Shadow 7D
Member
There is no HARD number
guys have been run through the system for ONE sale, other do it every weekend with not problem.
guys have been run through the system for ONE sale, other do it every weekend with not problem.
Is there a "Gun Show Loophole"?
- Thread starter bushmaster1313
- Start date
- Status
Deanimator
Member
+10,000,000
One of the local free weeklies here once did a story on some guys who were prosecuted for "being in the business of selling firearms without an FFL'. They were VIRULENTLY anti-gun, but even THEY saw the irrational and unjust way in which the [then] BATF treated the subjects of the story.
Assuming innocent intent is NOT the way to understand gun control in this country, either on the part of the government or on that of the anti-gun groups.
KodiakBeer
member
All proposals must be opposed rigidly, because each compromise is only a step in the process to ban all firearms. Do you really think that if somebody cooked up a compromise law banning private sales only at gun shows, that it would end there?
It wouldn't. They'd then start wailing about the "assault weapons loophole" or the "handgun loophole" and want a ban on private sales of those classes of weapon between any private parties. Compromise there, and they'll just go on to the next thing.
Bubbles
Member
Correct. This is why it was pointed out earlier that if you buy a gun at a show, whether from a dealer or a private party, you do not sell it later that day at the show even if someone offers you a screaming deal. 99% chance it's a setup.
And you can't shoot anywhere, anytime-simply bearing arms is a whole 'nother thang.
How would you like it if the tools of your 1st Amendment rights were regulated as some seem to think is OK with arms?
Want to buy a pen and pad (tools of free speech)-well, you'll have to wait X number of days, fill out this form, pay this fee, yadda yadda yadda.
Most folks would see those as oppressive restrictions on the 1st, but for some reason don't see it as oppressive/controlling regarding the 2nd.
Yes, that's true. But those restrictions are absolutely minimal. First Amendment restrictions are subject to strict scrutiny. Banning all private sales would never survive such scrutiny.
No right is 100% absolute, but a ban on private sales is a major infringement, hardly equivalent to saying no obscenity or threats.
You said two very good reasons in your post why there should be no compromise with the anti gun agenda, ignorance and evil. Let me paint a picture for you of the two most prominent types of anti gun activists:
Ms. Ignorant: This group makes up roughly 98% of anti gunners by numbers. These are you're concerned soccer moms and other assorted do gooders. They usually support a whole host of initiatives restricting freedom in order to feel safe, and like they've accomplished something. They usually jump from issue to issue in droves, which they dedicate their boundless free time to. Ninety years ago these same people would have been the ones pushing for prohibition. Exactly none of their ideas have any thought behind them. With the combined intelligence of a loaf of bread they're really only good for picketing with signs and yelling "Will someobdy please think of the children!".
Now for the second type of anti-gunner, Mr. Evil:
This is the category that Bloomberg and all the related despots fall into, many working behind the scenes. While making up a small percentage of anti-gunners by number they provide almost all of the capital, economic and political. Unlike the ignorant soccer mommies who act as foot soldiers, these generals in the war on individual liberty know that gun laws cannot and will not prevent even one crime. So why do they put so much into a "public safety" effort that they know wont make the public any safer? Put simply an armed slave isn't much of a slave at all. They want to control and shape every aspect of American and inevitably world society, and they can't do that if everybody is running around with ARs that they purchased in front of the gun show with no paper trail.
They need every gun sale (while its still legal at all) on a 4473 because these provide a nice neat list of houses to visit when the literal gun grabbers show up. This is why you'll keep hearing about the "gunshow loophole" more and more until all private transfers are outlawed and forced through an FFL.
It appears the terrorists are as misinformed as Bloomberg!
Actually, I'm sure Bloomberg knows better, he just thinks the public at large are idiots and he ain't gonna correct bad info-GIGO
Bloomberg on gun show loopholes ('bout 2/3 the way down the page)
To quote a budding young terrorist (@ the 1:25 second mark):
You can go down to a gun show and come away with a fully automatic assault rifle without a background check...
:banghead:
I don't think these folks even try any longer.
Of course, if the public doesn't educate themselves on the subject (which they're betting they won't), they don't really have to.
Actually, I'm sure Bloomberg knows better, he just thinks the public at large are idiots and he ain't gonna correct bad info-GIGO
Bloomberg on gun show loopholes ('bout 2/3 the way down the page)
To quote a budding young terrorist (@ the 1:25 second mark):
You can go down to a gun show and come away with a fully automatic assault rifle without a background check...
:banghead:I don't think these folks even try any longer.
Of course, if the public doesn't educate themselves on the subject (which they're betting they won't), they don't really have to.
I think that's a case of a "budding young terrorist" quoting Bloomberg and the Brady's rather than the other way around.
A simple look at the disgusting billboard VPC had erected in Boston for a number of years shows how spontaneous that "terrorist's" speech was.
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://adweek.blogs.com/adfreak/images/misc/shv-big.jpg&imgrefurl=http://adweek.blogs.com/adfreak/outdoor/&usg=__zIukC0IZWSLW9tmH0kS6e9gG0qU=&h=833&w=1249&sz=162&hl=en&start=0&zoom=1&tbnid=bCcroAKdG5VfjM:&tbnh=126&tbnw=156&ei=COUMToekFNGctwfe9eXkDQ&itbs=1&iact=rc&dur=364&page=1&ndsp=66&ved=1t:429,r:1,s:0&tx=58&ty=33
.
What a coincidence! Suddenly a terrorist, a young American at that(Nothing more than a scam to get people to fear even more things that don't exist), releases a video where he basically reads a Brady campaign pamphlet. This is all an act, an elaborate ruse.
A simple look at the disgusting billboard VPC had erected in Boston for a number of years shows how spontaneous that "terrorist's" speech was.
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://adweek.blogs.com/adfreak/images/misc/shv-big.jpg&imgrefurl=http://adweek.blogs.com/adfreak/outdoor/&usg=__zIukC0IZWSLW9tmH0kS6e9gG0qU=&h=833&w=1249&sz=162&hl=en&start=0&zoom=1&tbnid=bCcroAKdG5VfjM:&tbnh=126&tbnw=156&ei=COUMToekFNGctwfe9eXkDQ&itbs=1&iact=rc&dur=364&page=1&ndsp=66&ved=1t:429,r:1,s:0&tx=58&ty=33
.
What a coincidence! Suddenly a terrorist, a young American at that(Nothing more than a scam to get people to fear even more things that don't exist), releases a video where he basically reads a Brady campaign pamphlet. This is all an act, an elaborate ruse.
Last edited:
Danb, really? You honestly believe that Adam Gadahn, al Qaeda spokesman, is just a shill for the Brady Campaign? This guy is a bona fide al Qaeda terrorist and the first American to be charged with treason in half a century. But he's a gun control operative? That's quite a conspiracy theory.
Isn't it possible he is just mistaken as to our laws?
danez71
Member
Thats a good analogy.
medalguy
Member
Sure there's a gun show loophole. You can buy jerky there that is not made and packaged by a company with health department inspections. You take your life in your hands when you buy that stuff. There should be a law......oh wait, there is.
Here's two other points to consider...
You and your buddy are at the range. He wants to shoot your gun and you want to shoot his. According to the way the McCarthy proposed legislation reads, even if it's just for a couple of minutes, that is technically trading weapons and illegal. Your weapons must remain in your possession. Allowing someone else to use them can be construed as a temporary transfer of ownership. Yes, it's nit-picky; but it is within the scope of the proposed law.
The other is this. Once again, according to the wording of the proposed legislation, to talk to another person about buying or selling a firearm is actually conspiracy to commit a federal felony if that conversation doesn't not include discussing having to go thru an FFL.
Don't take my word for it...read it yourself. The "gunshow loophole" legislation allows for a lot more interpretation than some think. It is deliberately worded the way it is for that very reason.
You and your buddy are at the range. He wants to shoot your gun and you want to shoot his. According to the way the McCarthy proposed legislation reads, even if it's just for a couple of minutes, that is technically trading weapons and illegal. Your weapons must remain in your possession. Allowing someone else to use them can be construed as a temporary transfer of ownership. Yes, it's nit-picky; but it is within the scope of the proposed law.
The other is this. Once again, according to the wording of the proposed legislation, to talk to another person about buying or selling a firearm is actually conspiracy to commit a federal felony if that conversation doesn't not include discussing having to go thru an FFL.
Don't take my word for it...read it yourself. The "gunshow loophole" legislation allows for a lot more interpretation than some think. It is deliberately worded the way it is for that very reason.
Last edited:
wlemay
Member
Thats funny because nowhere in the 2A does it specifically mention firearms, or any projectile weapon for that matter... I believe it states "keep and bear arms". Arms being weaponry in general, I would go so far as to say military weaponry. look up the word arms in any dictionary it's a pretty broad definition. for example: "arms: Weapons and ammunition; armaments: "they were subjugated by force of arms""
So in that context a hammer or knife could be a weapon. And would be protected under the 2A. Unfortunately the biased legal system and supreme court does not see things that way (maybe they do; but wont accept it).
Thats my 2cents anyways.
danez71
Member
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arms?show=0&t=1309525020
It doesnt even mention weapon.
Point being, the modern definition isnt whats used. Its been battled in court many times.
It appears whats commonly accepted is that our forefathers were not talking about hammers.
Most people here think they wrote it very clearly.
IMO, if they were intending to mean 'any object that can hurt/kill' they would have worded it differently than "arms".
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
Hokay. Enough wandering for one week...
- Status