And I would bet a fair amount of money that 95% of the former will do a bill of sale, will require ID (to prove you live in state), and balk at any request for "no paperwork." The latter? If there was a shady group at a gun show, they would be the ones. And it's easily enough proved that what they're doing is illegal anyway.
Universal background checks
- Thread starter TXAZ
- Start date
And I would bet a fair amount of money that 95% of the former will do a bill of sale, will require ID (to prove you live in state), and balk at any request for "no paperwork." The latter? If there was a shady group at a gun show, they would be the ones. And it's easily enough proved that what they're doing is illegal anyway.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
The loophole language was used as a false narrative at first to indicate that all gun show sales avoided NICS. We know that is not true.
There were folks who sold a great deal of firearms at shows as 'private' collections at each show. In some cases, that volume was close to being a dealer and around here those folks were shut down at the major shows. There was one guy who would have two rifles slung and three handguns in his belt. When those sold, he would go get more.
Now private sales are OK but was he pushing it? The show seemed to think so and he was gone.
Another tack was that the gun show and gun show parking lot was a public nuisance as it provided a locale for illegal sales to occur between individuals who were not allowed to have guns. Not that they had tables but the location made it easy for that illegality to occur. Some cities closed gun shows in their jurisdictions on those grounds.
There were folks who would patrol the gun show waiting line and ask folks who were selling guns to sell to them at a somewhat better price than a FFL inside. Were the purchases good bargain hunters or bad guys? Interesting question.
Just info on the issue.
There were folks who sold a great deal of firearms at shows as 'private' collections at each show. In some cases, that volume was close to being a dealer and around here those folks were shut down at the major shows. There was one guy who would have two rifles slung and three handguns in his belt. When those sold, he would go get more.
Now private sales are OK but was he pushing it? The show seemed to think so and he was gone.
Another tack was that the gun show and gun show parking lot was a public nuisance as it provided a locale for illegal sales to occur between individuals who were not allowed to have guns. Not that they had tables but the location made it easy for that illegality to occur. Some cities closed gun shows in their jurisdictions on those grounds.
There were folks who would patrol the gun show waiting line and ask folks who were selling guns to sell to them at a somewhat better price than a FFL inside. Were the purchases good bargain hunters or bad guys? Interesting question.
Just info on the issue.
turkeestalker
New member
That Sir, is a gem and should be in your signature line.
What 44 AMP said about operating on a business model selling guns without a Federal License is currently in the news in California, where the majority of handguns available in most states are forbidden to residents other than Law Enforcement. For the most part those officers may resell their off roster guns to plain old residents. Occasional sales are not a problem, but some have gotten greedy and have turned the buying and selling of off roster handguns into a business, which has netted them being charged with doing so without a Federal License.
Why not simply allow everyone, not just FFL's the ability to run a NICS background check on someone before selling to them face-to-face. Yes, you would be responsible for logging the transaction and keeping a record of it for a certain amount of time. This is not registration. The law already prohibits you from selling a gun to a known prohibited person. All the NCIS does is give you access to know whether the person is legit or not.
No, it would be a 1st degree misdemeanor to run such with no intent on selling a gun. Plus there would be a fee for you to use the service. And, there would be a method for someone to determine who has been running checks on them. Also, all you would receive is a go no-go on whether or not you can sell the guy a firearm. Why should FFL's get to do this but not individuals?
How would you verify that someone was actually selling a gun or merely nosey? In any case, I think individual record keeping would be a nightmare and unnecessary. Whatever centralized database you punch someone's name into will record it.
If you want to leave specific items to your daughter, you are leaving them to your daughter, not her boyfriend. If you want to leave specific items to anyone in your will, prudence dictates that you make alternate plans in the event the beneficiary does not want the gift or is not available to receive it.
Legal transfer will be your executor's problem.
carguychris
New member
FWIW it's NOT always required. Provisions in 18 USC § 922 allow firearms bequests across state lines without the involvement of an FFL, PROVIDED that the transfer complies with the laws of the destination state.Lohman446 said:
This has been discussed at length in L&CR previously, with legally knowledgeable folks advising that for the provisions to be effective, the bequest must be specific—i.e. the will must specifically address the firearms and their intended recipients; they can't just be part of the miscellaneous unspecified "stuff" in the estate (I forget the legal term for this).
Of course, if the intended recipient is a prohibited person, the bequest does NOT change the fact that he or she cannot lawfully take possession of the firearm(s)!
Prudent advice in ANY case.zukiphile said:
Aguila Blanca
Staff
The way you word that makes being required to run a background check a feature rather than a bug. FFLs don't want to run these checks, any more than they want to store years and years of 4473s. But at least they do enough of them that most probably have a file cabinet somewhere to keep them organized. I'm terminally disorganized. If I had to run a background check on someone and then keep a record of it, it would be a MAJOR problem for me if I ever had to find it more than six (maybe three) months after the sale.Skans said:
Aguila Blanca
Staff
I think both zukiphile and carguychris missed what I perceived to be a bit of subtle humour in Lohman's post ...Lohman446 said:
carguychris
New member
Me too. 
I didn't see anything really humorous, but a lot of what people say is humor today escapes me...
Humor (or not) aside, its not a really prudent thing to run a check on someone thinking it will be valid an unspecified time in the future. It won't be, so running a check today would just be a waste of time, and whatever money it takes.
What is the duration of a background check, anyway???
As far as I can see, it is indefinite, but ends the instant you attempt to receive or buy a gun. Which, of course, is prudent. No check from the past can show you didn't become felony or misdemeanor DV stupid (prohibited person) if there is any significant time lapse between the check being run and the gun attempting to be acquired.
Now, there is a difference between becoming the legal owner (taking legal possession) of the gun and taking actual physical possession. The law, and FFLs make allowances for that.
Spats McGee
Administrator
I've been horribly busy lately, so I may have missed a couple of pages of posts, but can we come back to this?
Besides, "loophole" implies that the actor is doing something sketchy, something that should be illegal, but is not. Something overlooked, yet illicit somehow. To my mind, though, if it's in a loophole, it's still legal. Private sales are not some dirty little secret that really should be monitored. They're private sales of privately-owned property between consenting adults.
With all due respect, I have to wholeheartedly disagree. What does us no favors is conceding things that simply are not true. You can find the primary federal statute on firearms transfers at 18 U.S.C. 922. There's nothing in there that makes gun shows any different than any other venue. It does not matter if the sale takes place at a gun show, out on the back 40, or in my garage.
Besides, "loophole" implies that the actor is doing something sketchy, something that should be illegal, but is not. Something overlooked, yet illicit somehow. To my mind, though, if it's in a loophole, it's still legal. Private sales are not some dirty little secret that really should be monitored. They're private sales of privately-owned property between consenting adults.