Brady questions

These kinds of discussion should, as a result of the SCOTUS decision, be at least temporarily more common and can help educate the voting public.

It's important to better define our targets.

It should not be a gun or a sales transaction involving a gun that is the target of "control".

The target of "control" should be the individual who is is some way unqualified (felony, mental incompetence, etc.) to be in possession of some kind of destructive device.

If we can help the public (including current antis) understand this distinction, we will be a long way toward useful goal(s).

Will
 
28% Black market
Click to expand...

The gun shows could, by the time the gun was bought, have been one funnel into the Black Market. This could be the start, or a beginning level, in the food chain. The buyer who winds up in prison, being at the end of that chain. I say could, guns enter illegal market in a variety of ways. With a huge variation in permissiveness area to area, as the main reason for the general problem of illegal guns. As I say, defining the law should even this out and help to mitigate what is now gun transference illegality via geography and the inherent subterfuges this makes available to the criminal trafficker.


the U.S. Departments of Treasury and Justice issued their own study, Gun Shows: Brady Checks and Crime Gun Traces. The study concluded, "Gun shows provide a large market where criminals can shop for firearms anonymously."3

2000 ATF Study: 26,000 illegal guns linked to gun show sales '96-'98
 
"The gun shows would, by the time the gun was bought, have been one funnel into the Black Market. This could be the start, or a beginning level, in the food chain."

Using that reasoning you might as well say that retail sales are where all crime guns originate.

Tim
 
28% Black market
Click to expand...

The gun shows could, by the time the gun was bought, have been one funnel into the Black Market. This could be the start, or a beginning level, in the food chain. The buyer who winds up in prison, being at the end of that chain.

I say could, guns enter illegal market in a variety of ways. With a huge variation in permissiveness area to area, as the main reason for the general problem of illegal guns. As I say, defining the law should even this out and help to mitigate what is now gun transference illegality via geography and the inherent subterfuges this makes available to the criminal trafficker.

On the more specific topic here:
the U.S. Departments of Treasury and Justice issued their own study, Gun Shows: Brady Checks and Crime Gun Traces. The study concluded, "Gun shows provide a large market where criminals can shop for firearms anonymously."3

2000 ATF Study: 26,000 illegal guns linked to gun show sales '96-'98

(there's a good deal of similar data available from a variety of sources, this a quick example on the way out, - bye)
 
2000 ATF Study: 26,000 illegal guns linked to gun show sales '96-'98
Click to expand...

But were those regular sales conducted through FFL's at gun shows, or were those from private sales? You have to be careful of "statistics".

For example, if some guy, who is not prohibited from purchasing firearms, goes to a gun show, he might by 5 guns while he is there, all from FFL's. Or maybe he buys 4 guns from FFL's and 1 gun from a private seller. It doesn't matter, because he's not prohibited from purchasing guns. With respect to the 4 or 5 guns from the FFL's he has to undergo the instant check, each and everytime he buys from a different FFL. He would not undergo the background check when he purchases from the private seller.

OK, moving forward from there, this "legal" gun show attendee then goes out and sells three of these guns to his brother in law who has them stolen from his car. One of the guns is the one he bought from the private seller, the other two came from FFL's at the gun show. Later on, all three of these guns are confiscated during a drug bust. Two of them could be traced back to the FFL's at the gun show. The third one could not be traced back, but the cops may find out it too came from the same gun show, if and when they interview the purchaser.

OK, for statistical purposes, all three of these "illegal" guns were bought at a gun show. But, two of them were subject to the NICS. The third one was not, but does that really matter? The guy would have passed a BGC anyway. So the statistic that these three "illegal" guns were bought at a gun show, doesn't rely on the gun show loophole whatsoever.

This gun show loophole talk is nothing but a ruse to move closer to gun registration. You cannot effectively track private party to private party sales unless you implement gun registration. You can't implement one gun a month sales without gun registration.

We know the antis want gun registration like Canada has. Gun show loophole talk is just a way to fool non gun owners and even some gun owners about the real agenda.
 
Last edited:
Sorry, but...

Sorry, but you're allowing conditions that kill numerous people each year - and you're doing it because of a political stance that makes data and common sense take a backseat to those politics.

It is counter-intuitive to claim that the most unregulated transactions for the most needed implement in a violent crime are NOT accessed by criminals engaged in violent crime.

The data of many police investigations support that, and you can access the raw data.

The mega-state analysis also support the same commonsense conclusion, with almost 100% of the top states with gun-sales traced to out-of-state crime those with no required checks by non-licensed dealers.

If you were less attached to the view that changing any condition involving gun-access would bring on the blackhawk helicopters, you would allow reality and not participate in this entitling-death charade.

However, this will end by dint of the same decision that SCOTUS just made, for as definition will move out that extreme that would have liked to ban guns, it will as I described earlier, also move out the knee-jerk response of the other extreme to reasonable safeguarding restrictions; it will do so by removing the main argument used by that extreme: that closing a gap like this one somehow violates the 2nd Amendment. That will not be upheld, any more than Heller was denied -- for the decision just defined what is and is not. Definition will swing the law towards the wisdom of the middle -- far and away larger than either extreme: guns should protected as an individual right, but the right should be restricted like all others rights.

In the meantime, if you wish to expend your breath in words that allow violence & death, that is a right also. The honorable other course would be to self-educate and investigate minus the baggage of 10,000 political and quasi-religious opinions.
 
Last edited:
Criminals may decide to buy a gun at a gun show from a private seller. I never said they wouldn't. The reality is that there aren't that many private sellers who are selling guns at gun shows. This makes the criminals work to be not as easy as you and the folks at AGS, VPC, and the Brady Bunch, claim it is.

Do you frequent gun shows? I've been to quite a few. There are not that many private parties selling guns. Also, the ones I've seen are typically selling a hunting gun, such as shotgun, deer rifle, or .22 rifle. These are not the overwhelming choice of criminals who use guns to commit crimes.

Some gun shows only allow FFLs to sell guns. Other folks who don't have a FFL, can sell T shirts, military surplus items, posters, war relics and curios, etc.

The gun show loop hole is not the vehicle through which criminals are routinely buying guns directly. Straw buyers may be hitting the gun shows and later selling to criminals. Cloosing a mythical loophole will not stop that as you seem to think it will.

Besides, let's assume for the sake of arguement that we can pass a law saying all gun transfers at a gun show must involve a background check. What's to stop a potential buyer and a private seller from agreeing to meet later on, away from the gun show, to complete the transaction? That is perfectly legal in most states. How would the closing of the mythical gun show loophole prevent such an occurance? Please be specific and avoid the lectures on reading up on the situation. I have read quite a number of pieces, pro and con, regarding the gun show loophole. It's a neglible source for criminals, who are prohibited from possessing weapons, to get firearms. There are certainly straw purchases being done as there are at FFL's places of business. Any weapon which is involved in a straw purchase at a gun show, and is later found in the possession of a prohibited person, is an "illegal" gun which can be traced back to a gun show. That doesn't mean that the "gun show loophole" is the problem.
 
There are loopholes. What you mention is one: No checks mean no checks.
Click to expand...

Main Entry: 1loop·hole
Pronunciation: \ˈlüp-ˌhōl\
Function: noun
Etymology: 1loop
Date: 1591
1 a: a small opening through which small arms may be fired b: a similar opening to admit light and air or to permit observation
2: a means of escape; especially : an ambiguity or omission in the text through which the intent of a statute, contract, or obligation may be evaded
Click to expand...

Not requiring individuals with no federal license to comply with the requirements of possessing that federal license is in no sense a loophole.

To call two individuals doing at a gun show what they can do anywhere else an example of a "gun show loophole" appears to be a deception designed to impress the ignorant.
 
Shall we also get rid of the Gun Club loophole? Why, just da udder day, I was reading my gun club newsletter and there were all sorts of guns, ammo, and accessories for sale. Gosh, any common criminal could purchase any of this, without a background check. Also, my gun club allows "for sale" and "wanted to buy" ads to be posted on our club house bulletin board, no background checks required. What a gaping loophole that is. Quick, someone call the BATFE. Der's a whole lotta consumin' going on out der, and none of it's being scrutinized through the government.
 
Last edited:
Than is an example of two people doing what they usually do anyplace.
(From Justice Dept 1999 study)
ATF uncovered a Tennessee FFL who purchased more than 7,000 firearms, altered the serial numbers, and resold them to two unlicensed dealers who subsequently transported and sold the firearms at gun shows and flea markets in North Carolina. The scheme involved primarily new and used handguns. All three pled guilty to Federal firearms violations. The FFL was sentenced to 15 months’ imprisonment; the unlicensed dealers were sentenced to 21 and 25 months’ imprisonment, respectively
Click to expand...

The fact is they don't, most "off-record" sales are at gun shows, and the wisdom of preventing legal checks on people and guns in sales transactions of lethal weapons escapes reason, when the inconvenience of a slight pause to the legal outweighs a plethora of indications that the result is widespread violence from the illegal.

As to what may happen to circumvent such a check. If all regulations had to be foolproof, that impossible requirement would negate any law of the land.
The lessening of the opportunity of violence at negligible cost is enough.

"Take guns away from the Criminals!" is a common refrain. Well, go practice the preaching, or assume a partial responsibility for criminal violence. You can't have it both ways...
 
The fact is they don't, most "off-record" sales are at gun shows,

I challenge you to prove that "fact". I don't believe it's true. I am of the opinion that most off record sales are done "on the street". Those "on the street" sales involve guns which were bought "on the record" at some point in time or were stolen, or were smuggled in.

How do you account for the UK having a virtual ban on all firearms, yet their "illegal" firearm count has never been higher at over 3 million estimated "illegal" firearms in the island nation?
 
"Take guns away from the Criminals!" is a common refrain. Well, go practice the preaching, or assume a partial responsibility for criminal violence. You can't have it both ways...
Click to expand...

I want criminals who use guns to commit crimes to be locked up for a verrrrrrrrryyyyyyy lonnnngggggg time. If they are in the clink, they can't use guns to commit crimes. That's point number 1.

Point number 2, I will not accept any responsiblity for criminal violence. My ownership of firearms and my being able to purchase them from a friend or an FFL, depending upon my own choice, has nothing to do with responsibility for criminal violence.

Let me give you an example.

A short time ago, a young punk ( I believe he was 18), robbed a convenience store in Minneapolis with a handgun. We don't know how he acquired that handgun, and maybe it was from a gun show. Most likely, it was from one of his fellow gang bangers or criminal buddies, but let's leave that aside, just for now.

Turns out, the punk was caught and arrested. He went to trial and was found guilty of armed robbery. What do you think his punishment was? It should have been 10 years in jail if you ask me. At least 5 years in jail would seem to be "reasonable". Some liberal, weenie of a judge, gave him 1 year in the county work house and had him released after 4 months. The judges explanation, "I just didn't think that sending this young man to prison would help to get him on the right track" (or something pretty close to that).

So how did it turn out? One month after this punk gets out of the county workhouse, where he only served 4 months, he somehow manages to get another handgun. This time, he robs two innocent men walking home from their local pizza joint. He demands that they kneel down and hand over their wallets. They comply, not wanting any further trouble. Does he take the money and run? Heck no. He shoots both of them, execution style. They are both killed.

So, do gun owners who don't believe that the gun show loophole is a problem carry any responsibility for this type of criminal violence. Maybe in some folks bizzaro world, but not mine. The criminal justice system, and more specifically the liberal weenie of a judge, is 50% responsible, while the punk is ultimately responsible. Maybe his parents also have some responsibility for the way he turned out. But the point is, our CJS had the opportunity to protect society from this dangerous, blood thirsty punk, and some weak kneed judge gave him the benefit of the doubt, rather than society at large. The judge endangered society by letting this dangerous criminal back on the street to ply his trade.

We need to fix this problem first before we make law abiding gun owners jump through any more hoops. The gun show loophole is nothing but the first step by anti gunners to implement gun registration and have EVERY private sale be registered by the government.
 
Here is the short list of what I am taking away from reading this argument:

If you want to "close the loophole", you won't succeed by simply requiring checks at gun shows, or even by banning the shows. The ONLY way to make an impact on this front is to require a check EVERY TIME a gun changes ownership, including private sales and gifting.

The only way to enforce a policy such as that would be mandating registration of all firearms as you can't identify a transaction without knowing who had and now has the weapon.

The first step to taking our arms is finding out who has them; as such, we should all be opposed to registration.

The criminals will get their hands on guns with or without more red tape for legal owners and a more effective approach to crime control might start with vicious prison time for actual violent gun crimes. Did I mention that I also support simple capital punishment via the three-violent-strikes-and-you're-worthless-to-society doctrine?

(Bud Helms - thank you for the location correction)
 
I 've got to chime in on this one

most "off-record" sales are at gun shows
Click to expand...

I disagree, strongly. I do not believe most "off the record" sales (meaning legal sales by private, non FFL, owners) are done at gun shows.

In my area, we have gun shows maybe 5 times a year. We have guns for sale in the newspaper very often, and in the want ad papers (Giant Nickel, Penny press, etc.) ALL THE TIME! 52 weeks a year, twice a week these papers come out, and virtually all the guns in them are private sales.

While I have no numbers (and no way to get them) but simply going to the shows and watching the papers gives a rough comparison, and around here, I'd say more guns change hands due to the want ads than the gun shows. And that completely ignores the huge number of guns that change hands between people who know each other with no gun show, dealer, or advertisement other than word of mouth being involved at all!
 
Your're Right...

I can see now the great evil you've all been talking about in forcing us pathetic gun owners to delay a fraction our transaction for a gun we are buying.

I never realized how similar it is to the drug companies I have stock with being crucified by the absurd regulations that they produce safe drugs;

Equally, my continual loss of traveling speed in being compelled to stop for red-lights when I could easily maneuver through selfish pedestrians and other cars has nearly broken me already.

Lastly and worst, the agony I and all suffer from having to show proof of residence when voting, and the tyranny of the need to endure the agony of filling out a voter registration card when I move - well it's too painful to talk about.

I'm so sorry I fell for the line of the ATF, the Justice Dept., the FBI and the majority of State's Attorney Generals - as well as the phony records of gun violence stemming from non-licensed sales that are found in so many other heinously false studies from so-called experts.

I see now that the hell of the short pause mentioned above for all of us gun owners, way over-balances the likely violence and mayhem that whining others may suffer.

Now, please accept my apologizes and have a continued fine discussion. Unfortunately, I'm due back on the planet earth so I can't continue with it.

Godspeed!
 
Last edited:
"Now, please accept my apologizes and have a continued fine discussion. Unfortunately, I'm due back on the planet earth so I can't continue with it."

Just out of curiosity, what planet have you been living on? Does gun control actually reduce crime there?

Tim
 
rsgraebert:

If you want to "close the loophole", you won't succeed by simply requiring checks at gun shows, or even by banning the shows. The ONLY way to make an impact on this front is to require a check EVERY TIME a gun changes ownership, including private sales and gifting.

The only way to enforce a policy such as that would be mandating registration of all firearms as you can't identify a transaction without knowing who had and now has the weapon.

The first step to taking our arms is finding out who has them; as such, we should all be opposed to registration.

The criminals will get their hands on guns with or without more red tape for legal owners and a more effective approach to crime control might start with vicious prison time for actual violent gun crimes. Did I mention that I also support simple capital punishment via the three-violent-strikes-and-you're-worthless-to-society doctrine?
Click to expand...


Yes! What rsgraebert said! He's right on the money.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top