Gun Show Loop Hole

Status
Not open for further replies.
Quote:
As others have said someone who believes they need a gun will find one whether they are allowed to legally own it or not.
No doubt. Let them get them illegally, not from a gun show or an unsuspecting or uncaring legal gun owner.
Click to expand...
That is my point TG. A felon buying them from a private seller IS illegal. It is illegal for a prohibited person to buy a gun from an FFL. It is likewise illegal for a prohibited person to buy a gun from a private citizen. Are you suggesting that the seller be held responsible for what the buyer does with the gun? Where does THAT train end?

A private transaction is not a loophole that makes an otherwise illegal purchase legal.
 
mr Tennessee Gentleman,

Thank you for your opinion. I think you are right that background checks do have thier worth. . . in the gun store(but thats another debate) But let's look at private sales:

A relevant question to ask may be "how often are guns bought from unknowing private sellers". Yes, you could argue "well, XXX could potentially happen, so we need to stop it". However, I posit that if you look at data, you'll find that most criminals get thier guns through a friend, or through a corrupt dealer, or through stealing.

EG: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/194051.pdf (and yes, i know the source is not perfect).

If I just got out of Jail and want a gun, would I buy one off of some TFL member who writes her congressman twice a day, or my cousin(who knows i'm a bad dude)? Blood is thick, and background checks are not likely to have a great effect.

In that vein, does it make sense to restrict private sales when the majority of all "criminal guns" wouldn't be prevented by this? There's a study somewhere that argues that most felons gan get a gun within 24 hours of getting back on the street. I hope i've made the case that most of these people are not getting thier guns from the equipment exchange on ar15.com. In light of that, I don't think that the marginal benefits outweigh the potential infringement of our rights.
 
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.
Click to expand...

You mean to say that they intended to include private sales in the law, but somehow screwed up and did not do it? I doubt it, but if true, too friggin' bad. Should have done a better job writing the law. I think that you're wrong, and that they intended to exempt private sales.

The NRA's support does not mean something is a worthy idea. They supported scuttling the Heller lawsuit by merging it with their doomed Seegars case, and when that failed, they supported scuttling it by passing a law in DC which would have mooted the case. Were those good ideas? I think the only good idea to come from the NRA on that case was when they finally gave up efforts to control and/or scuttle the case and decided to join the fight on our side.
 
Tennesee Gentleman wrote:
Creature,
Is there a prohibited class of people who cannot buy cars?
Click to expand...

No, there isnt. My seven year old can legally purchase and own an automobile as long as he pays cash for it.
 
Last edited:
In that vein, does it make sense to restrict private sales when the majority of all "criminal guns" wouldn't be prevented by this? There's a study somewhere that argues that most felons gan get a gun within 24 hours of getting back on the street. I hope i've made the case that most of these people are not getting thier guns from the equipment exchange on ar15.com. In light of that, I don't think that the marginal benefits outweigh the potential infringement of our rights.
Click to expand...

Thanks Grey! Yours are very thoughtful comments. Let me answer that. I know that a determined criminal will find a way to get a gun no matter what the law. However, the fact that people break laws does not mean we shouldn't have them. What about the insane? The latest school shootings were by people who probably should not have been allowed to legally purchase a gun. Would the roadblock of a background check stop them? Hard to know how determined they were but how then do you keep guns out of the hands of those who should not have them. Is there a better idea than the background check? Aren't private sales a part of that problem too?
 
You mean to say that they intended to include private sales in the law, but somehow screwed up and did not do it? I doubt it, but if true, too friggin' bad. Should have done a better job writing the law. I think that you're wrong, and that they intended to exempt private sales.
Click to expand...

No, I think they couldn't get it passed then but will now because of these nutty school shooters that keep legally buying firearms. I repeat that the intent of the bill was to provide a mandatory tool to keep firearms out of the hands of restricted classes of people. Therefore, private sales without the background check is a loophole.
 
And your point is?
Click to expand...

You asked a question:
Creature,
Is there a prohibited class of people who cannot buy cars?
Click to expand...
I answered it. And my answer illustrates the false logic behind banning private gun sales.
And I would ask the same question of you...what was the point behind your "prohibited class" question?
 
Your original post:
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.
Click to expand...

My answer. So what? You are not required to conduct a background investigation since there is no prohibited class of people to preclude the sale. Are you suggesting car deals should require a background check?
 
Hard to know how determined they were but how then do you keep guns out of the hands of those who should not have them. Is there a better idea than the background check? Aren't private sales a part of that problem too?
Click to expand...

You have already expressed support for regulating private sales. What else would you support to ensure that we "keep guns out of the hands of those who should not have them."

Formal firearms registration?
Owner licensing?
Purchase permits?
One-gun-a-month restrictions?
Mandatory reporting for lost/stolen guns?
Gun and bullet microstamping?

The Brady Campaign insists that all of those actions would help keep guns out of the wrong hands. Do you think they are right?
 
My answer. So what? You are not required to conduct a background investigation since there is no prohibited class of people to preclude the sale. Are you suggesting car deals should require a background check?


What about the guy who has lost his license and has been caught DWI a number of times? Isn't he a prohibited class of person as it relates to driving a car?

There has never been any statistic what-so-ever that proves background checks have reduced gun crimes or have ultimately stopped any violent, prohibited, person, from getting a firearm. For one thing, a private sale of handguns can not 'legally" take place if the seller and the buyer are not residents of the same state. This is the case for gun shows as well. Secondly, a private sale to a felon is a federal felony by itself. Thus, the seller, if he is law abiding, better know who the heck he is selling to, even at a gun show.

Background checks do not stop straw purchases or illegal purchases from shady, yet licensed, dealers. How will straw purchases be stopped? A straw purchase is also a felony. That doesn't seem to stop them.

There seems to be a pattern amongst gun controllers, even though some of them own and use guns. Their philosophy seems to be, if that last gun control law didn't work and meet its objective of lowering violent crimes, let's add another layer. But a house built on a crappy foundation will soon fall apart, and won't be worth much in the end.

Do I think background checks should be eliminated? Not necessarily, if they stay instantaneous. But after 10 or 20 years, when it can still not be demonstrated that they have done any good in lowering violent crime rates (which they haven't and won't), we should re visit it. Anything that makes gun ownership more of a hassle for honest gun owners, without reducing violent crime, should be abolished, in my opinion.
 
Last edited:
Whenever I sell a long gun to a private individual, I have them fill out a Form 4473 and I write down their drivers license number. (I'm not an FFL holder and haven't sold many guns but I want that person to verify, in writing, that he is able to purchase that long gun.)

I assume that could be used against them if they were prohibited from buying the long gun in the first place?

I've had a couple people say that it isn't necessary and get mad at me. Tough, if they don't fill out a Form 4473 and give me their drivers license to inspect and write down the number, they don't buy my long gun.

Although I'm rabidly pro-gun in alot of ways, I would have no problem if I had to call for a NICS check whenever I sold a long gun. Problem is, a non-FFL holder can't call into NICS.

(In my State, I cannot sell a handgun without the individual getting a purchase permit from the police.)

Oh, I forgot to say that I cannot sell a gun to anyone out of state. I know I'm probably going overboard on this but... tough!:o
 
RDak - everyone should do what they think is appropriate in a private sale.

I insist on a written bill of sale, affirmation of buyer eligibility, and positive identification for a private sale. In one case, the buyer made me feel uncomfortable and I suggested that the transaction be done through a dealer with the cost split between me and the buyer.
 
Ok, cool gc70, I thought I was being anal about this but a firearm can do alot of damage in the wrong hands. I'd never forgive myself if I sold a gun to someone who turned out to be a wacko.
 
The other issue with more gun control laws being passed, is that we don't even enforce some that we have which actually have a chance at making a difference.

I'll give you two examples:

In Minnesota, about two summers ago, two men were murdered, execution style, by a 19 year old punk with a handgun, after they had already complied with his demands to hand over their wallets. Just an ordinary street crime you say? Wrong. This punk had only been out of the Hennepin County Workhouse for just ONE month. Hennepin County includes the City of Minneapolis. How long had he been in the county workhouse? 4 months. Why was he in the county workhouse for 4 months? Well, he was caught, arrested, tried, and convicted of armed robbery. He robbed a convenience store with a handgun. The judge explained that he didn't "feel" it would help this punks rehabilitation to put him in prison for several years. So instead, he made all of his sentence a probation period, after the punk served 4 months in the county workhouse and did community service. One month after getting out of the workhouse, the punk managed to "illegally" acquire another handgun, and kill the two innnocent men. What gun control laws would have stopped this? What criminal law would have stopped this? He should have gone in the slammer for a minimum of 5 years. Our catch and release justice system failed us. It wasn't for any lack of "reasonable" gun control laws. :barf: We have plenty of those in the land of 10K liberals.

Example #2. Is Minnesota the only state guilty of such tripe? Nope. Have you seen the story behind the punks who murdered the student president of the college in North Carolina. One of them had a long history of violent actions and brushes with the law, including being a felon caught with a firearm. Did he go to the Federal pen as federal law dictates, for a minimum of 5 years? Nope. He was released back out on the streets. I'm sure he promised to be a good boy. He killed that girl. He should never have been out on the street. More failure of gun control. More failure of our catch and release criminal justice system. Fix that first, then come and talk to law abiding gun owners about "reasonably" restricting OUR civil rights. :mad:
 
Last edited:
I'm sure many of us here could relate numerous stories about the failures of our justice system to keep the wolves locked up. Instead, the politicians want to do the EASY thing. You see, when you lock up criminals, it costs money that the politicians can't spend on social programs and education. That's hard. They don't "feel" as if it will be EASY for them to get re elected.

So we pay the price by being forced to give up some more of our rights. But don't worry, the politicians will be "reasonable" in restricting those rights.
 
The other issue with more gun control laws being passed, is that we don't even enforce some that we have which actually have a chance at making a difference.
Click to expand...

Good point. The Brady Campaign's website trumpets the fact that "Since the Brady Law took effect, more than 600,000 gun sales have been stopped because the record check revealed a felony or other prohibiting condition in a prospective buyer's background." If background checks are so good/accurate, that means NICS has identified more than 600,000 atempted felonies; where are the prosecutions?
 
My question, do I, as a grand-pa, have a right to legally arm my grand-kids, once they have past the hunter safety course?

Don't I have an obligation to take them (grandkids) to the range to learn how to shoot and respect firearms?
 
Good point. The Brady Campaign's website trumpets the fact that "Since the Brady Law took effect, more than 600,000 gun sales have been stopped because the record check revealed a felony or other prohibiting condition in a prospective buyer's background." If background checks are so good/accurate, that means NICS has identified more than 600,000 atempted felonies; where are the prosecutions?
Click to expand...

There have been something like a dozen. Big whoop. And how many of those 600K were witheld for parking violations or the prospective buyers names being very close to a convicted felon, etc. They could have been spelling errors. The other thing the Brady's don't tell us about that figure is how many of them were later corrected and found to be legal, but had to go through the hassle of PROVING themselves to be INNOCENT?


The Brady Bunch and the VPC are nothing more than modern day carpet baggers. They'll sell their snake oil statistics and information to anyone who is ignorant enough to swallow it. When you shine the light of truth on them, they are ugly bugs. Either that or they are like the Aliens in the low budget movie "They Live". That was where Rowdy Roddy Piper discovered some glasses that if you put them on, you could see the aliens who had been taking over the earth while masquerading as humans and transmitting subliminal messages causing humans to consume more, in the economic sense, after the aliens had taken over the media, the stores, and the financial institutions.

It's a cheesey movie to be sure, but there's one humorous line where Piper's character comes into a bank, full of aliens of course. He has a pump shotgun. He racks the slide and says, "I came here to kick a$$ and chew bubble gum, and I'm out of bubble gum". Of course, he then starts to blast away at the aliens.

I see the Brady's and the VPC as the aliens in that movie. They have to distort the images of themselves, the data, and the truth, to get people to "consume" their ideology.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top