CNN films illegal gun sales at gun shows.

spanishjames said:
Spats McGee said:
Under 18 USC 922, a sale is prohibited where a seller knows or has reasonable cause to believe that the buyer does not reside in the same state as the seller. That does not mean that the seller is required to investigate the buyer's state of residence.
Click to expand...
Then there's the loophole the antis are up in arms about. In Illinois, we have a FOID which is needed to possess a firearm. I assumed you had to, at the very least, need to show an ID/DL to prove you're 21 for a handgun, and a resident of that state.
Click to expand...
I have a two-part response. First of all, just because Illinois is more restrictive than necessary does not mean that the rest of us are working through a loophole. Second, IMO, a loophole is an unintended consequence of some ambiguity in a law. Private sales being exempt from background checks are not a loophole. That's how private sales have always worked in the vast majority of states in this country since 1776. It's also how the overwhelming majority of private property sales operate.

We in the gun community have got to stop treating private sales as some kind of aberration or loophole.
 
I have a two-part response. First of all, just because Illinois is more restrictive than necessary does not mean that the rest of us are working through a loophole. Second, IMO, a loophole is an unintended consequence of some ambiguity in a law. Private sales being exempt from background checks are not a loophole. That's how private sales have always worked in the vast majority of states in this country since 1776. It's also how the overwhelming majority of private property sales operate.

We in the gun community have got to stop treating private sales as some kind of aberration or loophole.
Click to expand...


I don't believe the FOID system should be the law of the land. It's simply all I've known since that law has been in place longer than I've been alive. I just believe it's unwise to sell a gun to a stranger without knowing if they're a resident of the same state. The easiest way to verify residency is to look at their DL/ID. I belive it's also illegal to sell a handgun to someone under 21 years of age. Would it be wise to sell a handgun to a young person without making sure they're 21?

A private sale in and of itself is not a loophole. Not having to provide proof of residency or age is. If I lived in Georgia, and was selling a gun, I'd at least make sure the buyer was a fellow Georgian. That's just me.
 
What you suggest is the wise move, spanishjames. Personally, if I were doing a private sale to a stranger, I would ask to see a CHCL, if possible. I, however, do not necessarily want to treat all unwise moves as "loopholes." A loophole is an unintended consequence of poor drafting. Unless I am mistaken, the exclusion of private sales from background check requirements was intentional.
 
I was thinking, why not verify residence at the door, then issue armbands to those eligible to buy. But it's much simpler for each seller to ask for ID himself. These sellers broke the law, and are no help to the rest of us.
Click to expand...
Why? The anti's have claimed for years that gun shows are hot beds of criminal activity, but they have never provided a shred of evidence. The only criminal sales they've been able to document (and oh how they've tried!) have been the ones their own agents initiated.

The percentage of crime guns traced to gun shows? Less than 1% [pdf]. Show me that gun shows are a significant problem, and then we can talk about adding impediments to free trade there.
 
Why? The anti's have claimed for years that gun shows are hot beds of criminal activity, but they have never provided a shred of evidence. The only criminal sales they've been able to document (and oh how they've tried!) have been the ones their own agents initiated.
The percentage of crime guns traced to gun shows? Less than 1% [pdf]. Show me that gun shows are a significant problem, and then we can talk about adding impediments to free trade there.
Click to expand...

Precisely because the anti's continually try to break the law at gun shows, is the reason that sellers at gun shows should dot their I's, and cross their T's. These agents are just as bad as those that try to disturb hunters doing nothing illegal. They just don't like hunting (guns), so they do anything to make a legal activity look "immoral". In the case of the gun shows, they try to prove how easy it is to buy a gun, legally or not. In one of the sales at the gun show, they say "it only took 70 seconds from offer to purchase". So what! Why does it have to take longer?

We're not just fighting a legislative war. We're also fighting a propaganda war. My main concern is not the private sale, so to speak, but rather our losing the battle of perception with these documented, broadcasted, examples of the anti's argument for the need for "universal" background checks. They say it's too easy for criminals and the mentally unstable to buy a gun, and here's their proof. We may know the truth, but they own the news. And that's all the too-busy voter needs to hear.
 
Yes, but you're making the point that we should accept infringements because perception might suffer. I can't get behind that. If we tightened rules up at gun shows, they'd just find something else to nitpick on. It's not as if honesty is the strong point for them here.
 
How does turning the guns over to CNN security make the unlawfull buyer less guilty? Is this not a straw buy. Or are news organizations above the law.
 
If we tightened rules up at gun shows, they'd just find something else to nitpick on.
Click to expand...

You're right about that.

Yes, but you're making the point that we should accept infringements because perception might suffer.
Click to expand...

I hope my statements do not come off as advocating for stricter gun laws, because I'm not. I'm merely pointing out that now is not the time for sellers at gun shows to let their guard down. I guess that goes for any private seller. Let's not give the anti's more ammunition to use against us.
 
Last edited:
I noticed that, as well, and I'm a relative novice. The CNN reporter twice said, aghast, "and they didn't even ask me why I wanted the gun." And I thought, why should they? It's none of their business. The only thing I was ever asked is "can I help you?", and if I hesitate, then they ask what I'll be needing the gun for -- but only to help me pick the right tool for the job.
 
It is a good CYA move ,if selling to someone you do not know,to see ID and make a piece of paper"Sold Colt 1911 sn xxxxx to Joe Scmo,DOB 12-23-1964 on Dec 8,2012Sign and date,me and Joe

If someday that handgun is connected to a crime,it won't prove anything,but its a credible trace to present.A thumbprint might be good.
 
CNN is a very, very biased propaganda outlet and I wouldn't believe anything I see there. They are very anti 2A, and want to strip law abiding citizens from having any access to guns for any reason. They are to be ignored, and ridiculed for trying to portray what they sell as "news". Disgusting.
 
from sellers who never asked for ID to verify residence.
Click to expand...

Or at least, that is what the footage carefully edited by CNN appeared to show, right?

But trust CNN to never, ever doctor the video to make a political point? Not I.

Bart Noir
 
most of those are small time sellers with no ffl license that go and buy weapons from private sellers themselves. 1-5 a time at a gun show and have no need for a ffl license. but in the guns show promoters case they should ask for and have a copy of the sellers ffl license on file to make sure this doesnt happen. and the short time it takes to fill out a a 4473 and call the background check phone#(3-5 minutes) alot of this problem could be stopped. inexcusable to all licensed sellers who dont sell firearms right.
 
You don't have to be a resident to purchase a rifle...
Click to expand...
If you are unlicensed and so is the seller- yes, you do.

An unlicensed buyer can purchase a long gun from an out-of-state FFL if the laws of both states permit it. (The reverse is also true; a FFL can purchase guns in any state, provided they are legal for a FFL to possess in the FFL's place of business.) However, all interstate long gun sales between unlicensed persons must go through an appropriate FFL (i.e. not a C&R licensee).

*(Edited to add info shown in italics.)
 
Last edited:
I bought a gun from a private seller at a gun show. I tried to show him my permit he told me he wasnt an ffl and didnt need it. Paid him and walked out with a ruger gp100 for 325.00

was a while ago as you can tell from the price.
 
Is this not a straw buy
Click to expand...

Please guys, correct me if I am wrong here. But a Straw Purchase is buying a gun for someone who can not otherwise legally buy one.

And that check box on the 7743 that says you are buying the gun for yourself includes buying it in order to gift it to someone who can legally own the gun.


I bought a gun from a private seller at a gun show. I tried to show him my permit he told me he wasnt an ffl and didnt need it. Paid him and walked out with a ruger gp100 for 325.00

was a while ago as you can tell from the price.
Click to expand...


Sounds like a good private sale to me. Nothing wrong with it, unless you are a prohibited possessor. You weren't wearing your "I am a Prohibited Possessor and Proud of it" T-Shirt were you?


Like was said earlier, Private Sales are not supposed to be regulated by the Fed so they aren't. The States have all the power in the world to do so, but the Fed needs to back off and the States should be telling them so.

And yes, these CNN guys need to be reported if they transported the guns across state lines, if the guns went to a CNN Office in-state then no law was broken in taking their cheap shot at gun ownership and the 2A.
 
Last edited:
Please guys, correct me if I am wrong here. But a Straw Purchase is buying a gun for someone who can not otherwise legally buy one.
Click to expand...
It's a common misunderstanding. A straw purchase is buying a weapon on behalf of another person, ie. a proxy buy. It doesn't matter whether the recipient is disqualified from owning a gun or not. What matters is whether it's your money buying the gun or not.

In the case of a gift, I'm paying for the gun with my money, then giving it to you. In the case of a straw purchase, I'm using money you gave me to buy a gun, then giving it to you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top