CNN films illegal gun sales at gun shows.

not sure about other states but being a resident of Oregon i can legally buy a AR in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and a few others i dont remember off the top of my head. on the other hand the handguns are illegal to purchase in any state other than Oregon. when i saw the CNN program the commentator did mention that a few times they were denied sale because a guy asked for ID. so they did throw that out there...but it was like a 5 second comment
 
We in the gun community have got to stop treating private sales as some kind of aberration or loophole. (QUESTION)
__________________
A gunfight is not the time to learn new skills. (you would be surprised at the new skills one can learn during a gun fight.., they are all NOT the same !)
Click to expand...

not exactly sure what you are saying above, "we in the gun community", providing one has a little background in dealing guns for me, around 60 years don't just go around selling guns to just anyone, personally i have NOT sold a gun in over 30 years and do not intend to in the future, what i have bought i considered then as an investment..., working out pretty damn good right now considering the falling price of gold.
 
BPowderkeg, what I was saying there is this: Much of the American public seems to already believe that every sale should have a background check, that there is some mysterious "loophole" which allows sales at gun shows to escape background checks entirely. If we (as a community) continue to treat private sales with no background checks as something out-of-the-ordinary, that only strengthens that perception. As a consequence, more and more people will come to believe that there was some error in legal drafting, and that said "loophole" must be closed.
 
I watched this on CNN as well. Sometimes it feels like we are fighting a losing battle. The media and left will not rest until our rights are stripped away.
Click to expand...

let's be careful who we point fingers at in this debate, especially when it's gun owners who are the ones breaking the law. just because the media shines a light on it doesn't make it go away. I have no doubt that this isn't an isolated incident and that these illegal gun transactions are going on across the country
 
Most of these low volume buy and sell hobbyists used to go thorugh the procedure to get FFLs until the Clinton Administartion decided to clamp down, raise FFL fees, and require a store front and ran them "out of business" so to speak, and making them non-FFL gun show hobbyists was an unintented result.

I think the whole point o this background check debate should be centered on the fact that the person who misreprents himself and purchases a gun in violation of the law, whether it be residency, or criminal status, or other, is the person who has committed a crime and should be prosecuted (which is almost never done) where the background check people seem to wish to elevate the "crime" of not doing an investigation and being a policeman and preventing said crime more serious than the crime of an illegal purchase itself. These seem to be the only types of offenses where "not preventing the crime" is a more serious offense than committing it.
 
That is one nauseatingly slanted report.
Freedom of the press does not include the freedom to break laws to get the story.
I'd love to see the follow-up report where they are arrested for intentionally buying weapons out of state and as straw purchases by using CNN money.
 
lcpiper said:
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...
Tom Servo said:
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.
Click to expand...
While Tom is absolutely correct, I think it's helpful to point out that providing a firearm to a prohibited person is a separate crime in and of itself. A person can be charged with both crimes for the same incident.

Although many straw purchases presumably involve prohibited persons, this is not universally true. For instance, an unlicensed person who is lawfully permitted to own a firearm may initiate a straw purchase under the mistaken belief that the Form 4473 is sent to the Feds, or because she is trying to conceal her assets from creditors, the IRS, and/or litigants in a civil suit.
 
what I was saying there is this: Much of the American public seems to already believe that every sale should have a background check, that there is some mysterious "loophole" which allows sales at gun shows to escape background checks entirely. If we (as a community) continue to treat private sales with no background checks as something out-of-the-ordinary, that only strengthens that perception. As a consequence, more and more people will come to believe that there was some error in legal drafting, and that said "loophole" must be closed.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but I would add one caveat. The media, and statist politicians are conditioning the general public to believe there is a "gun show loophole", and that "something must be done" to stop it that will help curtail "gun violence".
 
I'll grudgingly admit that I'm impressed with the anti-gunners' Public Relations machine. By adopting the term "gun show loophole", they managed to skip over the whole part where we discuss whether or not private citizens should be able to buy and sell their private property to one another without a background check.

Instead, they've presented it as a forgone conclusion that there's a "problem" that needs to be fixed, and if you don't agree, then you're obstructionist or "shady".
 
Committing a crime (such as selling a firearm to a prohibited person) takes intent. I have often attended gun shows where there are many many non-residents attending. If I am at one of these shows and looking to buy from a private seller, I assume that the seller is doing so legally. It is not my job to determine if they are legal. I do worry about buying a stolen gun. I know that I'm a non-prohibited person, and I work from that perspective. I am not my brother's keeper. Nor do I believe the Federal government should be my keeper either.
 
Last edited:
let's be careful who we point fingers at in this debate, especially when it's gun owners who are the ones breaking the law. just because the media shines a light on it doesn't make it go away. I have no doubt that this isn't an isolated incident and that these illegal gun transactions are going on across the country
Click to expand...
What gun owners were breaking the law here? The sellers? What did the sellers do wrong?

The seller cannot knowingly sell the gun to a prohibited person. If the seller (gun owner) does not know the buyer, what obligation does he/she have? To ask? To demand to see ID? To be skilled enough to determine if the ID is valid or fake? How far down that road does he/she need to go? Granted, if the buyer states that he/she is a prohibited person, that is a different situation. But that is not what was being presented here.

The transaction was only illegal because the buyer was not a resident of that state. The buyer knowingly committed a crime; the seller (gun owner) committed no crime. How is this "shining a light" on "illegal gun transactions ... going on across the country"? The light was shined on biased reporters doing illegal acts and unethically reporting it to be something else.

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.
Click to expand...
Are you saying that these were FFLs who sold the guns without a 4473 and NICS check? I don't follow your point. If the "small time sellers" are doing at regularly and repeatedly (buying guns 1-5 at a time and then reselling them), then they need an FFL and could probably get one if they would apply.
 
Last edited:
Freedom of the press does not include the freedom to break laws to get the story.
Click to expand...
Since David Gregory escaped prosecution, I imagine some in the media feel emboldened now.

FWIW, the term "gun show loophole" is nothing new. Sen. Lautenberg's been throwing it around since the 1990's. In fact, he proposes a bill to close it pretty much every year. The only difference now is the level of public awareness.
 
My understanding is that if someone is buying and selling with the intent to make a profit, then they are doing so as a business and must have an FFL, and they must do background checks for their sales.

If someone at a show is breaking the law then the law needs to be enforced, again, not more laws being written, just enforcing the ones we have will take care of this.
 
lcpiper said:
My understanding is that if someone is buying and selling with the intent to make a profit, then they are doing so as a business and must have an FFL, and they must do background checks for their sales.
Click to expand...
The actual regulations are a bit more subtle, but you hit one of the key phrases- intent to make a profit. It would be unreasonable to expect private sellers to sell personal firearms without ever earning a profit, but it would be equally unreasonable to expect a business to actually earn profits in order to be defined as such; after all, businesses lose money all the time. :rolleyes:

It's perfectly legal for an unlicensed person to sell a firearm for a profit; the problem arises when the person engages in the "repetitive purchase and resale" of firearms with "the principal objective of livelihood and profit".

From the ATF Federal Firearms Regulations Reference Guide, 2005 edition (emphasis mine):

The term "engaged in the business" means—
<(A) & (B) omitted>
(C) as applied to a dealer in firearms... a person who devotes time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms, but such term shall not include a person who makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms...
Click to expand...
 
You guys are both right. The line gets fuzzy. How many guns and how often constitutes "repetitive?" Ultimately, I fear it would be up a prosecutor or jury.
 
If someone at a show is breaking the law then the law needs to be enforced, again, not more laws being written, just enforcing the ones we have will take care of this.
Click to expand...

But Tom, let's not jump the gun (LOL), don't we need this first?

If someone at a show is breaking the law then the law needs to be enforced....
Click to expand...
 
But Tom, let's not jump the gun (LOL), don't we need this first?
Click to expand...
Nah, as advocates of new laws (including the Vice President of the United States) have said, it's not about enforcement. They don't have time for that.

It's far easier to enact new laws in hopes of snagging a few harmless folks in convenient statutory violations.
 
You don't need an FFL license to be a seller at a gun show. You can sell accessories, optics, jerky, pins, old medals andpatches, etc. You can also sell some of your private collection at your table. You can buy a gun one week, shoot it, not like how it feels and sell it the next. As stated above, if your intent is not to sell for profit as a business, all is good.

The "loophole" as the antis so named it, is a private seller is under no obligation to run an NICS check when selling his guns. His only obligation is determined by the state laws in place where his table is and any federal laws such as not selling a handgun to someone under 21 years of age. Every state has their own laws in handling a "private sale" like this is considered.

Also, I'm sure everyone has seen the guys walking around the shows with rifles with For Sale signs sticking out of the barrels. A meeting is set up outside to complete the sale and it is a private sale.

The contention is that people who cannot legally buy a firearm seek out gun shows to purchase their firearms. They look for the guy who won't ask/won't tell or the guy who only wants the cash when they meet in the parking lot. They go from table to table and when/if the seller asks for an ID they claim they left it in the car and will be right back. They then move to another table. This is the 'gun show loophole" where they claim the "40%" of the illegal transfers occur.

Now, I am not in favor in any government intervention. Any intervention is bad intervention. Sellers who deliberately look the other way are the ones who are hurting our cause. They are the ones making it difficult for the law abiding gun owners. They are trying to ban all private sales to stop the few that are "illegal" and it's a way of punishing the masses to stop a few.
 
The contention is that people who cannot legally buy a firearm seek out gun shows to purchase their firearms. They look for the guy who won't ask/won't tell or the guy who only wants the cash when they meet in the parking lot. They go from table to table and when/if the seller asks for an ID they claim they left it in the car and will be right back. They then move to another table. This is the 'gun show loophole" where they claim the "40%" of the illegal transfers occur.
Click to expand...
Except it's not 40%. That number came from a tortured reading of a 1997 NIJ survey [pdf], in which 2,568 households were surveyed, but only 251 respondents answered the question about the origin of their gun.


Congresswoman DeGette was claiming in 200 that the figure was 70%, but wouldn't give data at all.

A more realistic and (somewhat) verifiable number? 0.7%. That's directly from a Department of Justice study [pdf].

So, are criminals buying their guns at gun shows? Yeah, a few. Is it enough to be considered a serious problem? No.
 
You and I know it's not 40%. We also know that 90% of gun owners don't favor UBCs but these stats are spewed by politicians and the media as facts. This has become a full blown propoganda war waged by our government against us. Pure and simple, they are lying to create dissention and to sway public opinion to get their way. The general, non-gun owning public takes these stats as gospel and then joins the ranks of the "popular vote". They don't want to be considered "radicals" or "extremists" so they take the path of least resistance. Make no mistake about it, the government is waging an all out war against gun owners and will not stop until they sign that NATO treaty banning all small arms. Wars take years, one battle at a time. They know that and are attacking us one state at a time. One bill at a time. One day at a time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top