Gun Show Loop Hole

Status
Not open for further replies.
I maintain that it IS a loophole because it allows prohibited classes of people to legally buy firearms thorough private sales.
Click to expand...

OK, but it's not a "gun show" loophole, as our new member StockKahr points out. It's a private sale loophole, if you want to call it a loophole.
 
Well, I see lots of people making more or less the same argument to you TG, and your response being 'nuh-uh'. Sorry, but that's how it sounds to me. So, what the heck, I'll take a crack at it.

This has nothing to do with gun shows. This is a private party transaction. It can happen at a gun show, at your house, or anywhere else a buyer and seller meet. Heck, a couple weeks ago I bought a 1911 off another member here. We met in a parking lot. It occurs frequently at gun shows because there's usually lots of gun folks there.

Now, what is required of the participants in this transaction, wherever it happens? Varies state to state. I'll tackle Michigan because that's where I am. If it's a rifle or shotgun, I give the guy my money or beaver pelts or whatever else he wants to trade for and he gives me the gun. End. There is no paperwork before or after the sale because Michigan doesn't require it. You don't even have to know each other's names, let alone do a check.

Pistols are different. Private party sales are perfectly legal, but before buying Michigan requires that the purchaser has either a purchase permit (good for 10 days), or a CHL. The police do a background check when you get either of those. The sale also has to be recorded on transfer form. Seller and buyer each get a copy and one goes to the State Police to remove the gun from the seller's name. (Michigan does require registration of pistols). Purchaser then has to take the pistol and the transfer form in to get it registered. Of course it does behoove both buyer and seller to check each others' IDs before putting the names on the form.

So, in the case of pistols, in Michigan, there is absolutely no difference in the checks that are done whether it is sold by an FFL or a private party.

Rifles and shotguns, of course, require a NICS and a 4473 when purchased from a dealer. So that's the extent of the 'loophole'. People can buy a rifle or shotgun without paperwork. It is, of course, quite illegal for them to do so if they are prohibited by law. And prohibited persons that have fake ids or straw purchasers can also get them. Also illegally.
 
Just say no to people closing loopholes. I actually like the car/gun sale comparison. Felons are prohibited from possesing or buying firearms, drunks after a DWI conviction in many states are prohibited from driving a vehicle for a period of time in many states, some states go so far as to confiscate the plates of the vehicles the drunk owns. In both cases if a prohibited person chooses to violate the law they will do so and find a way around the prohibition. I have a uncle that is a felon and back when he was still running with a biker gang I remember seeing a few different guns in his house on more than one occassion. As others have said someone who believes they need a gun will find one whether they are allowed to legally own it or not.
I have a responsibility to take reasonable and minimal steps to ensure a person I sell a gun to is a resident of my state and will ask them to sign a bill of sale stating they are not a felon but other than that it is my propety and I will dispose of it as I see fit.
 
After wading through the knee-jerk "any gun regulation is bad regulation" stuff you're likely to find on these boards, I came to my own conclusion: it's rather silly to have background checks if they are so easily circumvented. Really, I don't think it should be called the "gun show loophole" so much as the "private sale problem." I say problem because the only way you could practically enforce background checks on private sales is to keep records of who the gun is transferred to, and that could potentially cause problems (though I'll say this: they know who the FFL sold the gun to, and so what's to stop a tyrannical government for dragging the information out of the private party anyway?).

So really, those complaining about the gun show loophole are missing the full extent of the problem. True, they're closing up the biggest gap in the private sale problem, in that I'd expect gun shows to be the most likely private sale source you'd obtain a firearm illegally (as it's a place where you're expected to wander up unsolicited and ask to buy a gun). But they're still leaving ads in the paper selling guns, etc... and making it very hard to track chronic straw purchasers by not maintaining records of private sales.
 
OK, but it's not a "gun show" loophole, as our new member StockKahr points out. It's a private sale loophole, if you want to call it a loophole.
Click to expand...

I stipulate that. Call it private sales loophole. I think they call it that cause that is where it happens most often. I know that myself as I go to a lot of gun shows.

Well, I see lots of people making more or less the same argument to you TG, and your response being 'nuh-uh'. Sorry, but that's how it sounds to me.
Click to expand...

You are right in one thing. The same arguments that often are as lame as the ones anti-gunners use. I think we are smarter and better than that. I think the way it is in Michigan is probably what we should go with including long guns (like the one used at Northern Illinois).

Just say no to people closing loopholes. I actually like the car/gun sale comparison.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but it is a faulty comparison. Not being able to drive does not equate to ownership. Felons are banned from even having a firearm. DUIs are not banned from owning a car.

As others have said someone who believes they need a gun will find one whether they are allowed to legally own it or not.
Click to expand...

No doubt. Let them get them illegally, not from a gun show or an unsuspecting or uncaring legal gun owner.


I have a responsibility to take reasonable and minimal steps to ensure a person I sell a gun to is a resident of my state and will ask them to sign a bill of sale stating they are not a felon but other than that it is my propety and I will dispose of it as I see fit.
Click to expand...

If you were to sell a gun to a crazy person who then used it to kill of inure others and all you required was a bill of sale my guess is that you would be sued to high heaven and lose. If you sell to strangers I suggest no bill of sale as then you can't be traced. I think more steps need to be taken. I don't sell to strangers.

it's rather silly to have background checks if they are so easily circumvented. Really, I don't think it should be called the "gun show loophole" so much as the "private sale problem."
Click to expand...

I disagree with you on the first and agree with you on the second. First, I don't care if they can circumvent the system. Take your logic to the end and we would have NO restricted classes of people who could own firearms. Because they could get around that law or any other. This just makes it harder. I am tired of reading about these nut jobs who buy their guns in a gun store and then kill a lot of people. They may do it anyway, but lets make them go illegal and that makes our case better because we obey the law.
 
I'm amazed at how many members here have a hard on for certian types of gun legislation. It seems like every week someone starts up again with "Shouldn't we ban private firearms sales" or "You know, a felon's a felon in my book and none of them should have guns". What the hell?

Prove to us that laws like this do anything to curtail crime and then we can discuss your little brilliant idea. Until then you are doing nothing but advocating the removal of rights from decent people for no reason but to see a few folks agree with your warped mindset.

Hey, here's an idea... Why don't we all agree to limit ourselves to 10 round magazines or .25 ACP or smaller caliber or just throw out all of those "EVIL" black rifles? I'm sure the criminals will follow suit.
 
No, some of us are responsible gun owners who are tired of being lumped in with extremists who think any right cannot be regulated. All of them are and should be. Nothing I have talked about has threatened to remove anybody's right to own a gun but promotes common sense about what that right means. Don't worry, I'll have to go soon and won't be posting as much but if we stay stubborn then our rights WILL be infringed.
 
"Trolling" is when a poster makes inflamatory comments or somthing highly controversial so that other folks will make angry replies and make themselves look bad.
 
From a recent thread by Wildalaska on related subjects, I wrote-

I belong to several forums and the phenomenon you describe is not limited to TFL. I noticed it first in the '04 elections when numerous 'DNC Plants' started registering 4-6 months before the election and running up high post counts- almost solely in L&P-type posts, and usually for a specific candidate.


Moronic political posters are, in my view, simply another good use for that wonderful little 'ignore' feature that graces the better forums. Oh I suppose if you caught one of them posting total fertilizer and you felt it was worth your trouble to point that out, a person could do that. More and more however I find myself with better things to do than trying to teach opera to pigs, or change minds that are already closed.
Click to expand...

There is simply no better medicine for trolls, DNC/VPC/Brady Plants, etc.

Don't get baited. Hit the button.
 
I maintain that it IS a loophole because it allows prohibited classes of people to legally buy firearms thorough private sales.
Click to expand...

Since federal law does not require background checks for private transactions, there can be no loophole (an ambiguity or omission in the text through which the intent of a statute, contract, or obligation may be evaded) with respect to private transactions at gun shows.

The only "loophole" that exists is with respect to the goal of gun-control advocates to subject every firearms transaction to government oversight and control. Saying that private transactions at gun shows constitute a "loophole" is a savy marketing ploy by gun-control advocates, in the same manner that they refer to the sellers in private transactions at gun shows as "unlicensed dealers."

If gun-control advocates want federal oversight and control of private firearms transactions (which already exist to greater or lesser degrees in many states), they should mount a straightforward campaign for the adoption of such laws. Falsely labeling an activity is a dishonorable subterfuge, but gun-control advocates appear to believe that any means is justified to achieve their objective. If they are successful in fooling enough people to support their "gun show loophole," you can bet that their next objective will be to close the "private sale loophole" (although they will undoubtedly use a more clever phrase).
 
TG...

I, for one, am not going anywhere and anytime anyone shows up here talking about "reasonable" gun legislation I will meet them with the same response. Prove that it works.
 
First gun control laws are about power, people control, and state and federal employement.
Second local,state and federal law makers are great at taking emotional issues and passing laws that they know will do nothing more than make scared people feel good about what ever is scaring them.
Third it has been less than 100 years that firearms were considered different than any other property that some one owned. The last 50years actualy less than has the anti-gun groups been able to gain as much ground as they have using fear to punish the public at large for what some one might possibly,maybe do.
 
I, for one, am not going anywhere and anytime anyone shows up here talking about "reasonable" gun legislation I will meet them with the same response. Prove that it works.
Click to expand...

Well I am not asking you to go anywhere. OK, the VA Tech shooter, would not have been able to buy his guns had the he been (as federal law required) on the database. Since he would not have been able to legally buy those guns (and he was prohibited) the gun store dealer would have refused to do it and might have averted the massacre. I don't need to "prove" anything. Good sense and policy shows that convicted felons and insane people should not be allowed to own or possess firearms. Anyway, ther eis no proof anybody could show you for you would not believe it.

Since federal law does not require background checks for private transactions, there can be no loophole (an ambiguity or omission in the text through which the intent of a statute, contract, or obligation may be evaded) with respect to private transactions at gun shows.
Click to expand...

The intent of the law was to prevent insane people and felons from buying guns by providing a tool, the Background Check, to determine if a person was in that prohibited class. Private sales circumvent the Backgorund Check and thus thwart the intent of the statute.
 
Prove to us that laws like this do anything to curtail crime and then we can discuss your little brilliant idea. Until then you are doing nothing but advocating the removal of rights from decent people for no reason but to see a few folks agree with your warped mindset.
Click to expand...

I agree with this thought process. Prove the worth TG. Firearm deaths are a teeny, tiny fraction of the US population, horrible but a very small percentage and it ain't like we're running out of new people being born. It appears there are 4 million new US citizens being born every year.
 
Background checks are law. The NRA supported them and so I have no need to prove their worth. Laws attempt to better society. It is better for insane people and felons not to have guns. You show me a better way to do it. Just saying "prove it" and walking away is just a cop out.
 
Good sense and policy shows that convicted felons and insane people should not be allowed to own or possess firearms.
Click to expand...

I agree with the "insane people" part, but what about individuals who are convicted of nonviolent felonies? Just as an example, In Indiana, an individual that is convicted of public nudity twice will get a D felony on his second offense. I know some former frat boys who are one step away from losing their second amendment rights. A peeping tom in Indiana that gets caught while using a camera can be charged with a felony. How is that related to the likelihood that the same individual will commit a crime if he is permitted to own a handgun?

IMHO, only individuals convicted of violent felonies should lose their second amendment rights. Just some food for thought.
 
Private sales circumvent the Backgorund Check and thus thwart the intent of the statute.
Click to expand...

Even the Brady Campaign website's discussion of the Brady Bill recognizes that it was directed at federally-licensed firearms dealers (FFLs). Stating that private sales 'circumvent' Brady suggests that Congress in some way overlooked private sales during the seven years it took for Brady to be passed. Had Congress intended to regulate all firearms sales, they could have attempted to do so - but did not. It is more plausible that Congress recognized the power to regulate FFLs, but doubted the Constitutional authority for federal regulation of private transactions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top