|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
January 23, 2009, 02:19 PM | #126 | |
Junior member
Join Date: September 28, 2005
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 6,465
|
Quote:
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 |
|
January 23, 2009, 02:24 PM | #127 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
Before I go off to eat my clam chowder, Al has it nailed:
Quote:
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.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
|
January 23, 2009, 02:25 PM | #128 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 2, 1999
Location: Knoxville, in the Free State of Tennesse
Posts: 4,190
|
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. |
January 23, 2009, 02:27 PM | #129 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 2, 1999
Location: Knoxville, in the Free State of Tennesse
Posts: 4,190
|
Quote:
|
|
January 23, 2009, 02:30 PM | #130 | |||||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,451
|
Quote:
Quote:
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? Quote:
Quote:
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. Quote:
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php Last edited by zukiphile; January 23, 2009 at 02:41 PM. |
|||||
January 23, 2009, 02:43 PM | #131 | |
Junior member
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,172
|
Quote:
WildletsnotpretendtheproblemdoesntexistAlaska ™ |
|
January 23, 2009, 03:01 PM | #132 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 16, 2008
Posts: 1,184
|
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. |
January 23, 2009, 03:03 PM | #133 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
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. 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.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
January 23, 2009, 03:05 PM | #134 |
Junior member
Join Date: January 20, 2009
Posts: 328
|
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. Last edited by Colt1911forever; January 23, 2009 at 03:12 PM. |
January 23, 2009, 03:21 PM | #135 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,451
|
Quote:
Thanks for your courtesy in responding.
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
|
January 23, 2009, 03:21 PM | #136 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 12, 2005
Posts: 3,733
|
Quote:
__________________
"Religions are all alike - founded upon fables and mythologies." Thomas Jefferson "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." Benjamin Franklin |
|
January 23, 2009, 03:24 PM | #137 | |
Junior member
Join Date: January 20, 2009
Posts: 328
|
Quote:
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. Last edited by Colt1911forever; January 23, 2009 at 03:30 PM. |
|
January 23, 2009, 03:33 PM | #138 | |
Junior member
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,172
|
Quote:
WildimtryingAlaska ™ |
|
January 23, 2009, 03:52 PM | #139 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,775
|
Quote:
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. Quote:
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted." Anonymous Soldier. Last edited by Tennessee Gentleman; January 24, 2009 at 09:29 AM. |
||
January 23, 2009, 03:58 PM | #140 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,775
|
Quote:
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted." Anonymous Soldier. |
|
January 23, 2009, 04:01 PM | #141 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 14, 2007
Location: Central NC
Posts: 1,424
|
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.
__________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. -George Orwell |
January 23, 2009, 04:15 PM | #142 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
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.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
January 23, 2009, 04:20 PM | #143 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 15, 2001
Location: Winter Haven, Florida
Posts: 4,303
|
If the supposed goal is to stop transfers ONLY at gun shows....
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. |
January 23, 2009, 04:26 PM | #144 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,775
|
Quote:
Hmm, maybe a business model here?
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted." Anonymous Soldier. |
|
January 23, 2009, 05:25 PM | #145 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 15, 2001
Location: Winter Haven, Florida
Posts: 4,303
|
Quote:
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. |
|
January 23, 2009, 07:03 PM | #146 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 2, 2001
Posts: 4,988
|
Quote:
__________________
In a few years when the dust finally clears and people start counting their change there is a pretty good chance that President Obama may become known as The Great Absquatulator. You heard it first here on TFL. |
|
January 23, 2009, 07:27 PM | #147 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,775
|
Quote:
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted." Anonymous Soldier. |
|
January 23, 2009, 10:45 PM | #148 |
Junior member
Join Date: December 1, 2008
Posts: 320
|
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
|
January 24, 2009, 10:02 AM | #149 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 16, 2007
Location: Gardendale, Alabama
Posts: 665
|
Quote:
__________________
"What is play to the fool and the idiot is deadly serious to the man with the gun." Walt Rauch,Combat Handguns, May '08 |
|
January 24, 2009, 10:27 AM | #150 | ||
Junior member
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,172
|
Quote:
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 Quote:
WildclosethedoorafterthecowwalksoutAlaska TM |
||
|
|