The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old August 5, 2014, 09:59 AM   #26
Madcap_Magician
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 13, 2009
Location: MN
Posts: 651
There's a lot of smoke on this one.

The anti-gun folks want everyone to believe that Joe Criminal can walk into a gun show and buy a machine gun from anybody there without going through a background check.

The NRA wants you to believe that all the sales going through licensed dealers at gun shows go through a background check without mentioning that there are occasionally problems with "unlicensed dealers" who are ostensibly not in the business of selling firearms but somehow have a large and ever-changing personal collection for sale across six tables at every gun show in the region year after year.
Madcap_Magician is offline  
Old August 5, 2014, 10:07 AM   #27
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,479
Regarding

Quote:
I do not know if all of this came about by law,or the local gunshow promoters decided to pre-emptively make the complaints moot,or if it may have been a negotiated compromise for the use of the venues.
and

Quote:
It is prudent to assume BATF or other agents may be working plainclothes.
Not to promote the idea, but merely to point out some things-

If it wasn't law, the BATFE couldn't arrest you for it. If it was state law, it's also difficult for them to arrest you for it, though I suppose possible. It was not Federal Law, so having them prowling the parking lot looking for a state law, or gun show policy violation is exceptionally unlikely.

Edited for accuracy, it is apparently Colorado State law- from a link in another story in another post. That said, it's still likely any patrols were private security, and state or local law enforcement, not BATFE on a state law.

Again, to find out just how bad of a "loophole" it is, or isn't print out pictures of the top 10 crime guns from the article. Go through the show looking for them. Find one being sold by a non-dealer. Then apply logic to the idea that

IF the criminal can wait for a gun show
IF they can find a crime gun
IF the crime gun is sold by a private party
IF the gun show policy -OR-
IF the private party doesn't -
require the taking extra voluntary measures like requiring a CCW

THEN a criminal could have gotten a firearm.

Last edited by JimDandy; August 5, 2014 at 10:45 AM.
JimDandy is offline  
Old August 5, 2014, 10:47 AM   #28
doofus47
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 9, 2010
Location: live in a in a house when i'm not in a tent
Posts: 1,353
The gunshow loophole is the same as the lnternet sales loophole

I keep hearing that "you can just buy guns over the internet."
I think what they mean is that it's shocking that people can use a sole-purpose site such as armslist to find someone else in their state that has a particular firearm that they wish to purchase. Then, unless your state has a universal background check law, you could have a purchase to a citizen of the same state begun over the internet and completed locally, probably face to face. Not a loophole if you don't have a UBC.
I think that the idea of sites like gunbroker and auctionarms really gets the anti goat b/c it seems so darn easy to bid and win. While technically true that the bidder and payer has 'bought' a firearm, even a cursory overview of they system makes it apparent that it's impossible to take possession of said firearm w/out a background check, if the seller lives in another state. (Again, not a loophole if no UBC exists in the buyer/seller's state).
I had a brief conversation with an anti who was pointing out the flaws in the system. He told me how easy it would be for him to buy a gun over the internet and have it shipped directly to him.
"Try it." I told him. "I'll see you in 5-10 and buy you a beer."
That was the end of the conversation and I don't think he ever tried.
__________________
I'm right about the metric system 3/4 of the time.
doofus47 is offline  
Old August 5, 2014, 01:16 PM   #29
carguychris
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 5,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by Madcap_Magician
The NRA wants you to believe that all the sales going through licensed dealers at gun shows go through a background check without mentioning that there are occasionally problems with "unlicensed dealers" who are ostensibly not in the business of selling firearms but somehow have a large and ever-changing personal collection for sale across six tables at every gun show in the region year after year.
Unlicensed dealers are already breaking the law, making this fundamentally a law enforcement problem, NOT the result of any so-called loophole.

Also, I don't necessarily agree with every rhetorical position that the NRA takes either, but given that elements in the press already blame the organization for gun crime in general, Columbine, Sandy Hook, Trayvon Martin, and possibly global climate change*, can you really blame the NRA for failing to embark on a quixotic campaign to stamp out this problem?

*Wayne LaPierre's prodigious output of hot air has potentially raised global temperatures.
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak

Last edited by carguychris; August 5, 2014 at 01:21 PM. Reason: reword
carguychris is offline  
Old August 5, 2014, 01:24 PM   #30
gc70
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,496
"loophole: an ambiguity or omission in the text through which the intent of a statute, contract, or obligation may be evaded."

The "gunshow loophole" is what gun control advocates wish the federal law on background checks required, rather than what are the law's actual intent and requirements.

Federal law requires licensed dealers to conduct background checks for firearms sales. The same federal law regulates other activities, such as sales to prohibited persons, by non-licensees (private individuals), but does not require non-licensees to conduct background checks.
gc70 is offline  
Old August 5, 2014, 01:47 PM   #31
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,618
Quote:
Unlicensed dealers are already breaking the law, making this fundamentally a law enforcement problem
Definitely. The irony is that the ATF doesn't consider such prosecutions a worthy use of their time.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old August 5, 2014, 03:01 PM   #32
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,836
Don't forget the gun rental loophole:

http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...0#.U-E3m6NMzng

The author is a well known gun hated who posts idiocy that is techincally incorrect. He was the author of the Beretta 92 is destroying America article.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old August 5, 2014, 03:07 PM   #33
Kimio
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 2, 2011
Location: Utah
Posts: 925
There are a number of unsavory words I can use to describe that guy, but I will refrain due to the fact I refuse to stoop that low.

I remember reading that article and was just speechless at the amount of bunk that was loaded into it.

It amazes me what passes for "journalism" these days.

That said, a lot of great information in this thread. I've learned a lot so far on how to counter these arguments.

Though I can see my brother arguing "technicalities" in one form or another.
Kimio is offline  
Old August 5, 2014, 03:23 PM   #34
Madcap_Magician
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 13, 2009
Location: MN
Posts: 651
Quote:
Originally Posted by carguychris
Unlicensed dealers are already breaking the law, making this fundamentally a law enforcement problem, NOT the result of any so-called loophole.

Also, I don't necessarily agree with every rhetorical position that the NRA takes either, but given that elements in the press already blame the organization for gun crime in general, Columbine, Sandy Hook, Trayvon Martin, and possibly global climate change*, can you really blame the NRA for failing to embark on a quixotic campaign to stamp out this problem?
Well, you have to keep in mind that for most of the people shrilling about a "gun show loophole," the real loophole is the existence of the Second Amendment, which stubbornly refuses to disappear.

But if viewed strictly in terms of "Is it possible to buy a gun from someone selling guns off a table at a gun show without a background check," then yes, there is a loophole.

Not that it matters, since as you point out the loophole is one of enforcement, not actual statutory law.

As to the NRA, I let my membership lapse due to their quixotic campaign to sell me MREs and gold coins, so I reckon if they have time for that, they have time for just about anything.
Madcap_Magician is offline  
Old August 5, 2014, 06:10 PM   #35
Unlicensed Dremel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 13, 2014
Posts: 1,718
Well, it's all been said above.

Suffice it to say that to an anticonstitutionalist / statist / fascist (in this case of the leftist variety), a "loophole" is a fundamental right they haven't fully curtailed yet.
__________________
--Only accurate rifles are interesting, and only *really* accurate rifles are *really* interesting.
--Life is *way* too short to shoot or hunt with ugly plain plastic stocked guns.
Unlicensed Dremel is offline  
Old August 5, 2014, 06:16 PM   #36
Pilot
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 21, 2000
Posts: 3,706
Lots of great info here. I will add that as others have stated, it varies state by state. In my state (PA) background checks (FFL transfer) is required for ALL handguns. Shotguns, and rifles may be sold privately to non-prohibited individuals without a background check.

The antis along with statist politicians, and their accomplices in the media continue the lies, and disinformation when it comes to legal private sales at gun shows.
__________________
Pilot
Pilot is offline  
Old August 17, 2014, 09:37 PM   #37
Homerboy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 16, 2004
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,075
The gun show loophole is an exaggeration. If your state allows private sales without a check then you can meet some dude in a parking lot and buy a gun without a check. If you're a felon this gives you a risk free way of buying a gun. If you are buying a gun that was bought in a private sale, then it's pretty much untraceable. And the seller is immune from prosecution since he "didn't know"

A gunshow is simply a place with more private sellers. I have no doubt that people who can't buy a gun go to them to get a gun with no paper trail. The colombine shooters sought out a private seller to avoid detection

For ME, when I sell a gun privately, I require a drivers license or other state ID and I give a bill of sale. ATF ever comes calling about a gun I owned in 1998 I have the name of the buyer
Homerboy is offline  
Old August 17, 2014, 10:31 PM   #38
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,479
Quote:
I have no doubt that people who can't buy a gun go to them to get a gun with no paper trail.
Absolutely. About 1% of them. Compared to the 80% who go to family, friends, corrupt dealers, and the black market.
JimDandy is offline  
Old August 18, 2014, 01:42 PM   #39
Hugh Damright
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 5, 2004
Posts: 611
I think what they call a "loophole" is actually a lack of federal jurisdiction ... if I sell a gun to my neighbor, that is not a federal matter ... the federal government has grown such that people need federal licenses to be gun dealers, and people buying guns through these federally licensed gun dealers have to pass federal background checks ... and if a person in one State sells a gun to a person in another State then the federal power over interstate commerce is construed to make it a federal matter ... but otherwise, if a person wants to sell a gun to someone in his own state, regardless of whether it is at a yard sale or a gun show, there is no federal jurisdiction ... my impression is that people who call this a "loophole" assume that the federal government is all powerful and that it must be some kind of loophole that is being abused to circumvent the federal power.
Hugh Damright is offline  
Old August 18, 2014, 02:09 PM   #40
carguychris
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 5,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh Damright
I think what they call a "loophole" is actually a lack of federal jurisdiction ... if I sell a gun to my neighbor, that is not a federal matter ... if a person wants to sell a gun to someone in his own state, regardless of whether it is at a yard sale or a gun show, there is no federal jurisdiction ...
Under a conservative, largely pre-WWII interpretation of the Commerce Clause, you would be correct. However, in recent decades, the courts have interpreted the Commerce Clause in ways that give the Feds very broad discretion to regulate the sale of consumer products under almost all circumstances.

Whether this is a correct or proper interpretation of the Commerce Clause is a whole different topic that has been debated to great length on this forum and elsewhere.

Private sales are not exempt from NICS checks because Congress can't pass a law requiring it; they're exempt because Congress hasn't done so. One of the main reasons is that some degree of left-right consensus is required, and the battle lines on this issue have never been easily drawn.
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak
carguychris is offline  
Old August 18, 2014, 10:17 PM   #41
62coltnavy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 1, 2011
Posts: 228
Thorough discussion here, let me add just a couple of comments.

1. It is called a "loophole" because it allows someone to legally purchase a firearm without passing a background check, and the antis think that all sales should have a background check. (Like here in California). They support the desire for universal background checks with the oft stated (but debunked claim) that 40% of gun show sales are to prohibited persons.

2. As noted, an FFL must conduct a NICS on all sales.

3. A private seller CANNOT knowingly sell a firearm to a prohibited person.

4. A private seller CANNOT knowingly sell a firearm to any person who resides out of state without involving an FFL. To do so is a federal firearms felony. (The recent Armslist case involved such a transaction, and the seller served a year in prison.) Specifically, although an out of state resident can arrange a purchase, the purchase must be sent to an FFL in the buyer's state of residence (where a background check will be conducted).

5. A prohibited person commits a felony by purchasing and possessing a firearm.
62coltnavy is offline  
Old August 18, 2014, 10:23 PM   #42
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,618
Quote:
It is called a "loophole" because it allows someone to legally purchase a firearm without passing a background check, and the antis think that all sales should have a background check.
Quote:
loop·hole
ˈlo͞opˌ(h)ōl/
noun
1. an ambiguity or inadequacy in the law or a set of rules.
As I posted on page one, advocates for the Brady Act deliberately excluded private sales because they knew the bill wouldn't pass without that exclusion. That's not a loophole.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old August 19, 2014, 10:47 AM   #43
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,479
Quote:
or inadequacy
Your own quote allows for calling it a loophole. Additionally while Brady may have agreed to it, that doesn't mean the current Brady, Bloomberg or Moms Bully did, any more than the current NRA , or NAGR agrees to background checks or the Mulford Act, the GCA and so on... See the quote from a 1968 American Rifleman
JimDandy is offline  
Old August 19, 2014, 11:49 AM   #44
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,618
Quote:
while Brady may have agreed to it, that doesn't mean the current Brady, Bloomberg or Moms Bully did,
Senators Feinstein, Schumer, and Lautenberg did, and they're the ones who were pushing for it last year, as did Sarah Brady.

Quote:
See the quote from a 1968 American Rifleman.
That article is based on a faulty premise, and it really isn't credible.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old August 19, 2014, 11:58 AM   #45
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,479
Quote:
That article is based on a faulty premise, and it really isn't credible.
So the quote is not accurate? Anyone have a Rifleman from 1968 to verify the quote does not exist? I'm not old enough.

Quote:
Senators Feinstein, Schumer, and Lautenberg did, and they're the ones who were pushing for it last year, as did Sarah Brady.
And that has what to do with Bloomberg, Everytown, Moms Demand, and so on down the line?

Are those folks you mentioned not allowed to change their mind? Find something inadequate after the fact?

There's more than enough to find fault in what they want, getting distracted over the semantics of catch phrases like Assault Weapon, Gun Show Loophole - or from our side- ridiculing Gun Free Zones, Good Guys With Guns and the like doesn't really help us much.
JimDandy is offline  
Old August 19, 2014, 12:39 PM   #46
tomrkba
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 29, 2011
Posts: 634
I define it as the ability of a person to buy and sell firearms without government permission.

In other words, buying and selling firearms is part of the right to keep and bear arms.
tomrkba is offline  
Old August 19, 2014, 12:48 PM   #47
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,618
Quote:
So the quote is not accurate?
The quote is real. The idea that the Nazis were the architects of German gun control is not.

Quote:
And that has what to do with Bloomberg, Everytown, Moms Demand, and so on down the line?
The people I mentioned are the patron saints of the Bloomberg/MDA axis. They provide backing, legislative muscle, and strategic advice to this day.

Quote:
Are those folks you mentioned not allowed to change their mind? Find something inadequate after the fact?
There was no changing of minds or sudden finding of inadequacy. They wrote the bill and were aware of the exception.

The idea was that they got their bill in a form they found acceptable, and we'd be left alone. That lasted less than 24 hours. The night the Brady Act was signed, Senator Metzenbaum went on the talk shows and crowed about how they hand't gone far enough and they needed to do more.

They started calling the exception a loophole, which wasn't true. The response was "Shaddup! I don't hear you! Lalala...loophole!"

So, you can understand if we're a bit hung up on semantics. Politics sometimes hangs on such things.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old August 19, 2014, 03:18 PM   #48
Paul B.
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 28, 1999
Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 2,697
"Unlicensed dealers are already breaking the law, making this fundamentally a law enforcement problem
Definitely. The irony is that the ATF doesn't consider such prosecutions a worthy use of their time."

I beg to diiffer. There were two brothers who always had a couple of tables at the gun shows. They always had different guns on their tables at each show and prices were very reasonable. Apparently they were approached by the BATF and told they couldn't sell at the shows without a license. Come the next show they were arrested. Haven't seen or heard from them since.

On another note, I looked up the March 1968 article and I think there was some cherry picking going on. All I could do was a quick scan of both as I don't thave the time to go through word by word.
Paul B.
__________________
COMPROMISE IS NOT AN OPTION!
Paul B. is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:26 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.13200 seconds with 7 queries