Universal background checks

[zukiphile]

It is my intent, someday, to leave my firearms to my daughter and thus her boyfriend. Running an NCIS check before adjusting my will only seems prudent.

I didn't see anything really humorous, but a lot of what people say is humor today escapes me...

Lohman is offering a tongue in cheek pretext for using a UBC system to satisfy merely personal curiosity about other people.

 

[Skans]

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.

Then, you always have the option of selling it through an FFL who will do this for you. I personally, would love to have the option to call in a background check before selling a firearm to someone.

 

[Evan Thomas]

Private sales are not some dirty little secret that really should be monitored. They're private sales of privately-owned property between consenting adults.

Exactly.

What gets lost in almost every discussion of the federally mandated background check system is that it's a way of regulating federally licensed dealers, not private citizens who buy guns. Its sole purpose is to ensure that licensed dealers aren't selling to prohibited persons. This is why the whole idea of a "gun show loophole," or that private sales in general should be similarly regulated, is fundamentally wrong.

It matters that people have the freedom to opt out of the background check system by buying and selling privately, at gun shows or otherwise. The federal government has NO legitimate role in regulating legal private conduct within a state.

 

[peacefulgary]

Background checks is just another form of gun control.

If you sell a car or a chainsaw to someone, no background check is mandated by law.
Even though the buyer might be planning to run over a crowd of people in his newly purchased car, or use his newly purchased chainsaw to murder his neighbors.
The buyer may have even served time for running over people or slicing up people before.
But no one is calling for background checks for buying cars or chainsaws.


They just want to outlaw guns.

Every law, every control, and every manner of regulation is just another step toward taking your guns away.

 

[Lohman446]

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.

I'm going to have to admit the argument based on the word "loophole" is lost. As you and others have pointed out there is a negativity attached to the term that frankly I have never attached to it. Given the overwhelming responses that indicate I was wrong on that I will chalk it up to naivety.

While I understand the argument about private sales and believe this is a reasonable argument that should be put forward I still think there is something that is somehow different about a gun show than someone's garage or back 40. Does that difference make it to where it should be regulated? The argument is that it does not. Still a gun show represents a place where I can peruse the wares of multiple "private sellers" and purchase a firearm from a selection that is unlikely readily available to the public in other venues without a background check. We can acknowledge the later while not giving up the argument.

 

[ATN082268]

While I understand the argument about private sales and believe this is a reasonable argument that should be put forward I still think there is something that is somehow different about a gun show than someone's garage or back 40. Does that difference make it to where it should be regulated? The argument is that it does not. Still a gun show represents a place where I can peruse the wares of multiple "private sellers" and purchase a firearm from a selection that is unlikely readily available to the public in other venues without a background check. We can acknowledge the later while not giving up the argument.

What is the distinction between buying a gun from a private (non-FFL) seller at my house and one from a private (non-FFL) seller at a gun show? About the only major difference I can see is the location but if I am missing something, please let me know I think the whole attack on the gun show "loophole" is not just about the selling of guns at gun shows but all the private (non-FFL) selling of guns anywhere.

 

[Lohman446]

In fairness ATN I did pose the question if the difference should be regulated and noted that the argument was it should not. I also noted the difference was that a gun show offered me (actually the general public) an inventory of firearms from "private collectors" that I would be unlikely to find, publicly, outside of a venue that would require a background check (such as a firearm dealer).

Yes I get the idea: I could go to one of my gun owning friends, open up their vault, and have for sale to me a large and vast selection. But this is not offered in a public forum - it would be offered privately and Joe Public would not have ready access.

Again we can argue that the government has not right regulating the sale of items between private individuals. This argument could be further expanded to question the regulation of the sale of private property from an FFL holder.

Still I think a gun show does represent a distinction.

 

[zukiphile]

Again we can argue that the government has not right regulating the sale of items between private individuals.

That isn't the issue you are presenting though. Sale of arms between non-licensed individuals is already regulated.

The issue you are presenting is whether a sale between non-prohibited private parties needs to be a crime if they haven't gotten a federal "Mother, may I?" first.

 

[Lohman446]

The issue you are presenting is whether a sale between non-prohibited private parties needs to be a crime if they haven't gotten a federal "Mother, may I?" first.

Fair enough. We can present the issue as we see appropriate and argue that such a "mother may I" is not needed because the sale is between private individuals. Of course the unique aspect of this argument is that many FFL holders are private individuals and with the "personhood" of corporations being established one could argue they are also, for matters of such regulation, private individuals.

I still disagree that there is a not a distinction between a gun show and an individual private sale held in someones garage / basement / whatever. I think it disingenuous to ignore the distinction even if ultimately that distinction does not make a difference in our argument.

Now the argument seems to be, likely correct, that said distinction does not make a difference to the issue.

We have argued that the "gunshow 'loophole'" does not exist rather than forcing our opponents to define exactly what the crux of their argument is.

 

[zukiphile]

Fair enough. We can present the issue as we see appropriate and argue that such a "mother may I" is not needed because the sale is between private individuals. Of course the unique aspect of this argument is that many FFL holders are private individuals and with the "personhood" of corporations being established one could argue they are also, for matters of such regulation, private individuals.

Limited rights of corporations can't be relevant here. An FFL need not be incorporated and there will be a natural person linked to the FFL. Certainly an FFL can sell from his private collection. Smart FFLs keep that paperwork in order and their commercial stock and private collections separated.

The reason the federal requirement is for FFLs only is that since FFLs are federal licensees, the federal government has jurisdiction over their acts as licensees (as opposed to their private acts). Two non-licensees aren't dependent on federal authority for what they do.

I still disagree that there is a not a distinction between a gun show and an individual private sale held in someones garage / basement / whatever. I think it disingenuous to ignore the distinction even if ultimately that distinction does not make a difference in our argument.

You can think it is disingenuous to ignore a distinction, but you've not articulated a real one. There are more people physically present at a show, but that is mere convenience. Armslist transactions don't have numerous people physcially proximate at the same time, but a local transaction is still between non-licensees.

We have argued that the "gunshow 'loophole'" does not exist rather than forcing our opponents to define exactly what the crux of their argument is.

Disposing of the "gunshow loophole" falsehood isn't an alternative to getting someone to state his true position; stripping away deception or error is part of the process of exposing an opinion.

 

[Lohman446]

Even Armslist would likely provide some record of communication.

To try to illustrate my point of distinction: if you wished to anonymously buy a firearm with no record of said transaction and wanted the largest selection of firearm available with such circumstances where would you seek to buy it?

 

[zukiphile]

In my experience, shows are not good places to buy from non-licensees. It's a lot of overfed people shuffling like zombies a few of whom will have a nice enough rifle with a dowel in the barrel explaining the virtues of their item and why it's worth more than the same thing new.

Also, it takes the fat part of your day.

Even Armslist would likely provide some record of communication.

It doesn't. That's the point. It's an electronic equivalent of a "for sale" ad in the back of the paper.

To try to illustrate my point of distinction: if you wished to anonymously buy a firearm with no record of said transaction and wanted the largest selection of firearm available with such circumstances where would you seek to buy it?

Anonymously or illegally? Why is anonymity important? Those questions aren't gratuitous.

If I were a prohibited person and wanted an arm, I would not risk an anonymous transaction because the seller could be a PO. I would buy only from someone I knew.

If I wanted to buy effectively anonymously, say I really wanted a LadySmith in 9mm but didn't want any of my friends to know about my S&W passion that dare not speak its name, I would buy from an out of town high volume FFL. He would forget my name as soon as he submitted it. I would shop online, which offers greater variety than any show.

 

[Lohman446]

Illegally as a prohibited person. You answered the question and it is different than the answer I would give posed the same question if such circumstances existed.

In fairness to your concern the presence of an undercover officer acting as a seller never occurred to me. I would probably make a poor criminal.

 

[zukiphile]

Lohman, I've zero doubt that prohibited persons go to shows and buy from non-licensees. I would also guess (admittedly just a guess) that the purchase is typically for a benign use, personal security.

It has to be a queer process though. You'd first have to find something offered by a non-licensee that you wanted. Then you'd have to come to terms with the fellow on price. There's usually a good reason a fellow has most of his private collection still available Sunday afternoon. Finally, I suppose you'd want to complete the transaction without producing your ID, so he is less likely to show as a witness in a future hearing. I don't know how you would ask that without giving the impression that you are a prohibited person.

In a couple decades of shows, I think I've found that happy circumstance twice, buying a biathlon rifle on one occasion and a Ruger P345 on another. Both asked for my drivers license for their records, but there was no background check.

Maybe people in other parts of the country have better shows.

In fairness to your concern the presence of an undercover officer acting as a seller never occurred to me. I would probably make a poor criminal.

We're all here to learn!

More seriously though, my sense is that people firmly entrenched in the life of a practiced felon have their own networks of people they trust. They aren't cruising gun shows taking chances just to buy a gun.

 

[Lohman446]

The reason this sticks in my memory is a show (it has since moved and the particular seller is no longer there) where one individual set up at a "prime" location right near the entrance to the show and had the end table plus a table on each side. He was there for nearly every show I went to over the course of years at that location. He had racks of rifles and shotguns and a few pistols in a case. My wife happened to buy a 30-06 from this individual once. I had prepared her to expect to have to fill out some forms. She handed the individual some cash and he handed her the rifle. No fuss / no muss. Now maybe this is how things SHOULD be in an ideal world between private individuals but even at the time it shocked me.

Later on, looking closer at later shows, I noticed he had a couple signs noting that the wares he was selling were from his private collection.

My experience might be rather singular but it colors my perspective on what "normally" happens as my other gun show purchases have been from dealer stocks.

 

[turkeestalker]

In my experience, those individuals selling from their private collection at shows here in Missouri are a very small percentage of the sellers at any given show.
There are a few but most all are FFL holders and paperwork will be filled out on any firearm.
Those few are not some 'regular' few but typically random show to show.
Want to throw a wrench in your reasoning?
It is not at all uncommon to find an FFL licensee with an item or two on his or her table that is tagged as being from their personal collection.
I've bought a few that way from sellers that I know, though they always keep a record containing my information.
Hence what zukiphile meant by this...

... their commercial stock and private collections separated.

 

[SonOfScubaDiver]

I have always understood the gunshow "loophole" to mean that someone could go to one of these shows and buy a gun from a private party without having to do a background check. I can't say that I've been in many conversations where someone explained what their understanding of the "loophole" is, but I suppose some could think it means that anyone can show up and buy a gun from anyone else there without the check, dealers included. I guess I will have to include this as part of the discussion the next time I'm talking guns with a non gun owner.

I'm in favor of UBC, but I can't see how it can be done without changing the procedure entirely. For one thing, where am I supposed to get the form the person buying a gun from me would have to fill out? Do I then have to keep that form for X amount of years? What happens if I leave my guns to my children or grandchildren when I die? How does that transfer take place? It seems to me the whole idea of doing background checks would have to be rethought and different procedures put in place than what we currently have.

I think it would make more sense to create a national gun permit. It could be good for X amount of years before requiring renewal. You wanna buy, sell, or own guns? Get the national gun permit. If Joe Blow wants to buy your gun, and he doesn't have his permit, then the sale cannot be made. If you go to a gun shop to buy a gun and you don't have the permit--no sale. Of course, such a system still wouldn't prevent someone who shouldn't have guns from getting any, but it would make it more difficult.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

think it would make more sense to create a national gun permit. It could be good for X amount of years before requiring renewal. You wanna buy, sell, or own guns? Get the national gun permit. If Joe Blow wants to buy your gun, and he doesn't have his permit, then the sale cannot be made. If you go to a gun shop to buy a gun and you don't have the permit--no sale.

The 2nd Amendment doesn't say "The right of the people to keep and bear arms if they have a permit shall not be infringed."

Of course, such a system still wouldn't prevent someone who shouldn't have guns from getting any, but it would make it more difficult.

a. If it won't prevent people who shouldn't have guns from getting them, what's the point?

b. Just how would this make it any more difficult for a criminal to obtain a firearm?

 

[HiBC]

I realize other states may have other laws, and maybe the local gun show promotors just have policies..I don't know.
I'm in Colorado.Its been over 10 years since I sat at a private seller,non-ffl gunshow table.
I was selling a P-14 Enfield action.
It was a non-optional requirement that we take the transaction to a table that was doing NICS checks and 4473's. It was required for every firearms transaction .
Signs were posted that parking lot transactions were prohibited and the parking lots were patrolled.
Oh,and btw,CO defined a "Gun Show" as 3 or more people meeting up to market guns.

In my experience,at least in Colorado,buying a gun at a gunshow is no different than buying or selling at an ffl. If the transfer is made,NICS and a 4473.
I can't speak for other states,,but in CO,there is no loophole.
And,as I recall,some reporter types were embarrassed when they could not make a"loophole purchase" at a gunshow.

 

[ATN082268]

And,as I recall,some reporter types were embarrassed when they could not make a"loophole purchase" at a gunshow.

I just don't see how it is O.K. for me to sell a gun privately as a non-FFL but somehow not O.K. if other people are doing the same thing in the same place like in a gun show.