dogtown tom
Member
"Back to the days" meaning today?
Private sales are not regulated by ATF today.
Your state may.
Gun show loophole?
- Thread starter MikeInOr
- Start date
Private sales are not regulated by ATF today.
Your state may.
You've discovered the truth. This is election fundraiser rhetoric.
Ohen Cepel
Member
There is NO loop hole! The laws of the state apply at the gun show. If you can sell it face to face in that state, then you can do so at a show. If the state has tighter rules, then they apply at a show. It is NOT a bizarre like some 3rd world nation.
What this will do is to tax your personal property more while making both you and the buyer jump through hoops for the transfer (and pay another fee). While getting said property registered.
It will also make more people with inherited property felons/criminals if they don't dispose/transfer the property correctly.
In the end, this will not make anyone safer, but will simply tax millions of Americans more while making others criminals.
What this will do is to tax your personal property more while making both you and the buyer jump through hoops for the transfer (and pay another fee). While getting said property registered.
It will also make more people with inherited property felons/criminals if they don't dispose/transfer the property correctly.
In the end, this will not make anyone safer, but will simply tax millions of Americans more while making others criminals.
toivo
Member
I live in New York State. It is not legal here to buy/sell a firearm without a NICS check. No way, no how. Private sale, gun show, internet sale, whatever: There has to be a NICS check before you take possession of the gun.
"Gun show loophole" is one of those misnomers favored by anti-gun politicians. The term misleads the general public into believing that all sales at gun shows are exempt from NICS checks. Gun people know this isn't true, but I have argued myself blue in the face with idiots who claim that it is because they "heard it on TV" or "read it on the internet."
As others have said, if private sales are legal in your state without a NICS check, the location where the sale takes place is legally irrelevant.
"Gun show loophole" is one of those misnomers favored by anti-gun politicians. The term misleads the general public into believing that all sales at gun shows are exempt from NICS checks. Gun people know this isn't true, but I have argued myself blue in the face with idiots who claim that it is because they "heard it on TV" or "read it on the internet."
As others have said, if private sales are legal in your state without a NICS check, the location where the sale takes place is legally irrelevant.
unclenunzie
Contributing Member
That is actually the case I indirectly made reference to that the federal government derives its authority from wrt interstate commerce.
The term "loophole" implies that someone is getting away with something that the law intends to be illegal or regulated. Federal law does not prohibit private sales between residents of the same state as long as the seller has no reason to believe the buyer is a prohibited person.
Calling private sales at Gun Shows a "loophole" implies that the law intended for private sales at Gun Shows to be illegal or regulated or, perhaps, that it's legal to do something at a Gun Show that isn't legal elsewhere.
Neither is true. If a private sale is legal, then it's legal at a Gun Show. If it's not legal at a Gun Show, then it's not legal anywhere else either. And there's no provision in federal law that is intended to prevent private sales based on location.
I would say that it is important. By constantly talking about The Gun Show Loophole, the anti-gunners reinforce the idea that people are getting away with something that shouldn't be legal or that wasn't intended to be legal. That idea, in turn, makes it seem very logical to pass a law that corrects the problem by closing the loophole. But that's not what would be happening. What would be happening is passing a NEW law that provides a NEW prohibition that has never existed before. It's not simply a matter of "fixing" a flawed law, it's about creating a whole new regulation/prohibition.
Wickard vs. Filburn said that even if grain was grown in one state and never moved out of that state (exclusively intrastate), it STILL affected interstate commerce because it affected the overall supply of grain and therefore affected interstate commerce. If the farmer hadn't grown that grain, he would have had to buy other grain and that would affect the overall supply.
Basically Wickard vs. Filburn says that if you make/grow anything, even if it never leaves the state, it still affects interstate commerce and therefore can be regulated by the federal government under the commerce clause.
Last edited:
Elkins45
Member
Once again ATF refuses to declare a bright line number. I’m not a conspiracy nut but I swear it seems like they go out of their way to create uncertainty with their rules.
CapnMac
Member
"Loophole" is a word used to complain, politically, that your putative opponent is "allowed to get away with" some action you are not allowed (or have to pay fees/taxes/fines) often because you are too lazy; too ee than a political cudgel.nvious; too mendacious to do yourself. It really has no actual meaning in common-use English. It's nothing more than a political cudgel.
It's good to remember that the pro-UBC crowd, 1. have no idea NICS exists; and 2. actually want a 6-8 full Background Investigation.
A number of States also do this. However 18 USC 922 does not recognize State Restoration (unless the conviction is fully expunged. Question 21d.e. only asks if you have been convicted. Funding for Rights Restoration by BATFE has been denied or decades, so, no Federal Restoration presently exists (barring Expungements; A Presidential Pardon might suffice--but that's not been tested in court to my knowledge).
dogtown tom
Member
I sold at the Dallas Market Hall gun show for over a decade.
There were unlicensed vendors selling 3-4 times as many guns each weekend than I was.
Same guys had tables at every gun show in DFW.
No way in heck were they not engaging in the business. One even had business cards......"The Armchair General" with a table sign that said "I buy gun collections".
Elkins45
Member
I regularly attend 3-4 gun shows in smaller towns here yearly. There are four or five guys I see at every show and they rarely have more than 50% of the same guns they brought to the last one, They have been doing this for at least a decade, one since at least the late 90’s. Most have at least learned not to immediately price it and put it on the table when they take in a new trade. One of them has a very elaborate set of folding racks to hold all his long guns and display cases for the handguns.I sold at the Dallas Market Hall gun show for over a decade.
There were unlicensed vendors selling 3-4 times as many guns each weekend than I was.
Same guys had tables at every gun show in DFW.
No way in heck were they not engaging in the business. One even had business cards......"The Armchair General" with a table sign that said "I buy gun collections".
People talk about ATF like it is some omniscient and all-powerful entity just waiting to trip up the average Joe, but my observation is the opposite. It would be almost trivial to bust any of these guys for dealing without a license. The fact they still do it so brazenly and without consequence is just amazing to me. How some ambitious ATF agent looking to feather his cap hasn’t busted the whole lot of them is truly a mystery to me. It would be so easy to document these guys obviously engaging in the business it makes me wonder just how blatant someone would have to be to get busted.
This is an excerpt from the rule. There are a total of 8, mostly regarding having a business name, insurance, etc.
I can't see advertising promoting or marketing a firearm as evidence you are engaged in the business of selling firearms, or that you have the intent to profit. You can't sell anything without letting someone know it's for sale.
Same thing with setting up a table with guns at a gun show, shooting match, flea market, or garage sale. I see plenty of garage sales with clothes and I never got the impression that these people were engaged in the business of selling used clothing.
The Night Rider
Member
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2022
- Messages
- 2,133
Private Sales used to be legal in Colorado. Then in the mid 90s they passed a law requiring that all sales that occurred at a Gun Show went through an FFL. Private Sales between individuals were still legal. In 2013 they passed the Colorado Universal Background Check law. Now all sales are required to go through an FFL
And the criminals still seem to get their hands on guns.
Whenever I have a discussion about Universal background checks or gun show loopholes or anything like that with an anti the main point that I try to stress is that there is no legal way for a convicted felon to acquire a firearm in the United States. If a firearm literally fell from the sky and landed on them and they kept it, it would still be illegal.
And the criminals still seem to get their hands on guns.
Whenever I have a discussion about Universal background checks or gun show loopholes or anything like that with an anti the main point that I try to stress is that there is no legal way for a convicted felon to acquire a firearm in the United States. If a firearm literally fell from the sky and landed on them and they kept it, it would still be illegal.
Durango_Dave
Member
We have to choose our battles. I'm okay with Universal Background checks. I'm opposed to a federal registry of all guns (yes I know they can already collect them from background checks). And as for the so called "assault rifle" bans, I'm sure these are unconstitutional. The Supreme Court will win that battle for us.
If they are going to address the gun show loophole I'd think they'd just go for a Universal Background check.
If they are going to address the gun show loophole I'd think they'd just go for a Universal Background check.
Last edited:
Elkins45
Member
A true, enforceable UBC law is only possible if you can prove a gun was transferred without a background check. To do that you need to be able to prove someone else possessed it prior to the current possessor, and that there was no legal transfer. The only way to consistently do that is by having a record of who used to possess it, and that means having a registry.
If I catch Joe Citizen with a gun he can simply say “I bought it in a private sale prior to the UBC law” so UBC would only work on guns made after the law was implemented. The only way to make it work with older guns is for the government to retroactively link older guns to owners. Make no mistake, UBC is a step on the road to a registery.
Yup. Passing UBC without passing registration at the same time, basically creates an ACTUAL loophole whereby persons can easily circumvent the UBC law by only trading in guns made before the UBC law was passed. How long do you think that loophole would last before it was plugged with a registration law?
The bigger issue is the one touched on earlier. IMO, the federal government really doesn't have the authority to regulate private intrastate firearm sales. The FFL system was pretty ingenious in the way it was set up to let the federal government regulate gun transactions from dealers, whether they are interstate or not. All of the things that make it work don't really apply to private intrastate sales.
The bigger issue is the one touched on earlier. IMO, the federal government really doesn't have the authority to regulate private intrastate firearm sales. The FFL system was pretty ingenious in the way it was set up to let the federal government regulate gun transactions from dealers, whether they are interstate or not. All of the things that make it work don't really apply to private intrastate sales.
Durango_Dave
Member
No. It is a common misunderstanding that a UBC law would need a registry to work. That's not true.
Here's how a Universal Background Check works:
Lets say I go to a gun shop and buy a new gun. They run a background check on me and it comes back clean. I take my new gun to the shooting range and shoot targets. There I say "I don't like this gun."
Some stranger overhears me and says "If you don't want that gun, I'll buy it from you."
I say "Okay but we have to do this legally. You need a background check."
So we go down to Buds Gun Shop and they run a background check on this guy. It comes back clean. Money changes hands right there and I give him the gun. Now we part ways.
A year later the gun is used in a crime. The police go to the first gun shop where I bought the gun. The police ask "who bought that gun?"
The gun shop give out my name and before long the police are knocking on my door.
I say "No, I sold that gun. We used Buds Gun Shop as the FFL" And Buds Gun Shop has the paperwork to prove my innocence.
This is how the Universal Background Check helps honest gun owners and hurts the criminals.
Styx
Member
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2014
- Messages
- 3,282
Biden, the ATF, and Democrats at the state and federal level can do whatever it is that they want apparently, and it will take 4 years to a decade later for cases to work their way through the court system to undo the wrong if at all.
The problem is, when Republicans have control, they never have or push a pto gun agenda that the antiguns have to fight for years. Matter of fact, when Reagan, Bush, and Trump were in office, we got more gun control and nothing else.
Elkins45
Member
Here’s how a Universal Background Check doesn’t work. I bought a gun at a flea market in 1994 and I sell it to Joe Badguy, who then uses it to kill his wife. ATF calls the maker and the trace dead ends five owners ago. If Joe Badguy claims I sold him the gun I say ”There’s no proof I ever touched that gun. He must have me confused with some other guy who used my name to hide his tracks.” Or (and this is how it really works) Joe Badguy never knew my name to begin with.
UBC only works if you can prove I owned the gun that was illegally transferred. Otherwise it’s a crime you can’t prosecute. How can you prove I owned a gun I bought in a private sale in 1994? Only with a mandatory registry.
Durango_Dave
Member
Of course a Universal Background Check law can't be retroactive.
If a UBC law was in effect before 1994 it would have proven your innocence the same way it did in my scenario.
If you take my example and your example I think it's clear that a Universal Background Check would help honest gun owners and help track down illegal gun owners.
I think what you are saying is passing a Universal Background Check Law will lead to a mandatory registry. I disagree with that point. I am vehemently opposed to a gun registry even though I support a universal background check.
Elkins45
Member
I think you are being naïve.
There’s nothing to keep a private seller from requiring an FFL handle a transfer now. All UBC does is make it mandatory. There’s no such thing as a ‘honest’ gun owner who is knowingly selling to prohibited persons. Besides, data shows the overwhelming majority of crime guns are stolen, and most of the guns used in high profile shootings have been bought by people who passed a NICS check. The effect of a UBC law on crime will be minuscule at best. Criminals will just seek out guns that changed hands prior to the UBC, or just steal them.
If it stayed at that, all would be well. The problem is, history tells us that governments are inherently untrustworthy long term. As reliably as the sun coming up in the east and going down in the west, governments eventually get to where they are trampling on the rights of the people. The whole idea of the 2A was to keep the government in a perpetual state of fear of the people. Keep them nervous and cautious so that they do not go to far. State sanctioned mass murder throughout history dwarfs civilian on civilian violent crime, it's not even remotely close. This is why allowing the government to know who has what weapons is far too risky long term to be worth the minor short term benefit.
Durango_Dave
Member
As I said before I am vehemently opposed to a gun registry.
The idea is to avoid an owner registry as well, something that isn't possible with UBC's.
Durango_Dave
Member
Universal Background Checks do not require the government to keep a registry of gun owners. I explained that in my post that you first quoted.
hoardingthemanual
Member
that’s a clever way to trick the normies into voting for stricter gun control.
Similar threads
- Locked
