Let's Close The Gunshow Loophole

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Liquor to minors? Or is liquor definitionally not legal to sell to minors because it is dangerous?

So should we sell guns to minors now? Or does some societal need define what can sold?

So if you agree to guns and minors being controlled - what about guns to felons or folks who don't pass the mental health test on the 4473?

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by thallub

No!!! Any legal product should be able to be sold by it legal owner with jumping through government hoops.

The reason for the "hoop" is to id who is not legally allowed to have that legal product. The legally of the product is different from who is legally entitled to own or possess it.

[Playboypenguin]

No!!! Any legal product should be able to be sold by it legal owner with jumping through government hoops.

And if you sell a gun to someone that cannot legally possess one that then uses it to harm someone do you accept responsibility? Do you agree to be held liable?

[Wildalaska]

These last posts, correct as they are in response to thallub, are just Oroboros as the issue is not Governemt control qua government control, but how to make it work in a practical sense

So member Thallub, to reask the question posted:

For the purpose of this thread, you are just going to have to suck it up. NICS is a fact, NICs is constituional, NICs works. You will always need to get "permission" if you want to look at it that way. So now how do we deal with the issue of private sales with the foregoing already reality

WildifitsdonothingthenthatsyouranswerAlaska ™

[thallub]

For the purpose of this thread, you are just going to have to suck it up. NICS is a fact, NICs is constituional, NICs works. You will always need to get "permission" if you want to look at it that way. So now how do we deal with the issue of private sales with the foregoing already reality

???????


Look at the title of the thread:

Let's Close The Gunshow Loophole

I was talking about closure of the non-existent "gunshow loophole."
I buy a couple guns a month and know all about NICS. Have no problem with NICS. Was not talking about NICS. Was talking about infrequent sales of guns by non-dealers.

Lets' not close the non-existent "gunshow loophole."

[thallub]

We do not need the federal governments long nose in the gunshow business. Here is just one thing from the failed McCain-Lieberman "gunshow loophole" bill:

4. Centralized federal registration of EVERY PERSON who attends a gun show in America, whether or not they make purchases of anything at all -- you won't be allowed in without registering;

Read about the McCain-Lieberman "gunshow loophole" bill:

http://www.gunlaws.com/McCainLieberman.htm

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by thallub

I was talking about closure of the non-existent "gunshow loophole."

We are too but we debunked the misnomer of the term. What the antis are talking about are FTF sales and not just at gun shows.

Originally Posted by thallub

I buy a couple guns a month and know all about NICS. Have no problem with NICS.

OK, I think we agree here too so the question is; why not have NICS for FTF sales. Why should they not be a part of the system as well? Can you see that FTF sales without NICS could be an avenue for illegals to buy guns?

[Stevie-Ray]

I think the militia is what the 2A says protects a free state.

No, unless you mean the unorganized militia which is every citizen with privately owned firearms. The organized militia is taken care of in the Constitution.

At the time of the adoption of the Bill of Rights, this country's statesmen were concerned with the need to protect citizens from the government itself, and the passage of almost two centuries has not negated the validity of that concern. The fact that Article I, Section 8, Clause 16 of the Constitution grants Congress the power to organize, arm, and discipline the militia, clearly indicates a quite different intention for the Second Amendment...........James L. Buckley

I don't see a gun show loophole where I attend. I don't know if private sales are allowed there or not, but there are no signs. At some I used to go to, somebody might be walking carrying a rifle over their shoulder with a for sale sign attached, but I haven't seen anything like that in a long while. I suppose since it is private property, they can ban private non-FFL sales if they want. I really don't think it was ever much of a problem though, and too many make way too much of it.

[thallub]

OK, I think we agree here too so the question is; why not have NICS for FTF sales. Why should they not be a part of the system as well? Can you see that FTF sales without NICS could be an avenue for illegals to buy guns?

Illegals get the vast majority of their guns from their burglar friends and from their clean buds who make straw purchases for them. If you believe so passionately in this stuff then lobby your state reps to change that law in your state.

Maybe I woke up and signed onto the Brady site by mistake.

[Wildalaska]

Maybe I woke up and signed onto the Brady site by mistake.

No...they don't question, analyze or critically think...they just spout simplistic slogans based on a skewed worldview...

Unlike here, yes?

Illegals get the vast majority of their guns from their burglar friends and from their clean buds who make straw purchases for them.

really? So you are alleging that FTF sales at gunshows outside the NICs system are always one perfectly legal guy to another?

WildibetinsomeareasitsthefavouredwaytobuyillegalgunsAlaska TM

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by Stevie-Ray

No, unless you mean the unorganized militia which is every citizen with privately owned firearms. The organized militia is taken care of in the Constitution.

Sort of off topic but since you mentioned it, according to the Militia Act of 1903 the unorganized militia(that term is not found in the Constitution) is simply to pool of people from which the organized militia (now The National Guard) draws it's members. Firearm ownership has nothing to do with the unorganized militia and it isn't everybody either.

Originally Posted by thallub

If you believe so passionately in this stuff then lobby your state reps to change that law in your state.

Not to worry, both McCain and Obama said they would do it so I won't have to wait for the states to. Which some have done.

Originally Posted by thallub

Illegals get the vast majority of their guns from their burglar friends

Isn't that a FTF sale?

[Al Norris]

Originally Posted by Tennessee Gentleman

Isn't that a FTF sale?

Illegal aliens by law, are prohibited persons. Chances are good that the burglar friend is also. So any point about NICS and/or FTF sales is irrelevant in this case. They are simply not going to check each other. Don't much matter what any law says.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by antipitas

Illegal aliens by law, are prohibited persons. Chances are good that the burglar friend is also. So any point about NICS and/or FTF sales is irrelevant in this case. They are simply not going to check each other. Don't much matter what any law says.

Point made. However, honest people or nearly honest who are afraid they will be charged too if caught, won't sell without the NICS. Won't stop crime but then no law will. However, it might make a dent.

Here is some facts I looked at: http://www.atf.gov/firearms/ycgii/20...alfindings.pdf Go to Page 26, it is interesting.

[alloy]

Illegal aliens by law, are prohibited persons. Chances are good that the burglar friend is also. So any point about NICS and/or FTF sales is irrelevant in this case.

thats circular logic then, if you are going to remove "prohibited persons" and "burglar friends" from the equation as irrelevant, what is the point? they are either the type of "prohibited person"...all this hoopla is about, or they aren't. they are totally relevant, they just wont comply.

Don't much matter what any law says.

however, that does pretty much sum it all up.

[DonR101395]

really? So you are alleging that FTF sales at gunshows outside the NICs system are always one perfectly legal guy to another?

Are you alleging that every gun sold through a dealer is always to a perfectly legal guy?







I'll answer that for you. This guy Seung-Hui Cho bought his guns at a dealer and went through an NICS check and he was not legal to own firearms after being adjudicated mentally ill.

If you aren't sure who he is google his name.

[44 AMP]

Is not the basic idea of ensuring a prohibited person doesn not buy a gun from a private seller, it is the fact that every single proposed law to "ensure" this tramples on the rights of the rest of us.

I, for one, find the idea of having to run a background check on someone I have known for a dozen years before I can sell him a gun, a distinctly unpleasent idea. Both the time, and the expense (that will certainly be involved, if not at first, eventually), is an onerous burden, and completely without need or any redeeming social benefit, except that of adding to the govt coffers from fees charged.

Running a check on an individual unknown to me, is not as bad an issue, especially if you are considering sanctions against those who sell (knowingly) to prohibited persons. But none of the proposed solutions (laws) ever has any provision for avoiding the check (and its cost) when you know the individual is not a prohibited person. They paint us all with the same brush, and the color is guilty until proven innocent. That is not right.

The background check by an FFL is part of the requirement for him doing business. I am not doing business. I am just selling a gun. Or a book. Or a chair. Or .....

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by Tennessee Gentleman

However, honest people or nearly honest who are afraid they will be charged too if caught, won't sell without the NICS. Won't stop crime but then no law will. However, it might make a dent.

There is hardly any abridgement of a right that might not "make a dent". Does this rationale describe a rational relation between a law and a legitimate governmental end?

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Does the view that there should be little regulation of the selling of firearms extend to all products? Or is it only guns due to the 2nd Amend. ? Or is a more libertarian philosophy.

Guns are controlled because they are dangerous - in theory. Some argue tht they shouldn't be controlled anymore than cigarettes. However, there are strong controls over the purchase of various and extremely dangerous toxins. I used to work with stuff that would have quite a lot of 'stopping power'. They could even be used as 'arms' if you like the chemical warfare path.

Should gallons of neurotoxins be sold at the gun show? To all that come by.

The theoretic issue is whether limits exist at all or are guns a special case and the choir of RKBA supports only fixate on that.

Does the cigarette position extend to other controlled recreational drugs?

Does the gun world think outside of guns on bans and control of dangerous things? Is the 2nd or general libertarian extreme views?

I find it hard to justify uncontrolled access to NFA gear and then want penalties for marijuana as an example.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by DonR101395

This guy Seung-Hui Cho bought his guns at a dealer and went through an NICS check and he was not legal to own firearms after being adjudicated mentally ill.

Which I think makes a pretty strong argument to strengthen the system. Thanks.

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

Running a check on an individual unknown to me, is not as bad an issue,

And that is the issue that is the problem.

Originally Posted by LongRifles

"shall not be infringed" to me says "Don't _uck with it."

It may mean that to you but that is not what it means to the courts who interpret the COTUS. If the law or regulation passes the courts muster it is not an infringement plain and simple regardless of what we think I'm afraid. The NICS is here to stay as Wildalaska has stated so the issue is whether to extend it to private sales.

[zukiphile]

Guns are controlled because they are dangerous - in theory.

This is a dubious assertion. We control many things even when there is no reasonbly apprehended danger present. We control what a cookie producer can print on the package about the fat content to protect people too thick (hardly any pun intended) to know that cookies consumed in quantity make people fat. We could make people register to buy cookies, and wait three days to pick them up. That "might put a dent" in the epidemic of obesity.

At different times and places, different restrictions have been imposed for different reasons, and even the same restriction can be suppported by different people for different reasons.

I've little doubt that some people support some restrictions as a matter of perceived safety, while other support restrictions as a matter of uncomplex intolerance.

Some argue tht they shouldn't be controlled anymore than cigarettes. However, there are strong controls over the purchase of various and extremely dangerous toxins. I used to work with stuff that would have quite a lot of 'stopping power'. They could even be used as 'arms' if you like the chemical warfare path.

Should gallons of neurotoxins be sold at the gun show? To all that come by.

The theoretic issue is whether limits exist at all or are guns a special case and the choir of RKBA supports only fixate on that.

Given the existence of a specific provision in the COTUS, the position that arms are a special case doesn't seem implausible. Would you agree?

That doesn't force one to conclude that all restrictions are forbidden, but it does support a particularly wide birth for the right.

I find it hard to justify uncontrolled access to NFA gear and then want penalties for marijuana as an example.

I don't think you are the only person troubled by the mechanism by which the federal government controls MJ. The specific legislative scheme used seems odious to me; simply by switching a substance from one schedule to another, the federal government can somewhat arbitrarily prohibit a substance.

I am not an enthusiast for MJ legalisation, but the reach of federal regulatory authority and how it has come about is not a peculiarly libertarian concern.

But perhaps MJ and neurotoxins are tangential and not ideally analogous.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

The 2nd says "Arms".

How do you define that? The firearms of today didn't exist then. Do you want to go down the path of saying just the arms of the Revolutionary war are protected?

Neurotoxin based weaponry is quite possible - but is it constitutionally protected. Laser weapons are becoming possible now. In fact, hand held blinding (permanently - not distracting) weapons do exist but are controlled. Should they be open to all buyers?

If in the future, reasonably destructive handheld energy weapons become possible - such the patriots and potential defenders against tyranny be limited to antique gun powder based weapons based on the 2nd's use of 'arms'? And what is the line - any gunpowder weapon - there wasn't smokeless powder back then.

You get into a Talmudic set of arguments with blanket assertions. Also denying the state to ability to regulate dangerous things on the basis of absolutism doesn't fly. Religious freedom isn't absolute - try building an Aztec temple and freedom of expression has limits that are well discussed.

To go back to toxic warfare - even in those days - germs were used as weapons of war - small pox infected blankets to native Americans - so by usage in the past - I would argue to sell small pox at the gun show?

"Arms" is a tricky term - isn't it?

[zukiphile]

To go back to toxic warfare - even in those days - germs were used as weapons of war - small pox infected blankets to native Americans - so by usage in the past - I would argue to sell small pox at the gun show?

"Arms" is a tricky term - isn't it?

Not unduly so.

Neurotoxin based weaponry is quite possible - but is it constitutionally protected.

I detect buried within this line of argument the fallacy of the excluded middle. Very few people argue that the 2d Am. applies to all conceivable weaponry.

If in the future, reasonably destructive handheld energy weapons become possible - such the patriots and potential defenders against tyranny be limited to antique gun powder based weapons based on the 2nd's use of 'arms'? And what is the line - any gunpowder weapon - there wasn't smokeless powder back then.

Just as the 1st Am. clearly does not apply to television and mormonism, right?

You get into a Talmudic set of arguments with blanket assertions. Also denying the state to ability to regulate dangerous things on the basis of absolutism doesn't fly.

I don't believe you intend that as a legal point, but a political one. As a political matter granting the government power to do whatever it can link to some worry about safety is untenable in a system of legally limited government.

Religious freedom isn't absolute - try building an Aztec temple and freedom of expression has limits that are well discussed.

Let's pursue that.

You are free to build an Aztec temple. You can't sacrifice people until the eclipse comes, because that is already illegal. The ability to build an aztec temple doesn't make the 1st Am absolute. It just makes it meaningful.

If (for the sake of illustration and argument) you were perfectly free to purchase, own, possess and carry a select fire rifle, you still would not be free to kill people at the mall becuase you had a bad day. The application of the amendment would not be absolute simply because its terms are given substantial meaning.

[maestro pistolero]

Last I checked, neurotoxins aren't mentioned in the Constitution where's firearms are specifically mentioned.

Incorrect. It say ARMS. Weapons, in other words. No further definition is given.

So presumably swords, cannons, crossbows, bows, bludgeons, daggers, spears, and, oh yes, firearms.

I think the larger point may be that the arms, in whatever form, need to be sufficiently effective to overcome any force the bearer is likely to encounter. If they are not sufficiently effective, then the right will have been undermined.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I detect buried within this line of argument the fallacy of the excluded middle. Very few people argue that the 2d Am. applies to all conceivable weaponry.

Some do - and where does one set the line? At 'assault weapons' - and the argument is whether FFL mediation at gun shows is legit. If one argues for a continuum of regulation as you do, then the FFL mediation is legit if instantiated by the legislative process.

And the neurotoxin/Aztec point - you are free to buy it at the gun show if you don't use it?

Got to work now but it seems to me that the FFL thing is just a social consensus about legislation and has Ken says - it passed constitutional muster unless you go for absolutism.

So then objections would have to be based on empirical evidence as to expense and lack of success in preventing crime.

[zukiphile]

Got to work now ...

I sympathize and will be brief.

Some do - and where does one set the line? At 'assault weapons' - and the argument is whether FFL mediation at gun shows is legit.

I thought the issue was requiring all firearm transfers everywhere to take place only with approval of a government agency, not just ones at gun shows.

If every exercise of a specific right requires a license from the government, how is it a right?

If one argues for a continuum of regulation as you do, then the FFL mediation is legit if instantiated by the legislative process.

That does not follow. Noting that some restrictions on a right (say to vote or possess arms) against some people (say felons and the insane) does not imply that anything a legislature can pass is legitimate or constitutional.

Any limitation should at a minimum bear a reasonable relation to a legitimate governmental purpose. Arguably, a limitation of a right so plainly stated should only be on much greater scrutiny.

And the neurotoxin/Aztec point - you are free to buy it at the gun show if you don't use it?

Yes. Everyone who buys lead ammunition buys a neurotoxin.

...it seems to me that the FFL thing is just a social consensus about legislation and has Ken says - it passed constitutional muster unless you go for absolutism.

Ken would be mistaken on that point. Simply because a current background check during a federally licensed transfer, i.e. between an FFL and a non-licensee, is constitutional, it does not also follow that requirement of such approval for transactions between non-licensees would also pass.

To abor "absolutism" in examination of the issue of further regulation, then assert further regulation as constitutional simply because some more modest regulation passed challenge is an absolutism of its own.

So then objections would have to be based on empirical evidence as to expense and lack of success in preventing crime.

While those arguments are interesting, as the decision in Heller reminds us, give up on the legal argument and you pass up some valuable opportunities.