Let's Close The Gunshow Loophole

Status
Not open for further replies.
I've never seen those "wink wink nudge" tables in the back. Ive never seen dealers selling at tables without NICS checks. I have seen guys waliking around with a rifle with a card on the barrel saying "for sale". While I havent been to every gun show there is, I do go to every one that is in driving distance, and A few in other states when I've been traveling on business.

I think some of the dealers are in favor of closing this non-exsistant loophole because it would make more business for them. Getting rid of the competition. Imagine how much money a dealer could make if they charged say, $15 for every NICS call in? I think it adds up to a pretty hefty amount at the end of the show, or end of the year if guns can no longer be sold privately. To some dealers, dollars are King. After all, they are in busness to make money, not protect rights.

If ya want to find the problem, just follow the trail of dollars and cents.
 
I agree that money is part of it. I searched but couldn't find an ad that some gun stores here contributed to limit gun shows way back when. Said store once yelled at me when I asked if they would do an FFL transfer. We don't do such!!

I also have seen the table described and guys who walk around with the sign in the barrel of two long guns with two in their belt. When they sell them, they go to the trunk and get more.

So all things have some validity.
 
If the supposed goal is to stop transfers ONLY at gun shows....

So who maintains all of these records? Without proof that you went to a FFL and had him run a NICS on a specific gun for a specific person, how can you prove to the cops that you actually did it when they come knocking a week later? How can the cops prove you didn't when they haul you to court? If you sell the gun a few days later to someone, how do you prove you didn't make the deal at the gun show?

Either it is a complete "all transfers through FFL" or it is unenforceable.
 
So who maintains all of these records? Without proof that you went to a FFL and had him run a NICS on a specific gun for a specific person, how can you prove to the cops that you actually did it when they come knocking a week later and/or how can the cops prove you didn't when they haul you to court?
Click to expand...

Probably the FFL would maintain the record after he charged you for doing it. My personal dreamed up deal would be a computer kiosk at all gun shows that anyone could log into, pay for the transaction with a credit card and then enter the buyers info (from an ID card) and would get a yeah or nay from the check. The machine could print a receipt with a control number or something to use later if needed as proof you ran the check. Or it could send the seller an email with such info. I see this as no different than the checks that ATMs and such do on your credit/debit cards when they are used.

Hmm, maybe a business model here?:D
 
The machine could print a receipt with a control number or something to use later if needed as proof you ran the check.
Click to expand...

So you are now requiring everyone that sells a gun to maintain a paper trail forever?


I'd rather convert my C&R license to include all firearms with the clause I could only dispose of modern firearms through an 01-FFL. In other words, make my "collectors" license a true collectors license where I can buy anything.
 
you have seen Im sure EXACTLY what I have seen, you know that *smirk smirk nudge nudge* "table in the back full of Lorcins, Ravens and Tecs.
Click to expand...
Well, actually no, at least not for the last 41 years that I can recall. Except back then there was some kind of pot metal revolver and nobody paid much attention to them nor the sellers except for folks who couldn't afford the $20 guns. But your reply reminds me of the big flap about "Saturday night specials". It occurs to me that an underlying principle whenever such questions come up the real question is "what class of people should be denied civil rights in this country, to what extent and how can we justify it so that the others don't take offense?" ;)
 
So you are now requiring everyone that sells a gun to maintain a paper trail forever?
Click to expand...

Well, that doesn't sound good does it? Maybe that wouldn't be an issue with the BATFE in the scenario you mentioned. Or maybe the only practical way to do it would be to run it thru a FFL. Would cost I am sure. Actually how to implement it would be another thread maybe, I don't know. Good point!
 
In California a few years back, it came to pass that all gun sales had to be thru a FFL dealer. A few FFL dealers will set up at the shows to do the papper work and hold the gun for ten days. For this service they charge any where from $25 to $50 and this is on top of the $25 the state gets in DROS(Dealer Record Of Sales) fees. And to buy a handgun you must possess a Handgun Safety Certificate Card, which requires a written test and another $25.00, and has to be renewed every three years. I hope this is not the model they use, when change comes. orchidhunter
 
letsnotpretendtheproblemdoesntexist
Click to expand...

Okay, the problem exist. People sell guns at guns without performing background checks in order to sell to those who can not pass a background check. You've been witness to this on multiple occasions, or at least that's been the impression I get from your previous postings. What have you done about it? Did you contact the BATF with your concerns? If yes, what action was taken? Did you notify the organizer(s) of the gunshows where this is happening? Did you notify any local legal authorities? Could the problem be solved with enforcement of current laws rather than with new legislation?
 
Did you contact the BATF with your concerns?
Click to expand...


He he he...now I know that in one instance, after 8 shows, the BATF gave one guy a desist letter and he stopped doing it...

So he only got to sell his Lorcins 8 times:D

Could the problem be solved with enforcement of current laws rather than with new legislation?
Click to expand...

No

WildclosethedoorafterthecowwalksoutAlaska TM
 
I disagree, Ken.

There are laws, currently on the books in many States. We haven't even touched upon the current federal regs. But the fact is, the laws are there.

It's the enforcement of current laws that are the problem. If current laws are not enforced, why does it make sense to legislate a new, tougher, better law?

Fact of the matter is that new laws will generally only affect the law abiding citizen in ever increasing restrictions. We both know that the NRA has been calling for more effective enforcement of existing law, rather than new law. They've been doing this for years.

Bottom line. Effective enforcement of current law will achieve all the goals that people scream they want the new law to do. Without further restricting the rights of law abiding citizens.
 
It's the enforcement of current laws that are the problem. If current laws are not enforced, why does it make sense to legislate a new, tougher, better law?
Click to expand...

But if the law doesnt work (which it clearly, given my example above, does not) wouldnt it make sense to redifine the issues...

If the whole issue of dealing without a license is a grey area, shouldnt that be addressed?

Can it be addressed in a way that doesnt preclude Cruffle Gunny from occasionally selling his collection?

WildfolksloveloopholesAlaska TM
 
Ah, but that's not saying the "old" law doesn't work. Redefining the meaning of "dealer" does not require a new law. It requires a redefinition.

To be sure, such a technicality is a new law. But not in the manner suggested - prohibiting all FTF transfers without a NICS check (the topic of this thread).

Here's my reasoning.

Constitutionally, registration can be required, if the Government (State and/or Federal) utilizes the data for Militia purposes. I'm actually fine with that, if the requirement is tied to implementation of the militia clauses. Barring this, the Government has no justifiable reason to know what firearms I, or you, may be keeping for our own lawful uses.

NICS checks are constitutional, even under strict scrutiny, but only because of the currently recognized model of commerce clause case law. Should Wickard ever be revisited and overturned (or narrowed), then the NICS check does not carry weight. NOR would FFL schemes. They all become (as they should have been to begin with) a State issue.

Since I'm an advocate of Federalism, tell me again, why I should support another expansion of commerce clause legislation?
 
I am not in favor of closing the so-called "gun show loop hole", I'm in favor of cutting all the strings used to knot the loops in the first place!
 
But if the law doesnt work (which it clearly, given my example above, does not) wouldnt it make sense to redifine the issues...
Click to expand...


Sounds more the the enforcement isn't working.....i.e. non existent. By your own admission when the BATF enforced it by issuing a desist letter it worked.;)
 
Barring this, the Government has no justifiable reason to know what firearms I, or you, may be keeping for our own lawful uses.
Click to expand...

I have to disagree, I have always taken the position that registration would never constitute an infringement. But thats a debate I reckon we can save for later

Since I'm an advocate of Federalism, tell me again, why I should support another expansion of commerce clause legislation?
Click to expand...

Is it an expansion if we tighten up the definition of what is "dealing"?

WildwearesosocraticAlaska ™
 
DonR101395 said:
Sounds more the the enforcement isn't working.....i.e. non existent. By your own admission when the BATF enforced it by issuing a desist letter it worked.
Click to expand...

I think there is no law to work in this case.

Maybe I am confused but I have seen the thread go one way concerning who is and who is not a dealer of firearms.

That is one point but the other point is that FTF sales do not require a backgound check and therefore leave open an avenue to nuts and crooks to buy firearms they are not legally allowed to own or possess.

IIRC as long as the seller does not know beforehand that the person he sold to is a part of the prohibited class, the seller has done nothing illegal. So, the background check could be construed as protecting said private seller from selling to a nut or crook?

Or, are you saying that all these folks I see walking around in gun shows with rifles slung over their shoulders and pistols in their belts who will sell to anybody with cash, no questions asked, should be considered dealers by the BATFE and then arrested for selling firearms without a FFL? Would that fly legally in a prosecution?
 
Last edited:
Ken said:
Is it an expansion if we tighten up the definition of what is "dealing"?
Click to expand...
Direct answer? No. I said I had no problem with this.

Tennessee Gentleman said:
That is one point but the other point is that FTF sales do not require a backgound check and therefore leave open an avenue to nuts and crooks to buy firearms they are not legally allowed to own or possess.
Click to expand...
Take any example you want where FTF must go through a NICS check, the criminal has not been stopped.

The same example is used for registration. The criminal has not been stopped.

Why add to the complexity (and number of) hoops the lawful citizen endures, when the net result is zero, as regards curtailing criminal behavior.

The largest peer reviewed study of its kind (which even admitted its anti-gun bias), by the CDC (released Oct. 2003), concluded that firearms laws were problematic in that there was no perceivable effects on criminal behavior:
During 2000--2002, the Task Force on Community Preventive Services (the Task Force), an independent nonfederal task force, conducted a systematic review of scientific evidence regarding the effectiveness of firearms laws in preventing violence, including violent crimes, suicide, and unintentional injury. The following laws were evaluated: bans on specified firearms or ammunition, restrictions on firearm acquisition, waiting periods for firearm acquisition, firearm registration and licensing of firearm owners, "shall issue" concealed weapon carry laws, child access prevention laws, zero tolerance laws for firearms in schools, and combinations of firearms laws. The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes. (Note that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness.) This report briefly describes how the reviews were conducted, summarizes the Task Force findings, and provides information regarding needs for future research.
Click to expand...
Why, again, are we even entertaining this? other than for strictly political pandering?
 
Take any example you want where FTF must go through a NICS check, the criminal has not been stopped.
Click to expand...

He has been stopped from buying that firearm unless the seller is willing to commit a felony. I am assuming most wouldn't be.

Why, again, are we even entertaining this? other than for strictly political pandering?
Click to expand...

In that case why have a background check at all? I know many might say; hear hear! but I think joe citizen wouldn't be happy with that.

I think there is some larger responsibility here that many of us think is necessary with firearms and so the background check (albeit with accurate data and easy of use technologically) is a way to realize some of that responsibility. I might some day want to sell some of my firearms:eek:, and I for one would not want to sell a gun even unknowingly to a nut or a crook but without the background check how would I know? This responsibility is something that might have been taken for granted years ago but no longer.

However, keeping with the OP I am assuming that the backgound check is something necessary to public safety and is not in question on this thread.

PS Al, how do you get your quotes to say "originally posted by XXX" do you just type that in or is there an auto feature to do that?
 
Note that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness.
Click to expand...

In other words, their conclusions, while interesting, are meaningless:D

We all know that illegal gun trafficing exists.....where do they get them?

1. Corrupt dealers
2. Straw men
3. Theft
4. Private party sales

Without running amok here, I ask: what is the least "infringing" way to prevent all of the above. With respect to thieving, its always going to be reactive. What is a proactive method? NICs takes care of honest dealers excpet in the case of #2....

WildifeellikealawschoolperfesserAlaska ™
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top