Is There A Gunshow Loophole?

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Wow, that's all I gotta do for a car? So I can just buy the car and do a bill of sale and take the title and drive around all I want. I learned something new.

Until a couple months after the tags expire, that's quite correct. No one will stop you.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

The BoR was NOT part of the original Constitution, approved September 17th 1787, ratified on June 21, 1788. All 10 amendments were AMENDMENTS to the original, and were not ratified until December 15, 1791, over 3 years AFTER the Constitution.

This is lamer semantics than usual.

The Constitution is the governing document for our government. It includes all 27 Amendments. Your argument is no less stupid than saying 'the Constitution doesn't give us free speech rights, only the 1st Amendment does that.'

Some states would not have ratified it without the understanding that the Bill of Rights would be one of the first orders of business, and it was exactly that.

You do understand the meaning of the word "ORIGINAL", right.

Words have meanings, and meanings are important.

I consider the BoR to be part of the original constitution. I don't think that's an unusual stance either. The Federalist Papers cover most of these items as well in arguing for the ratification of the Constitution by each state. The BoR was merely the explicit enumeration of these guaranteed rights.

Two minor changes came in the 15 years after, and then not another one until the end of the Civil War.

[BIGUN 1,053]

Quote

Until a couple months after the tags expire, that's quite correct. No one will stop you.

Not in my state, If you buy a car and get stopped, you better have bill of sale/title with dates on them and you must get it registered in your name within 30 days after purchase.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Until a couple months after the tags expire, that's quite correct. No one will stop you.

Not in my state, If you buy a car and get stopped, you better have bill of sale/title with dates on them and you must get it registered in your name within 30 days after purchase.

Oh, no doubt if you're stopped, you have some explaining to do and likely a nuisance ticket. I think you have less than 30 days to do this in CA.

But we have perhaps 25% of our drivers cruising around without insurance, and that's an incredibly expensive ticket (700 or more), but it doesn't mean everyone is insured.

If you want to buy a car to do bad things, there are no effective legal barriers, and it's much easier to do legally than to obtain a gun, esp in CA.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Where do you see yourself here sir?

I see myself as being able to differentiate guesses and opinions from facts. You just demonstrated that you cannot.

Glasses you need glasses. CAUSE YOU CANT SEE!!!!You also demonstrate very clearly your lack of respect for differing opinoin. But THAT is nothing new.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[BIGUN 1,053]

Quote

If it was that big of an issue of people sticking guns in other's faces, you put the armed civilians at a significant increased risk! ***

It was the "armed civilians" sticking the guns in our faces - putting those that were there to help them at risk.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[normiss 622]

We still have issues with perspective on guns.
A responsible, legal gun owner would NOT behave this way.
I'd be overly disappointed in anyone in this thread that honestly would think that.
Criminals could care less what laws we pass to change these issues.
I can't believe you honestly think we would support those that would stick a gun in someone's face such as the situation you stated.
WHY must all of society pay for the idiots that will never follow societies laws????

[BIGUN 1,053]

Guys, I suggest we end this.
We've strayed way off subject here.
Best thing we can do is respect that we have differing opinions and write to our legislators.

It's the holidays and after two days of this, I need some fun. You have some too.

Bigun Out.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

I haven't read all the posts in this thread so mine may repeat what has already been said.

In answer to the question, "Is there a gunshow loophole?", I would say "No, there is not". In my humble opinion, for there to be a loophole specific to gunshows, there would have to be some difference in the laws concerning transactions at gunshows vs transactions other than at shows. At the minimum, the laws at gun showes are the same and can be even more strict, depending upon the local laws. A person cannot just walk through the door and "POOF!" the laws suddenly don't apply any longer.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

The BoR was NOT part of the original Constitution, approved September 17th 1787, ratified on June 21, 1788. All 10 amendments were AMENDMENTS to the original, and were not ratified until December 15, 1791, over 3 years AFTER the Constitution.

This is lamer semantics than usual.

The Constitution is the governing document for our government. It includes all 27 Amendments. Your argument is no less stupid than saying 'the Constitution doesn't give us free speech rights, only the 1st Amendment does that.'

Some states would not have ratified it without the understanding that the Bill of Rights would be one of the first orders of business, and it was exactly that.

You do understand the meaning of the word "ORIGINAL", right.

Words have meanings, and meanings are important.

I consider the BoR to be part of the original constitution.

Feel free to consider what you like. The fact remains that the BoR is NOT part of the original Constitution. It was approved separately and ratified separately, after the fact of the original Constitution.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

You're asking if there is a loophole. The answer is absolutely yes.

Can you define "loophole" in this context?

I'm pretty sure there is a gun show "exception" of some sort. To term it a "loophole" indicates that it was not intentionally included in the law, and that some of the legislators who voted for the legislation did not do so knowing that the exception existed, and perhaps _only_ because the legislation existed.

Can you prove your (unstated) underlying contention that the legislators involved were unaware of this exception?

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[kallend 1,623]

Q. When is a loophole not a "loophole"?

A. When it's an "exception".

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Quote

You're asking if there is a loophole. The answer is absolutely yes.

Can you define "loophole" in this context?

I'm pretty sure there is a gun show "exception" of some sort. To term it a "loophole" indicates that it was not intentionally included in the law, and that some of the legislators who voted for the legislation did not do so knowing that the exception existed, and perhaps _only_ because the legislation existed.

Can you prove your (unstated) underlying contention that the legislators involved were unaware of this exception?

No exceptions. The law is very clear about which transactions need to be made through a licensed dealer, which ones can be made through private parties, which ones need require a background check, and which ones don't. The same laws apply at gun shows that apply outside the show, across the street, etc.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[quade 3]

Quote

Quote

You're asking if there is a loophole. The answer is absolutely yes.

Can you define "loophole" in this context?

I'm pretty sure there is a gun show "exception" of some sort. To term it a "loophole" indicates that it was not intentionally included in the law, and that some of the legislators who voted for the legislation did not do so knowing that the exception existed, and perhaps _only_ because the legislation existed.

Can you prove your (unstated) underlying contention that the legislators involved were unaware of this exception?

It is a logical impossibility to prove something didn't happen. Perhaps some in the gun industry did understand how to exploit this and nudged the legislation in that particular direction to allow it to happen, but I can't in my wildest imagination believe that all parties fully understood side issues and ramifications that would occur as a result.

This happens all the time. This is how loopholes happen. That IS the definition of a loophole.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Amazon 7]

This thread is becoming a gunhole loopshow

[quade 3]

Quote

The same laws apply at gun shows that apply outside the show, across the street, etc.

Ask 99.9% of the population what a private transaction between two people is and my guess is that very few will describe a person with a large number of objects for sale in a very public venue attended by thousands of people.

The term "private transaction" is being used fairly liberally by those in favor of gun shows.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Q. When is a loophole not a "loophole"?

A. When it's an "exception".

I take loophole to that remark.

[normiss 622]

So if I were to sell a few personal items on e-bay, to you that wouldn't be a "private transaction"?

A private transaction is one made between two private parties, regardless of the location of the sale, isn't it?

[pirana 0]

Quote

Here's one reason.

Well, that video seemed a pretty exceptional situation. I can see why law enforcement would want to minimize the number of guns on the street, but also can see why citizens in the middle of temporary anarchy would want to hold onto them. I'd certainly want to hold onto mine.

What I was expecting in the video was officers with a list of registered owners, going door to door and confiscating weapons from people on the list. That did not appear to be the case; so not really relevant.

Agreed it's a slippery slope.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[normiss 622]

I'm thankful in the wake of the Katrina gun confiscation fiasco, my state saw it for what it was and passed legislation preventing confiscation of guns in an emergency situation.

I think this event was and still is very relevant to gun confiscations and history the world over supports that.

[SkyDekker 1,122]

Quote

The fact is that the founding fathers had just revolted from an oppressive Govt. So the 2 most important items at that time were freedom to speak out against Govt actions and the ability to defend your rights.

Then why haven't you taken up arms and used your fire arms to fight for the rights granted in the 2nd amendmend? Isn't that exactly what that 2nd amendmend was created for?

Those pro gun always claim that a fire arm is just a tool. In a way I agree with you. The 2nd amendmend gives you the right to own a tool, for a specific purpose. Why is it that none of you are willing to use that tool for the purpose you were given the right for?

And, since nobody is willing to do that, doesn't it logically flow that either the restrictions aren't that severe (maybe not even severe enough) or the purpose of the amendmend is no longer valid and therefore the amendmend should really no longer be valid.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Why is it that none of you are willing to use that tool for the purpose you were given the right for?

"There are four boxes that guarantee our freedom: the soapbox, the ballot box, the jury box and the cartridge box" (attribution unknown)

The answer to your question is - it's not time to use the fourth box, yet.

Quote

or the purpose of the amendmend is no longer valid and therefore the amendmend should really no longer be valid.

That would be the time you'd see the fourth box used.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[BIGUN 1,053]

Quote

The law is very clear about which transactions need to be made through a licensed dealer, which ones can be made through private parties, which ones need require a background check, and which ones don't. The same laws apply at gun shows that apply outside the show, across the street, etc.

This is my last and hopefully succinct summation post on this matter (since I was partially responsible for taking the thread 123 degrees off course, I deleted the other posts that were not "loophole" related).

If one buys a Class I weapon from an Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL) dealer; the initial purchase has to be done using an ATF Form 4473. It does not matter if that purchase is made at a gun show or in a store front across the street while the gun show is going on. The same rules apply and only the initial purchase need be recorded unless the weapon is traded back in with the same or another FFL in which the gun re-enters the system and if again sold by the FFL must be resold using the Form 4473.

If that Class I weapon is sold from one private individual to another in a private transaction, no form need be filled out or background check performed, That class I weapon can then be "sold' or "gifted" from one to another or another and so on until it is lost or diluted so far downstream in a secondary market that ownership is no longer known. Some call this a legal "loophole." There are some 37,500 weapons (of which ~17,000 are handguns) Class I sold every day in the US. This makes for a total of ~1,368,500 Class I weapons sold in the US every year. Of that ~1,368,500 Class I weapons sold every year in the US, approximately thirty percent (30%) are resold in the secondary market. This means approximately 410,550 Class I weapons are resold in that secondary secondary market each year and no paperwork need be done.

For Class II and Class III weapons, an ATF Form 4473 and ATF Form 4 needs to be filled out for each sale and each subsequent purchaser (including individual to individual to individual) sale. This tracks that weapon from cradle to grave for each purchaser; not unlike that of a car registration. Most Transferee's of Class II and III weapons do not grumble about the Form 4 paperwork that traces ownership from cradle to grave as they do the associated tax with the Form 4.

My only point has been that I; as a law-abiding citizen have no issue with registering all my Class I weapons and do not "fear" the government confiscating my weapons as ownership is protected more under the 2nd Amendment right; than is my privilege to have ownership of a vehicle which also to must have registration of ownership from cradle to grave.

At issue is the polarization of Class I ownership perpetuated by the NRA's methodology and whose only product to generate revenue is to maintain and increase membership by selling disinformation and causing fear which stimulates demand and increases gun prices. Of the revenues generated, more than 50% of that revenue goes into fund-raising activities to maintain the salaries of its 75 person Board of Directors and CEO's salary of ~$1,000,000 per annum, and its new headquarters which cost $15,000,000 dollars.

The result of these fear tactics; the latest shown by FactCheck.org (a nonpartisan, nonprofit "consumer advocate" for voters that aims to reduce the level of deception and confusion in U.S. politics) being... http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/nra_targets_obama.html which only stimulates more errant stupid ass laws (like the AWB which "kinda" shoots the same caliber round as a deer hunting rifle). Their mission statement is to educate, yet they do not take the time or energy to educate those legislators on the other side of the aisle on just how stupid these laws are by using logic, when the convenience of fear to their own membership is easier and generates more revenue.

The problem is; they cannot serve up a viable solution which negotiates a real educational platform by offering national gun registration in exchange for removal of those stupid errant ass laws. We register all guns from Class I, II and III from cradle to grave and you include riders in that legislation the removal of; types of gun, types of ammunition bans, excessive taxes (repeal the NFA) etc. Imagine a session in Congress where the NRA brings in a not-so-scary beautiful 12 ga. over & under, an 870 standard pump and a scary 870 MCS SBS and then hold up a 12 ga. round and states, "you need not be afraid of the weapon as all are the same; what you need to be afraid of is the criminal offender.

Over time, the system would migrate from a pipeline of secondary market sales which becomes a black market by allowing law enforcement to remove unregistered guns from the system, thereby removing those guns from the criminals, while increasing the gun ownership market to that of law-abiding citizens and creating a shift of power from those who are criminal offenders to those who are lawful defenders. As an additional rider to that legislation - we; the NRA would ask for, endorse and support more punitive penalties for those criminal offenders using unregistered weapons of any class in the commission of a crime by increasing the penal code to have a clause of 20 years without parole.

We pledge to give you full and complete gun registration with an increase in criminal penalties and you give us back our right to own the weapon of choice and we both pledge to defend and protect the Second Amendment.

Perhaps not the most perfect of solutions, but at least open the channels of communications to narrow the gap of disparate ideologies, rather than continue to widen that gap and create even more stupid ass laws.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Quote

The same laws apply at gun shows that apply outside the show, across the street, etc.

Ask 99.9% of the population what a private transaction between two people is and my guess is that very few will describe a person with a large number of objects for sale in a very public venue attended by thousands of people.

The term "private transaction" is being used fairly liberally by those in favor of gun shows.

Perception is moot. If the seller is a licensed dealer and is selling from hi/her stock, then a background check is mandatory. If the person is selling from their own private collection then a check is not mandatory. The law is very clear on this with no wiggle room. It makes no difference if the person is selling from a collection of one gun or 1000 guns.

99.9% of the population feel it is ok to drive 75 in a 70 mph zone. I would agree, but it is still illegal.

I just want someone to point out where this so-called loophole is. What can a seller or buyer do at a gun show that they can't do 50 feet away off the property?

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[BIGUN 1,053]

Quote

What can a seller or buyer do at a gun show that they can't do 50 feet away off the property?

An FFL seller must have the transferee fill out a Form 4473 and run a background check before concluding the sale.

A non-FFL seller (private individual) must negotiate a price, receive the cash and hand over the weapon to the buyer (no Form 4473 or background check required).

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.