Be Aware of This and Make Your Legislators Aware

[DoubleTapDrew]

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

 

[CapnMac]

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]

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]

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]

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: 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

supreme court decision "Mayberry vs Madison"

It believe that's "Marbury vs Madison" -- just in case anybody's trying to Google it.

 

[MtnCreek]

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]

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? 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.

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]

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]

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]

Once again, al Qaida proves its brilliance in getting us to destroy our own liberties from within.

 

[Neverwinter]

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]

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]

Toivo, looked that up, you're right. thanks!

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

 

[mustang_steve]

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.