fulltanghalo
Member
danez71 said:
Driving = privilege
RKBA = fundamental right
Is there a "Gun Show Loophole"?
- Thread starter bushmaster1313
- Start date
- Status
Driving = privilege
RKBA = fundamental right
AKElroy
Member
"Anti" hyperbole vs. Actual Intent:
"Gun-Show Loophole" = Your ability to buy a gun from someone wanting to sell it, or to sell a gun to someone wanting to buy it.
"Cop-Killer bullets" = Any ammunition suitable for defensive purposes.
"Assault Weapon" = Any weapon suitable for defensive purposes.
"Reasonable gun laws" = Banning all private ownership of firearms of any type.
"Arsenal" = The part of any gunowner's home where any weapon is stored.
"Saturday night special" = Any handgun of any type.
"Machine Gun" = Any semi-automatic weapon of any type.
Non - "Legitimate Sporting Purpose" = The discharge of any firearm for any reason.
"Gun-Show Loophole" = Your ability to buy a gun from someone wanting to sell it, or to sell a gun to someone wanting to buy it.
"Cop-Killer bullets" = Any ammunition suitable for defensive purposes.
"Assault Weapon" = Any weapon suitable for defensive purposes.
"Reasonable gun laws" = Banning all private ownership of firearms of any type.
"Arsenal" = The part of any gunowner's home where any weapon is stored.
"Saturday night special" = Any handgun of any type.
"Machine Gun" = Any semi-automatic weapon of any type.
Non - "Legitimate Sporting Purpose" = The discharge of any firearm for any reason.
Last edited:
Elroy you've just managed to sum up decades of anti-gunners "work" in eight sentences. You win!
Shadow 7D
Member
OOH
wait.
Half the people here want to do a NICS check before selling...
Here is a thought
if you feel that way, YOU only sell and buy through a dealer
And, how bout you open the NICS check to EVERYBODY, even if it was a nominal fee, say 3 dollars. Because, something you haven't thought of yet, is that there is NO way for a private individual to do a NICS check.
PERIOD
so anything that has a NICS (gun show loophole) will most likely not be TOO objected to by FFL's, as it just pumps up their business.
I don't like the THOUGHT of having to go through a check, and some here state the opinion that anything past the LEGAL requirements - age, resident of the same state etc. is TOO intrusive.
wait.
Half the people here want to do a NICS check before selling...
Here is a thought
if you feel that way, YOU only sell and buy through a dealer
And, how bout you open the NICS check to EVERYBODY, even if it was a nominal fee, say 3 dollars. Because, something you haven't thought of yet, is that there is NO way for a private individual to do a NICS check.
PERIOD
so anything that has a NICS (gun show loophole) will most likely not be TOO objected to by FFL's, as it just pumps up their business.
I don't like the THOUGHT of having to go through a check, and some here state the opinion that anything past the LEGAL requirements - age, resident of the same state etc. is TOO intrusive.
Romeo 33 Delta
Member
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2011
- Messages
- 402
Danez71 ...It is my belief that you need only to register a motor vehicle if you intend to operate is on a PUBLIC roadway.
I can buy any vehicle I want to and drive it around until it turns to rust as long as it is only operated on PRIVATE property.
Of course, if you need to have it serviced off your property ... you can't drive it to the dealership ... you may have to haul it on a flatbed or possibly tow it.
Now I might be incorrect ... but I don't think I am.
I can buy any vehicle I want to and drive it around until it turns to rust as long as it is only operated on PRIVATE property.
Of course, if you need to have it serviced off your property ... you can't drive it to the dealership ... you may have to haul it on a flatbed or possibly tow it.
Now I might be incorrect ... but I don't think I am.
CapnMac
Member
And even that is largely a guess on their part; extrapolated from the tiny number of arrests ever made at a "show."
Let us not forget that the antis do not care about FFL sales, they'd happy ban those as well.
Bubbles
Member
Nope, you're right. DH has a 1972 Corvette restoration project in the garage. He holds the title, but it's not registered, and won't be until it's back on the road again. Since he's doing it as time/$$$ permits, that may be a while...
KodiakBeer
member
You guys are missing the point entirely... It has NOTHING to do with gun shows! All of this legislation has been written to ban PRIVATE SALES of firearms. It doesn't matter whether that sale is at a gun show or between you and your brother in law.
bushmaster1313
Member
Very interesting.
From the media I thought that there may actually have been some special "gunshow loophole".
Still, if the laws were actually limited to preventing face to face annoymous purchases at gunshows I would not be offended. Just my 2 cents.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Why at gun shows? What is the difference -- in any way at all -- between a person selling a gun to another resident of his state whom he/she has no knowledge or reason to believe is a prohibited person inside the facility housing a gun show and them transacting the sale in the parking lot outside? Or a block away? Or in the WalMart parking lot a mile down the road? Or at their home?
Did you know that it is legal for a seller to ship a firearm to a buyer in the same state? They don't even have to have ever met. Does that just blow your mind or what?
Used to be like that everywhere, across all state lines, between any buyer and seller -- or straight from a manufacturer or retailer.
danez71
Member
I agree with your post in general.
I'm not advocating this but.... its common for cities to have a limit on the # of garage sales a person can have in a year. The idea is that if they have more than X# of garage sales then they consider it a business.
They could do the same with private sellers at the gun shows. Sell guns at X# of shows or more and your considered a gun dealer and have to be a FFL.
Right. And thats why IMO, bigfatdaves reasoning doesnt work. Because he just took it from a fundemental right 2A to just another inanimate object no different than any other personal property. And I just showed how personal property being sold is already regulated.
Nope... I believe you are both wrong. Obviously different states have different rules. I'll tell you what I know as fact.
In CA and AZ, you have to register a dirt bike that isnt even street legal and will never see a "PUBLIC" road. They give you a 'tag' sticker and eveything. It may never see "public land" either and only used on your private land but you still have to register it. Obviously if you only kept it on your farm etc no one would know but thats not the point. The point is you still have to register it. Heck, in AZ, even dirt bike,quads, Rhino's etc have a license plate (with registration sticker)
In both CA and AZ, that Corvette has to be registered as "NON-OP". In CA, if he doesnt go the non-op route... they would back charge him for all of the other years unless he can prove it was in fact non-operational during that time and even then, they will back charge him the non-op registration fee for all of those years. I dont know if AZ back charges the same way as CA but I'd guess 'yes'.
KodiakBeer
member
There has never been any such legislation offered, nor will there ever be. The anti's don't care about gun shows, they just want to ban private sales of firearms. If they can get stupid people to believe it has something to do with gun shows then they are on their way. Then when you want to sell the rifle that just didn't work out, you either risk prison or sell it to some gun shop for 20% of its value.
AKElroy
Member
That's OK, I'll be offended enough for the two of us. Who is trivializing RKBA with that statement? This is a fundamental right, something that the high court has finally acknowledged as existing. We cannot simply regulate it as any other item, arms have been set apart. Arms were recognized by our founders as fundamental to our liberty and worthy of protection, a fact finally codified by Heller.
To say that we "would not be offended" by significant infringements is to ignore and trample on others like me that would be GREATLY offended. This is not a democracy, and my rights are not up to your vote.
bigfatdave
Member
I'm sorry you've become accustomed to asking permission to do things, but the rest of us have had enough of the nonsense and aren't too keen on adding another place to ask permission from our benevolent overlords.
What the heck are you talking about?
The second amendment:
1- Doesn't GRANT a right, it happens to recognize the right (of the people to arm themselves) in writing and places a very strict control on the .gov in regard to that right, to the degree of "shall not be infringed", it doesn't even subject that right to the concept of "reasonable" as codified in other BoR items.
2- Is not about "guns" ... read again, it is about "arms". I can use a gun, knife, baseball bat, or rock as an "arm", if needed.
But if you want to regulate guns like cars, that's super. Some "lady" in my current hometown ran a guy over after a verbal argument, and then ran him over some more. He died, she's getting out of jail after less than 5 years. Hooray vehicle control!
Romeo 33 Delta
Member
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2011
- Messages
- 402
Danez71 ... interesting! As Johnny C would have said" " I did not know that." Guess it's just another reason for me to just stay in Wisconsin ... especially since it's become a much more gun friendly state with our soon-to-be-signed-into-law concealed carry!
danez71
Member
BFD,
Your original comments were of the nature that guns, being like any other personal property, is with out regulation for person to person private sales.
I'm stating otherwise and gave examples/reasons.
Did I misread the sentiment of your original comments?
1) I didnt say to the contrary. Why do you bring this up as if I did?
2) The courts have come to determine otherwise. The courts havent included baseball bats as part of the 2A. But you're certainly able to use them.
I never said I want to regulate guns like cars. Please dont insinuate otherwise.
Your original comments were of the nature that guns, being like any other personal property, is with out regulation for person to person private sales.
I'm stating otherwise and gave examples/reasons.
Did I misread the sentiment of your original comments?
1) I didnt say to the contrary. Why do you bring this up as if I did?
2) The courts have come to determine otherwise. The courts havent included baseball bats as part of the 2A. But you're certainly able to use them.
I never said I want to regulate guns like cars. Please dont insinuate otherwise.
bigfatdave
Member
Adding restrictions to "arms" is an infringement.
The courts are, quite simply, wrong
The fetishization of guns is part of the problem, controlling guns will not control violence, controlling private sales of guns or forcing them through a bottleneck is just a symptom of the seriously flawed assumption that guns are different than other objects that could be used as weapons.
The courts are, quite simply, wrong
The fetishization of guns is part of the problem, controlling guns will not control violence, controlling private sales of guns or forcing them through a bottleneck is just a symptom of the seriously flawed assumption that guns are different than other objects that could be used as weapons.
AlexanderA
Member
Sure, that's what the antigunners would like. There's not a chance in the world that they would get it.
Legislation is a process of negotiation. The "maximum demands" of each side are just the opening gambit. The idea is that each side gets something that it wants, when they meet somewhere in the middle. Or, there's no agreement at all, and nothing happens.
Surely there are things that the pro-gun side would want, beyond the status quo. How about mandatory nationwide concealed-carry reciprocity? How about repeal of the Hughes amendment, if not the entire NFA? Put these things out there, and let's bargain in earnest!
Gun-rights people seem to have an attitude that every proposal from the other side has to be opposed rigidly, and that there can never be any negotiation with people that are so evil, ignorant, etc., etc. It's hard to see how we make progress on our agenda this way.
You aren't familiar with the Supreme Court are you? You should reald Heller and McDonald.
I completely reject the notion that we have to give up some rights in order to gain others. Fundamental freedoms are not bargaining chips. What kind of a position is that? The First Amendment didn't have to be negotiated. Why should the Second?
danez71
Member
But the First Admendment is essentially negotiated. You cant say anything anytime anywhere. There are some limits on it.
Doesnt CA require all sales to go through an FFL?
And yet the gun market in CA is still robust enough that CA specific models are made.
leadcounsel
member
No - the "loophole" is a fake idea created by anti-gun laws that prohibit the free trade of private property. Closing the "loophole" only further restricts the free trade of private property.
But loopholes sound evil, so therefore they should be closed.
But loopholes sound evil, so therefore they should be closed.
Bubbles
Member
The ATF already does this, and is rather harsh with folks who are found to be in violation.
RyanAnchors
Member
Checking in from California.
When the antis say "gun show" loophole, they absolutely mean ALL PRIVATE PARTY SALES.
They always state how they've "closed the loophole" here, well let me tell you about it....
ANY firearm transaction in California MUST go through an FFL and 10 day waiting period and all of these PPT (private part transfers) incur a fee of $35!
(Except and C&R long guns which are over 50 years old.)
Live out in the middle of nowhere? Too bad, you're driving to the gun shop TWICE. Once for purchase and again for pickup.
Also, no one in California can buy a firearm without a California ID (not law, but the computer software only allows you to swipe CA ID...read: illegal backdoor legislation).
Closing this "loophole" is not what you want.
When the antis say "gun show" loophole, they absolutely mean ALL PRIVATE PARTY SALES.
They always state how they've "closed the loophole" here, well let me tell you about it....
ANY firearm transaction in California MUST go through an FFL and 10 day waiting period and all of these PPT (private part transfers) incur a fee of $35!
(Except and C&R long guns which are over 50 years old.)
Live out in the middle of nowhere? Too bad, you're driving to the gun shop TWICE. Once for purchase and again for pickup.
Also, no one in California can buy a firearm without a California ID (not law, but the computer software only allows you to swipe CA ID...read: illegal backdoor legislation).
Closing this "loophole" is not what you want.
Deanimator
Member
There ISN'T any "middle" in gun control.
The anti-gunners want the TOTAL elimination of firearms ownership and carriage as a right. They want it reduced to a privilege doled out on the basis of political "clout", bank balance, skin color, etc.
A woman's walking to her car in a parking garage. A man jumps from between two cars and announces that he's going to sexually assault her. What should she be willing to "negotiate" to "meet" him "somewhere in the middle"?
There are fundamentally irreconcilable positions:
- rape victim vs. rapist
- slave vs. slave master
- Jew vs. Holocaust advocate
- gun owner vs. anti-gunner (gun BANNER)
They have NOTHING that I'm willing to trade ANYTHING for... and that's WITHOUT knowing that their word is worthless and that the next time around they'll be after what they "bargained" away.
"Negotiating" with anti-gunners is like "negotiating" with North Korea. It only wastes your time while greatly amusing your "negotiating partner"
danez71
Member
I didnt know that. Thanks for the info.
Do you happen to know what the # is?
I'm just curious what arbitrary # they chose.
- Status