The Gun Show Loophole

[BarryLee]

Ok, I have two questions about the infamous “Gun Show Loophole”.

1) So, my understanding is that this has nothing to do with gun shows, but is simply a private sale between two individuals which could happen anywhere. Am I correct or is there more to it?

2) Do you see this as a Second Amendment issue or just an inconvenience? If we were required to process private sales through an FFL would you see that as a major issue?

 

[Tom Servo]

It's simply a private sale. The "gun show loophole" is a rhetorical invention of Frank Lautenberg. In reality, they're a source of 2% of crime guns.

If we were required to process private sales through an FFL would you see that as a major issue?

Yes, because I have a real problem with the idea of adding regulations and restrictions to fix a problem that doesn't really exist.

 

[BarryLee]

Yes, because I have a real problem with the idea of adding regulations and restrictions to fix a problem that doesn't really exist.

Agreed.

Just curious where you got your chart and in general what is a good source for information related to firearms, crime, self defense, and the related? What do you think of John Lott?

 

[Tom Servo]

The graph is from an NCPA study on crime guns.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

The argument was that the gunshow was a mecca for illegal or suspect private sales. Thus, it was or is an attractive nuisance. That argument has carried the day in places and was used to convince some venues in TX to not have gun shows.

 

[JimDandy]

I'd have an issue because my state collects use tax on FFL transfers equal to sales tax on the value of the firearm, the FFL fee and any shipping combined. Stick a kiosk that protects identifying information like names, addresses, and socials, as well as avoids that use tax that could jack up the transaction a hundred or better, and I start to have fewer reservations.

 

[BarryLee]

Stick a kiosk that protects identifying information like names, addresses, and socials, as well as avoids that use tax that could jack up the transaction a hundred or better, and I start to have fewer reservations.

Yes, the cost is a big concern for me. Around here I have seen FFLs charging as much as $45.00 for a transfer, so I suspect they would charge similar for private sale background checks if required. If your buying a used $200.00 gun that makes a big difference.

I will say that I believe the addition of taxes, fees, surcharges and related financial burdens will be a tool the anti-gun crown will seek to use. That way they can say they respect the 2A while basically denying you the right by making it financially prohibitive.

 

[Spats McGee]

The infamous, notorious "Gun Show Loophole" is a myth. Regardless of whether you purchase a gun at a gun show, at a store, in a parking lot, or somewhere near the crick that runs outta the holler on Uncle Freddy's farm, the rules remain the same:
1) Buy from an FFL, follow FFL rules.
2) Buy from a private party, follow private party rules.

Yes, I would consider requiring FFLs and NICS checks on all firearms transfers to be a serious 2A issue. I'm also not interested in adding layers of regulation to solve non-existent problems.

 

[Madcap_Magician]

Honestly I don't agree with the NRA on this one, at least fully.

The antis say that gun shows are full of 'unlicensed dealers' where anyone can buy machine guns, no questions asked, with no background check.

The pro-gun people say there's no such thing as a gun show loophole, and that all gun transfers at shows from licensed dealers go through NICS.

The antis are right about one thing, which is that there are some 'individual sellers' at gun shows who usually have a fair number of guns for sale, and whom I seem to see at every gun show.

To my way of thinking, such a person is an 'unlicensed dealer' for all practical intents and purposes.

Now, as a caveat, I'd like to mention that the ones that I have seen are also responsible in requiring a permit to purchase or carry in order to buy a gun from them, but I can imagine that not everyone is as scrupulous.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Repeat sellers or private tables are starting to get controlled in TX.

 

[JimDandy]

Here too, and not just for the gun sellers, our folks are only allowed X number of shows a year, until they have to get a business license and be a vendor- so the guy who makes holsters in his garage, or some ingenius little whosit-whatsit doo-hickey that's nice to have will have to transition to a full on business sooner or later.

 

[Armorer-at-Law]

The antis are right about one thing, which is that there are some 'individual sellers' at gun shows who usually have a fair number of guns for sale, and whom I seem to see at every gun show.

To my way of thinking, such a person is an 'unlicensed dealer' for all practical intents and purposes.

If that is a significant source of a "problem," and I suspect it is not, then it is already illegal and the solution is simply enforcement -- not a new law.

 

[rajbcpa]

I believe the so-called gun show loophole exists because the federal government is prohibited from regulating commerce within a state.

In other words, the federal government cannot force two individual residents of a single state to obtain a background check for a private transaction of goods that occurs within that single state...

I believe this is discussed in the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.

The only way that this can be ---ahhhh "fixed" (??) is to modify state law to require such background checks. Yeh, this would pass in NY and California, but probably not in Texas, Florida, Utah, Colorado, etc.

THE SO-CALLED GUN SHOW LOOPHOLE WILL CONTINUE!

 

[JimDandy]

Oh given the right protections for both sides in the transation I could see it passing. Washington is fairly lefty in the Seattle area... more than enough so to swing the whole state that way, but we have fairly reasonable gun laws, and concealed carry laws and so on. I could see it passing here, again assuming the scope were limited to the same function as the NICS check, and it didn't trigger ridiculous charges like already mentioned with the FFL use tax here.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

Yeh, this would pass in NY and California, but probably not in Texas, Florida, Utah, Colorado, etc.

Would that be the Texas that allows businesses to ban firearms from their premises or the New York that allows no such restrictions?

In other words, drop the inaccurate stereotypes.

 

[zukiphile]

If we were required to process private sales through an FFL would you see that as a major issue?

Yes.

Making me travel to an FFL during his hours of business and pay between $20 and $35 per item and spend 20 minutes each time I want to buy something from a non-federal licensee is a significant burden.

 

[DFrame]

The entire issue is bogus. There is NO such thing as the "Gunshow loophole". The fact IS that antigunners just can't stand it that private sales are legal, and there is NO federal record of the transaction.
It drives them positively apoplectic that a sale can occur without their knowledge, and without permanent records!
It's a "Longview" way of getting some sort of permanent record on every gun in the country. That way IF they can ever muster the votes to ban them, they'll know just where they are.

 

[carguychris]

I believe the so-called gun show loophole exists because the federal government is prohibited from regulating commerce within a state.

They're not entirely prohibited from doing this.

The SCOTUS took a very broad view of interstate commerce in their 1942 decision in Wickard v. Filburn, which essentially holds that private in-state acts that affect interstate commerce, even if the effect is tangential, may also be regulated under the Commerce Clause. (This decision is one of the favorite boogeymen for people opposed to the generalized 20th-century expansion of federal government power, but I digress.)

The SCOTUS has taken steps to back away from this very broad interpretation in United States v. Lopez (1995) and National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius* (2012). However, it's unclear how these decisions would affect future applications of the Commerce Clause to issues that also relate to gun rights.

Remember that you have to undergo a NICS check to buy a firearm from a FFL in your home state. There's certainly SOME re-gu-ma-latin' going on there.

Let me be clear: this is meant as the Cliff's Notes version of this topic. I'll let you do more of your own research. It's a very complex subject that defies easy explanations.

*Please note: Same disclaimer from 2 days ago... I do NOT intend to digress into discussing the PPACA aka Obamacare here, and I feel that such a discussion would be inappropriate and irrelevant to the topic at hand; this case is simply cited as an example.