What "loophole" ??????

Any sale that doesn't go through an FFL and a background check is a "loophole" that needs to be closed, according to some people.
 
In many states, there is no requirement for background checks for private sales between individuals, as long as the sale meets the federal restrictions -
The sales can only take place between residents of the same state.
Private sales that cross state lines must go through a ffl dealer and be subject to background checks.
Wonder what these folks would think if they had to undergo a background check every time they exercised their First Amendment Rights.
 
Gun show loophole. At first , antis seemed to indicate that you could buy anything at a show without at background check. That was debunked as the FFL dealers did the checks. There was a flurry about 'private collectors' that had tables at every show but that was shut down for most. However, folks wandering around the show or in the parking lot could do private sales.

It was further argued that the gun show brought folks together and thus served as an attractive nuisance for private gun sales that were funky. Some shows were shut down on that basis.

That's the story, IIRC.
 
Thinking seriously about recommending that Rossen investigate himself for fleecing his readers with hyperbole, crass generalizations, and crappy reporting.
 
Wow, what terrible reporting! The "online" sales are actually face to face sales that were set up online, most likely through armslist or something similar. And if the buyer is telling the seller that he "probably couldn't pass a background check" then the seller is committing a crime already under federal law, is he not? The problem isn't the guns, or private sales, its people not following the law.

But its probably easier to make this sort of craps up on the fly than it is to research the actual laws...
 
I just read the comments to this arcticle and they seem to be mostly pro-firearm and anti author! I hope Rossen reads the comments to his/her own article!
 
The only valid point I see in this article is that some gun owners do not abide the laws concerning private party transfers. I find it convenient that the article doesn't mention how many people they approached in total and how many turned them down when they indicated they might be a prohibited person. Also I think it's interesting that they left out the fact that in all but a handful of places anyone of appropriate age can walk into any store that sells ammunition and buy it no questions asked. They make it seem as if HP ammo is some restricted use item that can only be obtained under questionable legal circumstances.

Random pondering, considering this was for an article, I wonder what the legality of these purchases is in regards to straw purchasing. I would guess that the news team funded the purchases, whether upfront or via reimbursement of the two buyers. So a purchase by proxy most likely occurred and if I recall correctly that's an issue.
 
If these 'journalists' were not residents of the states where they purchased these private sale guns, then aren't they in violation of federal laws, and should be prosecuted for buying these guns illegally...?
 
Biggest crock! As long as your state allows, then how does it become a loophole? In CT, private sales of long guns between 2 private parties would be completely legal if they were legal residents and the firearms were not banned under state law. If it is contained in the state law in writing, then it cannot be a loophole! What a crock!
 
First, you must realize The Truth: there is no loophole. [/jedimindtrick]

Actually, it's not a Jedi mind trick. There really is no loophole.

Glenn has already said it well:
Glenn E. Meyer said:
Gun show loophole. At first , antis seemed to indicate that you could buy anything at a show without at background check. That was debunked as the FFL dealers did the checks. There was a flurry about 'private collectors' that had tables at every show but that was shut down for most. However, folks wandering around the show or in the parking lot could do private sales.
Click to expand...

It's part of a long-standing tactic used by the anti-gun groups (and virtually every group, TBH) to control the language used in discussing controlling law. "Loophole" has kind of a sleazy connotation that goes with it, as though the people using the "loophole" are getting away with something that the law never intended to allow. There is no "gun show loophole." Federal law requires FFLs to do a NICS check, whether they're selling at a gun show, in their shop, or on the back 40 of Uncle Joe's farm. In many states, private sellers are not required to do a background check. That does not relieve them of the prohibition (federal) of selling to anyone who they know, or have reasonable cause to believe, is prohibited from buying or possessing the firearm.
 
Someone asked about legality of the transactions. I bet that is why they turned all the firearms over for destruction :eek: by the Phoenix PD.

I would think the PD might have a better potential use for some of them. Maybe the .50 rifle could be useful to the SWAT team at some point.

I didn't get the part about the SKS being "modified" to "use bullets for an AK-47"; don't they at least hire a knowledgable firearms consultant? :rolleyes:
 
I'm going to have to watch the video & probably will tonight. What I wonder is whether they edited out any contacts where the seller declined to go through with the transaction.
 
I wonder what the legality of these purchases is in regards to straw purchasing.
Click to expand...

Without a 4473 there is no such thing as a 'straw purchase'.

A 'straw purchase' is lying in response to question 11 a. on the 4473.

No 4473, no straw purchase.

Selling to a prohibited person is a whole other ball of wax.
 
I think those featured on the show should press charges against MSNBC for "purchasing a firearm under false pretenses". I am pretty sure that is illegal.
 
More liberal biased crappola. Who cares about the facts? Let's just try to get ratings. I wonder what part of legal they don't comprehend.
 
i just sent them a nice email about that article. Its such crap and im so sick of eveyone going after gun control and taking guns out of hands of law abiding citizens. Maybe if they spent even half as much energy into catching and keep criminals behind bars where they belong we wouldn't have these problems. Why aren't they reporting about our own government and Obama putting guns into criminals hands and letting them walk across to mexico so they can "see where they go with them and catch the bigger fish"
 
Spats is correct. Loophole is perjorative - implying that there is a law or rule in effect, being broken by chicanery. What else is new?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top