Gun show loophole?

[CoalTrain49]

Here's a few things to think about regarding UBC's:

1) A background check is just what it says it is, a check on a person's background. It has nothing to do with registration. It's proactive to prohibit people who shouldn't own a gun from acquiring one.

2) A registration of a firearm is not a background check. It's a database built to link firearms with people. It can lead to confiscation if abused. The stated purpose now is to link firearms to criminal activity which most LE agencies are in favor of. It's reactive. It does nothing to prohibit people from acquiring firearms.

3) The majority of people in the US want more background checks and just watching the progression of things I would say they will get them.

If you have a UBC that incorporates a registration it should be called a UBCR, not a UBC. Oregon has a UBCR. UBCR's are bad from the perspective that they facilitate way more than a background check, they facilitate registration.

The goal of the AG crowd is background checks and registration because registration can be used as a tool for confiscation. Once a firearm is declared illegal to own like the recently passed law in CT they want them collected and destroyed.

If we're going to debate the issue of background checks let's deal with that single issue and leave registration as another issue on the table. They are not the same thing.

 

[suemarkp]

The way this will work is over time. Once they pass universal background checks, any gun produced after that date must have had a BG check performed each time it changes hands. A universal BG check law was passed in WA last year.

I have my gun inventory marked as to which I had before the law and which got acquired after. True, the older ones you could have sold before the law took effect so those can shirk the system. Newer ones can't. This is similar to the way a C&R FFL can shirk the BG check for guns 50 years old or older.

It could increase the value of guns owned before the effective date. But some will be afraid of sting operations catching people who try and shirk the BG check law. I would hope the authorities have better things to do...

Finally, there may still be loop holes. In WA, a gun inherited skips the BG check, but unfortunately not pistol registration. A gun gifted to a direct family member is also exempted from both the BG check and registration.

 

[lysanderxiii]

There are a few reasons other than "being a bad guy", often an administrative foul-ups. The FFL I usually go to say she has seen that happen. After a few weeks of phone calls by the "non-passee" to the powers-that-be and sending proof that he does not have any criminal background, does not beat his wife and isn't crazy, the system gets straighten out and the guy comes back and passes and gets to buy the gun.

 

[medalguy]

Can anyone give me an example of where someone that can't pass a NICS check should/would/could be in legal possession of a firearm in the first place??

Sure. Say you legally own a firearm, and are subsequently convicted of a felony or DV crime. You are allowed to dispose of those firearms, but you could not have them transferred back to you by an FFL doing a NICS check.

BTW I've asked numerous antigun folks to please articulate exactly what the "gun show loophole" is, and they can't.

 

[CoalTrain49]

Follow the cash flow.
And I know a number of FFLs that truly resent unlicensed folks being allowed to sell firearms. After all the FFLs have to buy the license, keep a storefront and retain the records. Also allowing the agents of the BATFE access to said record.
All that costs or earns the FFL cash. Especially when the FFL can turn a profit from a $50.00 transfer that the FFLs actual cost is $8.00 to $9.00 in some cases. (see above chart)

My dealer doesn't have to keep a storefront, he does it from his home. He charges $25 per firearm. He runs a NICS check, checks your ID and logs the firearm. Takes about 10 minutes of his time. That's about $150 an hour if he did it full time but he doesn't. He does about 500 transactions a year. That's about $12000 a year free and clear. For a retired guy that isn't a bad supplemental income. He gets busier every year since the UBC went into effect last year. The state (sales tax) and the FFL's love UBC's.

 

[txblackout]

Here's a few things to think about regarding UBC's:

1) A background check is just what it says it is, a check on a person's background. It has nothing to do with registration. It's proactive to prohibit people who shouldn't own a gun from acquiring one.

2) A registration of a firearm is not a background check. It's a database built to link firearms with people. It can lead to confiscation if abused. The stated purpose now is to link firearms to criminal activity which most LE agencies are in favor of. It's reactive. It does nothing to prohibit people from acquiring firearms.

3) The majority of people in the US want more background checks and just watching the progression of things I would say they will get them.

If you have a UBC that incorporates a registration it should be called a UBCR, not a UBC. Oregon has a UBCR. UBCR's are bad from the perspective that they facilitate way more than a background check, they facilitate registration.

The goal of the AG crowd is background checks and registration because registration can be used as a tool for confiscation. Once a firearms is declared illegal to own like the recently passed law in CT they want them collected and destroyed.

If we're going to debate the issue of background checks let's deal with that single issue and leave registration as another issue on the table. They are not the same thing.

They are the same thing because you cannot enforce background checks on face to face sales without registration

 

[Deanimator]

If we're going to debate the issue of background checks let's deal with that single issue and leave registration as another issue on the table. They are not the same thing.

Let's not. I certainly won't because they are INEXTRICABLY LINKED.

Any "universal" background check is an UTTER NULLITY without registration. Otherwise there's simply NO way to know if it's being done.

That is a simple, undeniable fact.

 

[CoalTrain49]

Any "universal" background check is an UTTER NULLITY without registration. Otherwise there's simply NO way to know if it's being done.

What kind of registry are we talking about here?

Are we talking about the dealer's FFL hard copy or are we talking about a state digital database.

The federal registry is hard copy in 149,000 different places and can be accessed one FFL at a time only where the FFL keeps the records. A state digital registry is in one place and can be accessed with a computer by any agency in the country including the FBI. See any difference there? I certainly do.

If you have a choice which would you rather have, a UBC without a digital registry or one with a digital registry? The NICS is a background check without a digital registry by federal law. Oregon is a background check with a digital registry by state law.

 

[larryh1108]

"Gun Show Loophole" - Phrase the MSM and politicians use to make it seem like anyone can go to a gun show and buy any gun they want without fear of being turned down.
(Obviously not true).

"Assault Weapon" - Phrase used by the MSM and politicians to make any evil looking black rifle illegal to own because it's like the machine guns all the bad guys use on tv and in the movies. You know, the ones that fire full auto for 500+ rounds without reloading.
(Obviously not true)

"Common Sense Gun Laws" - Phrase used by the MSM and politicians to make gun owners and the NRA look like a bunch of crazed killers because we don't want laws that obviously are "common sense)
(Obviously not true)

Moral of the story? The MSM and politicians are using false phrases to conjure up fears and to paint all gun owners as radicals to the uninformed and ignorant, to persuade them to vote for any and all anti-gun legislation. It's propaganda in a pure form.

If they say it enough times, it must be true, right?

 

[yugorpk]

My "dealer " doesnt have a storefront either. He also charges $25 to do a BG check with the state ( who does contact the NICS system ) . The last one I did had to wait three hours in his living room while the queue ticked down from 150 people. One of the reasons I am moving out of Oregon.

 

[Trunk Monkey]

Well now we need 100% gun registration. That's the next step. And we know what comes next.

Seriously?

You just now figured this out? This is the main reason Colorado's UBC law is considered unenforceable.

Gun grabbers are idiots but they're not stupid

 

[CoalTrain49]

any gun produced after that date must have had a BG check performed each time it changes hands.

Guns don't get BC's, people do. Guns can't fill out the paperwork. WA law doesn't say a gun has to get a BC, it says

the purchaser or seller or transferee or transferor is in Washington, shall be subject to background checks unless specifically exempted by state or federal law.

That would be a person.

 

[jim in Anchorage]

edit.

 

[natman]

The "Gun Show Loophole" has nothing to do with Gun Shows and it's not a loophole, it's a deliberately designed feature of the law. The whole idea behind the Gun Control Act of 1968 was to make sure that the laws of the individual states were followed during transfers between states and to allow the individual states to decide whether or not to require the services of an FFL for transfers within a state.

Some states have chosen to require background checks for transfers within the state. Most states have chosen not to. Proponents of Universal Background Checks want the Federal government to override the wishes of the individual states. This is a huge concession. What are the anti-liberty folks offering in return? As usual, nothing.

 

[JSH1]

My dealer doesn't have to keep a storefront, he does it from his home. He charges $25 per firearm. He runs a NICS check, checks your ID and logs the firearm. Takes about 10 minutes of his time. That's about $150 an hour if he did it full time but he doesn't. He does about 500 transactions a year. That's about $12000 a year free and clear. For a retired guy that isn't a bad supplemental income. He gets busier every year since the UBC went into effect last year. The state (sales tax) and the FFL's love UBC's.

Same thing for my FFL. He works out of his house doing transfers and selling guns (shipped from a distributor, he doesn't keep inventory on hand). The last time I visited him for a transfer on a gun purchased out of state I was the 36th transfer he completed that day. He changes $25 but $10 goes to the State of Oregon. 36 x $15 = $540. Not a bad day's work!

They are the same thing because you cannot enforce background checks on face to face sales without registration

Yes, they go hand in hand. You cannot enforce background checks without keeping a record of the checks. I live in Oregon, the state has records of every gun I have purchased. No big deal.

 

[TruthTellers]

"Gun show loophole" pfft! I gotta hand it to the left, they are masters of twisting language and perpetuating it for decades to drill it into the minds of low intelligence voters that something is an issue and, even if it takes a long time, it gets the desired results.

The reason that non-issues like this become crises is because half the US are the dumbest people on the planet.

 

[yugorpk]

"Gun show loophole" pfft! I gotta hand it to the left, they are masters of twisting language and perpetuating it for decades to drill it into the minds of low intelligence voters that something is an issue and, even if it takes a long time, it gets the desired results.

The reason that non-issues like this become crises is because half the US are the dumbest people on the planet.

Half the the people in the U.S. have IQ's under 100 !

 

[gbran]

Most states do not require forearms registration and in those states I don't know how gov't could know of any specific firearms transactions.

Here in CA we have registration for handguns and long guns. We also cannot conduct most face to face private party sales..... gotta use an FFL.

Our gunshows have booths where PP transfers take place (includes 10 day waiting period)

 

[Steel Horse Rider]

JSH1: So you are comfortable in the integrity of the politicians and bureaucrats who run your state? I know I can't make a statement like that concerning the local, state, or federal politicians and bureaucrats I know. There is no good reason for a government to possess information relating to your personal property unless they want to tax or seize it.
The fact that people do not have a healthy distrust of the political machine is why this country is teetering on the edge of the abyss at this present time.

 

[CoalTrain49]

Most states do not require forearms registration and in those states I don't know how gov't could know of any specific firearms transactions.

The fed requires it in every state for new firearms. Ever look at the back of a 4473? Dealer puts the firearms info on it and files it away. ATF keeps a record of all gun mgf. shipments. If a gun is shipped to a dealer they have SN, description and what dealer it was shipped to. If ATF has a question about who purchased it they come around and look at the books. Since the fed doesn't require private sales to be handled by FFL and some states don't either, they have no record of it.

 

[jim in Anchorage]

They are the same thing because you cannot enforce background checks on face to face sales without registration

Yes. This is what I was getting at. If no one knows I own a gun how can anyone know I sold it- without registration?
And all this nitpicking about "types of registration" is silly. A gun I signed for and bought from a FFL 20 years ago may have changed hands 5 times since I sold it.
My point is "universal background checks" MUST be followed by gun by gun registration.

 

[CoalTrain49]

JSH1: So you are comfortable in the integrity of the politicians and bureaucrats who run your state? I know I can't make a statement like that concerning the local, state, or federal politicians and bureaucrats I know. There is no good reason for a government to possess information relating to your personal property unless they want to tax or seize it.
The fact that people do not have a healthy distrust of the political machine is why this country is teetering on the edge of the abyss at this present time.

Some people trust gov't and some don't. Having worked for the gov't I can see why some people don't trust them. Usually they wake up when it's too late.

 

[JSH1]

JSH1: So you are comfortable in the integrity of the politicians and bureaucrats who run your state? I know I can't make a statement like that concerning the local, state, or federal politicians and bureaucrats I know. There is no good reason for a government to possess information relating to your personal property unless they want to tax or seize it.
The fact that people do not have a healthy distrust of the political machine is why this country is teetering on the edge of the abyss at this present time.

Yes, I'm comfortable with my state knowing what guns I own. I'm also comfortable with them knowing the property I own, and what vehicles I own.

The good reason for law enforcement to keep track of background checks and gun sales is to be able to track down straw purchasers. Why do FFL's have to keep records? To keep them from selling to prohibited people. Why don't prohibited people buy from gun dealers? They can't pass the background check and dealer won't sell it to them because the dealer has to account for the gun leaving his store to a legal buyer.

As to seizing, if the guns I own get banned, I've already lost. At that point they become useless because I can't use them in public. A registration isn't required to ban guns. Australia didn't have a registry before their big ban.

 

[jim in Anchorage]

Seriously?

You just now figured this out? This is the main reason Colorado's UBC law is considered unenforceable.

Gun grabbers are idiots but they're not stupid

Yeah I just now figured it out

 

[steelerdude99]

...
The good reason for law enforcement to keep track of background checks and gun sales is to be able to track down straw purchasers. Why do FFL's have to keep records? To keep them from selling to prohibited people. Why don't prohibited people buy from gun dealers? They can't pass the background check and dealer won't sell it to them because the dealer has to account for the gun leaving his store to a legal buyer.

...

I don't believe FFLs keep records to "To keep them from selling to prohibited people". They keep them as an FFL record keeping requirement. FFLs are not law enforcement. US government investigates an FFL's records when investigating specific crime or just a potential "bad sale" so that they know if and when a "bad sale" was made and to whom. A "bad sale" being a sale where the firearm ended up in the hands of a prohibited person.

Like a restraining order, record keeping does not STOP an action; it's evidence of when an action is in violation.

chuck