Do You Support The "Gun Show Loophole?"

[M14 Shooter]

The purpose of registration is irrelevant. The fact is, you must register houses, cars and guns with the government in some fashion for different reasons. Since they are different objects used for different purposes, it stands to reason the purpose for registration would be different as well.

Who buys a car to drive around ONLY on all their acreage? A tractor maybe or a 4-wheel drive to wrangle cattle or something but regardless of all that, you still have to take a written test and a driving test to obtain a license to operate a vehicle whether you drive on your property or on the roads. And don't tell me that tractor or cattle-wrangling 4-wheel isn't going to drive down a public road at some point.

No comment on alcohol or voting requirements even though they are guaranteed by the Constitution? That's the real argument here.

A liscense is only required for public roads, just like a CCW permit can be required for public use of a firearm.

And I have never heard of "registration" for a house. All you need to do is give the address and your name so the property tax can be paid.

Alcohol is NOT guaranteed by the consitution. It leaves regulation of alchol specifically to the states and localities. Read the amendment. Voting rights are also left to the states, with floor limits set that say you cannot deny voting rights based on race sex, or age after the age of 18.


Arms are left to the PEOPLE.

Sort of.

Because it's a constitutional right, regulating that right is tricky especially when you try to make comparisons to gunlaws in other countries. I don't think any other country guarantees it as a right.

However - no constitutional right is unlimited - not a single one. I don't think firearms should be any different than any other right.

I agree - the standards for judging the constitutionality of the limitations on the right to arms should be no different than those for judging limitations on the right to free speech.

 

[Coyote]

So now for a second time I am going to ask why you won't answer the question I asked you....

Just how many people, private sellers, do you think show up to sell guns at a gun show versus the number of Licensed Dealers?

Do you think the ratio is 1:1? 10:1? 1:10? 1:20? Something different? You are throwing all kinds of numbers out there, making all kinds of proclaimations.. Demanding answers to your questions.. So how about answering one for a change?

This is the third time that I have asked the question. Are you going to ignore it again?

You don't know, so what's the difference. Gun shows aren't all the same. The real point is people who oppose universal or gun show background checks aren't interested in solving the problems of our open gun market.

The potential exists to resell a weapon at a gun show to someone who can't pass a background check and just because it's illegal doesn't mean there is a way of catching someone doing it or that a gun show doesn't promote doing it.

Sensible gun control laws would require registration of all firearms from the time of manufacturing and sales involving transfer of registration, which would always require a background check. Let me explain it in simple terms! Every gun from the time of manufacture is registered with an ID. The registration can be transferred to an organization or individual, but the organization has to be something like the military or law enforcement. Every gun is registered and checked each year to determine the same person owns it. The rifled firearms are periodically ballistics tested with the bullets being sent to FBI for scanning and the data is put in a data base. The FBI can work out a quick scan process. People would think twice before using a gun in a crime and the reason to possess a gun on the streets of our cities would fade away.

It's the nature of criminals to draw heat, so possessing an illegal firearm should be dealt with severely, when they've drawn heat. Let's say the cops find a firearm in the residence of someone suspected for a crime. I doubt a criminal wipes down his weapon everytime he touches it, so fingerprints can be lifted connecting a person to the weapon. A weapon could be associated with any type of crime the police would get a search warrant for and listed on the warrant.

I haven't been advocating these piecemeal, feelgood changes in the law, but have advocated a comprehensive approach that reduces gun violence and discourages illegal ownership of guns. Closing the gun show loophole is just a small part of what should be done.

And criminals will obey all of that.

Criminals in general do not obey laws. So, should there then be no laws?

 

[The Rabbi]

Liberals say that all the time. What they lose are certain consitutional rights, such as the right to bear arms, and the right to vote (depending on the state).
Its progressives that usually try to prevent us from executing the bastards based on "human rights"

But, of course, if law enforcement actually is given a tool (such as required registration) to enforce the law forbidding gun sales without background checks that would prevent violent criminals from walking into the civic center gun show and walking out with an AR-15, the NRA and others begin wringing their hands and screaming, "They are going to come in the middle of the night and take our guns away!"

Good to see that you're willing to admit that UBC requires universal registration, and that universal registration was the intent all along.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/277079-universal-background-checks.html

Registration is the inevitable consequence of background checks because otherwise it makes enforcement impossible.
Of course registration is impossible as well because there are 300M guns in circulation and people wont register them. That was the experience in Canada, which doesnt have much history of civil disobedience.

 

[Spoonman]

You don't know, so what's the difference. Gun shows aren't all the same. The real point is people who oppose universal or gun show background checks aren't interested in solving the problems of our open gun market.

The potential exists to resell a weapon at a gun show to someone who can't pass a background check and just because it's illegal doesn't mean there is a way of catching someone doing it or that a gun show doesn't promote doing it.

Sensible gun control laws would require registration of all firearms from the time of manufacturing and sales involving transfer of registration, which would always require a background check. Let me explain it in simple terms! Every gun from the time of manufacture is registered with an ID. The registration can be transferred to an organization or individual, but the organization has to be something like the military or law enforcement. Every gun is registered and checked each year to determine the same person owns it. The rifled firearms are periodically ballistics tested with the bullets being sent to FBI for scanning and the data is put in a data base. The FBI can work out a quick scan process. People would think twice before using a gun in a crime and the reason to possess a gun on the streets of our cities would fade away.

It's the nature of criminals to draw heat, so possessing an illegal firearm should be dealt with severely, when they've drawn heat. Let's say the cops find a firearm in the residence of someone suspected for a crime. I doubt a criminal wipes down his weapon everytime he touches it, so fingerprints can be lifted connecting a person to the weapon. A weapon could be associated with any type of crime the police would get a search warrant for and listed on the warrant.

I haven't been advocating these piecemeal, feelgood changes in the law, but have advocated a comprehensive approach that reduces gun violence and discourages illegal ownership of guns. Closing the gun show loophole is just a small part of what should be done.

And criminals will obey all of that.

Criminals in general do not obey laws. So, should there then be no laws?

there should be laws. but not being able to enforce them doesn't mean you should add further restrictions to them that only impact the law abiding

 

[Coyote]

How involved are you in the gun world?
Do you have any information to back up your opinion about those newspaper sales?

Do you have information to back up your claim that most such sales are between "friends"?

If you don't know your friends why are you selling to them? I call bull shit on this claim of yours.

I'm not selling. I'm just talking about people I know. And yes, you can call bullshit on it, as I can on your claims - thus far, in both our cases, they are all unsupported personal testemonials and unproveable. Which is what I said in the first place.

Again their is no data for friend too friend private sales, because it's private.

Like I said - your claim is based on personal testemonial. "Don't ask me for proof, there isn't any - just trust me, I'm right" - am I correct?

I can give you examples of firearms sold through public advertising bulletins - one example is this one: Your Bulletin Board Online

You have to be a subscriber to see it in detail (I tend to pick up the newsprint copy) but it has a section for firearms in it. Those aren't sold friend to friend.

 

[M14 Shooter]

And criminals will obey all of that.

Criminals in general do not obey laws. So, should there then be no laws?

there should be laws. but not being able to enforce them doesn't mean you should add further restrictions to them that only impact the law abiding

It is imposible to show that the restriction of a right is necessary to achieve a compelling state interst when that restriction is ineffective in achiving that interest.

 

[Coyote]

And criminals will obey all of that.

Criminals in general do not obey laws. So, should there then be no laws?

there should be laws. but not being able to enforce them doesn't mean you should add further restrictions to them that only impact the law abiding

I agree to some extent. Laws need to be enforceable and there needs to be the public will to enforce them.

However in this case I think the laws being proposed are modest and moderate: universal background check for example. Yet anytime something is proposed, you have one side jumping up and down claiming that the government is now going to confiscate your weapons and guns will be banned. That is highly unlikely given public opinion and the constitution (with the right to bare arms strongly affirmed in a recent Supreme Court case).

So why not consider reasonable gun control measures if it might keep guns out of the hands of mentally ill people, potential suicides (3 day waiting period), and possibly make it more difficult for at least some criminals to get them?

 

[martybegan]

You don't know, so what's the difference. Gun shows aren't all the same. The real point is people who oppose universal or gun show background checks aren't interested in solving the problems of our open gun market.

The potential exists to resell a weapon at a gun show to someone who can't pass a background check and just because it's illegal doesn't mean there is a way of catching someone doing it or that a gun show doesn't promote doing it.

Sensible gun control laws would require registration of all firearms from the time of manufacturing and sales involving transfer of registration, which would always require a background check. Let me explain it in simple terms! Every gun from the time of manufacture is registered with an ID. The registration can be transferred to an organization or individual, but the organization has to be something like the military or law enforcement. Every gun is registered and checked each year to determine the same person owns it. The rifled firearms are periodically ballistics tested with the bullets being sent to FBI for scanning and the data is put in a data base. The FBI can work out a quick scan process. People would think twice before using a gun in a crime and the reason to possess a gun on the streets of our cities would fade away.

It's the nature of criminals to draw heat, so possessing an illegal firearm should be dealt with severely, when they've drawn heat. Let's say the cops find a firearm in the residence of someone suspected for a crime. I doubt a criminal wipes down his weapon everytime he touches it, so fingerprints can be lifted connecting a person to the weapon. A weapon could be associated with any type of crime the police would get a search warrant for and listed on the warrant.

I haven't been advocating these piecemeal, feelgood changes in the law, but have advocated a comprehensive approach that reduces gun violence and discourages illegal ownership of guns. Closing the gun show loophole is just a small part of what should be done.

And criminals will obey all of that.

Criminals in general do not obey laws. So, should there then be no laws?

argumentum ad absurdum. Most criminal law is based on an ACT, be it murder, robbery, rape, etc. When you propose bans on merely owning something without the required act, a much stricter sense of scrutiny as to WHY you have to ban such item is needed. Added to this is the fact that owning firearms is a guaranteed consitutional RIGHT, thus setting the bar much much higher.

There is an overwhelming concencus that people do not need to own tanks, howitzers or tactical nuclear warheads. Add this to the fact that these are not truly "arms" as I see an arm in the 2nd amendment, then you have a compelling case to ban them. One could say the same about drug possession (I disagree), as you do not have a consitutional right to the wacky tobacky.

Semi automatic rifles however, are a preferred form of arm for many people in this country. Since this is the case, and there is the right to bear arms, the burden of percieved public safety improvements (of which I doubt) does not meet the threshold for banning them.

Remove the 2nd amendment, and all games are off. Until then, they are constitutionally protected mo matter what progressive gun control addicts think.

 

[kwc57]

What the **** is the gun show loophole? Every licensed dealer is required to run a background check every time they sell a gun. That applies even at gun shows, which means the only loophole that exists is in your imagination.

You are correct. The same law applies to gun shows as applies everywhere else: dealers must run background checks and private sellers do not. Those people who can legally sell their gun to another party without doing a background check go to gun shows because they know potential buyers will be there. If private sales were no longer allowed at gun shows, sellers would simply advertise in the newspaper. Either way, a background check is not required.

At any rate, there is no such thing as the so-called "gun show loophole." If the issue is about background checks, perhaps those who favor stronger gun control should call it "private gun sellers loophole." I could live with that. At least it would make sense.

Like stated in the first post, the "gun show loophole" refferes to the private sale of guns.

Gun shows were started as, and at their core are for the sale of firearms by private sellers, but many "legitimate" sellers AKA firearm stores set up booths at these shows as well.

It's a very simple question that this thread is asking is that should there be background checks for all people that want to own a firearm, or should we leave the laws how they are so crooks, felons, and those out to commit crimes are able to obtain firearms with no questions asked under this loophole.

Obviously you have never stepped foot inside a gun show or you'd know that isn't true. One need not own a store to be a licensed gun dealer. The gentleman who taught my recent NRA Basic Rifle Instruction certification class is a registered nurse who sells guns at gun shows. He does not own a store, but he is licensed to deal in guns and purchase directly from manufacturers for resell. He on occasion has someone walk up at a gun show and ask if they can purchase "off paper" to which the answer is absolutely NOT.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Criminals in general do not obey laws. So, should there then be no laws?

there should be laws. but not being able to enforce them doesn't mean you should add further restrictions to them that only impact the law abiding

I agree to some extent. Laws need to be enforceable and there needs to be the public will to enforce them.

However in this case I think the laws being proposed are modest and moderate: universal background check for example. Yet anytime something is proposed, you have one side jumping up and down claiming that the government is now going to confiscate your weapons and guns will be banned. That is highly unlikely given public opinion and the constitution (with the right to bare arms strongly affirmed in a recent Supreme Court case).

So why not consider reasonable gun control measures if it might keep guns out of the hands of mentally ill people, potential suicides (3 day waiting period), and possibly make it more difficult for at least some criminals to get them?

Compromise is a 2-way street.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/277676-so-you-want-the-nra-pro-gun-side-to-compromise.html

 

[Coyote]

A liscense is only required for public roads, just like a CCW permit can be required for public use of a firearm.

And I have never heard of "registration" for a house. All you need to do is give the address and your name so the property tax can be paid.

Alcohol is NOT guaranteed by the consitution. It leaves regulation of alchol specifically to the states and localities. Read the amendment. Voting rights are also left to the states, with floor limits set that say you cannot deny voting rights based on race sex, or age after the age of 18.


Arms are left to the PEOPLE.

Sort of.

Because it's a constitutional right, regulating that right is tricky especially when you try to make comparisons to gunlaws in other countries. I don't think any other country guarantees it as a right.

However - no constitutional right is unlimited - not a single one. I don't think firearms should be any different than any other right.

I agree - the standards for judging the constitutionality of the limitations on the right to arms should be no different than those for judging limitations on the right to free speech.

Up to a point.

Free speech, freedom of religion, freedom to assemble, right to bare arms - you can't treat them exactly the same because they are not the same.

But, for example - you can't incite riots, you can't lead a mob to vigilante justice, you can't commit slander or libel, your freedom of religion does not allow child abuse, animal abuse, the right to burn down other places of worship, sacrificing people and a host of other things.

 

[martybegan]

The purpose of registration is irrelevant. The fact is, you must register houses, cars and guns with the government in some fashion for different reasons. Since they are different objects used for different purposes, it stands to reason the purpose for registration would be different as well.

Who buys a car to drive around ONLY on all their acreage? A tractor maybe or a 4-wheel drive to wrangle cattle or something but regardless of all that, you still have to take a written test and a driving test to obtain a license to operate a vehicle whether you drive on your property or on the roads. And don't tell me that tractor or cattle-wrangling 4-wheel isn't going to drive down a public road at some point.

No comment on alcohol or voting requirements even though they are guaranteed by the Constitution? That's the real argument here.

A liscense is only required for public roads, just like a CCW permit can be required for public use of a firearm.

And I have never heard of "registration" for a house. All you need to do is give the address and your name so the property tax can be paid.

Alcohol is NOT guaranteed by the consitution. It leaves regulation of alchol specifically to the states and localities. Read the amendment. Voting rights are also left to the states, with floor limits set that say you cannot deny voting rights based on race sex, or age after the age of 18.


Arms are left to the PEOPLE.

Sort of.

Because it's a constitutional right, regulating that right is tricky especially when you try to make comparisons to gunlaws in other countries. I don't think any other country guarantees it as a right.

However - no constitutional right is unlimited - not a single one. I don't think firearms should be any different than any other right.

Neither is this one. However this is the only one people seem to allow any form of prior restraint. We already have laws banning felons from guns. We have a background check system. States and cities have permit and registration (which I find unconstitutional) requirements. Even the most "liberal" gun states ask you to have a CCW for concealed carry.

Semi auto bans, or mag bans, or waiting lists though are forms of infringement. It would be like gagging people who talk fast before they go into the movie theatre "just in case" they may yell FIRE!!!

 

[Spoonman]

Criminals in general do not obey laws. So, should there then be no laws?

there should be laws. but not being able to enforce them doesn't mean you should add further restrictions to them that only impact the law abiding

I agree to some extent. Laws need to be enforceable and there needs to be the public will to enforce them.

However in this case I think the laws being proposed are modest and moderate: universal background check for example. Yet anytime something is proposed, you have one side jumping up and down claiming that the government is now going to confiscate your weapons and guns will be banned. That is highly unlikely given public opinion and the constitution (with the right to bare arms strongly affirmed in a recent Supreme Court case).

So why not consider reasonable gun control measures if it might keep guns out of the hands of mentally ill people, potential suicides (3 day waiting period), and possibly make it more difficult for at least some criminals to get them?

I'm not against a background check altogether. But what is it going to be? who can do it? and what records are kept by who? And really, what do we believe it will accomplish? Lanza failed a background check and was denied the ability to purchase a gun. did it stop him? The fort hood shooter had multiple background checks as did the CA cop. but it didn't stop them.

are we really ready to create a recorded list of people who we say are mentally incapacitated? think of the trials of nuremberg. that was the crux of the case for the prosecution. and if we have such a list, how will it effect these peoples lives beyond limiting them from obtaining a firearm? If we deem they are a threat to society and might kill if they have a gun, might they not also kill without a gun? do we now limit them in other ways to prevent that? if not and they do kill, isn't the government now liable because they knew?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Sort of.

Because it's a constitutional right, regulating that right is tricky especially when you try to make comparisons to gunlaws in other countries. I don't think any other country guarantees it as a right.

However - no constitutional right is unlimited - not a single one. I don't think firearms should be any different than any other right.

I agree - the standards for judging the constitutionality of the limitations on the right to arms should be no different than those for judging limitations on the right to free speech.

Up to a point.
Free speech, freedom of religion, freedom to assemble, right to bare arms - you can't treat them exactly the same because they are not the same.

So, you didn't -really- mean that "firearms should be any different than any other right" ?

But, for example - you can't incite riots, you can't lead a mob to vigilante justice, you can't commit slander or libel, your freedom of religion does not allow child abuse, animal abuse, the right to burn down other places of worship, sacrificing people and a host of other things.

All of which are restrcited because they harm others, or place them in a condtition of clear, present and immediate danger.

Simple ownershp/posession of a firearm does neither. If we're treating the right to arms no differently than any other, on what basis, established by limitations allowable on other rights, can simple ownership/posession be limited?

 

[Coyote]

there should be laws. but not being able to enforce them doesn't mean you should add further restrictions to them that only impact the law abiding

I agree to some extent. Laws need to be enforceable and there needs to be the public will to enforce them.

However in this case I think the laws being proposed are modest and moderate: universal background check for example. Yet anytime something is proposed, you have one side jumping up and down claiming that the government is now going to confiscate your weapons and guns will be banned. That is highly unlikely given public opinion and the constitution (with the right to bare arms strongly affirmed in a recent Supreme Court case).

So why not consider reasonable gun control measures if it might keep guns out of the hands of mentally ill people, potential suicides (3 day waiting period), and possibly make it more difficult for at least some criminals to get them?

Compromise is a 2-way street.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/277676-so-you-want-the-nra-pro-gun-side-to-compromise.html

Is this about "compromise" or seeing that something might be mutually beneficial?

I don't see any need to "compromise" with the NRA any more than any political action group. We don't "compromise" with the alcohal industries on laws regarding drunk driving do we?

I think they make good points - for example I fully support their educational efforts and think those should be more widespread because are culture has moved far away from the original idea that a gun is a tool that should be used responsibly and with respect for what it can do. Most people today have never grown up with guns.

On the other hand - I see no reason not have a universal background check. I also see no reason why we should allow unrestricted access to fully automatic weapons, armor piercing ammunition, or high capacity magazines who's sole purpose is to kill cops or kill lots of people very quickly. To me, it falls in the same category as restricting pocket nukes or rocket launchers. Beyond that, I see no reason to restrict anything else.

 

[Spoonman]

Sort of.

Because it's a constitutional right, regulating that right is tricky especially when you try to make comparisons to gunlaws in other countries. I don't think any other country guarantees it as a right.

However - no constitutional right is unlimited - not a single one. I don't think firearms should be any different than any other right.

I agree - the standards for judging the constitutionality of the limitations on the right to arms should be no different than those for judging limitations on the right to free speech.

Up to a point.

Free speech, freedom of religion, freedom to assemble, right to bare arms - you can't treat them exactly the same because they are not the same.

But, for example - you can't incite riots, you can't lead a mob to vigilante justice, you can't commit slander or libel, your freedom of religion does not allow child abuse, animal abuse, the right to burn down other places of worship, sacrificing people and a host of other things.

and you can't kill someone with a gun. you can't bring a gun into a federal building. there are laws, there are sensible liitations that do not restrict rights or limit ownership.

 

[Coyote]

I agree - the standards for judging the constitutionality of the limitations on the right to arms should be no different than those for judging limitations on the right to free speech.

Up to a point.
Free speech, freedom of religion, freedom to assemble, right to bare arms - you can't treat them exactly the same because they are not the same.

So, you didn't -really- mean that "firearms should be any different than any other right" ?

But, for example - you can't incite riots, you can't lead a mob to vigilante justice, you can't commit slander or libel, your freedom of religion does not allow child abuse, animal abuse, the right to burn down other places of worship, sacrificing people and a host of other things.

All of which are restrcited because they harm others, or place them in a condtition of clear, present and immediate danger.

Simple ownershp/posession of a firearm does neither. If we're treating the right to arms no differently than any other, on what basis, established by limitations allowable on other rights, can simple ownership/posession be limited?

Simple possession of the ability to gather masses and inspire them does no harm - that's oratory skill and charisma. But when the speaker chooses to turn the crowd towards violence - then it does harm. Despite that, we restrict certain types of free speech.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Up to a point.
Free speech, freedom of religion, freedom to assemble, right to bare arms - you can't treat them exactly the same because they are not the same.

So, you didn't -really- mean that "firearms should be any different than any other right" ?

But, for example - you can't incite riots, you can't lead a mob to vigilante justice, you can't commit slander or libel, your freedom of religion does not allow child abuse, animal abuse, the right to burn down other places of worship, sacrificing people and a host of other things.

All of which are restrcited because they harm others, or place them in a condtition of clear, present and immediate danger.

Simple ownershp/posession of a firearm does neither. If we're treating the right to arms no differently than any other, on what basis, established by limitations allowable on other rights, can simple ownership/posession be limited?

Simple possession of the ability to gather masses and inspire them does no harm - that's oratory skill and charisma. But when the speaker chooses to turn the crowd towards violence - then it does harm. Despite that, we restrict certain types of free speech.

Yes...and...?
Apply that to the right to arms.

 

[Coyote]

I agree - the standards for judging the constitutionality of the limitations on the right to arms should be no different than those for judging limitations on the right to free speech.

Up to a point.

Free speech, freedom of religion, freedom to assemble, right to bare arms - you can't treat them exactly the same because they are not the same.

But, for example - you can't incite riots, you can't lead a mob to vigilante justice, you can't commit slander or libel, your freedom of religion does not allow child abuse, animal abuse, the right to burn down other places of worship, sacrificing people and a host of other things.

and you can't kill someone with a gun. you can't bring a gun into a federal building. there are laws, there are sensible liitations that do not restrict rights or limit ownership.

So for you then, the question is about where do you draw the line?

Do you draw it at:

fully automatic weapons
certains types of ammo
high capacity mags
rocket launchers
grenades
nukes
large scale bombs
cannons
napalm

?

 

[Coyote]

So, you didn't -really- mean that "firearms should be any different than any other right" ?


All of which are restrcited because they harm others, or place them in a condtition of clear, present and immediate danger.

Simple ownershp/posession of a firearm does neither. If we're treating the right to arms no differently than any other, on what basis, established by limitations allowable on other rights, can simple ownership/posession be limited?

Simple possession of the ability to gather masses and inspire them does no harm - that's oratory skill and charisma. But when the speaker chooses to turn the crowd towards violence - then it does harm. Despite that, we restrict certain types of free speech.

Yes...and...?
Apply that to the right to arms.

Certain types of speech are restricted.

Certain types of arms can be restricted.