was "Private sale, cash Only, No Background Check". Sort of a drag when you see the same guy with a table full doing that show after show:cool:

WildperhapsthattheloopholeAlaska TM

orchidhunter
January 21, 2009, 11:06 PM
When now VP Joe Biden said "There not going to take my Beretta from me" he was speaking of a shotgun, not a handgun. orchidhunter

vranasaurus
January 22, 2009, 12:02 AM
Over at www.shotgunworld.com another forum member and I challenged all the members to do just that. I even provided a link that will give you your congressman's name and contact information AND provided a sample letter.

The silence was deafening."

Not surprising.

Shotgunners, as a class, and in my experience, are largely antigun.

But, they don't see their shotguns as guns. They're "sporting implements" of such rarity and beauty that no right-thinking congressman would ever come looking to ban them.

They're implements of the GENTLEMEN'S SET.

I can't tell you how many shotgunners I have met who fall into that category.


Many hunters see gun ownership as being about hunting. This is why you see politicians of all stripes constantly say things like "I support the right of Americans to own guns for hunting." It reassures the "guns are only for hunting" crowd.

They don't get worked up over any issues involving guns except those that directly affect their hunting implements. They don't see why an AWB is a problem. "Why would anyone need one of those, you can't hunt with it" so they say.

They don't get worked up over issues involving handguns because they don't own any and don't see the need.

They aren't bothered by gun registration. "If you aren't doing anything illegal what's wrong with registration?" they say.

The biggest problem with much of the firearm community is that we are divided. And many of the issues are not important to everyone.

I don't CCW, as I haven't bothered to get a permit, but I still think it is an important issue for gun rights. As long as we push for CCW it's puts the gun control folks on the defensive.

Many in the gun community don't own semi-automatic military wanabe rifles. But those who don't should understand that allowing the government to ban certain types of firearms opens the door to them doing so in the future. Are semi-auto shotguns next? What about semi-auto pistols? Is the type of firearm you own going to be the next target?

The same thing goes for .50 cal rifles. I can't afford one and even if I could afford the rifle the ammunition is expensive. However, if we lose out on this, what gets banned next?

We can't let the argument of "Nobody 'needs those for (insert purpose here), so they should be banned." Using that argument you can ban almost anything in the world.

HiBC
January 22, 2009, 02:17 AM
I sat at a table as a private party with an enfield bbl'd action in .416 Rem.When I sold it,we had to do a background check and yellow sheet at the show.This was in Denver,Co.

I do believe in supporting the local gun shop,but the old tradition of the gun show is also about seeing things that we won't see in a gun shop.I don't go to a gun show to look at new guns.As far as I am concerned,the guys who bring a shop full of new gun inventory can stay home. I can buy or order new guns from my local shop.

I want the treasures the individual brings to the show.An old sight,an action,etc.I like the layouts of parts and individuals selling their Sterlingworth or a used scope.

I am pretty offended by the ffl holders if they want to compromise my Liberty to capture a few more sales.Orchid,if you would post your business name I'll hope you go out of business.

I demand the right to private sale.However,I am not opposed to a level playing field,like a Gun show kiosk for private sales that would perform a background check and yellow sheet as a service.
BTW,I think the criteria on a background approval should be a good faith attempt at compliance.If the authorities cannot provide the results in a timely fashion,the sale should go through.

alloy
January 22, 2009, 06:24 AM
in my trade setting up at a industry show usually requires an insurance rider(for the rented venue), a business liscence, and sometimes a tax resale number. it keeps out the bootleggers without requiring legislation aimed at homeowners and private collectors. like HiBC said...often those guys got the interesting stuff. in other words, if the organizers didnt want to fill the 10x10 booths for a few bux per, those guys wouldnt be there....and it would be a trade show, instead of a swap meet.

Kreyzhorse
January 22, 2009, 08:04 AM
The gun show loop hole does not exist. It is a term used to strike fear into the hearts of people who know nothing about gun laws. Private sales are legal. All FFL holders perform the required back ground checks even at gun shows.

divemedic
January 22, 2009, 08:47 AM
They don't get worked up over issues involving handguns because they don't own any and don't see the need.

Kind of like the people (even on this board) who don't see the need for:

- automatic weapons
- Destructive devices
- armored vehicles
- other weapons

Each person has their own line, depending on what his favorite weapon is. My point is this: If you can trust your neighbor to not kill you by running you over when you go to the mailbox, poisoning you when his wife gives you a batch of cookies, or shooting you with his single shot .22, then why are you worried that he will do so with any other weapon he may have?

The 2A is about weapons to preserve and secure a free state. Any weapon that can be used for that IMO is covered. This means that WMDs, which cannot free a state, but merely destroy it, are pretty much the only weapons that are subject to regulation.

Tennessee Gentleman
January 22, 2009, 09:30 AM
Private sales are legal. All FFL holders perform the required back ground checks even at gun shows.

And there is the rub. Private sales do not require a background check and so a felon or lunatic might use that avenue to illegally obtain a gun. The merit I see in the antis argument is that this is an avenue that should be closed. If all the legislation does is cause all private sales to require background checks and that is made easy to do then I think the antis may win on this one and we in the gun world will find it hard to oppose and win.

Kind of like the people (even on this board) who don't see the need for:

- automatic weapons
- Destructive devices
- armored vehicles
- other weapons

I was wondering when you would get around to that;) And yeah I am one of them who would not throw out the NFA. But that is off topic so that's it for me.:D

The 2A is about weapons to preserve and secure a free state.

I think the militia is what the 2A says protects a free state.

ZeSpectre
January 22, 2009, 09:50 AM
And there is the rub. Private sales do not require a background check and so a felon or lunatic might use that avenue to illegally obtain a gun.
I don't consider "someone might do something" a valid reason for enacting blanket policy over the majority who "never did anything wrong".

Glenn E. Meyer
January 22, 2009, 10:17 AM
It depends how much control of mental health issues you want to give to the government. The VT shooter Cho, clearly disturbed, was not picked up by the system and legally bought his guns. But he had crossed the path of the legal and mental health system so that was a screw up.

However, how do you define lunatic? Give everyone who buys a gun a test regime? Clock ever Rx for an antidepressant or other drug used for psychiatric condition? Ban diabetics from having guns as if not controlled they can act irrationally. A large proportion of the population have taken antidepressants for example.

No current NICS check deals with that and do we want that? Want to ban something - ban alcohol as a tremendous number of firearms crimes are under the influence as compared to the number committed by those with diagnosable mental illness.

If the issue is unchecked private sales - then the gun show is just seen as an easy venue for such. Having mandated NICS for private sales at a show isn't a real big deal but it won't touch the crime rate. A friend of mine sold his Sigma in the parking lot - personally, I wouldn't sell a gun to an unknown. But do we have NICS cops in the parking lot.

The core issue is banning private sales. Do we want to go there? It would only slow down legal private sales - ya think?

About shotguns - my skeet teacher was a hard core CHL type but I see the point for the moneyed classes - class warfare - O/U shotguns to the barricade!

Wildalaska
January 22, 2009, 10:21 AM
I notice how everybody just ignored my post :)

WildcanthidefromrealityAlaska TM

Mike Irwin
January 22, 2009, 10:22 AM
"Private sales do not require a background check and so a felon or lunatic might use that avenue to illegally obtain a gun. The merit I see in the antis argument is that this is an avenue that should be closed."

Expanding on that "logic," a felon or lunatic might well break into the home of a gunowner and steal a gun, thus obtaining it illegally.

So, logic would follow that the anti argument for banning and confiscation of all privately held guns in this country has merit, and ownership is an avenue that should be closed.

Right?

Congratulations. You're on the slippery slope and gaining speed.

Glenn E. Meyer
January 22, 2009, 10:32 AM
Ken, now don't take it personally :D:D

You have a reasonable point about folks who consistently set up table with private sales. Isn't that skirting the law about being a FFL? So is the BATFE the appropriate avenue of complaint?

If an individual has a large collection and does a one-time table - is that a problem? Sometimes I see tables that are mixed - dealer guns and a side section of private guns (sometimes those are weird - like a whole tray of private SW 638oids with black frames and SS cylinders). What's up with that?

I was at a show and saw some guy trying to sell a snubbie SW 66 and being bamboozled by the dealer. If I could have levitated over, it would have been a great private sale.

Wildalaska
January 22, 2009, 10:50 AM
You have a reasonable point about folks who consistently set up table with private sales. Isn't that skirting the law about being a FFL?

Yep...and intellectual honesty, not just defending the gunwoobie, would mandate that folks admit they have seen that happen over and over and over again. There sure aint enough BATF agents to stop it. What a wonderful way for folks to backdoor some guns, yes?

WildiknowtheevilgubmintgonnatakeyourrightsAlaska TM

PS dont ask me what the solution is...too early in the am

orchidhunter
January 22, 2009, 11:06 AM
Antipitas, In response to your PM, the "us" in the post is a small group of South Eastern FFL dealers, of which I am not a member. On Sat. at 7PM eastern time on C_SPAN"s America & the Courts, Gun Show Bans will be the subject. You and others here might want to watch it. orchidhunter

Al Norris
January 22, 2009, 11:13 AM
Sometimes, I think we object to using the law because we don't want to be viewed as going to bed with the opposition.

Anyone who is at several gun shows, selling, um, privately, is in the business of dealing firearms and should be as legal as any other FFL. That's to say, lawful as the rest of us.

Ken, this appears to me that this is a perfect example of why folks should call the BATF. Failure to do so, invites more of this gun show loophole crapola.

zukiphile
January 22, 2009, 11:17 AM
Now mind you I have been to shows where prominently displayed at the table was "Private sale, cash Only, No Background Check". Sort of a drag when you see the same guy with a table full doing that show after show


Why?

You still retain the competitive advantage of obtaining items from distributors while the fellow above is limited to the used market.

If the background check doesn't clear your name while you are at a show, your choices as a buyer have been to wait the three days and locate the FFL holder later, or walk away from the purchase. Not having to check in with the state can be a legitimate convenience for people legally entitled to purchase and possess.

Al Norris
January 22, 2009, 11:18 AM
Now see? That wasn't so hard, was it?

Orchidhunter, if you had placed that info in your opening post, many of the people would have understood what you were talking about.

Wildalaska
January 22, 2009, 11:46 AM
Why?

Because you know damn well who he is selling to.......:D

WildanofcoursethejealousyfactorthathedoesnthavetodopaperworkAlaska TM

Not having to check in with the state can be a legitimate convenience for people legally entitled to purchase and possess.

Not having to check in with the state can be a legitimate convenience for people not legally entitled to purchase and possess.

vranasaurus
January 22, 2009, 11:47 AM
The background check on private sales can be a PITA because the NICS doesn't always clear you immeidately. I get delayed every time.

So if I go to a gun show and want to buy a used gun from you we find an FFL who isn't busy and ask him to do the transfer. Well it comes back delayed. So what do we do now.

Do I pay you for your gun and leave it with the dealer until cleared? If the dealer is a substantial drive from where I live I have to make quite a drive to go pick it up.

Do you keep the gun, I keep the money, and then when the NICS comes back clean we both have to drive to the dealer?

I'm not talking about the guy with a table full of guns that sells them show after show.

Glenn E. Meyer
January 22, 2009, 11:54 AM
In some states, the CCW permit or CHL avoids the NICS check.

Gee, I hate to play Devil's Advocate but one could conceive of one NICS table at the show - so you avoid the dealer but pay a minimal fee.

And if you want to make the argument of convenience - oh, NICS is slow and you have to wait - I would counter that if such procedures did prevent illegal sales then you having a touch of inconvenience is just tough whatever.

The argument against such laws and/or procedures has to be made on their ineffectual nature, not inconvenience. You could also argue on the grounds of the 2nd Amend. says that .... - however, given that permits, FFLs, etc. already exist to regular possession - pragmatically, that will be seen as a rant and will have no purchase.

divemedic
January 22, 2009, 12:00 PM
Orchidhunter-

Say what you mean. You don't care one rat's behind about criminals getting guns. What you are upset about is that guns are being sold, and you are not the one selling them. This is a case of FFL's selling us out so they can make a few bucks.

Kind of like the MSM trying to lobby for the Fairness doctrine, and other laws to get rid of internet and talk radio news.

Support the anti's for a little short term profit, and soon you will be regulated out of business. Private citizens spend way more on small arms than the FedGov, and the FedGov buys direct from the factory.

zukiphile
January 22, 2009, 12:08 PM
Ken, I can understand the jealousy at being freed of the bookkeeping. I have to say though that many of the private sales of which I am aware involve a driver's license, name, and date of sale retained in an FFL log book. If Alaska has a sales tax, the state might like to know that he is collecting and paying it.

And if you want to make the argument of convenience - oh, NICS is slow and you have to wait - I would counter that if such procedures did prevent illegal sales then you having a touch of inconvenience is just tough whatever.


The "touch of inconvenience" described is that an entire class of legally entitled buyers cannot buy from an FFL at a show. I would not even agree that evidence that it could prevent an illegal sale would constitute adequate justification for this. If the rationale that a restriction prevents a crime is valid, then a complete gun prohibition would be valid.

Glenn E. Meyer
January 22, 2009, 12:15 PM
What I was saying that if a NICS check was proposed to be added to a private sale at a show, the inconvenience argument was not one that would be very convincing, since NICS checks are carried out for the FFL sales.

Whether one should have NICS checks at all is a different issue - remember it was a compromise to get rid of waiting periods after a time from the initial legislation. Of course, any compromise is evil and such tactics are not be preferred as compared to the righteous defeat. :D

Wildalaska
January 22, 2009, 12:36 PM
Ken, I can understand the jealousy at being freed of the bookkeeping.

It's more than bookeeping

Get gun
Check to see if stolen
Log in
Enter into computer
Maintain
Sell
Enter into computer
Log out
Pay Taxes

And there better not be any boo boos or the JBTs toss Ken into jail, yes?

Compare to:
Buy Gun
Sell gun.
repeat.

Someone wants to meet up at a gunshow and sell a gun to another guy walking around, conceptually, no problem. But, the whole concept of the show lends itself to shady characters selling guns on a regular basis no questions asked.

And all of us know that.

Solution?

I dont know, the NICs table? Whats the problem, some dealer may take a cut? The Show Organizers can set up the NICs table, make them a special NICs licensee.

Don't we all think that the private sale concept is sort of meaningless? How many normal folks advertise their guns in the classifieds? You want folks coming over your house?

WildidontknowtheanswerbutirecognizetheproblemAlaska ™

Musketeer
January 22, 2009, 12:46 PM
Now mind you I have been to shows where prominently displayed at the table was "Private sale, cash Only, No Background Check". Sort of a drag when you see the same guy with a table full doing that show after show
Why?

You still retain the competitive advantage of obtaining items from distributors while the fellow above is limited to the used market.


First, the individual in question is CLEARLY in the business of buying and selling handguns. Unless he is clearing out a large personal collection I would say he is in the business of gun sales without being registered as such. If you have a table with a dozen or so guns, changing at show after show, then you are acting as a firearms dealer. I agree, call the law.

Musketeer
January 22, 2009, 12:50 PM
I am not concerned about the effectiveness of instituting checks at gun shows.

I am not concerned about the rate of crimes concerned with guns bought FTF at gun shows with no checks now.

I AM concerned about the legislation which WILL be crafted to solve the "problem" the public clearly perceives. It is coming. It will happen. You can either work the system as it was designed or be rolled over by it.

zukiphile
January 22, 2009, 01:34 PM
It's more than bookeeping.

Ken, I do not minimise the burden on an FFL in noting that I can understand feeling disadvantaged by another not having to engage in it.

And there better not be any boo boos or the JBTs toss Ken into jail, yes?

To be honest, I've been pretty impressed with the BATF personnel I've dealt with in ironing out issues with poorly kept records of FFLs I've represented. I'm not suggesting that every office has been as reasonable as the one's I've dealth with, and agree that attention to detail is as good an idea in this area as any other.

But, the whole concept of the show lends itself to shady characters selling guns on a regular basis no questions asked.

And all of us know that.

I would say the whole concept of a show lends itself to people doing as they see fit. It does not peculiarly favor "shady characters".

Don't we all think that the private sale concept is sort of meaningless?

I do not.

How many normal folks advertise their guns in the classifieds? You want folks coming over your house?

Isn't this precisely why private sellers go to shows?


If every sale needs to pass a background check, wouldn't it make sense to allow distributors to sell directly to the public? If not, what would FFLs ad other than a superfluous link in the chain of supply?


EDIT - Not trying to give you a rash for what you do as an FFL, most of whom get by on very thin margins. Just seems that if FFLs no longer serve the gatekeeper/recording function because some other background check process is required, then the rationale behind the FFL itself looks shakier.

Playboypenguin
January 22, 2009, 01:54 PM
...is 100% correct. There is no "loophole" The law was intentionally written in a way as to protect the rights of the private, non-licensed citizen to sell their firearms.

This aspect of the law does get abused by licensed dealers wanting to avoid proper requirements of selling and save a few bucks.

That is why they need not to change the law, but instead crack down on unscrupulous dealers that try and ruin it for everyone else. Once you get that FFL you know you have to follow certain guidelines and you give up some of the privileges of the private citizen.

johnwilliamson062
January 22, 2009, 02:03 PM
There are plenty of people who can legally own a firearm that would much prefer to buy one used and not registered to them than one that is registered. I think this is one of the things that keeps used gun values so abnormally high.
THe current registration system is a feel good law I will let the ani-gunners have. Who knows, maybe it does stop crime. As it is set upo it would be nearly impossible for the ATF to systematically confiscate guns because many gun owners have no registered fire arms. I know of several people with no criminal record who go out of their way to bypass registration and have no registered guns.

Personally the guns I want are hardly ever available to me in FTF transactions. Those that are I buy that way.

I have never seen a table with more than one gun on it for private sale. I have seen several times where someone selling something besides "firearms" was selling a gun privately(say a reloading supply dealer). I don't think there is anything wrong with that even if they have that gun sitting out for 6 shows straight or they have 2-3 rifles.

Tennessee Gentleman
January 22, 2009, 03:11 PM
I don't consider "someone might do something" a valid reason for enacting blanket policy over the majority who "never did anything wrong".

Unfortunately many times the dishonest make it more difficult for the honest. Not fair but true. Think of all the hoops we have to jump through today to do business when years ago all we needed was a handshake.

It depends how much control of mental health issues you want to give to the government. The VT shooter Cho, clearly disturbed, was not picked up by the system and legally bought his guns. But he had crossed the path of the legal and mental health system so that was a screw up.
However, how do you define lunatic?

Good point Glenn but not one I am qualified to answer. I know people that I think are crazy but what do I know!:confused: That has to be answered by the mental health folks but I think keeping people who are mentally incompetant from doing things (like owning guns or driving cars) has some real public safety merit. The problem with Cho IIRC was the way Virginia interpreted the mentally unqualified definition from the Fed as it was broad.

Expanding on that "logic," a felon or lunatic might well break into the home of a gunowner and steal a gun, thus obtaining it illegally.

Another thread perhaps but some states make it a crime NOT to report stolen firearms to the police. I sure would report it if mine were stolen!

So, logic would follow that the anti argument for banning and confiscation of all privately held guns in this country has merit, and ownership is an avenue that should be closed.

No it wouldn't follow but it might mandate that all report it to police when their guns are stolen. Gun ownership is a right for law-abiding citizens but not crooks.

Congratulations. You're on the slippery slope and gaining speed.

I am not sure NICS checks for private sales takes us where you think. The slippery slope argument will do us no good with the non-gun owning public and we need to do better than that. If we feel (and I do) that criminals and mentally incompetants should not own firearms then making policy to help stop that and is not an onerous burden on my right to own a firearm is probably the way to go.

Rich Miranda
January 22, 2009, 05:15 PM
Now mind you I have been to shows where prominently displayed at the table was "Private sale, cash Only, No Background Check". Sort of a drag when you see the same guy with a table full doing that show after show

This IS the "loophole". If there are dealers (i.e. people who deal in firearms on a regular basis for profit) that are not doing the NICS check, that is a loophole in the FFL law. A private party selling off a few guns or his granddad's collection is another matter.

In my opinion - and you can flame my butt to eternity if you want - all DEALERS at gun shows should be required to do the NICS check. Private parties selling off a few guns should NOT have to. Yes, you can argue semantics and the definition of a 'dealer' and a 'private party', but just like pornography, I know a dealer when I see one.

Furthermore, as responsible and law-abiding as we say we are, shouldn't we want to have all gun show dealer conduct NICS checks? We have no problem with them in stores, do we?

Playboypenguin
January 22, 2009, 05:19 PM
Now mind you I have been to shows where prominently displayed at the table was "Private sale, cash Only, No Background Check". Sort of a drag when you see the same guy with a table full doing that show after show
This IS the "loophole".
That is not a loophole. That is a blatant violation of the law if a licensed dealer is doing this. If it is truly a private citizen they are within their rights to do this. If I took all my guns to the show I should be able to sell each and every one of them as a private, non-licensed citizen. I bought them as personal use property...not for resale.

homefires
January 22, 2009, 07:14 PM
How many firearms can I sell privately before being classed as a dealer?:D

Webleymkv
January 22, 2009, 08:06 PM
Perhaps the "loophole" that needs to be closed is the BATFE needs to clearly define what constitutes being a dealer and what does not. As I understand it, this is currently a gray area in the law. Seems to me that this would clear up most if not all of the legitimate concerns. Likewise, perhaps the gunshow organizers should take a little more responsibility here. Were I an organizer, I would not rent a table to anyone selling guns unless they had an FFL, that simple. I don't see a problem with the guy walking around with a gun or two and a "For Sale" sign on his back, but the others being discussed do seem to be intentionally trying to bypass the law. Finally, the issue of private sales, to me, boils down to one of personal responsibility (which is very difficult if not impossible to legislate). I will not sell a firearm to a stranger unless they can show me a valid concealed carry licsense. I then take down the information off of the liscense and keep it for my records. This way, I've done everything I can to ensure that the person I'm selling to isn't legally prohibited from owning the gun. Likewise, I am hesitant to buy a gun from someone I don't know as I don't know the history of such a weapon. I have a feeling that the majority of people who wouldn't be willing to take these basic precautions probably wouldn't concern themselves with the law anyway. No, I do not support a law that prohibits private sales altogether. I guess what I'm saying here is that if we all take a bit more responsibility and regulate ourselves, perhaps we wouldn't draw such negative attention that encourages the gov't to infringe upon our rights.

MeekAndMild
January 22, 2009, 08:32 PM
Now mind you I have been to shows where prominently displayed at the table was "Private sale, cash Only, No Background Check". Sort of a drag when you see the same guy with a table full doing that show after show

Wildalaska, might it have occurred to you that if an individual has been collecting guns for thirty or forty years it may take him a little bit longer than one single show to sell them when he decides to get out of gun collecting? :rolleyes:

Well, I got to get back under the bridge, here comes one on foot.Be careful. He might have an "assault rifle" or a "Saturday night special", or heaven forbid, "killer bullets".:)

SpookBoy
January 22, 2009, 08:44 PM
NO that is the first step to gun control,gun registration,then gungrabbers.... That sounds familiar, when did this happen before?:confused: o thats right a man named ADOLF HITLER.Then the holocaust. you think it was bad the first time? HA. I vote no, And orchidhunter does seem like an ffl trying to get more buisness or an undercover gun grabber.I might be wrong, but your words dont add up. Or make any sense for OUR kind of forum.

Glenn E. Meyer
January 22, 2009, 09:02 PM
Not to be an old crock, Spookboy but:

1. I don't recall Hitler having much to say about gun shows and I know the usual quotes, some of which are urban legend. The idea that private sales NICS checks will lead to a Holocaust is a rhetorical stretch. Do we think that all the current NICS checks are leading inevitably to a Holocaust?

2. Threads that talk about Hitler are on the way to the crapper.

3. "Our forum" - Excuse me - the idea of L and CR is for a civilized discussion of such. It is legitimate to propose with reason or evidence that a procedure at gun shows might be good or bad. There is not an apriori reason not to discuss a law. If someone wanted to argue against or for this or that - they stand on the strength of the argument.

4. You can discuss the validty of someone's proposal without the personal remarks.

44 AMP
January 22, 2009, 10:58 PM
As I understand it, the BATFE still uses the terminology "engaging in the business" and the crime is doing that without a license. I know several invididuals who have large collections who attend several shows yearly, and sell parts of their collections at them.

They use the money they make to buy their groceries, pay for their hotel bills, and yes, on occasion buy other guns for their personal use. And later, those guns may show up on their tables when they are tired of them.

Engaging in the business is interpreted to mean buying guns with the intent of resale. It isn't about the number of guns you have for sale, or how many shows you sell at. You are still allowed to sell your private property as often and in such volume as you wish.

Making a profit on your property is nice, but does not figure in the definition of engaging in business. Your intent is to profit, sure, but you could be found to engage in the business, even if you sold every gun you bought for a net loss.

The nice thing about gun shows is the oddball, rare, antique, out of production stuff that shows up there. That and the fact that there are still people willing to buy, sell, and trade guns. For me, the FFL dealers who drag out their inventory of black rifles and combat tupperware are just taking up space. But they serve an important function for many other people, so I don't mind.

As to the idea of mandated background checks on private sales, it is, like communism, a good idea in theory, but not such a good one in actual practice. It is, in effect, an unfunded Federal (or state) mandate. They are requiring you to act as an agent of the government (which FFL holders are, due to the license), but requiring you to pay for it. My opinion is that if the govt requires it, they should pay for it. I feel the same way about auto insurance, but haven't been able to get anywhere with that one, sadly.

As for the risk of criminals getting guns at gun shows, liberty doesn't come without risk. For my freedom from govt interference in how I conduct my personal affairs, I will accept the fact that a small percentage of people will abuse that freedom.

I would rather have a justice system that caught criminals, took them off the streets and kept them off the streets over a system that denies me the ability to buy and own guns because others misuse them. Unfortuantely, currently, we have neither.

Tennessee Gentleman
January 22, 2009, 11:49 PM
My opinion is that if the govt requires it, they should pay for it. I feel the same way about auto insurance, but haven't been able to get anywhere with that one, sadly.

Man oh man wouldn't that be great. I used to sell that stuff and I know how the insurance compamies get you and who do you think got THAT law passed:mad:

a good idea in theory, but not such a good one in actual practice. It is, in effect, an unfunded Federal (or state) mandate. They are requiring you to act as an agent of the government (which FFL holders are, due to the license), but requiring you to pay for it.

I'm betting that technology could make this pretty easy if that piece were funded. Anyway, doesn't the friendly gun store charge you for the background check as well? At least they charged me, maybe I got took:o

I would rather have a justice system that caught criminals, took them off the streets and kept them off the streets over a system that denies me the ability to buy and own guns because others misuse them. Unfortuantely, currently, we have neither.

There is a good point to what you say. I sometimes teach character education in our schools here. There was none of that when I went however. I learned it at home and KNEW that if I got in trouble at school I was toast when I got home. However, I am not sure NICS checks for private sales will keep us from owning guns or selling them but it again as you said it's come to that unfortunately.

alloy
January 23, 2009, 06:21 AM
The nice thing about gun shows is the oddball, rare, antique, out of production stuff that shows up there. That and the fact that there are still people willing to buy, sell, and trade guns. For me, the FFL dealers who drag out their inventory of black rifles and combat tupperware are just taking up space.

call me old fashioned....but this is why i go to gun shows. same reason i go to antique auctions or car shows. probably the reason gun shows were started way back when. 1000 Glocks in a row, isnt much of a draw, id rather stay in bed and sleep. ZZZZZ

Wildalaska
January 23, 2009, 11:11 AM
Wildalaska, might it have occurred to you that if an individual has been collecting guns for thirty or forty years it may take him a little bit longer than one single show to sell them when he decides to get out of gun collecting?


As I understand it, the BATFE still uses the terminology "engaging in the business" and the crime is doing that without a license. I know several invididuals who have large collections who attend several shows yearly, and sell parts of their collections at them.

They use the money they make to buy their groceries, pay for their hotel bills, and yes, on occasion buy other guns for their personal use. And later, those guns may show up on their tables when they are tired of them.

Engaging in the business is interpreted to mean buying guns with the intent of resale. It isn't about the number of guns you have for sale, or how many shows you sell at. You are still allowed to sell your private property as often and in such volume as you wish.


Guys guys guys, intellectual honesty OK? You know I am not talking about a cruffler selling occasional off his C&R, or Grandpa gunny making a one time or two time blow out to raise money for retirement...you have seen Im sure EXACTLY what I have seen, you know that *smirk smirk nudge nudge* "table in the back full of Lorcins, Ravens and Tecs...it's a grey area, a "loophole" and to pretend its all innocent or shouldnt be fixed does the gun movement no service...

So...

Whos interests need to be protected...Cary Collector or the general public? Can both be accomodated? is their a gun crime problem derived from shows? Is the minor infringment of NICs at shows acceptable to stop the loophole? Would Federal law even be applicable to a private, interstate sale of personal property?

WildgoodsubjectfordebateAlaska TM

zukiphile
January 23, 2009, 01:09 PM
Guys guys guys, intellectual honesty OK? You know I am not talking about a cruffler selling occasional off his C&R, or Grandpa gunny making a one time or two time blow out to raise money for retirement...you have seen Im sure EXACTLY what I have seen, you know that *smirk smirk nudge nudge* "table in the back full of Lorcins, Ravens and Tecs...it's a grey area, a "loophole" and to pretend its all innocent or shouldnt be fixed does the gun movement no service...


While I've not seen that table at the shows I've attended, I wouldn't question your honesty for reporting that you have seen one. I would concur with a prior writer that

"table in the back full of Lorcins, Ravens and Tecs..."

...describes doing a business as an unlicensed dealer, not a grey area or a loophole.


Is the minor infringment of NICs at shows acceptable to stop the loophole?

Is it a minor infringement to prohibit an entire class of people from buying at shows?

If every sale needs to pass a background check, wouldn't it make sense to allow distributors to sell directly to the public? If not, what would FFLs ad other than a superfluous link in the chain of supply?

buzz_knox
January 23, 2009, 01:23 PM
Would Federal law even be applicable to a private, interstate sale of personal property?

I presume you mean intrastate. If so, then yes. The feds can regulate intrastate sale of private property if they want to. That's how badly the Commerce Clause has been expanded.

Wildalaska
January 23, 2009, 01:29 PM
Is it a minor infringement to prohibit an entire class of people from buying at shows?

prohibit? How does NICs prohibit a law abiding person?

WildandimeantintrastateAlaska ™

zukiphile
January 23, 2009, 01:33 PM
If you aren't approved at a show and have to wait three days for BCI&I in Ohio to either deny you or do nothing, so that you can then purchase, you are effectively barred from purchasing at a weekend show.

buzz_knox
January 23, 2009, 01:36 PM
prohibit? How does NICs prohibit a law abiding person?


How would a background check before buying "subversive literature" prohibit a law abiding person from doing so?

One of the reasons that I like private sales is that I had a dealer run a TICS check on me. The dealer looked up from talking to the clerk and said that the clerk had rattled off everything I'd bought from a dealer in the last few months. Since 1) I hadn't told the dealer everything I'd bought and 2) the dealer happened to be my father, I tend to believe that TICS is (illegally)keeping a record of everything you've bought. Add in the fact that I was present on one occasion when a cop came to a gunshop and threatened th owner into letting him go through 4473s and record every sale he thought might be gang related, and I really like the idea of not having to worry with NICS or TICS.

buzz_knox
January 23, 2009, 01:38 PM
If you aren't approved at a show and have to wait three days for BCI&I in Ohio to either deny you or do nothing, so that you can then purchase, you are effectively barred from purchasing at a weekend show.


I was denied once because the TICS clerk that the dealer (my father) was running a check on himself. The clerk thought it would be "funny" to deny him, but he ended up denying me. There was no real harm done, but it goes to show how much power one moron can have.

Wildalaska
January 23, 2009, 01:41 PM
And none of that answers the question I posed

WildithinkitstimetoblowoutsomesurefiresAlaska ™

zukiphile
January 23, 2009, 01:44 PM
If every sale needs to pass a background check, wouldn't it make sense to allow distributors to sell directly to the public? If not, what would FFLs ad other than a superfluous link in the chain of supply?

And none of that answers the question I posed


How so?

I describe specifically how such a background check as used currently in licensed transactions can prohibit a purchase at a weekend show.

Glenn E. Meyer
January 23, 2009, 01:44 PM
I'm not sure I understand that. Is that the rule for FFL purchases at an Ohio show?

If the issue is whether FFL rules in a state should apply to private sales at a show - then, again, I think an argument against such coverage would be hard to make on an inconvenience basis.

The core issue is to allow private sales without NICS, I take it. Obviously, criminals don't care about that - as Al pointed out - gun shows seem a small part of the illegal trade. The gun show issue may be a stalking horse for a general ban of private sales without NICS.

If you want to argue against such a private sales ban, saying that the inconvenience of an FFL transaction shouldn't apply to you in an organized locale for gun sales isn't convincing. You have to make the case that private sales particularly shouldn't be regulated by NICS.

I just think that if such a law is to be proposed, inconvenience lacks rhetorical stopping power. There was a similar debate when the FFL rules were tightened up years ago. I remember Ted Koppel arguing on Nightline that a friend of his was one of the old style FFLs to buy stuff conveniently for him and his friends. The counter point was that - yes, some good guys like Koppel's friends were inconvenienced but it was for the greater good. Guess what - we don't have those FFLs anymore.

zukiphile
January 23, 2009, 01:48 PM
I'm not sure I understand that. Is that the rule for FFL purchases at an Ohio show?


Yes. If you are buying at a shop, you just go back three days later. If you are at a show, well the show will not be there three days later, so you cannot purchase at it.

If the issue is whether FFL rules in a state should apply to private sales at a show - then, again, I think an argument against such coverage would be hard to make on an inconvenience basis.


Do you think prohibition is a minor inconvenience?

Wildalaska
January 23, 2009, 01:57 PM
If you are at a show, well the show will not be there three days later, so you cannot purchase at it.

the counter argument to that is easily developed with some "provided, that if" language

WildaginitsnotaneitheryeaornaybutinthemiddleAlaska ™

Glenn E. Meyer
January 23, 2009, 01:58 PM
Are you prohibited forever or just that show? Is there an appeals process? People do get turned downed by NICS and then have to resolve that. It might take time.

Since I have the role of playing Devil's advocate here - I would say in the argument that if you are turned down by the governmental mechanism for some reason to buy from an FFL, that might be a good reason for public safety and shouldn't we prohibit you from a private sale? See what I'm saying?

In a previous set of replies it was asked about screening for 'lunatics'. Now, as I pointed out this is very problematic from various standpoints. However, look at http://www.atf.gov/forms/4473/index.htm. It asks if you have been adjudicated as mentally defective, committed, etc. If you go to Ken's show, with a table of guns from a 'private seller' why shouldn't we know if you are mentally defective?

Since we are talking laws and legislation - we have to make a coherent defense against such. If you would be prohibited by NICS standards, trying to convince folks that in the same venue, you can skirt them - needs better arguments.

Sigh - I'm sounding like the Brady Bunch here but you need to discuss both sides, strengths and weaknesses to be in the game.

Al Norris
January 23, 2009, 02:01 PM
The gun show issue may be a stalking horse for a general ban of private sales without NICS.
For me, this is the crux of the matter. In the stickied "Watchlist" thread, from the Brady pdf (pg 8 of the pdf - cite ommitted):
We agree with the Obama transition agenda that the gun show loophole should be closed, and with Attorney General nominee Eric Holder that background checks should be required for all gun sales. Our national gun policy should be “no background check, no gun, no excuses.”
That, above, is the exact aim. No private sales without a NICS check. That alone presumes everyone is a criminal until they prove otherwise. It's bad enough that such a presumption is inherent with buying from a dealer.

Should we get this, then they push for the retention of NICS data (also on their list) and de facto registration (of both the gun and the owner) will be a fact of life in the US.

Wildalaska
January 23, 2009, 02:08 PM
Should we get this, then they push for the retention of NICS data (also on their list) and de facto registration (of both the gun and the owner) will be a fact of life in the US.

Of course, both would be constitutional under the terms of the 2nd am, yes?

WildnottodriftthethreadAlaska ™

Wildalaska
January 23, 2009, 02:10 PM
Sigh - I'm sounding like the Brady Bunch here but you need to discuss both sides, strengths and weaknesses to be in the game.

ya mean...the new wonderful regime here of discussion, critical thinking and intellectual honesty vis a vis screeching:D:D:D

WildnomoredailykosforgunsyipeeAlaska ™

vranasaurus
January 23, 2009, 02:18 PM
What we are talking about is a delay and not a denial.

I get delayed every time I go to buy a gun which is why I never buy from dealers at gunshows because I know I won't get an immediate approval and will have to wait until the NICS calls the dealer with a proceed,(usually takes 2 days for me) or the three days are up.

The dealer may not be local to my area, I have the option of cancelling the transaction which makes me look like a criminal or driving to the dealers shop to pick up the gun when I get approved. Neither of which appeal to me.

If I found a gun that a private person was selling I couldn't buy it either because I would have to go through a check. Private sales at gunshows can often be better deals than what a dealer is selling. I would hate to miss out on a deal because of a stupid law that wouldn't do a thing to prevent crime.

azredhawk44
January 23, 2009, 02:19 PM
table in the back full of Lorcins, Ravens and Tecs...

I don't know what the biggest gunshow in the US is, but I've been to probably one of the bigger ones... Crossroads of the West here in Phoenix. It sprawls 5 buildings at the state fair grounds and is pretty dang big.

I see tables with crap guns... sure. H&R .32 revolvers, lorcins, jennings and all that junk. Right out in the open.

No one is running a "wink, wink, nudge, nudge" table "in the back."

I've also been to some pretty small gunshows, or even seen just plain old folks selling guns at flea markets and outdoor community markets.

Still no clandestine crap going on there. They guard their inventory well because it means money to them. There's no "in the back" to go...

Can you expressly describe tables like this, that you've seen, Ken? You've undoubtedly been to more gunshows than I have been to, given your profession and the nature of your august personage...;)

AZRedhawkcoulduseasurefire,btw44

Glenn E. Meyer
January 23, 2009, 02:24 PM
Before I go off to eat my clam chowder, Al has it nailed:

That, above, is the exact aim. No private sales without a NICS check. That alone presumes everyone is a criminal until they prove otherwise. It's bad enough that such a presumption is inherent with buying from a dealer.

Should we get this, then they push for the retention of NICS data (also on their list) and de facto registration (of both the gun and the owner) will be a fact of life in the US.

That is way to fight the battle. It doesn't do anything and will lead to a general infringement. Local time delays are not a strong argument.

In fact, there is a thing called the innoculation effect - if you make a weak argument that can be shot down, then your stronger arguments later are ignored or have less effect.

buzz_knox
January 23, 2009, 02:25 PM
If background checks are good for firearms, they are good for everything else.

We need background checks on gas purchases to prevent arsonists from carrying out their crimes.

We need background checks on computer usage so that internet predators won't harm children.

We need background checks on the sale or lending of books so that subversives won't get any ideas.

We need background checks before marriage licenses are issued to ensure that abusers or "undesirables" aren't marrying.

We need background checks on the sale or rental of vehicles to that criminals will not have them for use in fleeing from police or kidnappings, not to mention eliminating drunk drivers from causing carnage.

If we were discussing anything but firearms, background checks would be considered ridiculous at best, and as having a chilling effect that would deter the excercise of a constitutional right. But, because we have gotten used to the idea, we are "fine" with it in principle. So, let's expand it to everything that might cause harm and do it for the children.

buzz_knox
January 23, 2009, 02:27 PM
That is way to fight the battle. It doesn't do anything and will lead to a general infringement. Local time delays are not a strong argument.

The time delays provide backup for the argument. Ever go to a gunshow when NICS is down? Ever wonder how many times NICS would have to go down on weekends (due to computer issues) before gunshows started becoming less attended and thus died out?

zukiphile
January 23, 2009, 02:30 PM
the counter argument to that is easily developed with some "provided, that if" language


That you could make a better system isn't an argument in favor of a wider application of the current system for licensees to non-licensees, which I believe is the thrust of the proposal.

agin its not an either yea o rnay but in themiddle

I am not sure what you mean by this. What would be the middle ground between permitting a purchase at a show and not permitting a purchase at a show? Could you expound?

Also, if every sale needs to pass a background check, wouldn't it make sense to allow distributors to sell directly to the public? If not, what would FFLs ad other than a superfluous link in the chain of supply?


Are you prohibited forever or just that show?

Unless approved, you have to wait three days before you and the licensee can transact.

Since I have the role of playing Devil's advocate here - I would say in the argument that if you are turned down by the governmental mechanism for some reason to buy from an FFL, that might be a good reason for public safety and shouldn't we prohibit you from a private sale? See what I'm saying?


Yes, but your question contains some planted assumptions that are not merited. I've underlined them.

It isn't that the government has to turn you down for a licensed purchase on the spot, it is that the government must affirmatively approve you for such a purchase. Absent that affirmation, one must wait three days.

The government does not necessarily withhold affirmation for a reason. I am never denied, and there is in fact no reason to deny me.

I understand that if your name is very common, the chances of the government approving are reduced.

Local time delays are not a strong argument.

In fact, there is a thing called the innoculation effect - if you make a weak argument that can be shot down, then your stronger arguments later are ignored or have less effect.


Glenn, it has been argued that a background check at a show is a minor inconvenience. I do not believe that mere inconveniece is the primary argument against expansion of the background check to non-lincensed transactions, but it is fair to note that this is not accurately described as a minor inconvenience.

Wildalaska
January 23, 2009, 02:43 PM
Can you expressly describe tables like this, that you've seen, Ken? You've undoubtedly been to more gunshows than I have been to, given your profession and the nature of your august personage..

Sure..every gun show I have been to in Alaska, every one in Ohio and Pennsylvania, Missouri etc (now mind you I havent been to an outside gun show in 5 years or so)

WildletsnotpretendtheproblemdoesntexistAlaska ™

vranasaurus
January 23, 2009, 03:01 PM
I agree that the strongest argument against this practice is that it will lead to de facto gun registration.

I think another very good one is that it will do nothing to prevent crime.


Criminals are criminals because they disobey the law they are not going to obey the new law anymore than they would current law which more than likely prevents them form buying or possessing a firearm.

Straw purchasers will still be a problem. All a criminal will have to do is find someone with a clean record. A lot of crime guns come through this route. And whiel this is illegal it is still done. No new law would change this.

Glenn E. Meyer
January 23, 2009, 03:03 PM
Buzz - you hit the nail on the head. Firearms are a special case. The others you mentioned are instrumentalities of business and commerce that could be used for evil.

However, firearms are primarily instruments of lethal force. They are protected in the Constitution because they are instruments lethal force.

Their primary design purpose is what shapes the debate in the public's mind. While they can be bought for sport or hunting, that is a trival usage for RKBA purposes.

So when the average person things of the issue - they might think it is reasonable to take a look at a person specifically wanting to buy an instrument of lethal force as compared to a car. And don't we have to take driver's ed and a test to drive?

My usage of minor inconvenience is the rhetoric that would be used against an RKBA position - devil's advocate here - again. :D

I've seen the behavior Ken describes, BTW. It should be handled by the show manager and BATFE.

There are two routes of persuasion - rational and emotional. I've been playing the emotional anti-gun rhetoric for 'educational purposes'.

There have been studies (don't kill me Kathy!) that demonstrated if you ask about gun rights and gun control - the majority of the gun favors the right for law abiding citizens to own guns. But they are also in favor of processes that prevent criminals from easily buying them. Thus, NICS or 'gun show loophole' arguments have great surface appeal. The debate has to be why excessive regulation will lead to depriving law abiding folks the access to guns. So closing shows or a registration for all private sales is better defensible than Table 1 with FFL Ken vs. Table 2 with Grampa Clem argument, if Clem is skirting retstrictions. So let's stick to argument as a stalking horse for total bans and fed registration.

Discussions among the committed lead to a group think that weakens your ability to argue to those who are on the fence or opposed, if you don't see their arguments.

Colt1911forever
January 23, 2009, 03:05 PM
My take on it is that we as responsible gun owners and occasional sellers at gun shows need to better at self policing our own ranks. If we as a community do not allow the wink wink nudge nudge approach as buyers, sellers and show operators we will be better off as a community...

The individuals engaged in the occasional sell off will be allowed to continue as they have in the past. We will still be able to find those hidden gems and yes stocking dealers will still be able to truck out their entire store to the shows....

My issue is that when we are blind to the abuses and do not police ourselves we open ourselves up to Govt regulation under the idea of "reasonable restrictions." If the show operators and the buyers who know better look the other way they are doing the community a disservice. Every time we as the community allow this to happen we are allowing the rest of the public to view our right as firearms owners as a loophole. How can we expect an outsider to not call it a loop hole if we see ourselves see the abuse. For those who feel that reasonable restriction is necessary what other conclusion are they to draw when we do not monitor ourselves.

In the end I would prefer we do it on our own then have the BATF and the Govt lording over us...... but maybe that's just me.

zukiphile
January 23, 2009, 03:21 PM
So let's stick to argument as a stalking horse for total bans and fed registration.

Discussions among the committed lead to a group think that weakens your ability to argue to those who are on the fence or opposed, if you don't see their arguments.


What weakens a position even more is not knowing the implications of the position. This isn't a matter of commitment, but foresight and knowledge. having more knowledge is rarely a disadvantage. While Ken doesn't appear responsive to questions, I assumed you were both genuinely unaware of how the proposed expansion would work in my state.

Thanks for your courtesy in responding.

Musketeer
January 23, 2009, 03:21 PM
My take on it is that we as responsible gun owners and occasional sellers at gun shows need to better at self policing our own ranks. If we as a community do not allow the wink wink nudge nudge approach as buyers, sellers and show operators we will be better off as a community...

So are you going to go over to the table full or Ravens, Lorcins and other toss away guns being sold by the private citizen at every show and tell him he can't do that? What makes you think he will listen?

Colt1911forever
January 23, 2009, 03:24 PM
So are you going to go over to the table full or Ravens, Lorcins and other toss away guns being sold by the private citizen at every show and tell him he can't do that? What makes you think he will listen?

No but you can point out to the show operator what is going on. You can tell him that only a blind man can't see what it going on. You can tell him that you and other responsible gun owners you know will stop coming to the shows run by them. You can tell them that it sad that for a quick buck they are endangering your rights. because they are putting a quick buck before your rights... .

You can open up a conversation with the guy and explain your point. You could ask the BATF rep there is he a dealer with a lic......

I am not telling you what to do but I know that if we as a community do not take this seriously and police ourselves better the anti-gun side will gain ground and will eventually undermine our rights. As others have said the majority of the population agrees people should be allowed to have guns but they are also heavily in favor of "reasonable restrictions." I think that if we do not make sure that not only the letter of the law but the spirit of the law is being honored we will eventually loose this battle. IMHO that would be a huge step backwards for this country.

Wildalaska
January 23, 2009, 03:33 PM
While Ken doesn't appear responsive to questions,

no, Ken just tries to pitch in whilst the phones ring off the hook, so Ken get get everyhting in with his two spastic finger typing technique:D

WildimtryingAlaska ™

Tennessee Gentleman
January 23, 2009, 03:52 PM
That, above, is the exact aim. No private sales without a NICS check. That alone presumes everyone is a criminal until they prove otherwise. It's bad enough that such a presumption is inherent with buying from a dealer.

I agree that the issue is ALL private sales. I wish the name "Gun Show Loophole" would go away as it confuses the issue.

As to the presumption that everyone is a criminal, well that is one way of looking at it. Another, might be that since we don't brand tattoo or otherwise mark those who are prohibited by law from legally owning firearms how else can us law-abiding gun sellers know who not to sell to? See, I assume that those who sell guns are generally honest and don't want to sell to nuts or crooks. Then those who do (once the "loophole" is closed) are lawbreakers whether or not they previously knew the illegal status of the buyer since they didn't do the background check. I would say the NICs then is just an identification tool for nuts and crooks.:cool:

If background checks are good for firearms, they are good for everything else...If we were discussing anything but firearms, background checks would be considered ridiculous at best.

buzzknox, actually here is TN (as you know) each time you buy some types of cold medicine in the pharmacy you have to register and show drivers license. Why? Because the over the counter ingredients of some cold medications are used to make methamphetimine. This program has put a real dent in those that cook the stuff and endanger others. It hasn't stopped the trade entirely but we put up with the registration scheme. Why not a NICS check for a FTF sale? Now, the technology needs to improve but there should be an easy way to do it. Heck, it could be done over the internet like these background check sites you can pay for to get somebody's public records!

Tennessee Gentleman
January 23, 2009, 03:58 PM
Ever go to a gunshow when NICS is down? Ever wonder how many times NICS would have to go down on weekends (due to computer issues) before gunshows started becoming less attended and thus died out?

Happened once. They sent it to a local gun store and I picked it up the following Monday. Every other time (and I go to a lot of gun shows) it works and I get the gun right on the spot. Maybe some states have the three day wait but not in TN.

RedneckFur
January 23, 2009, 04:01 PM
I've never seen those "wink wink nudge" tables in the back. Ive never seen dealers selling at tables without NICS checks. I have seen guys waliking around with a rifle with a card on the barrel saying "for sale". While I havent been to every gun show there is, I do go to every one that is in driving distance, and A few in other states when I've been traveling on business.

I think some of the dealers are in favor of closing this non-exsistant loophole because it would make more business for them. Getting rid of the competition. Imagine how much money a dealer could make if they charged say, $15 for every NICS call in? I think it adds up to a pretty hefty amount at the end of the show, or end of the year if guns can no longer be sold privately. To some dealers, dollars are King. After all, they are in busness to make money, not protect rights.

If ya want to find the problem, just follow the trail of dollars and cents.

Glenn E. Meyer
January 23, 2009, 04:15 PM
I agree that money is part of it. I searched but couldn't find an ad that some gun stores here contributed to limit gun shows way back when. Said store once yelled at me when I asked if they would do an FFL transfer. We don't do such!!

I also have seen the table described and guys who walk around with the sign in the barrel of two long guns with two in their belt. When they sell them, they go to the trunk and get more.

So all things have some validity.

Hkmp5sd
January 23, 2009, 04:20 PM
So who maintains all of these records? Without proof that you went to a FFL and had him run a NICS on a specific gun for a specific person, how can you prove to the cops that you actually did it when they come knocking a week later? How can the cops prove you didn't when they haul you to court? If you sell the gun a few days later to someone, how do you prove you didn't make the deal at the gun show?

Either it is a complete "all transfers through FFL" or it is unenforceable.

Tennessee Gentleman
January 23, 2009, 04:26 PM
So who maintains all of these records? Without proof that you went to a FFL and had him run a NICS on a specific gun for a specific person, how can you prove to the cops that you actually did it when they come knocking a week later and/or how can the cops prove you didn't when they haul you to court?

Probably the FFL would maintain the record after he charged you for doing it. My personal dreamed up deal would be a computer kiosk at all gun shows that anyone could log into, pay for the transaction with a credit card and then enter the buyers info (from an ID card) and would get a yeah or nay from the check. The machine could print a receipt with a control number or something to use later if needed as proof you ran the check. Or it could send the seller an email with such info. I see this as no different than the checks that ATMs and such do on your credit/debit cards when they are used.

Hmm, maybe a business model here?:D

Hkmp5sd
January 23, 2009, 05:25 PM
The machine could print a receipt with a control number or something to use later if needed as proof you ran the check.

So you are now requiring everyone that sells a gun to maintain a paper trail forever?


I'd rather convert my C&R license to include all firearms with the clause I could only dispose of modern firearms through an 01-FFL. In other words, make my "collectors" license a true collectors license where I can buy anything.

MeekAndMild
January 23, 2009, 07:03 PM
you have seen Im sure EXACTLY what I have seen, you know that *smirk smirk nudge nudge* "table in the back full of Lorcins, Ravens and Tecs.Well, actually no, at least not for the last 41 years that I can recall. Except back then there was some kind of pot metal revolver and nobody paid much attention to them nor the sellers except for folks who couldn't afford the $20 guns. But your reply reminds me of the big flap about "Saturday night specials". It occurs to me that an underlying principle whenever such questions come up the real question is "what class of people should be denied civil rights in this country, to what extent and how can we justify it so that the others don't take offense?" ;)

Tennessee Gentleman
January 23, 2009, 07:27 PM
So you are now requiring everyone that sells a gun to maintain a paper trail forever?

Well, that doesn't sound good does it? Maybe that wouldn't be an issue with the BATFE in the scenario you mentioned. Or maybe the only practical way to do it would be to run it thru a FFL. Would cost I am sure. Actually how to implement it would be another thread maybe, I don't know. Good point!

orchidhunter
January 23, 2009, 10:45 PM
In California a few years back, it came to pass that all gun sales had to be thru a FFL dealer. A few FFL dealers will set up at the shows to do the papper work and hold the gun for ten days. For this service they charge any where from $25 to $50 and this is on top of the $25 the state gets in DROS(Dealer Record Of Sales) fees. And to buy a handgun you must possess a Handgun Safety Certificate Card, which requires a written test and another $25.00, and has to be renewed every three years. I hope this is not the model they use, when change comes. orchidhunter

rampage841512
January 24, 2009, 10:02 AM
letsnotpretendtheproblemdoesntexist

Okay, the problem exist. People sell guns at guns without performing background checks in order to sell to those who can not pass a background check. You've been witness to this on multiple occasions, or at least that's been the impression I get from your previous postings. What have you done about it? Did you contact the BATF with your concerns? If yes, what action was taken? Did you notify the organizer(s) of the gunshows where this is happening? Did you notify any local legal authorities? Could the problem be solved with enforcement of current laws rather than with new legislation?

Wildalaska
January 24, 2009, 10:27 AM
Did you contact the BATF with your concerns?


He he he...now I know that in one instance, after 8 shows, the BATF gave one guy a desist letter and he stopped doing it...

So he only got to sell his Lorcins 8 times:D

Could the problem be solved with enforcement of current laws rather than with new legislation?

No

WildclosethedoorafterthecowwalksoutAlaska TM

Al Norris
January 24, 2009, 10:39 AM
I disagree, Ken.

There are laws, currently on the books in many States. We haven't even touched upon the current federal regs. But the fact is, the laws are there.

It's the enforcement of current laws that are the problem. If current laws are not enforced, why does it make sense to legislate a new, tougher, better law?

Fact of the matter is that new laws will generally only affect the law abiding citizen in ever increasing restrictions. We both know that the NRA has been calling for more effective enforcement of existing law, rather than new law. They've been doing this for years.

Bottom line. Effective enforcement of current law will achieve all the goals that people scream they want the new law to do. Without further restricting the rights of law abiding citizens.

Wildalaska
January 24, 2009, 11:16 AM
It's the enforcement of current laws that are the problem. If current laws are not enforced, why does it make sense to legislate a new, tougher, better law?

But if the law doesnt work (which it clearly, given my example above, does not) wouldnt it make sense to redifine the issues...

If the whole issue of dealing without a license is a grey area, shouldnt that be addressed?

Can it be addressed in a way that doesnt preclude Cruffle Gunny from occasionally selling his collection?

WildfolksloveloopholesAlaska TM

Al Norris
January 24, 2009, 11:43 AM
Ah, but that's not saying the "old" law doesn't work. Redefining the meaning of "dealer" does not require a new law. It requires a redefinition.

To be sure, such a technicality is a new law. But not in the manner suggested - prohibiting all FTF transfers without a NICS check (the topic of this thread).

Here's my reasoning.

Constitutionally, registration can be required, if the Government (State and/or Federal) utilizes the data for Militia purposes. I'm actually fine with that, if the requirement is tied to implementation of the militia clauses. Barring this, the Government has no justifiable reason to know what firearms I, or you, may be keeping for our own lawful uses.

NICS checks are constitutional, even under strict scrutiny, but only because of the currently recognized model of commerce clause case law. Should Wickard ever be revisited and overturned (or narrowed), then the NICS check does not carry weight. NOR would FFL schemes. They all become (as they should have been to begin with) a State issue.

Since I'm an advocate of Federalism, tell me again, why I should support another expansion of commerce clause legislation?

MrSardonicus
January 24, 2009, 11:50 AM
I am not in favor of closing the so-called "gun show loop hole", I'm in favor of cutting all the strings used to knot the loops in the first place!

DonR101395
January 24, 2009, 02:07 PM
But if the law doesnt work (which it clearly, given my example above, does not) wouldnt it make sense to redifine the issues...


Sounds more the the enforcement isn't working.....i.e. non existent. By your own admission when the BATF enforced it by issuing a desist letter it worked.;)

Wildalaska
January 24, 2009, 02:50 PM
Barring this, the Government has no justifiable reason to know what firearms I, or you, may be keeping for our own lawful uses.

I have to disagree, I have always taken the position that registration would never constitute an infringement. But thats a debate I reckon we can save for later

Since I'm an advocate of Federalism, tell me again, why I should support another expansion of commerce clause legislation?

Is it an expansion if we tighten up the definition of what is "dealing"?

WildwearesosocraticAlaska ™

Tennessee Gentleman
January 24, 2009, 02:56 PM
Sounds more the the enforcement isn't working.....i.e. non existent. By your own admission when the BATF enforced it by issuing a desist letter it worked.

I think there is no law to work in this case.

Maybe I am confused but I have seen the thread go one way concerning who is and who is not a dealer of firearms.

That is one point but the other point is that FTF sales do not require a backgound check and therefore leave open an avenue to nuts and crooks to buy firearms they are not legally allowed to own or possess.

IIRC as long as the seller does not know beforehand that the person he sold to is a part of the prohibited class, the seller has done nothing illegal. So, the background check could be construed as protecting said private seller from selling to a nut or crook?

Or, are you saying that all these folks I see walking around in gun shows with rifles slung over their shoulders and pistols in their belts who will sell to anybody with cash, no questions asked, should be considered dealers by the BATFE and then arrested for selling firearms without a FFL? Would that fly legally in a prosecution?

Al Norris
January 24, 2009, 03:11 PM
Is it an expansion if we tighten up the definition of what is "dealing"?
Direct answer? No. I said I had no problem with this.

That is one point but the other point is that FTF sales do not require a backgound check and therefore leave open an avenue to nuts and crooks to buy firearms they are not legally allowed to own or possess.
Take any example you want where FTF must go through a NICS check, the criminal has not been stopped.

The same example is used for registration. The criminal has not been stopped.

Why add to the complexity (and number of) hoops the lawful citizen endures, when the net result is zero, as regards curtailing criminal behavior.

The largest peer reviewed study of its kind (which even admitted its anti-gun bias), by the CDC (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm) (released Oct. 2003), concluded that firearms laws were problematic in that there was no perceivable effects on criminal behavior:
During 2000--2002, the Task Force on Community Preventive Services (the Task Force), an independent nonfederal task force, conducted a systematic review of scientific evidence regarding the effectiveness of firearms laws in preventing violence, including violent crimes, suicide, and unintentional injury. The following laws were evaluated: bans on specified firearms or ammunition, restrictions on firearm acquisition, waiting periods for firearm acquisition, firearm registration and licensing of firearm owners, "shall issue" concealed weapon carry laws, child access prevention laws, zero tolerance laws for firearms in schools, and combinations of firearms laws. The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes. (Note that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness.) This report briefly describes how the reviews were conducted, summarizes the Task Force findings, and provides information regarding needs for future research.
Why, again, are we even entertaining this? other than for strictly political pandering?

Tennessee Gentleman
January 24, 2009, 03:28 PM
Take any example you want where FTF must go through a NICS check, the criminal has not been stopped.

He has been stopped from buying that firearm unless the seller is willing to commit a felony. I am assuming most wouldn't be.

Why, again, are we even entertaining this? other than for strictly political pandering?

In that case why have a background check at all? I know many might say; hear hear! but I think joe citizen wouldn't be happy with that.

I think there is some larger responsibility here that many of us think is necessary with firearms and so the background check (albeit with accurate data and easy of use technologically) is a way to realize some of that responsibility. I might some day want to sell some of my firearms:eek:, and I for one would not want to sell a gun even unknowingly to a nut or a crook but without the background check how would I know? This responsibility is something that might have been taken for granted years ago but no longer.

However, keeping with the OP I am assuming that the backgound check is something necessary to public safety and is not in question on this thread.

PS Al, how do you get your quotes to say "originally posted by XXX" do you just type that in or is there an auto feature to do that?

Wildalaska
January 24, 2009, 03:41 PM
Note that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness.

In other words, their conclusions, while interesting, are meaningless:D

We all know that illegal gun trafficing exists.....where do they get them?

1. Corrupt dealers
2. Straw men
3. Theft
4. Private party sales

Without running amok here, I ask: what is the least "infringing" way to prevent all of the above. With respect to thieving, its always going to be reactive. What is a proactive method? NICs takes care of honest dealers excpet in the case of #2....

WildifeellikealawschoolperfesserAlaska ™

zukiphile
January 24, 2009, 04:59 PM
I might some day want to sell some of my firearms, and I for one would not want to sell a gun even unknowingly to a nut or a crook but without the background check how would I know?

Just to note something we likely all know, a background check, even a perfect one, does not prevent sales to a nut or crook. Those checks only pick up names that have been processed through the criminal or psychiatric system.

We all know that illegal gun trafficing exists.....where do they get them?

1. Corrupt dealers
2. Straw men
3. Theft
4. Private party sales

Without running amok here, I ask: what is the least "infringing" way to prevent all of the above.

The least infringing way is to understand what laws do. They do not prevent behaviour. The idea that a law will prevent illegal gun traffic necessarily ignores this.

You've left a couple of necessary players off the list of contributors to illegal gun trafficking. You should also include,

5. Honest dealers
6. Distributors
7. Manufacturers

Illicit gun trafficking exists because guns exist.

Wildalaska
January 24, 2009, 05:32 PM
The least infringing way is to understand what laws do. They do not prevent behaviour.

Really? So is it your contention that NICs does not dry up a source of guns?

You've left a couple of necessary players off the list of contributors to illegal gun trafficking. You should also include,

5. Honest dealers
6. Distributors
7. Manufacturers

How do those legitimate entities contribute?

Zap - Sorry Ken - GEM

WildnicedebateAlaska ™

zukiphile
January 24, 2009, 06:28 PM
The least infringing way is to understand what laws do. They do not prevent behaviour.
Really? So is it your contention that NICs does not dry up a source of guns?


You've left a couple of necessary players off the list of contributors to illegal gun trafficking. You should also include,

5. Honest dealers
6. Distributors
7. Manufacturers
How do those legitimate entities contribute?

I would be happy to explain both. Could you respond to the question I've posed to you at least three times before this?


Also, if every sale needs to pass a background check, wouldn't it make sense to allow distributors to sell directly to the public? If not, what would FFLs ad other than a superfluous link in the chain of supply?

BillCA
January 24, 2009, 06:40 PM
Best quote of the whole thread:
I am not in favor of closing the so-called "gun show loop hole", I'm in favor of cutting all the strings used to knot the loops in the first place!

Oh my, where to start in on this.

None of the gun laws prevent criminals from getting guns. See crime statistics.
The [anti-gun] goal is cradle-to-grave registration of all guns.
The above plan will not prevent criminals from getting guns.
With complete registration, it will be the average citizen who trips up over some regulation that suffers prosecution more so than the gang bangers or street thug. The latter will plea bargain off the gun charges.
The RKBA implies the ability and right to purchase both the firearms and ammunition. Keep and Bear are rights. The argument will be made that purchase is not. That's as silly as saying we have a right to publish freely, but not a right to buy ink or printing presses.
If "registration for militia purposes" is the stated purpose, the gov't needs only to know the cartridge used, type of gun, action-type and zip-code where the gun resides. Nothing more.
Government cannot exercise prior restraint on a right. That is, they cannot require you to get their approval to exercise a right. They can only deny rights for cause.
As implemented, I argue the NICS methodology is an unconstitutional burden imposed by the government.
The sale, trade, or barter of private property is none of the government's business. Claiming an "interstate commerce" exception to regulate sales of previously sold goods is a perversion of the commerce clause.


NICS is a chokepoint on the sales of all firearms. One person asked how long gun shows could continue if NICS was down during significant periods on weekends. This is a credible point and the issue goes beyond mere tin-foil paranoia.

Many things can happen to prevent a NICS check. Weather, equipment failure, accident, fire, power failure, terrorist attack, even a major solar storm. Bad weather in or near the facility used for NICS could deny checks across the country. Localized or regional outages can occur through the other means listed above. Anyone remember a large internet outage in the late 90's due to a backhoe operator digging up a backbone cable in Texas? I sure do.

The power to delay the exercise of a right is the power to deny the right. Delaying someone's right by days is not trivial. Especially when the desire is to exercise the right as quickly as possible (i.e. today). I would argue that delaying the right by more than about 90 minutes, fails.

Lastly, the government cannot "approve" the exercise of a right. They can only deny it for cause - such as a felon attempting to vote or denial of an assembly because it is not peaceable. That those with ambigious names (John Smith, Sally Brown, etc.) may have their rights denied based on government inability to keep accurate records does not excuse the violation of their rights.

If the government cannot deny a NICS check, there is no reason to delay it beyond a "reasonable time". I define that as 90 minutes, as requiring a 2nd trip to the FFL is an unnecessary burden. Let the gov't correct any errors after the fact, not the seller.

The kiosk idea has some merit. A pre-approved NICS check with a clearance-number the FFL or seller writes down on the receipt, 4473 or other place for their records. Such a number exempts the FFL/seller from liability and gives the buyer a record too. But if the NICS system is down or unreachable for more than [30 | 60] minutes it is up to the government to correct any error that occurs.

I'm not sure if there is a law prohibiting Congress from defunding the NICS system. But that is exactly what congress did for the program by which felons can get their federal rights restored. If that happened, the the entire cost of running the system would then have to be apportioned to the users of NICS - the FFLs. That could make the cost of a NICS check skyrocket to the unaffordable. An addendum should be added to the law that says if congress doesn't fund the program it ceases to exist along with all requirements to perform such a check.

Crime, deterrence and punishment
Deterrence is telling little Bobby that if he filches a cookie before dinner, he'll get a spanking or be forced to stay in his room. With adults, it is the cost of fines and/or losing their liberties for some period of time. But given crime stats, obviously there are those who think that "a couple o' years ain't nutthin'" in order for them to do what they want. In short, it would appear that the punishment is bearable for a majority of criminals.

Change that.

Rather than burden the citizens attempting to exercise their rights, increase the penalties for those prohibited persons who violate the law. Make the first offense punishable by 8 years in jail and then double the sentence for each subsequent prosecution.

Want to make it more likely that private sales will prevent purchase by prohibited persons? Exempt the seller from liability if he obtains an "authorization" number from NICS using either a telephone number or a website that prompts him for the required information. Without the number, if the purchaser commits a crime or is a prohibited person, the seller may incur some liability (either criminal or civil).
(Note: this should not include "registration" information)

For buyers, it would be worth the effort to create a website that allows buyers to determine if a gun for sale is listed as stolen or "lost", too.

Increase the penalty for being a felon in possession of a firearm. It's a 2nd strike so the penalty should be severe - 8-12 years in prison.

Increase the penalties for a prohibited person [I]using (firing) a firearm in a crime. Double the length of a sentence if they actually fire the gun.

Increase the penalty for the theft of firearms. A residential burglar who steals a firearm should receive a longer sentence than one who doesn't steal a firearm. Add more time if they transfer possession to another prohibited person.

If we turn "gun control" on it's head by increasing the penalties for felons in possession, use of a firearm in a crime and theft of a firearm, then the only people impacted are the criminals.

Turn it on it's head completely by eliminating the FFL requirement and most of the paperwork. Keep a NICS type system to make it easier for everyone. Limit and prohibit the criminals from having them and prosecute them vigorously.

Final note: we cannot achieve utopia with either method simply because any otherwise decent person can choose to commit their first crime. Laws can only punish for things people have already done, not what they might do. Those who choose to violate the law risk a long time in jail, including the rest of their lives in some cases.

vranasaurus
January 24, 2009, 07:00 PM
BTW, you can't make anyone in a prohibited class register their weapons or charge them with possessing an unregistered weapon because it would violate their 5th amendment right against self incrimination. Making them register would be forcing them to admit they are breaking the law. US v. Haynes.

So any registration law would only apply to those allowed to possess firearms. The prohibited classes would still have to be prsoecuted under a law that prohibits their possession.

So a law would be passed that would have no effect on the criminal class but would substantially burden the law abiding. And the laws used today to prosecute criminals who possess firearms would still have to be used if some registration scheme were brought to be.

And let's not kid ourselves, NICS for all purchases will lead to retention of the data which will lead to registration.

Playboypenguin
January 24, 2009, 07:34 PM
The least infringing way is to understand what laws do. They do not prevent behaviour. The idea that a law will prevent illegal gun traffic necessarily ignores this.
You are completely wrong on this point. Laws do prevent crimes. I am not the only person that has not done something for fear of punishment under the law. Fear of punishment is a very good deterrent of bad behavior.

alloy
January 24, 2009, 07:40 PM
laws are only going to stop the honest and nearly honest, or fence sitters.

there is already a law on the books saying felons cant have guns....and yet thats what is being discussed in a roundabout way. so basically this is another law we need, to reinforce whats already against the law, that isnt working already?

no...its a law aimed at legit reasonable citizens, who really dont need it....because the rest of these points are already illegal, and if i understand correctly..they arent working, right?

aw crap, just make guns illegal and all the problems will go away.

Tennessee Gentleman
January 24, 2009, 07:41 PM
Bill,

I have to respond to some of this:

None of the gun laws prevent criminals from getting guns. See crime statistics.

No law prevent criminals from doing their deeds as by definition they are law breakers. Sorry, but this is just not a good argument.

The [anti-gun] goal is cradle-to-grave registration of all guns.

I agree but off topic. NICS checks are not registration.

Government cannot exercise prior restraint on a right. That is, they cannot require you to get their approval to exercise a right. They can only deny rights for cause.

Nuts and crooks have lost their rights to own a firearm. The NICs check is to show the seller that they have lost their rights and therefore he/she cannot sell to them legally.

The sale, trade, or barter of private property is none of the government's business.

Nice opinion but it ain't so. The government is in lots of our "private" transactions but that is another thread.

Lastly, the government cannot "approve" the exercise of a right. They can only deny it for cause - such as a felon attempting to vote

Which is what the NICS check does. Just like voter registration is in place to prevent fraud and illegals from voting.

Rather than burden the citizens attempting to exercise their rights, increase the penalties for those prohibited persons who violate the law.

That argument won't hold with the public because it happens after the damage is done and half the time the crooks get off because the prisons are crowded, the court is crowded and the plead out. Joe Citizen wants some crime prevention in there as well.

zukiphile
January 24, 2009, 07:51 PM
The least infringing way is to understand what laws do. They do not prevent behaviour. The idea that a law will prevent illegal gun traffic necessarily ignores this.
You are completely wrong on this point. Laws do prevent crimes. I am not the only person that has not done something for fear of punishment under the law. Fear of punishment is a very good deterrent of bad behavior.

Emphasis added.

Deterence and prevention are distinguishable.

Playboypenguin
January 24, 2009, 07:56 PM
Deterence and prevention are distinguishable.
Only if you want to pretend that human behavior can be expressed in absolutes...which is not logical.

zukiphile
January 24, 2009, 09:39 PM
Deterence and prevention are distinguishable.
Only if ...

No.

They are different words with different meanings. Those differences are not dependent on your view of human behaviour.

JohnSmiles
January 24, 2009, 09:43 PM
There is no gun show loophole, any more than there EVER WERE any cop killer bullets.
But most of you are probably aware of how that played out.
There are private sales between civilians at gun shows, which is perfectly legal.
But there is a gun being transferred without the gov having the details, or collecting any taxes.
And I could possibly see certain idiotic and greedy ffl holders supporting this as they would then be able to charge a lot of people a lot of transfer fee's.

The gov does not want you to have guns in the first place.
Any guns.
If you do not already know and understand that much, there is no use presenting any case here at all.

Wildalaska
January 24, 2009, 09:55 PM
I would be happy to explain both. Could you respond to the question I've posed to you at least three times before this?

Want to refresh my recollection please?:D

As implemented, I argue the NICS methodology is an unconstitutional burden imposed by the government.

Wasted argument, Heller takes care of it.

WilditshardfolksihaveulnarnerveentrapmentandmytypingisgoingtocrapAlaska TM

vranasaurus
January 24, 2009, 10:10 PM
The more swift and certain the punishment the more effective the law will be.

The problem in our system is that punishment is neither swift nor certain which reduces the effectiveness of laws.

I'm not arguing for summary punishments but that in order to have freedom certain sacrifices have to be made. The many freedoms we enjoy often reduce the effectiveness of laws.

In the quest to achieve complete safety and security many are willing to give up many freedoms. Ben Franklin said such people deserve neither, I say in the end they will have neither. Throughout history freedom is rarely taken away in great amounts. It is taken away in small amounts over time. Gun rights inAmerica are no exception.

Tennessee Gentleman
January 24, 2009, 10:15 PM
Wasted argument, Heller takes care of it.

I think for this threads discussion we must assume as Wild points out that the NICS check is NOT an infringement on the 2A otherwise we need anohter thread. I believe Heller validates it as a reasonable restriction and therefore constituitional. The issue is whether it should extend to FTF sales. Otherwise we are off topic.

Al Norris
January 25, 2009, 12:34 AM
Actually Tennessee, if you were to search the L&P archives in the Heller mega thread, I argued quite well exactly how the NICS check will meet strict scrutiny.

Doesn't mean I have to like it. Just that it is and will be legal.

Tennessee Gentleman
January 25, 2009, 12:54 AM
Actually Tennessee, if you were to search the L&P archives in the Heller mega thread, I argued quite well exactly how the NICS check will meet strict scrutiny.
Doesn't mean I have to like it. Just that it is and will be legal.

Actually, you said it in this very thread: Here

How 'bout that!:p

Al Norris
January 25, 2009, 01:08 AM
Oh Boy... Give some people a little knowledge... :p Glad to see you understood that "How to quote" thread.

Tennessee Gentleman
January 25, 2009, 01:20 AM
Oh Boy... Give some people a little knowledge... Glad to see you understood that "How to quote" thread.

Now you know how Dr. Frankenstein felt. :eek:Thanks for the assistance.

nocrosstalk4u
January 25, 2009, 01:24 AM
Leave private sales alone. Just enforce the laws we have already thank you.

Playboypenguin
January 25, 2009, 01:29 AM
They are different words with different meanings. Those differences are not dependent on your view of human behaviour.
Yes, the meanings do matter when you are trying to use an absolute to quantify the effectiveness of an action that includes the human variable. You are misusing language to try and support a weak argument.

nocrosstalk4u
January 25, 2009, 01:29 AM
How about this idea? Drivers license's and state ID's have a code on them to show that the person lost his gun rights. That way we dont all have to be penalized for the foolishness of a few. But can simple logic be applied?

Playboypenguin
January 25, 2009, 01:36 AM
You would still have to call in and verify the validity of the licenses. You would still be doing pretty much the same thing that is done now. :)

IronEagle318
January 25, 2009, 02:53 AM
Closing the "loophole" would tell me that my friends and I could not trade, swap, or pass on guns to each other without the government sticking its overlarge nose into our private business. NO!

By the way, I had to wikipedia the "Gun Show Loophole" to see exactly what some anti-gunners THOUGHT it meant. It was still full of holes, like so many gun control arguments are.

nocrosstalk4u
January 25, 2009, 02:59 AM
Unless your a convicted felon or the gun in question is a machine gun the government has no right to know a thing about it.

Al Norris
January 25, 2009, 08:29 AM
Several off topic posts and responses to those posts, deleted.

Please folks, if a person posts something off topic, report the post, but do not respond to it. That's feeding the troll!

DonR101395
January 25, 2009, 09:39 AM
Unless your a convicted felon or the gun in question is a machine gun the government has no right to know a thing about it.


A few folks including myself would argue they have no right to know about those things either.;):eek:

Tennessee Gentleman
January 25, 2009, 10:45 AM
Unless your a convicted felon or the gun in question is a machine gun the government has no right to know a thing about it.

Also, if you are mentally incompetent or have a order of protection against you for domestic abuse. Again, its not "the government knowing about it" because if you are on the NICS as a prohibited party they already know about it. It is a way for the seller to know that he can't sell to this person. This is no different from registering to vote. It is a reasonable way to protect the seller.

Closing the "loophole" would tell me that my friends and I could not trade, swap, or pass on guns to each other without the government sticking its overlarge nose into our private business.

Also, I suspect you know your friends and wouldn't sell to them if you knew they it was illegal for them to own firearms. If everybody who traded and sold did as you do then I believe this wouldn't be an issue but because of greedy and unscrupulous folks we have to do stuff like this.

A few folks including myself would argue they have no right to know about those things either

I am afraid the majority wants them to know and the courts have upheld it.

DonR101395
January 25, 2009, 12:09 PM
I am afraid the majority wants them to know and the courts have upheld it.


And there lies the crux of the problem, what right does the majority or the court have to infringe upon a person's god given rights? Both laws came about as sell out compromises.
I will admit I'm torn on felons, but the older I get the more I don't have a problem with it.

Tennessee Gentleman
January 25, 2009, 12:19 PM
what right does the majority or the court have to infringe upon a person's god given rights?

If the legislature limits or otherwise restricts a right and courts say it is constitutional then it is not an infringement. You or I may think it is but our way of government will prevail.

Every single right in the BOR is limited or regulated in some way.

My view is that are no absolute rights without restriction except in an Anarchy and only then if you have the power to enforce it.

Anyway, a nut or a crook doesn't have a right IMO to own a firearm.

I will admit I'm torn on felons, but the older I get the more I don't have a problem with it.

What about lunatics? As to felons my standard response comes from one of my favorite songs from the '70s. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

DonR101395
January 25, 2009, 12:26 PM
If the legislature limits or otherwise restricts a right and courts say it is constitutional then it is not an infringement. You or I may think it is but our way of government will prevail.

Every single right in the BOR is limited or regulated in some way.

My view is that are no absolute rights without restriction except in an Anarchy and only then if you have the power to enforce it.

Anyway, a nut or a crook doesn't have a right IMO to own a firearm.



Some of the regulators are lunatics and tyrants who should be felons.


What about lunatics? As to felons my standard response comes from one of my favorite songs from the '70s. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.


What about lunatics? Do you think that gun laws prevent lunatics or crooks from owning guns? Pick any city you like that has stringent gun laws. I'll bet you that they have a higher percentage of gun and violent crime than their surrounding areas.
My point being I'm for putting everyone on equal ground instead of hamstringing or making a criminal out of an otherwise law abiding person.

Tennessee Gentleman
January 25, 2009, 01:46 PM
Some of the regulators are lunatics and tyrants who should be felons.

I have to chuckle at that a bit for you have a point. However, not sure that is the topic we are discussing. Maybe in politics one man's savior is another man's lunatic/felon. Marion Barry comes to mind.

Do you think that gun laws prevent lunatics or crooks from owning guns?

Not sure what you mean. Are you saying that we shouldn't make something illegal if there are some who won't obey the law?

But to your question, yes I think gun laws do keep guns out of the hands of criminals and nuts but not all of them all the time. However, that is true with any law, but that is not why we make things illegal.

My point being I'm for putting everyone on equal ground instead of hamstringing or making a criminal out of an otherwise law abiding person.

I will agree but with a different twist. Let's put FFLs and FTF sellers on equal ground and make them both legal and good for public safety by requiring everyone to submit to a background check not just those that buy from FFLs.

DonR101395
January 25, 2009, 02:00 PM
Not sure what you mean. Are you saying that we shouldn't make something illegal if there are some who won't obey the law?

What I'm saying is enforce the laws already written. Enforce them harshly. Murder, rape, robbery etc. should have a zero recidivism rate; not because the offenders were rehabilitated, but because they aren't given another chance.




But to your question, yes I think gun laws do keep guns out of the hands of criminals and nuts but not all of them all the time. However, that is true with any law, but that is not why we make things illegal.


Chicago, DC, NYC, LA all have draconian gun laws and they have done nothing to curb violence or keep guns from criminals who want them.


I will agree but with a different twist. Let's put FFLs and FTF sellers on equal ground and make them both legal and good for public safety by requiring everyone to submit to a background check not just those that buy from FFLs.

Do you also support getting federal approval to sell your car, house, maybe to buy a phone?



FWIW: I haven't always felt this way, but my beliefs are becoming this way rapidly. I've simply grown tired of govt. intervention where it has no place.

Al Norris
January 25, 2009, 02:04 PM
Be careful about relying upon "the public safety" as a wedge to curtail rights. Such a thing can and will come back to haunt you. Just saying....

Hkmp5sd
January 25, 2009, 02:04 PM
If the legislature limits or otherwise restricts a right and courts say it is constitutional then it is not an infringement.

Once was a time when the government and the courts considered slavery to be Constitutional. Depending on which side you happen to be born on, that decision could really suck.

How many people, for public safety, agree with the government calling US citizens "terrorists" and holding them without charge?

I will agree but with a different twist. Let's put FFLs and FTF sellers on equal ground and make them both legal and good for public safety by requiring everyone to submit to a background check not just those that buy from FFLs.

Why don't we just pass a law where a convicted felon with a gun gets a mandatory life without parole? Would probably have a lot more affect on public safety and it won't hassle me in my chosen hobby of collecting firearms.

Of course, I consider the 1934 NFA, 1968 GCA and everything since to be unconstitutional.

Wildalaska
January 25, 2009, 02:19 PM
Be careful about relying upon "the public safety" as a wedge to curtail rights. Such a thing can and will come back to haunt you. Just saying....

But thats a necessary part of a scrutiny analysis

WildjustsayingandheyalsofarshilenistheonlyoneAlaska TM

Hkmp5sd
January 25, 2009, 02:25 PM
or change minds that are already closed.

How exactly, does one tell between a person with a "closed mind" and a person that has merely made the correct decision and is sticking to it? :)

There are some in this country that consider anyone not agreeing with an "assault weapon" ban to be a closed minded gun fanatic that cannot understand the need to ban these guns for public safety.

Tennessee Gentleman
January 25, 2009, 03:00 PM
Chicago, DC, NYC, LA all have draconian gun laws and they have done nothing to curb violence or keep guns from criminals who want them.

Don, I never said that gun control laws reduce crime. The issue is whether we should require FTF sales to include a background check the same as sales from an FFL. Should lunatics and crooks be allowed to legally own firearms? I think not and I think most would agree with me. The NRA does.

NICS is a tool to help enforce that ban. It is not perfect and no system would be but many (me included) feel it is better than nothing.

I don't think we should expand the discussion to crime because I believe that violent crime is caused by a variety of reasons and certainly not just easy access to guns.

Be careful about relying upon "the public safety" as a wedge to curtail rights. Such a thing can and will come back to haunt you. Just saying....

Al, you are right and great care must be exercised in regulating the BOR but it is a role of government to protect the public when it is necessary and within the contraints of our COTUS. And as Ken said that is a necessary part of the analysis but can't be the ONLY criteria or I would not be allowed out of the house! But as you have indicated before the NICS check passes muster.

Do you also support getting federal approval to sell your car, house, maybe to buy a phone?

I think if you look closely you'll see that they are to varying degrees involved in those transactions you mention. Like a HUD statement, title and registration, safety and pollution inspections AND the FCC? They are there and have constitutional reasons to be there.

Of course, I consider the 1934 NFA, 1968 GCA and everything since to be unconstitutional.

I think you should work to repeal them through the legislature as no court will strike them down I'm afraid.

Would probably have a lot more affect on public safety and it won't hassle me in my chosen hobby of collecting firearms.


I collect firearms to as a hobby too and the NICS system doesn't hamper my ability to engage in that hobby.

gc70
January 25, 2009, 03:27 PM
How about this idea? Drivers license's and state ID's have a code on them to show that the person lost his gun rights. That way we dont all have to be penalized for the foolishness of a few. But can simple logic be applied?

NC already requires a permit or CHL, even for private handgun transactions. A NICS check is run before the permits/licenses are issued, but the permits/licenses are then good for five years. It would be very practical, at least in NC, to encode firearms permit/license information on drivers' licenses.

DonR101395
January 25, 2009, 03:49 PM
Don, I never said that gun control laws reduce crime. The issue is whether we should require FTF sales to include a background check the same as sales from an FFL. Should lunatics and crooks be allowed to legally own firearms? I think not and I think most would agree with me. The NRA does.

NICS is a tool to help enforce that ban. It is not perfect and no system would be but many (me included) feel it is better than nothing.

I don't think we should expand the discussion to crime because I believe that violent crime is caused by a variety of reasons and certainly not just easy access to guns.

Sorry, if you want to talk about "crooks" you have to talk about crime. Can't have one without the other. I do agree that guns aren't needed to have crooks or crime though.


I think if you look closely you'll see that they are to varying degrees involved in those transactions you mention. Like a HUD statement, title and registration, safety and pollution inspections AND the FCC? They are there and have constitutional reasons to be there.

I knew you would bite on that one. The govt can regulate all of the things I listed because they are not rights. Thanks for playing.


I think you should work to repeal them through the legislature as no court will strike them down I'm afraid.


I can agree with you on both points.

Tennessee Gentleman
January 25, 2009, 04:21 PM
Sorry, if you want to talk about "crooks" you have to talk about crime.

No, they are different. Crook in this context is a legal status as in convicted felon. How or why he/she became one is irrelevant to this discussion I believe.

The govt can regulate all of the things I listed because they are not rights.

The government can and does regulate and restrict rights. The regulation/restriction must pass constitutional muster and the NICS does for the 2A. Government regulation is government regulation but with a right the scrutiny is different and more rigorous than with commerce. Serve over to you:)

orchidhunter
January 25, 2009, 04:42 PM
If you go to the Official White House website: www.whitehouse.gov then to agenda then Urban Policy and scroll down to Crime and Law Enforcement, you will see where it says that "They (Obama & Biden) support closing the Gun Show Loophole". It's just a matter of when it comes up on the agenda. orchidhunter

maestro pistolero
January 25, 2009, 04:59 PM
They can't sign anything that both houses of congress don't first approve. I hope to help make sure that doesn't happen.

Curiously, Orchid Hunter, What is it about this site that appeals to you? I'm glad you're here, but your ideas of what will make us safer are at odds with most gun owners. Have you read the law review recently posted here?

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=333419

It (comprehensively, I think) outlines the utter futility of the supply side approach to gun control, which the misnamed, 'gun show loophole', IS.

What they are really talking about is face to face sales of any weapon, whether legal or not. No criminal, who is by definition outside of the law, is going to give a whit about such legislation.
As such, any face to face restriction is impotent to prevent gun crime. Once again, the only group affected will be the law abiding, and valuable time, energy and political capitol will have been squandered on a futile effort.

As is typical of gun control schemes, like the 'assault weapon ban', it is described in a misleading fashion, because it depends on an uniformed public to be passed.

Having to mislead the public about proposed legislation is almost always a clue that it shouldn't be passed in the first place. Another example would be the so-called Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986, which in fact, was a gun ban.

DonR101395
January 25, 2009, 05:41 PM
No, they are different. Crook in this context is a legal status as in convicted felon. How or why he/she became one is irrelevant to this discussion I believe.


It's perfectly relevant. I hope you can see the different between someone who at 40 murdered three people and then another two after he was incarcerated and 40 year old accountant who cheated on his taxes. There are thousands of felons convicted of non-violent crimes who are prohibited from owning guns. Why are they not prohibited from free speech, going to a church of their choosing, etc?


The government can and does regulate and restrict rights. The regulation/restriction must pass constitutional muster and the NICS does for the 2A. Government regulation is government regulation but with a right the scrutiny is different and more rigorous than with commerce. Serve over to you


Other than the 2A what other individual right is restricted or regulated? Everything that I can think of involves your right interfering the the rights of another person.
There is no NCIC to write a paper, go to church, speak your individual mind.
While I respect your opinion, I refuse to be apologetic for exercising my individual rights.

Tennessee Gentleman
January 25, 2009, 06:08 PM
I hope you can see the different between someone who at 40 murdered three people and then another two after he was incarcerated and 40 year old accountant who cheated on his taxes.

What I see is that they both are felons. I am not prepared to raise a thief or an extortionist (both who can absolutely destroy people's lives) above a murderer in some type of moral equivilency. As I said before, don't do the crime if you can't do the time. It bothers me not a whit that the former CEO of TYCO or Worldcom cannot own a firearm.

Why are they not prohibited from free speech, going to a church of their choosing, etc?

They are however, prohibited from voting, sitting on a jury, holding public office, and may face legal job discrimination in some cases and not be allowed state licenses and be barred from some professions. Earlier, you mentioned being tough on criminals, well there it is.

Other than the 2A what other individual right is restricted or regulated? Everything that I can think of involves your right interfering the the rights of another person.

No not really, prohibitions against polygamy is a limitation on freedom of religion, many municipalities require permits and bonds for groups to assemble and protest legally, voters have to register and provide ID when they vote, free speech is limited for those who serve in the military. The list goes on and on.

Anyway, a nut or a crook with a gun can certainly violate my rights as a law-abiding citizen and he/she has no right to a firearm.

There is no NCIC to write a paper, go to church, speak your individual mind.

Because their is no compelling reason or interest to do so. There is, however, a compelling reason for a nut or crook not to be able to buy a firearm. The NIC simply IDs those who have lost the right to own a firearm to those who wouldn't know otherwise.

While I respect your opinion, I refuse to be apologetic for exercising my individual rights.

Don, I don't think anyone is asking you to apologize for anything. Your opinion is as valid as mine (maybe more;)) but the issue is whether to extend a check (one that is constitutional) already in place for FFLs and their sales to FTF sales as well.

What I don't understand is how that takes any right away from us.

Tennessee Gentleman
January 25, 2009, 06:12 PM
What they are really talking about is face to face sales of any weapon, whether legal or not. No criminal, who is by definition outside of the law, is going to give a whit about such legislation.

No, but the seller, who would face criminal charges for selling a firearm FTF without the NICS would care. And if he didn't I have no problem locking him up too.

DonR101395
January 25, 2009, 06:18 PM
What I don't understand is how that takes any right away from us.

It further limits an individual right.


As for being tough on criminals. If they are dangerous enough that they can't own a gun; they should still be incarcerated or dead. IMHO, if they have paid their debt in full i.e served full sentence, parole etc. They should have the same rights as any other citizen. I didn't always feel this way, but after watching the sham that is taking place in DC over the last two years and what is on the White House agenda web page I said screw it. If every other degenerate can get special treatment, released felons should get at least the minimum that every other citizen gets.

zukiphile
January 25, 2009, 06:35 PM
No, but the seller, who would face criminal charges for selling a firearm FTF without the NICS would care. And if he didn't I have no problem locking him up too.

Not having a problem locking someone up merely for not having jumped through a bureaucratic hoop does not reflect an instinctive valuation of people's rights.

What I don't understand is how that takes any right away from us.

If you effectively must apply for and receive a license to engage in an activity, it looks less like a right than a privilege. We have to obtain a driver's license to drive a car, but not a license to travel because that is a fundamental right. We need to register to vote, but not obtain a license to vote. We do not need a license from the government to speak publicly, though this right is arguably used to the general detriment on occassion.

To require government approval before one can purchase from anyone (not just a federal licensee) effectively translates into the requirement of a government license to obtain and own an arm. This is inconsistent with describing it as a right.

Hkmp5sd
January 25, 2009, 06:49 PM
but the issue is whether to extend a check (one that is constitutional) already in place for FFLs and their sales to FTF sales as well.

What I don't understand is how that takes any right away from us.


To further your argument, why don't we extend the existing, already constitutional, in place checks for NFA firearms to all firearm transfers? After all, it takes no rights away from us and we'd be really sure that unauthorized people do not get approved for a firearm.

I've went through the NFA process a half dozen times now, and some people say it is no great hassle if I want to own machineguns. So, why don't we equal the playing field and require all firearm transfers on a Form 4?

You might say that is a little overkill for a normal transfer. That is the same thing I say about NCIC checks for all FTF transfers.

Wildalaska
January 25, 2009, 07:40 PM
To further your argument, why don't we extend the existing, already constitutional, in place checks for NFA firearms to all firearm transfers? After all, it takes no rights away from us and we'd be really sure that unauthorized people do not get approved for a firearm.

If they didnt tax it or require a CLEO signoff, whats the problem?:D

Take it one step further...what about a National Firearms ID card...no registration, no list of guns, show your card and "poof" buy what you want. You apply for it when you turn 18, posession of a firearm is unlawful without one, they take it away when you get indicted or convicted..... call it a Militia Eligibility card:D

WildwouldntthatbetheanswerAlaska TM

DonR101395
January 25, 2009, 08:06 PM
Dang Ken, you disappoint me. I figured you would be all over that giving felons guns stuff like a hobo on a ham samich.:D:D

HuntAndFish
January 25, 2009, 08:27 PM
Take it one step further...what about a National Firearms ID card...no registration, no list of guns, show your card and "poof" buy what you want. You apply for it when you turn 18, posession of a firearm is unlawful without one,...[snipped]

Yeah, that's the answer. Then the Government can just stop issuing them at some future cutoff date. Then "poof", everyone after that date is ineligible.

I don't like it. You shouldn't have to prove you are eligible. The Government should have to prove that you aren't. If the Government would provide a convenient way for a person to "instantly" do a background check on FTF transfers, I suspect that most gun owners would use it. It wouldn't have to be mandatory to be effective.

Wildalaska
January 25, 2009, 08:58 PM
Then the Government can just stop issuing them at some future cutoff date.

How is that any different from just a flat ban?

All the card does is say you have no impendiment to buy or own

If the Government would provide a convenient way for a person to "instantly" do a background check on FTF transfers, I suspect that most gun owners would use it.

The card...or implant a chip :)

Dang Ken, you disappoint me. I figured you would be all over that giving felons guns stuff like a hobo on a ham samich.

Doin my part to keep the signal to noise ratio up

Wildcodsintheoven!Alaska TM

vranasaurus
January 25, 2009, 09:22 PM
You shouldn't have to prove you are eligible. The Government should have to prove that you aren't. If the Government would provide a convenient way for a person to "instantly" do a background check on FTF transfers, I suspect that most gun owners would use it. It wouldn't have to be mandatory to be effective.

Exactly.

This system would essential make you guilty until proven innocent. I don't like it.

Wildalaska
January 25, 2009, 09:33 PM
So does NICs.....

You are stuck with it, constituion wise. Now make it better.

WilditsnottheifitsthewhenAlaska TM

Tennessee Gentleman
January 25, 2009, 09:42 PM
It further limits an individual right.

That is true but it does not take it away. As I have shown all rights can be limited if they pass constitutional muster.

Tennessee Gentleman
January 25, 2009, 09:53 PM
To further your argument, why don't we extend the existing, already constitutional, in place checks for NFA firearms to all firearm transfers?

Gosh, don't give 'em any more ideas!:) I guess they could do that. I would then say what is the compelling state reason for that? NFA has a broader restriction based on the weapon type than the NICS whose only really job is to id those who should not have firearms.

You shouldn't have to prove you are eligible. The Government should have to prove that you aren't.
Which is what the NICS does.

As to the technology I agree it can and should be better. I think it could be and easily so. They would just need the funds.

Again I ask, why should FTF sales be any different than FFL ones regarding the NICS check? Please don't say the NICs is unconstitutional because it isn't but just tell me what makes the FTF sales so much more sacrosanct than FFL sales.

DonR101395
January 25, 2009, 09:55 PM
That is true but it does not take it away. As I have shown all rights can be limited if they pass constitutional muster.


You have also shown that compromising your rights leads to too much govt intervention. i.e. 1934 and 1968.
It's obvious we will never agree on this one. We're at polar ends of the spectrum on the issue.


Which is what the NICS does.


By assuming you're guilty until you prove otherwise. How convenient for the government.

maestro pistolero
January 25, 2009, 09:57 PM
No, but the seller, who would face criminal charges for selling a firearm FTF without the NICS would care. And if he didn't I have no problem locking him up too.


Nor would I, if the seller had any reason to suspect that the buyer was ineligible. I hope my meaning wasn't misunderstood. In Nevada it is not required. Unless you know the buyer is disqualified, you can make the sale.

However, I don't think that using some form of NICS for sales to persons unknown to you is a bad idea. If I am to sell a firearm to someone I don't know, which I can do here in Nevada, I like to call local LE and just ask, is this guy a felon? Is this person prohibited from legally owning a firearm?

LE here in Nevada is cooperative with such requests. It is voluntary, but it feels like the responsible thing to do. And it doesn't create a gun registration or a record of any sale. If the buyer has a problem with that due diligence on my part, then maybe I don't need to make the sale.

Tennessee Gentleman
January 25, 2009, 10:01 PM
You have also shown that compromising your rights leads to too much govt intervention. i.e. 1934 and 1968.

I actually don't have a problem with the NFA and the CGA of 1968 has been modified a bit by the FOPA of 1986 and is more reasonable.

It's obvious we will never agree on this one. We're at polar ends of the spectrum on the issue.

That's why I post here I guess to sanity check my own views.:D

By assuming you're guilty until you prove otherwise. How convenient for the government.

Reminds me of the IRS. Now THERE'S somebody to hate!

Tennessee Gentleman
January 25, 2009, 10:03 PM
If I am to sell a firearm to someone I don't know, which I can do here in Nevada, I like to call local LE and just ask, is this guy a felon? Is this person prohibited from legally owning a firearm?

Because you are a responsible ethical gun owner. I commend you and I am the same way. If all were like you we wouldn't need this crap. As I said several posts back, the honest often suffer because of the dishonest. Sad but true.:mad:

Wildalaska
January 25, 2009, 10:04 PM
You have also shown that compromising your rights leads to too much govt intervention. i.e. 1934 and 1968.
It's obvious we will never agree on this one. We're at polar ends of the spectrum on the issue.
By assuming you're guilty until you prove otherwise. How convenient for the government.


For the purpose of this thread, you are just going to have to suck it up. NICS is a fact, NICs is constituional, NICs works. You will alwys need to get "permission" if you want to look at it that way. So now how do we deal with the issue of private sales with the foregoing already reality

WildimwatchingmendocinoweedAlaska TM

DonR101395
January 25, 2009, 10:10 PM
For the purpose of this thread, you are just going to have to suck it up. NICS is a fact, NICs is constituional, NICs works. You will alwys need to get "permission" if you want to look at it that way. So now how do we deal with the issue of private sales with the foregoing already reality


Nahhh, I'm just gonna fence off the front of my property, secede from the union and no longer accept U.S. passports. When I need stuff I'll just jump across the border.:eek::eek::eek::D:D:D

maestro pistolero
January 25, 2009, 10:16 PM
NICS is a fact, NICs is constituional, NICs works

Agreed. I suppose I wouldn't have a problem requiring NICS for face to face, with certain exceptions: Law enforcement, current CCW holders, immediate family known to be eligible, legally inherited firearms, active military, etc.

If it creates a registration, I've got a problem. We know what that can enable down the road.

thallub
January 26, 2009, 05:53 PM
Are you with us on this?


No!!! Any legal product should be able to be sold by it legal owner with jumping through government hoops.

Glenn E. Meyer
January 26, 2009, 06:16 PM
Liquor to minors? Or is liquor definitionally not legal to sell to minors because it is dangerous?

So should we sell guns to minors now? Or does some societal need define what can sold?

So if you agree to guns and minors being controlled - what about guns to felons or folks who don't pass the mental health test on the 4473?

Tennessee Gentleman
January 26, 2009, 07:18 PM
No!!! Any legal product should be able to be sold by it legal owner with jumping through government hoops.

The reason for the "hoop" is to id who is not legally allowed to have that legal product. The legally of the product is different from who is legally entitled to own or possess it.

Playboypenguin
January 26, 2009, 07:23 PM
No!!! Any legal product should be able to be sold by it legal owner with jumping through government hoops.

And if you sell a gun to someone that cannot legally possess one that then uses it to harm someone do you accept responsibility? Do you agree to be held liable?

Wildalaska
January 26, 2009, 07:43 PM
These last posts, correct as they are in response to thallub, are just Oroboros as the issue is not Governemt control qua government control, but how to make it work in a practical sense

So member Thallub, to reask the question posted:

For the purpose of this thread, you are just going to have to suck it up. NICS is a fact, NICs is constituional, NICs works. You will always need to get "permission" if you want to look at it that way. So now how do we deal with the issue of private sales with the foregoing already reality

WildifitsdonothingthenthatsyouranswerAlaska ™

thallub
January 27, 2009, 01:27 PM
For the purpose of this thread, you are just going to have to suck it up. NICS is a fact, NICs is constituional, NICs works. You will always need to get "permission" if you want to look at it that way. So now how do we deal with the issue of private sales with the foregoing already reality

???????


Look at the title of the thread: Let's Close The Gunshow Loophole

I was talking about closure of the non-existent "gunshow loophole."
I buy a couple guns a month and know all about NICS. Have no problem with NICS. Was not talking about NICS. Was talking about infrequent sales of guns by non-dealers.

Lets' not close the non-existent "gunshow loophole."

thallub
January 27, 2009, 01:56 PM
We do not need the federal governments long nose in the gunshow business. Here is just one thing from the failed McCain-Lieberman "gunshow loophole" bill:

4. Centralized federal registration of EVERY PERSON who attends a gun show in America, whether or not they make purchases of anything at all -- you won't be allowed in without registering;

Read about the McCain-Lieberman "gunshow loophole" bill:

http://www.gunlaws.com/McCainLieberman.htm

Tennessee Gentleman
January 27, 2009, 05:08 PM
I was talking about closure of the non-existent "gunshow loophole."

We are too but we debunked the misnomer of the term. What the antis are talking about are FTF sales and not just at gun shows.

I buy a couple guns a month and know all about NICS. Have no problem with NICS.

OK, I think we agree here too so the question is; why not have NICS for FTF sales. Why should they not be a part of the system as well? Can you see that FTF sales without NICS could be an avenue for illegals to buy guns?

Stevie-Ray
January 27, 2009, 05:17 PM
I think the militia is what the 2A says protects a free state.No, unless you mean the unorganized militia which is every citizen with privately owned firearms. The organized militia is taken care of in the Constitution.

At the time of the adoption of the Bill of Rights, this country's statesmen were concerned with the need to protect citizens from the government itself, and the passage of almost two centuries has not negated the validity of that concern. The fact that Article I, Section 8, Clause 16 of the Constitution grants Congress the power to organize, arm, and discipline the militia, clearly indicates a quite different intention for the Second Amendment...........James L. Buckley

I don't see a gun show loophole where I attend. I don't know if private sales are allowed there or not, but there are no signs. At some I used to go to, somebody might be walking carrying a rifle over their shoulder with a for sale sign attached, but I haven't seen anything like that in a long while. I suppose since it is private property, they can ban private non-FFL sales if they want. I really don't think it was ever much of a problem though, and too many make way too much of it.

thallub
January 27, 2009, 05:59 PM
OK, I think we agree here too so the question is; why not have NICS for FTF sales. Why should they not be a part of the system as well? Can you see that FTF sales without NICS could be an avenue for illegals to buy guns?


Illegals get the vast majority of their guns from their burglar friends and from their clean buds who make straw purchases for them. If you believe so passionately in this stuff then lobby your state reps to change that law in your state.

Maybe I woke up and signed onto the Brady site by mistake.

Wildalaska
January 27, 2009, 06:18 PM
Maybe I woke up and signed onto the Brady site by mistake.

No...they don't question, analyze or critically think...they just spout simplistic slogans based on a skewed worldview...

Unlike here, yes?;)

Illegals get the vast majority of their guns from their burglar friends and from their clean buds who make straw purchases for them.

really? So you are alleging that FTF sales at gunshows outside the NICs system are always one perfectly legal guy to another?:rolleyes:

WildibetinsomeareasitsthefavouredwaytobuyillegalgunsAlaska TM

Tennessee Gentleman
January 27, 2009, 08:02 PM
No, unless you mean the unorganized militia which is every citizen with privately owned firearms. The organized militia is taken care of in the Constitution.

Sort of off topic but since you mentioned it, according to the Militia Act of 1903 the unorganized militia(that term is not found in the Constitution) is simply to pool of people from which the organized militia (now The National Guard) draws it's members. Firearm ownership has nothing to do with the unorganized militia and it isn't everybody either.

If you believe so passionately in this stuff then lobby your state reps to change that law in your state.

Not to worry, both McCain and Obama said they would do it so I won't have to wait for the states to. Which some have done.

Illegals get the vast majority of their guns from their burglar friends

Isn't that a FTF sale?

Al Norris
January 27, 2009, 10:20 PM
Illegals get the vast majority of their guns from their burglar friends
Isn't that a FTF sale?
Illegal aliens by law, are prohibited persons. Chances are good that the burglar friend is also. So any point about NICS and/or FTF sales is irrelevant in this case. They are simply not going to check each other. Don't much matter what any law says.

Tennessee Gentleman
January 27, 2009, 10:59 PM
Illegal aliens by law, are prohibited persons. Chances are good that the burglar friend is also. So any point about NICS and/or FTF sales is irrelevant in this case. They are simply not going to check each other. Don't much matter what any law says.

Point made. However, honest people or nearly honest who are afraid they will be charged too if caught, won't sell without the NICS. Won't stop crime but then no law will. However, it might make a dent.

Here is some facts I looked at: http://www.atf.gov/firearms/ycgii/2000/generalfindings.pdf Go to Page 26, it is interesting.

alloy
January 27, 2009, 11:13 PM
Illegal aliens by law, are prohibited persons. Chances are good that the burglar friend is also. So any point about NICS and/or FTF sales is irrelevant in this case.

thats circular logic then, if you are going to remove "prohibited persons" and "burglar friends" from the equation as irrelevant, what is the point? they are either the type of "prohibited person"...all this hoopla is about, or they aren't. they are totally relevant, they just wont comply.

Don't much matter what any law says.

however, that does pretty much sum it all up.

DonR101395
January 28, 2009, 12:19 AM
really? So you are alleging that FTF sales at gunshows outside the NICs system are always one perfectly legal guy to another?


Are you alleging that every gun sold through a dealer is always to a perfectly legal guy?







I'll answer that for you. This guy Seung-Hui Cho bought his guns at a dealer and went through an NICS check and he was not legal to own firearms after being adjudicated mentally ill.

If you aren't sure who he is google his name.

44 AMP
January 28, 2009, 03:15 AM
Is not the basic idea of ensuring a prohibited person doesn not buy a gun from a private seller, it is the fact that every single proposed law to "ensure" this tramples on the rights of the rest of us.

I, for one, find the idea of having to run a background check on someone I have known for a dozen years before I can sell him a gun, a distinctly unpleasent idea. Both the time, and the expense (that will certainly be involved, if not at first, eventually), is an onerous burden, and completely without need or any redeeming social benefit, except that of adding to the govt coffers from fees charged.

Running a check on an individual unknown to me, is not as bad an issue, especially if you are considering sanctions against those who sell (knowingly) to prohibited persons. But none of the proposed solutions (laws) ever has any provision for avoiding the check (and its cost) when you know the individual is not a prohibited person. They paint us all with the same brush, and the color is guilty until proven innocent. That is not right.

The background check by an FFL is part of the requirement for him doing business. I am not doing business. I am just selling a gun. Or a book. Or a chair. Or .....

zukiphile
January 28, 2009, 09:05 AM
However, honest people or nearly honest who are afraid they will be charged too if caught, won't sell without the NICS. Won't stop crime but then no law will. However, it might make a dent.


There is hardly any abridgement of a right that might not "make a dent". Does this rationale describe a rational relation between a law and a legitimate governmental end?

Glenn E. Meyer
January 28, 2009, 10:04 AM
Does the view that there should be little regulation of the selling of firearms extend to all products? Or is it only guns due to the 2nd Amend. ? Or is a more libertarian philosophy.

Guns are controlled because they are dangerous - in theory. Some argue tht they shouldn't be controlled anymore than cigarettes. However, there are strong controls over the purchase of various and extremely dangerous toxins. I used to work with stuff that would have quite a lot of 'stopping power'. They could even be used as 'arms' if you like the chemical warfare path.

Should gallons of neurotoxins be sold at the gun show? To all that come by.

The theoretic issue is whether limits exist at all or are guns a special case and the choir of RKBA supports only fixate on that.

Does the cigarette position extend to other controlled recreational drugs?

Does the gun world think outside of guns on bans and control of dangerous things? Is the 2nd or general libertarian extreme views?

I find it hard to justify uncontrolled access to NFA gear and then want penalties for marijuana as an example.

Tennessee Gentleman
January 28, 2009, 10:08 AM
This guy Seung-Hui Cho bought his guns at a dealer and went through an NICS check and he was not legal to own firearms after being adjudicated mentally ill.

Which I think makes a pretty strong argument to strengthen the system. Thanks.

Running a check on an individual unknown to me, is not as bad an issue,

And that is the issue that is the problem.

"shall not be infringed" to me says "Don't _uck with it."

It may mean that to you but that is not what it means to the courts who interpret the COTUS. If the law or regulation passes the courts muster it is not an infringement plain and simple regardless of what we think I'm afraid. The NICS is here to stay as Wildalaska has stated so the issue is whether to extend it to private sales.

zukiphile
January 28, 2009, 10:41 AM
Guns are controlled because they are dangerous - in theory.

This is a dubious assertion. We control many things even when there is no reasonbly apprehended danger present. We control what a cookie producer can print on the package about the fat content to protect people too thick (hardly any pun intended) to know that cookies consumed in quantity make people fat. We could make people register to buy cookies, and wait three days to pick them up. That "might put a dent" in the epidemic of obesity.

At different times and places, different restrictions have been imposed for different reasons, and even the same restriction can be suppported by different people for different reasons.

I've little doubt that some people support some restrictions as a matter of perceived safety, while other support restrictions as a matter of uncomplex intolerance.

Some argue tht they shouldn't be controlled anymore than cigarettes. However, there are strong controls over the purchase of various and extremely dangerous toxins. I used to work with stuff that would have quite a lot of 'stopping power'. They could even be used as 'arms' if you like the chemical warfare path.

Should gallons of neurotoxins be sold at the gun show? To all that come by.

The theoretic issue is whether limits exist at all or are guns a special case and the choir of RKBA supports only fixate on that.

Given the existence of a specific provision in the COTUS, the position that arms are a special case doesn't seem implausible. Would you agree?

That doesn't force one to conclude that all restrictions are forbidden, but it does support a particularly wide birth for the right.

I find it hard to justify uncontrolled access to NFA gear and then want penalties for marijuana as an example.


I don't think you are the only person troubled by the mechanism by which the federal government controls MJ. The specific legislative scheme used seems odious to me; simply by switching a substance from one schedule to another, the federal government can somewhat arbitrarily prohibit a substance.

I am not an enthusiast for MJ legalisation, but the reach of federal regulatory authority and how it has come about is not a peculiarly libertarian concern.

But perhaps MJ and neurotoxins are tangential and not ideally analogous.

Glenn E. Meyer
January 28, 2009, 10:53 AM
The 2nd says "Arms".

How do you define that? The firearms of today didn't exist then. Do you want to go down the path of saying just the arms of the Revolutionary war are protected?

Neurotoxin based weaponry is quite possible - but is it constitutionally protected. Laser weapons are becoming possible now. In fact, hand held blinding (permanently - not distracting) weapons do exist but are controlled. Should they be open to all buyers?

If in the future, reasonably destructive handheld energy weapons become possible - such the patriots and potential defenders against tyranny be limited to antique gun powder based weapons based on the 2nd's use of 'arms'? And what is the line - any gunpowder weapon - there wasn't smokeless powder back then.

You get into a Talmudic set of arguments with blanket assertions. Also denying the state to ability to regulate dangerous things on the basis of absolutism doesn't fly. Religious freedom isn't absolute - try building an Aztec temple and freedom of expression has limits that are well discussed.

To go back to toxic warfare - even in those days - germs were used as weapons of war - small pox infected blankets to native Americans - so by usage in the past - I would argue to sell small pox at the gun show?

"Arms" is a tricky term - isn't it?

zukiphile
January 28, 2009, 11:14 AM
To go back to toxic warfare - even in those days - germs were used as weapons of war - small pox infected blankets to native Americans - so by usage in the past - I would argue to sell small pox at the gun show?

"Arms" is a tricky term - isn't it?


Not unduly so.

Neurotoxin based weaponry is quite possible - but is it constitutionally protected.

I detect buried within this line of argument the fallacy of the excluded middle. Very few people argue that the 2d Am. applies to all conceivable weaponry.

If in the future, reasonably destructive handheld energy weapons become possible - such the patriots and potential defenders against tyranny be limited to antique gun powder based weapons based on the 2nd's use of 'arms'? And what is the line - any gunpowder weapon - there wasn't smokeless powder back then.

Just as the 1st Am. clearly does not apply to television and mormonism, right?

You get into a Talmudic set of arguments with blanket assertions. Also denying the state to ability to regulate dangerous things on the basis of absolutism doesn't fly.

I don't believe you intend that as a legal point, but a political one. As a political matter granting the government power to do whatever it can link to some worry about safety is untenable in a system of legally limited government.

Religious freedom isn't absolute - try building an Aztec temple and freedom of expression has limits that are well discussed.

Let's pursue that.

You are free to build an Aztec temple. You can't sacrifice people until the eclipse comes, because that is already illegal. The ability to build an aztec temple doesn't make the 1st Am absolute. It just makes it meaningful.

If (for the sake of illustration and argument) you were perfectly free to purchase, own, possess and carry a select fire rifle, you still would not be free to kill people at the mall becuase you had a bad day. The application of the amendment would not be absolute simply because its terms are given substantial meaning.

maestro pistolero
January 28, 2009, 11:22 AM
Last I checked, neurotoxins aren't mentioned in the Constitution where's firearms are specifically mentioned.

Incorrect. It say ARMS. Weapons, in other words. No further definition is given.

So presumably swords, cannons, crossbows, bows, bludgeons, daggers, spears, and, oh yes, firearms.

I think the larger point may be that the arms, in whatever form, need to be sufficiently effective to overcome any force the bearer is likely to encounter. If they are not sufficiently effective, then the right will have been undermined.

Glenn E. Meyer
January 28, 2009, 11:24 AM
I detect buried within this line of argument the fallacy of the excluded middle. Very few people argue that the 2d Am. applies to all conceivable weaponry.


Some do - and where does one set the line? At 'assault weapons' - and the argument is whether FFL mediation at gun shows is legit. If one argues for a continuum of regulation as you do, then the FFL mediation is legit if instantiated by the legislative process.

And the neurotoxin/Aztec point - you are free to buy it at the gun show if you don't use it?

Got to work now but it seems to me that the FFL thing is just a social consensus about legislation and has Ken says - it passed constitutional muster unless you go for absolutism.

So then objections would have to be based on empirical evidence as to expense and lack of success in preventing crime.

zukiphile
January 28, 2009, 01:24 PM
Got to work now ...


I sympathize and will be brief.

Some do - and where does one set the line? At 'assault weapons' - and the argument is whether FFL mediation at gun shows is legit.

I thought the issue was requiring all firearm transfers everywhere to take place only with approval of a government agency, not just ones at gun shows.

If every exercise of a specific right requires a license from the government, how is it a right?

If one argues for a continuum of regulation as you do, then the FFL mediation is legit if instantiated by the legislative process.

That does not follow. Noting that some restrictions on a right (say to vote or possess arms) against some people (say felons and the insane) does not imply that anything a legislature can pass is legitimate or constitutional.

Any limitation should at a minimum bear a reasonable relation to a legitimate governmental purpose. Arguably, a limitation of a right so plainly stated should only be on much greater scrutiny.

And the neurotoxin/Aztec point - you are free to buy it at the gun show if you don't use it?


Yes. Everyone who buys lead ammunition buys a neurotoxin.

...it seems to me that the FFL thing is just a social consensus about legislation and has Ken says - it passed constitutional muster unless you go for absolutism.


Ken would be mistaken on that point. Simply because a current background check during a federally licensed transfer, i.e. between an FFL and a non-licensee, is constitutional, it does not also follow that requirement of such approval for transactions between non-licensees would also pass.

To abor "absolutism" in examination of the issue of further regulation, then assert further regulation as constitutional simply because some more modest regulation passed challenge is an absolutism of its own.

So then objections would have to be based on empirical evidence as to expense and lack of success in preventing crime.

While those arguments are interesting, as the decision in Heller reminds us, give up on the legal argument and you pass up some valuable opportunities.