Let's Close The Gunshow Loophole - Page 5

homefires · January 22, 2009, 07:14 PM

How many firearms can I sell privately before being classed as a dealer?

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

Quote:

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?

Quote:

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?

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

Quote:

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

Quote:

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

Quote:

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

Quote:

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

Quote:

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?

Quote:

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

Quote:

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

Quote:

"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.

Quote:

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

Quote:

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

Quote:

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

Quote:

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

Quote:

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?

Quote:

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

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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

Quote:

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glenn

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):

Quote:

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

Quote:

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

Quote:

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

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.

January 22, 2009, 08:44 PM	#104
SpookBoy Senior Member Join Date: January 29, 2006 Location: mid tennessee Posts: 430	NO that is the first step to gun control,gun registration,then gungrabbers.... That sounds familiar, when did this happen before? 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. __________________ We all love gun p*rn, weather shes skinny,fat,short or tall, God made a man to love them all! "Once you familiarize yourself with the chains of bondage , You prepare your own limbs to wear them." - Abraham Lincoln

January 22, 2009, 09:02 PM	#105
Glenn E. Meyer Senior Member Join Date: November 17, 2000 Posts: 20,064	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. __________________ NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens

January 22, 2009, 10:58 PM	#106
44 AMP Staff Join Date: March 11, 2006 Location: Upper US Posts: 28,820	Dealer? or private indivdual? 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. __________________ All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.

January 23, 2009, 01:33 PM	#113
zukiphile Senior Member Join Date: December 13, 2005 Posts: 4,451	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. __________________ http://www.npboards.com/index.php

January 23, 2009, 01:44 PM	#118
Glenn E. Meyer Senior Member Join Date: November 17, 2000 Posts: 20,064	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. __________________ NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens

January 22, 2009, 07:14 PM	#101
homefires Senior Member Join Date: July 8, 2007 Location: Deming New Mexico Posts: 1,495	How many firearms can I sell privately before being classed as a dealer?

January 22, 2009, 08:06 PM	#102
Webleymkv Senior Member Join Date: July 20, 2005 Location: Indiana Posts: 10,446	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.

January 23, 2009, 01:41 PM	#116
Wildalaska Junior member Join Date: November 25, 2002 Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska Posts: 14,172	And none of that answers the question I posed WildithinkitstimetoblowoutsomesurefiresAlaska ™

January 23, 2009, 01:58 PM	#121
Glenn E. Meyer Senior Member Join Date: November 17, 2000 Posts: 20,064	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. __________________ NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens

January 23, 2009, 02:18 PM	#125
vranasaurus Senior Member Join Date: November 16, 2008 Posts: 1,184	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.