Let's Close The Gunshow Loophole
- Thread starter orchidhunter
- Start date
- Status
Perhaps the "loophole" that needs to be closed is the BATFE needs to clearly define what constitutes being a dealer and what does not. As I understand it, this is currently a gray area in the law. Seems to me that this would clear up most if not all of the legitimate concerns. Likewise, perhaps the gunshow organizers should take a little more responsibility here. Were I an organizer, I would not rent a table to anyone selling guns unless they had an FFL, that simple. I don't see a problem with the guy walking around with a gun or two and a "For Sale" sign on his back, but the others being discussed do seem to be intentionally trying to bypass the law. Finally, the issue of private sales, to me, boils down to one of personal responsibility (which is very difficult if not impossible to legislate). I will not sell a firearm to a stranger unless they can show me a valid concealed carry licsense. I then take down the information off of the liscense and keep it for my records. This way, I've done everything I can to ensure that the person I'm selling to isn't legally prohibited from owning the gun. Likewise, I am hesitant to buy a gun from someone I don't know as I don't know the history of such a weapon. I have a feeling that the majority of people who wouldn't be willing to take these basic precautions probably wouldn't concern themselves with the law anyway. No, I do not support a law that prohibits private sales altogether. I guess what I'm saying here is that if we all take a bit more responsibility and regulate ourselves, perhaps we wouldn't draw such negative attention that encourages the gov't to infringe upon our rights.
MeekAndMild
New member
Wildalaska, might it have occurred to you that if an individual has been collecting guns for thirty or forty years it may take him a little bit longer than one single show to sell them when he decides to get out of gun collecting?
Be careful. He might have an "assault rifle" or a "Saturday night special", or heaven forbid, "killer bullets".
NO that is the first step to gun control,gun registration,then gungrabbers.... That sounds familiar, when did this happen before? o thats right a man named ADOLF HITLER.Then the holocaust. you think it was bad the first time? HA. I vote no, And orchidhunter does seem like an ffl trying to get more buisness or an undercover gun grabber.I might be wrong, but your words dont add up. Or make any sense for OUR kind of forum.
o thats right a man named ADOLF HITLER.Then the holocaust. you think it was bad the first time? HA. I vote no, And orchidhunter does seem like an ffl trying to get more buisness or an undercover gun grabber.I might be wrong, but your words dont add up. Or make any sense for OUR kind of forum.Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Not to be an old crock, Spookboy but:
1. I don't recall Hitler having much to say about gun shows and I know the usual quotes, some of which are urban legend. The idea that private sales NICS checks will lead to a Holocaust is a rhetorical stretch. Do we think that all the current NICS checks are leading inevitably to a Holocaust?
2. Threads that talk about Hitler are on the way to the crapper.
3. "Our forum" - Excuse me - the idea of L and CR is for a civilized discussion of such. It is legitimate to propose with reason or evidence that a procedure at gun shows might be good or bad. There is not an apriori reason not to discuss a law. If someone wanted to argue against or for this or that - they stand on the strength of the argument.
4. You can discuss the validty of someone's proposal without the personal remarks.
1. I don't recall Hitler having much to say about gun shows and I know the usual quotes, some of which are urban legend. The idea that private sales NICS checks will lead to a Holocaust is a rhetorical stretch. Do we think that all the current NICS checks are leading inevitably to a Holocaust?
2. Threads that talk about Hitler are on the way to the crapper.
3. "Our forum" - Excuse me - the idea of L and CR is for a civilized discussion of such. It is legitimate to propose with reason or evidence that a procedure at gun shows might be good or bad. There is not an apriori reason not to discuss a law. If someone wanted to argue against or for this or that - they stand on the strength of the argument.
4. You can discuss the validty of someone's proposal without the personal remarks.
Dealer? or private indivdual?
As I understand it, the BATFE still uses the terminology "engaging in the business" and the crime is doing that without a license. I know several invididuals who have large collections who attend several shows yearly, and sell parts of their collections at them.
They use the money they make to buy their groceries, pay for their hotel bills, and yes, on occasion buy other guns for their personal use. And later, those guns may show up on their tables when they are tired of them.
Engaging in the business is interpreted to mean buying guns with the intent of resale. It isn't about the number of guns you have for sale, or how many shows you sell at. You are still allowed to sell your private property as often and in such volume as you wish.
Making a profit on your property is nice, but does not figure in the definition of engaging in business. Your intent is to profit, sure, but you could be found to engage in the business, even if you sold every gun you bought for a net loss.
The nice thing about gun shows is the oddball, rare, antique, out of production stuff that shows up there. That and the fact that there are still people willing to buy, sell, and trade guns. For me, the FFL dealers who drag out their inventory of black rifles and combat tupperware are just taking up space. But they serve an important function for many other people, so I don't mind.
As to the idea of mandated background checks on private sales, it is, like communism, a good idea in theory, but not such a good one in actual practice. It is, in effect, an unfunded Federal (or state) mandate. They are requiring you to act as an agent of the government (which FFL holders are, due to the license), but requiring you to pay for it. My opinion is that if the govt requires it, they should pay for it. I feel the same way about auto insurance, but haven't been able to get anywhere with that one, sadly.
As for the risk of criminals getting guns at gun shows, liberty doesn't come without risk. For my freedom from govt interference in how I conduct my personal affairs, I will accept the fact that a small percentage of people will abuse that freedom.
I would rather have a justice system that caught criminals, took them off the streets and kept them off the streets over a system that denies me the ability to buy and own guns because others misuse them. Unfortuantely, currently, we have neither.
As I understand it, the BATFE still uses the terminology "engaging in the business" and the crime is doing that without a license. I know several invididuals who have large collections who attend several shows yearly, and sell parts of their collections at them.
They use the money they make to buy their groceries, pay for their hotel bills, and yes, on occasion buy other guns for their personal use. And later, those guns may show up on their tables when they are tired of them.
Engaging in the business is interpreted to mean buying guns with the intent of resale. It isn't about the number of guns you have for sale, or how many shows you sell at. You are still allowed to sell your private property as often and in such volume as you wish.
Making a profit on your property is nice, but does not figure in the definition of engaging in business. Your intent is to profit, sure, but you could be found to engage in the business, even if you sold every gun you bought for a net loss.
The nice thing about gun shows is the oddball, rare, antique, out of production stuff that shows up there. That and the fact that there are still people willing to buy, sell, and trade guns. For me, the FFL dealers who drag out their inventory of black rifles and combat tupperware are just taking up space. But they serve an important function for many other people, so I don't mind.
As to the idea of mandated background checks on private sales, it is, like communism, a good idea in theory, but not such a good one in actual practice. It is, in effect, an unfunded Federal (or state) mandate. They are requiring you to act as an agent of the government (which FFL holders are, due to the license), but requiring you to pay for it. My opinion is that if the govt requires it, they should pay for it. I feel the same way about auto insurance, but haven't been able to get anywhere with that one, sadly.
As for the risk of criminals getting guns at gun shows, liberty doesn't come without risk. For my freedom from govt interference in how I conduct my personal affairs, I will accept the fact that a small percentage of people will abuse that freedom.
I would rather have a justice system that caught criminals, took them off the streets and kept them off the streets over a system that denies me the ability to buy and own guns because others misuse them. Unfortuantely, currently, we have neither.
Tennessee Gentleman
New member
Man oh man wouldn't that be great. I used to sell that stuff and I know how the insurance compamies get you and who do you think got THAT law passed
I'm betting that technology could make this pretty easy if that piece were funded. Anyway, doesn't the friendly gun store charge you for the background check as well? At least they charged me, maybe I got took
There is a good point to what you say. I sometimes teach character education in our schools here. There was none of that when I went however. I learned it at home and KNEW that if I got in trouble at school I was toast when I got home. However, I am not sure NICS checks for private sales will keep us from owning guns or selling them but it again as you said it's come to that unfortunately.
Wildalaska
Moderator
Guys guys guys, intellectual honesty OK? You know I am not talking about a cruffler selling occasional off his C&R, or Grandpa gunny making a one time or two time blow out to raise money for retirement...you have seen Im sure EXACTLY what I have seen, you know that *smirk smirk nudge nudge* "table in the back full of Lorcins, Ravens and Tecs...it's a grey area, a "loophole" and to pretend its all innocent or shouldnt be fixed does the gun movement no service...
So...
Whos interests need to be protected...Cary Collector or the general public? Can both be accomodated? is their a gun crime problem derived from shows? Is the minor infringment of NICs at shows acceptable to stop the loophole? Would Federal law even be applicable to a private, interstate sale of personal property?
WildgoodsubjectfordebateAlaska TM
While I've not seen that table at the shows I've attended, I wouldn't question your honesty for reporting that you have seen one. I would concur with a prior writer that
...describes doing a business as an unlicensed dealer, not a grey area or a loophole.
Is it a minor infringement to prohibit an entire class of people from buying at shows?
If every sale needs to pass a background check, wouldn't it make sense to allow distributors to sell directly to the public? If not, what would FFLs ad other than a superfluous link in the chain of supply?
Last edited:
Wildalaska
Moderator
prohibit? How does NICs prohibit a law abiding person?
WildandimeantintrastateAlaska ™
How would a background check before buying "subversive literature" prohibit a law abiding person from doing so?
One of the reasons that I like private sales is that I had a dealer run a TICS check on me. The dealer looked up from talking to the clerk and said that the clerk had rattled off everything I'd bought from a dealer in the last few months. Since 1) I hadn't told the dealer everything I'd bought and 2) the dealer happened to be my father, I tend to believe that TICS is (illegally)keeping a record of everything you've bought. Add in the fact that I was present on one occasion when a cop came to a gunshop and threatened th owner into letting him go through 4473s and record every sale he thought might be gang related, and I really like the idea of not having to worry with NICS or TICS.
Wildalaska
Moderator
And none of that answers the question I posed
WildithinkitstimetoblowoutsomesurefiresAlaska ™
WildithinkitstimetoblowoutsomesurefiresAlaska ™
If every sale needs to pass a background check, wouldn't it make sense to allow distributors to sell directly to the public? If not, what would FFLs ad other than a superfluous link in the chain of supply?
How so?
I describe specifically how such a background check as used currently in licensed transactions can prohibit a purchase at a weekend show.
How so?
I describe specifically how such a background check as used currently in licensed transactions can prohibit a purchase at a weekend show.
Last edited:
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
I'm not sure I understand that. Is that the rule for FFL purchases at an Ohio show?
If the issue is whether FFL rules in a state should apply to private sales at a show - then, again, I think an argument against such coverage would be hard to make on an inconvenience basis.
The core issue is to allow private sales without NICS, I take it. Obviously, criminals don't care about that - as Al pointed out - gun shows seem a small part of the illegal trade. The gun show issue may be a stalking horse for a general ban of private sales without NICS.
If you want to argue against such a private sales ban, saying that the inconvenience of an FFL transaction shouldn't apply to you in an organized locale for gun sales isn't convincing. You have to make the case that private sales particularly shouldn't be regulated by NICS.
I just think that if such a law is to be proposed, inconvenience lacks rhetorical stopping power. There was a similar debate when the FFL rules were tightened up years ago. I remember Ted Koppel arguing on Nightline that a friend of his was one of the old style FFLs to buy stuff conveniently for him and his friends. The counter point was that - yes, some good guys like Koppel's friends were inconvenienced but it was for the greater good. Guess what - we don't have those FFLs anymore.
If the issue is whether FFL rules in a state should apply to private sales at a show - then, again, I think an argument against such coverage would be hard to make on an inconvenience basis.
The core issue is to allow private sales without NICS, I take it. Obviously, criminals don't care about that - as Al pointed out - gun shows seem a small part of the illegal trade. The gun show issue may be a stalking horse for a general ban of private sales without NICS.
If you want to argue against such a private sales ban, saying that the inconvenience of an FFL transaction shouldn't apply to you in an organized locale for gun sales isn't convincing. You have to make the case that private sales particularly shouldn't be regulated by NICS.
I just think that if such a law is to be proposed, inconvenience lacks rhetorical stopping power. There was a similar debate when the FFL rules were tightened up years ago. I remember Ted Koppel arguing on Nightline that a friend of his was one of the old style FFLs to buy stuff conveniently for him and his friends. The counter point was that - yes, some good guys like Koppel's friends were inconvenienced but it was for the greater good. Guess what - we don't have those FFLs anymore.
Wildalaska
Moderator
the counter argument to that is easily developed with some "provided, that if" language
WildaginitsnotaneitheryeaornaybutinthemiddleAlaska ™
- Status