You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Gun Show Loop Hole
- Thread starter Tennessee Gentleman
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
DonR101395
New member
Deleted, it's obviously not worth it.
Tennessee Gentleman
New member
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?
I will give you my thoughts.
Owner Licensing-no, see no benefit for it at all
Purchase Permits-no except CCW. Sat through my CCW class and listened to complete idiots talk about how they couldn't wait to shoot someone. The instructor talked about prison These clods believed they could kill somebody for walking through their yard for trespassing.
One a month-no, see no benefit
Microstamping- no technically does not work.
You see, we benefit from not having felons and insane people buy guns from legal sources (private sales and FFLs) But if you disagree then fine we disagree. I am waiting for somebody to tell me how to help prevent restricted classes from purchasing guns through legal avenues. Tell me a better plan other than to prosecute them after the fact when the killing is over.
Tennessee Gentleman
New member
USAFnoDak,
Good points tho off topic. All of us suffer for the lack of goodness in society. That's why everything has a lock on it these days and I need three passwords to get into my bank account. It is a shame but reality.
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.
Good points tho off topic. All of us suffer for the lack of goodness in society. That's why everything has a lock on it these days and I need three passwords to get into my bank account. It is a shame but reality.
Tennessee Gentleman
If the law was never intended as a check on private sales, how does a private sale "thwart the intent of the statute" ?
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.
If the law was never intended as a check on private sales, how does a private sale "thwart the intent of the statute" ?
Not off topic at all. We have "reasonable" gun regulations that deal with criminals who commit violent crimes, whether that's with a gun or without a gun. If someone beats the living daylights out of someone else and is arrested tried and convicted, why shouldn't they go to jail for a long time as a VIOLENT FELON? They should never be allowed to own a firearm or a knife again. We already have a law that says if they are caught with a firearm, they should do a minimum of 5 years in the federal pen, not a county workhouse, or county jail where they can hang with their homeys. The federal pen. Certainly, after committing armed robbery with a handgun, such a thug should not do 4 months in a county workhouse and be dumped back into society. It's very ON TOPIC.
I don't think non violent felons should be barred from gun ownership, once they've done their time.
I'm not opposed to "instant" background checks, but show me how those have reduced crime since implemented.
The most effective way to stop violent criminals from getting firearms is not via background checks, but by locking them up for long periods of time. Once they get out, if they are ever caught trying to purchase, or in possession of a firearm, you put them away for a very very long time, in the federal pen.
It's hard to buy a gun "on the street" if we don't let them "out on the street" to become repeat offenders.
If you look at the successes of some programs like Project Exile, you start to see a modification of criminals' behaviors when it comes to possessing guns. The issue I have with those programs is that they also ensnare non violent felons who might have a gun for self defense.
I don't think non violent felons should be barred from gun ownership, once they've done their time.
I'm not opposed to "instant" background checks, but show me how those have reduced crime since implemented.
The most effective way to stop violent criminals from getting firearms is not via background checks, but by locking them up for long periods of time. Once they get out, if they are ever caught trying to purchase, or in possession of a firearm, you put them away for a very very long time, in the federal pen.
It's hard to buy a gun "on the street" if we don't let them "out on the street" to become repeat offenders.
If you look at the successes of some programs like Project Exile, you start to see a modification of criminals' behaviors when it comes to possessing guns. The issue I have with those programs is that they also ensnare non violent felons who might have a gun for self defense.
Tennessee Gentleman
Oh, you mean like the law against assault rifles and high-cap magazines? Somehow I don't think that law did much to "better society". Nor would a law requiring background checks on private sales of guns.
Laws attempt to better society.
Oh, you mean like the law against assault rifles and high-cap magazines? Somehow I don't think that law did much to "better society". Nor would a law requiring background checks on private sales of guns.
Sasquatch wrote:
What some folks are trying to sell is that since private sales between individuals do not go through a background check, that's a loop hole in the law. But the law was never intended to include private sales, because it would be virtually impossible to monitor every private sale of firearms without first implementing a gun registry at the national level. Otherwise, how would the government ever know that I sold the shotgun I inherited from my grandfather, to my brother? Selling that shotgun to my brother, who lives in the same state I do, is not involving any interstate commerce. The Feds know they'd have a hard time in the courts with that. Otherwise, you couldn't sell a car, a music CD, furniture, etc. without federal regulations regarding interstate commerce being involved. While those products moved in interstate commerce at one time, that doesn't last forever if the product doesn't move across state lines to be sold or purchased.
By the way, the same FOPA law of 86 which banned possession of machine guns made or imported after 1986 with the exception of government agents and law enforcement, also contains a section forbidding the government from establishing a national gun registry of lawful gun owners. So there goes that idea as far as regulating every private gun transaction which stays within a state boundary. There is no gun show loop hole, except in some peoples minds. Two people who meet at a gunshow could easily arrange to meet after the gun show to conduct a private transaction, with no background check. How would you police that without a national gun registry?
If the law was never intended as a check on private sales, how does a private sale "thwart the intent of the statute" ?
What some folks are trying to sell is that since private sales between individuals do not go through a background check, that's a loop hole in the law. But the law was never intended to include private sales, because it would be virtually impossible to monitor every private sale of firearms without first implementing a gun registry at the national level. Otherwise, how would the government ever know that I sold the shotgun I inherited from my grandfather, to my brother? Selling that shotgun to my brother, who lives in the same state I do, is not involving any interstate commerce. The Feds know they'd have a hard time in the courts with that. Otherwise, you couldn't sell a car, a music CD, furniture, etc. without federal regulations regarding interstate commerce being involved. While those products moved in interstate commerce at one time, that doesn't last forever if the product doesn't move across state lines to be sold or purchased.
By the way, the same FOPA law of 86 which banned possession of machine guns made or imported after 1986 with the exception of government agents and law enforcement, also contains a section forbidding the government from establishing a national gun registry of lawful gun owners. So there goes that idea as far as regulating every private gun transaction which stays within a state boundary. There is no gun show loop hole, except in some peoples minds. Two people who meet at a gunshow could easily arrange to meet after the gun show to conduct a private transaction, with no background check. How would you police that without a national gun registry?
Tennesse Gentleman wrote:
Good points tho off topic. All of us suffer for the lack of goodness in society. That's why everything has a lock on it these days and I need three passwords to get into my bank account. It is a shame but reality.
Well, let me purchase and possess the firearms I want to, and I'll worry about keeping them from getting stolen. We do suffer a lack of goodness in society, and that makes us, as individuals, take certain precautions, such as locking things up. However, we don't have a law that the government will conduct a background check to see if we've had numerous DWI's or have used a car to commit a felony, before we purchase one. I would still lock my car however, to keep it from being stolen when it's parked outside of my locked garage.
I lock my house at night too, but the federal government never ran a background check on me to see if I had previously owned a house where I ran a meth lab.
Good points tho off topic. All of us suffer for the lack of goodness in society. That's why everything has a lock on it these days and I need three passwords to get into my bank account. It is a shame but reality.
Well, let me purchase and possess the firearms I want to, and I'll worry about keeping them from getting stolen. We do suffer a lack of goodness in society, and that makes us, as individuals, take certain precautions, such as locking things up. However, we don't have a law that the government will conduct a background check to see if we've had numerous DWI's or have used a car to commit a felony, before we purchase one. I would still lock my car however, to keep it from being stolen when it's parked outside of my locked garage.
I lock my house at night too, but the federal government never ran a background check on me to see if I had previously owned a house where I ran a meth lab.
Hugh Damright
New member
It's not clear to me how the federal government has the power to require all firearms dealers to have a federal license ... but since they are federally licensed, it would seem to follow that the feds have some right to regulate them, to require them to operate in some certain manner, such as requiring a background check ... but it doesn't seem to follow that the federal government has the power to ban private gun transactions. It kind of seems like the loophole is the separation of State and federal powers.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.
Tennessee Gentleman
You see, we benefit from not having felons and insane people buy guns from legal sources (private sales and FFLs) But if you disagree then fine we disagree.
Keeping guns out of the "wrong" hands is a laudable goal.
USAFNoDak
I'm not opposed to "instant" background checks, but show me how those have reduced crime since implemented.
Just as USAFNoDak, I fail to see proof of the efficacy of background checks.
gc70
If background checks are so good/accurate, that means NICS has identified more than 600,000 attempted felonies; where are the prosecutions?
If a process is not effective, expanding that process does not appear to be a winning solution.
Tennessee Gentleman
I am waiting for somebody to tell me how to help prevent restricted classes from purchasing guns through legal avenues. Tell me a better plan other than to prosecute them after the fact when the killing is over.
We wait together for the fool-proof prior restaint to bad guys that does not also violate the rights of good guys.
Tennessee Gentleman
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.
You appear to be mixing legislative desires and legal intent.
When the Brady Act was passed, many legislators undoubtedly desired a broader law to regulate all firearms transactions, but that is not the bill that was passed into law.
The Brady Act is what it is and its legal intent is defined by its language (regulating FFL transactions) and the record of Congressional debate (in which you will not find Congressman X declaring "I believe this bill regulates all firearms transactions").
I am a odd bird.
I am differnent fron the people in town.
I don't like people on my property.
I don't like people in my face.
Anyone that subjects my family, Self or even my animals to death, Damage or threat, is subject to my self preservation tactics. \\
I will not change my ways, I will keep people away from me as long as I can. I will Defend my self the best I can.!
I don't need some stupid people telling my how to do things the have never seen, live, or even know about.
You all seem to keep responding to attackers.
Why don't you just egnore them and live the way you wish?
I am differnent fron the people in town.
I don't like people on my property.
I don't like people in my face.
Anyone that subjects my family, Self or even my animals to death, Damage or threat, is subject to my self preservation tactics. \\
I will not change my ways, I will keep people away from me as long as I can. I will Defend my self the best I can.!
I don't need some stupid people telling my how to do things the have never seen, live, or even know about.
You all seem to keep responding to attackers.
Why don't you just egnore them and live the way you wish?
VonFireball
New member
This thread is funny....
Seems a couple folks seem to think there is a problem called a "gun show loophole".
It's funny, we've been privately selling our firearms for how long and now all of a sudden there is a "problem"? Sounds like something someone created.
Personally, I wouldn't feel any remorse for selling someone a weapon that they later used to commit a crime. Why? Simple, I didn't commit the crime, why should I feel guilty about it? Just like selling a car to a drunk who kills someone with it....I didn't do it, they are responsible for their own actions. I don't live in libby land like them.
It's strange that somehow we are now held responsible for trash completely out of our control.
It's like this:
I build a ripping motorcycle loaded with all the best go fast goodies. It's a great bike, runs like a top, screams when you punch it.
I sell the bike to some hayseed cause I need the cash.
Hayseed then kills himself with all that good power. And I am supposed to be held responsible for his idiocy? The bike never killed me. I ain't responsible. I didn't twist that throttle/squeeze that trigger. You think I should've made the idiot sign a waver? No, I shouldn't. It shouldn't be that way. Personal responsibility is lacking amongst the left these days.
There is no problem here. That is my point. The only gun show "loophole" problem is the one that the quasi liberal buffoons and other hoplophobes have created.
So, if you think I'm gonna shake somebody down for their past history with the cops just so I can sell them a 200 dollar gun, forget it. Waste of time, effort, and other people's money.
Besides, someday all gun afficianado's might be labeled "crazy" or "adjudicated mentally defective" and therefore will be unable to purchase.
What a foolish thread this is.
Seems a couple folks seem to think there is a problem called a "gun show loophole".
It's funny, we've been privately selling our firearms for how long and now all of a sudden there is a "problem"? Sounds like something someone created.
Personally, I wouldn't feel any remorse for selling someone a weapon that they later used to commit a crime. Why? Simple, I didn't commit the crime, why should I feel guilty about it? Just like selling a car to a drunk who kills someone with it....I didn't do it, they are responsible for their own actions. I don't live in libby land like them.
It's strange that somehow we are now held responsible for trash completely out of our control.
It's like this:
I build a ripping motorcycle loaded with all the best go fast goodies. It's a great bike, runs like a top, screams when you punch it.
I sell the bike to some hayseed cause I need the cash.
Hayseed then kills himself with all that good power. And I am supposed to be held responsible for his idiocy? The bike never killed me. I ain't responsible. I didn't twist that throttle/squeeze that trigger. You think I should've made the idiot sign a waver? No, I shouldn't. It shouldn't be that way. Personal responsibility is lacking amongst the left these days.
There is no problem here. That is my point. The only gun show "loophole" problem is the one that the quasi liberal buffoons and other hoplophobes have created.
So, if you think I'm gonna shake somebody down for their past history with the cops just so I can sell them a 200 dollar gun, forget it. Waste of time, effort, and other people's money.
Besides, someday all gun afficianado's might be labeled "crazy" or "adjudicated mentally defective" and therefore will be unable to purchase.
What a foolish thread this is.
Tennessee Gentleman
New member
Personally, I wouldn't feel any remorse for selling someone a weapon that they later used to commit a crime.
I think that is morally indefensible and wrong. But that's your conscience (or lack thereof) Not much else I can say other than a gun is not the same thing as a car or a blender.
What a foolish thread this is.
Well, does that make you foolish for posting on it. Quit reading then.
DonR101395
New member
I think that is morally indefensible and wrong. But that's your conscience (or lack thereof)
Why is that? Do you feel that someone who sells something should be held accountable for the actions of a person that they have no control over?
Not much else I can say other than a gun is not the same thing as a car or a blender.
You're correct, cars kill many more people a year than guns.
Tennessee Gentleman
New member
We wait together for the fool-proof prior restaint to bad guys that does not also violate the rights of good guys.
Are you serious? That's funny. No law can do that. Fool-proof prior restraint. Again you are playing to the antigunners by saying we should have no laws since bad guys don't obey them anyway. Unreal. So, in a nutshell you believe think the background check has never ever stopped a bad or crazy guy from getting a gun thru legal channels. You think that anyone who sells a gun should just sell to whoever wants them without any check to see if they are prohibited from buying. No that I can understand but disagree with and I gotta tell it ain't gonna fly. But we'll see.
Tennessee Gentleman
New member
The Brady Act is what it is and its legal intent is defined by its language (regulating FFL transactions) and the record of Congressional debate (in which you will not find Congressman X declaring "I believe this bill regulates all firearms transactions").
Have you read that debate?
There is no "Gun Show Loophole".So, are private firearm sales conducted at Gun Shows a loophole in that it bypasses the Background Check?
If it's illegal for a person to purchase a gun, it's still illegal to purchase it at a gun show.
If it's illegal for a person to purchase a particular type of firearm, it's still illegal to purchase it at a gun show.
If it's legal to for a person to purchase a particular gun at a gun show it's also legal for that person to purchase it anywhere else.
There is nothing you can do legally (with regards to gun purchases) at a gun show unless it is legal everywhere else.
If you are buying a gun from a private party at a gun show, exactly the same laws and legal restrictions apply at a gun show that would apply if you purchased it from that person in his home or yours, or on the street.
If you are buying a gun from a dealer at a gun show, exactly the same laws and legal restrictions apply at a gun show that would apply if you purchased it from that dealer in his home or yours, or on the street or in a storefront.
Don't know how to make it clearer than that.
There is no "Gun Show Loophole".
It sounds like you really wanted to start a thread asking the question: "Should the existing laws be changed to require background checks on private firearm purchases at gun shows?" That's a different story altogether.
Tennessee Gentleman
New member
"Should the existing laws be changed to require background checks on private firearm purchases at gun shows?"
That is what we have been discussing. Gun Show loophole is just what the common (and I agree incorrect) language used by the antigunners
- Status
- Not open for further replies.