[TamThompson]

My husband was asking me about the much-ballyhooed "gun show loophole", and I don't have the answers. Please note that I'm asking primarily about Texas, although I'd be interested to hear about other states, too.

Here are my questions:

1. My understanding is that at a gun show, they don't do background checks. How, then, do they avoid selling guns to convicted felons? If they did that, they'd go to jail, wouldn't they? And no gun seller wants to go to jail. If they just check drivers' licenses, arent' they aware that those can be faked?

2. Why are gun folks so adamant about not closing the gun show loophole? Why is that so important? Why do they get to be different from gun stores, pawnshops, and sporting goods stores?

Thanks for your answers. I'm not trying to bait anyone, I truly just don't know. I've been to one gun show, but didn't buy a gun, so I haven't experienced the process.

[El Tejon]

Tam, there is no "loophole." It is a lie put forth by the anti-civil rights movement to stampede the sheople.

1. Federal and state laws apply whether at a gun show or not. Here in Yankeeland dealers perform background checks on the spot, I'm certain they do that in Tejas as well. The rules governing Class 1 FFLs are not magically suspended because of a "gun show."

2. Again, there is no difference. It is a lie put forth by the anti-civil rights movement to destroy gun shows (the shows are social/networking events of the gun culture that they seek to destroy) and create registration of private party sales as they now register sales from dealers.

Gun shows have taken place for hundreds of years. Why are they a "problem" now?

[TamThompson]

El Tejon,
It's always a pleasure to read your posts!

So, does this mean that if I were to go to a gun show in Texas, they'd ask to see my CHL, and if for some reason I forgot it, they'd call in a background check?

Thanks for your help.

[Bob41081]

Any dealer must perform a background check. Your CHL says that has been done. If you don't have your CHL on your person they will do a check. A sale by a private individual to a private individual will have no background check.

Bob

[Triad]

They would have to perform a background check if you didn't have your CHL.

The gun show "loophole" is the ability to buy a gun from another private party. If they make this illegal they would be forcing you to go through a dealer anytime you want to buy a gun from anyone.

[CleverNickname]

For another example, I'm in Texas, and the only time I've ever sold a firearm was a direct transaction not involving an FFL. I listed the firearm via my IDPA club's email mailing list, and sold it at the next match. No "gun show" was involved. It's the private person-to-person non-4473-logged sales that they're trying to eliminate.

[TamThompson]

Thanks for the feedback, but my husband is still asking me what would happen if he went to a gun show in Texas, having no CHL, and tried to buy a gun. Would they, or would they not, do a background check? Most of the sellers I've seen at gun shows are shops that I know, so they have an FFL, but are individuals allowed to set up tables and sell without an FFL and doing background checks. I.E., can you buy a gun in Texas at a gun show without a background check if you have no CHL?

I suppose I could test this out myself if I don't get a straight answer. Oh, the agony--have to go to a show and buy another gun. ;)

Unfortunately, I don't have money for a new additon right now...

[Triad]

Yes, if he bought the gun from a dealer they would do a background check.

You can buy a gun from a private party without a back ground check, it doesn't matter if they're at a gun show or not.

[TamThompson]

Thank you, Triad! So then, private dealers are allowed to be at gun shows, and it just depends on whose table I'm at as to whether they check?

I appreciate your help in clarifying this.

[El Tejon]

Tam, careful with the "private dealer" stuff. One is either an FFL holder or not. If one is in the business of gun dealing then they need to have a Class 1 FFL. A non-FFLicensee may sell a Title I firearm at a gun show, at a gun club, at a church, in the parking lot of Taco Tico, or in one's living room.

The SSA of '68 and amendments (excluding Title II) do not apply to private party transfers. These sales are regulated by state law. I do not know how this is addressed, if at all, in Tejas.

[Triad]

Yep.

All gun shows may not allow those who don't have a FFL to setup a table, but this would depend on the people running the show. Most of the folks that have tables are dealers, but some are not.

You're welcome.

[eoR]

So then, private dealers are allowed to be at gun shows, and it just depends on whose table I'm at as to whether they check?Yes.


Often times non-dealers will have a sign saying "Private Collection" (and charge no sales tax :) ).

[Triad]

El Tejon, I think she meant private sellers, not dealers.

I don't think there are any state restrictions here, other than age requirements.

[TamThompson]

Thanks, y'all! I just like to have my facts straight when I argue with anti's, and those who are on the fence (my husband.)

BTW, El Tejon--like your sig line! :)

[alan]

Tam:

The contention or understanding you voiced in your item 1 is simply incorrect.

Otherwise, while one hears a great deal about the supposed Gun Show Loophole, just as one hears a great deal, or used to hear same about Saturdadynight Specials, neither the Gun Show Loophole nor the Saturdaynight special is ever clearly defined or explained, especially by those who talk the most about either one. Same for that most terrible of all manmade devices, the "assault weapon". Had you noticed that? Perhaps you need to ask why this is.

Don't apologize for asking questions, that is the way one sometimes obtains information and faccts. One should however, closely examine who is willing to answer questions asked, as opposed to propagandizing, and or spouting emotional hype.

[El Tejon]

Triad, oh, yeah, private seller makes more sense, but when Joshie's "private dealer" nonsense is thrown about (on THR no less) my spidey sense tingles.

Tam, you understand how senseless this "loophole" argument is, right? They are attempting to create one where it does not exist. Create a crisis out of nothing and keep the flock in a general state of panic.:uhoh:

My sig line is a variation of a Shaolin adage: Of 36 different ways to handle a fight, it is best addressed by running away. :)

[Old Fuff]

Federally Licensed Gun Dealers (FFL) are allowed to sell guns at a gun show. However they have to follow the same procedures they would at their retail store. This means filling out a #4473 form and making a background check.

Private individuals may also sell guns at a gun show. However so long as the sale is to a resident of the state where the show is being held, and they are also a resident of that state, they do not have to follow the same procedures a dealer does, and in fact couldn’t if they wanted too. A private individual does not have access to #4473 forms, and are not, I repeat not, allowed to make background checks.

Most individuals who sell guns at gun shows do at least check the buyer’s driver’s license or other photo-I.D. and take down the information thereon.

The reason the anti-gunner’s want to “close the gun show loophole” is to force ALL private sales to go through a dealer, and therefore establish a paper trail. What this is, is De Facto registration, and they hope the basis for future confiscation.

So far as criminals are concerned, FBI statistics show that only a few guns percentage wise are obtained at gun shows. In fact so few that they combine the number with pawn shops.

[C.R.Sam]

The reason the anti-gunner’s want to “close the gun show loophole” is to force ALL private sales to go through a dealer, and therefore establish a paper trail. What this is, is De Facto registration, and they hope the basis for future confiscation.
Finally, Old Fuff nails it.l

Sam

[jsalcedo]

Just to give an example:

The Saxet Gun show in San Antonio airport convention center, which I've been to dozens of times has 98% of the gun sellers as FFL licensed dealers.

The rest sell candles, ammo, militaria and a few old guns as a private individual seller.


To be honest there are very few guns for private sale other than pre 1898
(which are not even regulated by the ATF) Maybe a few guys culling their collection from time to time.

The gunshow loophole is wildly overstated and is really an non issue.

[alan]

Tam:

Aside from the fact that the "gun show loophole" exists only in the minds of media hysterics and anti-gun apparachnicks, please read the following from C.R. Sam.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The reason the anti-gunner’s want to “close the gun show loophole” is to force ALL private sales to go through a dealer, and therefore establish a paper trail. What this is, is De Facto registration, and they hope the basis for future confiscation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Finally, Old Fuff nails it.l

Sam.

C.R. Sam, Old Fluf and others aren't whistling dixie when they state that "registration leads to confiscation". It does and it has, and I do not refer to the goings on in some thirld world banana republic. I make reference to things that have gone on right here in the U.S. For instance, I give you, for your thoughtful attention the following. California, New York City, Cleveland Ohio, New Jersey, to make a short list of places, or jurisdictions where registration has in fact, led to confiscation of legally acquired and owned firearms. All that was necessary was a slight alteration to existing law, action always supported by that most convenient of all devices, emotional claptrap and media hype.

Still have questions as to "closing the gun show loophole"? Look carefully to determine exactly whom it is that pushes such foolishness, and where they are coming from, as that odd saying goes.

[TamThompson]

Yes, I see what y'all are saying. The only "loophole" of sorts is private sellers. And, as I've explained to my husband, any private seller who is at all concerned about whether or not they go to prison will check out who they're selling to. Nobody wants to go to prison for selling a gun to a criminal.

My favorite argument against registration is the automobile analogy. Cars/trucks/SUV's and their drivers are registered, inspected, licensed, and insured (by law), yet there are still plenty of people every week who misuse an automobile as a deadly weapon. I'm not talking about accidents, I'm talking about ON PURPOSE. Why the anti-gun folks think it would be any different if we registered guns, I don't know. It would just invade us gun owner's privacy and raise taxes and wouldn't accomplish a thing. People with bad intent will misuse whatever they can get their hands on.

I still don't understand how they have violated the 2nd Amendment in Chicago and New York and D.C. by banning all handguns. Isn't anyone challenging this in court?

[Hkmp5sd]

A variation of the automobile analogy is that a person can buy, sell, own and use an automobile without a license or any proof of driver training/experience. He only needs a license if he wants to drive his automobile on public streets.

[tyme]

(tam) My favorite argument against registration is the automobile analogy. Cars/trucks/SUV's and their drivers are registered, inspected, licensed, and insured (by law), yet there are still plenty of people every week who misuse an automobile as a deadly weapon. I'm not talking about accidents, I'm talking about ON PURPOSE.
I'd question this. There are not many people who use a vehicle as a weapon. The few who do just make national news.

The car analogy is fundamentally flawed. Take a car being driven down the highway at a moderate 55mph in moderate traffic. Take the driver away (distraction, fainting, whatever). You now have an extremely dangerous situation even with a car that has advanced technological measures to prevent accidents (radar, computer-controlled braking, etc.).

Now take a firearm being carried, openly or concealed. Take away the person. You now have a gun in a holster, lying on the ground. Definitely a catastrophe worthy of an activation of the FEMA.

This is not to suggest that vehicle licensing accomplishes anything truly useful, merely that cars being driven around are more dangerous than guns being carried around.

[Waitone]

Tam, I too have been all bunched up regarding the "gunshow loophole." I went to an FFL and he explained to me there is no difference between store front documentation and gunshow documentation. He then told me the sole purpose of closing the loophole is to shut down private transactions, full stop, end of story.

I've typed on this forum until my fingers turned blue, the second amendment war is a war over definitions. The gunshow loophole flap is a clearcut example of how it works. First a term is introduced into popular usage via various media outlets. Gunshow loophole is an example as is the more recent entry "bullet hose." If the term gains legs then the next step is to begin infusing the desired definition into the term. Gunshow loophole gradually came to mean evil gunshows not private transactions. You see, private transactions would bother people not associated with RKBA, so it was not used. Over time the entire meaning of the term belongs to the anti-2 forces and they use it as a means of covering over just exactily what they intend to do. When an novice (your husband, for example) wakes up and begins asking questions he is naturally fed the definition that has grown up around the term, not what is really at stake.

Ahnuld of California is a classic example. He said he favored closing the gunshow loophole during a recent interview. I just wish someone was around who could say, ". . . . .and just exactly what is the loophole to which you refer?" Money, marbles or chalk says he has no clue what he just said. He is a sock puppet of the quiche eaters and he has no concept of what is at stake. All he knows is he must mouth the words (which are devoid of meaning) or he will get skunked in the election.

[alan]

Tam:

Handguns are not "banned" in New York. Legally obtaining one does involved a lot of generally useless, time consuming paper work and expense.

As to the situation in Chicago, it's spelled Daley.

Re Washington, D.C., the problem there is the U.S. Congress (House and Senate), either of which could have declared the infamous D.C. gun law null and void, when it was first passed. Obviously, they didn't.

As for court action, that is another can of worms, where a lot of court decisions raise question as to what the hell goes on in the minds of judges, respecting the words of the U.S. Constitution.

The following is purely my take, re the desires of the anti-gunners. They, just like the anti-abortionists, are simply interested in raw power, and the obtaining and use thereof. The issue dejour is essentially beside the point, serving to distract the great unwashed from what is actually ongoing, the obtaining of power by this self annointed nobility.

You might have heard the admonition to FOLLOW THE MONEY, re the answers to questions. Follow the power is another aspect.

[Standing Wolf]

What this is, is De Facto registration, and they hope the basis for future confiscation.

Firearms registration is firearms confiscation on the installment plan. How long will it take? That's the only unknown.

[jimpeel]

After they get the "gun show loophole" closed they will start working on the "Living Room Loophole". Take that to the bank.

[AZ Husker]

Without painting with too broad a brush, there are more than anti-gunners wanting to shut down private gun sales at shows! You should hear what goes on inside before the doors are open to the public (and most private sellers). Many of the same old Winnebago FFL's push the show promoters to ban individual sales simply to sell their wares at retail + 20%. :fire:

[Partisan Ranger]

Tam,

As others have stated so well, the 'gun show loophole' is nonexistent. It is a fantasy dreamed up by anti-freedom statists who are taking advantage of the public's ignorance of firearms.

What the anti-gun bigots are trying to do is regulate private sales of guns at gun shows. If we allow them to do this, I can assure you, just as night follows day, that their NEXT step will be to regulate ALL private sales.

These parasites never stop. One 'reasonable gun control law' is followed by another. And another. And another. It does nothing to stop crime, and makes it harder and harder for a law-abding person to exercise his/her rights.

[Ed N.]

Tam,

Pay attention the next time you read something in the mainstream press about the ficticious "loophole." Almost invariably, you will see some version of the following two sentences in close proximity to each other:

"Only gun dealers holding a Federal Firearms License are required to perform background checks."

and

"Half of all dealers at gun shows do not have FFLs."

Now catch this - notice that the first sentence said "GUN dealers", while the second sentence just said "dealers." Most people will infer that the author is still talking about gun dealers, but he ain't.

The truth is, half of the dealers at gun shows AREN'T SELLING GUNS! They're selling tools, camo, books, t-shirts, hats, beef jerky, WWII memorabilia, and so forth. Thus they don't have (or need) FFLs.

At the gun shows I've attended (Orlando and Lakeland, FL), very very few people selling guns were not FFLs.

[greyhound]

Here in Maryland, they have closed the "Gun Show Loophole". Any transfer by private citizens has to go through the Maryland State Police.

Don't know if that's a reason or not, but of course there's barely any "Gun Shows" here TO "Loophole". :cuss:

[Waitone]

One other factor must be pointed out. Yep, gun control // confiscation is the ultimate goal. A near term goal may be purely political.

The NRA has repeatedly stated that at any given time more people in the US are engaged in gunshows than are engaged in partisan political activities. In other words the political leverage of the gun culture is far greater than traditional political parties. And since competition in politics is ok as long as it is limited to the two big parties, it is reasonable to assume the ruling class may want it shut down.