Let's Close The Gunshow Loophole

[ZeSpectre]

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]

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]

I notice how everybody just ignored my post

WildcanthidefromrealityAlaska TM

[Mike Irwin]

"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]

Ken, now don't take it personally

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Why?

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Wildalaska]

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]

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]

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]

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]

...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]

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]

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! 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]

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]

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.