Universal background checks

[Lohman446]

I have been asked by more than just a few individuals, “You mean that you can’t just buy anything you want at a gun show no questions asked?”

But the honest answer is not "no." At best its "kind of." I can walk into most gun shows in a major city in MI, find a "private collector" or two, and buy most any long gun I want. The dealers will turn me away if I insist on the "cash transaction no questions asked" but absent being obviously of ill-intent the "private collectors" will not.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I can walk into most gun shows in a major city in MI, find a "private collector" or two, and buy most any long gun I want.

Good deal for you. Around here, that would be “most any long gun you want that was sold in Sears or some now long forgotten department store between 1930 and 1965, maybe an old Arisaka or frankenAR of dubious origin if you are lucky.”

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by Lohman

I don't think it does us any favors to deny that there is some "gun show loophole"

Denying falsehoods does a favor to people who might be enticed to believe them.

There is no firearms sales loophole for gun shows. Not one.

Originally Posted by Lohman

Imagine, for instance, I want to buy a particular rifle for illegitimate purposes and I am a prohibited individual. I can drive around from yard-sale to yard-sale over time. I can look through sales ads leaving some form of digital footprint. Or I can go to a gun show with cash and, presenting no identification and no other communication with some private seller, walk out with what I want.

The purpose for which you want a rifle isn't pertinent to your story. I can also buy a rifle for cash without ID for legitimate purposes. I've done it. It isn't sinister.

Originally Posted by Lohman

Now as you note we can discuss if private sales in any way should be regulated. Is the local flea market for instance? It does us no favor to repeatedly deny that there is something "different" about gun shows especially when those who propose there is can readily demonstrate it.

Private sales are already regulated. Knowingly dealing in stolen items and selling to a prohibited person is already a crime.

The issue raised by UBCs isn't whether the private transaction is regulated; it's whether the state is directly involved is every single transfer, everywhere, every time. It effectively turns all of us into federal licensees and ends private sales.

Originally Posted by Lohman

FYI: If I was a legitimate dealer at a gun show I would be annoyed to be competing with unlicensed (and likely uninsured) "private collectors" that are operating on the same business model I was

Insurance isn't a pre-requisite to operating as an FFL and private parties are entitled to carry insurance. Insurance isn't a measure of legitimacy.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Lohman446

I can walk into the same gun show, hand over cash, and walk out with a long gun (handgun sales are regulated by the state of MI) with zero background check and not even a positive ID.

I don't think we can discount the concern with the later. We can discuss IF it should be regulated or is protected but we seem to be in denial that it happens. I think it is the "gun show purchase" that is being held up by those favoring regulation as the issue

I don't think anyone is in denial that it happens. The question is, as you have postulated, whether or not such sales should be regulated and subject to background checks. I understand the arguments in favor of "closing the loophole," I don't think it should be changed for the simple reason that it won't accomplish much.

First, despite isolated incidents of mass shootings, they don't happen every day, or even every week. On the other hand, crooks commit robberies with guns multiple times every day, somewhere in the country. In general, those crooks don't buy their guns at gun shops or at gun shows. They buy them from other crooks on street corners in the ghetto, late at night. And they're not going to call in for a background check, so what's the point of further burdening law-abiding people?

Then -- look at recent "mass shooting" incidents? The guns were all sold with successful background checks. Cruz passed a background check. The Sutherland Springs church shooter passed a background check. (I know -- don't start.) The Las Vegas shooter passed multiple background checks. The Pulse Club shooter passed background checks. The San Bernardino shooter passed background checks. The guns used at Sandy Hook were bought legally, subject to background checks -- but the shooter murdered his own mother to take them.

In short -- looking at all the infamous mass shootings for the last however many years -- how many of them could/would have been prevented by a law requiring background checks for private sales?

[stonewall50]

Originally Posted by TXAZ

Why not?

Several reasons. But I can go down a list of issues.

1) Not enforceable.
2) If private sales are legal...then how does a private individual run one?
3) What proof do you have if so?
4) How much will it cost/will the government increase the price to “keep up with demand” so that they price private sale out of existence?
5) Can you run one and get someone’s criminal record without their knowledge?
6) Fails to address the actual issues that we have. Straw purchasers don’t purchasers don’t care about background checks. The same way of looping the system will be in place regardless of what happens.

It is a fundamental waste of time meant to put more restrictions on sales, rather than on put pressure on the failures of governments to handle out of control crime rates in the 5% of counties that make up the overwhelming majority of murder in the country.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Lohman446]

Aguila has hit on my point.

When pressed to close the "gun hole loophole" we should discuss if requiring background checks would actually matter. As is pointed out in recent mass shootings it would not have. We could also discuss if the transfer of private property between private individuals should be subject to such regulation especially when said property is specifically discussed in the Constitution.

Personally I think the later is ultimately a failed argument. I'm sure that is not the popular opinion. The former is a solid argument.

[stonewall50]

Originally Posted by Spats McGee

First, because they most certainly lead to registration, either of guns or of gun owners. You decide which is worse.



Second, because they're unenforceable against prohibited persons under either Haynes v. U.S. (SCOTUS, 1968), the A5 or the A8, depending on circumstances. Unless and until we can enforce them, at the very least, against those already convicted of crimes punishable by more than a year in jail, there is no good reason to place additional restrictions on lawful gun owners.



Third, given the evidence of horrible reporting problems that we've seen in the current system, the problem isn't that there aren't enough background checks. It's that gov't agencies are ignoring the flags that are being waved.



Fourth, not one more inch. We've given enough. The antigunners have been openly telling us for decades that they want to take all of our guns. Their claims that "nobody wants to take your guns" ring hollow in light of what I'm seeing on the national landscape. Their use of the word "compromise" is wholly inappropriate. If I let you keep half of your cash so that I don't beat the snot out of you and take all of it, it's not a compromise. That's how a protection racket works.

I wonder if Democrats learned the strategy from their union days?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ATN082268]

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

I don't think anyone is in denial that it happens. The question is, as you have postulated, whether or not such sales should be regulated and subject to background checks. I understand the arguments in favor of "closing the loophole," I don't think it should be changed for the simple reason that it won't accomplish much.

First, despite isolated incidents of mass shootings, they don't happen every day, or even every week. On the other hand, crooks commit robberies with guns multiple times every day, somewhere in the country. In general, those crooks don't buy their guns at gun shops or at gun shows. They buy them from other crooks on street corners in the ghetto, late at night. And they're not going to call in for a background check, so what's the point of further burdening law-abiding people?

Then -- look at recent "mass shooting" incidents? The guns were all sold with successful background checks. Cruz passed a background check. The Sutherland Springs church shooter passed a background check. (I know -- don't start.) The Las Vegas shooter passed multiple background checks. The Pulse Club shooter passed background checks. The San Bernardino shooter passed background checks. The guns used at Sandy Hook were bought legally, subject to background checks -- but the shooter murdered his own mother to take them.

In short -- looking at all the infamous mass shootings for the last however many years -- how many of them could/would have been prevented by a law requiring background checks for private sales?

Good point. Regardless of the laws on the books, there will always be a certain level of crime. The background checks are just one aspect of gun control to make private gun ownership more difficult. Even if draconian gun control measures were inflicted on U.S. citizens where private ownership of guns was prohibited, generally criminals would still keep their guns and the law abiding would be disarmed. Undoubtedly, cutting out private ownership of guns would make it more difficult for criminals to obtain guns but they still would (like anything else that is illegal) and I don't think completely obliterating parts of the U.S. Constitution is the right answer to any problem.

[Al Norris]

Originally Posted by Lohman446

I don't think it does us any favors to deny that there is some "gun show loophole"

Actually, it does harm us when we accept that the anti-gunners are setting the language of the debate: There is no "Loophole". There are laws that make certain acts or things restricted (unlawful). That's what criminal law does - it restrict acts or things that would otherwise be lawful. Any act or thing not restricted is not a "Loophole", it is merely lawful.

If, in conversation, you can get your opponenant to admit the above, then we can move on to admit that there are some people that seem to be at every (or most) gunshows that setup a table to sell their "collection".

This is the point where the BATF&E falls down on, as I'm sure that these people are reported by some or even many of the licensed dealers (FFL's) that are at that show. Do all FFL's report such people? Don't know. What I do know is that when a report is made, the BATF&E, in most cases, does nothing.

Enforce the existing law, and this abuse of private sales goes away. Problem solved.

However, as long as we buy into this "Loophole" terminology, the debate is already lost.

[44 AMP]

FYI: If I was a legitimate dealer at a gun show I would be annoyed to be competing with unlicensed (and likely uninsured) "private collectors" that are operating on the same business model I was

IF they are "operating on a business model" without an FFL, they are breaking the law, already.

DO make the distinction between enthusiasts who set up a table at a show, (and may do it on a regular basis) to sell or trade items from their collections (which is entirely legal) with the guy who sells his "private collection" of 15 Lorcin .380s, and the next show has another private collection of 15 different Lorcin .380s...

One is ethical and obeying the laws, the other isn't.

There is no gunshow loophole. ALL gun laws apply at guns shows exactly the same way they apply at every other location in the state. Period. The only thing about a gun show is that you have a concentration of like minded people together in the same place at the same time.

[5whiskey]

DO make the distinction between enthusiasts who set up a table at a show, (and may do it on a regular basis) to sell or trade items from their collections (which is entirely legal) with the guy who sells his "private collection" of 15 Lorcin .380s, and the next show has another private collection of 15 different Lorcin .380s...

And I would bet a fair amount of money that 95% of the former will do a bill of sale, will require ID (to prove you live in state), and balk at any request for "no paperwork." The latter? If there was a shady group at a gun show, they would be the ones. And it's easily enough proved that what they're doing is illegal anyway.

[riffraff]

The key thing about private sales, gun shows, or anywhere is its happening within a state border between state residents. Anything else is illegal. Its not a federal problem. States can make their own laws if they want, allowing it or not.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

The loophole language was used as a false narrative at first to indicate that all gun show sales avoided NICS. We know that is not true.

There were folks who sold a great deal of firearms at shows as 'private' collections at each show. In some cases, that volume was close to being a dealer and around here those folks were shut down at the major shows. There was one guy who would have two rifles slung and three handguns in his belt. When those sold, he would go get more.

Now private sales are OK but was he pushing it? The show seemed to think so and he was gone.

Another tack was that the gun show and gun show parking lot was a public nuisance as it provided a locale for illegal sales to occur between individuals who were not allowed to have guns. Not that they had tables but the location made it easy for that illegality to occur. Some cities closed gun shows in their jurisdictions on those grounds.

There were folks who would patrol the gun show waiting line and ask folks who were selling guns to sell to them at a somewhat better price than a FFL inside. Were the purchases good bargain hunters or bad guys? Interesting question.

Just info on the issue.

[turkeestalker]

...not one more inch. We've given enough.

That Sir, is a gem and should be in your signature line.

[dreaming]

What 44 AMP said about operating on a business model selling guns without a Federal License is currently in the news in California, where the majority of handguns available in most states are forbidden to residents other than Law Enforcement. For the most part those officers may resell their off roster guns to plain old residents. Occasional sales are not a problem, but some have gotten greedy and have turned the buying and selling of off roster handguns into a business, which has netted them being charged with doing so without a Federal License.

[thallub]

The loophole language was used as a false narrative at first to indicate that all gun show sales avoided NICS. We know that is not true.

The anti-gunners are still using the "gun show loophole" language to their advantage. Many folks have been lead to believe all sales of firearms at gun shows are unregulated.

[Skans]

The only way to enforce universal background checks is with registration, and registration almost always leads to gun confiscation. In addition, it is frankly not the government's business what guns and ammunition I own.

Why not simply allow everyone, not just FFL's the ability to run a NICS background check on someone before selling to them face-to-face. Yes, you would be responsible for logging the transaction and keeping a record of it for a certain amount of time. This is not registration. The law already prohibits you from selling a gun to a known prohibited person. All the NCIS does is give you access to know whether the person is legit or not.

[OPC]

Why not simply allow everyone, not just FFL's the ability to run a NICS background check on someone before selling to them face-to-face.

Great! Can I use it to run a background check on my niece's sketchy-looking boyfriend?

[Skans]

Great! Can I use it to run a background check on my niece's sketchy-looking boyfriend?

No, it would be a 1st degree misdemeanor to run such with no intent on selling a gun. Plus there would be a fee for you to use the service. And, there would be a method for someone to determine who has been running checks on them. Also, all you would receive is a go no-go on whether or not you can sell the guy a firearm. Why should FFL's get to do this but not individuals?

[ATN082268]

Originally Posted by Skans

Why not simply allow everyone, not just FFL's the ability to run a NICS background check on someone before selling to them face-to-face. Yes, you would be responsible for logging the transaction and keeping a record of it for a certain amount of time. This is not registration. The law already prohibits you from selling a gun to a known prohibited person. All the NCIS does is give you access to know whether the person is legit or not.

How would you verify that someone was actually selling a gun or merely nosey? In any case, I think individual record keeping would be a nightmare and unnecessary. Whatever centralized database you punch someone's name into will record it.

[Lohman446]

Define intent. It is my intent, someday, to leave my firearms to my daughter and thus her boyfriend. Running an NCIS check before adjusting my will only seems prudent.

[zukiphile]

Define intent. It is my intent, someday, to leave my firearms to my daughter and thus her boyfriend. Running an NCIS check before adjusting my will only seems prudent.

If you want to leave specific items to your daughter, you are leaving them to your daughter, not her boyfriend. If you want to leave specific items to anyone in your will, prudence dictates that you make alternate plans in the event the beneficiary does not want the gift or is not available to receive it.

Legal transfer will be your executor's problem.

[carguychris]

Originally Posted by Lohman446

Running an NCIS check before adjusting my will only seems prudent.

FWIW it's NOT always required. Provisions in 18 USC § 922 allow firearms bequests across state lines without the involvement of an FFL, PROVIDED that the transfer complies with the laws of the destination state.

This has been discussed at length in L&CR previously, with legally knowledgeable folks advising that for the provisions to be effective, the bequest must be specific—i.e. the will must specifically address the firearms and their intended recipients; they can't just be part of the miscellaneous unspecified "stuff" in the estate (I forget the legal term for this).

Of course, if the intended recipient is a prohibited person, the bequest does NOT change the fact that he or she cannot lawfully take possession of the firearm(s)!

Originally Posted by zukiphile

If you want to leave specific items to your daughter, you are leaving them to your daughter, not her boyfriend. If you want to leave specific items to anyone in your will, prudence dictates that you make alternate plans in the event the beneficiary does not want the gift or is not available to receive it.

Prudent advice in ANY case.

[thallub]

IMO: Some doth worry too much about selling personal firearms. If the guy has prison tattoos then don't sell him the gun.

Tomorrow or Friday i will sell my Luger collection to a guy with a C&R permit.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Skans

Why should FFL's get to do this but not individuals?

The way you word that makes being required to run a background check a feature rather than a bug. FFLs don't want to run these checks, any more than they want to store years and years of 4473s. But at least they do enough of them that most probably have a file cabinet somewhere to keep them organized. I'm terminally disorganized. If I had to run a background check on someone and then keep a record of it, it would be a MAJOR problem for me if I ever had to find it more than six (maybe three) months after the sale.