No background checks at gun shows or on internet gun sales

One might also argue that you can buy a gun over the internet without a background check. Its done daily on Gun Broker.

I've bought several guns, paid for them up front, all without a background check. Therefore, I've bought guns on the internet without a background check.

However, I've had the background check when I picked them up from my FFL but at that point, they were already bought. That said, I've bought guns on the internet without a background check.

While saying you can buy guns over the internet isn't a lie, it certainly isn't the complete truth.

Most gun owners know it, but some certainly don't and I'd guess that most all non gun owners do not. I'd guess that Bloomberg knows what he isn't saying is the whole truth, but it isn't exactly a whole lie either.
 
Last edited:
kreyzhorse said:
Most gun owners know it, but some certainly don't and I'd guess that most all non gun owners do not. I'd guess that Bloomberg knows what he isn't saying is the whole truth, but it isn't exactly a whole lie either.
Click to expand...

It's called a "lie of omission."
 
TomNJVA said:
I would like to learn more about the so called "gun show loophole" as I have confronted this argument before with some anti friends.

For perspective, I have read on this forum that some prison surveys found that only about 1% of guns used in crimes were obtained from gun shows, so if there is a loophole it's not a very big one. Nonetheless the antis will argue that "just one" is too many.

I have never been to a gun show, preferring to purchase my firearms from a local gun shop. As I understand it, most dealers at gun shows are licensed dealers, so no background check loophole there.
Click to expand...
TomNJVA, when I read the first part of your post, I was fully prepared for a long, amusingly sarcastic paragraph. When you said you'd never been to a gun show, I thought you had to be kidding. I guess not, huh?

TomNJVA said:
If a non-licensed seller makes a "business" of selling firearms as defined by BAFTE, then they are obligated to get a license, so already a law against that.
Click to expand...
Yes, this is true, but the antigunners skip over that part. They routinely claim that background checks are not required at gun shows. Period. Note that Michael Bloomberg recently claimed that background checks were not required at gun shows because they (guns shows) came along after the law requiring BGCs. I don't know how long gun shows have been around, but: (1) I know they've been around since before the Brady Handgun Act; and (2) I suspect they've been around since before the Gun Control Act of 1968.
TomNJVA said:
That leaves only sellers offering firearms from their private collection and not meeting the definition of "being in the business". I understand such sellers are present at gun shows, and that some gun shows do not require that sales from such private sellers obtain a background check. That does sound like a loophole, albeit a tiny one.
Click to expand...
First, it's not a loophole. It's the way the law was designed and written: to exempt private, intrastate transfers from the BGC requirement. Second, "loophole" implies something shady, but even if it were a loophole, well .... Things in the loophole are still legal.
TomNJVA said:
Is this really an issue? Would it be much of a problem to require the small volume of gun show private sales go through a background check by an FFL stationed at the gunshow? This would shut down the "loophole" frenzy, but of course is yet another infringement on our rights. Is it worth it to remove one of the anti's arguments?
Click to expand...
Sorry, but I'm a 'not one more inch' guy. If the antis want to shut down the folks who repeatedly sell 'from their private collection' at gun shows, then they need to prosecute them for engaging in the business of selling firearms without a license. They do not need to require me (who has broken no law in this regard) to go to extra time, expense and hassle to buy or sell a gun.
TomNJVA said:
The other loophole they argue is private sales not in gun shows but within the state, i.e face-to-face sales of two same state residents. This includes "Internet sales" since existing laws already require that Internet sales out of state go through an FFL. Seems to me that such face-to-face sales are nearly impossible to regulate without registration, which I view as an even bigger infringement of rights. It may be workable, however, if the buyer is pre-approved via a background check or CCP, rather than the firearm itself being registered.

Just trying to understand how to best address these attacks by the antis, as shutting them down with minimal infringement may lessen the pressure on the public who blindly repeat their claims. Yes I understand they will never shut up, but a solution to the clamor from us may be preferable to a solution from politicians.
Click to expand...
See my notes above about private, intrastate sales. They apply to this, as well.

The antis are like The Terminator. They will never rest. They will never give up. If you give them an inch, they'll take it and immediately claim that you should have given them the next one.

No, not one more inch, says I.
 
Would it be much of a problem to require the small volume of gun show private sales go through a background check by an FFL stationed at the gunshow?
Click to expand...

Possibly not, but why should we do so in the first place? When the Brady Act was pushed through, we were promised it would result in drastic crime reductions. To this day, I have seen no data that shows any causal relationship between the law and even a modest drop in crime.

Background checks simply don't work. As such, expanding them in any way is a non-starter.

This would shut down the "loophole" frenzy, but of course is yet another infringement on our rights. Is it worth it to remove one of the anti's arguments?
Click to expand...

No, because they'd just come up with another frenzy. That's what they do:

  1. wait for a tragedy
  2. call it a "crisis"
  3. be the first ones ready with a "solution"
  4. claim we need more of their "solutions" when that one doesn't work

They've been doing this for decades. Giving them anything they want only emboldens them and shifts the line further.
 
Do criminals usually pay the exorbitant gun show prices potentially within full view of mostly law abiding citizens? ...citizens that are probably more aware of gun laws than most?

Sure I understand that shady stuff happens in every single human endeavor, and that a small percentage of gun show sales happen illegally. Even I’m sure it’s happened at cabelas.

In the words of a famous VP and statesperson... “Come’on Man!!!”
 
jmr40 said:
Because there is just enough truth to it. In my world roughly 1/2 of the tables at gun shows anymore are being run by non-FFL's who are selling used firearms without doing background checks or 4473's. The ones with a FFL are required to have a 4473 and either do a background check or verify a carry license which allows GA residents to forego the background check.

It would be near impossible to buy a new gun through the internet with no background check. But there is nothing illegal about a buyer making contact with an online seller in the classifieds here or any other internet forum getting together for a face to face transaction. At least as long as they are both residents of the same state and were otherwise legally able to buy the gun.

Bloomberg may not be telling the whole truth, but neither are most gun owners.
Click to expand...

Well said.



Tom Servo said:
When the Brady Act was pushed through, we were promised it would result in drastic crime reductions. To this day, I have seen no data that shows any causal relationship between the law and even a modest drop in crime.

Background checks simply don't work.
Click to expand...

The trend in violent crimes has dropped dramatically sine 1993(the year the Brady bill passed). Lowest rate in 44 years and half the rate as in 1991(as of 2014). Is it related? Are there other factors? Of course there are, but can any one prove that the bill did not have at least a casual relationship there? Can one accuse an anti of lying when they say it did have an impact? Many claim that homicide/suicide rates did not drop since 1993, but no real studies show if the use of firearms in the committing of those crimes, was reduced. While the Brady bill created an inconvenience to me, it has not reduced my ability to get a firearm and most firearms today are less expensive relatively, than they were back in the 90s. Thank goodness my state dropped their 3 day waiting period for handguns.

Same goes for the second statement.

I see these blanket statements all the time, by both pro and anti gun folks. Falls under the premise that maybe if you say it enough it becomes truth. We all know that most hard core criminals get the firearms illegally anyway, so in that sense, I agree, BGCs do not work. But studies show they do reduce straw purchases and the obtaining of firearms for other prohibited people. Besides having to get a BGC everytime when purchasing a firearm from an FFL, I have to have one once a year for work. I also need one every year I coach youth sports and I need another one to ref/officiate youth sports. They too do not work 100% of the time, but it does not mean they do not work.

I'm certainly not here endorsing Bloomberg, nor am I advocating any new gun control legislation. IMHO, we have enough restrictions on the books when it comes to firearms, we just need to enforce and practice them better. My point is, that blanket half truth statements, like jmr40 says in his good post, happen on both sides. If we are to criticize others, we can not do it ourselves. Something about the pot calling the kettle a specific color.
 
As Mark Twain once said (or wrote), "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

Statistics may show that violent crime has been on a downward trajectory, but statistics are only as good as the data behind them (and the slant of whoever is compiling the statistics). The aftermath of the Parkland (FL) school shooting is one example. The follow-up revealed something nicknamed the "Broward Solution" to crime in schools -- rather than deal with criminal acts objectively, the school district and the county sheriff's office conspired to under-report and downgrade offenses, thereby "cooking the books" to create the impression that they were successful in reducing crime. It has been proposed that the shooter slipped through the cracks as a result of this initiative.

Just this week, a sergeant in the Washington, DC, police department went whistle blower and revealed that DC is doing the same thing -- under-reporting and downgrading offenses to make the city appear safer than it is.

When you can't believe the data, the result is that nobody is a liar, but nobody is correct. Nobody really knows what the truth is.
 
BGCs "work" perfectly to accomplish the policy goal of those who press for them, to burden the practice of the right.
 
And, there's more to it than just "cooking the books" about reporting crime. There is also a lack of enforcement of certain crimes.

Attempting to buy a firearm when you are not legal to do so, is a CRIME. Likewise, lying on the Fed forms is a separate crime. Yet there is very little enforcement and even less prosecution of those crimes.

The Clinton administration boasted how they had used background check laws to keep gun out of the hands of thousands of people who "shouldn't have guns". One source, at the time, did some checking and reported that while there were thousands of denials, there had only been something like 44 prosecutions, and didn't have numbers on convictions.

Decades later, the same thing still going on, then Vice President Joe Biden was "caught" by newsfolk (meaning not a scheduled interview) and asked directly why there was so little Federal prosecution of people illegally trying to buy guns. His answer, which I saw on video, was to look right at the questioner, and state, "We don't have time for that." before walking away.

The law is the law, but what gets priority, and what gets ignored comes from the attitude at the top.

So, here, now in this election cycle, as we had before and likely will have afterwards, we have people telling partial truths and outright lies, vying for the top office in the land, telling us we need more of what has been proven not to work the way its claimed to work, and that they wouldn't USE even IF they had it!!


Why is it that lying on a job application is considered valid grounds for not hiring you, or for dismissing you after being hired when the lie is discovered, and yet NOT an issue when a politician is applying for a job (running for office) UNLESS the lie crosses some ill defined boundary, which is different for each different group of voters?

Personally, I don't want someone in charge of the "nation's biggest business" (the US government) who cannot or WILL NOT get simple facts correct.

But, that's just me...
 
I worked a lot of homicides and attempted homicides in my l.e. days. Most were edge weapons. Most of the firearms involved himocides were illegally obtained guns. Very few gun homicides were committed with legally obtained firearms. (I am omitting justifiable homicides even though statistically, they do count)
 
under-reporting and downgrading offenses to make the city appear safer than it is.
Click to expand...
I’ve seen this in smaller communities too.
Even moderate sized cities.
I lived in one city recently that crime has gotten so bad, that no one is enforcing traffic laws anymore because they are too busy. Driving in this city has become like the Wild West... people driving on sidewalks and everything.
So I think it’s a credible notion that crime is higher now
 
buck460XVR said:
Tom Servo said:
Possibly not, but why should we do so in the first place? When the Brady Act was pushed through, we were promised it would result in drastic crime reductions. To this day, I have seen no data that shows any causal relationship between the law and even a modest drop in crime.....
Click to expand...
....Of course there are, but can any one prove that the bill did not have at least a casual relationship there? Can one accuse an anti of lying when they say it did have an impact?....
Click to expand...
Tom Servo was asking about a causal relationship, not a casual one. The two are decidedly different.
 
DaleA said:
How can this lie get repeated and repeated and repeated again?

Michael Bloomberg most recently did it at a Fox town hall meeting.

https://freebeacon.com/issues/bloomberg-misleads-on-gun-background-checks-during-fox-news-town-hall/

Now Bloomberg certainly knows his stuff about guns, he's been demonizing them for years and at a Fox town hall meeting how did he think he could get away with saying this? Maybe the campaigning had him discombobulated? He certainly can't believe this and I can't believe he thought he could get away with it.

But the anti-gun folk in my home state (Minnesota) also bring this up again and again and again too. Is there ANY way to drive a stake thru the heart of this lie to get rid of it once and for all?
Click to expand...
The Democrats wont be happy until everything except muzzle loaders are banned, and they will want a $2500 tax stamp on them.
 
Fact check a story, or source quoted in the story?

I suppose the source, and the writer are okay with a fabrication that is not accurate.
 
The trend in violent crimes has dropped dramatically sine 1993(the year the Brady bill passed).
Click to expand...

Actually, no. The decline started as early as 1991. Although the Brady Act passed in 1993, the NICS system didn't go online until 1998.

There is simply no way they can claim their law had any effect on a decline in crime that started well before its provisions went into effect.
 
Spats McGee said:
Tom Servo was asking about a causal relationship, not a casual one. The two are decidedly different.
Click to expand...

Yes I know. I meant to write causal.



Tom Servo said:
Actually, no. The decline started as early as 1991. Although the Brady Act passed in 1993, the NICS system didn't go online until 1998.

There is simply no way they can claim their law had any effect on a decline in crime that started well before its provisions went into effect.
Click to expand...

Sure they can make the claim....just as you are making yours. They can claim that the bill helped with the continued decline. They can make the claim that the atmosphere and attitude towards guns of the time not only brought on the acceptance of said bill, but the reduction of gun related crimes. They can also make the claim that since the bill was enacted about a million and a half attempted firearm purchases have been blocked....mostly because of previous felony convictions. There is proof that BGCs work.As I said before, I know most serious criminals do not go to a gun store for their firearms. So there is proof that BGCs work all the time. My point is, in reality, neither side has any real qualified evidence. Correlation does not imply causation.

I myself do not know for sure. I only have my opinion. I cannot make a blanket statement one way or the other. For me, the evidence is still out. That does not mean I endorse or support either way. Again, I think we have more than enough laws/regs on the book. Just that I'm still waiting for folks making their claims to prove it with some form of supportive evidence, not just blanket, absolute statements.


Hal said:
So - in other words - just about the time the economy rose from the dead....
Click to expand...

Yet during the last Great Recession(December 2007 – June 2009) violent crime continued to drop. This economic crises was much worst than that of the early nineties. There was also the recession of March 2001 – November 2001, that was almost as bad as the one during the early nineties. Still no increase in violent crime. So using the economy thus as an indicator does not work.

Again, my point is not about no background checks at gun shows, we all know that can interpreted many ways. That is my point. Just as we know the antis cannot make that blanket statement, we ourselves cannot make the blanket statement that it never happens. Cause we know it does, under certain scenarios. Both sides are using invalid information in a vain attempt to prove their point. Makes both sides look like liars. I can make the claim tho, that in my opinion, making BGCs for all firearm sales, would not significantly reduce crime.
 
So - in other words - just about the time the economy rose from the dead...
Click to expand...

Not so much. There have been several theories on the decline. Causes cited include a generation free of lead exposure from paint and gasoline, and the dwindling of the crack cocaine epidemic.
 
"They've been doing this for decades. Giving them anything they want only emboldens them and shifts the line further."

Exactly!! It's a slippery slope and many on the left have admitted in recent years their long term goal is gun confiscation, not just "assault weapons", but ... ALL of them. Hanguns, rifles, shotguns, airguns, they want them ALL. There can be no compromise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top