Explain the "gun show" sales out of state, versus other FTF deals There.

[Sam1911]

He claims that this FTF business is why the gunshow loophole exists.

"This FTF business" -- in other words, private sales, whether they take place at a gun show, or your living room, or the men's room down at the bus station -- is what is called the "gun show loophole" by the anti-gun crowd. It isn't a loophole of any sort, as has already been explained.

(Loophole, to me, indicates that one has found a technical glitch in a law that allows one to circumvent the intent of the law without actually breaking that law.)

People who break the law by buying a firearm from a non-licensed individual outside their home state are not exploiting a "loophole" in the law -- because they aren't following the law at all!

People who break the law by buying a firearm when they are already a "Prohibited Person" are not exploiting a "loophole" in the law -- because they aren't following the law at all!

Again... WHERE is this loophole?

All the "GSL" really indicates are three things: 1) The misunderstanding of the majority of society about how gun laws work to begin with (in some ways evidenced in this very thread), and 2) The desire of the real anti-gun folks to make private sales of firearms illegal universally, using gun shows as a convenient starting point, and 3) The profound ability of those anti-gun types to create an issue of wide public concern out of nothing more than misunderstanding and disingenuous suggestions.

 

[eye5600]

Get a hold of yourself there Sam. No need to get all excited.

I was pointing out that the when the antis talk about the "loophole" (and I put it in quotes to indicate that it was questionable), they are talking about a situation that actually exists. You may not like the terminology, and you may not think it's a problem, but it's not a figment of the imagination. You may have seen the video that Bloomberg's agents got asking sellers at gun shows if they needed a NICS check (and said they couldn't pass one). That's what they are talking about.

I'm sorry to raise a ruckus by using the wrong terms for FTF, but the point is real. If you made a private deal, you may not sell to someone you know is a prohibited person. For me, that would require asking. For you, maybe not.

I will also point out that some states put limits on FTF sales. In Massachusetts, for example, the limit is four per year.

 

[NavyLCDR]

I was pointing out that the when the antis talk about the "loophole" (and I put it in quotes to indicate that it was questionable), they are talking about a situation that actually exists. You may not like the terminology, and you may not think it's a problem, but it's not a figment of the imagination. You may have seen the video that Bloomberg's agents got asking sellers at gun shows if they needed a NICS check (and said they couldn't pass one). That's what they are talking about.

Bloomberg's agents were not attempting to exploit any loophole in the law. Bloomberg's agents were attempting to incite sellers to make illegal transactions. There is whole world of difference there.

 

[Sam1911]

Get a hold of yourself there Sam. No need to get all excited.

Oh, I'm not excited, I'm only trying to share some truth, to help dissolve some of the misconceptions you've heard.

You may have seen the video that Bloomberg's agents got asking sellers at gun shows if they needed a NICS check (and said they couldn't pass one). That's what they are talking about.

As NavyLT well explained, that isn't some loophole in the law. That's folks breaking the law, clearly and completely, and some persons of questionable authority, integrity, and apparent immunity from prosecution aiding and in fact, instigating them to do so.

This is no more a "loophole" in the law than those same agents going to someone out in the sticks and asking them to grow pot or cook methamphetamine for them. "Hey, break the law, pleeeeeze? I'll make it worth your while...!" Guess we'd call that one the "Dumb Hillbilly Loophole?"

There is a difference between what is said in order to raise the ire of the uninformed masses and what is really happening.

----------------------

Look, here's a case in point: In Maryland, the law is stricter than in most places with regards to "regulated" firearms and "high-capacity" magazines. But the laws are very badly/ineffectively written. In one case, a Mini-14 with a folding stock is a "Regulated" firearm, meaning the sale must be subject to a background check and 7 (14 in reality) day waiting period. But a Mini-14 in a fixed stock, or without a stock, is a cash-and-carry sale. So, a dealer can offer to sell you a Mini-14 with a folding stock, remove it from its stock, sell you the rifle "over the counter" and then sell you the stock. No waiting period required. Put the rifle back together in the parking lot and head for the range. No laws are broken.

In the case of high-cap magazines, in MD it is illegal to buy, sell, rent, loan, give, offer to buy, offer to sell, etc., etc. any firearm magazine holding more than 20 rounds. But possession and use of them is legal. And...it is also legal to drive over the state line into PA, DE, VA, etc. and buy as many as you want there. Hence, there is no real prohibition on those magazines except on paper.

Those are examples of real "loopholes" in the law. The intent of the law is completely thwarted, but the law is not actually broken at all.

See the difference?

I'm sorry to raise a ruckus by using the wrong terms for FTF, but the point is real.

Nope, the point is sensationalism and misdirection. "We've GOT to close the LOOPHOLE!" is just a disingenuous subterfuge to convince Mr. and Mrs. America that there is some glaring need for a new law to make them safer, when the problem these folks are claiming to care about is already completely addressed by existing laws. The fact that the law may be ignored or ineffectively enforced is not mentioned. No, we need a NEW law that will solve this "problem" ... and, oh by the way, it will also rescind a few more degrees of the freedoms we have left. But that's o.k., right? Because this new law will finally make us safe because the dreaded "loophole" is closed.

Absurd. And clear, blatant propaganda. You can accomplish a lot more, politically, with lies and exaggerations and insinuations than you can with truth, clarity, and reason.

We should be careful with the words we use. Our opponents sure choose theirs with great care.

--------------------

If you made a private deal, you may not sell to someone you know is a prohibited person. For me, that would require asking. For you, maybe not.

So ask. That's fine, and your right. You ask, "are you a prohibited person?" They say, "No." You sell them the firearm. You're fulfilling the law -- completely. Now, is that a loophole in the law?

 

[Ignition Override]

I just read posts #13-#29. You gents all made excellent descriptions. Earlier, on the way to dinner another thought came to mind.

Despite the illegality of personal sales at gun shows nearby in MS, AL, or AR etc, is the so-called "loophole" really just something which the ATF does not want to bother with because of the expense, manpower and time required?

It's my impression that despite the prohibition, the ATF has chosen not to enforce such personal sales involving law-abiding US citizens (for decades?), which gives the image of clear toleration.

 

[Sam1911]

is the so-called "loophole" really just something which the ATF does not want to bother with because of the expense, manpower and time required?

Are you asking why the laws against sales between residents of different states are not more heavily enforced? Probably a mix of these reasons, and that we as a society really don't want government agents prying into private business and/or entrapping folks (a'la Bloomsburg's agents) into breaking the law. For arrests to be made, there is supposed to be some probable cause for an officer to believe that a specific person committed a specific crime. That requires elocutable evidence. Evidence that would presumably have to be obtained through either sting operations or surveillance of otherwise unoffensive private citizens, waiting to see if they to screw up. The public generally dislikes such things.

The so-called "loophole" which might have existed for decades (?) seems to consist of a total lack of enforcement, unless illegal aliens or felons seem to be the prospective buyers.

Well, it certainly didn't exist before 1968. Up to that time we got along just fine without having to have federal licenses to sell guns and prohibitions on whom could purchase them where. We had laws that prohibited crimes, not gun sales. Then we had a few high-profile murders of public figures and passed these laws to prevent folks from doing that kind of thing. (Buying and selling, that is -- can't pass a law that keeps anyone from murdering someone, obviously.)

But there isn't a total lack of enforcement. Folks do go to jail for these things, and frequently. The ATF does set up stings and busts. But, despite the Brady Bunch's hyperbole, private sales at gun shows don't keep them awake at nights. Jim from MI who sells Joe from AL a bolt-action rifle face-to-face is pretty small potatoes. Not only are their crimes hard to detect/prove, but the ATF really does have a lot more important things to do than try to nail a couple of good ol' boys who didn't know the law. They do catch a few from time to time, but they've got bigger fish to fry, generally. From time to time you'll read reports of someone convicted for buying tens or hundreds of Glocks or High Points and reselling them to local gang members or whatever. That's the stuff the ATF would rather spend their resources to stop.

 

[newfalguy101]

I didnt read all the post so this MAY have been addressed, its entirely possible that the guys buying guns outside in the line are FFL holders, which makes it legal, or they may be residents of the state and buying from other residents of the same state, again perfectly legal

 

[eye5600]

Are you asking why the laws against sales between residents of different states are not more heavily enforced?

A bunch of reasons.

I'm not sure of this but the law may not be broken until the gun is taken back to the home state. An NY resident may be able to buy and use a gun in Virginia legally, but have it become a crime only when he takes it home. Anyone know?

The Feds don't enforce state law and the states don't enforce Federal law. What happens at the gun show may not be a Federal violation. Again, I don't know if this is the case.

Law enforcement organizations divide their agents into groups looking for different crimes. Such a group will tend to ignore violations outside their area unless they are very serious. In the example cited above, the ATF guy was concerned with semi-auto rifles. It's like a vice cop not making a drug bust because he's looking for hookers.

There are a lot of laws that are not directly enforced unless the person is being prosecuted for some other crime. Then it's added on to increase the DAs bargaining power in plea negotiations, and/or to increase the sentence.

For example, you are not likely to get arrested for carrying an "illegal" knife, but if you have such a knife on you when arrested for something else, it makes things worse.

 

[dogtown tom]

eye5600 :....I'm not sure of this but the law may not be broken until the gun is taken back to the home state.

Nope. Federal law doesn't mention taking the gun back to your home state. As has been mentioned a half dozen times in this thread already.......Federal law prohibits the the transfer of firearms between nonlicensees who are not residents of the state where the sale occurs. The violation occurs at the time of sale.

 

[Sam1911]

I'm not sure of this but the law may not be broken until the gun is taken back to the home state. An NY resident may be able to buy and use a gun in Virginia legally, but have it become a crime only when he takes it home.

No, but I think I know what you're thinking of.
First off, a resident of one state MAY legally buy a long gun from a DEALER in another state, use it there, take it home, etc. (So long as the laws of both states are followed.)

NO resident of one state who is not an FFL dealer may sell a firearm to a resident of another state. The crime is two federal felonies -- one for the buyer, one for the seller, and the crime is the point of sale, not travel later.

Here's the weird one that might be what's confusing you: A resident of one state may sell a firearm to another resident of his state while both of them are in another state. However, federal law makes it illegal for the buyer to bring that firearm back into his home state. The seller is off the hook but the buyer is committing a felony.

The Feds don't enforce state law and the states don't enforce Federal law. What happens at the gun show may not be a Federal violation. Again, I don't know if this is the case.

I think we've covered this to the point of exhaustion. Federal law is all we're talking about here. If a resident of one state sells a gun to a resident of another state without going through a dealer for the transfer -- whether at a gun show or in one's living room -- both of them break federal law.

There are a lot of laws that are not directly enforced unless the person is being prosecuted for some other crime. Then it's added on to increase the DAs bargaining power in plea negotiations, and/or to increase the sentence.

And this is certainly true. "Gun crime" violations are the most plea-bargained-away crimes anywhere. It often seems the only way to get prosecuted for a gun crime is if there was nothing else that would stick.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Nope. Federal law doesn't mention taking the gun back to your home state

I am afraid you are mistaken.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000922----000-.html

(a) It shall be unlawful—

(3) for any person, other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector to transport into or receive in the State where he resides (or if the person is a corporation or other business entity, the State where it maintains a place of business) any firearm purchased or otherwise obtained by such person outside that State, except that this paragraph (A) shall not preclude any person who lawfully acquires a firearm by bequest or intestate succession in a State other than his State of residence from transporting the firearm into or receiving it in that State, if it is lawful for such person to purchase or possess such firearm in that State, (B) shall not apply to the transportation or receipt of a firearm obtained in conformity with subsection (b)(3) of this section, and (C) shall not apply to the transportation of any firearm acquired in any State prior to the effective date of this chapter;

Now... the seller commits the felony at the time of the sale:

(a) It shall be unlawful—

(5) for any person (other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector) to transfer, sell, trade, give, transport, or deliver any firearm to any person (other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector) who the transferor knows or has reasonable cause to believe does not reside in (or if the person is a corporation or other business entity, does not maintain a place of business in) the State in which the transferor resides;

 

[dogtown tom]

NavyLT

Quote:
Originally Posted by dogtown tom
Nope. Federal law doesn't mention taking the gun back to your home state

I am afraid you are mistaken.

Not in the context of his statement.
He is under the impression that no violation occurs until the firearm is transported back to his home state.
The violation occurs immediately on transfer between the two nonresidents.

Two different federal laws.

 

[22-rimfire]

Sam1911 said... When we beg the government to not pass new gun control legislation but to enforce existing gun laws, guess who those laws would be enforced upon? Those many thousands of "us," -- friends, brothers, hunting pals, grand-dads, ... even ourselves if we're not careful -- who never knew the law and assumed the law was "common sense" stuff that would really only effect "bad people." If we ever get past the "talking points" phase with our request that the gov't enforce existing laws, we're going to see a lot of perfectly innocuous people caught in a terrible place.

We owe it to ourselves and our shooting "community" as a whole to educate one another and make sure these "details" aren't STOP falling through the cracks.

This is so true. I recall years ago giving my Dad a revolver when I had moved away to another state. I was visiting and just handed it to him. Quite frankly, I didn't know the law at that time. It was not a common sense thing as common sense suggested that I could give my Dad anything I want to.

There has to be some easy way to educate the general population on this issue as enforcement could very easily implicate some very law abiding citizens who simply don't know the law.

NavyLt said...The private seller is actually under NO obligation to verify the state of residence of the buyer.

This is also true. The main liability is with the buyer if they mis-represent themselves for a FTF sale to an out of state resident.

I live in TN and I recall folks at gunshows saying they could get really good prices at shows on shotguns at GA shows. At that time I believed that it was legal to buy or sell long guns FTF in any state but not handguns. But it is legal to purchase directly from a FFL dealer.

Added: To me, it would be far easier to simply change the law to the following: FTF gun sales are legal between two people as long as the buyer is legally able to own the firearm in his state. Out of state sales at a FFL dealer are legal as long as the 4473 is completed and the buyer can own the firearm in his/her state and passes the NICS check. The NICS check is generally a national check. So it should work like a charm.