Gun show loophole?

[natman]

When the Gun Control Act of 1968 was being debated, gun control advocates wanted to require ALL firearms transactions to be handled by a licensed dealer. They couldn't get the votes to do that. In order to get the bill passed, they compromised to allow the individual states to decide if transactions within that state had to go through a dealer. The Democrats have campaigned against private intrastate transactions ever since, calling it the "Gun Show Loophole", even though it has nothing to do with gun shows and isn't a loophole.

It's yet another example of how gun controllers will start campaigning against anything they have to give up to get what they want as soon as the ink is dry. And they wonder why gun owners don't want to "compromise".

 

[Choctaw]

It is accurate in that any firearm purchase from a merchant requires either a background check or a current ID and a License to Carry Handgun.

Yes, but we're talking about private sales. You do not have to display ID when conducting a private transaction.

 

[theotherwaldo]

Yes, but we're talking about private sales. You do not have to display ID when conducting a private transaction.

Re-read what I wrote.
I didn't say that an ID was required, only that I prefer to keep a record of who I sell or trade with.
I live five minutes from Mexico... .

 

[bearcreek]

The Gun Show Loophole goes back to the days when you could do private sales without involving an FFL.

Those days are not gone. That still applies in 33 states.

 

[bearcreek]

Re-read what I wrote.
I didn't say that an ID was required, only that I prefer to keep a record of who I sell or trade with.

You wrote,

Here in Texas, all that I have to do is show my License to Carry Handgun and my ID to a seller and everything is fine.

"Have to", implies a requirement. You can show your license if you like, but you do not "have to" by law.

 

[Speedo66]

Latest thing I saw was the Feds, by the President‘s directive, want to crack down on individuals buying and selling many guns for profit, actions that would constitute income or a business without a FFL.

So this is nothing new, just enhanced enforcement of existing law.

 

[bearcreek]

I find it sort of amusing, but also not very productive, when gun rights advocates want to zero in on the specific definition of words being used, rather than the principle at hand. The folks who want to ban private sales don't care what you call it, they just want to ban private sales. Us arguing about the precise definition of "loophole" accomplishes nothing, it just makes us seem petty. The fact is, in most states, a person can legally go buy a gun without a background check or paperwork of any kind. Doesn't matter what word a person uses, that's a fact. We can argue with them about why that's ok, but arguing about the word they use doesn't get anyone anywhere.

 

[doubleh]

This is just smoke and hot air to make the know nothing anti-gun liberals think slojo and company are doing something about their preceived gun problems. Slojo only said the words as he is too far gone to dream up anything on his own. It amounts to saying "We are going to do something that has already been done". Our current regime is very good at doing that on a lot of different subjects.

 

[reddog81]

This is just smoke and hot air to make the know nothing anti-gun liberals think slojo and company are doing something about their preceived gun problems. Slojo only said the words as he is too far gone to dream up anything on his own. It amounts to saying "We are going to do something that has already been done". Our current regime is very good at doing that on a lot of different subjects.

I think that is a lot of what is going on. The new rule just updates definitions to align with excuses being given by people trying to skirt the law. Biden wants to be able to claim he closed the gun show loophole...

Our side always screams about enforcing the current laws on the books rather than coming up with new ones, but when they start enforcing current laws we scream about jack booted thugs coming after our guns...

 

[bearcreek]

Are there members on here that can legally buy/sell over the internet without the buyer going through a background check?

I'm not aware of any state where the method by which the buyer and seller initially make contact is legally relevant to the sale.

 

[Outlaw75]

Those days are not gone. That still applies in 33 states.

Well, that's good to know. I haven't done a private sale in 20+ years.

 

[bearcreek]

Well, that's good to know. I haven't done a private sale in 20+ years.

There are a surprising number of gun owners who seem to forget, or not realize, that not all states have the same laws as their own.

 

[MikeInOr]

I'm not aware of any state where the method by which the buyer and seller initially make contact is legally relevant to the sale.

I agree. I think pretty much everyone on this board probably knows this. In the press conference I watched controlling "internet sales" is what I understood to be one of Biden's big sells.

 

[MikeInOr]

Well, that's good to know. I haven't done a private sale in 20+ years.

My understanding is that Arizona allows face to face private party transfers without a background check or using an FFL? In Oregon I NEVER bought or sold a gun to/from a stranger until 2015 when FFL's and background checks started being required. After 2015 I have done a fair number of buys/sells with strangers using the prescribed FFL / background check process.

I wonder if a bill like Biden is proposing will actually increase "stranger" private party sales when the seller can be assured the buyer is legally able to own a gun? --Just a thought!

 

[AlexanderA]

This is just smoke and hot air to make the know nothing anti-gun liberals think slojo and company are doing something about their perceived gun problems.

Correct. Then the pro-gun side gets all hysterical and alarmist, and uses it for fundraising. That's always how it goes with guns. The professional agitators (on both sides) have gotten very good at milking the issue for all it's worth.

 

[bearcreek]

I agree. I think pretty much everyone on this board probably knows this. In the press conference I watched controlling "internet sales" is what I understood to be one of Biden's big sells.

I must have misunderstood your question then. I thought you were asking if anyone lived where they could legally buy or sell over the internet, as opposed to any other way (newspaper classifieds, bulletin board, etc.).

 

[MikeInOr]

I must have misunderstood your question then. I thought you were asking if anyone lived where they could legally buy or sell over the internet, as opposed to any other way (newspaper classifieds, bulletin board, etc.).

My intention was to understand how things actually work in other states for private party sales from people that actually buy and sell firearms in those states. My underlying intention was to understand if the Biden proposal was going to actually change stuff somewhere or if it was just election year hype. My contention is that Biden is making an issue out of "internet sales" so he could be seen as doing something about it even though he has no real data to base his internet sales assumption on. If my contention is incorrect I would really like to know?

I was not trying to dismiss/dimmish your comment and I hope you didn't take it that way!

 

[weeniewawa]

The main and most important word is "loophole" a word the leftists use to describe anything they do not like but also most likely established themselves.

They love to denigrate any business that uses tax "loopholes" too but never say they are responsible for writing the tax codes. It is just a buzz word to get their donors to donate.

 

[bearcreek]

I was not trying to dismiss/dimmish your comment and I hope you didn't take it that way!

Nope. Just clarifying. I think it is just election hype, from what I can see. Lot's of anti gun rights folks like to make a big deal out of "internet" sales, seeming to imply that a person can simply order guns over the internet like they can other goods. It's not an accurate way to put it, in any state. That said, it's perfectly legal, in most states, for a person to advertise a gun on the internet, find a buyer who is a resident of the same state, and sell the gun to that person without any paperwork or background check. The fact that the internet was used for communication during the negotiations and transaction is irrelevant, legally, but they like to focus on that part cause it makes things seem scarier.

 

[bearcreek]

The main and most important word is "loophole" a word the leftists use to describe anything they do not like but also most likely established themselves.

Is it that important though? Suppose we all (the anti gun and pro gun people) were to somehow magically agree on the terminology we were going to use. Would the anti gun folks change their mind and be ok with private sales with no BG check? I think not. Banging on about how it isn't actually a loophole isn't going to do anything to change their minds.

 

[Fooey]

Iowa....can sell to anyone without permit, ccw or FFL involved in a private sale. Meetup .....get money.....give'em gun. Thanks goodbye.

 

[dogtown tom]

Are there members on here that can legally buy/sell over the internet without the buyer going through a background check?

Maybe.
If the buyer and seller are located in and residents of the same state, no background check or FFL transfer are required under federal law. State law may require those.

There are two federal laws that apply:
The Gun Control Act of 1968 that regulates the interstate transfer of firearms.
The Brady Law of 1993 requires that a licensed dealer conduct a background check.

 

[dogtown tom]

Here in Texas, all that I have to do is show my License to Carry Handgun and my ID to a seller and everything is fine.
-Individual-to-individual sales are fine, as well, with or without being at a gun show, although I always record the buyer's ID on the rare occasions that I am selling or trading a weapon... .

Only if the seller is also a resident of Texas.

 

[dogtown tom]

My understanding as a reasonably-read layman is the the federal government regulates interstate commerce in the context of firearms under well-established constitutional case law/precedent (for now). Going back to the WWII period. But it does not have authority to regulate intrastate commerce. So if a state does or does not have it's own laws, that is up to them, so long as they do not violate the US Constitution or federal law in doing so.

Wickard v. Filburn disagrees.

Is there a link which points to said (proposed?) action on the part of the executive branch?

Definition of “Engaged in the Business” as a Dealer in Firearms (Proposed)

 

[dogtown tom]

I think the "Gun Show Loophole" is a cousin to the famous "Saturday Night Special". When I lived in the Texas Panhandle in the 1980's my favorite gun shop would always have a handgun on sale every Saturday as a "Saturday Night Special" but it was a different handgun every week.

Saturday Night Special
Assault Weapon
High Capacity Magazine
Weapon of War

All seek to demonize the firearm rather than the evil doer.
If you were to ask your neighborhood liberal "should poor black people be denied the right to own a gun?" You would likely be met with a blank stare or immediate disgust at your implied racism. What was racist was Congress. They demonized cheap, inexpensive handguns in 1968 for the sole purpose of restricting the import and sale to black or poor people.......the primary buyers of those guns.

The anti gun crowd will have a new buzzword next year.