The gun show loophole

[Regen]

Why is it that the anti-gun advocates are so obsessed with the gun show loophole? I just posted an entry at my blog about this.

The DOJ says that only 0.7% of guns used by criminals come from gun shows. 8.3% of guns used in crimes are purchased in retail stores, with background checks. The gun shows are a tiny fraction of total guns used in crimes and 1/10th the size of those that are purchased with background checks that used. That even assuming that 0.7% is all non background checked (which I doubt).

 

[ravonaf]

Why is it that the anti-gun advocates are so obsessed with the gun show loophole?

Because the powers that be want to completely disarm the public. They can't do it all at once so they have to do it incrementally one law at a time. As everyone knows the "gun show loophole" is actually private sales between two individuals. That's a major step in completely disarming us.

 

[jfdavis58]

Why are they so rabid about anything 'gun'?

 

[Acera]

First many don't understand what it is, and they promote their warped view of it to scare people and support the sensational journalism that is prevalent in the media now.

They want to make the public think that anyone can buy anything at a gun show without restrictions.

It all about them lying to make their point, get used to it.

 

[ravonaf]

Why are they so rabid about anything 'gun'?

The regular Joe has been brainwashed by the media that guns are evil. The educated elite in power want to remove your guns in order to control you.

 

[TexasRifleman]

I love the term "loophole" being applied to following the law to the letter.

I was just saying to some folks that I was glad I was able to take advantage of the "Murder Loophole" by not killing anyone.

The whole thing is just marketing spin, and not even particularly clever at that.

 

[Walkalong]

The whole thing is just marketing spin,

as is most of the anti BS, but then, you know that.

 

[SuperNaut]

I fell for it.

Years ago (1990?) when I heard that any psycho could go to a gun show and buy a gun with no background check I was against it too. Then in conversation, some kind and knowledgeable gun-savvy folks asked me to research the "loophole" a little further. I then discovered how few gunshow purchases are used in crime; and I also discovered how far-reaching any legislation would be that regulated the disposal of personal property.

I got edjumacated.

 

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

I was just saying to some folks that I was glad I was able to take advantage of the "Murder Loophole" by not killing anyone.

Pfffffftttttt!

 

[ExtremeSquared]

I don't think i'm gonna get make many friends on here with this attitude, but i'm curious how many of you think that the "gun show loophole" should be closed?

The idea of gun sales without background checks just doesn't sit right with me.

 

[qwert65]

I think we have enough gun laws and use the "loophole" to sell and buy personal property.

Criminals will always be able to get guns off the record, and while it might prevent some nuts. i think too many honest americans would be affected

 

[TexasRifleman]

The idea of gun sales without background checks just doesn't sit right with me.

So, I have to ask why?

These types of sales have been allowed, well, always.

And, according to the FBI they account for, well, statistically negligible gun crime.

Oh! The Horror! Maybe someone, someday, might possibly do something that's already illegal with a gun! Can't have that!

Seriously, your dislike of this when shown with the facts doesn't make sense.

That puts you in with the anti movement who, even with the facts stacked against them, just "feel" like it's a bad idea, even if that feeling is provably wrong.

I'm fascinated by this line of thinking, I really am. It's amazing. It's not rational. Sad thing is I see more and more of it all the time here.

 

[jbkebert]

I am curious as to how many states still have issues with the so-called loop hold at gun shows. I went to a gun show a couple weeks ago and purchased a super blackhawk the seller called in my paperwork right then and there before he would accept mine or anyone elses money

 

[rainbowbob]

The idea of gun sales without background checks just doesn't sit right with me.

How about steak knife sales without background checks?

How about baseball bat sales without background checks?

And then of course there are the large rock and sharp stick loopholes.

 

[ExtremeSquared]

rainbowbob: It started being called a "loophole" due to the inconsistency with other gun regulation. Bats never required a check.

jbkebert: This is what i'm thinking. People will adapt. It won't take very much to set up legal gun shows. Ideally third party bg checks will be possible.

There are so many completely ridiculous restrictions out there (including the possible awb) that i just think the lobbies should pick their fights.

I understand the boiling frog theory. People decided that ffl bg checks were needed for a reason though. I'm sure most people on here disagree with this too, but it is now the law. The awb or ammo restrictions/tagging would be boiling frog laws, and those are what worry me.

 

[TexasRifleman]

It started being called a "loophole" due to the inconsistency with other gun regulation.

No, it was called a "loophole" because that evokes feelings of someone getting away with something they shouldn't. The law as it is written is not an "oversight". It was intentionally written the way it is, it wasn't an accident.

To call following the law, as written, a loophole is just spin.

 

[Old Fuff]

Most prople are completely unaware that an individual selling a firearm cannot make a background check of the potential buyer. Neither can a law enforcement officer! The only ones that can use the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) are Federally Licensed Gun Dealers (FFL); and then only after the gun has been entered into the dealer's "bound book," and the buyer has filled out a #4473 form.

Which brings us to what the anti-gun advocates are really up too, and it has very little to do with background checks...

What they want is to force all private sales (just starting with gun shows) under the FFL umbrella so that transfers of any kind are recorded on a #4473 form. Thereafter it may take years, but ultimately they will have the ability to create a de facto system of national registration. Without such a system their dream of control and confiscation cannot come about because in this country relatively few firearms are currently registered.

In addition they hope to include enough red tape and liability clauses in any loophole bill to be able to force gun show promoters out of business. One reason is that they know that organizations such as the National Rifle Association (NRA) and Gun Owners of America (GOA) often set up tables to sign up new members and collect funds. Pro gun-rights politicians also are able to get names on nominating petitions, hand out literature, and get donations to their campaign funds. All of this grass-roots activity has often frustrated the gun control movement, and in particular one of our two major political parties. Both would like to eliminate the roadblock to their goals that gun shows represent.

Frankly – at least in my opinion – those who are so quickly and willingly ready to accept background checks on private sales are naive, and I have been actively fighting this war through good times an bad since before 1968.

Trying to find some reasonable ground to form some sort of compromise with the gun control movement won’t work. They’re idea of compromise is a discussion about how much are we willing to give up. You won’t see any talk of concessions coming from their side, and no legislation is inevitable unless we simply give up.

 

[Gungnir]

Actually if you think about things the other way.

Before 1934 you could walk in to any butcher, baker or candlestick maker and by a gun, whatever gun they had in stock... no check nothing.

Then came the original NFA which added $200 tax and some other stuff.

Over time gun sales through dealers have been regulated and restricted, one inch at a time. Up to the Brady Laws, and the current NICS. Pick up a shotgun in 10 minutes, but a handgun takes 5 days, because obviously a handgun is far more dangerous than a 12 gauge pump action and We've been conditioned to accept this as normal.

The ONLY place that gun sales still exist like they did before all the restrictions is private sales. Then people wonder why they want to eliminate that. Its my property, why do I need to anything if I want to sell it? If I want to sell a knife I don't need to get an ok from the police, FBI or anyone, knives kill too, so do sharp sticks, ladders, etc.

I think thats whats scariest about this is that we're all so conditioned to say oh, yeah the gun show loophole lets try to come up with a solution before it's a solution that is placed on us. I'm pretty sure that back in '94 and '86 there were people thinking that something was inevitable and wanted to suggest something before this came to be. The same in '68, and likely the same in '34.

There must come a time when reasonable people who are acting lawfully need to say no. No you will not take my right. No you will not take my property. No you will not take my firearms, or my ammunition, or my rights to them.

"The Right of the people, to keep and bear Arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" There is not a qualification of, oh but we didn't mean by tax, or a 5 day cooling off period, or only certain types of weapons, but not full-auto, or rifles that are black, or over a certain caliber.

The Amendment is clear, maybe it's time we stood up and said, Infringement is infringement, these all infringe my right.