gun show loophole

[indycar02]

Since I've never purchased anything at a gun show, what's the loophole they talk about with the background checks. I thought all dealers, irregardless of their location, had to run these checks.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

It is a misrepresentation.

The antis speak of person to person sales. They want all sales at gun shows to go through dealers. As if people will not simply leave the gun show and then come back.

It is unenforceable and feckless.

Indiana had such a law for handguns from 1974 to 1998. It had zero impact on crime and made many lose respect for the rule of law.

 

[hondatech2k2]

They are referring to the transaction between two patrons. Say if I had an AR15 you wanted, you then gave me cash and I gave you AR. They say this is the "gun show loop hole". Of course, I strongly disagree. This is a lawful transaction between two consumers of personal property. If I decided to sell a piece of furniture, a knife, a boat, or something else I owned lawfully. They would have no such gripe, but since it is an EBR they get skid dish.

 

[eldirector]

All dealers have to run the same "checks" on all firearms sales, regards of the location of the sale (shop or gun show).

In free(er) states, face to face sales (of some/most) firearms do not require any kind of dealer or government involvement. These sales are perfectly legal in every way.

A "loophole" is just a perfectly legal act that some anti-freedom person doesn't like. They don't really want to "close a loophole", they want to change the law to make something illegal.

 

[reedo]

They are again attempting to close a "loophole" that need not be closed.

 

[rockhopper46038]

Not much to add here, it's as described in the above posts. A private person to person sale, whether it occurs in the aisle of a gun show or the parking lot of a Walmart, is still a legal transaction between individuals. It's not a loophole at all.

 

[Colt556]

It's a myth. FFLs need to follow the rules no matter where they are. Private citizens need to obey the laws of their area. The Libs consider anything that is sold without doing an NICS check a "Gun Show Loophole" sale. It just like in the movies when they go to an Army Surplus Store and go in the back room and there are racks of M60s, LAWs rockets and crates of grenades everywhere. Just a myth, at least where I shop.

 

[Dave-O]

I just put something on another thd. I don't think this one is going to be much of a choice much longer. NRA kinda already gave this one away. Kinda hard to say we want more info on nics and arrest a felon if he attempts purchase, but then say the we being the buyer of a controlled purchased item can walk out into the parking lot and sell it to someone offering a profit. I agreed with being able to check background of person I was selling to but registration is separate subject separate discussion. I would have to ponder on that one for awhile. It is a plus for me selling to prove I don't have it but would suck on buys.

 

[Libertarian01]

To All,

The only issue I see is bringing more gun owners into the "responsible" category instead of "irresponsible."

By this I mean that must firearms owners who sell something on this board require a LTCH permit as proof of not being a felon or not being mentally unstable, thus meeting the reasonable desire of the law.

However, there are still too many who simply take the cash and don't care who they are selling to. I remember seeing an anti video where the buyer told the seller at a gun show "I probably couldn't buy this in a store" and the seller just laughed and took the money. To my thinking this is irresponsible.

I am very happy with the INGO members who require the LTCH.

Keep it up!

Regards,

Doug

PS - Merry Christmas!

 

[Nazgul]

I have bought several guns at gunshows using "private sales". Legal and without issue. Would be almost impossible to eliminate FTF sales.

Don

 

[AJMD429]

More gun owners might accept "background checks" on all sales IF THE GOVERNMENT WERE NOT SO PLAINLY VIOLATING THE LAW'S CLEAR WORDING WHICH PROHIBITS "MAINTENANCE OF A PERMANENT REGISTRY".

If the government is that dishonest, why would any sane individual want to entrust them to have even more information...???

Remember - we wouldn't HAVE this problem were it not for the government's "help" - THEY are the ones mandating "gun free zones"....

 

[JettaKnight]

More gun owners might accept "background checks" on all sales IF THE GOVERNMENT WERE NOT SO PLAINLY VIOLATING THE LAW'S CLEAR WORDING WHICH PROHIBITS "MAINTENANCE OF A PERMANENT REGISTRY".

[citation needed]

If it's so plain, you should be able to provide evidence of such a registry.

Remember - we wouldn't HAVE this problem were it not for the government's "help" - THEY are the ones mandating "gun free zones"....

This is not germane to the discussion. Besides, Federal GFZ are pretty limited. Typically, the state (think OH) is the one that sets up the ability for property owners to dictate a GFZ.

 

[Sfrandolph]

Point 1: The government lies without any recourse.
Point 2: Liberals are mentally deficient.
Point 3: The country would be better off without both of the above.

 

[loudpedal]

As devils advocate here, could not the state require gun show promoters to provide assurance to the state that all of their vendors (who are selling guns) be an FFL? Then they would have to do a quick check. Then not allow vendors to have booth space to sell using the term "private collection."

In my mind that would be kind of like a liquor store, or bar requiring ID for every purchase. If I worked in a business that required that I would be relived not have to make those judgement calls.

Now obviously that would not stop parking lot sales, but I would think this could help appease the anti crowd. And make the legislators look like they are doing something (to buy votes that is.)

 

[MP43]

Agree!!!

 

[loudpedal]

Agree!!!

With?

 

[JettaKnight]

As devils advocate here, could not the state require gun show promoters to provide assurance to the state that all of their vendors (who are selling guns) be an FFL? Then they would have to do a quick check. Then not allow vendors to have booth space to sell using the term "private collection."

In my mind that would be kind of like a liquor store, or bar requiring ID for every purchase. If I worked in a business that required that I would be relived not have to make those judgement calls.

Now obviously that would not stop parking lot sales, but I would think this could help appease the anti crowd. And make the legislators look like they are doing something (to buy votes that is.)

It's not private sellers with tables that are the issue, but myriad of small sales that occur in the isles and parking lots. Currently, there's no ability to run a background check unless you're a dealer.

I'd like to see the NRA call for open access to NICS let sellers use it (if they want) to run a background check when doing private sales.

 

[loudpedal]

It's not private sellers with tables that are the issue, but myriad of small sales that occur in the isles and parking lots. Currently, there's no ability to run a background check unless you're a dealer.

I'd like to see the NRA call for open access to NICS let sellers use it (if they want) to run a background check when doing private sales.

Loudpedal - Now obviously that would not stop parking lot sales, but I would think this could help appease the anti crowd. And make the legislators look like they are doing something

I thought that I covered that. My point is why let the good be the enemy of the best. It could help keep the jackals at bay, while giving the legislative weasels something to satisfy their base. If it reduces crime along the way, all the better. Public perception drives legislation (well along with greed, but that is another story.) If this could help to calm the jackals maybe the legislators would find someone else to mug.

 

[traderdan]

Loudpedal - Now obviously that would not stop parking lot sales, but I would think this could help appease the anti crowd. And make the legislators look like they are doing something

I thought that I covered that. My point is why let the good be the enemy of the best. It could help keep the jackals at bay, while giving the legislative weasels something to satisfy their base. If it reduces crime along the way, all the better. Public perception drives legislation (well along with greed, but that is another story.) If this could help to calm the jackals maybe the legislators would find someone else to mug.

Out here in the country we do not "calm or satisfy" jackals (coyotes) or egg sucking weasels...We eliminate them.