Background checks at gun shows?

[bob4432]

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
60 Minutes had a segment on how the brother of one of the killed in the VT massacre was able to go to a gun show and buy $5k worth of guns(assault rifles, pistols, etc) and ammo within a hour without a single verification/background check. He was even able to buy in the parking lot. Only one person asked for a drivers license and when he told the seller he didn't want to show it to him, the seller asked for an additional $100 and sold it to him.

This segment occurred in VA where I guess folks from all over the eastern seaboard (based on the license plates in the parking lot) come b/c the ease to purchase guns.

60 minutes gave the guy the $$ to buy the guns for them and their show, thus a straw buyer - which is illegal.....

 

[QuantumPion]

Originally posted by: Jschmuck2

Originally posted by: QuantumPion
You can't "close the loophole". Attempting to do so will have no bearing on criminals getting guns for nefarious purposes. Anyone can still buy or sell a gun to another private individual whenever they want, especially with the internet. It's akin to trying to make laws to ban sharing of MP3's.

Like most gun laws, criminals ignore them and still obtain them illegally. They don't care because they are criminals anyway.

Let's theorize that there's one murder per year committed with a gun purchased at a gun show without a background check. I don't think that's too out there. Wouldn't closing that loophole be worth it for whomever is getting shot?

You could also lower the number of road fatalities by mandating a maximum speed limit of 15 mph on any road, with the punishment of breaking it being mandatory jail time. This would be far more effective at reducing pre-mature deaths, and would actually be less threatening to our freedom.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Bullshit. Complete and utter bullshit. No businessman would turn away easy money like that...unless they were complete fucking morons. They don't have to do anything except file some paperwork and hold onto a gun for a week.

And deal with the risk of the buyer not following through.

Huh? He's paying me cash for my gun, why would he not follow through?

And deal with the risk of the buyer bouncing a check.

The business is only collecting for the transfer fee...not the price of the gun.

And deal with the hassle of the buyer trying to return the item.

Another non-issue, the transaction is between the two private parties, the FFL doesn't have anything to do with it other than filing the paperwork with the BATF and holding the weapon until the end of the waiting period.

And deal with the increased paperwork and BATFE audits.

They already do this and it takes less than 15 minutes to fill out the paperwork and they're getting paid for it.

And deal with potential legal issues if the firearm is defective.

This is a non-issue, it's not their gun, they are just the mediator

If you want to make the NICS system free and available to private individuals and require that it be used for every sale, I'm OK with that. And you have a fighting chance at seeing compliance. But pushing it only through FFLs isn't going to increase compliance in any real way.

To everyone who is saying that everyone should go through the background check, how many of you keep track of every internet purchase every year so you can report it on your taxes and pay the appropriate sales tax? Almost no-one complies with the laws that require this because they are impossible to enforce.

Similarly, there is no practicable way to force compliance with a law requiring all firearm sales to go through an FFL. The best that can be done is opening the NICS to private individuals and making it free to use. That would minimize the inconvenience and maximize the likelihood of compliance.

ZV

[/quote]

We already do this in California. It's not a burden on businesses, I know, I've done it (as a seller of a privately owned firearm). You want to buy my gun so we agree on a price, you pay me and we go down to Turners Outdoorsman and they do the paperwork and collect their $40 which takes all of a few minutes. They hold the gun while the background check is going on and then after the end of the waiting period the new owner goes and picks up the gun.

If it's the law, then why wouldn't law abiding citizens comply? I am a law abiding gun owner and there is no way in hell I'd ever sell one of my guns without going through the proper channels.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Raise your hand if you've held an FFL in your lifetime. *raises hand*

The paperwork is HORRENDOUS. You are constantly subject to the ATF coming in, rifling through your bound book, your receipts, your files, etc. Typically dealers charge $30-50 to transfer a firearm. That means one person or FFL transfers the firearm to your FFL. Then your FFL transfers the weapon to you (with a background check.)

You're a gun dealer. That's part of the cost of doing business.

 

[lupi]

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
60 Minutes had a segment on how the brother of one of the killed in the VT massacre was able to go to a gun show and buy $5k worth of guns(assault rifles, pistols, etc) and ammo within a hour without a single verification/background check. He was even able to buy in the parking lot. Only one person asked for a drivers license and when he told the seller he didn't want to show it to him, the seller asked for an additional $100 and sold it to him.

This segment occurred in VA where I guess folks from all over the eastern seaboard (based on the license plates in the parking lot) come b/c the ease to purchase guns.

Current govenor and DOT excluded, god bless good ole VA.

Hmm. Maybe I'll stop by on he way home and pick something up.

 

[fisheerman]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Bullshit. Complete and utter bullshit. No businessman would turn away easy money like that...unless they were complete fucking morons. They don't have to do anything except file some paperwork and hold onto a gun for a week.

And deal with the risk of the buyer not following through.

Huh? He's paying me cash for my gun, why would he not follow through?

And deal with the risk of the buyer bouncing a check.

The business is only collecting for the transfer fee...not the price of the gun.

And deal with the hassle of the buyer trying to return the item.

Another non-issue, the transaction is between the two private parties, the FFL doesn't have anything to do with it other than filing the paperwork with the BATF and holding the weapon until the end of the waiting period.

And deal with the increased paperwork and BATFE audits.

They already do this and it takes less than 15 minutes to fill out the paperwork and they're getting paid for it.

And deal with potential legal issues if the firearm is defective.

This is a non-issue, it's not their gun, they are just the mediator

If you want to make the NICS system free and available to private individuals and require that it be used for every sale, I'm OK with that. And you have a fighting chance at seeing compliance. But pushing it only through FFLs isn't going to increase compliance in any real way.

To everyone who is saying that everyone should go through the background check, how many of you keep track of every internet purchase every year so you can report it on your taxes and pay the appropriate sales tax? Almost no-one complies with the laws that require this because they are impossible to enforce.

Similarly, there is no practicable way to force compliance with a law requiring all firearm sales to go through an FFL. The best that can be done is opening the NICS to private individuals and making it free to use. That would minimize the inconvenience and maximize the likelihood of compliance.

ZV

We already do this in California. It's not a burden on businesses, I know, I've done it (as a seller of a privately owned firearm). You want to buy my gun so we agree on a price, you pay me and we go down to Turners Outdoorsman and they do the paperwork and collect their $40 which takes all of a few minutes. They hold the gun while the background check is going on and then after the end of the waiting period the new owner goes and picks up the gun.

If it's the law, then why wouldn't law abiding citizens comply? I am a law abiding gun owner and there is no way in hell I'd ever sell one of my guns without going through the proper channels.

I was just wondering how those strict gun laws are doing in curbing gun violence in Cali compared to say VA that has some of the fewest gun laws?

All these laws do is put more hassle on the law abiding citizen. Last time I heard there was like 230 million guns in america. A criminal that wants a gun is going to get one even if you outlaw them.

Take a look at Mexico. Some of the toughest gun laws.

Oh yeah they are getting all of those automatice weapons and grenade launchers from us...........i forgot.

 

[fisheerman]

Originally posted by: lupi

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
60 Minutes had a segment on how the brother of one of the killed in the VT massacre was able to go to a gun show and buy $5k worth of guns(assault rifles, pistols, etc) and ammo within a hour without a single verification/background check. He was even able to buy in the parking lot. Only one person asked for a drivers license and when he told the seller he didn't want to show it to him, the seller asked for an additional $100 and sold it to him.

This segment occurred in VA where I guess folks from all over the eastern seaboard (based on the license plates in the parking lot) come b/c the ease to purchase guns.

Current govenor and DOT excluded, god bless good ole VA.

Hmm. Maybe I'll stop by on he way home and pick something up.

Amen from another fellow VA'er

The people in this state know how to put up a good political fight when it comes to their freedoms.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: palehorse
One thing to keep in mind -- in some states, any private seller of a gun may be liable for any crimes that gun is later involved in if there wasn't a proper trail of paperwork covering the sale. That is why it's always smarter to sell your guns through a local FFL holder, even if it involves a small fee to cover the background check and paperwork.

That said, you could buy a gun anywhere in this country if you have the street smarts to pull it off, regardless of any "loopholes" or laws created to prevent you from doing so -- which is why so many people think that it's pointless to close the "loophole."

Personally, if they close the private sales "loophole," I couldn't care less. I buy all of my guns through shops and/or FFL-holding brokers who always do the background checks.

A friend of mine had his car stolen a number of years ago (we're talking like 10+ years ago) and he had a Sig Saur P230 in a bag in his trunk at the time. The car was recovered a few days later with some parts stripped and the gun was missing of course. He filed a missing weapons report with the local Police Department and that was the last he heard of it until about 9 months ago when two Sheriff's showed up at his door asking about the weapon.

It seems it was used in a crime and the Police didn't have any record of the gun being stolen so they went knocking on the door of the last known owner of record. Fortunately, my friend still had the original Police report but it was a hassle digging up the paperwork 10 freaking years later because some worthless piece of shit gang-banger used the gun in a shooting.

Honestly, this is the kind of thing that would keep me up at night. If I knowingly sold one of my guns with no record of who I sold it to? How irresponsible is that? Gun owners keep spewing that they are responsible but then they do and defend these types of practices...I don't get it.

BTW-My friend was able to get his gun back 90 days later.

 

[Triumph]

Originally posted by: fisheerman

I was just wondering how are those strict gun laws doing in curbing gun violence in Cali compared to say VA that has some of the fewest gun laws?

All these laws do is put more hassle on the law abiding citizen. Last time I heard there was like 230 million guns in america. A criminal that wants a gun is going to get one even if you outlaw them.

Take a look at Mexico. Some of the toughest gun laws.

Oh yeah they are getting all of those automatice weapons and grenade launchers from us...........i forgot.

I propose this comparison, since I am more familiar with my own area rather than California.

Fairfax County is the richest county in the country, per capita, with about 1 million residents, and obviously follows the Virginia gun laws, as local laws are not permitted to be more restrictive than the state laws, by the state constitution. Annual murder rate in Fairfax County averages between 10 to 20 people a year. Washington DC on the other hand, which neighbors Fairfax County, and as we all know has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country, has a population about half of Fairfax County, at about 500,000. The murder rate in DC is roughly 200 people a year. Anyone with half a brain can look at those numbers, and see that availability of legal firearms has NO correlation whatsoever to murder rates.

Fairfax county residents are generally educated and financially well off. DC residents are the complete opposite. You have two sets of people from completely different socio-economic backgrounds, in close proximity, with two completely different levels of gun control laws, with an exponential difference in crime. Since gun control is clearly not related to murder rates, the emotionally charged phrase "gun control" is reduced, quite simply, to control.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: Triumph

Originally posted by: fisheerman

I was just wondering how are those strict gun laws doing in curbing gun violence in Cali compared to say VA that has some of the fewest gun laws?

All these laws do is put more hassle on the law abiding citizen. Last time I heard there was like 230 million guns in america. A criminal that wants a gun is going to get one even if you outlaw them.

Take a look at Mexico. Some of the toughest gun laws.

Oh yeah they are getting all of those automatice weapons and grenade launchers from us...........i forgot.

I propose this comparison, since I am more familiar with my own area rather than California.

Fairfax County is the richest county in the country, per capita, with about 1 million residents, and obviously follows the Virginia gun laws, as local laws are not permitted to be more restrictive than the state laws, by the state constitution. Annual murder rate in Fairfax County averages between 10 to 20 people a year. Washington DC on the other hand, which neighbors Fairfax County, and as we all know has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country, has a population about half of Fairfax County, at about 500,000. The murder rate in DC is roughly 200 people a year. Anyone with half a brain can look at those numbers, and see that availability of legal firearms has NO correlation whatsoever to murder rates.

Fairfax county residents are generally educated and financially well off. DC residents are the complete opposite. You have two sets of people from completely different socio-economic backgrounds, in close proximity, with two completely different levels of gun control laws, with an exponential difference in crime. Since gun control is clearly not related to murder rates, the emotionally charged phrase "gun control" is reduced, quite simply, to control.

You said it yourself, it is the socio-economic conditions that breed crime, it has almost nothing to do with gun control laws. The gun control laws just make it harder for law abiding citizens to obtain guns and perhaps slightly harder for criminals to get guns (simply because they have to travel farther to get them or pay more on the street for them).

Still, I'm not sure what this has to do with requiring background checks between private sellers. Nobody has convinced me that requiring this would be a bad thing.

 

[mooseracing]

Originally posted by: Brutus04
No one should be able to own a gun w/out a background check. I own several.
Fearnoevil sounds like an asshole.

And no one should be able to open their mouth to use it for free speech without a background check as well. People have killed others just by their comments towards them, so the first ammend is just as dangerous as a gun.

We do not need background checks to own a gun.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: fisheerman

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Bullshit. Complete and utter bullshit. No businessman would turn away easy money like that...unless they were complete fucking morons. They don't have to do anything except file some paperwork and hold onto a gun for a week.

And deal with the risk of the buyer not following through.

Huh? He's paying me cash for my gun, why would he not follow through?

And deal with the risk of the buyer bouncing a check.

The business is only collecting for the transfer fee...not the price of the gun.

And deal with the hassle of the buyer trying to return the item.

Another non-issue, the transaction is between the two private parties, the FFL doesn't have anything to do with it other than filing the paperwork with the BATF and holding the weapon until the end of the waiting period.

And deal with the increased paperwork and BATFE audits.

They already do this and it takes less than 15 minutes to fill out the paperwork and they're getting paid for it.

And deal with potential legal issues if the firearm is defective.

This is a non-issue, it's not their gun, they are just the mediator

If you want to make the NICS system free and available to private individuals and require that it be used for every sale, I'm OK with that. And you have a fighting chance at seeing compliance. But pushing it only through FFLs isn't going to increase compliance in any real way.

To everyone who is saying that everyone should go through the background check, how many of you keep track of every internet purchase every year so you can report it on your taxes and pay the appropriate sales tax? Almost no-one complies with the laws that require this because they are impossible to enforce.

Similarly, there is no practicable way to force compliance with a law requiring all firearm sales to go through an FFL. The best that can be done is opening the NICS to private individuals and making it free to use. That would minimize the inconvenience and maximize the likelihood of compliance.

ZV

We already do this in California. It's not a burden on businesses, I know, I've done it (as a seller of a privately owned firearm). You want to buy my gun so we agree on a price, you pay me and we go down to Turners Outdoorsman and they do the paperwork and collect their $40 which takes all of a few minutes. They hold the gun while the background check is going on and then after the end of the waiting period the new owner goes and picks up the gun.

If it's the law, then why wouldn't law abiding citizens comply? I am a law abiding gun owner and there is no way in hell I'd ever sell one of my guns without going through the proper channels.

I was just wondering how those strict gun laws are doing in curbing gun violence in Cali compared to say VA that has some of the fewest gun laws?

All these laws do is put more hassle on the law abiding citizen. Last time I heard there was like 230 million guns in america. A criminal that wants a gun is going to get one even if you outlaw them.

Take a look at Mexico. Some of the toughest gun laws.

Oh yeah they are getting all of those automatice weapons and grenade launchers from us...........i forgot.

I'm just wondering how many guns sold privately in VA wind up in NYC or Washington DC or Los Angeles in the hands of criminals?

Look, I'm just saying that selling a gun privately is a responsibility that comes with the territory of owning guns. Guns should be locked up when not in use, they should be unloaded before you clean them, they should not be pointed at anything you don't intend to shoot, they should always be treated as if they are loaded, and when comes time to sell them, they should go through the proper channels and background checks. This is part of the responsibility of gun ownership.

If you decide one day that you don't want to own a gun anymore would you just throw it in your trashcan? No, because that wouldn't be a responsible way of disposing of it. Neither is selling it to a perfect stranger out of the trunk of your car.

 

[Jschmuck2]

Originally posted by: mooseracing

Originally posted by: Brutus04
No one should be able to own a gun w/out a background check. I own several.
Fearnoevil sounds like an asshole.

And no one should be able to open their mouth to use it for free speech without a background check as well. People have killed others just by their comments towards them, so the first ammend is just as dangerous as a gun.

We do not need background checks to own a gun.

Bullshit.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: Jschmuck2
Can one of you...enthusiasts...explain to me why requiring a background check before you buy a gun at a gun show is bad? It's not required in some (all?) places as it stands now. Why is that?

You obviously believe anything spoon fed to you.
If you purchase a firearm from a FFL or "dealer" you have to fill out the 4473 form and they must call the FBI for the background check. You can circumvent this in most states if you have a Conceal Carry permit as you were checked by the FBI already and they even have your fingerprints on file.
There is a loop hole in that I a private citizen, can sell a firearm from my collection to another individual that resides in my state, if I believe them to be eligible to purchase a firearm. To institute that I have to have some government intervention while selling a piece of my property to a private citizen I belive to be in good standing is absurd. How deeply intertwined with our lives do you want the government to be in your life?

This "loophole" exists because it is an intrastate transaction and the federal government has no jursidiction on intrastate commerce. It's that pesky thing that liberals tend to ignore called the Constitution that spells this out and just yesterday the US 9th Circuit court affirmed that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right regardless of the "popular" sentiment, and that legistlating it or curtailing it is un-Constitutional. The only way to address is would be to Amend the Constitution, and there is no where near enough support to have a right taken away from citizens.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: Jschmuck2

Originally posted by: mooseracing

Originally posted by: Brutus04
No one should be able to own a gun w/out a background check. I own several.
Fearnoevil sounds like an asshole.

And no one should be able to open their mouth to use it for free speech without a background check as well. People have killed others just by their comments towards them, so the first ammend is just as dangerous as a gun.

We do not need background checks to own a gun.

Bullshit.

:thumbsup: Agreed.

Background checks are necessary.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: Jschmuck2

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
First, explain what you think this means.. because I have a sincere doubt you truly understand what the "loophole" is.

I don't - that's why I'm asking. There's a loophole?

Well, educate yourself then. Its 100% illegal for firearms dealers to sell people guns at gunshows without background checks etc. Now, if you go and do a little research you will find out what the 'loophole' is, and how it doesn't really apply to gunshows specifically but ALL private sales of firearms. Why would I argue with you why it should be allowed when you don't even know what it is?

Okay, now he knows. So let's hear your argument?

BTW-I think it's absolutely ridiculous that you can sell guns privately and at a gun show without doing a background check. WTF is the point of having background checks if you can just go buy a gun at a gun show and avoid that all together?

I can buy guns from people online if they are in the same state as me. How are you going to curtail that with more legislation? You fail to see how legestlation doesn't stop anything. Criminals by definition do not follow the law, thus they will get guns ILLEGALLY no matter what restriction you impose. Legistlating and putting laws into place only provide for punishment for violating the law, it doesn't stop the law from being broken.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski

Originally posted by: Jschmuck2
Can one of you...enthusiasts...explain to me why requiring a background check before you buy a gun at a gun show is bad? It's not required in some (all?) places as it stands now. Why is that?

You obviously believe anything spoon fed to you.
If you purchase a firearm from a FFL or "dealer" you have to fill out the 4473 form and they must call the FBI for the background check. You can circumvent this in most states if you have a Conceal Carry permit as you were checked by the FBI already and they even have your fingerprints on file.
There is a loop hole in that I a private citizen, can sell a firearm from my collection to another individual that resides in my state, if I believe them to be eligible to purchase a firearm. To institute that I have to have some government intervention while selling a piece of my property to a private citizen I belive to be in good standing is absurd. How deeply intertwined with our lives do you want the government to be in your life?

This "loophole" exists because it is an intrastate transaction and the federal government has no jursidiction on intrastate commerce. It's that pesky thing that liberals tend to ignore called the Constitution that spells this out and just yesterday the US 9th Circuit court affirmed that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right regardless of the "popular" sentiment, and that legistlating it or curtailing it is un-Constitutional. The only way to address is would be to Amend the Constitution, and there is no where near enough support to have a right taken away from citizens.

So, what you're saying is that you trust everyone who owns guns to exercise this "good judgement" you proclaim to have? Sorry, that's not good enough for me.

Like I said, some states require a background check to transfer firearms privately and it doesn't place an undue burden on the sellers, buyers, or the FFL holder.

Jesus Christ, when you sell a car privately you have to fill out more paperwork than you do to sell a gun. Where's the logic in that?

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
60 Minutes had a segment on how the brother of one of the killed in the VT massacre was able to go to a gun show and buy $5k worth of guns(assault rifles, pistols, etc) and ammo within a hour without a single verification/background check. He was even able to buy in the parking lot. Only one person asked for a drivers license and when he told the seller he didn't want to show it to him, the seller asked for an additional $100 and sold it to him.

This segment occurred in VA where I guess folks from all over the eastern seaboard (based on the license plates in the parking lot) come b/c the ease to purchase guns.

He didn't buy any Assult rifles. His $5,000 would have been a downpayment on a true assault riflle.
How many clips ended up on the cutting room floor where someone wouldn't sell to him. It's fairly easy to slant a "report" your way when you control what is published and aired.

Face it, everyone has an agenda, and they will skew whatever they can to meet that agenda. It's people that take everything and anything they are told at face value that are the real problem in this country.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: Jschmuck2

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
First, explain what you think this means.. because I have a sincere doubt you truly understand what the "loophole" is.

I don't - that's why I'm asking. There's a loophole?

Well, educate yourself then. Its 100% illegal for firearms dealers to sell people guns at gunshows without background checks etc. Now, if you go and do a little research you will find out what the 'loophole' is, and how it doesn't really apply to gunshows specifically but ALL private sales of firearms. Why would I argue with you why it should be allowed when you don't even know what it is?

Okay, now he knows. So let's hear your argument?

BTW-I think it's absolutely ridiculous that you can sell guns privately and at a gun show without doing a background check. WTF is the point of having background checks if you can just go buy a gun at a gun show and avoid that all together?

I can buy guns from people online if they are in the same state as me. How are you going to curtail that with more legislation? You fail to see how legestlation doesn't stop anything. Criminals by definition do not follow the law, thus they will get guns ILLEGALLY no matter what restriction you impose. Legistlating and putting laws into place only provide for punishment for violating the law, it doesn't stop the law from being broken.

Right...so why do anything is your logic? :roll:

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Jschmuck2

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Jschmuck2

Originally posted by: JS80
CHEERIO CHEERIO OH LOOK I HAVE A BRITISH ACCENT SO IT MAKES ME SOUND SOPHISTICATED. I'M A LIBERAL AND I DON'T BELIEVE IN GOD I MUST BE SMARTER THAN YOU.

So do you think your kid will end up like you? A sad, lonely forum troll?

As long as he doesn't end up as a wannabe actor who's day job is a public school teacher I will be fine with however he ends up :laugh:

Hey sparky, any time you want to put your money where your undoubtedly quiet-in-real-life-so-the-only-outlet-I-have-to-get-away-from-my-unattractive-nagging-Jewish-wife mouth is, you just give me a holler. I'll meetcha at Barney's on the promenade. First round is on me.

Besides, no one would put you on television.

EDIT: They might put your kid on though. He's a cute Asian baby and they do well, commercially.

You can add Internet Toughguy to your resume now. /golfclap

 

[fisheerman]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: Jschmuck2

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
First, explain what you think this means.. because I have a sincere doubt you truly understand what the "loophole" is.

I don't - that's why I'm asking. There's a loophole?

Well, educate yourself then. Its 100% illegal for firearms dealers to sell people guns at gunshows without background checks etc. Now, if you go and do a little research you will find out what the 'loophole' is, and how it doesn't really apply to gunshows specifically but ALL private sales of firearms. Why would I argue with you why it should be allowed when you don't even know what it is?

Okay, now he knows. So let's hear your argument?

BTW-I think it's absolutely ridiculous that you can sell guns privately and at a gun show without doing a background check. WTF is the point of having background checks if you can just go buy a gun at a gun show and avoid that all together?

I can buy guns from people online if they are in the same state as me. How are you going to curtail that with more legislation? You fail to see how legestlation doesn't stop anything. Criminals by definition do not follow the law, thus they will get guns ILLEGALLY no matter what restriction you impose. Legistlating and putting laws into place only provide for punishment for violating the law, it doesn't stop the law from being broken.

Right...so why do anything is your logic? :roll:

I know lets start a campaign and call it "The War on Weapons"!
We can throw billions of dollars at it and teach it in schools. We'll enact tough legislation that will put you behind bars for the most minor offenses and fill the prisons to overcapacity. Surely that will teach these criminals that they should follow the law.

Sound familiar?

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: palehorse
One thing to keep in mind -- in some states, any private seller of a gun may be liable for any crimes that gun is later involved in if there wasn't a proper trail of paperwork covering the sale. That is why it's always smarter to sell your guns through a local FFL holder, even if it involves a small fee to cover the background check and paperwork.

That said, you could buy a gun anywhere in this country if you have the street smarts to pull it off, regardless of any "loopholes" or laws created to prevent you from doing so -- which is why so many people think that it's pointless to close the "loophole."

Personally, if they close the private sales "loophole," I couldn't care less. I buy all of my guns through shops and/or FFL-holding brokers who always do the background checks.

And what happens when you want to sell one of your guns? You'll have to contract it through a FFL holder and give him a cut. For selling your old gun to a friend? That's just BS, are we not innocent until proven guilty?

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: misle

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: Jschmuck2

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
First, explain what you think this means.. because I have a sincere doubt you truly understand what the "loophole" is.

I don't - that's why I'm asking. There's a loophole?

Well, educate yourself then. Its 100% illegal for firearms dealers to sell people guns at gunshows without background checks etc. Now, if you go and do a little research you will find out what the 'loophole' is, and how it doesn't really apply to gunshows specifically but ALL private sales of firearms. Why would I argue with you why it should be allowed when you don't even know what it is?

Okay, now he knows. So let's hear your argument?

BTW-I think it's absolutely ridiculous that you can sell guns privately and at a gun show without doing a background check. WTF is the point of having background checks if you can just go buy a gun at a gun show and avoid that all together?

Its not my argument. The OP should provide his reasons why the loophole should not be allowed. And I will rebutt what he says if I disagree with it. And again, you don't understand what the loophole is if you think you can just go to a gunshow and buy one.. you can go ANYWHERE and just buy one in a private sale. It has nothing to do with gunshows.

Except gunshows brings lots of gun buyers together. Require all sellers at gunshows to be licensed, thus requiring background checks. Sure, private sellers will go elsewhere but the number of sales would go down dramatically due to the additional time, effort, etc required to procure each sale.

The problem with requiring all sellers to be licensed is that Average Joe #1 bring a shotgun to trade/sell to the dealers. Now, let's say the dealers don't buy it, but Average Joe #2 in the parking lot does buy it.

In my experience, this is how most gun shows are. Almost all dealers/sellers who have tables with stuff to sell are licensed. It's the individuals bringing in firearms to sell or trade that end up selling to other individuals outside of the dealer circle. Making it a private sale that could have happened anywhere.

I've bought several guns at gub shows when I hapened to be standing there when someone was trying to trade his gun off on something different but the dealer and the seller couldn't agree on a price.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: JS80
As long as he doesn't end up as a wannabe actor who's day job is a public school teacher I will be fine with however he ends up :laugh:

So being a 'public school teacher' is somehow a bad profession? Wow. :disgust:

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: fisheerman

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh
I consider myself pro-gun, but I believe that back-ground checks and mandatory waiting periods are critical to prevent gun owners from getting a bad name. Although, I do not like the idea of registration.

How do you propose that we "regulate" private sale of firearms without creating a nation registery of all firearms in america and who owns them with access to the system by everyone?

See were that goes? Nobody's business what i own and how much I own of it.

The starts the end around of the 2nd Amendment don't ya think.

Why would you NEED to own an unregistered firearm? And please, the 2'nd amendment is just bullshit, what would your plink gun do to choppers, jets and tanks? The only reason it was instituted was because AT THE TIME it was a state of the art weapon, today you wouldn't stand a chance against a government wanting complete power if they had control over the military forces, if they didn't, then your plinking guns wouldn't make any difference anyway.

Truth is that you'd accept it if you were to be probed up your arse ever single day by the government as long as you could keep your gun, you've become a nation of wimps, mostly and the most vocal on keeping gun rights are the biggest wimps of this forum i know of.

Jesus, we need to own unregistered firearms so dickwads like you don't attempt to take them away from us.