Do You Support The "Gun Show Loophole?"

[UKRider]

I see no gun show loophole since you need an a Federal Firearms License (FFL) to sell at gunshows. You also must have some form of firearm carry permit (which to get you need a background check) to buy from any gun seller with such a license.

So, you're saying that private sellers cannot sell weapons at Gun Shows without requiring a background check?

That would be an odd statement, since my cousin bought a rifle at a Gun Show just last month without a background check.

Of course, he's not a felon, but the seller had no way of knowing that.

I'm not saying it doesn't happen. I speaking to requirements by law.

Like the requirements of new laws also don't have to be followed by those who break them.

 

[CMike]

I think a problem in this is that private sellers don't have access to the system.

 

[Spoonman]

I think a problem in this is that private sellers don't have access to the system.

would you want them to?

 

[Vast LWC]

the losses they incurred had to do with the fact they failed. after 8 years of the evil bush/cheney administration the democrats couldn't even hold on for 2 years. man, that is failure.

Obama seems to have been re-elected, the Senate has remained under Democratic control the entire time, and Democrats made some gains in the house in the last election.

Also, the Republicans lost the entire Congress in 2006, so I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Certain types of free speech can be restricted.
Certain types of arms can be restricted.

We all possess the right to express ourselves (free speech) - the possession of expression.
We all possess the right to own arms - the possession of a physical tool.

Right?
However, in both cases those rights are restricted in terms of public safety.

You did not address the questions I asked.

You argue that the right to arms should be treated no differently than any other.
Certain kinds of speech may be restricted because they harm others or places them in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger.

So, I ask again:
Simple ownership/posession of what sort of firearm causes harm to others or places them in a condtition of clear, present and immediate danger?
How does the ownership/simple posession of these firearms do this?

I answered your question by drawing the parallels with free speech, another right - I'm not sure how you want me to answer it differently.

Sorta. We used freedom of speech and the reasons for its allowable restrictions as the standard, since the right to arms should be treated no differently than any other right.

Simple ownership of a firearm - like the simple ability to speak - causes no harm.

Given the standard set by the fredom of speech, how then can we restrict simple ownership/posession of any kind of firearm?

 

[The Rabbi]

Since there is no gun show loophole what would you like to close?
the fact that a majority of people are ignorant is not proof of anything, except stupidity.

Blah, blah, talking point, talking point.

So, it is your considered opinion that private sellers are required to put their buyers through background checks, just like licensed dealers?

Because, that's the "Gun Show Loophole", genius.

Just because it doesn't only happen at gun shows doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Thanks for playing though.

OK, so it has nothing to do with gunshows. And it's not a loophole. It's the plain law: anyone can sell his property to another person without gov't interference.

So now that we've established there is no gunshow loophole, what you want is to restrict commerce among private citizens.
The FedGov lacks teh power to do this. Case closed.

 

[Coyote]

Since there is no gun show loophole what would you like to close?
the fact that a majority of people are ignorant is not proof of anything, except stupidity.

Blah, blah, talking point, talking point.
So, it is your considered opinion that private sellers are required to put their buyers through background checks, just like licensed dealers?
Because, that's the "Gun Show Loophole", genius.

The federal law that requires a background check applies everywhere, and so to call it a "gun show loophole" is, at best, dishonest.

I will admit that it -does- serve for a good talking point to rally support from the useful idiots.

According to this site, there is a gunshow loophole primarily because they are regulated state by state: Gun Shows - The Purported Gun Show Loophole and State-by-State Regulation of Gun SHows

Gun Show Background

The federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has estimated that 5,000 gun shows are held annually in the United States, attracting tens of thousands of attendees and resulting in the transfer of thousands of firearms.

Between 1968 and 1986, gun dealers were prohibited from selling firearms at gun shows. The restrictive Gun Control Act of 1968 prevented Federal Firearms License (FFL) holders from gun show sales by ordering all sales to take place at the dealer’s place of business. However, the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 reversed that portion of the Gun Control Act. Today, BATFE estimates place the percentage of weapons sold at gun shows by licensed dealers between 50% and 75%.

Gun Show Loophole

In 33 states, private gun owners are not restricted from selling guns at gun shows. Buyers who purchase guns from individuals are not required to submit to the federal background checks in place for licensed dealers. Critics say that firearms can be obtained illegally as a result, calling it the “gun show loophole.” Proponents of unregulated gun show sales say that there is no loophole; gun owners are simply selling or trading guns at the shows as they would do at their residence.

Federal legislation has attempted to put an end to the so-called loophole by requiring all gun show transactions to take place through FFL dealers. Most recently, a 2009 bill attracted several co-sponsors in both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate. However, Congress ultimately failed to take up consideration of the legislation.

Now, after reading this, I can see some issues with attempting to close this loophole and that is to drive all business to licensed dealers and drive out the individual traders and sellers who used to make up the backbone of these gunshows.

Not sure I like that. But - there IS a loophole.

 

[The Rabbi]

There is still no such thing as the fictional "gun show loophole."

Then gunshows do have to do background checks?

Damn. What a waste of an entire thread.

Your'e getting it.
Gunshows do not have to do background checks.

Licenced dealers have to do background checks.
Private sellers cannot do background checks.
The gun show has nothing to do with it.

 

[The Rabbi]

Blah, blah, talking point, talking point.
So, it is your considered opinion that private sellers are required to put their buyers through background checks, just like licensed dealers?
Because, that's the "Gun Show Loophole", genius.

The federal law that requires a background check applies everywhere, and so to call it a "gun show loophole" is, at best, dishonest.

I will admit that it -does- serve for a good talking point to rally support from the useful idiots.

According to this site, there is a gunshow loophole primarily because they are regulated state by state: Gun Shows - The Purported Gun Show Loophole and State-by-State Regulation of Gun SHows

Gun Show Background

The federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has estimated that 5,000 gun shows are held annually in the United States, attracting tens of thousands of attendees and resulting in the transfer of thousands of firearms.

Between 1968 and 1986, gun dealers were prohibited from selling firearms at gun shows. The restrictive Gun Control Act of 1968 prevented Federal Firearms License (FFL) holders from gun show sales by ordering all sales to take place at the dealer’s place of business. However, the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 reversed that portion of the Gun Control Act. Today, BATFE estimates place the percentage of weapons sold at gun shows by licensed dealers between 50% and 75%.

Gun Show Loophole

In 33 states, private gun owners are not restricted from selling guns at gun shows. Buyers who purchase guns from individuals are not required to submit to the federal background checks in place for licensed dealers. Critics say that firearms can be obtained illegally as a result, calling it the “gun show loophole.” Proponents of unregulated gun show sales say that there is no loophole; gun owners are simply selling or trading guns at the shows as they would do at their residence.

Federal legislation has attempted to put an end to the so-called loophole by requiring all gun show transactions to take place through FFL dealers. Most recently, a 2009 bill attracted several co-sponsors in both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate. However, Congress ultimately failed to take up consideration of the legislation.

Now, after reading this, I can see some issues with attempting to close this loophole and that is to drive all business to licensed dealers and drive out the individual traders and sellers who used to make up the backbone of these gunshows.

Not sure I like that. But - there IS a loophole.

It's not a loophole. It's the plain law. And an "individual trader" if he is engaged in buying and selling for profit is an unlicensed dealer and breaking the law.

 

[Vast LWC]

that would be a lie.

You can think whatever you want there "Spoonman".

My cousin went to a gun show, in Virginia, and bought a gun from a private seller, without a background check.

Virginia, like 33 other states in the nation, have no rules restricting sales by private individuals to other private individuals, at gun shows.

Perhaps your state is one of the other states that have local rules about background checks.

 

[Coyote]

You did not address the questions I asked.

You argue that the right to arms should be treated no differently than any other.
Certain kinds of speech may be restricted because they harm others or places them in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger.

So, I ask again:
Simple ownership/posession of what sort of firearm causes harm to others or places them in a condtition of clear, present and immediate danger?
How does the ownership/simple posession of these firearms do this?

I answered your question by drawing the parallels with free speech, another right - I'm not sure how you want me to answer it differently.

Sorta. We used freedom of speech and the reasons for its allowable restrictions as the standard, since the right to arms should be treated no differently than any other right.

Simple ownership of a firearm - like the simple ability to speak - causes no harm.

Given the standard set by the fredom of speech, how then can we restrict simple ownership/posession of any kind of firearm?

Because rights - speech, assembly, religion, bare arms are not exactly the same. You are free to own firearms but not all firearms (a standard long set). You are free to express yourself, but not in every instance. You are free to practice your form of worship but not if it involves dismembering small live mammels.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I answered your question by drawing the parallels with free speech, another right - I'm not sure how you want me to answer it differently.

Sorta. We used freedom of speech and the reasons for its allowable restrictions as the standard, since the right to arms should be treated no differently than any other right.

Simple ownership of a firearm - like the simple ability to speak - causes no harm.

Given the standard set by the fredom of speech, how then can we restrict simple ownership/posession of any kind of firearm?

Because rights - speech, assembly, religion, bare arms are not exactly the same.

You argue that the right to arms should be treated no differently than any other.
Your words.

Given the standard set by the freedom of speech - the same standard we use for the freedom of religion and the freedom of assembly, BTW - how then can we restrict simple ownership/posession of any kind of firearm?

 

[Vast LWC]

It's not a loophole. It's the plain law. And an "individual trader" if he is engaged in buying and selling for profit is an unlicensed dealer and breaking the law.

That is incorrect.

A person can sell guns without a license, as long as they don't do it enough to make a living off of it.

If they engage in the practice to the point where it becomes a regular income, they must be licensed.

 

[Spoonman]

Certain types of free speech can be restricted.
Certain types of arms can be restricted.

We all possess the right to express ourselves (free speech) - the possession of expression.

We all possess the right to own arms - the possession of a physical tool.

Right?

However, in both cases those rights are restricted in terms of public safety.

speech is not restricted. how you use the speech is restricted. you can't use speech to harm someone. just like there are laws that state you can't use a gun to harm someone. the difference it, with guns the limit what you can have as well as how you use them. there is a difference. a very significant difference.

Speech is and can be restricted along with "how" - that is what libel and slander laws are for. Profanity and blasphemy laws still exist in this country. You can't cuss a teacher out without repercussions. If your choice of WORDS is viewed as threatening in certain instances - that two can have restrictions.

because it's how you use it. libel and slander are using speech to hurt someone. just like shooting a person is used to harm someone. If you say, I don't want that person to be elected governor because they are a communist, and they aren't, they cn sue you because it is potentially damaging. but if they are a member of the communist party and you say it, it's ok to say. you can swear, that is perfectly legal. but if you cuss out a teacher it's wrong because of how you use if. it's not the word, it's how its used. with a gun, its the gun as well as how its used. there is a difference

 

[The Rabbi]

that would be a lie.

You can think whatever you want there "Spoonman".

My cousin went to a gun show, in Virginia, and bought a gun from a private seller, without a background check.

Virginia, like 33 other states in the nation, have no rules restricting sales by private individuals to other private individuals, at gun shows.

Perhaps your state is one of the other states that have local rules about background checks.

Of course he didnt have to go to a gun show to do that. He could have met the guy in the parking lot at Dairy Queen or something.

Why would anyone want to restrict that? Why would anyone think restricting that would accomplish anything?

 

[Spoonman]

It's not a loophole. It's the plain law. And an "individual trader" if he is engaged in buying and selling for profit is an unlicensed dealer and breaking the law.

That is incorrect.

A person can sell guns without a license, as long as they don't do it enough to make a living off of it.

If they engage in the practice to the point where it becomes a regular income, they must be licensed.

so if they sell a hundred guns but don't make a profit off of any of them its ok? where do you jokers dig this crap up anyway?

 

[Vast LWC]

I think a problem in this is that private sellers don't have access to the system.

Which is a good point.

The system should be expanded to be used by the general public, at minimal cost to the individual.

 

[The Rabbi]

It's not a loophole. It's the plain law. And an "individual trader" if he is engaged in buying and selling for profit is an unlicensed dealer and breaking the law.

That is incorrect.

A person can sell guns without a license, as long as they don't do it enough to make a living off of it.

If they engage in the practice to the point where it becomes a regular income, they must be licensed.

That is not correct. Potentially even if someone buys one gun with the intent to sell it for a profit he might be an unlicensed dealer.
Being a licensed dealer myself I tend to know something about this.

 

[The Rabbi]

I think a problem in this is that private sellers don't have access to the system.

Which is a good point.

The system should be expanded to be used by the general public, at minimal cost to the individual.

Do you want people running background checks on your criminal history and other things without your knowledge? Because that's what will happen.
It is a felony to do so, btw. So you would be increasing crime, rather than decreasing it.

 

[Spoonman]

that would be a lie.

You can think whatever you want there "Spoonman".

My cousin went to a gun show, in Virginia, and bought a gun from a private seller, without a background check.

Virginia, like 33 other states in the nation, have no rules restricting sales by private individuals to other private individuals, at gun shows.

Perhaps your state is one of the other states that have local rules about background checks.

yea some states have some very lenient laws. I wonder what the results of that are. must be really bad right?