View Single Post
Old April 29, 2009, 01:52 PM   #31
Senior Member
Join Date: November 21, 2004
Posts: 1,484
1. What is the difference between a licensed dealer and an unlicensed seller?

Federal Firearm Licensees (FFL's) are individuals "engaged in the business" of selling guns and are required to register with and be licensed by the US government. They are also required to conduct instant criminal background checks on all gun buyers -and are prohibited from selling guns to convicted felons, domestic abusers, and juveniles.

Unlicensed sellers are people who may sell a small or large amount of guns but do not (or are not supposed to) earn their livelihood from firearm sales. These sellers do not have to conduct criminal background checks on gun sales. Unlicensed sellers may sell guns at gun shows, out of their homes, or even over the Internet.
Can a person be licensed and not be a dealer?

2. What is the "gun show loophole"?

The Gun Control Act of 1968 requires anyone engaged in the business of selling guns to have a Federal Firearms License (FFL) and keep a record of their sales. However, this law does not cover all gun sellers. If a supplier is selling from his or her private collection and the principal objective is not to make a profit, the seller is not "engaged in the business" and is not required to have a license. Because they are unlicensed, these sellers are not required to keep records of sales and are not required to perform background checks on potential buyers, even those prohibited from purchasing guns by the Gun Control Act. The gun show loophole refers to the fact that prohibited purchasers can avoid required background checks by seeking out these unlicensed sellers at gun shows.

Then can we extend this and say Face-to-Face loophole? A prohibited buyer can simply respond to an add in Craigslist or newspaper.

3. Why is it important to get rid of the gun show loophole (face-to-face transactions)?

The gun show loophole makes it very easy for guns to fall into the hands of prohibited individuals, including criminals and juveniles. Closing the loophole would put a barrier between the legal and illegal markets for guns. It is more difficult for law enforcement to trace firearms sold on the secondary market. Second-hand firearms typically have left the possession of a licensed dealer, where records are kept, and reached the hands of an unlicensed seller, who is not required to keep records.

To control the guns. Anyone see where state's rights went?

4. How can we close the gun show loophole?

It's simple. Closing the dangerous loophole merely requires unlicensed gun sellers at gun shows to conduct the same instant background checks that licensed dealers must conduct.

So do we license gun owners for free & easy? Or do away with face-to-face transactions?

5. Do background checks work?

Yes. Since 1994, the Brady Act has prevented more than 1.3 million criminals and other prohibited purchasers from buying guns. The law also has a deterrent effect—felons, domestic abusers and other prohibited purchasers are less likely to try to buy guns when they know comprehensive background check requirements are in place
VT Massacre/Cho? What was the final facts on that?

8. Can't we just enforce existing laws instead of passing new ones?

In order to enforce existing laws, we must give police the tools they need to do so - and the criminal background check is one of the most effective tools we can give them to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. The current law barring sales to prohibited buyers such as convicted felons or fugitives from justice cannot be enforced effectively unless sellers are required to verify that their buyers are not in a prohibited category.

If we want to better enforce existing laws, we need to do everything possible to prevent guns from falling into the hands of criminals - and that means conducting background checks on all sales at guns shows, the second largest source for crime guns.

Somehow those guys never have enough or the right tools (with all due respect). I don't think this is a worker bee problem.

Long gone are the ways of the moral criminal, the ones who use to follow that original rule of "not allowed to possess guns".

9. Won't closing the gun show loophole violate the Second Amendment?

No. No matter what your interpretation of the Second Amendment is, it is illegal for criminals and youth to get guns, and federal law already requires background checks for sales by licensed dealers. We need background checks at guns shows to protect law-abiding citizens while keeping guns out of the hands of those prohibited from owning them.
Bring in a socially liberal topic and apply similar restrictions.

10. Won't requiring background checks on all sales at gun shows be a bureaucratic nightmare?

Closing the gun show loophole would merely involve unlicensed gun sellers at gun shows implementing that same system. More than 95% of background checks are completed within two hours, and most are completed in just two minutes.

How about giving us a credit for said FFL license. If it will help save the children and innocent citizens, the government should pony up the ATF fees in for every single law abiding citizen who may eventually utilize a Face-to-face transfer, especially at gun shows.

11. Will closing the gun show loophole put gun shows out of business?

No. Three of the five states that host the most gun shows - Illinois, Pennsylvania, and California - closed the gun show loophole years ago, and gun shows continue to thrive.
"No" is correct. But Illinios, PA and CA don't exactly have a leash free firearms community. FOID cards, no conceal carry laws, terrible transport/traveling laws....

Where have we seen some of the nations worst crimes committed with firearms??..

Last edited by Shorts; April 29, 2009 at 02:13 PM.
Shorts is offline  
Page generated in 0.03762 seconds with 7 queries