Is there a "Gun Show Loophole"?

[bushmaster1313]

Is there a "Gunshow Loophole"?

Or does it just mean that two non-FFL's at a gun show can sell face to face, just as they could outside the gunshow, if allowed by the laws of that state?

 

[bigfatdave]

the "loophole" is nonsense

private property can be sold freely among citizens

 

[cbrgator]

Or does it just mean that two non-FFL's at a gun show can sell face to face, just as they could outside the gunshow, if allowed by the laws of that state?

That's exactly what it means. It's just a private sale at a gun show.

Closing the "gun show loophole" though would ban ALL private sales between gun owners, not just at gun shows. It would require every seller to perform a NICS check on every buyer. Problem with that is, only FFL's have access to the NICS system. Thus, all sales would be required to go through an FFL.

 

[bushmaster1313]

Allowing face-to face non-FFL sales at a gun show does allow face-to-face sales between strangers that might not otherwise get together for a purchase and sale.

Although I am not a fan oppressive gun regulations, I must admit that requiring a NICS check for sales between strangers at a gun show is not an outlandish idea.

 

[Quiet]

The "gun show loophole" is the face-to-face transfer of firearm(s) between non-FFL/non-prohibited persons in states that allow such transfers to take place amongst their residents.

Closing the "gun show loophole" is requiring all firearm transfers to be done through a FFL dealer.

Transfers = sales, loans, gifts

 

[cbrgator]

Although I am not a fan oppressive gun regulations, I must admit that requiring a NICS check for sales between strangers at a gun show is not an outlandish idea.

Without getting into an ideological debate on such a law, please understand that when politicians in Washington, D.C. discuss closing the gun show loophole, they are referring to a blanket ban on ALL private sales ANYWHERE. This means you can't buy/sell/trade guns even with family members without having to go to your nearest FFL, pay them their fee, and have them run a background check on the recipient of the gun.

The gun show loophole law that is repeatedly called for by certain members of Congress (Carolyn McCarthy) is not limited to banning private sales at gun shows. It would ban private sales even in your own home.

 

[Old Fuff]

I must admit that requiring a NICS check for sales between strangers at a gun show is not an outlandish idea.

It is if the private seller cannot make a background check of a potential buyer. That's something the "ban the loophole" advocates are careful to not point out. Also, there is nothing to prevent a prohibited person who cannot legally buy a gun from sending someone to a gun show (or wherever) to buy it for them.

Local, state and federal laws prohibit the manufacture or importation, sale, use, or even possession of certain "controlled substances." Yet they are available through a well functioning black market.

According to interviews conducted in penitentiaries, criminals most commonly obtain firearms through they're own black market. Obviously no background check is required.

The so-called "gun show loophole" is nothing more nor less then an attempt by gun control advocates to make all firearms sales go through an FFL, and to discourage or eliminate gun shows. They have yet to explain exactly how they can successfully enforce their proposed regulations against criminals who are not inclined to obey any law. We are supposed to believe that faced with a background check they will simply give up and go home…

Sure they will….

 

[bigfatdave]

I must admit that requiring a NICS check for sales between strangers at a gun show is not an outlandish idea.

It is a terrible idea, if you actually think it through.

Private property can be sold between citizens ... period.
Anything else is; A) unenforceable and B)worthless

Stop thinking of weapons as being different from any other privately owned tool and the entire background check system is revealed to be a nanny-state farce. The fact that THE STATE allows people to be free who cannot be trusted with an object they could use as a weapon is NOT MY PROBLEM.
And to add on to that thought, these people you are picturing who can't pass a background check get around in 2000 pound plus motorized battering rams, and nobody has a problem with that, just the guns.

 

[danez71]

Private property can be sold between citizens ... period.
Anything else is; A) unenforceable and B)worthless

True for cars (private property) but you still have to register them before use and I know both CA and AZ has laws stating you have X# of days to report the transfer. Not the best arguement.

Stop thinking of weapons as being different from any other privately owned tool...........

A hammer is not protected by 2A... a knife isnt either.

The FACT is, a gun IS different.

Our forefathers specifically signaled them out.


If you argue thay guns are no different than a hammer or knife, you've just trivialized the 2A.

 

[Sam1911]

I know both CA and AZ has laws stating you have X# of days to report the transfer.

Can you cite an AZ law that says you must report a private transfer? I do not believe this to be true.

Very few states require any reporting or registering of firearms sold in private sales between residents.

 

[danez71]

Can you cite an AZ law that says you must report a private transfer? I do not believe this to be true.

Very few states require any reporting or registering of firearms sold in private sales between residents.

I was referring to the transfer of cars; not firearms.

(I tried to make that clear by making it one big run-on sentence but I guess I didnt)

 

[pintler]

Allowing face-to face non-FFL sales at a gun show does allow face-to-face sales between strangers that might not otherwise get together for a purchase and sale.

Although I am not a fan oppressive gun regulations, I must admit that requiring a NICS check for sales between strangers at a gun show is not an outlandish idea.

The problem with that line of thought is in defining a gun show.

For example, one version of a 'loophole' law from a couple of years ago defined 'gun show' as 'any firearms related gathering of 3 or more people', and made it a felony to be the organizer of an event where two participants arranged a non FFL sale.

So, I'm the organizer of the local smallbore league. While I'm conducting relay 2, two participants from relay 1 get to talking in the parking lot and agree to a sale of a 22 target rifle. I just became a felon (and they did too).

Heck, Grandpa, Pa, and junior go duck hunting and while walking back to the truck, Grandpa agrees to give his shotgun to Junior. If Pa organized the hunt, now all three of them are felons.

ISTM it's a hard problem. You can't just say a gun show is something called 'Gun Show', or what used to be the 'Gun Show' will become the 'Sportsman's Show'. You can't really use number of attendees either - you know that somewhere at Camp Perry, someone talks about selling a gun. Before you can outlaw private sales at gun shows but not elsewhere, you need to figure out a legally workable definition of 'Gun Show'.

It's also worth asking - even if you come up with a law that actually works as intended, will it actually make it more than 0.0001% harder for a crook to get a gun?

 

[Sam1911]

Allowing face-to face non-FFL sales at a gun show does allow face-to-face sales between strangers that might not otherwise get together for a purchase and sale.

Although I am not a fan oppressive gun regulations, I must admit that requiring a NICS check for sales between strangers at a gun show is not an outlandish idea.

You know, the local penny-pincher classifieds paper also encourages face-to-face sales between strangers that might not otherwise get together for a purchase (and sale?). Maybe we should have a law that if you read the classifieds, you can only transfer through an FFL.

Oooh, and what about Gunbroker and similar online listing services? They certainly facilitiate these sales between strangers. Heck, so does the Trading Post section of THR!

Since when does ease of doing some legal act necessitate restrictions on that act?

 

[AirForceShooter]

The term "Loop Hole" is the evil word of the week, month.
There is no such thing.

It's something allowable by law politicians don't like.

I worked in Oil and Gas taxation for a decade. I'm still trying to figure out what the hell the Subsidy to oil companies is.


AFS

 

[Sam1911]

I must admit that requiring a NICS check for sales between strangers at a gun show is not an outlandish idea.

It is if the private seller cannot make a background check of a potential buyer.

Just to add a point of clarification to what Fuff said, a non-licensed seller (anyone who isn't a dealer) cannot call up the NICS and request a background check. So every private sale would then be subject to a) finding a dealer willing to do a transfer for you and b) paying whatever the dealer is charging for that service.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Stop thinking of weapons as being different from any other privately owned tool and the entire background check system is revealed to be a nanny-state farce. The fact that THE STATE allows people to be free who cannot be trusted with an object they could use as a weapon is NOT MY PROBLEM.

And that is EXACTLY the crux of the problem. Why don't we have NICS checks on baseball bats, fireplace pokers, kitchen knife sets, or any object over 4" long with a pointed end or sharpened edge? Why don't we close the "dangerous object" loophole?

 

[AKElroy]

RKBA is an individual right. One does not need to seek permission from the state in order to practice first amendment principles. Nor should they for the second.

 

[Deanimator]

Although I am not a fan oppressive gun regulations, I must admit that requiring a NICS check for sales between strangers at a gun show is not an outlandish idea.

Is it "outlandish" in your living room?

Explain why one is justified but not the other.

 

[Art Eatman]

A major problem with this "loophole" mantra is that it is rather rare that firearms used in crime are bought at gunshows. BATFE has testified before Congress that it's somewhere around two percent of all crime guns.

 

[AlexanderA]

Closing the "gun show loophole" though would ban ALL private sales between gun owners, not just at gun shows. It would require every seller to perform a NICS check on every buyer. Problem with that is, only FFL's have access to the NICS system. Thus, all sales would be required to go through an FFL.

Not necessarily. The law could be structured so that setting up a table with guns for sale at a gun show would be prima facie evidence of "engaging in the business," thereby requiring an FFL. (Sales outside of gun shows would not be affected.)

The corollary of this is that people conducting business only at gun shows would have to be allowed to be licensed, meaning that things like zoning restrictions for home-based dealers would be irrelevant. This could easily return the system to the days when we had hundreds of thousands more "kitchen table" dealers. That in itself could be a boon for gun ownership.

Unfortunately, such a compromise could never come about. The anti-gunners want to use the "gun show loophole" as a vehicle to make all sales go through FFL's, and the pro-gun organizations want to use the issue as a bugaboo to promote their fundraising, etc. Nobody's thinking creatively here.

BTW, such a "grand compromise" could also be a vehicle for repealing the Hughes and Lautenberg amendments (at least the retroactive aspects of the Lautenberg amendment).

 

[cbrgator]

Not necessarily. The law could be structured so that setting up a table with guns for sale at a gun show would be prima facie evidence of "engaging in the business," thereby requiring an FFL. (Sales outside of gun shows would not be affected.)

Yes, the law COULD be structured that way... but it isn't. The bill that has been repeatedly proposed to close the gun show loophole requires all firearm transfers to be routed through an FFL. It doesn't attempt to limit its scope to a specific venue. It is broad, sweeping legislation that would ban all private sales.

No, they don't have to do it that way, but that is how they are doing it.

 

[KodiakBeer]

Forget the "gun show" part of the phrase. What they are really saying is the "private sales loophole". Now try to recall your Economics 101 class from way-back-then. What happens when you give FFL holders a monopoly on a service? When you want to sell your 870 to to your neighbor, or even pass on your old 1911 to your son you are going to be forced to go through an FFL and pay whatever the market will bear. And with a monopoly, that market will bear quite a bit.

 

[usmarine0352_2005]

.

the "loophole" is nonsense

private property can be sold freely among citizens

This.



Anti's use terms to make things sound worse. Such as "loop-hole" and "assault rifle" instead of "private sale" and "patrol rifle".

.

 

[henschman]

Now to address a real problem: we need to close the "Commerce Claus loophole" that allows the national government to regulate transactions that occur completely within a state, by residents of that state.

 

[ErikO]

henschman, +1 from me.