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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.