So, is the claimed "Gun Show Loophole" really just a "Private Gun Sale"?

[Logical]

I am assuming all this whining about the gun show loophole is really just complaints about two private citizens at a gun show decide to buy a gun from the other private citizen? Neither who are Federal Firearm Dealers.

If this is true, then I assume this same gun show loophole could happen in the Walmart parking lot after the gun show?

If so, then the "gun show loophole" phrase should be eliminated!!

And there is NO POSSIBLE WAY to stop private sales without registering all current guns with the government. Which will NEVER happen.

Sounds like this issue is a bunch of whining about nothing that can be fixed. If I am wrong let me know!

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Logical]

2. I hope some idiot Dem introduces a bill to register all guns so you can see how quickly....

all the other dems vote NO on that bill. They will distance themselves from it IMMEDIATELY!

We need to stop fighting battles that we cannot win and stop losing voters because of it.

[Deep13]

6. What's the big deal with registration?

Cars are registered and it doesn't keep them off the road. Why not be able to trace where a firearm came from? I understand that most guns are not used in crime, but some of them are for sure.

[Logical]

8. I have no issue with it but there is no way you can pull it off. Ask Canada. n-t

[Deep13]

12. Okay. Canada, what's the big deal with registration?

Oh wait, Canada is a country, not a person so maybe you can explain what you mean. :shrug:

[Logical]

16. Canada is about to stop theirs for being too expensive! n-t

[gejohnston]

19. cost, nonvalue in crime fighting, level of noncompliance

The level of civil disobedience there is quite high on this issue. This is a country based on peace and good order and were 12 year olds buying ammunition is a non issue.
We however are based on life, liberty, and all of the Enlightenment stuff.

Canadian gun registry is good if you own stock in Honeywell, the company that maintains the system for the RCMP

[gejohnston]

13. You are assuming

criminal leave the gun behind. They don't. Also, it would be traced to where it was stolen from not who committed the crime.

[Deep13]

20. Or to who sold it to him.

Trace it back to the owner and he says "it was stolen" but there is no police report filed and no insurance claim made, then there is a good bet he committed the crime. The problem with this criminal/law-abiding citizen dichotomy is that people are not criminals until they commit crimes. For most (maybe all as I cannot think of an exception) of the gun crimes I have prosecuted, the crime was committed using the defendant's lawfully-owned gun.

[gejohnston]

29. I'm not a lawyer, so I guess you could make a good case,

although your experience is different from all the criminology lit I have read. I take it your practice was not in one of the larger cities, where they tend to be gangs? While no one said that otherwise law abiding people go off the deep end, that (on a national scale) that tends not to be the case. At least, that is my understanding.
Did any of the defendants leave the weapon behind?

[Deep13]

32. Some of them disposed of the gun, others were arrested with it.

One guy shot his wife six times with a .38 sp ammunition, yet could not find his own .38 revolver. Another guy shot his landlord with a Beretta Bobcat and the gun was on him when he was arrested. Another guy beat his victim with his Taurus pistol which fell apart leaving pieces in the yard. One woman picked up a gun spec by having a .25 pistol in her stockings while transporting drugs. We did not indict anyone for the 9mm pistol in the trunk since it was properly stored. Another guy was arrested with his NAA .22 revolver after he shot a cop in his yard. (What's with the tiny handguns?)

[gejohnston]

36. I see, definitely not Detroit

The tiny NAAs? My guess is that they came out as novelties in the 1970s IIRC. The reason I say novelties is that outside Vermont (who not only has the laxest, but are nonexistent including CCW)the other states did not have shall issue other than Washington State. Wyoming was may issue from about 1887-1995 if that gives you an idea. Today I would say they are OK rapist repellent. I don't have one, and I don't work for NAA's marketing dept so I really don't know.
I am willing to bet that the first guy had a history of domestic abuse before he shot her. The drug mule was, to me, a criminal that was not caught yet. I am willing to bet the other two had a history of violence also.

[GreenStormCloud]

63. Looks like they were caught with the gun on them, so tracing was not needed.

One guy shot his wife six times with a .38 sp ammunition, yet could not find his own .38 revolver.
Was the gun ever recovered? If not how would registration have done any good?

Another guy shot his landlord with a Beretta Bobcat and the gun was on him when he was arrested.
He had the gun on him when arrested. Tracing via registration would not be needed for his gun crime.

Another guy beat his victim with his Taurus pistol which fell apart leaving pieces in the yard.
Did one of the pieces include the serial number. Since that is normally on the frame it would be unlikely that the frame was one of the pieces.

One woman picked up a gun spec by having a .25 pistol in her stockings while transporting drugs.
She had the gun on here when arrested. Tracing via registration wold not be needed for her gun crime.

You have yet to show a crime solved by tracing via registration. Criminals rarely leave the gun behind at the scene of the crime. They may get caught with the gun on them, but that is a different matter.

[aikoaiko]

51. How would registration have helped you prosecute all those cases...

...where the gun was owned lawfully?

:shrug:

[RSillsbee]

57. I own several guns

that are 2 or 3 owners away from the original purchaser. Some that I purchased legally, secondhand when I lived in a different state.

So let's say one of my guns goes missing and gets used in a crime are the police going to come looking or me or the guy the purchased it new in Texas, or Florida, or Washington State, or Nebraska 20 years ago? or the guy that purchased it new in some other state moved to one of the states in which I buy my guns then sold it to whoever sold it to whoever sold it to whoever sold it to me?

What do the police do when that guy (or his heirs) say "Officer, I (or who ever) sold that gun at a flea market 25 years ago"

Do you see where your premise gets very difficult , very quickly?

[Glassunion]

15. It's very expensive, useless and unenforceable. Basically, it won't work.

[benEzra]

30. One big difference is the history and likelihood of registration abuse.

What's the big deal with registration? Cars are registered and it doesn't keep them off the road.

One big difference is the history and likelihood of registration abuse.

The history of gun registration, unlike car registration, offers many examples of registration leading to confiscatory bans, both abroad and in the United States (UK, Australia, NYC, California) or as a means to prevent new ownership (Chicago, D.C., the 1986 Hughes Amendment). Gun control advocates in the state of Illinois are currently trying to publish the names of every registered gun owner in the state. Gun registration has quite a history of abuse.

There is an organized and well funded movement in this country to ban various classes of currently legal civilian guns, and those groups are the same ones pushing registration. A huge obstacle to such selective bans is the fact that there is no "who owns what and should we let them keep it" list, and a lot of gun control advocates would like to change that.

Nor does the related history of gun licensure in this country offer any encouragement that registration lists wouldn't be abused in this manner. Heck, look at the almost daily posts in this very forum stereotyping those of us who have qualified for state carry licenses.

In light of the foregoing history of abuse---and the fact that criminals are exempt by law from registration on 5th Amendment grounds (Haynes v. U.S., 1968)---registration is simply not going to fly. Nor should it, IMO.

Why not be able to trace where a firearm came from? I understand that most guns are not used in crime, but some of them are for sure.

Firearms can be traced where they came from, as required by the Gun Control Act of 1968. The existing trace system is not well suited to selective confiscation, though, hence (IMO) the push for registration.

[lawodevolution]

41. Gun registration is a violation of the 5th so a court can abolish a gun registration scheme if it is

ever used in court, so the only use of gun registration in the US is to prepare for gun confiscation. Given the number of guns in the US it would not be possible to justify funding it and if they tried to charge fees for every gun they would be dumped on the market and black market by the millions and every year it is more of an impossibility as people by millions of more guns. Gun owners can make registration less likely by buying more guns.

[GreenStormCloud]

52. Please explain what good registration of guns would do.

Real world, please.

Meanwhile in the US there have already been a couple of cases in which a registration list was used for a gun confiscation list by the state government.

[beevul]

62. Ownership.

"Cars are registered"


To use on public roads, not simply to own.

[krispos42]

64. What other items in your house that can be used in crime would you like registered?

Your computer? Your internet modem? Your printer? CD-Rs? Cameras? Knives? Cellphone/smartphone?

All phones nowadays have 911-activated GPS. Why not simply leave it on all the time? Think of how easy it would be to solve crime if the police could simply track down eyewitnesses based on their GPS location at the time of a crime?

[gejohnston]

9. Do you have any idea the noncompliance rate in Canada is?

They keep moving he deadline for long guns. The only thing it has done for nearly 16 years is line the pockets for Honeywell. New Zealand police lobbied parliament to scrap theirs in the 1980s because it suck resources for no reason. How well do you seriously think it will work here?
Please describe this destruction of society? Nice talking point, but please elaborate on what you are talking about.

[spin]

17. You do realize that criminals are not legally required to register their firearms ...

Haynes v. United States

Haynes v. United States, 390 U.S. 85

(1968), was a United States Supreme Court decision interpreting the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution's self-incrimination clause. Haynes extended the Fifth Amendment protections elucidated in Marchetti v. United States, 390 U.S. 39, 57 (1968).<[br />
Background of the case

The National Firearms Act of 1934 required the registration of certain types of firearms. Miles Edward Haynes was a convicted felon who was charged with failing to register a firearm under the Act. Haynes argued that, because he was a convicted felon and thus prohibited from owning a firearm, requiring him to register was essentially requiring him to make an open admission to the government that he was in violation of the law, which was thus a violation of his right not to incriminate himself.

Majority opinion

In 7-1 decision, the Court ruled in favor of Haynes. Earl Warren dissented in a one sentence opinion and Thurgood Marshall did not participate in the ruling.

As with many other 5th amendment cases, felons and others prohibited from possessing firearms could not be compelled to incriminate themselves through registration.<1><2> The National Firearm Act was amended after Haynes and the new registration provision was upheld in United States v. Freed, 401 U.S. 601 (1971).<3>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haynes_v._United_States

And that some states like Florida prohibit gun registration. The following excerpt from the Florida Statutes sums up my feelings nicely.

The 2010 Florida Statutes(including Special Session A)

790.335 Prohibition of registration of firearms; electronic records.—

(1) LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS AND INTENT.—
(a) The Legislature finds and declares that:
1. The right of individuals to keep and bear arms is guaranteed under both the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and s. 8, Art. I of the State Constitution.
2. A list, record, or registry of legally owned firearms or law-abiding firearm owners is not a law enforcement tool and can become an instrument for profiling, harassing, or abusing law-abiding citizens based on their choice to own a firearm and exercise their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed under the United States Constitution. Further, such a list, record, or registry has the potential to fall into the wrong hands and become a shopping list for thieves.
3. A list, record, or registry of legally owned firearms or law-abiding firearm owners is not a tool for fighting terrorism, but rather is an instrument that can be used as a means to profile innocent citizens and to harass and abuse American citizens based solely on their choice to own firearms and exercise their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed under the United States Constitution.emphasis added
4. Law-abiding firearm owners whose names have been illegally recorded in a list, record, or registry are entitled to redress.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0790/Sections/0790.335.html

[Logical]

21. Great references! Thanks! n-t

[spin]

26. No problem. Thanks for your support. (n/t)

[rl6214]

38. So in your mind damntexdem

are all gun owners "gunnuts"?

[lawodevolution]

44. "are all gun owners "gunnuts"? "

Only the ones who don't bow down to his/her gun control desires.

[Deep13]

3. I think it is a commercial transaction made under the pretense of a private sale.

I think the law treats gun shows like flea markets, someplace where a group of nonprofessionals go to get rid of a bunch of stuff. Like flea markets, however, the nonprofessional in fact is the exception to the rule. They are in fact vendors who ride the gun show circuit.

[hack89]

24. They can't be riding the gun show circuit

legal private sales apply only to a person selling a gun to someone else who lives in the same state while both are actually in that state. If the transaction involves interstate commerce, then it is a Federal issue and a federal license is required.

[Deep13]

28. I didn't say the circuit crosses state lines.

Around here they travel from county fairground to county fairground. And they do ask for a driver's license to check residency.

[hack89]

31. If they meet the income criteria for a gun dealer but don't have a license

then they are criminals - has nothing to do with the gun show loophole.

[gejohnston]

56. but their wholesaler most likely from another state

unless you are in Mass and they only sell Smith and Wessons and buying directly from the factory.

[rl6214]

4. You are correct in that it is a private sale loophole

but you are never going to get the gun control people to admit that.

It sounds much more evil to call it a gun show loophole and claim that every criminal, mass shooter and terrorist is getting guns from gun shows.

You're preaching to the choir Logical

[Logical]

7. I hope some of the non-choir members learn something also! :-)

[Deep13]

10. That's a mischaracterization.

The concern is that dealers are operating without licenses or background checks under the pretense of being amateurs making private sales. I have to say that I myself have not run into that. Every time I have either bought or sold something at a gun show (once each), it was with a federal transfer form and the purchase at least was with an FBI background check. Perhaps state law requires that, I don't really know.

[onehandle]

5. I think it should be called the 'Columbine Massacre Loophole.'

[oneshooter]

22. I sure wish that you actually knew of what you speak.

Those two got the weapons by using a "straw buyer". A person who will legally purchase a weapon, but then turn it over to another who CAN NOT legally own them.

Please get it straight in your mind.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[onehandle]

27. Sounds like a loophole to me.

And actually I knew that. There are So many loopholes that put legal guns in the wrong hands that they are spoken of in the same breathe.

[rl6214]

42. How is that a loophole

that is an illegal act.

[PavePusher]

47. Not a "loophole". Specifically illegal by law.

You don't seem to know what the word means, or how to use it.

[Katya Mullethov]

53. When they let her off for breaking that law

That was the loophole .

But that cant possibly be a problem as nobody gives a fuck .

[X_Digger]

54. One person went to jail.. no "loophole"

If it were a loophole, nobody would have been charged.

Perhaps you should check your terms.

See, a straw purchase is already illegal. Do you want to make it double-uber-super-duper illegal?

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[PavePusher]

46. Yeah, 'cause those are the only people who buy at gunshows....

or something.

Seriously, do you get off on trying to paint all gun owners as criminal, psychopathic deviants? 'Cause you sure seem to have a fetish for it...

[safeinOhio]

11. Should be named the

"no background check on handgun sales law".

Yes there is a record of commercial sales, if you want to call that registration, and there is no reason not to have the same on private sales. Unless you are for making it easy for restricted people to obtain handguns.

[Logical]

14. So you are adding on a fee for every private gun sale to pay for the check? And forcing...

the buyer and seller to go to a FFL dealer to do the sale?

Sounds like an unworkable plan.

Not counting the 50,000 stolen guns a year that would bypass the whole system anyway.

[safeinOhio]

33. The cost would be less than a box

of shells. It would also cut down on the market for stolen guns.

Are the current laws on background checks by FFL dealers unworkable? Even the NRA supports that. I'm all for user fees, that is cost to the people that use an item, putting less cost on others that don't use the item.

Note, I'm only for this on handguns. 85 % of all gun crime is handgun crime. I'm all for legal, law abiding citizens having access to and being able to carry as concealed licensed handgun permit holders. I am for slowing the transfer and the ease for of obtaining handguns by criminals. Because it is easy to sell a handgun with no check, it makes a market for stolen guns that are not traced back to the owner or leave a trail for police to catch the crooks. You can now buy a handgun from a private source and never know if it is stolen or not unless you have the local cops run a trace on it. If you are caught with a stolen gun, you just say you bought it from a private seller in the parking lot at a gun show or where ever.

There is nothing drastic about this or a burden that would stop an unrestricted buyer from buying a handgun. Just as they can now do at any FFL dealer.

[Logical]

43. If you do that then you realize only the honest citizens will do it anyway?

You will absolutely not stop one criminal from obtaining a gun. Not one single criminal. They will just buy stolen guns from someone in the street.

[safeinOhio]

60. That is your opinion

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201102070020


Bottom line is that the NICS system and the background check system in place before NICS prevented1.9 million attempted gun purchases by prohibited persons, convicted felons, domestic violence offenders and other prohibited groups. So yes, in fact background checks do keep guns out of the hands of criminals.


Please read whole article

[Logical]

61. And you are assuming these 1.9 million did not obtain guns some other....

way. You know that is not correct.

Since Brady, criminals have not had a hard time obtaining guns. It just changed the way the tried to obtain them. Even after getting denied many people still obtain guns from private sellers.

There is no proof Brady has done anything to stop criminals from eventually obtaining guns. No more than the War on Drugs has stopped drug use.

I understand your hope that this helps. I wish it would also. But it does not.

[safeinOhio]

66. Not assuming anything.

I'm going with actual FBI data. You are assuming that NICS does not work at all. Of course it is not perfect, but it does work. Is it more difficult for a restricted person to hunt down an illegal handgun than for you or me, assuming we are both legal, to walk into a sporting goods store and buy handgun? Let's be logical about this. Most posters here think that crime rates are down because of more gun ownership in the country. Isn't it possible it is because of more LEGAL gun ownership? After all the stats posted about gun ownership comes from numbers published about LEGAL gun purchases and the increase in CCWs. Both are about legal buyers, not the transfer of illegal handguns. When those of us that support legal, unrestricted, law abiding citizens from owning and carrying handguns and wish to make it more difficult for restricted people to do so, the ideologues come out of the woodwork with reasons that there is no way to prevent or make it more difficult to slow illegal access.

[PavePusher]

49. "The cost would be less than a box of shells."

So, you seem to advocate the equivalent of a poll tax. How do you feel about manditory voter I.D.?

[oneshooter]

59. "The cost would be less than a box of shells"

22 Rimfire or 338 Lapua?

[gejohnston]

65. .700 Nitro Express? n/t

[rrneck]

67. Do you know what a straw purchaser is?

Somebody who knows somebody. That's it. And they're only that if there's an FFL involved. Do you really think it's possible to maintain chain of custody documentation on half a billion objects weighing a few pounds that will fit in a pocket? That's right, I said half a billion. Whatever law you enact has to work for the foreseeable future and people buy over a million guns a month in this country not to mention private transfers.

You're actually trying to regulate personal relationships. Not only will it not work, it'll never happen.

[eqfan592]

25. Has it really had an impact in Canada?

It does not appear to have. No matter how much "common sense" a law may seem to make, if it makes lives more difficult on the law abiding for no apparent gain outside of "feeling better" about something, is it really worth it?

[safeinOhio]

34. Homicide rate is 3 times higher here

than Canada.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/85-002-x2001011-eng.pdf

[gejohnston]

39. It was the same before the 1995 law was passed

It was the same before the 1977 law was passed.

[PavePusher]

48. And that has nothing to do with their registration....

unless you can demonstrate a down-turn in homocide after they started the program...?

[X_Digger]

55. And in other news: Correlation does not actually equal Causation! Non-film at 11. n/t

What was the delta post-implementation, eh?

[ileus]

18. "loop hole" is their catch phrase...after that registration....then ban...then

It's their way of getting their foot in the door to get rid of something they're afraid of and don't understand.

[safeinOhio]

35. Slippery slope fallacy

In debate or rhetoric, a slippery slope (also known as thin edge of the wedge, or the camel's nose) is a classic form of argument, arguably an informal fallacy. A slippery slope argument states that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant effect, much like an object given a small push over the edge of a slope sliding all the way to the bottom.<1> The strength of such an argument depends on the warrant, i.e. whether or not one can demonstrate a process which leads to the significant effect. The fallacious sense of "slippery slope" is often used synonymously with continuum fallacy, in that it ignores the possibility of middle ground and assumes a discrete transition from category A to category B. Modern usage avoids the fallacy by acknowledging the possibility of this middle ground.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

[gejohnston]

37. You are correct if you are dealing with honest brokers

but those on the other side have publicly stated that the extreme is their goal. Besides, their inability to be intellectually honest does not help. That is why I compare Paul Helmke to Newt Gingrich (actually I call him a teddy bear version of Newt). It has happened.

edited to add this: If we can't trust Republicans like Walker or the current speaker, why should we trust Republicans like Helmke or Brady? Or DINOs like McCarthy? The GOP is pro second on their platform only because it serves their purpose for the moment. If the labor movement gets ugly like 100 years ago, you will see the GOP writing gun control laws just like 100 years ago (or 1967 in California's case)

[slackmaster]

40. It's a fallacy only if it doesn't accurately describe the situation

Registration of firearms has led to confiscation in California.

[Hoopla Phil]

45. Fallacy??? It actually happened in California. But you already knew that didn't you.

[PavePusher]

50. He should.

It's been pointed out enough fucking times...

[X_Digger]

58. "whether or not one can demonstrate a process which leads to the significant effect"

Such as has already happened in CA & NY.

Again.. right terms, you just need to learn how to apply them better.