Can I buy a Barrett 50 Cal at a gun show in most states without filling out a 4473? Yes or no ? As a buyer I could give a flip what your dealer or seller status is. You can call yourself the tooth fairy for all I care. Fact remains is that there are still plenty of "sellers" out there who are actually dealers operating without a license.
El Chapo Had A Fast and Furious Barrett .50 Cal
- Thread starter vtail
- Start date
- Status
Can I buy a Barrett 50 Cal at a gun show in most states without filling out a 4473? Yes or no ? As a buyer I could give a flip what your dealer or seller status is. You can call yourself the tooth fairy for all I care. Fact remains is that there are still plenty of "sellers" out there who are actually dealers operating without a license.
danez71
Member
No one said that or anything close to that.
The closest thing said was that there isn't a gun show loophole.
Despite what youve posted, buying a gun fom a dealer without a BGC, as you stated, is illegal whether if it was done at a store or a gunshow and regardless of which state it was done in.
That's illegal.... not a loophole.
Yes. They did.
"Every gun that I have ever purchased at a gun show required a background check. There is no gunshow loophole."
This suggests that every gun that is purchased at gun shows requires a background check which is simply not true.
OK, what it really says is that person did a BG check for every gun he purchased . True statement . There is no gun show loophole. The term "gunshow loophole" is just a marketing term so that is also a true statement. Yep. Looks like I was wrong. Sellers are not dealers so I am also wrong there. Its a whole pile of semantics.
I can still buy a Barret 50 cal at a gun show in most states without a background check.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Ok, just for clarity and to head off further arguments:
The definition of a "loophole" is a detail of a law that allows the intent of that law to be skirted without technically violating that law.
1) There isn't a gun show "loophole" at all, period. A licensee (FFL) has to do the whole 4473 form and check, period. A private citizen selling his or her firearm does not (in most states). That isn't a loophole, that's the law.
2) A prohibited person buying a firearm from ANYBODY, including a private citizen not required to do a background check is not taking advantage of a "loophole". He's simply breaking the law.
3) An FFL dealer at a gun show -- or anywhere else -- selling firearms without filling out the 4473 and doing the check is BREAKING THE LAW.
4) A person who is NOT licensed as an FFL, but who is selling guns as a regular course of business, is acting as an unlicensed dealer and is BREAKING THE LAW.
5) The folks doing that sort of thing are the only folks at all likely to get caught up by the President's new executive actions, if they have any effect at all. BECAUSE THEY'RE ALREADY BREAKING THE LAW.
The definition of a "loophole" is a detail of a law that allows the intent of that law to be skirted without technically violating that law.
1) There isn't a gun show "loophole" at all, period. A licensee (FFL) has to do the whole 4473 form and check, period. A private citizen selling his or her firearm does not (in most states). That isn't a loophole, that's the law.
2) A prohibited person buying a firearm from ANYBODY, including a private citizen not required to do a background check is not taking advantage of a "loophole". He's simply breaking the law.
3) An FFL dealer at a gun show -- or anywhere else -- selling firearms without filling out the 4473 and doing the check is BREAKING THE LAW.
4) A person who is NOT licensed as an FFL, but who is selling guns as a regular course of business, is acting as an unlicensed dealer and is BREAKING THE LAW.
5) The folks doing that sort of thing are the only folks at all likely to get caught up by the President's new executive actions, if they have any effect at all. BECAUSE THEY'RE ALREADY BREAKING THE LAW.
danez71
Member
They are breaking the law. They didn't cleverly find a loophole.
I'm glad that you seem to be able to identify which sellers are actually Dealers.....
.... But I'm saddened that you partake in dubious transactions from sellers that you believe are actually dealers and breaking the law.
Cheer up. Its OK.
danez71
Member
You're right.
What's one more example of another illegal gun purchase by someone that knows better...
Don't confuse an illegal purchase with an illegal sale.You're right.
What's one more example of another illegal gun purchase by someone that knows better...
Vern Humphrey
Member
If in the course of a sting operation, a law enforcement officer deliberately murders an innocent civilian, is that LEO immune to prosecution?
If in the course of a sting operation, a law enforcement officer deliberately transfers weapons to a drug cartel, and one of those weapons is used to murder a Federal agent, is that LEO immune to prosecution?
Vern Humphrey
Member
Error in post. Misread the original.
danez71
Member
I see you like playing the word game.
You rail against dealers trying to skirt the law by calling themselves sellers.... but try to absolve yourself by playing the 'illegal seller vs illegal buyer' game
Per your posts, an illegal gun transfer took place that you knowingly
participated in.
You knowingly participated in a Federal crime which also shows intention.
You are literally 50% of the problem you described.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Now hold on. That's not QUITE true.
If this was the case of a seller knowingly selling a gun to a prohibited person, or someone from out of his/her state, that would be true. Both parties are liable for violations.
The crime of acting as an unlicensed seller isn't dependent on any one sale or any action by the buyer. The buyer is not qualified, able, authorized, or duty bound to judge whether seller is "acting as a dealer" or not. The buyer's legal exposure here would appear to be limited to some sort of a conspiracy or collusion charge, but I'm not heard of any such thing being applied in the case of someone buying a gun from someone at a gun show.
Now, you may feel that the buyer "should have known" or even DID know that -- in his opinion at that moment -- the seller was acting as a dealer, and so should have avoided that sale, but the sale WASN'T necessarily an illegal one.
If that seller was not federally licensed, then he or she was perfectly within their rights to sell a gun to another non-licensed resident of their state without a 4473 form and check. (Assuming state laws were followed.)
Whether the totality of their sales and behaviors, on that day and other days taken all together, constituted dealing without a license is a matter between them and the BATFE, not the buyer.
If this was the case of a seller knowingly selling a gun to a prohibited person, or someone from out of his/her state, that would be true. Both parties are liable for violations.
The crime of acting as an unlicensed seller isn't dependent on any one sale or any action by the buyer. The buyer is not qualified, able, authorized, or duty bound to judge whether seller is "acting as a dealer" or not. The buyer's legal exposure here would appear to be limited to some sort of a conspiracy or collusion charge, but I'm not heard of any such thing being applied in the case of someone buying a gun from someone at a gun show.
Now, you may feel that the buyer "should have known" or even DID know that -- in his opinion at that moment -- the seller was acting as a dealer, and so should have avoided that sale, but the sale WASN'T necessarily an illegal one.
If that seller was not federally licensed, then he or she was perfectly within their rights to sell a gun to another non-licensed resident of their state without a 4473 form and check. (Assuming state laws were followed.)
Whether the totality of their sales and behaviors, on that day and other days taken all together, constituted dealing without a license is a matter between them and the BATFE, not the buyer.
As I buyer I have no legal requirement of ensuring a seller follows inconsistent and vague federal laws concerning the requirement a seller must follow prior to be being required to get an FFL. I have not participated in any federal crime. As has been pointed out many times the law on whether a seller needs to get an FFL is vague and up to the ATF for enforcement and when they want to require a license. Its still that way. There is no number threshold.
Deanimator
Member
"Fast & Furious" was no more of a "sting" operation than Gleiwitz.
It was what the Soviets called a "provocation", intended to generate support for a renewed "assault weapon" ban.
EVERYBODY involved, from Holder on down should be indicted for crimes ranging from providing firearms to a prohibited person to murder.
That these wretches have NOT been prosecuted is proof of a pervasive culture of corruption in the Department of "Justice".
Ranger Roberts
Become a THR contributing member!
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2012
- Messages
- 1,091
tarosean said:
Thanks! Good eye!
Spooler41
Member
Deanimator. pretty much has it right. All parties from Obama/Holder on
down to the mules who hauled the firearms across the boarder are guilty
of massive international arms transfer laws. There were no US export
papers, no Mexican import papers and no international arms transfer paper
work. All of this system of transfer paper work is required to legally move
firearms across an international boarder, anyone with a hand in this transaction
is guilty of high crime.
.......................... Jack
down to the mules who hauled the firearms across the boarder are guilty
of massive international arms transfer laws. There were no US export
papers, no Mexican import papers and no international arms transfer paper
work. All of this system of transfer paper work is required to legally move
firearms across an international boarder, anyone with a hand in this transaction
is guilty of high crime.
.......................... Jack
Deanimator
Member
No, it's a criminal conspiracy.
There's no evidence that there was EVER any intent to "track" ANYTHING.
The REAL intent was for guns originating in the United States to be "found" at crime scenes in Mexico.
It was a false flag operation and NOTHING else.
The only thing missing is the involvement of Alfred Naujocks.
Anyone that thinks the US government needed to smuggle guns into Mexico so they could be found there has never crossed the US / Mexico border. I worked for a company that has a plant in Juarez. There is absolutely no checks going from the USA to Mexico. No passport control and no customs. Pay the toll and drive across.
It was common knowledge that if you had parts or tooling that needed to get there fast don't ship them to the plant. They might get held up for a week or more in customs. Instead ship them to an engineers house in El Paso and have him drive them across.
It was common knowledge that if you had parts or tooling that needed to get there fast don't ship them to the plant. They might get held up for a week or more in customs. Instead ship them to an engineers house in El Paso and have him drive them across.
Deanimator
Member
Given the numbers involved, it's obvious that Obama and Holder wanted to leave nothing to chance.
It was essential to send ENOUGH guns so that a result was guaranteed.
If an American LEO should happen to die, you can't make an "assault weapons" ban without breaking a few eggs. Thousands of MEXICANS? That's not even a consideration.
danez71
Member
Well, possibly not. I don't know all of the details. And its the internet
But I think its more true than not.
You mentioned conspiring and colluding but you could add aiding, firearms diversion/trafficking, and maybe more......
Lets go back to what yugorpk wrote.
He out-ed himself.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Ok, but HE doesn't know whether they are dealers or not. All he knows is that they were sellers.
It won't be his decision, and it COULDN'T be his call, whether those guys were secretly license holders but chose to break the law and not require him to fill out the 4473 and run the check, or unlicensed and acting as dealers illegally, or unlicensed and acting within the fuzzy lines the BATFE draws for itself.
Even if he'd sat there and counted how many guns they had for sale (or how many they actually sold, or how many times they showed up at shows, etc.) he couldn't make that determination because there is no set number or threshold.
It won't be his decision, and it COULDN'T be his call, whether those guys were secretly license holders but chose to break the law and not require him to fill out the 4473 and run the check, or unlicensed and acting as dealers illegally, or unlicensed and acting within the fuzzy lines the BATFE draws for itself.
Even if he'd sat there and counted how many guns they had for sale (or how many they actually sold, or how many times they showed up at shows, etc.) he couldn't make that determination because there is no set number or threshold.
Yes, I outed myself . I have indeed bought guns from dealers selling guns without paperwork. The same guys at all the shows with tables full of guns. Several times. As have many others. Note that I did not say FFL licensed dealers. "Sellers" or "Dealers" is a matter of semantics and enforcement of vague laws administered by the ATF but an FFL Licensee is just that. Whether the ATF had a problem with them selling at gun shows like that I couldnt care less. It was not my problem then. Times change and my state now requires UBC so the good old days are over. Federally though there is still no requirement that a "seller" run a background check for anything sold at a gun show unless he is a licensee . Lots of states have the same guys show up every week at shows with the same guns buying and selling. Happens from houses too. Still happens today. Its the ATF that will determine whether a seller needs to have a license. Not me.
I know. Being wrong sucks. Admitting you are wrong is even harder.
People were arrested, indicted, convicted, and sentenced as a result of Fast and Furious.
- Status