We need to put this myth to rest for good....


PDA






IndianaBoy
March 18, 2008, 07:11 PM
Three words:

Gun Show Loophole.


Somehow every gun banner and fence sitter who just doesn't know any better believes or has been convinced that any Joe Gangbanger can walk into a gun show and buy guns without a background check.


This is false beyond any stretch of the imagination.

Perhaps it grew out of the potential for face to face sales, that can occur whether a gun show is going on or not.




We need to get the word out. The problem is, newspapers may not be willing to publish a somewhat boring letter to the editor that deals with something they probably don't agree with anyway.


This argument is listed in every anti-gun diatribe I read or see on the news. It always infuriates me that they are never corrected.


Anyone have any good ideas on how to get the word out?

If you enjoyed reading about "We need to put this myth to rest for good...." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
andrewdl007
March 18, 2008, 07:14 PM
At many gun shows I go to, in Virginia, it seems like you have to do the whole background search. Ive never bought a gun a a gun show since I like old guns and the cheapest 1911A1 Ive seen was about $1500. I dont know if there is anyway to get the word out since the media believes in this dangerous loophole and has essentially influenced all non shooters into believing in it too.

MudPuppy
March 18, 2008, 07:31 PM
I do think that you've got a valid point.

How would you respond to the fact that someone has went to a gunshow and walked up to a non-ffl dealer's table (that is, personal collection) and laid out $50 for a 380 automatic. Neither offered names, IDs, etc. Has that changed in the last 8 or so years?

keeleon
March 18, 2008, 07:37 PM
This is a very frustrating ignorance, just as much as that every rifle EVER is an AK47. However, I don't know if this is something we can really "win". All we could do is point out that the "gun show loophole" is actually an "anywhere loophole", and I don't think that would be very helpful. Of course I live in CA, so I have no idea how this works anyway. Just seems like some crazy fantasyland concept to me to just give a guy money and get a gun. But informing the public that DEALERS still have to do background checks won't do anything to settle their fears that "anyone can buy a gun without a background check".

silverlance
March 18, 2008, 08:05 PM
I sure wish there was a gun show loophole. But pretty much the only loophole is the one the vendors try to throw around your neck as you walk by so they can press a $1000 "gen-u-whine russian sniper rifle" into your hands.

RyanM
March 18, 2008, 08:10 PM
So let 'em pass the law. If the loophole doesn't even exist, a law "closing" it won't do much harm on its own. "All sales of firearms at gun shows must have a background check done on the purchaser. A gun show is defined as a large, public, organized event at which guns and gun paraphernalia are bought and sold. Also, the BATFE must accept all qualified, legal requests to enter new machine guns into the NFA registry."

Democrats aren't the only ones who can sneak stuff into laws, to "compromise."

Owen
March 18, 2008, 08:31 PM
RyanM,

define large

keeleon
March 18, 2008, 08:35 PM
RyanM,

define large

If they could sneak that machine gun thing and change some of the other stupid laws around, I would let "large" = 2 or more. I don't have a problem with registration or background checks, cause I can pass them. But If I can be trusted to own a bolt action rifle and not go on a murder rampage, how come I can't be trusted with an M60?

Standing Wolf
March 18, 2008, 08:58 PM
Those who define the terms generally win the arguments.

"Gun show loop hole" is a classic example of a straw man. To give credit where it's due: it was an anti-Second Amendment bigot's brilliant marketing ploy.

Thumper
March 18, 2008, 09:24 PM
It IS a fact that I can walk into any gunshow in this state and buy a gun without a background check.

There's nothing in the world wrong with that.

Lying about it doesn't serve our purpose. Better to simply explain that a private purchase between two individuals has nothing to do with the government.

IndianaBoy
March 18, 2008, 09:26 PM
The problem with letting them word it this way, is that it gives them an edge in arguments. They can rattle off an entire diatribe and it makes the uneducated observer who is sitting on a fence tend to lean towards their side.

Of course there should be background checks. They think. So they will vote for what the antis then call 'sensible gun legislation'. Because they think such legislation isn't already in place.


Just like letting them use the term assault rifle. That is not a .mil term. Rifles don't assault people. They cooked up that term to get the fence sitter who doesn't own or want to own guns think that we all own machine guns.


Another one is hunting. They always say, "You don't need more than 5 rounds for hunting."


There is nothing wrong with letting people know that the 2nd amendment is all about overthrowing a tyrannical government.

It's about being able to tell an out of control congress to get out of dodge, if it ever came to that.

RyanM
March 18, 2008, 09:50 PM
There is nothing wrong with letting people know that the 2nd amendment is all about overthrowing a tyrannical government.

It's about being able to tell an out of control congress to get out of dodge, if it ever came to that.

Lot of people really don't like that tack, though. Mention revolution, or a civil war, or really anything involving substantial fighting on American soil, and ears instantly close (except the ones in the walls).

I usually concentrate on the self defense angle. Purely defensive fighting, to get away and back to your family, is something that any reasonable person can understand.

Giving up the safety of your home and job to wage war against your own government? No one'll listen to that, not unless things become much worse.

There's also the civil rights issue. Regardless of the reason given, firearms ownership is a civil right guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. I don't care if the text says people have the right keep and bear arms because it is critical fight off the ravenous hordes of miniature pink elephants. The fact is that the 2nd Amendment gives us that right, regardless of what else it may say around "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Threeband
March 18, 2008, 09:52 PM
So let 'em pass the law

They already HAVE passed such laws. That's why there's no such thing as a "gun show loophole".

So why do the media keep blathering about a nonexistant loophole? Gee, I guess they don't realize. Well, I'm sure that as soon as someone points out the truth, they'll print retractions and stop using the phrase in the future.

I don't think so.

Wake up and smell the coffee! All this "loophole" blather is part of a deliberate agenda to not only eliminate gun shows, but ALL privately held guns. And that's ALL it is.

Montgomery County, Maryland banned all gun shows a few years back. The Brady Campaign wants laws passed requiring every gun show visitor to be FINGERPRINTED at the door!

But its NOT about gun shows. It's about villifying and stigmatizing gun ownership. It's about hemming us in with ten thousand "reasonable" restrictions. Ammunition taxes. Microstamping. "Ballistic Fingerprinting". Bans on lead bullets. "Saturday Night Special" bans. Hollowpoint bullet bans. "Large capacity magazine" bans. "Semi-automatic" bans. Bayonet lug bans. Pistol grip bans. Bans on "that thing that goes up." "Smart gun" legislation. Safe storage laws (as in disassembled). Waiting periods. Background checks. Firearm Owner Identification Cards. Purchase Permits. Banning guns that aren't accurate enough. Banning guns that are too accurate. Banning guns that are too scary looking. Banning guns that aren't scary enough.

Banning guns. Banning guns. Banning guns. THAT'S what it's about.

But not just that. It's about restricting your Fourth Amendment protection from illegal searches. It's about eliminating your Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination and double jeopardy. It's about ignoring the constitutional prohibition of ex post facto laws.

It's about claiming the Second Amendment is just there so the Militia can have guns. It's about claiming the First Amendment is mainly about protecting flag-burning and government-funded homo-erotica, while protecting us from dangerous Christmas decorations on public property.

The Constitution is a VERY inconvenient document. There are a LOT of "interests" who want to eliminate it entirely. They have already made a LOT of progress.

Hysterical blather about nonexistant "loopholes" is purely intended to stir up anti-gunowner anxiety, as a deliberate step towards "reinterpreting" the Second Amendment out of existence. That in turn is a major front in the already-far-advanced campaign to reinterpret the entire Constitution out of existence.

That's what this is all about, and that's ALL it's about.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
(By the way, a precursor to this rant can be found in this thread:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=4195168#post4195168

It IS a fact that I can walk into any gunshow in this state and buy a gun without a background check.



But you miss the point of their rhetorical Big Lie Boogyman. You're talking about "Face-to-Face", which you can also do at the shooting range, or even an International House of Pancakes. They are up to something far more insidious than you realize.


There is no more a "Gun Show Loophole" then there is an "International House of Pancakes Loophole".)


ravenous hordes of miniature pink elephants

What caliber for miniature pink elephants?

IndianaBoy
March 19, 2008, 12:54 AM
Threeband gets it......

bogie
March 19, 2008, 01:34 AM
You know, that just might be a good idea...

Require NICS checks at gun shows, and attach a rider to the bill to at least do an amnesty for buzzgun registration... I bet a buddy and I could crank a few thousand sten receivers or bend a buncha Macs...

auschip
March 19, 2008, 10:32 AM
When I hear anyone mention "the gun show loophole" I explain that just because a person sells a gun doesn't mean they are a dealer. It's the same as cars. I may sell a used car, but i'm not a car dealer. What if everytime they wanted to sell a car they had to go to a car dealer? Cars kill more people then firearms do, yet they are completely unlicensed. Heck any 16 year old kid can buy a car for cash without going through any type of check! Oh the humanity!

qwert65
March 19, 2008, 10:36 AM
I like being able to make private sales off the goverments radar. I do think it IS a loop hole as at gunshows felons know that there's a group of people able to sell guns to them. I'm willing to live with this, but it is a loophole.

buzz_knox
March 19, 2008, 11:27 AM
I do think it IS a loop hole as at gunshows felons know that there's a group of people able to sell guns to them. I'm willing to live with this, but it is a loophole.


It's a federal crime to sell or provide a weapon to a felon, and there is no requirement that a person know the transferee is a felon. So no, there is no loophole. There is just a private sale that is inherently conditioned on both parties being legal to possess a weapon.

If you want to sell or transfer a weapon to someone you don't know and you don't have a good faith reason is a "good guy", you aren't taking advantage of a loophole, you are risking a felony conviction for breaking an existing law.

armoredman
March 19, 2008, 11:38 AM
There is no loop hole, there are rights restricted and rights recognized. AZ recognizes rights, and face to face private transfers, whether in public,[gunshow], or private), are exactly that - private. If you sell to a prohibited posessor, and it comes back to you, then you are toast.
There is no "loop hole", that being a term that upsets people, as it was used for years to poke at the wealthy for having "tax loop holes", so negative connotation was already established.
BTW, when someone keeps hammering on you about "assault rifles", ask them what on earth they want to use a Nazi term for, i.e., sturmgewehr, the original "storm rifle". Tell them you can't talk to someone with Nazi sympathies, and walk away...

BamaHoosier
March 19, 2008, 11:41 AM
It would seem to me with all the WiFi technology now that an IBC could be done right on the spot,unless access is restricted to LEOs only.The last time I went to a gun show,though,people filled out the yellow sheet,paid up,and carried their gun home.Shows how long since I last attended one...

Byron
March 19, 2008, 11:46 AM
In TN, a non dealer can set a table up and sell guns,no background check. I have seen this done several times. One can walk the isles with a gun and a price hanging on it and sell to anyone there. Byron

auschip
March 19, 2008, 12:44 PM
In TN, a non dealer can set a table up and sell guns,no background check. I have seen this done several times. One can walk the isles with a gun and a price hanging on it and sell to anyone there. Byron

True, it's that way in many states. What makes that any worse then a guy selling a firearm through the newspaper? There isn't a background check on any private sale (most states anyway - some require them for all sales), it doesn't matter if the sale happens at a gun show or a garden show.

I want to know when they are going to close the carshow loophole? Imagine, anyone can pay cash and drive a car away without a single background check. They even let felons and kids buy them! :evil:

qwert65
March 20, 2008, 09:14 AM
Well, I didn't mean loophole as in bypassing the law. I meant it as an easier way for felons to get someone to sell them a firearm, ie I was at a gunshow just looking at a POS .38 derringer and the woman at the table told me 100 dollars no paperwork just walk out with it. Now I'm not a felon so it's not illegal but I could have been and purchased a firearm with very little effort.

I know that felons can get guns easily, hell I know a few that did(In NJ it's easier to get a illegal one than a legal one) To me the only benefit would make it harder for crazies to get a gun. I just as easily could have been a nut case.

Again I'm not saying they should change the law, I'm just saying you have to admit that it makes it easier for unauthorized people to aquire them. Kinda like we can't argue that guns aren't dangerous

buzz_knox
March 20, 2008, 09:22 AM
Again I'm not saying they should change the law, I'm just saying you have to admit that it makes it easier for unauthorized people to aquire them.

Why would a felon go to a gunshow to buy a weapon, when said shows tend to have police officers (who are in a better position to recognize known felons than sellers) doing the security checks on weapons, or selling weapons themselves?

qwert65
March 20, 2008, 09:52 AM
Why would a felon go to a gunshow to buy a weapon, when said shows tend to have police officers (who are in a better position to recognize known felons than sellers) doing the security checks on weapons, or selling weapons themselves?

This gunshow was in topeka, KS (i went to school there) They had one policeman for about 40 tables the only thing he did was make sure the guns that came in were empty(course he didn't check you for bullets so...) My friend brought a rifle to sell thats how I know about the security.
There might have been some plainclothes that I don't know. Anyway at this time I had a NJ DL which would have made a handgun sale to me illiegal regardless(I know this since I tried to buy a glock at another table)

As for cops recognizing known felons I don't know what state you're in but felons come in all shapes and sizes. also I pointed out that felons know where to get guns illegally anyway, but insane people do not (for the most part) For example, say Cho had been commited he couldn't of bought his glock where he did but he planned for months giving him ample time to go purchase one at a gunshow. I say gunshow because if there was an add in the paper he would most likely meet thre person one on one and you could tell that this guy is a nut.
At a gun show, you got like 3 employees and maybe 10 people at the table at once they don't have time to talk.

I will reiterate that I like the way it the law stands and have bought a .357 at a face to face sale for just this reason( I don't think they ever will confiscate guns but I was looking for a revolver anyway so why not?)

But to me it's something we have to admit could easily happen. I like to drive fast I don't belive the goverment should regulate how fast cars should be manufactured to run-nor do I think it's logical. but it's also irrefutable that cars going 35mph are a hell of a lot less dangerous(though still very dangerous) then a car going 70

To me there is an inherent risk in living we will never be truly safe and have freedom and I will choose freedom every time, but I won't deny the fact that no danger is there. Does that make sense?

buzz_knox
March 20, 2008, 09:56 AM
To me there is an inherent risk in living we will never be truly safe and have freedom and I will choose freedom every time, but I won't deny the fact that no danger is there. Does that make sense?

Yes, it does. It also makes sense to recognize the potential that you'll suddenly develop a food allergy and the next meal you have will kill you. That's about as likely as criminals obtaining firearms from shows because both events happen, but are so infrequent as to be stastistically irrelevant. Admitting that such an unlikely event is reality really adds nothing to the situation. It's extraneous information that only serves to embolden our enemies because it's not being backed up with the fact that the likelihood of the event is negligible.

We know where criminals obtain the vast majority of their weapons: from burglaries and from each other.

qwert65
March 20, 2008, 10:24 AM
Buzz- I see your point that strategically admitting it could be harmful. I agree with this. I was mainly posting because it seemed that many posters here were of the mind set that there was no way it could go wrong without being illegal anyway. I just wanted to point out that I belive members of this board have a better moral quality overall, but sometimes fail to see how unscrupulous some gun owners are.

I also brought it up as this is activism and if we're going to but the myth to bed. we have to prove that it is a myth- however it is not a myth just as suddenly devolping a food allergy is not a myth just an extremly unlikley occurrence.

From an activism side maybe we shouldn't bring it up that is my point since we cannot refute it. You know as well as I that our enemies are eithier illogical or have an insidous agenda. But I think it would be dumb to classify them all as stupid.(not saying you are) If we bring this up we would only lose the argument. This might be a case of better staying silent(since if we lie then we would be the ones with the agenda)

AirForceShooter
March 20, 2008, 10:48 AM
Let's not forget the "buying guns off the internet" loophole.
I keep trying to find that one.

AFS

qwert65
March 20, 2008, 03:27 PM
Let's not forget the "buying guns off the internet" loophole
That one really is a myth(assuming no blackpowder)

foghornl
March 20, 2008, 03:46 PM
"Assault Weapons"

Last time I got asked "Is that an 'Assault Weapon'?" my reply was "Only if I butt-stroke your face with it..."

cmidkiff
March 20, 2008, 05:30 PM
What we have is ineffective infringement on our right to own firearms, to say that there is a 'loophole' is to recognize that free trade in firearms is a problem.

Do criminals really have a hard time getting their hands on a firearm? Even in DC, NYC, CA, or Chicago... where the really draconian purchase laws are in effect? Background check, federal forms, licensing... all have proven ineffective in limiting criminals access to firearms.

So... in the face of a failed policy... let's expand the failed policy to inconvenience law abiding citizens a little more!:fire:

What other constitutionally protected right must I get governmental permission to exercise? Should we require a background check before allowing someone to voice their opinion in a public forum such as this one? Does my pastor need to fill out a federal form before he steps up to the pulpit? Do I need to show a state ID before I buy a newspaper?

It's not 'OK' to require a permit, or background check, or federal form, or proof of training, or anything else before allowing someone to purchase a firearm. Closing the 'gun show loophole', is just a PC term for eliminating the ability for private citizens to buy and sell private property without government intrusion.

'They' don't want 'reasonable regulation', no matter what the brady bunch might say. Gun control is about control, not guns. As long as the citizens of this nation possess firearms, we can't be controlled.

IllHunter
March 21, 2008, 12:01 PM
Everytime I see or hear about the "loophole" I ask the source (write the editor) to define said "loophole". Aside from those here who actually frequent gunshows, I have been able (several times) to demonstrate that the speaker/writer has no idea of the myriad and complex gun laws that do exist and have no clue what the "loophole" is. This was most edifying when the state rep sponsoring the latest outrage had no plausible response to my seeking clarification. He reered to the wording of the current outrage but it was ammunition related and had nothing to do with gunshows. :neener:

akanotken
March 21, 2008, 12:38 PM
Loophole means a legal way to subvert the intention of the law (my definition).

The intention seems to mean that anyone in the business of selling guns obtain an FFL and complete all the necessary paperwork and a back ground check.

Now the grey area. For folks WITH a table at the gunshow with anywhere from a few to many guns to sell (not the folks walking around with a pricetag taped to them/thier gun) it might be argued that they are now part of that business. In fact, they often sit next to FFL's. But they aren't completing all of the forms the FFL sitting next to them is required to do.

So yea, if you see things this way, there is a loophole. And if you find an Anti with any smarts, this will be the argument you will need to fight.

But they are few and far between. It really is about slowing down gun ownership/transfer.

Taking off the devil's advocate hat ...

Personally, I'd love to see this as a bargaining chip. Allow a provision requiring tabled gun sellors to do a $2 background check in with a pro gun bill. Anti politicians get to declare the loophole closed. But they have to agree to something for us. i.e. make any place of business financially responsible for damages if they prevent firearms on thier property. Or a protection for gun/ammo manufactures, or a statement that cities and states may not ban firearms, etc.

But that is wishful thinking.

Buzz, do you have an stats on criminal's firearms sources? Part of me says gunshow pricing is more than a thug really wants to pay, but part of me believes that it would be a quick easy way to pick one up. I thought the genesis of this was finding that a sizable chunk of guns used in firearms sourced out of gun shows?

R127
March 27, 2008, 06:31 PM
If you are worried about this you need to not vote for McCain. The "gun show loophole" is one of his pet projects he and Joe Lieberman are always trying to stitch up.

RobNDenver
March 27, 2008, 09:39 PM
Agreed. Guns sold at gun shows in Colorado are subject to NICS whether you are buying from a FFL or a private party. . . . But so many writers and citizens have no idea that gun sales at these events are regulated.

Best regards,

Rob Sprecher

Carl N. Brown
March 27, 2008, 10:39 PM
Let's take private guns sales between individuals out of the gun shows and put'em back where they came from: the swap meets, flea markets, trading papers, local bars, etc.

Back in the 1970s my stepdad bought my mom a home protection pistol from a guy selling pistols from his car trunk at the stockyard.

Let's close that wine tasting loophole while we're at it and put the liquor trade back where it belongs, with the bootleggers.

Kentak
March 29, 2008, 01:05 PM
Don't make an issue of it. Give me 500 bucks and I'll come out with two or three guns and no background checks.

Make an issue of it, and some local news channel will do just that.

K

scythefwd
March 29, 2008, 04:38 PM
In IL, that loophole is non existant. In order to keep your foid, technically, you are required to document any and all firearm transactions for 10 after. The records are your own if you are a private seller, but you still have to document them. This I believe involves getting the foid number, a copy of id, and a proof of purchase (I think hand written on the back of a mcdonalds receipt might actually work if both parties signed it).

To those who said the foid is majorly restrictive, do you actually live where they require one? My foid let me buy ammo, firearms (non fully auto as I didn't have a license for that), etc. The only restriction would have been the waiting period, which would exist with or without the foid card. The foid is basically an instant background check. The reason I state so is that you show your card and no background check is ran because anyone that commits a crime that would disallow them from having a foid has their foid confiscated.

If you guys are willing, please educate me on what restrictions the foid creates as I never ran into them. That doesn't mean they don't exist, just that I didn't run into them.

Just a side note, I was able to get my foid when I was 8 and I never had any issue renewing it until I left IL.

BullfrogKen
May 11, 2008, 02:20 AM
There's more politics than planning occuring in this thread.

If you enjoyed reading about "We need to put this myth to rest for good...." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!