Gun Show Loop Hole

Status
Not open for further replies.
When laws are created, the previously legal actions of citizens are restricted. Therefore enacting new laws is very serious business.

One doesn't justify a law by saying that it's a good idea or that it might prevent crime or even that it might have prevented crime X or crime Y in the past.

One needs to point out an EXISTING crime PROBLEM (i.e. a statistically significant number of obviously negative ACTUAL incidents) that will be addressed/prevented/made prosecutable by the new law.

If that is not possible then the idea should be dropped.

Too many people have the idea that it's enough to say: "Hey, this seems like a good idea that might prevent crimes, give me a good reason why we shouldn't do it." That's backwards. The law should stem from an obvious existing crime problem or it shouldn't exist.

The person/entity proposing the new law has the onus to show how it will provide a significant benefit to the citizenry as a whole by using actual evidence. Somehow it's gotten turned around and people feel like it's ok to propose a law and then make the citizenry prove why the law should NOT be enacted.
 
The person proposing the new law has the onus to show how it will provide a significant benefit the citizenry as a whole by using actual evidence. Somehow it's gotten turned around and people feel like it's ok to propose a law and then make the citizenry prove why the law should NOT be enacted. That's backwards.
Click to expand...

Good points. Here is my question. We have had a number of insane people obtain weapons legally and then use them to kill lots of people. We fortified the background checks through legislation. Do you agree with it or do you believe we should do away with background checks altogether.
 
We have had a number of insane people obtain weapons legally and then use them to kill lots of people. We fortified the background checks through legislation. Do you agree with it or do you believe we should do away with background checks altogether.
Click to expand...

Would a background check have stopped any of these "insane people" from buying a firearm? If so, which ones?
 
There is no loophole, or even a hint of a loophole.

How would any of us describe what a crazy person looks like?
Do people that aren't allowed to own firearms look different?
There is no way and there was never intended to be any.

Those that know, do. And those that don't, don't.

The point is, no one has any restrictions to owning a firearm until they do something wrong.
It is past history.
Just because the seller doesn't know the buyers past does not mean he is illegally selling a firearm.
In that case, the buyer, who knows full well his status, is the only criminal.

The problem you seem to have TennGent, is keeping these nuts from having guns again.
There used to be a simple fix for that scenario. But laws have been passed that make that age-old solution illegal.
We law abiding citizens are now fodder for criminals.
And the criminals have the legal rights.

Oh, the solution....
Shoot the idiot while he commits his crime.
No Judge, No Jury, No Trial, No Prison space taken, No food for us to pay for that they eat.
And to your question, no illegal buyer to purchase your firearm.
A 25 cent bullet instead of millions.

Why does this stuff make me angry?
The law was passed on the basis of innocent bystanders being killed.
Now, we aren't innocent bystanders, we are fodder until they tire or run out of bullets.

Looking at Columbine, or even Virginia Tech, do you think more, or fewer people died than if teachers were allowed to carry?
---BTW, I hate that word... "allowed".
This Second Amendment crud, that we lost usage of long ago, is gonna make me bald.---
 
That's the wrong question--you're getting the cart before the horse.

You said you wanted to discuss this question: "Should the existing laws be changed to require background checks on private firearm purchases at gun shows?"

So let's discuss it. The first step in answering this question is answering the following question:

What existing and significant problem will be addressed/prevented/made prosecutable by making background checks mandatory for private sales at gun shows?

At this point, the options are clear. One can either demonstrate from crime statistics that guns purchased in private party sales at gunshows are a significant problem, admit that there's no basis for enacting a new law or say that more research is necessary to answer the question.

Simple. ;)
 
Would a background check have stopped any of these "insane people" from buying a firearm? If so, which ones?
Click to expand...

VA Tech and Northern Illinois come to mind. Both of those passed background checks because the databases were faulty.

At this point, the options are clear. One can either demonstrate from crime statistics that guns purchased in private party sales at gunshows are a significant problem, admit that there's no basis for enacting a new law or say that more research is necessary to answer the question.
Click to expand...

Well, you have me there. I have not researched the stats. So, cut me some slack and lets continue to talk about how to keep loonies from getting guns thru legal channels. Be a sport!;)
 
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.
Click to expand...

Background checks have proven to be ineffective in keeping guns out of the "wrong hands." You may believe that expanding that dubious process to all private firearms transactions is justified "if it stops just one" but I do not.

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.
Click to expand...

If the law requires nothing more, the seller's actions are a matter of personal discretion. I do not advocate the creation of new hoops for gun owners to jump through - the anti-gunners dream up enough "reasonable restrictions" without gun owners adding to the list.
 
Both of those passed background checks because the databases were faulty.
Click to expand...
Which means that they DID undergo background checks and yet were able to purchase a firearm anyway. Not such a good thing to bring up unless you're claiming that the databases are now perfect... ;)
So, cut me some slack and lets continue to talk about how to keep loonies from getting guns thru legal channels.
Click to expand...
Frankly, I do not like the idea of speculating on various ways to restrict legal activities unless it can be established that there is an existing and significant problem that needs to be addressed. One or two high-profile anomalous cases does not an "existing and significant problem" make.

The strategy of using well-publicized, emotionally charged, ATYPICAL cases to "justify" a new law has been repeatedly used to significantly abridge the rights of law-abiding U.S. citizens with very little or no return to show for cost of those restrictions. It will be used again as it's a very effective strategy, but I can promise you when it is, no one will be using any of my ideas to "solve" the created crisis.
 
Well, it seems that most everybody thinks that Background Checks are bad and don't work and so we shouldn't extend them but rather get rid of them. Also, most here would sell a gun to a total stranger with little or no care as to whether they were crazy or criminals. Some might make token attempts to find out but none I saw that would be anything close to effective. This is disturbing to me but it seems to be true. Well, time for me to close my posting on this thread. I am afraid the gun grabbers have some points on us and I hope we can resist their attempts to ban firearm ownership. Thanks for the comments and good luck! I will continue to monitor the board so farewell:)
 
I would like to add one thing to the point that John made in post # 81. Once those new laws do get put into effect, they are most likely there for good. It is almost impossible to "unring" a law. Not only are too many laws getting passed with no evidence that they will work, but the people who push them through have no accountablility once they fail. They just sit there on the books infringing on honest peoples rights while criminals ignore them and no one ever says, "This law didn't do squat. Let's get rid of it."

So TG, saying "Prove it works" is not a cop out. It's just the way it should be. Should I be allowed to take any right that I see fit away from you simply because I managed to convince X amount of the right people that it was for a greater good? Please reply.:)
 
Tennessee Gentleman
Also, most here would sell a gun to a total stranger with little or no care as to whether they were crazy or criminals. Some might make token attempts to find out but none I saw that would be anything close to effective.
Click to expand...

See post #53

gc70
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.
Click to expand...

Sellers always have the option (but not requirement) to go through a FFL.
 
Any debater will argue, and correctly....

That using the opponents terminology puts you at an automatic disadvantage. This is particularly true when discussing firearms and laws.

The "loophole" term used by the press (who gladly parrot anything given them by the anti-gunners, while refusing even paid rebuttal) is disingenuous, intended to create an automatic emotional response. And, thank you for choosing a set of definitions, Tennessee Gentleman, so that there is a standard against which to compare. Just be aware that dictionaries include the definition of words as popularly used, as well as accurate technical definitions. Some dictionaries, on some entries do not even include technical accurate descriptions, only "popular usage". Dictionary definitions can be a useful standard for discussion, but should not be fully relied upon as the actual, factual standard, particularly for technical terminology.

By the standards you chose, private sales do not constitute a "loophole". As JohnKSa made clear, the same laws apply at gun shows as they do everywhere else. There is no "loophole".

If you believe that the law (as written and passed) should have covered all sales, and the failure of Congress to write that into law constitutes a "loophole", I (and the rest of us) probably won't change your mind, but your understanding of proper English usage is flawed.

As far as what can be done to prevent prohibited persons from obtaining firearms, good luck. You can't. No one can. Even the most totalitarian governments were unable to so. There is a reason why such actions are called criminal. We can take steps to minimize the availability of firearms through legal channels, and indeed we have done so, and been doing so for decades. One has to ask, how will another law change anything for the criminal? Because each new law changes things for the rest of us. And generally not for the better.

It is a torturous mental dilemma, are we and should we be our brother's keeper? For most of man's history, individuals were held responsible for their own actions (with a few exceptions). We never held the blacksmith responsible for the murder done with a sword he made, we blamed the murderer. Today, especially with guns, it seems that we are expected to be all wise, and all knowing, lest we allow a shaped piece of metal into the hands of someone with evil in their heart. Perhaps the solution is to restrict all gun, knife, rock, hammer, baseball bat, golf club, automobile, etc. sales to recognised psychics, who have the power to accurately know the hearts and minds of men. That is, if we can find any.

All of the mass shooters in the past 30+ years who legally purchased weapons passed all the legal requirements. Many passed background checks, some multiple times. This did not deter them. It did nothing to stop them when they decided to committ murder and mayhem. it did not stop them from killing themselves at the end of their spree. Read the brochure carefully, past performance is no guarantee of future results. Why do we blindly accept this for investments, but fail to understand it when it comes to other human behavior. Just as there are those who start down the dark path and turn from it, living the rest of their lives in the light, there are those who live their whole lives without any sort of indication that they are human time bombs. How do you judge which is which BEFORE they do anything?

And even more important, how can we ensure that government, once given this awesome power and responsibility, carries it out to the best of human ability? I don't have any good answers, only my opinion that doing nothing is better than doing something wrong. Again.

And, to the gentleman who said:
It's not clear to me how the federal government has the power to require all firearms dealers to have a federal license ...
Click to expand...

They took that upon themselves in 1968. I believe they offered the explanation that since firearms moved in interstrate commerce, they had the authority. It seems like a stretch to me, but AFAIK, no court has overrulled it. All persons "engaging in the business" of dealing firearms are required to have an FFL. The BATFE enforces this. Gleefully.
 
Hey, I worked for Boeing, and I think the plane I put rivets into was flown into the New York Twin Towers. Should I turn myself in?
Click to expand...
No, but if you have any conscience, you'll never help build another plane... :D

Seriously, that's the kind of paralyzing influence that this kind of thinking generates.

Ultimately laws restrict the actions of the law-abiding and provide a way to punish criminals. Some people get confused and believe that laws restrict the actions of criminals but that is not the case. Criminals, by definition, do not allow the law to restrict them.
 
Tennessee Gentleman has yet to explain why and how selling a gun to someone makes the seller responsible for the buyers actions.
 
Show me a "gun show loophole." Every private citizen in the USA has a right to sell anything that he/she legally owns at a product show or at any other place without inteference from the nanny government; in reasonable quantities, of course.

Every gun show I have ever been to had a bunch of ATF agents perusing the customers and wares. If it were such a big problem folks would be arrested in droves for selling guns without a dealers license.
 
Tennessee Gentleman said:
Well, time for me to close my posting on this thread. ... I will continue to monitor the board so farewell
Click to expand...
Interesting debating technique. The OP creates the dialogue and posts up until he is actually challenged with ideas on lawmaking that he cannot refute (See John's posts #79, #81 and #85) or post a counter argument to and then exits the discussion he himself started.

Since the proponent of this debate has exited, stage left, there is no longer a point to this thread.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top