Gun show loophole?

[steelerdude99]

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.

Not only that, in 1968 laws were a series of compromises. In the GCA of 68 for registration to be specifically mentioned and NOT permitted, it must have been needed to get the bill passed. I have to assume that means there are those who wanted registration and those who were dead set against it. So, when GCA of 68 passed, "private sales" are NOT federally prohibited and it was illegal to setup a federal registry of what firearms an individual owned.

It started the fight by gun control zealots who wanted the registration in the first place that has gone on for some 47 years. That's over two generations. At the time, I was only concerned with who had my Crayola crayons and failed to write my congressman.

chuck

 

[Deanimator]

If you have a choice which would you rather have, a UBC without a digital registry or one with a digital registry?

Which would you rather have cut off, your right or left leg?

I choose "none of the above".

There's literally no way to tell if a background check was done on a private sale without REGISTRATION.

NO, I REFUSE.

 

[Deanimator]

Yes, I'm comfortable with my state knowing what guns I own.

Then you're "comfortable" with their future confiscation.

 

[JSH1]

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

The Federal government requires FFLs to track every gun in and out of their inventory to deter them from selling to prohibited people. That is the purpose of the record keeping. The requirement to account for every gun and every sale is a very strong deterrent against selling to prohibited people because then the FFl would have to create a false paper trail for that gun.

Then you're "comfortable" with their future confiscation.

Again, if my guns are banned in the future then the battle is already lost. That is the battle we need to be fighting, the battle against potential gun bans not trying to hide them after a ban.

 

[DanTheFarmer]

Good Morning All,

Contrary view here (at least partially).
Those who state (correctly) that to be completely effective a UBC system would need a registration system to support overlook an important fact. The vast majority of us gun owners voluntarily follow the law. If there were a law requiring requiring gun owners to call an 800 number to conduct an instant background check on a prospective buyer most of us would do so, and the bad guys know that.

Think about prescription pain killers. I've had some pretty potent stuff on hand after an operation or two and never even considered selling what was left over after I recovered. Could I have done so? Sure, but being the clean-living person that I am I chose not do so.

Having a UBC without a registration would not be completely effective but it probably would drive illegal private sales to the seedy side of town. Is that enough to cut down on street crime? That's very debatable.

Dan

 

[Deanimator]

Again, if my guns are banned in the future then the battle is already lost.

When you're fighting a war, you don't win it by prepositioning supplies for the enemy or clearing your OWN minefields for him.

Registration of firearms at ANY level has ONE purpose and ONE purpose alone: the facilitation of future bans and confiscation.

Tell everybody how Chicago implemented its handgun BAN.

NO, I REFUSE.

 

[Deanimator]

Having a UBC without a registration would not be completely effective but it probably would drive illegal private sales to the seedy side of town.

So-called "universal background checks" aren't an end, but merely a means. They're doomed to fail, which is their purpose. Not only will they not prevent any meaningful number of crimes, they're not even intended to. They're only intended to grease the skids for the next step.

The REAL end is registration which sets up future bans and confiscations.

Falling for that would require me to trust the second biggest pack of pathological liars on the planet, namely the anti-gun cult. They're surpassed only by Holocaust deniers, and then not by much.

 

[Praxidike]

Good Morning All,

Contrary view here (at least partially).
Those who state (correctly) that to be completely effective a UBC system would need a registration system to support overlook an important fact. The vast majority of us gun owners voluntarily follow the law. If there were a law requiring requiring gun owners to call an 800 number to conduct an instant background check on a prospective buyer most of us would do so, and the bad guys know that.

Think about prescription pain killers. I've had some pretty potent stuff on hand after an operation or two and never even considered selling what was left over after I recovered. Could I have done so? Sure, but being the clean-living person that I am I chose not do so.

Having a UBC without a registration would not be completely effective but it probably would drive illegal private sales to the seedy side of town. Is that enough to cut down on street crime? That's very debatable.

Dan

Just about all of the mass shooters passed background checks, and in states with the most gun crime, they already have UBC and/or the perpetrators are too young to own a handgun to begin with. The people selling firearms to drug dealers and inner-city teens don't care about the law.

Your whole premise is based on your acceptance of the Antis' rhetoric.

Dan...Where are most gun crimes that involve prohibited individuals occurring? New York, Chicago, California, DC, etc correct? Aren't private sales already illegal in these areas? How is forcing people in other states where private sales are legal AND gun crime is extremely low going to help stop people in state's where private sales are already illegal from obtaining firearms???? Do facts not matter to you?

One last question Dan. If you buy into the rhetoric that Antis want UBC to prevent criminals from getting guns and that's their main good faith goal. Then why after every shooting recently (whether it be a high profile mass shooting or not) where the facts of the case are that the shooter used a handgun that was legally purchased from a FFL, gun control proponents and the media start pushing for UBC and assult weapons bans?

 

[steelerdude99]

The Federal government requires FFLs to track every gun in and out of their inventory to deter them from selling to prohibited people. That is the purpose of the record keeping. The requirement to account for every gun and every sale is a very strong deterrent against selling to prohibited people because then the FFL would have to create a false paper trail for that gun.

...

A deterrence does NOT equate to stopping an action. If everyone plays by the rules, the CGA of 68 works. The “If everyone plays by the rules” phase was put at the start of that last sentence to make it is known that not everyone does. That is why I specifically used the example of a restraining order. It deters by taking someone of the street who violates it (eventually... maybe). BUT it does not STOP a person from stalking and threatening, injuring or killing their targeted individual(s).

Similar to buying a gun though an FFL. Someone can be on drugs or having emotional issues and just be fed up with someone or a group. They can lie on the 4473. Yet the media says that those who committed crimes and purchased a firearm “bought their firearms legally”. They correct term is that they were not stopped from buying a gun through a dealer. They did not buy it legally; they lied on a 4473 and bought it illegally. Or they can have someone buy for them illegally via a straw purchase. By the way, the definitions of the words “can” and “may” come into play here. They are not the same, but are often used interchangeably.

I can’t for the life of me understand the motivation for someone who performs the purchase in straw purchases. You can bet that that gun will be used illicitly. And there is a “decent chance” that it will come back to bite them in the backside. The purchaser put their name on the paperwork. I can almost understand (not agree with… just understand) why they would straw purchase to a stranger, for more $$$.

chuck

 

[steelerdude99]

So-called "universal background checks" aren't an end, but merely a means. They're doomed to fail, which is their purpose. Not only will they not prevent any meaningful number of crimes, they're not even intended to. They're only intended to grease the skids for the next step.

The REAL end is registration which sets up future bans and confiscations.

...

Would the REAL end be confiscations and "registration" be another means? In different terminology: Firearms registration is significant milestone, but the GOAL of anti-gun'ers is private gun confiscation.

 

[JSH1]

Why do people do a straw purchase for someone else? For the money and because the chance of getting caught is very low.

 

[Praxidike]

Why do people do a straw purchase for someone else? For the money and because the chance of getting caught is very low.

No, the chances of being prosecuted via laws that are already on the books are low.

Why do drug dealers and prostitutes stand on public street corners with a pocket full of drugs and money or half necked soliciting clients, respectively? Is it because of a lack of laws making it more illegal or the chances of getting caught is low, or is it because the payout is worth the risk to them? Using your logic, maybe if we make selling drugs and sex more illegal than it already is as well as getting tougher and upping the risk factor of getting caught, the drug and sex trade in this country will dwindle down to nothing as well...

 

[CoalTrain49]

The Federal government requires FFLs to track every gun in and out of their inventory to deter them from selling to prohibited people. That is the purpose of the record keeping. The requirement to account for every gun and every sale is a very strong deterrent against selling to prohibited people because then the FFl would have to create a false paper trail for that gun.

You can't be serious. I know an FFL that sells 20 guns on a good day. If the 4473 is filled out correctly and he gets a proceed that gun is out the door. If you check the wrong box they point it out and have you change and initial it. The FFL has no legal responsibility to insure that those guns aren't being sold to a prohibited person. The only legal responsibility they have is that the paperwork be filled out correctly, they check your DL to verify your ID place a call to NICS and log the gun as sold to whoever. If this guy were doing it illegally he would have been out of business a long time ago. As it is he is the largest gun dealer in the area. Most FFL's know the rules and they do exactly what they are supposed to do to make a sale and nothing more. Mostly it's just a matter of filling out the paperwork, checking an ID, making a call and logging a gun if they get a proceed. They do exactly what they need to do to keep their license, nothing more. They don't have a clue if a person is lying on a 4473, only a NCIC check will determine that.

There's a case right now in the news that will determine that. Sorry, I don't have a link.

 

[X-Rap]

Prosecution for sale in a state like CO without a background check will likely never happen until the gun you sell in a ftf ends up in a headline grabbing crime.
When the history is tracked back to you and you brought post new UBC law you'll have more legal problems than you can imagine and don't be surprised if you end up as the poster child of gun law violators.

 

[yugorpk]

I can’t for the life of me understand the motivation for someone who performs the purchase in straw purchases. You can bet that that gun will be used illicitly. And there is a “decent chance” that it will come back to bite them in the backside. The purchaser put their name on the paperwork. I can almost understand (not agree with… just understand) why they would straw purchase to a stranger, for more $$$.

chuck

A lot of people have nothing but a clean record and thats only because they have never been caught. They have nothing to lose and they live in a world full of criminals and a few hundred bucks is a lot more to them than it is to you. They know hardly anyone gets caught or prosecuted for gun crimes. Remember that you are only a criminal on record AFTER you get caught. Most probably do not get caught for a long time if ever.

If I am a scumbag and I buy a gun for someone else who then commits a crime with it I only have to say that that I sold the gun a long time ago. No paper trail after that. Prove it was a straw purchase.

 

[Deanimator]

Would the REAL end be confiscations and "registration" be another means?

Registration is the root kit for the 2nd Amendment.

Without registration, nobody knows for sure, who has what and where.

Without registration, you don't have the tools that you need to implement a Chicago style ban on anything.

Without registration, you're forced to do random, warrantless searches, something that didn't fly even in Chicago.

With registration, you can TARGET you searches and confiscations.

With registration, you can collect punitive taxes from INDIVIDUALS.

With registration, you can simply refuse to either register new firearms or re-register existing ones.

It's been done before, and it's EXACTLY what the proponents of sham "universal background checks" are counting on.

 

[Dframe]

No such thing exists. It's just a propaganda tool for the anti-gun left. Like many of their creations it simply doesn't exist

 

[buck460XVR]

I think that UBCs would be fine if once the sale is consummated, the info would then be required to be destroyed, or only provided to the buyer. The buyer would then be the only one to know the transaction was completed and would still have proof the transaction was legally done if and when UBCs are required for all sales. As was said earlier in this thread, the majority of legal gun sales done in this country already go thru a BG check. I've had half a dozen of then run on me already this year. Several of them had nuttin' to do with guns. Work around kids or youth sports and they are a requirement also. They are not a big thing. They are already required for sales at gunshows. Requiring them for private sales will be similar to requiring folks to pay taxes on work done on the side for cash.......

 

[Deanimator]

I think that UBCs would be fine if once the sale is consummated, the info would then be required to be destroyed, or only provided to the buyer.

...which EVERYBODY knows is NOT the plan.

That's like saying that the Germans requiring Jews to wear yellow stars would have been ok as long as it was just used to ID them so that they could receive free Chanukkah gifts.

EVERYBODY knows that so-called "universal background checks" are merely an excuse for REGISTRATION when they fail, the achievement of which opens up the door to everything ELSE the anti-gun cult wants.

I have no more reason to trust the VPC and the Bradys than the Bielski brothers had to trust Oskar Dirlewanger.

 

[buck460XVR]

...which EVERYBODY knows is NOT the plan.

Must be the same "EVERYBODY" that claimed Obamma was going to confiscate all our guns and ammo with executive orders. The same "EVERYBODY" that went out and created the panic buying which made guns and ammo impossible to get for the average American for the last 8 years.

The only "plans" that are going to happen are the ones the majority of the American public will demand and accept. Preaching to the choir here and on other gun forums will not change the opinions or the stance of anyone, and it ain't much of a "plan".

I doubt very much that UBCs will stop the illegal use of firearms to any great degree or keep them out of the hands of criminals. But as I said before, background checks are done for reasons other than buying a firearm. Take out a loan, try to rent an apartment, apply for a job in a school, for the government or anywhere around minor children. It is a tool that is accepted as a norm for the majority of Americans, even tho it's effectiveness is not shown to be 100% effective. It's no wonder so many folks think of it as a non-issue. The reason Jews were persecuted in Germany was because the majority of Germans there accepted it...period. There never was a mention of free Hanukkah gifts, only the premise of being persecuted. The world has learned from that lesson, just as many Americans have learned that any more restrictions on gun ownership will not reduce their risk of being harmed, only increase it. This is the plan we need to stick to.

 

[Deanimator]

The reason Jews were persecuted in Germany was because the majority of Germans there accepted it...period. There never was a mention of free Hanukkah gifts, only the premise of being persecuted.

The STATED reason to persecute the Jews was to "protect" the German state and people... kind of like how repressive gun controls are claimed to be necessary to "protect" the "children".

Obama AND Clinton have come out in favor of "Australian" gun controls. That includes:

• registration
• bans
• confiscation

Sham "universal background checks" are a total nullity without REGISTRATION. There's no doubt of this and even the people who deny it know it's true.

Registration of firearms has NO purpose beyond facilitation of future bans and confiscations.

Tell everyone how Chicago implemented its handgun BAN.

 

[steelerdude99]

The text of buck460XVR's message is just a few messages above; no sense in wasting the bandwidth.

Obama said he wants push as far as he can on gun control via executive orders. Those who think he will are the ones acting on the hoarding.

As for your statement: “The only "plans" that are going to happen are the ones the majority of the American public will demand and accept.” Laws in most parts of this country are via representative, not via referendum. We have seen the dishonesty of referendums via WA’s I594. By dishonesty, I am speaking of the question the voters saw vs. what the 18 pages of the law said. The worst part was the distorted definition of the word “transfer”.

If it was not for linking the background checks to registration and the fact the pro-gun-rights crowd gets nothing in return, then you would not have such entrenched opposition. Additionally, any such federal law is further setting the precedent for addition federal involvement in states handing its own affairs.

I don't trust the gun-control crowd and am skeptical of anything they want.

chuck

 

[Deanimator]

I don't trust the gun-control crowd and am skeptical of anything they want.

As well you ought to be. They are liars and sociopaths.

There's no greater example than Josh Sugermann, who by his OWN admission intentionally deceived the public into believing that so-called "assault weapons" are "machine guns".

 

[buck460XVR]

I don't trust the gun-control crowd and am skeptical of anything they want.

chuck

As well you ought to be. They are liars and sociopaths.

There will always be deception. But unlike the Jews and Nazi Germany, America is not a fascist totalitarian state. It is still as steelerdude99 states, a constitutional republic. Government is still regulated by the voters. Unfortunately many times voters are uneducated or short sighted and do not consider the big picture, only small part of that picture that interests them. Within that big picture, I'd be willing to bet are just as many liars and sociopaths within the pro-gun ranks as within the anti-gun ranks. Doesn't give credence to either side. What does give credence are facts and truths. There is little truth or fact that the oppression of the Jews in Nazi Germany is anything like the opposition to gun-ownership here in modern day America. Continuing to insist it does, makes many intelligent and learned folks neutral to gun-ownership doubt many other things we say. Again, pro-gun folks and their "the sky is falling" screams have done more to make acquiring a firearm and ammo difficult in the last 8 years than anything Obama or the Clintons have done in their lifetime. This does not mean I support Obama's or the Clinton's views on gun ownership. Just the opposite is true. But the absence of firearms and ammo on shelves lately has not been caused by anything they have done.

I don't trust many antis either, and as I have said many times before, I don't agree that mandatory UBCs are going to solve anything. I also don't agree that the majority of folks seeking UBCs are anti-gun and are are the ones thinking it's the first step toward complete gun confiscation. They are just folks mistakenly believing it might be a solution to gun violence in our country, many of which own guns themselves.

The biggest problem I have with folks continuing to use the Jews in Nazi Germany as a Synonym to gun control is the constant insinuation that the Jews were sheep and pathetically let themselves and their loved ones be slaughtered. I wonder if folks here that so openly protest any form of gun control and the current administration would be so openly vocal against Adolph Hitler and the persecution of the Jews if they were living in Nazi Germany. No difference, right?

 

[Deanimator]

There will always be deception.

The anti-gun cult is nothing BUT deception.

As I've said many times before, "I can't make them stop lying, but they can't make me believe them either."