Gun Show Loop Hole

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Tennessee Gentleman

New member
I would like to discuss this topic and see what some of you think. So, here is my thought on the Gun Show Loophole.

First, I think I need to define the word loophole.:) Using Merriam Webster's Online here is what it says: 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 What irony in that definition;)

So, are private firearm sales conducted at Gun Shows a loophole in that it bypasses the Background Check?

Is it a crime for a private citizen to sell a firearm to a person that cannot legally possess one? Is there a duty for them to find out if they are a prohibited purchaser?

How can they know of a total stranger if there is no background check conducted?

Should we as gunowners be concerned about criminals and mentally defective people buying firearms through private sales?

Is the Background Check a tool to find out if a buyer is legally able to buy? If so, shouldn't that extend to private sales?

Thanks!
 
"Gunshow Loophole" is a misnomor, like "assault weapon," or "cop-killer bullets." Close the so-called loophole, and fathers will no longer be allowed to buy their son's first hunting rifle.

How many crimes each year are committed as a direct result of the "gunshow loophole?" Just try and go to a gunshow with ulterior motives of committing crimes later - remember that you're surrounded by hundreds of citizens with thousands of guns.
 
I agree with Denny.

My guns are my private property to do with as I see fit. If I choose to sell them to another person, I feel personally that my duty to society consists of:
1. Make sure they're a resident of my state.
2. Inquire if they have a CCW permit.
3. If not, have them affirm to me that they aren't a convicted felon, mentally incompetent, a foreign national or dishonorably discharged.

Even if my moral compass didn't swing that far in due dilligence, if another gun owner decided he wanted to sell all his firearms quickly in FtF transfers to skew any ability to track the weapons (i.e., an impending gun ban and house-to-house search based on 4473 inventories), that is his right.
 
That so-called "loophole" of being able to conduct a face-to-face transaction with a non-dealer individual at a gun show without having to conduct a background check is no different than doing it anywhere else. The only thing that makes it appear to be a "loophole" to so many ill-informed legislators and media types is the fact that it's taking place at a GUN SHOW.

Face-to-face transactions, sans background check, are perfectly LEGAL between individuals who live in the same state. It doesn't matter if it happens at a gun show or not.
 
I didnt conduct a background check when I sold my car to a bloke who was a complete stranger. And automobiles are far more dangerous than guns.
 
Interesting comments. I maintain that it IS a loophole because it allows prohibited classes of people to legally buy firearms thorough private sales. And while it may not be illegal to sell to a prohibited person who lies to you to get the gun. Remember you can't "tell" always if someone is crazy or a convicted felon etc. If I had sold the gun that kid used at VA Tech I would have difficulty living with that.
And no it would not prohibit you from buying your son a gun. It doesn't do that now.
 
Like many things political, the term "gunshow loophole" is deceptive and intended to make folks say, "Yeah, that's reasonable." But it isn't. What the so called loophole is simply private sales or even gifts of firearms. If the "hole" is closed you couldn't sell your neighbor a firearm without going through a dealer and paying the extra cost of paper work and background checks. The dealers like that idea because they sure won't do it for free, they would be able to take a cut on every private sale - or gift - in his area.

Want to leave your collection to your grandson? If they get their way you can expect the recipient to pay the transaction fees for each one, could be expensive if you have more than one or two to pass along.

So, no, closing the "loophole" is not reasonable. It actually isn't expected to decrease crime any more than any other antigun law is expected to decrease crime. The purpose or all such laws is to gain more gov. control of your life and into your wallet as deeply as possible. Anytime a beaurucrat comes along saying, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you!", hold on to your wallet and run like a scalded ape.
 
Interesting comments. I maintain that it IS a loophole because it allows prohibited classes of people to legally buy firearms thorough private sales.
Click to expand...

There's your problem. Prohibited classes of people can't buy firearms legally.

And while it may not be illegal to sell to a prohibited person who lies to you to get the gun. Remember you can't "tell" always if someone is crazy or a convicted felon etc.
Click to expand...

A drunk might lie to you and buy your car. Just how much police participation would you like in that transaction?

And no it would not prohibit you from buying your son a gun. It doesn't do that now.
Click to expand...

What if your son were a liar? Damned loopholes.
 
There is always a loophole that allows individuals to have guns, and they will be progressively attacked by the same people, through individual steps to make acquisition, disposal, and retention of weapons more onerous to discourage participation and get it down to a more manageable level (less people to vote on the subject).
 
There's your problem. Prohibited classes of people can't buy firearms legally.
Click to expand...
Yes they can, through private sales say you.

A drunk might lie to you and buy your car. Just how much police participation would you like in that transaction?
Click to expand...

"Drunks" aren't prohibited from buying cars.

What if your son were a liar? Damned loopholes.
Click to expand...

That comment makes no sense.

I guess you would sell to anyone you chose and feel no obligation to see if they were prohibited from owning a firearm. Well, get ready, I think that will change soon. Too bad we can't agree to do things that keep firearms out of the hands of criminals and kooks and make the government do it for us with more restrictions than we need.
 
wncchester

I wouldn't propose doing anything through an FFL. You can get a background check for $29 in TN. I bet if we got in front of this you could do it for less.
 
There's your problem. Prohibited classes of people can't buy firearms legally.
Click to expand...

Yes they can, through private sales say you.
Click to expand...

No.

You can sell something to someone and break no law, while that person can be prohibited from buying.

A drunk might lie to you and buy your car. Just how much police participation would you like in that transaction?
Click to expand...
"Drunks" aren't prohibited from buying cars.
Click to expand...

And crazy (your term) people aren't prohibited from buying guns.

How much police participation do you want in transactions in which the possibility of someone never under your control doing some harm is remote?

What if your son were a liar? Damned loopholes.
Click to expand...

That comment makes no sense.
Click to expand...

Let me help. You son has an undisclosed psychiatric or criminal history, but you want to give him a gun without the imprimatur of the state. Isn't that the loophole you are complaining about?

Too bad we can't agree to do things that keep firearms out of the hands of criminals and kooks and make the government do it for us with more restrictions than we need.
Click to expand...

You mean the additional restriction on all sales that you are proposing? Prohibited classes already can't buy legally. Making another law will somehow make those purchases extra super duper illegal?
 
You can sell something to someone and break no law, while that person can be prohibited from buying.
Click to expand...

I think that is morally indefensible. If a person is legally prohibited from buying something then the buyer should do due diligence to prevent it.

And crazy (your term) people aren't prohibited from buying guns.
Click to expand...

Bad term I guess. Mentally defective as adjudicated are prohibited.

Let me help. You son has an undisclosed psychiatric or criminal history, but you want to give him a gun without the imprimatur of the state. Isn't that the loophole you are complaining about?
Click to expand...

I would not give a gun to my son if he were legally prohibited and I would know if that were the case. Your point is not a good one. I have several family members I would not sell a gun to. The closeness of relation means nothing to the moral duty.

You mean the additional restriction on all sales that you are proposing? Prohibited classes already can't buy legally. Making another law will somehow make those purchases extra super duper illegal?
Click to expand...

No, by modifying the existing system to allow other than FFLs to make background checks we could head off the loop hole bills that will continue to come and will eventually be supported by the public and they could be even more restrictive. The background check is a tool to help us not sell guns to illegal classes of people.
 
Classified ads loophole?

This topic is surprisingly timely for me, since I just got finished explaining to one of the secretaries where I work that there is no such thing as a "gun show loophole." The anti-gunners' complaint seems to be with private sales in general, and the lack of background checks in such private sales. So I think we should start calling it the "classified ads loophole," and leave the @#&^% gun shows out of it.

As for me, when I recently wanted to sell a handgun to another individual, I arranged for us to meet at the local police station for the transfer, and the cops ran their background check on the guy at his expense. The guy that bought the gun--a fireman--had no qualms with that. I really did it more to protect myself more than anything... Had the gun been used in a crime, I wanted airtight proof that I did everything I could have done to keep it out of the hands of criminals. Never know who a subsequent crime victim will choose to name in a lawsuit, if somebody ends up with the gun that shouldn't have.
 
Private individuals have sold and traded weapons amog themselves since the nation was founded. While there are problems with this nation that need to be addressed, absolutely none of them can be traced to the that activity.

There is no 'loophole'. There is only yet another attempt to demonize otherwise legal behavior, through creative sematics. It's the old 'trade your freedom for false pretenses of security' game that Franklin warned us about.

If we don't wake up, soon there will be nothing left to trade.
 
Stockkahr,
You did the right thing and if we gunowners would agree to be as responsible we wouldn't have the Brady gang jumping down our throats.

No Sarge, just trying to keep guns out of the hands of crazies and crooks. We live in a different time.
 
You did the right thing and if we gunowners would agree to be as responsible we wouldn't have the Brady gang jumping down our throats.
Click to expand...

1. The Brady Bunch wants nothing less than a complete ban on all firearms in America. Gun owners have "compromised" for years. It generally results in gun owners giving up more rights to keep the anti's at bay. Doesn't work. They never stop.

2. Do you honestly believe that requiring a background check for every firearm transfer in the US would prevent a single criminal from acquiring a firearm? If the answer is yes, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I would love to sell you. Cheap.

Cocaine/Crack/Pot/Meth/NameYourFavoriteVice isn't legal to purchase or possess, even with a background check. If you wanted some, you can find someone selling it within 30 minutes in any city in America. The same applies to illegal firearms.

If you feel safer with background checks for every legal firearm transaction, move to California. They are more than happy to oblige you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top