Lautenberg "Closing te Gun Show Loophole"

[Tom Servo]

I'm as baffled by your post as I am by orchidhunters posts.

Count me baffled as well.

I did some asking around today about the NASGD, and nobody's heard a peep from them since 1994 or so. Everyone who recognized the name remembers them as an odd group that came out of nowhere and failed to attract any clout. Nobody can recall anyone in the industry belonging to this group.

It seems the "National Alliance" turned out to be a few guys writing letters from their basement. Compare to the American Hunters and Shooters Association. The Left does seed these groups, but they generally have no influence or effect, and their pronuciations carry no credibility.

At least I know I can blame my troubles on forest elves now. Never did trust those guys...

 

[orchidhunter]

Other Pro-gun Groups and Gun Industry Representatives On Record Supporting Background Checks At Gun Shows
Smith & Wesson: “Authorized dealers cannot sell at gun shows unless every seller at the gun show conducts background checks.” Company Statement of Policy March 17, 2000.



National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) and Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturer’s Institute (SAAMI): “[The] Industry supports background checks at gun shows provided the FBI does not maintain the names in violation of the law and the administration agrees to be more aggressive in prosecution of felons turned up by the background checks.” Robert T. Delfay, President and CEO, 1999.

American Shooting Sports Council, Inc. (ASSC): "The ASSC Board supports requiring all transfers of firearms at gun shows to be subject to all federal, state and local laws and regulations currently applicable to federally licensed firearm dealers including the conducting of the instant background check on purchasers." Minutes of the Board of Directors Meeting, November 21,1998. Board Members include: Glock,Inc., Smith & Wesson, Heckler & Koch and Taurus. orchidhunter

 

[buzz_knox]

So what? What is your point?

That's not his point, as he just pulled the quoted material off the VPC.org website and put his name on it.

 

[carguychris]

Depends on your definition of "vendor."

If it's a guy at a table, I'd say it's less than 5%.

If a vendor is anyone walking around with a stick down a barrel, then I'd say it's at least 75% or more.

+1. If people walking the aisles are counted, the statistic is IMHO unverifiable and essentially bogus. Nobody could possibly count the number of individual sellers accurately at the large shows in my area; there are simply too many people coming and going.

Unfortunately, since the statistic is unverifiable, many news sources will parrot it unchallenged.

Other Pro-gun Groups and Gun Industry Representatives On Record Supporting Background Checks At Gun Shows
Smith & Wesson: “Authorized dealers cannot sell at gun shows unless every seller at the gun show conducts background checks.” Company Statement of Policy March 17, 2000.

"Authorized dealer" = a FFL selling new Smith & Wessons. They don't sell through unlicensed individuals. Of course they want their dealers to comply with the law!

National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) and Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturer’s Institute (SAAMI): “[The] Industry supports background checks at gun shows...” Robert T. Delfay, President and CEO, 1999.

What was the context of this quote? Do you know the question that prompted this answer? Mr. Delfay may have been asked explicitly about dealers.

American Shooting Sports Council, Inc. (ASSC): "The ASSC Board supports requiring... the conducting of the instant background check on purchasers." Minutes of the Board of Directors Meeting, November 21,1998. Board Members include: Glock,Inc., Smith & Wesson, Heckler & Koch and Taurus.

Those are manufacturers, not dealers. They don't sell their products through unlicensed individuals. They don't have a pony in this race. What do you think they're going to say?

 

[44capnball]

That somehow morphs into the entire board thinking this way? I'm as baffled by your post as I am by orchidhunters posts.

I didn't say the entire board thought this way.

I am suggesting this kind of thinking has become common. I don't know the term for it. Cognitive dissonance, perhaps?

Example.... import bans weren't the brainchild of the usual suspects, they were were floated by the American gun industry trying to keep down foreign competition (possible grain of truth to it, but jacked way out of proportion)

Example.... closing the gun show "loophole" was the idea of FFLs who are losing business to private sales, meanwhile let's ignore the fact that this has been one of the pet agendas of the antis for quite a while.

Example... when gun control groups get together at a UN-sponsored event to discuss plans to drastically reduce private gun ownership across the world, there's nothing to see there, and the UN isn't really interested in drastically reducing private gun ownership across the world. They accomplish nothing in particular, ignore what you see and read. But if you call for the UN's funding to be cut, you're a right wing extremist, because they do good work that the world needs.

Example... the run on ammo and anything gun-related you're seeing isn't because people are worried about a 500% tax on ammo, or related restrictions. The run on ammo etc is happening for no particular reason, because people are just silly, or their actions have no basis that anybody can think of.

Maybe you disagree with me, but my own observation is that there's a lot of this disconnected thinking on TFL lately. It is a little odd... I can pick up American Rifleman and see cohesive, cogent arguments, but to espouse those same positions on a gun board is somehow controversial.

If somebody can't identify what's happening and who is doing what in the way of gun control proposals, is that going to translate to keeping your rights? I somehow doubt it.

Count me baffled as well.

I think my post is pretty self-explanatory. Either you agree that it's valid to blame a non-responsible party (FFL holders) or you disagree. I disagree.

It seems the "National Alliance" turned out to be a few guys writing letters from their basement. Compare to the American Hunters and Shooters Association. The Left does seed these groups, but they generally have no influence or effect, and their pronuciations carry no credibility.

I hope you're right about their lack of influence or effect. They must have some faith in the tactic, since they continue to use it.

We have agreed to some constraints on discourse, one of which includes agreeing never to suggest that there could be trolls or shills on Internet message boards. If I were going to set up one of those "seeded groups", I would take this as a great go-ahead to start trolling message boards and creating a bogus "consensus".

Now, you and I may think that's immature and a waste of time, but then again I would call it immature and a waste of time to write television screenplays that so transparently propagandize against private gun ownership. Regardless of the value judgements we attach to it (or the script writer), it seems to work on some level.

A good indicator would be if the messages on a board started sounding increasingly like the VPC list of talking points, then I would start to wonder. For now, as for TFL I'm going to say it's a few gun people subconsciously buying into the antis' arguments. Political correctness at work? I don't know.

As usual, just my 2 cents.

 

[buzz_knox]

For now, as for TFL I'm going to say it's a few gun people subconsciously buying into the antis' arguments. Political correctness at work? I don't know.

How about quislings or plants? You many not accept the idea of individuals trolling for an agenda, but it happens in every election cycle. Posters sign up or go active after a long hiatus and explain why this candidate's vote or stance really wasn't pro-gun control or anti-2nd A. After the election, the poster goes dark until the next one.

We are seeing the same thing now, as the antis try to drum up support for gun control.

 

[AirForceShooter]

I get my best deals in the parking lot anyway

AFS

 

[Tom Servo]

I think my post is pretty self-explanatory. Either you agree that it's valid to blame a non-responsible party (FFL holders) or you disagree. I disagree.

Sorry, 44. I didn't mean to direct that at you, but at the other two Antipitas mentioned.

You make some good points, especially with the S&W example. It's really easy to take one quote out of context and assume that it represents a political stance on the part of the company.

It's very easy on the internet, where people will accept all too many things as fact without following up for themselves. The Left knows this, and operates this way.

We have a party making serious and blantant accusations, then failing to provide proof to back them up. When pressed, said party responds with dramatic non-sequiturs and things taken out of context to look like supporting arguments.

I've been down this road with antis before. Not suggesting that anyone here IS, but they are falling into the same rhetorical traps.

Incidentally, after talking to three different FFL's, none of them wants gun shows regulated or closed. In fact, all three were horrified at the idea.

 

[buzz_knox]

On second thought, it's not worth it.

 

[orchidhunter]

12 FAQs about the Gunshow Loophole

Source - Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, 1. What is the difference between a licensed dealer and an unlicensed seller?

Federal Firearm Licensees (FFL's) are individuals "engaged in the business" of selling guns and are required to register with and be licensed by the US government. They are also required to conduct instant criminal background checks on all gun buyers -and are prohibited from selling guns to convicted felons, domestic abusers, and juveniles.

Unlicensed sellers are people who may sell a small or large amount of guns but do not (or are not supposed to) earn their livelihood from firearm sales. These sellers do not have to conduct criminal background checks on gun sales. Unlicensed sellers may sell guns at gun shows, out of their homes, or even over the Internet.

2. What is the "gun show loophole"?

The Gun Control Act of 1968 requires anyone engaged in the business of selling guns to have a Federal Firearms License (FFL) and keep a record of their sales. However, this law does not cover all gun sellers. If a supplier is selling from his or her private collection and the principal objective is not to make a profit, the seller is not "engaged in the business" and is not required to have a license. Because they are unlicensed, these sellers are not required to keep records of sales and are not required to perform background checks on potential buyers, even those prohibited from purchasing guns by the Gun Control Act. The gun show loophole refers to the fact that prohibited purchasers can avoid required background checks by seeking out these unlicensed sellers at gun shows.

3. Why is it important to get rid of the gun show loophole?

The gun show loophole makes it very easy for guns to fall into the hands of prohibited individuals, including criminals and juveniles. Closing the loophole would put a barrier between the legal and illegal markets for guns. It is more difficult for law enforcement to trace firearms sold on the secondary market. Second-hand firearms typically have left the possession of a licensed dealer, where records are kept, and reached the hands of an unlicensed seller, who is not required to keep records.

4. How can we close the gun show loophole?

It's simple. Closing the dangerous loophole merely requires unlicensed gun sellers at gun shows to conduct the same instant background checks that licensed dealers must conduct.

5. Do background checks work?

Yes. Since 1994, the Brady Act has prevented more than 1.3 million criminals and other prohibited purchasers from buying guns. The law also has a deterrent effect—felons, domestic abusers and other prohibited purchasers are less likely to try to buy guns when they know comprehensive background check requirements are in place.

8. Can't we just enforce existing laws instead of passing new ones?

In order to enforce existing laws, we must give police the tools they need to do so - and the criminal background check is one of the most effective tools we can give them to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. The current law barring sales to prohibited buyers such as convicted felons or fugitives from justice cannot be enforced effectively unless sellers are required to verify that their buyers are not in a prohibited category.

If we want to better enforce existing laws, we need to do everything possible to prevent guns from falling into the hands of criminals - and that means conducting background checks on all sales at guns shows, the second largest source for crime guns.

9. Won't closing the gun show loophole violate the Second Amendment?

No. No matter what your interpretation of the Second Amendment is, it is illegal for criminals and youth to get guns, and federal law already requires background checks for sales by licensed dealers. We need background checks at guns shows to protect law-abiding citizens while keeping guns out of the hands of those prohibited from owning them.

10. Won't requiring background checks on all sales at gun shows be a bureaucratic nightmare?

Closing the gun show loophole would merely involve unlicensed gun sellers at gun shows implementing that same system. More than 95% of background checks are completed within two hours, and most are completed in just two minutes.

11. Will closing the gun show loophole put gun shows out of business?

No. Three of the five states that host the most gun shows - Illinois, Pennsylvania, and California - closed the gun show loophole years ago, and gun shows continue to thrive.

12. Which states have closed the gun show loophole?

Only six states (California, Colorado, Illinois, New York, Oregon and Rhode Island) require universal background checks on all firearm sales at gun shows, including sales by unlicensed dealers. Three more states (Connecticut, Maryland and Pennsylvania) require background checks on all handgun sales made at gun shows. Eight other states (Hawaii, Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, Nebraska and North Carolina) require purchasers to obtain a permit and undergo a background check before buying a handgun. 33 states have taken no action whatsoever to close the gun show loophole.

In two states, voters themselves closed the loophole when their legislatures refused to do so. On November 7, 2000, the citizens of Colorado overwhelmingly voted 70% – 30% in favor of Amendment 22, closing the gun show loophole in their state. The referendum followed the tragic shooting at Columbine High School on April 20, 1999. One of the guns used at the Columbine shooting was purchased at a Colorado gun show.

In Oregon, voters also voted overwhelmingly, 62% – 38%, in favor of Measure 5, effectively closing the gun show loophole in their state.

 

[Shorts]

1. What is the difference between a licensed dealer and an unlicensed seller?

Federal Firearm Licensees (FFL's) are individuals "engaged in the business" of selling guns and are required to register with and be licensed by the US government. They are also required to conduct instant criminal background checks on all gun buyers -and are prohibited from selling guns to convicted felons, domestic abusers, and juveniles.

Unlicensed sellers are people who may sell a small or large amount of guns but do not (or are not supposed to) earn their livelihood from firearm sales. These sellers do not have to conduct criminal background checks on gun sales. Unlicensed sellers may sell guns at gun shows, out of their homes, or even over the Internet.

Can a person be licensed and not be a dealer?

2. What is the "gun show loophole"?

The Gun Control Act of 1968 requires anyone engaged in the business of selling guns to have a Federal Firearms License (FFL) and keep a record of their sales. However, this law does not cover all gun sellers. If a supplier is selling from his or her private collection and the principal objective is not to make a profit, the seller is not "engaged in the business" and is not required to have a license. Because they are unlicensed, these sellers are not required to keep records of sales and are not required to perform background checks on potential buyers, even those prohibited from purchasing guns by the Gun Control Act. The gun show loophole refers to the fact that prohibited purchasers can avoid required background checks by seeking out these unlicensed sellers at gun shows.

Then can we extend this and say Face-to-Face loophole? A prohibited buyer can simply respond to an add in Craigslist or newspaper.

3. Why is it important to get rid of the gun show loophole (face-to-face transactions)?

The gun show loophole makes it very easy for guns to fall into the hands of prohibited individuals, including criminals and juveniles. Closing the loophole would put a barrier between the legal and illegal markets for guns. It is more difficult for law enforcement to trace firearms sold on the secondary market. Second-hand firearms typically have left the possession of a licensed dealer, where records are kept, and reached the hands of an unlicensed seller, who is not required to keep records.

To control the guns. Anyone see where state's rights went?

4. How can we close the gun show loophole?

It's simple. Closing the dangerous loophole merely requires unlicensed gun sellers at gun shows to conduct the same instant background checks that licensed dealers must conduct.

So do we license gun owners for free & easy? Or do away with face-to-face transactions?

5. Do background checks work?

Yes. Since 1994, the Brady Act has prevented more than 1.3 million criminals and other prohibited purchasers from buying guns. The law also has a deterrent effect—felons, domestic abusers and other prohibited purchasers are less likely to try to buy guns when they know comprehensive background check requirements are in place

VT Massacre/Cho? What was the final facts on that?

8. Can't we just enforce existing laws instead of passing new ones?

In order to enforce existing laws, we must give police the tools they need to do so - and the criminal background check is one of the most effective tools we can give them to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. The current law barring sales to prohibited buyers such as convicted felons or fugitives from justice cannot be enforced effectively unless sellers are required to verify that their buyers are not in a prohibited category.

If we want to better enforce existing laws, we need to do everything possible to prevent guns from falling into the hands of criminals - and that means conducting background checks on all sales at guns shows, the second largest source for crime guns.

Somehow those guys never have enough or the right tools (with all due respect). I don't think this is a worker bee problem.

Long gone are the ways of the moral criminal, the ones who use to follow that original rule of "not allowed to possess guns".

9. Won't closing the gun show loophole violate the Second Amendment?

No. No matter what your interpretation of the Second Amendment is, it is illegal for criminals and youth to get guns, and federal law already requires background checks for sales by licensed dealers. We need background checks at guns shows to protect law-abiding citizens while keeping guns out of the hands of those prohibited from owning them.

Bring in a socially liberal topic and apply similar restrictions.

10. Won't requiring background checks on all sales at gun shows be a bureaucratic nightmare?

Closing the gun show loophole would merely involve unlicensed gun sellers at gun shows implementing that same system. More than 95% of background checks are completed within two hours, and most are completed in just two minutes.

How about giving us a credit for said FFL license. If it will help save the children and innocent citizens, the government should pony up the ATF fees in for every single law abiding citizen who may eventually utilize a Face-to-face transfer, especially at gun shows.

11. Will closing the gun show loophole put gun shows out of business?

No. Three of the five states that host the most gun shows - Illinois, Pennsylvania, and California - closed the gun show loophole years ago, and gun shows continue to thrive.

"No" is correct. But Illinios, PA and CA don't exactly have a leash free firearms community. FOID cards, no conceal carry laws, terrible transport/traveling laws....

Where have we seen some of the nations worst crimes committed with firearms??..

 

[Tom Servo]

Mission accomplished, time to move on.

Now I'm just confused. And sleepy.

Oh well. It was fun. Let's hope he was acting at the height of sarcasm. I'd like him if he was

 

[Shorts]

Yeah I'm not exactly sure what mission was accomplished.

 

[buzz_knox]

Oh well. It was fun. Let's hope he was acting at the height of sarcasm. I'd like him if he was

He/she/it pulled the same crap on THR.us: came on, did mass info dumps from anti-gun sites and nothing more, and left.

Keep an eye out as I'm sure he/she/it will pop up some other time and pull this BS. Nothing like a passive aggressive troll.

 

[Tom Servo]

Meh, at least Gunkid was funny.

 

[Webleymkv]

The ATF reports that between 25 to 50 percent of firearm vendors at gun shows are unlicensed.

This statement sound suscpiciously vauge and fishy. First, 25 to 50 percent is an awfully big margin of error to be credible. Secondly, what exactly constitutes a "vendor?" I'd say that a good 25% or more of the people sitting behind tables at gunshows aren't licensed, but then again they don't need to be. The "vendors" I'm referring to aren't selling guns, they're selling ammunition, magazines, books, helmets, holsters, grips, knives, reloading supplies, targets, bumpers stickers, beef jerky, and fudge. Heck, many of the gun shows I used to attend were frequented by a lady that sold stuffed animals. These people are all technically vendors, yet none of them are selling firearms.