Practical considerations in closing the "loophole"

[spacecoast]

If the antis are successful in their efforts to close the private sale "loophole", I wonder how they are going to implement it? Are they going to trust that law-abiding people will yield to this new requirement and stop buying/selling firearms between themselves? If not, then the following questions I think naturally follow...

1) To prove that the loophole is closed, would owners be issued some kind of license proving that we went through the process, or that we owned each of our firearms at the time the new law went into effect? What about those of us who own 10, 20 or more firearms? Would be we labeled as "potential threats" in some database?

2) Would we have to carry our "license" for each regulated firearm and show it each time we want to shoot at a public range? Or have it on us when we are hunting or just out plinking on the back 40?

3) Would we have to renew our "license" every year with an associated cost?

These are just some things running through my mind as I listen to these discussions. The "national registry" and other anti proposals sound like the roots of a burgeoning new bureaucracy, the natural effect of which would be to discourage the ownership of firearms. Of course, that's the entire point, isn't it?

 

[CowTowner]

AFAIK, California law requires all transfers to go through an FFL. Handgun transfers require the buyer to go through a waiting period as well as the NICS check. I'm not sure about long guns.
I escaped to Texas decades ago.

 

[UtopiaTexasG19]

I read that compliance of registering was very low in both Canada and Australia. Somewhere below 20%.

 

[spacecoast]

CowTowner - thanks, I guess my point is that such laws don't have much teeth unless you are required to prove that the transfer was done by a FFL with some sort of paperwork serialized to match the firearms. I don't recall that I have any proof of having completed those when required (for out of state purchases). It's a little easier to require the FFL if FTF is not practical and there is a 3rd party involved (USPS, UPS, etc.). I guess the FFL has the record, but I don' know for sure which FFL I used in each case, and I believe the state is required to destroy the record of the FFL check shortly after it is completed.

 

[Stressfire]

What loophole?

I don't consider being allowed, as a private citizen, to sell my personal property to another private citizen a loophole at all.

I don't know what others do, but I would assume that none of us would knowingly sell a gun to a prohibited person. I do my best to ensure it doesn't happen to me by asking to see a CHL - best I can do.

If FFL is required for private sales - I suppose I can live with that

 

[JimDandy]

Not much different than what happened to fertilizer after OKC.

 

[Tom Servo]

As Stressfire pointed out, it's not a loophole. A loophole is something that circumvents the intended purpose of a system. The NICS system was designed and meant to apply to sales made by FFL's. It has always been silent on the matter of private sales.

No law on the matter=no loophole. The usage of the word is anti-gun propaganda, and it only becomes true if we accept it.

 

[Alabama Shooter]

I guess my point is that such laws don't have much teeth unless you are required to prove that the transfer was done by a FFL with some sort of paperwork serialized to match the firearms.

Yes. I am fine with it not having much teeth.

The easiest thing would be a hand written/ printed receipt from the seller and/or from the transfer agent for the cost of the transfer ref the firearm on the ticket.

Criminals who are going to break the law are still going to break the law. However, this may stop otherwise well intentioned people from inadvertently selling a firearm to a prohibited person. I have no magic wand that determines if someone is prohibited.

It is not a loophole but they won't stop calling it that.

 

[JimDandy]

Loop-hole, technicality... that's just semantics. People who make laws are human, and thus prone to an occaisional oopsie. Whether this was a deliberate oversight/choice/compromise, or an oopsie I couldn't say however. I don't believe a private sale should be required to engage a private third party. If they want to require a NICS check, they should require it in such a way that the fee is strictly regulated to the cost of the paperwork, not a third party free market transaction.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

The gun show NICS for private sales will be easy to implement. Have table for such and a small fee. Betcha if this comes to pass, at some shows there will be undercover agents and stings.

The parking lots will be covered the same way.

For ones at home - might have a sting or two. They do it for drugs and terrorists.

That's how.

 

[carguychris]

To prove that the loophole is closed, would owners be issued some kind of license proving that we went through the process, or that we owned each of our firearms at the time the new law went into effect?... The "national registry" and other anti proposals sound like the roots of a burgeoning new bureaucracy, the natural effect of which would be to discourage the ownership of firearms.

I think you hit upon one of the main issues that will arise in the upcoming gun control debate, and one that few people on our side are talking about.

A private sale background check requirement would IMHO be fairly easily implemented on new-sold firearms by requiring that some sort of records be kept by the buyer. However, applying this requirement to existing firearms already in circulation would be nearly unenforceable on ex post facto grounds unless it was accompanied by a national registry.

Without a registry, someone caught with a pre-existing firearm would have an automatic and usually airtight "Get Out Of Jail Free" card because he or she could simply claim that the firearm was purchased privately prior to the recording requirement, and either he/she lost the sales records or they never existed in the first place. The prosecution would then have to come up with nearly unequivocal evidence that this wasn't true, which would probably only be feasible in cases like, say, major Mafia prosecutions where Underling Kate is given total immunity so she'll testify against Big Boss Eddie. ("Yes, your honor, that pistol belonged to me before I sold it without a background check to the man sitting over there.") The requirement wouldn't become truly effective until everyone who was alive before the requirement was enacted has died off!

People who have read this forum probably know that I'm no Chicken Little; I'm usually the guy saying that we need to be optimistic and remain calm. However, I DO believe with near certainty that we're going to see a private sales background check proposal that essentially serves as a Trojan horse for a near-mandatory national registry. Wait and see.

[EDIT: See footnote below.]

 

[UtopiaTexasG19]

A hand written receipt can be forged, signed by the seller etc. I doubt selling to anyone and showing up with a hand written receipt as proof is going to be considered legitimate by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[jimbob86]

Here's how it's done in Nebraska:

I don't do a NICS check to buy a gun from a dealer.

We a have a "Firearm Purchase Certificate", issued by the County Sherriff (Shall Issue). You go in, fill out the application, pay $10, and they do a background check, including NICS. In 3-5 days, they mail you your Certificate, good for 3 years. The Nebraska Concealed Handgun Permit is a valid substitute for this. It's just a piece of paper saying your CSO did a background check on you...... your "I'm-not-a-felon card."

When you go buy a gun from a dealer, you fill out a 4473, and instead of calling in for the NICS, they write down your FPC and Driver's License #'s (or your CHP # ...- DL because the FPC has no picture, I think). We NEVER hear "the computer is down"....

All the guys I know that sell a gun in a private sale require a FPC and DL or CHP to be shown ...... nobody wants to sell a gun to a prohibited person.

Why can't this be done everywhere?

 

[Alabama Shooter]

Why can't this be done everywhere?

While I see some goodness there it is problematic for the people who need a gun TODAY. As in they have an unforseen threat and now have to protect themselves, NOW.

 

[JimDandy]

Jimbob, you do go through a NICS check to buy a gun from a dealer. Only difference is when and where you go through it from what you've said.

Much like another debate going on in here over mental health issues, and due process for restricting them from gun ownership. They go through their due process when they get adjudicated, which is why they don't have to again when they're denied firearms.

Edit: Alabamashooter, I'm not sure "closing the loophole" has any bearing on that exactly... private sales are rarely a "right now" event. You have to find what you want for sale, where you can buy it.. arrange a price, meeting etc. Also "closing the loophole" everywhere I've seen has made no mention of adding any sort of wait period. Some states have already done so, and some of those some states have even added a wait period... but no more so than going to a store where you can find what you want RIGHT NOW.

 

[Spats McGee]

Let's start from the fact that there's no loophole and work from there.

 

[jimbob86]

Maybe somebody can correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me the "loophole" they want to close is in fact private sales. They want a paper trail of some kind.

I think most gun rights people see that as the camel's nose under the tent.

If there's a recorded paper trail, they can find all the legal guns out there.

 

[JimDandy]

They can already find all my legal guns. Any issues I have with it are in no way related to a paper trail proving one of my legally obtained guns was legally un-obtained and as such I have nothing to do with it or what it ended up being used for in any way.

 

[spacecoast]

However, I DO believe with near certainty that we're going to see a private sales background check proposal that essentially serves as a Trojan horse for a near-mandatory national registry.

I hope you're wrong, however I'm pretty sure that deep-down the antis don't trust us any more than we trust them, "law abiding" or not. Anything less than a national registry will be seen as coming up short in their minds and something to be pushed toward, now or in the future, I am sure.

I'm sure we can all hardly wait to add that permanent government-approved barcode to our sweet old revolvers and run them through the reader at the range before we can shoot.

 

[carguychris]

Footnote to my prior post...

Before everyone thinks I'm turning alarmist and the world must be ending...

I said proposal. I don't think a national registry can pass legislative muster. Budget considerations and the likelihood of mass noncompliance will likely torpedo it.

That said, I DO believe that background checks on private sales have a good chance of passage; however, as I said in my earlier post, enforcement on pre-existing guns may be fundamentally weak. Glenn's comments about stings and undercover agents may summarize the extent of likely enforcement, along with your occasional big organized crime bust.