Gun show loophole?

[Deanimator]

IMHO, internet forums do very little if anything to change folk's minds when it comes to politics.

But they DO change their minds about FACTS.

I don't give a crap about politics.

I care a LOT about FACTS.

PERSONAL experience tells me that most NORMAL people don't like being lied to, and when they learn that they have been lied to, they take a dim view of the liar.

The gun control cult is nothing BUT lies. I point that out every chance I get, in every venue available to me.

 

[cdk8]

They choose to discuss this "gun hole loophole" because they know there will never be a satisfying resolution that meets 'face value logic', and therefore they can continue to use it for years to come as a reason for expanding regulations.

The regulation of private sales in a free market economy is one that is logistically complicated and ethically debatable. If we look at other private sales we currently regulate through government, these things are riddled with their own problems, and arguably their own "loopholes."

 

[deadin]

are guns being confiscated in the several U.S. states that have registration?

Not yet, but I imagine that as soon as they can get the Federal Courts behind them, they will start....

 

[CoalTrain49]

Don't worry, that's coming.

When it [inevitably] fails to prevent any meaningful number of crimes, it will need to be "fixed" with registration and whatever else they can think of.

We already have registration and have for awhile. WA requires all new handgun purchases to be documented for a state database.

 

[alsaqr]

Not my poll, not my chart. Don't kill the messenger. Obviously not a poll of active members from internet gun forums, but of random nationwide voters.

Yeah, i don't like the idea of UBC for private weapons sales.

However, universal background checks have very broad bipartisan support all over the US. There may not be federally mandated UBC any time soon. However, the voters in some states will demand and get UBC for private gun sales.

If put up for voter referendum UBC would pass by huge margins in many states.

 

[CoalTrain49]

I don't give a crap about politics.

You should.

It's the single most important issue and the only driving force in gun control legislation.

Facts are slippery fellows and vary depending on where they come from.

 

[buck460XVR]

But they DO change their minds about FACTS.

I don't give a crap about politics.

I care a LOT about FACTS.

PERSONAL experience tells me that most NORMAL people don't like being lied to, and when they learn that they have been lied to, they take a dim view of the liar.

The gun control cult is nothing BUT lies. I point that out every chance I get, in every venue available to me.

Yes, people do get turned off by folks lying to them........kinda the reason for many of today's divorces. But they also need proof they are being lied to, and not just folks continuously telling them. So far in this thread, you have had too many posts for me to go back and count. In virtually everyone, you claim lies and deceit, but give no examples and no proof. This is just like the little boy that cried "wolf"....and we all know what happened there. You claim to be out there trying to get the word out. Good for you. But the words are just as important as the effort. Again, the NRA and the NRA-ILA have been preaching the word since they reversed their stance on UBCs a few years back. But even they admit the majority of folks in the U.S. with a voice(vote) support UBCs, altho they claim the percentage is much lower than the poll I gave. But then, according to you, their poll is just as worthless as all the others. Who are we to believe? Some will always just take the word of those they agree with as Gospel. Some will be suspicious of everyone, while some will weigh the info gleaned and make an intelligent decision. I'd like to think I'm in the last group, but odds are, I probably straddle the line between the last and the first.


As I said before, FTF sales without a UBC will be as hard to eliminate as working for cash and not paying taxes. Just to hard to verify and more trouble that it's worth in most scenarios. How many of us tell the truth when asked on our income taxes if we have made out of state purchases online and need to pay the state and local sales tax on said commodity? Again, the most honest law abiding citizens may follow the letter of the law every time, but for dam sure, not the criminal. Unless and until there is already gun registration in place, how do we account for firearms before the enactment of UBCs? With no previous record of FTF sales, family gifting/inheritance or lending a firearm during the hunting season, who knows what guns exist in this country and who exactly owns them? This is why for the most part, other than from a licensed FFL, UBCs for everyone else will be a hard row to hoe, and more trouble than they are worth.

 

[buck460XVR]

However, universal background checks have very broad bipartisan support all over the US. There may not be federally mandated UBC any time soon. However, the voters in some states will demand and get UBC for private gun sales.

If put up for voter referendum UBC would pass by huge margins in many states.

I too believe that officials elected at the federal level are going to shy away from any major controversial gun legislation and let it happen on the state level. State level elected officials are prone to be swayed more easily by current whims and local ideals and are also more naive about the risks involved. Funny how so many states have recently enacted constitutional amendments to protect hunting rights, but then are considering or already implementing UBCs. Same old, same old.

 

[TimSr]

By the way, except for those isolated, illegal confiscations post-Katrina, are guns being confiscated in the several U.S. states that have registration?

Maybe somebody else remembers, but it seems to me there were locations that required registering "assault weapons", and then later banned them and checked registration lists. I believe there have been many proposals to use registrations to check compliance on subsequent legislation occurring much later. Don't know how many happened.

 

[Deanimator]

If put up for voter referendum UBC would pass by huge margins in many states.

ONLY if the lies and obfuscations of the gun control cult are allowed to go unchallenged.

 

[Deanimator]

Yes, people do get turned off by folks lying to them........kinda the reason for many of today's divorces. But they also need proof they are being lied to, and not just folks continuously telling them. So far in this thread, you have had too many posts for me to go back and count. In virtually everyone, you claim lies and deceit, but give no examples and no proof.

Failing to state that without registration, it's a NULLITY is a big enough lie.

Then throw in the lies about registration which follow.

The ONLY way to sell sham "universal" background checks is through DECEIT.

 

[Deanimator]

Facts are slippery fellows and vary depending on where they come from.

That's why I NEVER let the gun control cult have it's own FACTS. I never let ANYTHING go.

NEVER, EVER let the other side set the terms of debate.

 

[steelerdude99]

Yeah, i don't like the idea of UBC for private weapons sales.

However, universal background checks have very broad bipartisan support all over the US. There may not be federally mandated UBC any time soon. However, the voters in some states will demand and get UBC for private gun sales.

If put up for voter referendum UBC would pass by huge margins in many states.

alsaqr, I am glad that you are on the "don't like UBC side" of the argument. BUT there are some of your statements that seem to be causing some issues with me. It's been claimed, not proven, that universal background checks, aka UBCs, have very broad bipartisan support. There is a 90% claim floating around. I don't buy it, 90% of US citizens can't agree on anything ... period. Studies, are biased, either intentionally or unwittingly. Telling this lie over and over is how such a claim become "pseudo facts". I don't have the details on who performed the any such study, how many times it was ran before they got the numbers they wanted , and most importantly.... WHO PAID FOR IT?

The 2nd big flaw in your post is this.... saying that if UBC were put to referendum that it would pass and by "huge margins". WA's I-594 did NOT pass by a huge margin and, get this... it was based on a flawed ballot. Summarizing the 18-page law to a few lines needed for a ballot is one thing. BUT leaving out the worst part which was the new definition of the word "transfer" was a travesty. It was meant to mislead voters. If you are not aware, you are illegally transferring a weapon in WA if you hand a gun to your friend. Hand it back, another illegal act.

If 90% of people support UBC, then why did it not pass by 90%?

chuck

 

[CoalTrain49]

The 2nd big flaw in your post is this.... saying that if UBC were put to referendum that it would pass and by "huge margins". WA's I-594 did NOT pass by a huge margin and, get this... it was based on a flawed ballot. Summarizing the 18-page law to a few lines needed for a ballot is one thing. BUT leaving out the worst part which was the new definition of the word "transfer" was a travesty. It was meant to mislead voters. If you are not aware, you are illegally transferring a weapon in WA if you hand a gun to your friend. Hand it back, another illegal act.

I-594 was the most poorly written initiative I've ever seen. Some say it was intentional to confuse voters. If I recall correctly the vote was about 60/40, far from 90%. You have to remember that some people don't transfer guns (buy or sell) so they didn't read it, they just voted for it. Others who do own guns and do transfers didn't see any harm in it as there already is a BC associated with the purchase from a dealer. They voted for it also. Those will be the people who will pass a UBC in more states. There already are 10 with UBC's.

People like myself who did a few transactions based on a DL and CPL read it and knew exactly what was going to happen. I would be willing to bet that the new law only affected maybe 5% of gun owners actually doing private sales. Of those the majority requested a CPL for a transaction because a WA. CPL is so easy to get. The gun show folks had already policed themselves here. In Oregon there already was a requirement that a gun show transfer had to have a BC so there really wasn't a loophole to close in OR and a very small one in WA.

Most of the good citizens in both states will comply with the new laws just as they did before the new laws took effect. The new UBC laws are basically a solution for a problem that doesn't exist but we won't actually know that until all of the perceived "loopholes" are closed. Then we will know they don't work just like we know that NICS didn't prevent the last 14 mass shootings.

 

[Pushrod]

alsaqr, I am glad that you are on the "don't like UBC side" of the argument. BUT there are some of your statements that seem to be causing some issues with me. It's been claimed, not proven, that universal background checks, aka UBCs, have very broad bipartisan support. There is a 90% claim floating around. I don't buy it, 90% of US citizens can't agree on anything ... period. Studies, are biased, either intentionally or unwittingly. Telling this lie over and over is how such a claim become "pseudo facts". I don't have the details on who performed the any such study, how many times it was ran before they got the numbers they wanted , and most importantly.... WHO PAID FOR IT?

The 2nd big flaw in your post is this.... saying that if UBC were put to referendum that it would pass and by "huge margins". WA's I-594 did NOT pass by a huge margin and, get this... it was based on a flawed ballot. Summarizing the 18-page law to a few lines needed for a ballot is one thing. BUT leaving out the worst part which was the new definition of the word "transfer" was a travesty. It was meant to mislead voters. If you are not aware, you are illegally transferring a weapon in WA if you hand a gun to your friend. Hand it back, another illegal act.

If 90% of people support UBC, then why did it not pass by 90%?

chuck

Excellent points Steeler!

As has been mentioned before with these polls it is all in how the question is asked and the level of knowledge on the subject of those being polled. This will greatly influence the results.

Most people, even gun owners, do not understand what UBC's really entail, and if they knew would most likely reject the idea as we, the more informed gun owners do.

I don't believe UBC's are inevitable as long as we actively strive to educate others about them and the inherent dangers of letting such a scheme become law. Also, I believe, that the Federal Government should not be able to enact any such law as they are Constitutionally limited on infringing on the Second Amendment (I know, I know; it hasn't stopped them before).

 

[buck460XVR]

As has been mentioned before with these polls it is all in how the question is asked and the level of knowledge on the subject of those being polled. This will greatly influence the results.

Most people, even gun owners, do not understand what UBC's really entail, and if they knew would most likely reject the idea as we, the more informed gun owners do.

Exactly. But it does not change the fact that the majority of voters (uniformed as they are) support UBCs. Can we change that? Hopefully. But it won't happen by just crying "wolf"!

 

[alsaqr]

The situation in WA was confused. There were two competing measures on the ballot:

Voters faced the complication of two competing gun measures, one that extended a background-check requirement to private gun sales and one that would have blocked expanded background checks.

The expansion measure passed 60-40, while the anti-expansion measure failed 45-55.

http://www.governing.com/topics/ele...tate-approve-universal-background-checks.html

 

[natman]

Well, not to pick nits here ... but you may have wanted to have performed a little research prior to asking that question.

By the way, except for those isolated, illegal confiscations post-Katrina, are guns being confiscated in the several U.S. states that have registration?

Only in limited ways so far, but it establishes a chilling precedent:

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=195

There's a ballot provision in CA that will be on the '16 election to make magazines over 10 rounds illegal to possess. These magazines were grandfathered under the CA "assault weapon" ban. If it passes I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if registered AW owners got a visit to collect their magazines.

 

[X-Rap]

There's a ballot provision in CA that will be on the '16 election to make magazines over 10 rounds illegal to possess. These magazines were grandfathered under the CA "assault weapon" ban. If it passes I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if registered AW owners got a visit to collect their magazines.

If they don't go door to door for magazines they will certainly make examples of those found with them by enhancing charges like we recently saw here in Colorado.
Don't know what penalties are in the ballot provision or if they will be decided by bureaucrats later but I would expect the cost to be very chilling.

 

[Spats McGee]

Re: Confiscation

There's a fair amount of talk of confiscation in this thread. IMHO, one of the real problems with discussing confiscation is that we tend to think of it as a "door to door" kind of event. If confiscation ever begins on a large scale, though, I don't think that's how it will go down. I think it will go down much more slowly, much more "under the radar."

Think about the manpower it would take to disarm all of the lawful gun owners in the US at once. If anyone started shooting (I am in no way advocating that they do so), such a scenario has the potential for horrendous losses on both sides. Enough to cripple our military & our economy.

A much more likely scenario, again IMHO, is that the gov't would pick the guns up from one owner at a time. Think about it: Police perform a traffic stop on a gun owner & find a banned AR in the trunk. That's one gun gone. A second gun owner goes through a nasty divorce and his soon-to-be ex-wife reports that he has some of those evil high-capacity magazines. If that's punishable by more than a year in jail, you can bet your bippy that the police will empty his safe while they're in there, because he'll be a prohibited person as soon as he's under indictment. It would take years, obviously, but it would have a much lower potential for losses, or for any kind of organized resistance.

We have to take the political fight to the antis' doorsteps, folks, because time is on their side, not ours.

 

[Deanimator]

A much more likely scenario, again IMHO, is that the gov't would pick the guns up from one owner at a time.

That only goes so far.

For a likely response, I suggest that you read "Unintended Consequences" and watch the movie "Michael Collins".

I periodically see bluster and threats from the anti-gun cult, but they've never read the book "Savage Continent". If you think the Polish-Ukrainian border was an interesting place from '44 to '50, start banning and confiscating guns here.

 

[Captain33036]

Maybe I am wrong on this. However, even though a private seller is not required by law to do a background check, it unlawful for that private seller to knowingly sell to any prohibited person.

But...no 2A supporter ever mentions this. This leaves the left open to...imply... that all private sales put the public at risk...and this simply is not true. And thus...the gun show "loop hole" is brought out to scare people.

But, ...you say...how is a private person supposed to make sure?

I suspect that most use their intuition.

A few sell or trade only to gun shops.

In states that have CC permits, you can ask to see that. A LOT of sellers on AL in FL do this.

And...gee....you CAN actually google just about anyone these days. I am confident that nearly everyone arrested has their mug shot online.

 

[CoalTrain49]

There's a fair amount of talk of confiscation in this thread. IMHO, one of the real problems with discussing confiscation is that we tend to think of it as a "door to door" kind of event. If confiscation ever begins on a large scale, though, I don't think that's how it will go down. I think it will go down much more slowly, much more "under the radar."

Think about the manpower it would take to disarm all of the lawful gun owners in the US at once. If anyone started shooting (I am in no way advocating that they do so), such a scenario has the potential for horrendous losses on both sides. Enough to cripple our military & our economy.

A much more likely scenario, again IMHO, is that the gov't would pick the guns up from one owner at a time. Think about it: Police perform a traffic stop on a gun owner & find a banned AR in the trunk. That's one gun gone. A second gun owner goes through a nasty divorce and his soon-to-be ex-wife reports that he has some of those evil high-capacity magazines. If that's punishable by more than a year in jail, you can bet your bippy that the police will empty his safe while they're in there, because he'll be a prohibited person as soon as he's under indictment. It would take years, obviously, but it would have a much lower potential for losses, or for any kind of organized resistance.

We have to take the political fight to the antis' doorsteps, folks, because time is on their side, not ours.

This is how I see it also.

Door to door confiscation isn't practical for the reasons you cite, but if a law is in place, like NFA, those items will be confiscated anytime probable cause can be established. The incidents at Ruby Ridge and Waco got off to a running start because of NFA weapons violations that went south. The police will put a lot of effort into enforcement these days if they have reason to believe that a weapons or component violation is probable.

It's difficult to convince non-gun owners and even some gun owners that weapons that can use high capacity magazines have a place in a civilized society. It's also difficult to convince them that UBC's aren't needed. They don't want to listen to what I feel my rights are either when they feel threatened by them. We never had this problem 60 years ago when there was only half the number of people in the US. I see it as an inevitable change that we are caught up in by becoming over populated with dwindling resources.

Just to be clear, I own a semi-auto weapon that is illegal to purchase in some states. I'm also aware of why some people would like me not to have it. Actually that is one of the reasons I do have it. I'm not too sure how this ends but I'm seeing a pretty dark cloud on the horizon regarding semi-auto weapons and hi cap mags.

 

[SuperNaut]

With 300 Million+ guns in the USA, the approach outlined above would take literally hundreds of years to confiscate all the guns.

 

[SuperNaut]

In fact, the more I fiddle with the math, the more it seems like it would actually take thousands of years.