We need to put this myth to rest for good....

[buzz_knox]

To me there is an inherent risk in living we will never be truly safe and have freedom and I will choose freedom every time, but I won't deny the fact that no danger is there. Does that make sense?

Yes, it does. It also makes sense to recognize the potential that you'll suddenly develop a food allergy and the next meal you have will kill you. That's about as likely as criminals obtaining firearms from shows because both events happen, but are so infrequent as to be stastistically irrelevant. Admitting that such an unlikely event is reality really adds nothing to the situation. It's extraneous information that only serves to embolden our enemies because it's not being backed up with the fact that the likelihood of the event is negligible.

We know where criminals obtain the vast majority of their weapons: from burglaries and from each other.

 

[qwert65]

Buzz- I see your point that strategically admitting it could be harmful. I agree with this. I was mainly posting because it seemed that many posters here were of the mind set that there was no way it could go wrong without being illegal anyway. I just wanted to point out that I belive members of this board have a better moral quality overall, but sometimes fail to see how unscrupulous some gun owners are.

I also brought it up as this is activism and if we're going to but the myth to bed. we have to prove that it is a myth- however it is not a myth just as suddenly devolping a food allergy is not a myth just an extremly unlikley occurrence.

From an activism side maybe we shouldn't bring it up that is my point since we cannot refute it. You know as well as I that our enemies are eithier illogical or have an insidous agenda. But I think it would be dumb to classify them all as stupid.(not saying you are) If we bring this up we would only lose the argument. This might be a case of better staying silent(since if we lie then we would be the ones with the agenda)

 

[AirForceShooter]

Let's not forget the "buying guns off the internet" loophole.
I keep trying to find that one.

AFS

 

[qwert65]

Let's not forget the "buying guns off the internet" loophole

That one really is a myth(assuming no blackpowder)

 

[foghornl]

"Assault Weapons"

Last time I got asked "Is that an 'Assault Weapon'?" my reply was "Only if I butt-stroke your face with it..."

 

[cmidkiff]

What we have is ineffective infringement on our right to own firearms, to say that there is a 'loophole' is to recognize that free trade in firearms is a problem.

Do criminals really have a hard time getting their hands on a firearm? Even in DC, NYC, CA, or Chicago... where the really draconian purchase laws are in effect? Background check, federal forms, licensing... all have proven ineffective in limiting criminals access to firearms.

So... in the face of a failed policy... let's expand the failed policy to inconvenience law abiding citizens a little more!

What other constitutionally protected right must I get governmental permission to exercise? Should we require a background check before allowing someone to voice their opinion in a public forum such as this one? Does my pastor need to fill out a federal form before he steps up to the pulpit? Do I need to show a state ID before I buy a newspaper?

It's not 'OK' to require a permit, or background check, or federal form, or proof of training, or anything else before allowing someone to purchase a firearm. Closing the 'gun show loophole', is just a PC term for eliminating the ability for private citizens to buy and sell private property without government intrusion.

'They' don't want 'reasonable regulation', no matter what the brady bunch might say. Gun control is about control, not guns. As long as the citizens of this nation possess firearms, we can't be controlled.

 

[IllHunter]

I am confused too...

Everytime I see or hear about the "loophole" I ask the source (write the editor) to define said "loophole". Aside from those here who actually frequent gunshows, I have been able (several times) to demonstrate that the speaker/writer has no idea of the myriad and complex gun laws that do exist and have no clue what the "loophole" is. This was most edifying when the state rep sponsoring the latest outrage had no plausible response to my seeking clarification. He reered to the wording of the current outrage but it was ammunition related and had nothing to do with gunshows.

 

[akanotken]

OK, I'll play devil's advocate ...

Loophole means a legal way to subvert the intention of the law (my definition).

The intention seems to mean that anyone in the business of selling guns obtain an FFL and complete all the necessary paperwork and a back ground check.

Now the grey area. For folks WITH a table at the gunshow with anywhere from a few to many guns to sell (not the folks walking around with a pricetag taped to them/thier gun) it might be argued that they are now part of that business. In fact, they often sit next to FFL's. But they aren't completing all of the forms the FFL sitting next to them is required to do.

So yea, if you see things this way, there is a loophole. And if you find an Anti with any smarts, this will be the argument you will need to fight.

But they are few and far between. It really is about slowing down gun ownership/transfer.

Taking off the devil's advocate hat ...

Personally, I'd love to see this as a bargaining chip. Allow a provision requiring tabled gun sellors to do a $2 background check in with a pro gun bill. Anti politicians get to declare the loophole closed. But they have to agree to something for us. i.e. make any place of business financially responsible for damages if they prevent firearms on thier property. Or a protection for gun/ammo manufactures, or a statement that cities and states may not ban firearms, etc.

But that is wishful thinking.

Buzz, do you have an stats on criminal's firearms sources? Part of me says gunshow pricing is more than a thug really wants to pay, but part of me believes that it would be a quick easy way to pick one up. I thought the genesis of this was finding that a sizable chunk of guns used in firearms sourced out of gun shows?

 

[R127]

If you are worried about this you need to not vote for McCain. The "gun show loophole" is one of his pet projects he and Joe Lieberman are always trying to stitch up.

 

[RobNDenver]

Agreed. Guns sold at gun shows in Colorado are subject to NICS whether you are buying from a FFL or a private party. . . . But so many writers and citizens have no idea that gun sales at these events are regulated.

Best regards,

Rob Sprecher

 

[Carl N. Brown]

Let's take private guns sales between individuals out of the gun shows and put'em back where they came from: the swap meets, flea markets, trading papers, local bars, etc.

Back in the 1970s my stepdad bought my mom a home protection pistol from a guy selling pistols from his car trunk at the stockyard.

Let's close that wine tasting loophole while we're at it and put the liquor trade back where it belongs, with the bootleggers.

 

[Kentak]

Don't make an issue of it. Give me 500 bucks and I'll come out with two or three guns and no background checks.

Make an issue of it, and some local news channel will do just that.

K

 

[scythefwd]

In IL, that loophole is non existant. In order to keep your foid, technically, you are required to document any and all firearm transactions for 10 after. The records are your own if you are a private seller, but you still have to document them. This I believe involves getting the foid number, a copy of id, and a proof of purchase (I think hand written on the back of a mcdonalds receipt might actually work if both parties signed it).

To those who said the foid is majorly restrictive, do you actually live where they require one? My foid let me buy ammo, firearms (non fully auto as I didn't have a license for that), etc. The only restriction would have been the waiting period, which would exist with or without the foid card. The foid is basically an instant background check. The reason I state so is that you show your card and no background check is ran because anyone that commits a crime that would disallow them from having a foid has their foid confiscated.

If you guys are willing, please educate me on what restrictions the foid creates as I never ran into them. That doesn't mean they don't exist, just that I didn't run into them.

Just a side note, I was able to get my foid when I was 8 and I never had any issue renewing it until I left IL.

 

[BullfrogKen]

There's more politics than planning occuring in this thread.