Heller and the "Gun Show Loophole"

[usmarine0352_2005]

So with the so called "Gun Show Loophole" under constant attack from the anti's, does the win in Heller give it any protection?


Gun Show Loophole: Private Sales of firearms that don't need criminal background checks from unlicensed dealers.


Unlicensed Dealer: Or as we call it, ordinary citizens selling a firearm.

 

[Zeke/PA]

Correct me if I'm wrong.
Any time I've done business at a show, I was subject to a backround check and it often took an hour to complete the sale.
The "loophole" is apparently a private sale thing and private sales, while legal, are certainly NOT limited to gun shows.
Just another bunch of Brady Bunch crap right?
Zeke

 

[usmarine0352_2005]

Correct me if I'm wrong.
Any time I've done business at a show, I was subject to a backround check and it often took an hour to complete the sale.
The "loophole" is apparently a private sale thing and private sales, while legal, are certainly NOT limited to gun shows.
Just another bunch of Brady Bunch crap right?
Zeke

Yeap.

It's an "evil" thing though. And they want to try to stop it at gun shows and if I call on an add to for a gun for sale, come to your house and buy it. (Ooh, with no background check.)

 

[another okie]

It is very important that every time someone uses this time we say:

"There is no gun show loophole. The federal laws governing the sales of firearms are exactly the same no matter where the sale occurs. When someone uses that term, they are lying to you."

We should also never use, and never allow anyone else to use the term "unlicensed dealer." An unlicensed dealer is committing a federal felony. You may sell your own guns, but if you buy with the intention of selling for a profit you are acting as a dealer and must have a license.

 

[basicblur]

We should also never use, and never allow anyone else to use the term "unlicensed dealer."

Ditto!
Ask those NOT in the know:
1. If you sell your old car, are you "an unlicensed car dealer"?
2. If you sell your old TV, are you "an unlicensed electronics dealer"?
3. If you sell your (insert whatever junk you have around the house you need to get rid of here) are you "an unlicensed dealer for said item"?

Mebbe that will help 'em see how ridiculous Brady euphemisms are?

 

[usmarine0352_2005]

Both those words are words that were invented by the anti-gunners.

That's why I used them.

Is it an Assault rifle, or a semi-automatic rifle?



But this thread is getting off course.


Lets stick to will the ruling on Heller affect the ability of anti-gunners to try to stop private firearms sales.


.

 

[sacp81170a]

As far as I can tell, the decision in Heller had nothing at all to say directly about private sales of firearms. It did say say that the registration and licensing of firearms in D.C. was a "reasonable restriction", so I take that to mean that this court would see a restriction on FTF private sales as "reasonable". That fight will be won or lost in the legislatures, state, federal, and local.

 

[Robert Hairless]

Both those words are words that were invented by the anti-gunners.

That's why I used them.

Might as well lend them a hand, I guess. Awfully sporting of you.

 

[El Tejon]

It did say say that the registration and licensing of firearms in D.C. was a "reasonable restriction",

No, it did not.

The Supreme Court has been down the registration and licening scheme for the regulation of individual, fundamental rights and has held that such schemes are unconstitutional.

 

[usmarine0352_2005]

Might as well lend them a hand, I guess. Awfully sporting of you.

Ha. What I meant is I used the words that were invented by them but used by the general public.

Thus, when you see an article in the newspaper or on tv it will say things like, "Their trying to shut down the gun show loophole."



No one's really answered the question yet either.

 

[another okie]

The answer to the original question is that no one knows how other courts will interpret the decision yet. My guess is probably not, since Scalia said certain types of licensing and registration were probably constitutional.

Private sales are not necessary for the self-defense and hunting aspects of the 2nd amendment stressed in this decision. They are more necessary for the "insurrectionist" aspect of it, which was only very lightly touched on.

 

[eliphalet]

The so called " gun show loophole" is a state by state rule/law.

Having to go through a FFL for private sales is unnecessary to comply with federal laws. We buy and sell at gun shows, from classifieds, among friends, or other citizen to citizen firearm transactions several times a year most years, for personal reasons and are not in the "firearm business". We usually come out ahead or at least break even but occasionally it costs us a buck or two to do/get what we want. Again, all of which is completely legal under present federal laws.

When I lived in the now very restrictive state of Ca. I did the same as the state laws at the time did not prevent me to do what is or should be legal as an American citizen.

"Gun show loophole" is a marketing tool used by the anti-gun crowd as a way to Deni you of your basic rights as a free people. Which includes the Republican candidate for president as he states himself in the NRA interview in the June 2008 American Rifleman. The Democratic candidate has even stricter ideals.

 

[usmarine0352_2005]

So the chances of the anti's passing laws that stop the private sales of handguns is still pretty remote?

 

[eliphalet]

So the chances of the anti's passing laws that stop the private sales of handguns is still pretty remote

Laws such as this are "passed" and being enforced in many states. Time will tell if the Heller decision will affect them.

Thank God for the men that wrote our Constitution that understood what a tyrannical controling thing government is.

 

[publius]

OK, before this gets out of hand, here is what the opinion said about licensing

Apart from his challenge to the handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement respondent asked the District Court to enjoin petitioners from enforcing the separate licensing requirement “in such a manner as to forbid the carrying of a firearm within one’s home or possessed land without a license.” App. 59a. The Court of Appeals did not invalidate the licensing requirement, but held only that the District “may not prevent [a handgun] from being moved throughout one’s house.” 478 F. 3d, at 400. It then ordered the District Court to enter summary judgment “consistent with [respondent’s] prayer for relief.” Id., at 401. Before this Court petitioners have stated that “if the handgun ban is struck down and respondent registers a handgun, he could obtain a license, assuming he is not otherwise disqualified,” by which they apparently mean if he is not a felon and is not insane. Brief for Petitioners 58. Respondent conceded at oral argument that he does not “have a problem with . . . licensing” and that the District’s law is permissible so long as it is “not enforced in an arbitrary and capricious manner.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 74–75. We therefore assume that petitioners’ issuance of a license will satisfy respondent’s prayer for relief and do not address the licensing requirement.

As to the topic question, see footnote 27 on page 56 of the opinion of the court.

Obviously, the (rational basis) test could not be used to evaluate the extent to which a legislature may regulate a specific, enumerated right, be it the freedom of speech, the guarantee against double jeopardy, the right to counsel, or the right to keep and bear arms. (citation) (“There may be narrower scope for operation of the presumption of constitutionality [i.e., narrower than that provided by rational-basis review] when legislation appears on its face to be within a specific prohibition of the Constitution, such as those of the first ten amendments. . .”). If all that was required to overcome the right to keep and bear arms was a rational basis, the Second Amendment would be redundant with the separate constitutional prohibitions on irrational laws, and would have no effect.

A law banning private sales at gun shows can be challenged, and the standard of review would be something above "rational basis" according to Scalia.

 

[usmarine0352_2005]

We therefore assume that petitioners’ issuance of a license will satisfy respondent’s prayer for relief and do not address the licensing requirement.

So by not addressing the license requirement, I take it that leaves the licensing requirement to be decided by another court case?

 

[crashm1]

Exactly.

 

[btg3]

Having to go through a FFL for private sales is unnecessary to comply with federal laws.

"An individual who does not possess a federal firearms license may not sell a firearm to a resident of another state without first transferring the firearm to a dealer in the purchaser`s state." http://www.nraila.org/GunLaws/Federal/Read.aspx?id=60

Thus, "private" interstate sales are illegal per federal law. FFL transfer is required, which IMO exceeds the definition of private.

 

[CDignition]

this argument looks convoluted. One guy is talking about people acting as dealers, another guy is talking about selling guns over state lines.

The "Gun Show Loophole" is the ability of Joe in Florida to sell his AR15 to Jimmy of Florida, Trading for other guns or cash..

They want to make it illegal for ANY face to face off paper sales.

There..All fixed,lol

 

[usmarine0352_2005]

this argument looks convoluted. One guy is talking about people acting as dealers, another guy is talking about selling guns over state lines.

The "Gun Show Loophole" is the ability of Joe in Florida to sell his AR15 to Jimmy of Florida, Trading for other guns or cash..

They want to make it illegal for ANY face to face off paper sales.

There..All fixed,lol

Yes, this is what the thread is about.

 

[Zoogster]

Many of the laws passed are a war of terminology.

'Assault weapon' was such a battle. 'Assault weapon' really has noactual definition, and it is open ended, you could include more items as you choose.

For a long time it was just a fake term coined by some antis.
However now many people can identify what an assault weapon is. That means it has become a real term even though it is still open ended.
As a result we lost on that because the terminology became accepted.

The same exists for things that end in 'loophole' or terms like "unlicensed dealer".


The federal law governing gun sales was meant to apply to people with a federal license. Not to private citizens without that license. So the law does as it was supposed to. A "loophole" would be one that allows the people it is meant to govern to still conduct that business, yet it does not.
So no loophole is in place.

It is only a loophole if you assume it is meant to govern all firearms in that nation, and not FFLs.
Antis would like to have people believe this, and the terminology accomplishes that.

By using thier terminology you help to spread thier beliefs.

 

[v35]

Using the tools of your opponent puts him at an advantage. The word "loophole" is one of those vague terms the antis use to appeal to an emotional argument.

An action is either lawful, or not. There is no such thing as a "loophole". Please... avoid the word.

It is very important that every time someone uses this time we say:

"There is no gun show loophole. The federal laws governing the sales of firearms are exactly the same no matter where the sale occurs. ..."

+1 Okie. Suffice it to say that everyone here on THR has obtained their firearms legally. No "loophole".

 

[pbslinger]

The correct term for "gunshow loophole" is: private transfer among law abiding citizens.

Why is it that the only product or possession I am guaranteed the RIGHT!!!! to own is one that has the most restrictions for transfer, possession, and purchase?

 

[Robert Hairless]

Ha. What I meant is I used the words that were invented by them but used by the general public.

Thus, when you see an article in the newspaper or on tv it will say things like, "Their trying to shut down the gun show loophole."

Yup, even I could understand what you meant.

About your question, I think you're wondering whether the U.S. government will at last take action to close the "gun show loophole" and also to stop the open sale of "assault weapons," "high capacity magazines," "cop killer bullets," and "get the guns off our streets" so we can "stop the flow of blood in the streets."

Those are more words invented by "them" and seen in newspaper articles and on TV. "They" want the general public to use those words and think in those terms. I wonder why "they" want that.

 

[Oro]

Why is it that the only product or possession I am guaranteed the RIGHT!!!! to own is one that has the most restrictions for transfer, possession, and purchase?

Because there are those whose vested interest in a socialist state do not want you to have that right. They want to erase that right as if it never existed, and are indifferent to the implications of civil liberties.

This is more than a legal fight or even moderately political. It's a pure intellectual fight about the nature of our liberties and government as a social contract. It's what makes this issue a vital fight we should only get more vocal about, not complacent.

Once legal arguments are built to subvert the second amendment, I can only wonder which ones they will try to strip next.