What "loophole" ??????

it only describes what I would consider illegal transactions
Click to expand...

I wonder how many refused to sell to them? I doubt if everyone they approached sold the man a gun, speacially when the one said he could not pass a background check.

If someone told me that I would dial up 911 and let the police figure his delemma out. If he was OK by them I still wouldnt sell just cause he said that to me.
 
In my great state, if the gun is legal and the person is allowed to have it, we can sell, trade, and give away guns as much as we like, as long as it's a private party sell. I can go to a gun show, buy from a regular person, and walk out the door. I can do the something with flea markets. There is no loophole, it's the law.
And their big thing is, it doesn't go through a dealer, it's online. They are full of it. What company just sends guns to private individuals? None. They go to dealer first.
And they say they bought 10 dangerous weapons, what weapon is not dangerous? And they say they bought a .50 that can take down helicopters. Well, it also puts holes in paper nicely too.
People who are against guns I assume never had to worry about break ins or their family's safety. I guess they never hunted so their family wouldn't have to spend so much on food. And I guess they never got to have the joy of pulling a trigger back at the range. Well, just because it's not how they live doesn't mean no one should live that way. I live that way, and it's a great life. And I'm not a terrorist. I'm a construction worker that loves guns.
 
Last edited:
I read it this morning and it pretty much sounds like a press release from Bloomberg or the Brady Bunch. Pretty lazy to retread something and attempt to publish it as hard hitting investigative journalism. It is also disingenuous to call it a loop hole when private sales ae legal in staes.
 
What they call a "loophole" is simply a private citizien obeying State and Federal law!

As mentioned, its perjorative.

In short, its is a LIE.
 
Well if they're saying they "probably couldn't pass a background check" and the seller still goes through with the transaction isn't he actually violating federal law? That's nit a loophole, thats just a crime.
 
No.

Face-to-face state legal sales do not require a background check. Many of us include our own procedures, but a background check is not required in a face-to-face sale between two parties that are citizens of the same state and the transaction takes place in that same state.

Up next will be the "4473 loophole".
Click to expand...

Good one, ClayInTx! :)
 
But if you couldn't pass the NICS that more than likely means you're a prohibited person. Therefore, the seller would be selling a firearm to a prohibited person, would they not?

I'm not siding with the antis here. Just stands to reason that if one COULDN'T buy a gun through other channels maybe they SHOULDN'T try to buy them through private party sales?
 
I find it hilarious that they are uniformed cops at every single gun show I have ever been to but they have never once showed a cop on TV at the gun show. Somehow the concept of criminals buying guns under the noses of cops falls just out of the "suspend disbelief" range of the brand of fiction the media sells.

I do believe that as the US economy becomes more strongly controlled and all trade goes through certain outlets that private party gun sales will go away. It will require the support of gun makers however.
 
Young.Gun.612 said:
But if you couldn't pass the NICS that more than likely means you're a prohibited person. Therefore, the seller would be selling a firearm to a prohibited person, would they not?

I'm not siding with the antis here. Just stands to reason that if one COULDN'T buy a gun through other channels maybe they SHOULDN'T try to buy them through private party sales?
Click to expand...

It makes you wonder how we got along before the Government decided there were such things as "Prohibited Persons" doesn't it?

Ask yourself this question, "If there is no requirement for a NICS check for a face-to-face in-state sale, then why is there a need for a NICS check at all? How is that tolerated?"

Actually, it is true that there are people that should not possess or handle firearms. Some decisions are made based on your best judgment, without the help of the government.
 
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
Click to expand...

They hired a couple of locals to actually purchase the guns. And the way the guy said "I probably wouldn't pass the background check" while laughing could easily be taken as a joke. I'm sure we've all gone down that long checklist on the 4473.

I find this type of reporting amusing more than anything. A "police grade" Glock, the SKS that was modified to use AK bullets, and a rootin'-tootin'-helicopter-shootin' .50 cal rifle with an impressive range of five miles.

(Don't forget a flock of geese put a commercial airliner into the Hudson River not too long ago)

And of course anyone who may be interested in buying a gun is probably a terrorist. Valid point.
 
"it is true that there are people that should not possess or handle firearms. Some decisions are made based on your best judgment, without the help of the government."

I wouldn't want to have sold a gun to someone who was disqualified to have one and I didn't know it because he didn't tell me he was and I had no way to know it otherwise, and later have to answer for his criminal acts with it, even though the sale wasn't illegal. That creates two issues the antis can make arguments against guns with: "Law-abiding gun owners can also be a source for criminals to get guns"; and "there really aren't enough gun laws to keep everyone safe".

That sort of negates the argument that "we have enough gun laws, it's just that they need to be enforced". While not a perfect fit with the definition of "loophole", it's certainly a route for guns to get into the wrong hands. If we buy safes and alarm systems to protect our guns from getting into the hands of criminals, shouldn't we have the means to prevent making deals that end the same way?

All of which leads me to ask how a private citizen with no FFL could get a Brady check on someone he contemplates selling a gun to. I have to ask this because guns are of the class of things that I only buy, I don't ever sell any so I'm unfamiliar how to go about it should I ever want to.
 
Last edited:
"I probably wouldn't pass the background check"
Click to expand...

It looks as though the buyer usually said this AFTER the sale was made. The show is edited so it looks like the buyer says he wouldn't pass before the sale takes place.

I also scoffed at the "tactical assault rifle modified to take AK47 bullets". An SKS with a plastic stock doesn't sound nearly as evil as an AK47.
 
All of which leads me to ask how a private citizen with no FFL could get a Brady check on someone he contemplates selling a gun to. I have to ask this because guns are of the class of things that I only buy, I don't ever sell any so I'm unfamiliar how to go about it should I ever want to.
Click to expand...

If you're concerned about this, you should take the gun to an FFL/gun shop, and have them transfer the gun to the buyer for you. The FFL becomes the middleman. The buyer would then pay the FFL fee (his end), and the FFL would perform a background check.

Some states may require that all gun sales go through an FFL, I don't know. The Brady group wants every gun buyer to pass a background check, private sale or not.
 
The Brady group wants every gun buyer to pass a background check, private sale or not.
Click to expand...
Nope. The Brady Campaign wants private sales abolished altogether.

If you ever sat through Bowling for Columbine, Rossen was the guy doing his best to sensationalize the murder of Kayla Rolland at the hands of another 1st-grader. That's what he's doing here.

He cites data from Mayors Against Illegal Guns as fact, saying that "34 Americans every day are murdered with guns, many of them traced back to private sales." Well, dozens of people a day are bitten by dogs, many of them four-legged furry animals like your dog.

This is nothing more than an agenda-driven fluff piece to support whatever background-check bill Chuck Schumer is pushing this year. Perhaps one of MSNBC's 12 viewers will get worked up about it; I'm not too worried.
 
It makes you wonder how we got along before the Government decided there were such things as "Prohibited Persons" doesn't it?
Click to expand...

In the movie "War Wagon" John Wayne just gets out of prison, carries a gun.. in front of the sherriff...
 
Nope. The Brady Campaign wants private sales abolished altogether.
Click to expand...

Maybe we're splittin' hairs here. If you and I lived in the same state, and I sold you a gun that went through an FFL, would it still be considered a private sale? In a way it isn't, since now there's a form 4473 somewhere. Yet two individuals were able to complete a transaction. (This sounds like the tree falling in the forest routine.)

This is nothing more than an agenda-driven fluff piece to support whatever background-check bill Chuck Schumer is pushing this year. Perhaps one of MSNBC's 12 viewers will get worked up about it; I'm not too worried.
Click to expand...

I do get worked up for a moment, because my mind conjures up those 12 viewers as voters, who will spread the misinformation to their misinformed friends, and so forth. Besides, who wouldn't want to ban those evil AK47s, police grade pistols, and hollow point bullets.:eek: But I'm glad there are cooler heads around to put me at ease....for the moment.
 
I know the Constitution doesn't get much attention these days, but would a federal mandate on background checks for private sales even be legal?

I can understand FFL holders being shoved into the "interstate commerce" clause, but private citizens selling firearms within state lines...
 
If you and I lived in the same state, and I sold you a gun that went through an FFL, would it still be considered a private sale?
Click to expand...
No. On the FFL's books, it would look like you sold the gun to the shop, who then sold it to me. There'd be the same paper trail as a transfer from a dealer.

I do get worked up for a moment, because my mind conjures up those 12 viewers as voters, who will spread the misinformation to their misinformed friends, and so forth.
Click to expand...
You're right to be concerned, but I think this situation is a minor one. The gun control lobby used to have a pretty good foothold in the public consciousness, but they don't enjoy that any more. We do. Rossen's little agenda piece is a desperate grab for some kind of relevance, but it falls on largely deaf ears.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top