expvideo
Member
Just because you can rationalize it in your head or can't think of a good reason to keep something doesn't mean it should be illegal. This isn't England.
gun show loophole: why should we keep it?
- Thread starter badbadtz560
- Start date
- Status
The truth is the majority of sales at gunshows are done by dealers not private parties. FFL dealers go through NICS to do a background check at gunshows. Gunshows also have a good number of undercover state and federal agents looking for blatant violations.
The "gunshow loophole" is a fake soundbyte. What it really refers to is all private party transfers, the majority of which take place far from gunshows.
It means you could no longer sell your own private gun to your friend you have known all yoru life without going to an FFL and paying them a fee to transfer your private property with government permission and formal documentation.
It means the government must be asked permission before every single sale between any individuals. You could not for example give your wife/girlfriend a gun you already own without going down to an FFL and paying them a fee, asking permission from the government, appealing any error in the system, hoping NICs is not backlogged, etc etc
You have to ask the government permission to even excercise a right originaly put in the Constitution as a balance against tyranny performed by government.
Does that make any sense? It would be like a requirement to ask a burglar permission to install or upgrade your home security.
So really it has very little to do with gunshows. Most sellers at gunshows are FFLs and go through the same steps as a gunstore.
It is about control. Control over every single firearm transaction in the country. Which also allows illegal (per the FOPA) registration databases to be more accurately created at the federal level.
When every single transaction is documented if they choose to ignore the FOPA and make a database as they have been documented doing before then they can accurately know where all legaly held firearms are in the country.
Once federal permission is required for any an all transfers at all levels they can even cease sales at will. Take NICS down temporarily, or essentialy do any number of things and hold total legal control over the 2nd Amendment and those choosing to excercise the right.
It enables them to implement anti-gun legislation much more rapidly and have more confidence it is being enforced.
The "gunshow loophole" is a fake soundbyte. What it really refers to is all private party transfers, the majority of which take place far from gunshows.
It means you could no longer sell your own private gun to your friend you have known all yoru life without going to an FFL and paying them a fee to transfer your private property with government permission and formal documentation.
It means the government must be asked permission before every single sale between any individuals. You could not for example give your wife/girlfriend a gun you already own without going down to an FFL and paying them a fee, asking permission from the government, appealing any error in the system, hoping NICs is not backlogged, etc etc
You have to ask the government permission to even excercise a right originaly put in the Constitution as a balance against tyranny performed by government.
Does that make any sense? It would be like a requirement to ask a burglar permission to install or upgrade your home security.
So really it has very little to do with gunshows. Most sellers at gunshows are FFLs and go through the same steps as a gunstore.
It is about control. Control over every single firearm transaction in the country. Which also allows illegal (per the FOPA) registration databases to be more accurately created at the federal level.
When every single transaction is documented if they choose to ignore the FOPA and make a database as they have been documented doing before then they can accurately know where all legaly held firearms are in the country.
Once federal permission is required for any an all transfers at all levels they can even cease sales at will. Take NICS down temporarily, or essentialy do any number of things and hold total legal control over the 2nd Amendment and those choosing to excercise the right.
It enables them to implement anti-gun legislation much more rapidly and have more confidence it is being enforced.
hugh damright
Member
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2005
- Messages
- 825
I think another name for "gun show loophole" is "limited federal government". The federal government is not delegated authority over private gun transactions between two citizens of the same State. It is an intrastate affair. The "loophole" seems to be that the federal government doesn't have authority over all matters.
MD_Willington
Member
Its just another way for "them" to put their fat noses in "your" business...
They have accountants for everything...You are a widget to be cataloged.
They have accountants for everything...You are a widget to be cataloged.
misANTHrope
Member
The title to this thread asks the wrong question. The correct question would be "Gun show loophole: Why should we kill it?"
The citizenry should never have to justify keeping an activity legal. Instead, the burden of evidence and justification lie upon the lawmakers, who need to justify each and every new restriction upon the citizens.
I read and hear from far too many people who seem to think, at a subconscious or even conscious level, that the citizens bear the burden of evidence in showing why they should be allowed to do something.
The starting point is absolutely no restrictions, and we move from there to restrict only as necessary- not the other way around.
(Please, no one jump on me for using the "loophole" language there. It was immaterial to my point, and so I left it alone.)
The citizenry should never have to justify keeping an activity legal. Instead, the burden of evidence and justification lie upon the lawmakers, who need to justify each and every new restriction upon the citizens.
I read and hear from far too many people who seem to think, at a subconscious or even conscious level, that the citizens bear the burden of evidence in showing why they should be allowed to do something.
The starting point is absolutely no restrictions, and we move from there to restrict only as necessary- not the other way around.
(Please, no one jump on me for using the "loophole" language there. It was immaterial to my point, and so I left it alone.)
Mike128
Member
Your paper should also mention that a EXTREMELY small percentage of illegal firearms are purchased at gun shows.
Secondly, there are already rules to keep people that are restricted from buying weapons from doing so. (see earlier post) FFL dealers must still go through NCIS. Also, someone who sells as a business must be a FFL. So an individual can not sell a large quantity of guns.
Private sales are left unchecked. The reason is so that we can easily sell to friends and family without adding $50 or more per sale in fees. Which will add up quickly.
This is especially powerful to the Fuds. In MD handguns and restricted EBR have a 7 day wait. These are the guns most feared by Antis. A combination with what stated previously really takes the wind out of their sales. Esepcially when they start talking about not taking your hunting rifles away, because that is exactly what taking the "gunshow loophole" does.
Secondly, there are already rules to keep people that are restricted from buying weapons from doing so. (see earlier post) FFL dealers must still go through NCIS. Also, someone who sells as a business must be a FFL. So an individual can not sell a large quantity of guns.
Private sales are left unchecked. The reason is so that we can easily sell to friends and family without adding $50 or more per sale in fees. Which will add up quickly.
This is especially powerful to the Fuds. In MD handguns and restricted EBR have a 7 day wait. These are the guns most feared by Antis. A combination with what stated previously really takes the wind out of their sales. Esepcially when they start talking about not taking your hunting rifles away, because that is exactly what taking the "gunshow loophole" does.
Wow. This is why things are getting bad for gun owners. You're in college (I assume) drafting a bill about something that you know nothing about and won't spend $10 (or less) to see first hand what it is you're trying to (I assume) regulate.
Sheesh, hit a gunshow and ask all the questions that you want. The reactions you get might surprise you when asking the questions, though. People will probably give you the cold shoulder because they think that you're trying to circumvent the existing laws, which ironically goes to show that there's not all that much lawlessness going on at gunshows to being with.
Sheesh, hit a gunshow and ask all the questions that you want. The reactions you get might surprise you when asking the questions, though. People will probably give you the cold shoulder because they think that you're trying to circumvent the existing laws, which ironically goes to show that there's not all that much lawlessness going on at gunshows to being with.
krs
Member
I don't think this was stated above, though possibly I missed it and if so I apologize.
The right to buy or sell firearms between individuals who are legal residents of the same state does not mean that an individual may buy a firearm at a gunshow from a same state FFL holder acting as a dealer at the show.
In other words, the NICS and 4473 requirement exists at gunshows for transactions between a same state dealer and a same state individual.
The so-called "loophole" is the right of non FFL residents of a state to conduct business between themselves face to face whether on the street, in their homes, or at a gunshow held in their state.
The media paintjob would have you believe that gunshows are a freeforall of sales of guns where anyone can go in any state to get the guns they need to rob or kill you.
The right to buy or sell firearms between individuals who are legal residents of the same state does not mean that an individual may buy a firearm at a gunshow from a same state FFL holder acting as a dealer at the show.
In other words, the NICS and 4473 requirement exists at gunshows for transactions between a same state dealer and a same state individual.
The so-called "loophole" is the right of non FFL residents of a state to conduct business between themselves face to face whether on the street, in their homes, or at a gunshow held in their state.
The media paintjob would have you believe that gunshows are a freeforall of sales of guns where anyone can go in any state to get the guns they need to rob or kill you.
" Wow. This is why things are getting bad for gun owners. You're in college (I assume) drafting a bill about something that you know nothing about and won't spend $10 (or less) to see first hand what it is you're trying to (I assume) regulate.
Sheesh, hit a gunshow and ask all the questions that you want. The reactions you get might surprise you when asking the questions, though. People will probably give you the cold shoulder because they think that you're trying to circumvent the existing laws, which ironically goes to show that there's not all that much lawlessness going on at gunshows to being with"
so you suggest that he go to a gunshow only to get blown off by people...hmmm, interesting.
Sheesh, hit a gunshow and ask all the questions that you want. The reactions you get might surprise you when asking the questions, though. People will probably give you the cold shoulder because they think that you're trying to circumvent the existing laws, which ironically goes to show that there's not all that much lawlessness going on at gunshows to being with"
so you suggest that he go to a gunshow only to get blown off by people...hmmm, interesting.
newbie4help
Member
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2008
- Messages
- 229
To be fair.....
it's a "loophole" a certain sense.
People will jump on me for this but hear me out...
even in states which allow unregulated sales between private parties, there is a difference with gun shows because it's such a massive amount of guns that a criminal would potentially want. It's hard to go around finding private individuals willing sellers, even with a site like THR...most people on here are extra scrupulous and might insist on writing up a bill of sale that would turn criminals off (because they can't legally buy guns anyway). But at a gun show, a criminal can fill up his arsenal and face almost no barriers to doing so. It's very efficient for them.
In all reality though I think they only get a tiny percentage of their guns from shows....most are sold on the black market and come from stolen guns etc.
Honestly, I don't see why any of us should care sense 90% of us have a CHL, so we could buy unregulated anyway since we've already been checked out by the feds.
it's a "loophole" a certain sense.
People will jump on me for this but hear me out...
even in states which allow unregulated sales between private parties, there is a difference with gun shows because it's such a massive amount of guns that a criminal would potentially want. It's hard to go around finding private individuals willing sellers, even with a site like THR...most people on here are extra scrupulous and might insist on writing up a bill of sale that would turn criminals off (because they can't legally buy guns anyway). But at a gun show, a criminal can fill up his arsenal and face almost no barriers to doing so. It's very efficient for them.
In all reality though I think they only get a tiny percentage of their guns from shows....most are sold on the black market and come from stolen guns etc.
Honestly, I don't see why any of us should care sense 90% of us have a CHL, so we could buy unregulated anyway since we've already been checked out by the feds.
Boba Fett
Member
Just FYI badbadtz560, if you have to cite your sources, you probably won't be allowed to use Wiki. Almost everyone of my college syllabi said that we could not use Wiki as a source.
Wiki is an excellent springboard to find actual information, but use the sources at the bottom of a Wiki page and cite them instead of Wiki. Sometimes the info in Wiki is incorrect or inaccurate or just plain false. And you see notes on Wiki pages sometimes that say something like "Need source."
Wiki is an excellent springboard to find actual information, but use the sources at the bottom of a Wiki page and cite them instead of Wiki. Sometimes the info in Wiki is incorrect or inaccurate or just plain false. And you see notes on Wiki pages sometimes that say something like "Need source."
Carl N. Brown
Member
The gunshow loophole problem is a myth.
"Gun show loophole" means that private individuals who attend gun shows can buy, sell, swap or trade firearms face-to-face as they have done in America since people first met to swap and trade.
Gun dealers who attend gun shows are required to follow all the rules and regs that apply to their transactions at their gun shops, following all FFL rules including the NICS background check.
What the "gun show loophole" means is that when I took my .22 ATD to the gunshow to swap or trade or sell, I could not run a police background check on the guy who offered to buy it.
Now closing the "loophole" means that either I would be empowered to run a police background check on you, through NICS same as a dealer (which is unlikely) or gun show sales would be limited to FFL licensed dealers which is the aim of the antigunners in the first place.
Years ago hobbyists like myself could get a FFL to occasionally swap, sell or trade guns. That "loophole" was shut down by the Clinton Administration at the insistence of Handgun Control Inc. You had to do a major volume of business, have a shop seperate from your house, met zoning requirements, have business insurance, theft and fire insurance on the shop, etc. Over 85,000 small time dealers were shut down. People like me who only occassionally sell off a gun were told we did not qualify for an FFL because we were not engaged in the gun business, but as private owners we could occassionally sell, trade or swap guns as private citizens. But the BATF also claims that if they decide you are illegally engaged in dealing in firearms they only have to prove you sold one gun.
Now, how important are legal gun sales to criminals? According to interviews with two Knoxville officers, less than 20% of felons who have guns get them legally. According to the US DOJ, less than 1% of felons get their guns at gunshows.
Mark Duggan, David Hemenway and Jens Ludwig are noted anti-gun scholars. Notice that NO noted pro-gun scholars are listed as contributing to this study.
The gunshow loophole problem is a myth.
"Gun show loophole" means that private individuals who attend gun shows can buy, sell, swap or trade firearms face-to-face as they have done in America since people first met to swap and trade.
Gun dealers who attend gun shows are required to follow all the rules and regs that apply to their transactions at their gun shops, following all FFL rules including the NICS background check.
What the "gun show loophole" means is that when I took my .22 ATD to the gunshow to swap or trade or sell, I could not run a police background check on the guy who offered to buy it.
Now closing the "loophole" means that either I would be empowered to run a police background check on you, through NICS same as a dealer (which is unlikely) or gun show sales would be limited to FFL licensed dealers which is the aim of the antigunners in the first place.
Years ago hobbyists like myself could get a FFL to occasionally swap, sell or trade guns. That "loophole" was shut down by the Clinton Administration at the insistence of Handgun Control Inc. You had to do a major volume of business, have a shop seperate from your house, met zoning requirements, have business insurance, theft and fire insurance on the shop, etc. Over 85,000 small time dealers were shut down. People like me who only occassionally sell off a gun were told we did not qualify for an FFL because we were not engaged in the gun business, but as private owners we could occassionally sell, trade or swap guns as private citizens. But the BATF also claims that if they decide you are illegally engaged in dealing in firearms they only have to prove you sold one gun.
Now, how important are legal gun sales to criminals? According to interviews with two Knoxville officers, less than 20% of felons who have guns get them legally. According to the US DOJ, less than 1% of felons get their guns at gunshows.
Mark Duggan, David Hemenway and Jens Ludwig are noted anti-gun scholars. Notice that NO noted pro-gun scholars are listed as contributing to this study.
The gunshow loophole problem is a myth.
Last edited:
jackdanson
Member
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 859
I've had a NICS check on every firearm I've ever bought at a gun show. There is no loophole. If you see someone carrying a firearm you like you can offer them money for a private trade, just like you could if you worked with the guy or if he was a friend or acquintance.
I forgot the exact number, but I think less than 5% of criminals acquired their weapons at gun shows. I'm sure you can find the real stat on the NRA website.
I forgot the exact number, but I think less than 5% of criminals acquired their weapons at gun shows. I'm sure you can find the real stat on the NRA website.
wyocarp
Member
Instead of getting rid of private sales between citizens, which is what the "gunshow loophole" is, I would rather us get rid of the background checks for firearms completely.
Minimally, those who pass background checks should be able to buy firearms in any state of this ONE (?) COUNTRY instead of having to send it through the mail to a dealer in your own state, incuring an extra fee for buying a handgun.
Minimally, those who pass background checks should be able to buy firearms in any state of this ONE (?) COUNTRY instead of having to send it through the mail to a dealer in your own state, incuring an extra fee for buying a handgun.
misANTHrope
Member
newbie4help said:
This may be true in your state, but it's by no means universal. Not every state's carry permit is accepted in lieu of an instant check. TN happens to be one of those states.
Galadren
Member
This I can agree with, but the first part...I think background checks are necessary. I'm not for HR.45 or anything remotely like it, but I think gangbangers and others convicted of violent crime need to have their right to purchase a firearm revoked as they've proven they can't be trusted with the responsibility.
Not all gun control is bad, just most of it.
And of course,
licensed dealers are largely in favor of this, as it would require their (paid) involvement in every firearms transaction.
We saw this in California, when the law that requires almost all firearms transactions to go through a licensed FFL was supported by a majority of firearms dealers.
"A law that requires people to pay me? Sign me up!"
The car example is particularly edifying, because (a) more people die by car accident than by gunshot and (b) the anti's love to use the "you need a license to drive a car" line as an argument in favor of gun control.
My response is this:
You want to regulate guns like cars? I'll take that deal right now.
1) I don't need any license to buy a car, only to operate it on public roads.
2) I can buy as many cars as I can afford
3) My license to drive is recognized by every State in the Union.
4) I can by as fast and as powerful a car as I can afford.
5) I can buy any car from anyone who will sell it to me.
6) I do not need to prove that I need to drive on public roads, only that I am capable of doing so safely and legally.
Actually, my test fir the rationality of any proposed gun law is to substitute the word "book" for the word "gun". If the proposed law still makes sense and passes Constitutional muster, it moves forward, if not, then no.
Look at history... books kill more people than guns. And it only takes four books to prove the point... Mein Kampf, Das Kapital, the Bible, and the Koran.
--Shannon
licensed dealers are largely in favor of this, as it would require their (paid) involvement in every firearms transaction.
We saw this in California, when the law that requires almost all firearms transactions to go through a licensed FFL was supported by a majority of firearms dealers.
"A law that requires people to pay me? Sign me up!"
The car example is particularly edifying, because (a) more people die by car accident than by gunshot and (b) the anti's love to use the "you need a license to drive a car" line as an argument in favor of gun control.
My response is this:
You want to regulate guns like cars? I'll take that deal right now.
1) I don't need any license to buy a car, only to operate it on public roads.
2) I can buy as many cars as I can afford
3) My license to drive is recognized by every State in the Union.
4) I can by as fast and as powerful a car as I can afford.
5) I can buy any car from anyone who will sell it to me.
6) I do not need to prove that I need to drive on public roads, only that I am capable of doing so safely and legally.
Actually, my test fir the rationality of any proposed gun law is to substitute the word "book" for the word "gun". If the proposed law still makes sense and passes Constitutional muster, it moves forward, if not, then no.
Look at history... books kill more people than guns. And it only takes four books to prove the point... Mein Kampf, Das Kapital, the Bible, and the Koran.
--Shannon
benminer
Member
The very way the question is asked implies a bias towards being in favor of restricting the rights of people to what they want, and in a free society (which I hope we still somewhat resemble) the opposite should be true.
In essence, this "loophole" is the absence of a law forbidding firearm sales between private individuals. It is not correct to ask "why should this certain activity NOT be banned?" but rather the question should be "what justification/benefit is there for banning this activity?". The burden of proof should always always fall to the party seeking to restrict an activity. In other words, it should be assumed that people should be free to do as they please unless there is an overriding need / benefit for them not to be allowed to do so.
In additional to Constitutional arguments, I would submit that there is very little if any evidence to suggest that private firearm sales between law-abiding citizens result in any social harm. Criminals, by definition, do not obey the law and so would ignore a requirement to go through an FFL just as they currently ignore the requirement for them not to possess a firearm in the first place.
In essence, this "loophole" is the absence of a law forbidding firearm sales between private individuals. It is not correct to ask "why should this certain activity NOT be banned?" but rather the question should be "what justification/benefit is there for banning this activity?". The burden of proof should always always fall to the party seeking to restrict an activity. In other words, it should be assumed that people should be free to do as they please unless there is an overriding need / benefit for them not to be allowed to do so.
In additional to Constitutional arguments, I would submit that there is very little if any evidence to suggest that private firearm sales between law-abiding citizens result in any social harm. Criminals, by definition, do not obey the law and so would ignore a requirement to go through an FFL just as they currently ignore the requirement for them not to possess a firearm in the first place.
Cyborg
Member
Definition of Freedom
I've heard freedom defined as what you can do without having to get someone's permission. It would seem that some people want to force us to get permission to do almost anything. I have also heard that property rights are the most fundamental rights. Yet I cannot put up a fence or build a garden shed or a new patio without getting a "permit" (i.e. a written warrant or license granted by one having authority - permission) from the City to do so. So despite the fact that my name is on the deed; despite the fact that I can be held liable for things happening on the property; despite the fact that I am legally justified in using deadly force to defend that property in certain situations I cannot modify that property without getting permission from the government. So how free am I even now?
I agree with what has been stated repeatedly that anyone trying to get new restrictions passed should have to bear the burden of proof that the restrictions are truely needed rather than the one opposing the new restriction having to justify the continuing freedom.
But it really doesn't work that way.
"Land of the free; home of the brave" Humph! Balderdash! Stuff and nonsense!
Cyborg
I'm with Chuckie Heston "From My Cold Dead Hands!"
I've heard freedom defined as what you can do without having to get someone's permission. It would seem that some people want to force us to get permission to do almost anything. I have also heard that property rights are the most fundamental rights. Yet I cannot put up a fence or build a garden shed or a new patio without getting a "permit" (i.e. a written warrant or license granted by one having authority - permission) from the City to do so. So despite the fact that my name is on the deed; despite the fact that I can be held liable for things happening on the property; despite the fact that I am legally justified in using deadly force to defend that property in certain situations I cannot modify that property without getting permission from the government. So how free am I even now?
I agree with what has been stated repeatedly that anyone trying to get new restrictions passed should have to bear the burden of proof that the restrictions are truely needed rather than the one opposing the new restriction having to justify the continuing freedom.
But it really doesn't work that way.
"Land of the free; home of the brave" Humph! Balderdash! Stuff and nonsense!
Cyborg
I'm with Chuckie Heston "From My Cold Dead Hands!"
BHP FAN
Member
In California,all legal sales are through an FFL already=no gunshow loophole.there,your report is done...viola!
NavyLCDR
member
Except for immediate family transfers.
OMG! We need to close the immediate family loophole! NOW! 
Travis Bickle
member
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2008
- Messages
- 476
You should care about keeping off-paper sales legal because in the event of gun confiscation, it offers you plausible deniability. When the cops come around asking about guns, you say "Guns? What guns? Sold them all a while back at a gun show. Didn't get the guy's name."
In fact, if you have a CCP, you should care about it even more than the average gun owner, since you've effectively registered yourself with the state as a gun owner.
Ever notice how most of the people who do the complaining about this so-called loophole live in states where it's already been closed?
- Status
