What "loophole" ??????
- Thread starter Dino.
- Start date
Spats McGee
Administrator
As an interesting aside, I check on the Brady Campaign's page on Facebook with some regularity, just to keep up on what they're saying. As of yesterday, something like 1,300 people "liked" the Brady Campaign. For comparison, I looked up the NRA. More than 1.3 million people "like" the NRA.Tom Servo said:
Justice06RR
New member
WOW, another paranoid anti-gun article. Why are we not surprised.
Really?
Some terribly uneducated statements there. No background checks are required online because they ship it to an FFL dealer who will do the BC for you. 50cal, 223/5.56, 7.62 etc are all capable of destroying anything from cars to helicopters. Yes the military and civilian own them, whats the problem?
Really?
Some terribly uneducated statements there. No background checks are required online because they ship it to an FFL dealer who will do the BC for you. 50cal, 223/5.56, 7.62 etc are all capable of destroying anything from cars to helicopters. Yes the military and civilian own them, whats the problem?
The last guy who told me he didn't think he could pass a background check had an arrest/conviction for pot when he was in his twenties. He's in his 50's now. Been married for 20 or 30 years, owns a home, worked with me over ten years at the same business. Not unstable by any stretch of the imagination, but has a lifetime ban on firearms. Selling him a gun would be a felony.
Meanwhile, some gangbanger down the street is probably at a dealer with his girlfriend buying a gun. The system is a joke.
Meanwhile, some gangbanger down the street is probably at a dealer with his girlfriend buying a gun. The system is a joke.
I offered up a handgun for sale on the internet once via a few forums. On one of the forums a guy from another state said he wanted to purchase it and would be in my area soon so he could buy it then. I had to explain that was illegal. A number of people chimed in disagreeing with me. I explained the relevant law in detail and linked the ATF FAQ on the subject. A while later someone else on the same forum wanted to purchase it from me. He was moving from Alaska to Florida and he wanted to stop off in my state and pick it up on the way to Florida. I had to explain the whole thing all over again and some people still didn't get it.
So I am not at all surprised people at gun shows and such sometimes make questionable sales. I think some people buy and sell guns primarily at shows and don't spend much time on the internet. They actually genuinely have no idea that, at a minimum, they have to ask people what state they live in when selling a handgun to ensure they don't break the law. I think they also get confused over the difference between long gun and handgun laws in regards to this issue.
So I am not at all surprised people at gun shows and such sometimes make questionable sales. I think some people buy and sell guns primarily at shows and don't spend much time on the internet. They actually genuinely have no idea that, at a minimum, they have to ask people what state they live in when selling a handgun to ensure they don't break the law. I think they also get confused over the difference between long gun and handgun laws in regards to this issue.
From my experience going to gun shows in the DFW area (10 to 15 per year plus a trek up to Tulsa) I haven't really seen any reduction of private collector tables. They seem to be going strong. Also, I can't say I see it all of the time but frequently, young couples of some minority having one of their parents filling out the paper work to purchase a hand gun thus creating a straw purchase. I wish the shows demanded the seller make the buyer sign a statement stating that they understand the law and the penalty for doing so (which should include mandatory jail time.) Perhaps they would think twice about it.
You say that people have to ask about residency? Do you also require that they show you proof of residency? How far do you go with that? A driver's license? Three months of utility bills?
How is it that you are breaking the law unless you knowingly sell a firearm to someone who would not qualify?
I don't see how you're breaking the law by not asking residency any more than you're breaking the law by not doing a background check.
1. Why does it matter that they're a minority?
2. How do you know it's a straw purchase and not a gift?
3. How do you know that the young couple is a prohibited party?
4. Mandatory jail time? For who?
I doubt it. And I think that whole thing would end up being a wad of bureacracy that would snag people and throw them in the slammer while people are still out there in back alleys trading stolen guns for crack, undetected.
I think it's interesting that nine times as many people "like" a page dedicated to ranting about tangled headphone cords.
I'm also on the Brady's mailing list, and lately the best they can do is troll relatives and friends of shooting victims for supportive statements. They still jump in with their opinions in state-level cases, but on the legislative front, they simply aren't on the radar.
. "They even had undercover video!" Told me I had better buy quick 
.Not to drag this into the legal forum, but isn't this statement considered "hearsay"? I mean what's the difference between saying "I probably wouldn't pass the test" or if I were to tell some guy in a bar that I were part of Seal Team 6 and a Sniper ninja that shot Public Enemy #1 between the eyes from 6000 yards out with a slingshot?
Is there a legal reason someone can't make a sale b/c of hearsay?
Just asking as a theoretical exercise, b/c in the real world none of us would put a weapon in the hands of someone who seemed sketchy.
Spats McGee
Administrator
"Hearsay" is an evidentiary rule. Specifically, "'hearsay' means a statement that: (1) the declarant does not make while testifying at the current trial or hearing; and (2) a party offers in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement." Fed. R. Evid. 801 Subject to a variety of exceptions and exemptions, hearsay is generally inadmissible at trial, for the purpose of proving the truth of the matter asserted.doofus47 said:
So what the heck does that mean? Let's say I'm prosecuting Joe Shmoe, and he said "I'm the Super Sniper Ninja for Seal Team 6, and I shot Public Enemy #1 between the eyes at 6000 yards with a slingshot." He said it out of court to my star witness to that statement, Billy Bob Numbskull. What the hearsay rule says is that Billy Bob will not be allowed to testify as to Joe's statment to prove that Joe is actually the Super Sniper Ninja for Seal Team 6 and that he shot PE#1 between the eyes at 6000 yards, etc., unless I can fit it under one of the exceptions or exemptions. (Note, however, that Billy Bob may be able to testify to it for other reasons, but the "truth of the matter asserted" in Joe's statement would be the "Super Sniper Ninja who shot PE#1, etc." stuff.)
"Hearsay" does not mean that the police cannot act on the statment to investigate. If Frank Felony tells me that he has a past conviction for Attempted Murder (an obvious felony), the Hearsay Rule only specifies the ways that the prosecutor can use his statement at trial. It doesn't mean that I can go ahead and sell him a gun. Police act on hearsay all the time. For example, "my ex-boyfriend told my current boyfriend that he was going to kill me." The police can go find ex-boyfriend and ask him about that.
Yes. 18 U.S.C. 922(d): It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person--[is a prohibited person.]doofus47 said:
18 U.S.C.A. § 922 (West)(edited for brevity by Spats)
If Frank Felony tells you that he "probably couldn't pass a background check," you have reasonable cause to believe that the person is prohibited from purchasing a firearm. Remember, the prosecutor won't have to prove that Frank has an actual felony, only that the seller "had reasonable cause to believe" that he did. So Frank's statement ("I couldn't pass a background check" or "I was convicted of Attempted Murder") would not have to be admitted for the truth of the matter asserted (by Frank), it would only need to be admitted to prove "reasonable cause to believe." It doesn't even matter of Frank's statement to the seller is true; it only matters if it gives rise to "reasonable cause to believe" that Frank is prohibited.
Does that clarify things, or have I totally tangled it up for you?
Last edited:
Young.Gun.612
New member
Thank you, Spats. That is exactly what I was getting at earlier.
No legal reason to not sell,
it would be on principle with me. As the seller I can pick and choose who I sell too, isnt that OK? I dont sell guns anyways, they are all going to my son. If Iwas looking to buy a gun, I sure would not say something like that to the seller, joke or not. Gotta take on a little responsibility here.
I noticed an advertisement in the local newspaper for a rifle someone was selling. Hey guys, did you know you can buy a gun through the newspaper with no background check? Maybe we should ask Congress to ban the publishing of newspapers that help criminals get guns they are not entitled to have. How do you think this argument would go with the antis?
wayneinFL said:
Yeah, I made an error. I based that statement off of this page:
http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/unlicensed-persons.html
Question 1 implies that it is illegal if they are not a resident regardless of what you know, but the actual laws that it references do not say that. They say you can't sell to someone if you have reason to believe they are not a resident of your state.
My bad.
Guys you fail to realize that FACTS have never interfered with a story.
What was it Hearst or was it Purlitzer said. Send me the pictures and I will give you the story.
The libs have an adgenda The total elimination of legal ownership of firearms.
They have a model which says private gun ownership causes death.
Since the facts don't fit the model they have changed the facts.
The National Safety Council is guilty of this. They routinely include the fatalities of Juvinels killed while committing FELONYS as accidental deaths. They do this to inflate their accidental death statics.
These stats are then used as justification for regulating firearms.
What was it Hearst or was it Purlitzer said. Send me the pictures and I will give you the story.
The libs have an adgenda The total elimination of legal ownership of firearms.
They have a model which says private gun ownership causes death.
Since the facts don't fit the model they have changed the facts.
The National Safety Council is guilty of this. They routinely include the fatalities of Juvinels killed while committing FELONYS as accidental deaths. They do this to inflate their accidental death statics.
These stats are then used as justification for regulating firearms.