They are talking about private sales, person to person. It isn't a loophole, it has always been this way. Here in Texas, face to face and in state long guns can be sold with out a back ground check, hand guns that are not done face to face have to ship to an FFL.

 

Thanks. That's what I thought. Its a bit shady the way they frame that discussion.

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire

 

Are there instances where you can buy guns without any background check?

For the 30 million Americans consistently using illegal drugs, the local crack dealer requires no background checks. Stealing guns requires no background checks. Gang-bangers require no background checks, nor do any black market sales for anything.

 

The gun show loophole is this.

At any gun show, the sellers pay money to the organizers for the privilege of setting up tables to sell guns.

At those tables where FFL dealers sell guns, the FFL dealers are required to fill out 4473's and run background checks for all gun sales of both new and used guns.

At those tables where private sellers sell used guns (they cannot buy truly new guns from the factories for resale, as they are not FFL dealers) and local laws do not require it, there is no requirement of a 4473 or a background check for sales, and no background check or 4473 is filled out. The buyers pay cash and walk.

If you were a felon at a gun show, which table would you buy a gun from?

I do not support any kind of more restrictive gun control laws. But we are lying to ourselves when we say this is not a loophole.

What I would do is remove the FFL requirements and all background checks. That's how I would close the loophole.

 

There are states that have already closed the gun show loophole. Oregon is one. All sales at gun shows require a background check, dealers and private sales. It's a state law. Mark

 

It isn't a loophole, nor was it ever. nor was it ever a problem.

Even if "successful" the gun show 'loophole' has the potential to move 2% of the pie to blackmarket, drug trade, gang gun areas. It fixes nothing, nor could it ever.

 

The problem is that the sale and possession of firearms should be no more regulated than the sale and possession of lawnmowers. Both can be dangerous, both should have minimal regulation on the manufacturers and importers to protect the consumers of the product and discourage cheating the public, but that's all.

But if there was a valid federal law that all new lawnmowers had to be sold through a dealer
with a federal lawnmower license, after a background check to exclude alcoholics, drug addicts, and reckless lawnmower operators from possession of lawnmowers, and then the consumers of the new lawnmower could go out to a lawn and garden show and set up booths to compete against licensed lawn mower dealers by taking anybody's money that wanted the mower,,,,we'd say there was a loophole in the lawnmower control law.

But if there was a federal lawnmower control law, as silly and ineffective as that would be, there should only be one federal law that regulated the sale and possession of lawnmowers. Allowing the states more leeway to pass more restrictive laws on lawnmowers than the federal government had already passed and were already in effect would result in one federal law and fifty different state laws and a different law about lawnmowers in every town and city. Which would have a great impact on interstate commerce in lawnmowers. It would be better to have one federal law concerning lawn mowers, so that if a lawn mower was legal in one place it would be legal everywhere.

Why is it so hard for gun owners to see that if we are to be burdened with gun control laws restricting firearms, that it would be far, far better for us to only be burdened by one uniform federal law and no others?

We have more right to buy a lawnmower than we do to buy a gun, and lawnmower owners don't have a United States constitutional provision that says our right to keep and use lawnmowers shall not be infringed.

 

The problem is that the sale and possession of firearms is a threat to the agenda of the far left loons who have hijacked what was once called the Democrat Party. EVERY SINGLE STATE AND OR CITY RUN BY THESE MORONS HAS THE MOST RESTRICTIVE GUN LAWS AND THUS THE HIGHEST MURDER RATES. SuperXOne can give us the song and dance about how much he loves guns but remember he not only voted for Obama/Biden twice he also "worked" booths for these morons by his own admission. Nice try though.

 

RToker, I'll go ahead and say what you were diplomatic saying,

The enemy has been among us for some time, and we have let them speak their opinions. We should've shut them down years ago, with no compromise.

Confused folks like gunowning democrats have had a large hand in our demise.

 

It isn't a gun show loophole, that's just a term they like to use. It may be a private sale loophole, but the gun show has no special rules allowing background checks to be skipped. It is merely a central location which happens to have private sellers selling off guns. No different than if it was done in the parking lot of a Wal-Mart.

 

It isn't a gun show loophole, that's just a term they like to use. It may be a private sale loophole, but the gun show has no special rules allowing background checks to be skipped. It is merely a central location which happens to have private sellers selling off guns. No different than if it was done in the parking lot of a Wal-Mart.

They're trying to do the same with Internet sales omitting the fact that you still have to fill out a 4473 once the gun gets to the FFL. They make it sound like you go to buds website, punch in your credit card number, and UPS drops the box off at your door .

 

It isn't a gun show loophole, that's just a term they like to use. It may be a private sale loophole, but the gun show has no special rules allowing background checks to be skipped. It is merely a central location which happens to have private sellers selling off guns. No different than if it was done in the parking lot of a Wal-Mart.

They're trying to do the same with Internet sales omitting the fact that you still have to fill out a 4473 once the gun gets to the FFL. They make it sound like you go to buds website, punch in your credit card number, and UPS drops the box off at your door .

Yep. Got to use lies or half truths to get people on board with some of this stuff. Kind of sad.

 

Yep. Got to use lies or half truths to get people on board with some of this stuff. Kind of sad.

I disagree. I'd say it's disgustingly pathetic.

But I'm sure we're on the same page....

 

Yep. Got to use lies or half truths to get people on board with some of this stuff. Kind of sad.

I disagree. I'd say it's disgustingly pathetic.

But I'm sure we're on the same page....

Same page, different adjectives.

 

Regarding the "internet sale" provisions. What was targeted as a "loophole" was that private sellers get on Craigslist, and even Shotgunworld, and advertise used firearms for sale face to face (FTF) and complete the transaction for cash, without background checks, in parking lots or other places. It's all legal, so long as local law allows it and both are residents of the same State. If the firearms are shipped out of state or sold to out of state residents, then the transaction must go through an FFL dealer, where the required instant check and 4473's are filled out.

Calling people names won't change the fact that every vote in Congress, Democrat or Repulican, is one vote more that gun owners need.

I'm not all that happy about being allied with Republicans, as they tend to be hateful to Democrats regardless of our stand for guns, but it's not Republicans that are the problem. The problem is liberal Democrats, who are best persuaded,,,if they can be persuaded,,,by Democrats who believe that Barack Obama was without the slightest question born in Hawaii yet still are in favor of more gun rights.

What I don't like is the Republican habit of always saying no and playing defense, instead of counter attacking and proposing bills that expand gun rights.

I'm not just against more gun control I'm for more gun rights that we have right now. But it's hard to find a Republican at all that will stand up against state and local governments taking away our gun rights one piece at a time all over the country. The one and only way to stop that is with a federal pre-emption law that provides that no state or local government can pass any more restrictive gun laws than the federal government. If that was passed, we'd not have the problem of fifty states and thousands of cities all free to pass more restrictive gun laws than we already have to live with from the federal government.

Perhaps when the Republicans have a President of their own in the White House they'll see that. Until then we'll just have to play defense always and never once attempt to win any more gun rights than we currently have.

 

The "gunshow loophole" does not exist. There is no federal law, regulation, policy or ordinance that says that federal law changes when you walk into a gun show. There just isn't.

The so-called "loophole" simply allows a private (not an FFL) individual to sell his own personal property without first seeking the government's permission. This "loophole" protects basic private property rights regardless of where the seller chooses to transfer his own property to another individual. It could just as easily be called a "kitchen table loophole," "parking lot loophole," "gun club loophole" or "bar stool loophole."

Put another way, there is no exception for private sales. The "exception" is that, under federal law, licensed dealers must seek the government's permission to conduct a sale. You could consider that an exception to basic property rights. There's your loophole.

 

Regarding the "internet sale" provisions. What was targeted as a "loophole" was that private sellers get on Craigslist, and even Shotgunworld, and advertise used firearms for sale face to face (FTF) and complete the transaction for cash, without background checks, in parking lots or other places. It's all legal, so long as local law allows it and both are residents of the same State. If the firearms are shipped out of state or sold to out of state residents, then the transaction must go through an FFL dealer, where the required instant check and 4473's are filled out.

Calling people names won't change the fact that every vote in Congress, Democrat or Repulican, is one vote more that gun owners need.

I'm not all that happy about being allied with Republicans, as they tend to be hateful to Democrats regardless of our stand for guns, but it's not Republicans that are the problem. The problem is liberal Democrats, who are best persuaded,,,if they can be persuaded,,,by Democrats who believe that Barack Obama was without the slightest question born in Hawaii yet still are in favor of more gun rights.

What I don't like is the Republican habit of always saying no and playing defense, instead of counter attacking and proposing bills that expand gun rights.

I'm not just against more gun control I'm for more gun rights that we have right now. But it's hard to find a Republican at all that will stand up against state and local governments taking away our gun rights one piece at a time all over the country. The one and only way to stop that is with a federal pre-emption law that provides that no state or local government can pass any more restrictive gun laws than the federal government. If that was passed, we'd not have the problem of fifty states and thousands of cities all free to pass more restrictive gun laws than we already have to live with from the federal government.

Perhaps when the Republicans have a President of their own in the White House they'll see that. Until then we'll just have to play defense always and never once attempt to win any more gun rights than we currently have.

What's next, the newspaper loophole? The guy who knows a guy loophole? Please. They don't clarify what they mean, and you know damned good and well they want folks thinking you can order guns online and have them shipped to your home free of background checks. They play the same game with other agendas that you buy hook line and sinker too.

 

Actually, I don't even come close to buying my party's agenda hook, line and sinker.

I'd get rid of the instant checks and the FFL system tomorrow, and drop the reason for them, which is to prohibit felons and those who have ever been adjudicated mentally incompetent, and some misdemeanor domestic violence offenders, from owning and purchase of firearms.

I would restore mail order sales, too, which were legal before 1968.

Then I'd ram that law right down the throats of every state, local government, and private employer or business open to the public, and make it unlawful for any government or private person engaged in business to discriminate against gun owners.

I'd never get all that done, but I'd do as much as I could get done.

I don't think gun control laws work. About the only ones I'd likely keep would be regulation of manufacturers, under the general laws we have for consumer products to protect the public against shoddy products and to fight brand counterfeiting. There is probably good reason to require the manufacturers to record serial numbers and shipments, too. What I wouldn't do is impose any requirements for new technology or "smart guns". There would be no product liability lawsuits against any manufacturer that made a gun to contemporary standards of the industry, and above all else, if a gun was legal to sell anywhere in the United States, it would be legal to sell in all places in the United States, no ifs, ands or buts, in order to facilitate interstate commerce in guns.

I'd not have many Republicans join me, as they aren't that bold about restoring gun rights, especially not if that meant that states and local governments and commercial businesses weren't free to impose new gun laws on them, because they seem to me to think that the tenth amendment trumps the second amendment. They only want to vote no against new Federal gun law proposals, and follow the doctrine of "I've got my guns so I don't care about anyone else who can't own them". I'm seriously for expanding gun rights, and I mean for everybody, everywhere, in the entire United States.

Get a Democrat convinced that gun rights are just as important as any other civil right, and we'll likely wind up forcing you to own a gun whether you want one or not.

 

Tho ya claim not to buy the hook line and sinker,

Ya sure threw the rest of us and our 2A rights under the bus when ya voted for, worked for, and gave praise for the turd and his like!

Speak all ya want, actions speak louder than your words. I ain't buyin yer BS!

IMO, you have a lot of gall to be posting this crap on a gun forum, trying to convince us that you stand for gun rights after all you did to help the slimeball get into office!

 

Where's sx1?

 

Where's sx1?

Top 10 answers:

10. At a Gimmedat meeeting
9. Studying today's DNC talking points
8. Out to lunch with Sandra Fluke
7. Digging up another completely ridiculous topic to post
6. Attending a fundraiser for Sheila Jackson Lee
5. Roadtrip to register to vote in as many precincts as possible
4. In the backroom bopping his bologna
3. Hitting the links with Jimmy Carter
2. Shooting skeet with the kenyan a$$clown
1. In line waiting to get his Obamaphone

 

Actually at son's girlfriend's baccalaureate.

Who is Shelia Jackson Lee, and why is she known among conservatives?.

 

After supporting the socialist turd, and tossing our rights under the bus, by doing so, what do you say for yourself, sx?

 

I don't give a damn what Barack Obama or Joe Biden or anyone else thinks about the issue of gun rights.

Because my loyalty is to my nation first and my party second. I stand up for what I think is right, regardless.

Which is why I made such a lousy Republican, and I finally just had to give it up.

 

I do hope you can sleep well. There's no way I could have supported the turd, knowing they had no platform, and most everything they did was pass it to see whats in it. This has been the most opaque administration I've had the misfortune to witness.

Seriously, you are the most confusing person, I know.