What exactly is the "Gunshow Loophole"?

If he thinks that anyone who wants a gun should have to undergo a psych eval, that's a whole different kettle of fish. Who gets to do the evaluations? Who gets to decide what a disqualifying factor might be? Who bears the cost? At what point does any of that begin to infringe upon a constitutionally-guaranteed right? How long before someone pushes the idea that "if you want a gun, it means that you're predisposed to violence, and therefore disqualified from owning one?"
Click to expand...

Do you have to sacrifice whatever right to remain silent you may have for whatever right to keep and bear arms you may have?

Will you have to submit whatever papers from your doctor you may have trading some portion of your 4th amendment rights for your 2nd ones?

Will a denial based on psychological grounds be appeal-able? Reversible? Will it be in front of a judge to protect some form of Due Process? How much further would such a ruling go? Will anyone who fails this psych eval be deemed Adjudicated Mentally Defective theoretically losing their voting and freedom of movement rights? (And if not, why the hell not? If they're too nuts to have a gun, why do we want them voting and running around loose?)
 
This is in no way unique or limited to gun shows. Thus, how is this a "gun show loophole"? What does it have to do with gun shows?
Click to expand...
Exactly! My point from earlier was that for it to be a "Gun Show Loophole" it must apply specifically to gun shows alone.
 
I think the concept of the "loophole" has been well explained, as well
the reasons it does not exist.

Buying from a non dealer at a gun show does change a bit depending on
where you are.

Here in Oregon, if there are more than 25 guns for sale on the premises--
gunshow, fleamarket, garage sale, just thinning your herd---then background
checks are required on ALL sales, and no private sales without background checks, even out in the parking lot. Less than 25 guns? Private sale,
no paper required for non FFL sellers.
 
A very easy and very accurate answer to the question can be stated this way;

"Gunshow loophole---
[1] Any transaction done at a gunshow that would make it harder for the anti-gun politicians to restrict your rights delineated in the 2nd amendment of the Constitution.

[2] Any transaction done at a gunshow that does not convert your right to keep and bear arms into a privilege to be controlled and/or regulated by the government.
 
FWIW,

We know Colorado passed some gun laws recently.I'm not talking about those.

For a number of years before these laws were passed,at least at the gunshows in Northern Colorado that I attended;All firearm sales required a NICS check and 4473.

This included private sales and dealers in any combination.

I sat at a non-dealer table,sold my personal P-14 Enfield barreled action,and the NICS and 4473 were required.That was probably 7 or 8 years ago.

We had to take our transaction to a dedeicated NICS table,and approval was required to complete the sale.

Signs are posted that the parking lots are patrolled and parking lot sales are prohibited.

It is prudent to assume BATF or other agents may be working plainclothes.

I do not know if all of this came about by law,or the local gunshow promoters decided to pre-emptively make the complaints moot,or if it may have been a negotiated compromise for the use of the venues.

In any case,the gun show was not a good place to look for loopholes.
 
There's a lot of smoke on this one.

The anti-gun folks want everyone to believe that Joe Criminal can walk into a gun show and buy a machine gun from anybody there without going through a background check.

The NRA wants you to believe that all the sales going through licensed dealers at gun shows go through a background check without mentioning that there are occasionally problems with "unlicensed dealers" who are ostensibly not in the business of selling firearms but somehow have a large and ever-changing personal collection for sale across six tables at every gun show in the region year after year.
 
Regarding

I do not know if all of this came about by law,or the local gunshow promoters decided to pre-emptively make the complaints moot,or if it may have been a negotiated compromise for the use of the venues.
Click to expand...

and

It is prudent to assume BATF or other agents may be working plainclothes.
Click to expand...

Not to promote the idea, but merely to point out some things-

If it wasn't law, the BATFE couldn't arrest you for it. If it was state law, it's also difficult for them to arrest you for it, though I suppose possible. It was not Federal Law, so having them prowling the parking lot looking for a state law, or gun show policy violation is exceptionally unlikely.

Edited for accuracy, it is apparently Colorado State law- from a link in another story in another post. That said, it's still likely any patrols were private security, and state or local law enforcement, not BATFE on a state law.

Again, to find out just how bad of a "loophole" it is, or isn't print out pictures of the top 10 crime guns from the article. Go through the show looking for them. Find one being sold by a non-dealer. Then apply logic to the idea that

IF the criminal can wait for a gun show
IF they can find a crime gun
IF the crime gun is sold by a private party
IF the gun show policy -OR-
IF the private party doesn't -
require the taking extra voluntary measures like requiring a CCW

THEN a criminal could have gotten a firearm.
 
Last edited:
The gunshow loophole is the same as the lnternet sales loophole

I keep hearing that "you can just buy guns over the internet."
I think what they mean is that it's shocking that people can use a sole-purpose site such as armslist to find someone else in their state that has a particular firearm that they wish to purchase. Then, unless your state has a universal background check law, you could have a purchase to a citizen of the same state begun over the internet and completed locally, probably face to face. Not a loophole if you don't have a UBC.
I think that the idea of sites like gunbroker and auctionarms really gets the anti goat b/c it seems so darn easy to bid and win. While technically true that the bidder and payer has 'bought' a firearm, even a cursory overview of they system makes it apparent that it's impossible to take possession of said firearm w/out a background check, if the seller lives in another state. (Again, not a loophole if no UBC exists in the buyer/seller's state).
I had a brief conversation with an anti who was pointing out the flaws in the system. He told me how easy it would be for him to buy a gun over the internet and have it shipped directly to him.
"Try it." I told him. "I'll see you in 5-10 and buy you a beer."
That was the end of the conversation and I don't think he ever tried.
 
Madcap_Magician said:
The NRA wants you to believe that all the sales going through licensed dealers at gun shows go through a background check without mentioning that there are occasionally problems with "unlicensed dealers" who are ostensibly not in the business of selling firearms but somehow have a large and ever-changing personal collection for sale across six tables at every gun show in the region year after year.
Click to expand...
Unlicensed dealers are already breaking the law, making this fundamentally a law enforcement problem, NOT the result of any so-called loophole.

Also, I don't necessarily agree with every rhetorical position that the NRA takes either, but given that elements in the press already blame the organization for gun crime in general, Columbine, Sandy Hook, Trayvon Martin, and possibly global climate change*, can you really blame the NRA for failing to embark on a quixotic campaign to stamp out this problem? :rolleyes:

*Wayne LaPierre's prodigious output of hot air has potentially raised global temperatures. ;)
 
Last edited:
"loophole: an ambiguity or omission in the text through which the intent of a statute, contract, or obligation may be evaded."

The "gunshow loophole" is what gun control advocates wish the federal law on background checks required, rather than what are the law's actual intent and requirements.

Federal law requires licensed dealers to conduct background checks for firearms sales. The same federal law regulates other activities, such as sales to prohibited persons, by non-licensees (private individuals), but does not require non-licensees to conduct background checks.
 
Unlicensed dealers are already breaking the law, making this fundamentally a law enforcement problem
Click to expand...
Definitely. The irony is that the ATF doesn't consider such prosecutions a worthy use of their time.
 
There are a number of unsavory words I can use to describe that guy, but I will refrain due to the fact I refuse to stoop that low.

I remember reading that article and was just speechless at the amount of bunk that was loaded into it.

It amazes me what passes for "journalism" these days.

That said, a lot of great information in this thread. I've learned a lot so far on how to counter these arguments.

Though I can see my brother arguing "technicalities" in one form or another.
 
carguychris said:
Unlicensed dealers are already breaking the law, making this fundamentally a law enforcement problem, NOT the result of any so-called loophole.

Also, I don't necessarily agree with every rhetorical position that the NRA takes either, but given that elements in the press already blame the organization for gun crime in general, Columbine, Sandy Hook, Trayvon Martin, and possibly global climate change*, can you really blame the NRA for failing to embark on a quixotic campaign to stamp out this problem?
Click to expand...

Well, you have to keep in mind that for most of the people shrilling about a "gun show loophole," the real loophole is the existence of the Second Amendment, which stubbornly refuses to disappear.

But if viewed strictly in terms of "Is it possible to buy a gun from someone selling guns off a table at a gun show without a background check," then yes, there is a loophole.

Not that it matters, since as you point out the loophole is one of enforcement, not actual statutory law.

As to the NRA, I let my membership lapse due to their quixotic campaign to sell me MREs and gold coins, so I reckon if they have time for that, they have time for just about anything.
 
Well, it's all been said above.

Suffice it to say that to an anticonstitutionalist / statist / fascist (in this case of the leftist variety), a "loophole" is a fundamental right they haven't fully curtailed yet.
 
Lots of great info here. I will add that as others have stated, it varies state by state. In my state (PA) background checks (FFL transfer) is required for ALL handguns. Shotguns, and rifles may be sold privately to non-prohibited individuals without a background check.

The antis along with statist politicians, and their accomplices in the media continue the lies, and disinformation when it comes to legal private sales at gun shows.
 
The gun show loophole is an exaggeration. If your state allows private sales without a check then you can meet some dude in a parking lot and buy a gun without a check. If you're a felon this gives you a risk free way of buying a gun. If you are buying a gun that was bought in a private sale, then it's pretty much untraceable. And the seller is immune from prosecution since he "didn't know"

A gunshow is simply a place with more private sellers. I have no doubt that people who can't buy a gun go to them to get a gun with no paper trail. The colombine shooters sought out a private seller to avoid detection

For ME, when I sell a gun privately, I require a drivers license or other state ID and I give a bill of sale. ATF ever comes calling about a gun I owned in 1998 I have the name of the buyer
 
I have no doubt that people who can't buy a gun go to them to get a gun with no paper trail.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. About 1% of them. Compared to the 80% who go to family, friends, corrupt dealers, and the black market.
 
I think what they call a "loophole" is actually a lack of federal jurisdiction ... if I sell a gun to my neighbor, that is not a federal matter ... the federal government has grown such that people need federal licenses to be gun dealers, and people buying guns through these federally licensed gun dealers have to pass federal background checks ... and if a person in one State sells a gun to a person in another State then the federal power over interstate commerce is construed to make it a federal matter ... but otherwise, if a person wants to sell a gun to someone in his own state, regardless of whether it is at a yard sale or a gun show, there is no federal jurisdiction ... my impression is that people who call this a "loophole" assume that the federal government is all powerful and that it must be some kind of loophole that is being abused to circumvent the federal power.
 
Hugh Damright said:
I think what they call a "loophole" is actually a lack of federal jurisdiction ... if I sell a gun to my neighbor, that is not a federal matter ... if a person wants to sell a gun to someone in his own state, regardless of whether it is at a yard sale or a gun show, there is no federal jurisdiction ...
Click to expand...
Under a conservative, largely pre-WWII interpretation of the Commerce Clause, you would be correct. However, in recent decades, the courts have interpreted the Commerce Clause in ways that give the Feds very broad discretion to regulate the sale of consumer products under almost all circumstances.

Whether this is a correct or proper interpretation of the Commerce Clause is a whole different topic that has been debated to great length on this forum and elsewhere. :)

Private sales are not exempt from NICS checks because Congress can't pass a law requiring it; they're exempt because Congress hasn't done so. One of the main reasons is that some degree of left-right consensus is required, and the battle lines on this issue have never been easily drawn.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top