Be Aware of This and Make Your Legislators Aware


PDA






cbrgator
June 7, 2011, 05:34 PM
White House Taking 'Seriously' Al Qaeda's Eying Of America's Gun Show Loophole (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/07/white-house-taking-seriously-al-qaeda-gun-show_n_872413.html)

Another:

Al-Qaida could exploit U.S. gun shows, spokesman says (http://hamptonroads.com/2011/06/alqaida-could-exploit-us-gun-shows-spokesman-says)

The Obama administration says it's taking "seriously" a statement from an al Qaeda spokesman that instructs sympathizers of the terrorist group to exploit soft spots in U.S. gun laws

If there is another Fort Hood type shooter, this issue is definitely going to come up. Write your legislators and make sure they aware of this situation and keep an eye out. Our gun rights should not be restricted in the name of terrorism.

If you enjoyed reading about "Be Aware of This and Make Your Legislators Aware" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
paramedic70002
June 8, 2011, 12:37 PM
They should be taking it seriously. And Constitutionally.

armoredman
June 8, 2011, 12:56 PM
"Page not found."

cbrgator
June 8, 2011, 01:59 PM
"Page not found."

Fixed. Sorry about that.

M-Cameron
June 8, 2011, 05:45 PM
"You can go down to a gun show at the local convention center and come away with a fully automatic assault rifle without a background check, and most likely without having to show an identification card. So what are you waiting for?"

ide still really like to know where these gun shows are.......because im apparently going to the wrong ones.

Japle
June 8, 2011, 05:55 PM
Next they'll want to close the "newspaper classified ad" loophole, the "met a guy at the range" loophole and the "lady across the street" loophole. :rolleyes:

cbrgator
June 8, 2011, 06:05 PM
Next they'll want to close the "newspaper classified ad" loophole, the "met a guy at the range" loophole and the "lady across the street" loophole.
Closing the gun show loophole would actually close the these loopholes as well. Closing the gun show loophole is actually a blanket ban on ALL private, non-FFL sales.

It works like this:

To close the loophole, the law would require all gun sellers to run a NICS background check on the buyer. Problem is, only FFL dealers are given access to the NICS system. This creates a catch-22, resulting in a de facto ban on private sales between any two individuals, at gun shows and anywhere else. Anybody wishing to sell a gun would need to be an FFL holder in order to run the mandatory NICS check. So, if you aren't an FFL holder and you want to sell a gun, you'd have to go to your local gun store and pay an FFL to transfer ownership.

AlexanderA
June 8, 2011, 07:22 PM
To close the loophole, the law would require all gun sellers to run a NICS background check on the buyer. Problem is, only FFL dealers are given access to the NICS system. This creates a catch-22, resulting in a de facto ban on private sales between any two individuals, at gun shows and anywhere else. Anybody wishing to sell a gun would need to be an FFL holder in order to run the mandatory NICS check. So, if you aren't an FFL holder and you want to sell a gun, you'd have to go to your local gun store and pay an FFL to transfer ownership.

I agree that such a "reform" would be overbroad, impossible to enforce, and generally not a good idea. But, if legislation goes forward, the pro-gun side needs to be thinking about a strategy to at least get something out of it. Think back to the FOPA of '86, something that the NRA had been pushing for years. Well, at the last minute, the other side introduced a "poison pill" (the Hughes amendment) that was thought to make the pro-gun side sour on it. We all know that the NRA supported it in spite of Hughes, and it was signed into law.

If "gun show loophole" legislation advances, it would be a good opportunity to attach riders that (a) would broaden eligibility for getting FFL's to people without regular business premises, conducting business out of their homes and at gun shows, and (b) would repeal the Hughes amendment and open up the machine gun registry to new manufactures and "makings." (That's just for starters.) Let the other side deal with "poison pills" for a change.

(I realize that these two proposals would step on the toes of powerful vested interests within the gun community -- current FFL's protecting their local monopolies and current full-auto owners with huge investments and paper gains in their guns. But this sort of turf-guarding is shortsighted and misguided.)

cbrgator
June 8, 2011, 09:44 PM
AlexanderA,

With all due respect, I refuse to accept your premise. We should not accept any legislation which seeks to close a "loophole" which really doesn't exist. A blanket ban on private sales would usher in a new federal gun control regime far stricter than this nation has ever seen.

It is quite defeatist to already be discussing what compromises or interests we can carve out for ourselves should the legislation actually pass. We must fight for our rights and not allow such draconian laws to imposed upon us.

Owen Sparks
June 8, 2011, 11:03 PM
The government jealously guards its monopoly on the use of force and looks for any excuse to prevent commoners like you from having the ability to resist.
If they can further gun control under the guise of “Homeland Security” or preventing crime or terrorism or whatever they will find a way to convince the gullable public odf the need to disarm you “for the common good”. They have gutted the Second Amendment and will not stop until all weapons are criminalized like they are in Europe.

gunnutery
June 8, 2011, 11:31 PM
the pro-gun side needs to be thinking about a strategy to at least get something out of it.

we CANNOT compromise one bit! If we are willing to give up private sales, what possitive thing could we ever hope to gain.

hso
June 8, 2011, 11:38 PM
There is no "gunshow loophole". That's just a fabrication, just like the myth of being able to buy a full auto assault rifle at any and every gunshow without the standard load of paperwork and background checks.

It was inevitable that every bottom-feeder anti would try to make mileage on this screed, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be proactive in contacting every one of our elected officials and letting them know we know better than the myth being played on by this propaganda and that we also know that it will be used in anti propaganda to frighten the public. We expect them to reassure the American public that this form of propaganda is false and intended to frighten the public.

dogtown tom
June 9, 2011, 12:00 AM
AlexanderA
If "gun show loophole" legislation advances, it would be a good opportunity to attach riders that (a) would broaden eligibility for getting FFL's to people without regular business premises, conducting business out of their homes and at gun shows....

Federal law ALREADY ALLOWS anyone to get an FFL without a storefront and conduct business out of their home and at gunshows. A licensee may conduct business at his licensed premises AND a gunshow.

ATF will issue an FFL to anyone who can legally conduct business at their "licensed premises". IF you cannot operate a business from your home you need to change your city, state or county laws.

AlexanderA
June 9, 2011, 03:40 AM
dogtown tom wrote:

Federal law ALREADY ALLOWS anyone to get an FFL without a storefront and conduct business out of their home and at gunshows. A licensee may conduct business at his licensed premises AND a gunshow.

ATF will issue an FFL to anyone who can legally conduct business at their "licensed premises". IF you cannot operate a business from your home you need to change your city, state or county laws.

While this is technically true, it vastly understates the practical difficulties. In many, perhaps most, urban areas, due to local zoning, local business licensing requirements, fire regulations, inventory storage regulations, etc., it's nearly impossible to run a retail business -- especially a gun business -- out of one's home. (And -- let's face it -- for an individual, the idea of "changing the laws" is laughable.) And the ATF, in issuing licenses, makes sure that all these local requirements are strictly complied with. I myself had an FFL (and a Class III SOT) back in the early 1980's, and I jumped through all the hoops to legally run the business out of my home. But it reached the point where the increased fees, the increased "hassle factor," the increased inability to maintain a low profile in a generally anti-gun area, and things like liability insurance issues, were not outweighed by the small volume of business I was conducting. So I reluctantly decided to give up the licenses.

And I was not alone. Literally hundreds of thousands of "kitchen table FFL's" were driven out of business by ATF procedural and fee changes in the mid-1980's. And this was entirely by design as part of the antigun agenda. The net effect was to change the entire retail side of the gun industry. I'll give you an example -- I would charge $10 for a transfer through my books (or even nothing for friends and regular customers). And lots of "kitchen table FFL's" were doing this, effectively making mail-order purchases easy and cheap. Naturally, the established brick-and-mortar gun stores hated us. They aligned themselves (knowingly or unknowingly) with the anti-gunners to destroy the "hobbyist" FFL movement. Let me ask you -- where can an ordinary gun buyer get $10 transfers today?

What I'm saying is that it should be part of the progun agenda to return the FFL licensing situation back to what it was circa 1980. Ordinary gun buyers would benefit and only the current "monopolistic" FFL holders would be adversely affected.

AlexanderA
June 9, 2011, 04:05 AM
gunnutery said:

we CANNOT compromise one bit!

I think I was careful to say that I was opposed to the so-called "gun show loophole" legislation. However, if it advances, it's only prudent to prepare some "killer amendments" of our own.

The most natural "killer amendment," given the subject of the legislation, would be to open up the FFL system to just about anybody who wanted one. In other words, if the antis say that all private sales should go through FFL's and have NICS checks, then we say, OK, allow practically all private sellers to get FFL's and have access to the NICS system. (I can almost guarantee that the antis would never accept this, but it would be a tremendous PR coup for our side.)

sig220mw
June 9, 2011, 04:57 AM
We also need to not call it a loop hole since it isn't. This is something the antis and the media use in order to fool the unknowing into thinking that there is such a thing when in fact they are just trying to stop personal sales between private citizens. Most of the non shooting public hasn't a clue and neither do most in the media. They in the media that do know are pushing the lie that illegal sales go on at gun shows. They would like to stop personal sales between individuals and also stop gun shows from being held.

AlexanderA
June 9, 2011, 10:08 AM
There are all kinds of gun shows, just as there are all kinds of "private sales." A small local show, held in a VFW hall or church basement, with at most 100 tables, is just not in the same category as a large national show with 1,000's of tables. The cost of setting up tables at a large national show, including table rent, travel, lodging, etc., is substantial. An argument can be made that anyone setting up tables at a large national show is in fact "engaging in the business" and therefore should be licensed. If such a person is not licensed and sells guns, the implication is that he's doing so to avoid bookkeeping and NICS checks, and then the next logical implication is that he's trying to gain a competitive advantage by selling to disqualified people.

We should be honest -- at least to ourselves -- about these things. Now, it's a different matter what we want to do tactically about the gun show issue, given the "slippery slope" argument and the existing polarization in this country. I can see the "no compromise" attitude as making sense in that light. But it disregards the realities on the ground. Flame away.

Standing Wolf
June 9, 2011, 11:12 AM
Legality is called a "loop hole" only by those who want to reshape the law to suit their Marxist purposes.

AIM
June 9, 2011, 11:33 AM
How do you regulate the private trade of any product without knowing who owns each and every one. Like trading titles on cars, you need to go through the state and pay the tax. Is this a registration and tax ploy?

gunnutery
June 9, 2011, 12:12 PM
Having an FFL would be sweet, but accepting a ban on private sales AND IN RETURN allow everyone to get an FFL just to be able to buy a gun from whom ever I wanted sounds like the ushering of a national firearms ID/ registration law.

We shouldn't have to pay a $200 fee (or whatever it costs these days) to buy a gun from someone.

Hypnogator
June 9, 2011, 12:54 PM
I am not opposed to the concept of requiring a background check for all firearms transactions, PROVIDED that firearms checks could be made by anyone by telephone or computer. The only effect this would then have on private sales would be the relatively minor inconvenience of the seller having to call in an NCIS check before transferring the firearm.

I also agree that such legislation would be a good vehicle to win back some of the losses of our rights we've suffered over the years. Opening the machine gun registry to new weapons would be good, as would the elimination of the prohibition of interstate sales of handguns.

AlexanderA
June 9, 2011, 02:56 PM
gunnutery said:

Having an FFL would be sweet, but accepting a ban on private sales AND IN RETURN allow everyone to get an FFL just to be able to buy a gun from whom ever I wanted sounds like the ushering of a national firearms ID/ registration law.

We shouldn't have to pay a $200 fee (or whatever it costs these days) to buy a gun from someone.

No, the proposal for an expanded FFL would apply to sales, not to purchases. If you wanted to make sales at large gun shows, you'd have a choice -- either get an easy-to-obtain FFL for yourself, or make the transfer through an existing FFL dealer. The point being that all sales would be run through the NICS system.

How many people on this forum go to gun shows with the objective of buying guns "off the books"? Not many, I would wager. To me, buying a gun at a gun show is no different from buying a gun at a store.

Note that this is just a proposal for getting something in return, if this misbegotten "gun show loophole" legislation shows signs of making any headway.

The policy decision was made a long time ago, without much objection, that there were certain categories of persons (convicted felons, etc.) that should not be able to buy/possess guns legally. If one accepts that, then it makes sense to provide means (NICS checks, for example) to enforce such prohibitions. The problem is that the antigunners are not content to stop there, so anything becomes part of the "slippery slope" that must be opposed. It's too bad it has come to that.

gunnutery
June 9, 2011, 03:04 PM
I understand what you're saying and I hope I'm not sounding too upset in my responses.

I just think that one more restriction/obstacle/inconvenience would only limit the law abiding, since if criminals want to buy a gun so baddly, they can just go buy one from another dirtbag that doesn't follow the rules or steal one from us.

I also worry that IF we lose the battle of keeping private sales, no one on the Left or Right will want to give anything back as a consession. IMO.

JustinJ
June 9, 2011, 04:04 PM
"I am not opposed to the concept of requiring a background check for all firearms transactions, PROVIDED that firearms checks could be made by anyone by telephone or computer. The only effect this would then have on private sales would be the relatively minor inconvenience of the seller having to call in an NCIS check before transferring the firearm."

That would be sort of hard to enforce without a national gun registry which is what would follow next.

Private sales do enable a person to purchase a firearm while bypassing a background check so i'm not sure why we are denying there is a loophole? We are not going to affect legislation by arguing semantics.

I am not advocating anything here but i can see why law abiding citizens who can pass the background check would like to own firearm(s) "off the books" so to speak.

toivo
June 9, 2011, 05:29 PM
The antis ended up with egg on their faces over the "Mexican drug gangs are buying their weapons in the US" fiasco. This is their fallback effort.

DoubleTapDrew
June 9, 2011, 06:27 PM
I pity the poor investigative reporter who tries to do a story on this and gets popped trying to buy a full auto under the table at a gun show :evil:

CapnMac
June 9, 2011, 06:44 PM
Well, the real problem here is that the premise is being made that compromise can be reached by "giving in" to flawed assumptions, but only in return for (possible spurious) gains.

One flawed assumption appeared early on; that the side of the legislative debate would be equal. So that, the "well ok, we'll give you that, but you have to give us something else." Works fine unless other side just says "no."

The curative offered in "easier access to FFL" should be treated as flawed just from looking at history. We have seen what happens when politics decides federal; privilege can be curtailed or revoked.

But, the truly flawed assumption is still not addressed--that background checks actually create a demonstrable societal good for their very real cost.

merlinfire
June 10, 2011, 10:36 AM
Most home-grown terrorists don't have a criminal record or anything that would prevent them from buying a gun legally prior to the terrorist act. No need for a "loophole", the only loophole is in these people's brains.

cbrgator
June 10, 2011, 12:38 PM
Private sales do enable a person to purchase a firearm while bypassing a background check so i'm not sure why we are denying there is a loophole? We are not going to affect legislation by arguing semantics.

Private sales do not require a background check. Only sales from an FFL do. That is not a loophole. It's the letter of the law. The anti-gun crowd has sought to characterize this as a loophole by making people think that gun shows are the ONLY place you can guy a gun with no background check, as if somehow gun show sellers found a loophole in the law.

They also never mention that most sellers at gun shows are FFL's who do in fact conduct NICS checks. That fact is simply too inconvenient. We are not arguing semantics, we are arguing against a complete mischaracterization which resonates in peoples minds differently. Gun show loophole sounds more menacing than private sale. People hear loophole and automatically think "loopholes are bad . . . close it."

This is not different from labeling AR's and AK's assault weapons. The anti-gun crowd characterizes things to invoke a visceral negative response. Do not give in to them. Instead, educate everyone you can as to what the "gun show loophole" really is.

gc70
June 10, 2011, 12:41 PM
Private sales do enable a person to purchase a firearm while bypassing a background check so i'm not sure why we are denying there is a loophole? We are not going to affect legislation by arguing semantics.

loophole (http://www.investorwords.com/2894/loophole.html): An unintentional characteristic of a law which allows one to circumvent the law's intention without actually breaking that law.

Federal law requires licensed dealers conducting commercial sales to do background checks. There is no 'loophole' because that law was never intended to require background checks for private sales.

David E
June 10, 2011, 12:45 PM
The anti-gunners make it sound that a licensed dealer, when selling at a gunshow, inexplicably is not required to follow Federal law and can, only at a gunshow, sell guns without the required BG check. This is a LIE, not a loophole.

JustinJ
June 10, 2011, 02:10 PM
Loophole: A way of escaping a difficulty, especially an omission or ambiguity in the wording of a contract or law that provides a means of evading compliance.

The arguements i'm hearing about it not being a loophole could be applied to just about everything else commonly refferred to as a loophole. The law was intended to prevent people from purchasing a firearm who do not meet certain criteria. An ability to still do so because the law omits criminalization of private sells is by definition a loophole. One reason the law omits the outlaw of privates sells is that it would be essentially impossible to enforce without trampling even more rights. I think we are far better served in focusing on that point than arguing semantics.

Heretic
June 10, 2011, 04:05 PM
The supreme court decision "Mayberry vs Madison" says any law that stands contrary to the constitution is null and void and we have no obligation to obey it. If the criminals still try to enforce it, well..........

Steve 48
June 10, 2011, 04:23 PM
Agree 100%!!!! We should not budge one bit. If it were not for all those "marksmen" during WW2. the Japeneese would have invaded the mainland. We need to learn from history.

toivo
June 10, 2011, 04:38 PM
supreme court decision "Mayberry vs Madison"
It believe that's "Marbury vs Madison" -- just in case anybody's trying to Google it.

MtnCreek
June 10, 2011, 04:42 PM
The supreme court decision "Mayberry vs Madison" says any law that stands contrary to the constitution is null and void and we have no obligation to obey it. If the criminals still try to enforce it, well..........
Are you willing to be our Supreme Court test case?

dogtown tom
June 10, 2011, 11:32 PM
AlexanderA dogtown tom wrote:


Quote:
Federal law ALREADY ALLOWS anyone to get an FFL without a storefront and conduct business out of their home and at gunshows. A licensee may conduct business at his licensed premises AND a gunshow.

ATF will issue an FFL to anyone who can legally conduct business at their "licensed premises". IF you cannot operate a business from your home you need to change your city, state or county laws.

While this is technically true, it vastly understates the practical difficulties. In many, perhaps most, urban areas, due to local zoning, local business licensing requirements, fire regulations, inventory storage regulations, etc., it's nearly impossible to run a retail business -- especially a gun business -- out of one's home. (And -- let's face it -- for an individual, the idea of "changing the laws" is laughable.)
"Laughable"? Then move.


And the ATF, in issuing licenses, makes sure that all these local requirements are strictly complied with.
As THEY SHOULD! A licensed gun dealer doesn't get a pass on his local or state laws because it happens to inconvenience him. Either lobby for the law to change or vote with your feet and move where home based business is legal. I'm a strong believer in local government and if my town says no strip clubs next to my church, no hair salons or auto repair out of a single family home... BRAVO!..........those restrictions help keep my property values up. My town allows virtually any home based business....thats why I CHOSE to buy my home here rather than a few miles away.


But it reached the point where the increased fees, the increased "hassle factor," the increased inability to maintain a low profile in a generally anti-gun area, and things like liability insurance issues, were not outweighed by the small volume of business I was conducting. So I reluctantly decided to give up the licenses.
"Increased fees" drove you out? My gosh........it's $200 for the first three YEARS and $90 for the next three...........what exactly were you doing that couldn't cover that expense?:scrutiny: If your business volume was too small that is NOT the fault of ATF. Only yourself.



And I was not alone. Literally hundreds of thousands of "kitchen table FFL's" were driven out of business by ATF procedural and fee changes in the mid-1980's.
Yeah, ATF made all those dealers start following the law. Small things like getting sales tax permits and paying taxes. Bravo again. Many of those dealers weren't actually "engaging in the business", but using their FFL for personal use........something that is expressly prohibited on the application they completed. In essence, they lied on their application.



And this was entirely by design as part of the antigun agenda. The net effect was to change the entire retail side of the gun industry. I'll give you an example -- I would charge $10 for a transfer through my books (or even nothing for friends and regular customers). And lots of "kitchen table FFL's" were doing this, effectively making mail-order purchases easy and cheap. Naturally, the established brick-and-mortar gun stores hated us. They aligned themselves (knowingly or unknowingly) with the anti-gunners to destroy the "hobbyist" FFL movement.
Wow. Who do you dislike more? ATF or the "brick & mortar" gun stores?


Let me ask you -- where can an ordinary gun buyer get $10 transfers today?
Plano, Texas......fully half of my transfers are $10.:neener:

What I'm saying is that it should be part of the progun agenda to return the FFL licensing situation back to what it was circa 1980. Ordinary gun buyers would benefit and only the current "monopolistic" FFL holders would be adversely affected.
"Monopolistic"? Horsehockey. ATF will issue an FFL to ANYONE that can legally operate a business.

Prince Yamato
June 10, 2011, 11:42 PM
Can we all agree on one thing? Anytime and every time an anti starts a bill to ban something, we attach a poison pill to re-open the machine gun registry. I really want a machine gun at a fair price.

Carl N. Brown
June 10, 2011, 11:57 PM
Sam Stein, "White House Taking 'Seriously' Al Qaeda's Eying Of America's Gun Show Loophole", Huffington Post, 7 Jun 2011.
"You can go down to a gun show at the local convention center and come away with a fully automatic assault rifle without a background check and, most likely, without having to show an identification card," Gadahn added. "So what are you waiting for?"

The remarks alarmed gun control advocates, who have warned for years that lax background checks at gun shows provided the easiest of vehicles for terrorists (foreign or domestic) to get their hands on firearms.

This is gun control advocates selling manure: any bets that Adam Gadahn "Al Qaeda terrorist" is a clueless poseur wannabe or that his post is a YouTube hoax? When I want a sack of horse manure I'll go the local farms supply store.

FCOL it's Huffington Post.

ADDED: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Yahiye_Gadahn

Born Adam Pearlman, a Jewish-American, "Adam Yahiye Gadahn" converted to Islam and became a talking head for Al Aqaeda. This guy reminds me of Dan Burros http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Burros the infamous "Jewish Nazi" who hung out with George Lincoln Rockwell's American Nazi Party.

Adam has been in Pakistan making videos for Al Qaeda and has had how much experience buying machine guns at America gun shows? Yep, Obama administration gun control policies will be shaped by the rantings of a deluded fool.

LemmyCaution
June 11, 2011, 01:16 PM
Once again, al Qaida proves its brilliance in getting us to destroy our own liberties from within.

Neverwinter
June 11, 2011, 01:39 PM
Adam has been in Pakistan making videos for Al Qaeda and has had how much experience buying machine guns at America gun shows? Yep, Obama administration gun control policies will be shaped by the rantings of a deluded fool.
The Obama administration has been bowing to the rantings of deluded fools for many issues recently.

It may not have been a specific intention of Al Qaeda to rile up the xenophobic base, but they have been successful on that front. There was a lot of controversy over a mosque in New York. They've managed to get a portion of the US population to conflate all Islamic people to the murderers of 9/11.

Infowars post reference
The conspiracy theorists do not disappoint. They even played up the suspicious Jewish connections angle.

AlexanderA
June 11, 2011, 02:20 PM
Al Qaeda has been notoriously difficult for our side to infiltrate. Just speculating here, but if Adam Gadahn was really a mole working for us, he would have to prove his bona fides to them. Some statement about obtaining guns at U.S. gun shows is just glib enough to gain him points among al Qaeda leaders who think they know about the U.S. Things are often not what they seem.

Heretic
June 11, 2011, 03:00 PM
Toivo, looked that up, you're right. thanks!

Worse comes to worse, we all may end up being 2nd amendment test cases.

mustang_steve
June 11, 2011, 03:21 PM
edit: removed first half of post, it wasn't high road...my bad.

Personally, I think dropping a few poison pill amendments to any such bill would be good. One would be to repeal the hughes amendment. If that slips through, it could be fun.

If you enjoyed reading about "Be Aware of This and Make Your Legislators Aware" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!