Loophole

[rojocorsa]

What exactly is the famous "gun show loophole?"

 

[Rubber_Duck]

Supposedly, criminals and juveniles can simply walk into a gun show and buy deadly, high-powered assault rifles at a gun show, cash-and-carry, no questions asked.

"Gun show loophole" is a misleading term, since these types of sales don't have to happen at a gun show, they can happen anywhere. But a gun show is a convenient place for it to happen, since people can browse what others are selling from their own personal collections. People can sell a gun just like they would sell a blender or a guitar (depending on state law, but I live in a free state), as it's simply a personal item. So it's not really a loophole.

In my state, this is legal (for FTF private sales only. Dealers/FFL holders still have to use the 4473 form and NICS check). I'm not familiar with the laws in CA.

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

It's not a "loophole" at all. It's the right I have to sell you a gun like I would sell you a TV or an old couch, so long as it's not illegal for you to own a gun at all. Guns at gun shows are simply Face to Face sales, like the sale of any other product one person would sell another. The media calls it "the gun show loophole" to make trick people into thinking that me selling my property to you face to face without a government agency looking over my shoulder or giving me permission is a bad thing.

 

[dogngun]

It's simply another anti-gun lie, like the "assault weapon". The old FBI report from the late 1990's stated that gun show sales to criminals was insignificant - most criminals buy stolen guns from other criminals or steal them from relatives or acquaintances.

mark

 

[jbauch357]

The WAC (Washington Arms Collectors) gun shows require you to be a member with a clean background check to purchase/transfer weapons at the show or on the property grounds during a show. This doesn't mean you can't talk with somebody, leave the event and then make the trade though.

"Gun Show Loophole" is just speaking to the ability of people to perform a private sale/transfer of a weapon with no background check during a gun show - which is perfectly legal.

Tranferring a weapon to a person that you know legally cannot own a weapon is illegal, regardless of where you do it - this transfer happening at a gun show is what is typically cited as the "gun show loophole".

 

[subknave]

It is the kind of thing some anti-gun person would see at a gun show (as it is public) and not of course in someones garage, living room, kitchen or anywhere else people buy or sell stuff. Their first reaction would be OMG someone can get a gun without government approval and thus the mythical "Gun Show Loophole" was born. Of course it would never occur to them that even if you made a law that said any transfer of a gun had to go through an FFL and NCIS check it wouldn't stop many criminals and would make a lot more criminals simply because a lot of people would be ignorant of the law and sell or trade guns just like they always have. In some parts of the country a gun is as common as a hammer and loaned or traded about as casually.

 

[Frog48]

Something is either legal or illegal. There is no such thing as something being "kinda legal" or "barely legal", which is what the term "loophole" tends to imply.

There is no "loophole", as intrastate commerce is regulated by state law, not federal law... or at least thats the way our founders intended it to be.

 

[rojocorsa]

Forgive my ignorance, but is it really OK for people to do private sales without background checks? This topic seems somewhat confusing and I admit I need to learn more about it, but private sales of firearms without a background check doesn't seem like a good idea to me.

 

[K3]

Forgive my ignorance, but is it really OK for people to do private sales without background checks? This topic seems somewhat confusing and I admit I need to learn more about it, but private sales of firearms without a background check doesn't seem like a good idea to me.

Why?

It worked just fine until GCA 1968.

How much of an effect do you really think background checks and 4473s have had on violent crime? Seriously.

I see you're from PRK, and perhaps that has conditioned your thinking a bit.


Edit: Note my sig below. That always gets me to thinking, particularly when others post or speak with similar sentiments as yours.

 

[7.62X25mm]

Felons go to gun shows and buy firearms from private parties. The BATF knows all about it and is at the gun shows where they regularly make arrests.

I don't know if the 4473 slows violent crime or not, but it sure as hell slows down felons purchasing firearms from other than black market sources.

Selling firearms to felons is a bad idea. Dispute that statement.

 

[Ron-Bon]

What I do not understand is why the infamous gun-show loophole came to the fore-front so forcefully after the Virginia Tech Massacre. I do not recall the murderer buying his gun from a gun-show at all. It is terrible how the gun-grabbers will use a national tragedy of that caliber to further their political agenda.

 

[K3]

Felons go to gun shows and buy firearms from private parties. The BATF knows all about it and is at the gun shows where they regularly make arrests.

I don't know if the 4473 slows violent crime or not, but it sure as hell slows down felons purchasing firearms from other than black market sources.

Selling firearms to felons is a bad idea. Dispute that statement.

1) See my sig

2) What has changed with regard to violent crime since 1968? Has it gotten noticeably better since the enactment of GCA68? IOW, has barring (on paper) felons from obtaining guns really worked?

3) Today's felons aren't necessarily violent offenders.

4) If a man has paid is jury or judge mandated debt to society and has changed his ways, what's the problem? Should he not have the same ability to provide for the defense of his person, family, and property as you or I? If a man cannot be trusted to have a firearm because he is a bad seed, he shouldn't see the light of day again. If he's in the pokey, there's no need to worry about him going to a gunshow to get his fo-tay.

5) Liberty

6) Liberty

5 and 6 come with risks. I'd rather have those risks and plenty of liberty to live my life without getting Uncle Sugar's permission for every cottonpickin' thing in life.

Considering the main purpose behind RKBA, it amazes me that so many people advocate that the very entity that needs to be checked regulates the means and tools to keep it in check. Puzzling to say the least.

 

[K3]

What I do not understand is why the infamous gun-show loophole came to the fore-front so forcefully after the Virginia Tech Massacre. I do not recall the murderer buying his gun from a gun-show at all. It is terrible how the gun-grabbers will use a national tragedy of that caliber to further their political agenda.

Convenience.

Any tragedy like that is extrememly useful to them as they push to have their agenda implemented. That agenda being complete civilian disarmament.

 

[TexasRifleman]

Selling firearms to felons is a bad idea. Dispute that statement.

Convicted, sentenced, and served their time?

Not sure I see a problem with it.

What happened to innocent until proven guilty and unreasonable punishment?

If the felon is that damn dangerous why are they out of prison?

Dispute THAT.

And besides all that, all the studies show that criminals rarely buy their guns from gun shows or anywhere else.

They steal them.

 

[rojocorsa]

So private sales have no effect on violent crime either way right? Because a criminal doesn't follow the law...they will still privately sell in the "dark alley" either way.


OK, I have become enlightened.

 

[TexasRifleman]

So private sales have no effect on violent crime either way right?

As far as any study done on the subject has revealed, that is true.

Negligible impact on crime since, as these same studies show, most guns used in crimes are stolen then resold through "dark alley" deals, not gun shows.

And here's the shocker, hope you are sitting down, if there were laws against selling guns through private sales it wouldn't matter because (here's the part that might be confusing) criminals DON'T OBEY LAWS ANYWAY.

 

[novaDAK]

I feel the same way. If someone did the time in prison and is released, they should be a full citizen. If they are that dangerous, that they can't be trusted with a gun, why are they allowed out in public? They should be locked up.

 

[deadin]

If they are that dangerous, that they can't be trusted with a gun, why are they allowed out in public? They should be locked up.

Why are they allowed out? ......Might be because of our criminal justice system that mandates a specific amount of time locked up (i.e. "sentence"). It does not have any provision for "rehabilitation" in order to be released. Maybe we should make all crimes an automatic life sentence with the provision that when and if "someone" decides you are fit for society again, you can be released with full privileges.
The only place that has anything like this is the funny-farm.

 

[subknave]

It used to be that a person convicted of a felony could apply for "relief" by petitioning to have his rights restored. Now days congress in its infinite wisdom denies any funding for this so even if you applied it couldn't be processed. So there used to be a way for someone convicted of a felony to get his gun rights back but since they want to deny everyone their gun rights they eliminated that and are trying hard to make everyone a felon by making ever more ridiculous laws. Eventually everyone will be or could be a felon and so no one could have a gun.

 

[benminer]

This is only a "loophole" in the sense that there is no law saying it's illegal, so by that logic there is a "sand castle loophole" because there are no laws (to my knowledge) regulating the building of sand castles.

 

[daddywasapistol]

Here's my $.02

1. Of course, as a matter of law, there is no "loophole". There is also no way to use new laws to keep people from breaking the old ones.

2. There is a problem of enforcement. There are "private sellers" who are there at every gun show within 150 mi. of their home, selling from their "private collection". We've all seen them; arguably, they are skirting the law. I would not be surprised to learn that many dealers support "closing the loophole".

3. You may not have anything against these guys, but they are going to ruin shows for the rest of us, because if the Democrats get their way, ALL private sales at gun shows will have to go through an FFL.

4. What's really frightening, is that they will try to extend this restriction to all gun sales, period. Even between you and your brother-in-law.

 

[wacki]

Every gun I've ever bought at the Indianapolis gun shows went through a background check. The only "loophole" in Indiana that can be closed is the fact that I can sell my dad or my brother one of my old rifles and I won't have to tell big brother what I'm doing.

 

[mojo II]

The term "loop hole" implies the law should cover something but due to vague wording there is a way around the original intention of the law.

I think most posts are missing the point;

1) burocratic (anti's) liberals want all sales controled by their rules.

2) taxes & fees are lost to the burocrats when private citizens are allowed to do business outside their control.

The law covering ownership & sales of guns does not have any loop hole. If it is illegal for someone to buy thru a dealer, it is also illegal for them to buy from a private party. It is also illegal for the lawful owner to sell, give, or otherwise transfer ownership of a firearm to anyone they know is forbidden from possesing said gun. NO LOOP-HOLE!

The loop hole thing is simply a loop hole in "gov. control" of private citizens engaged in legal trade. The anti's are persisting in the falsehood of a loop hole to the point that many actually think that those that can not buy legally from a dealer can legally buy at gun shows. NOT TRUE, the law is the same for them no matter where the go!

The old addage "say it loud enough, long enough & it will be believed" is in play here. Their goal is not just controling illigal sales but all sales. Every time someone repeats the loop hole falsehood they are furthering the anti's work.

We are supposed to be free people. You are held accountable for what you do. This is a good theory but our system has failed miserably as far as gun laws are concerned. A friend & pawn shop owner told me the police never check guns against the national stolen gun registry unless there is a specific item they are looking for. Anyone can try to buy & when the backgroung check fails, there is no follow up for false statement.

A few years ago a friend's home was broken into. The perp stole 3 guns along with other items. (one of the guns was mine) The prosicuting attorney asked me at the time of the grand jury inquest what I thought would be minimum penalty if convicted. I stated the perp armed himself during a robbery, thats armed robbery, also he sold two of the guns to known felons (drugies with recent records) The law against sale or otherwise transfer to a known fellon should apply.

Long story short, he pled to criminal trespass & walked with time served
(7 days before he made bail) My point;

1) a criminal finds it easier to steal rather than buy

2) very few gun law violations ever are charged against the criminal, they are there to control you & me & the gun,

Several years ago I read a survey for Washington State. It said of all guns confiscated by police, less than 2% resulted in an inditement under a gun law. Less than .2% were ever returned to the owner.

Every day you read of a raid where guns, drugs, & money were confiscated. Why do they grab the guns if a law has not been violated?

It's not about keeping guns out of the wrong hands, it's about control!
The anti's will do it too thru over control, red tape, & mass regulation.

Jim

 

[NavyLCDR]

Forgive my ignorance, but is it really OK for people to do private sales without background checks? This topic seems somewhat confusing and I admit I need to learn more about it, but private sales of firearms without a background check doesn't seem like a good idea to me.

It is good that you are in California, then, because private sales without going through an FFL and, therefore, the associated background check is illegal in California. In states that are still free, however, there is no evidence that private sales contribute in any way to higher crime. In fact, the states that have the fewest gun laws such as Alaska and Vermont also tend to have the lowest crime rates, but again, there are no statistics to correlate the low crime rate with the low level of firearms regulations.

In my own mind, common sense would dictate that a criminal is going to have much better luck in places where it is more difficult for citizens to have the means available to protect themselves.

 

[mgkdrgn]

Felons go to gun shows and buy firearms from private parties. The BATF knows all about it and is at the gun shows where they regularly make arrests.

I don't know if the 4473 slows violent crime or not, but it sure as hell slows down felons purchasing firearms from other than black market sources.

Selling firearms to felons is a bad idea. Dispute that statement.

Jumping off a 50 story building w/o a parachute is stupid ... dispute that statement.

The FBI's own stats show that of the crimes committed with firearms, .7% of those firearms were purchased at gunshows. (thats 7 tenths of one percent for those that can't quite make out the decimal point) 35% came from family members ... BATF would get a better "hit" rate by staking out family reunion picnics.

As for "regular arrests" ... I don't know about the gun shows you go to, but I've never seen anyone arrested at one in the 15 years I've been going.