President to Close Gun Show LoopHole

[old tanker]

Originally Posted by CH4

From Renzulli Law

“ATF CHANGES THE DEFINITION OF “ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS” AS A DEALER IN FIREARMS




As Renzulli Law Firm
previously reported,
in August 2023, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) issued a notice
and request for comments relating to proposed amendments to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (“ATF”) regulations for the purpose of implementing the
provisions of the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (“BSCA”), which became effective June 25, 2022. These amendments primarily change various definitions that affect both individuals and licensed dealers. Attorney General Garland issued the final version of
the rule on April 8, 2024, and it was submitted to the Federal Register today. The rule goes into effect 30 days after the date of publication in the Federal Register.




The
final version of the
rule broadens the definition of when a person is considered to be “engaged in the business” as a dealer in firearms. A person will be presumed to be engaged in the business
of dealing in firearms when that person: (1) “[r]esells or offers for resale firearms, and also represents to potential buyers or otherwise demonstrates a willingness and ability to purchase and resell additional firearms (i.e., to be a source of additional
firearms for resale)”; (2) “[r]epetitively purchases for the purpose of resale, or repetitively resells or offers for resale, firearms — (i) [t]hrough straw or sham businesses, or individual straw purchasers or sellers; or (ii) [t]hat cannot lawfully be purchased,
received, or possessed under Federal, State, local, or Tribal law”; (3) “[r]epetitively sells or offers for resale firearms “(i) [w]ithin 30 days after the person purchased the firearms; or (ii) [w]ithin one year after the person purchased the firearms if
they are — (A) [n]ew, or like new in their original packaging; or (B) [t]he same make and model, or variants thereof; (4) “[a]s a former licensee (or responsible person acting on behalf of the former licensee), resells or offers for resale to a person . .
. firearms that were in the business inventory”; and (5) “[a]s a former licensee (or responsible person acting on behalf of the former licensee), resells or offers for resale firearms that were transferred to the licensee’s personal collection.”




The new rule provides several additional definitions. The new rule formally defines the term “responsible person” as it relates to a federal firearms license (“FFL”),
as “[a]ny individual possessing, directly or indirectly, the power to direct or cause the direction of the management and policies of a sole proprietorship, corporation, company, partnership, or association, insofar as they pertain to firearms.” The new rule
also defines the term “personal collection,” which aids in clarifying when a person is not “engaged in the business” because they make only occasional sales to enhance a personal collection (which includes for “study, comparison, exhibition . . . or for a
hobby”). The new rules further address the lawful ways in which former FFL holders (or a responsible person(s) on an FFL) may liquidate business inventory upon revocation or other termination of their FFL, which is directly related to the Biden Administration’s
ongoing revocation of FFLs pursuant to its zero tolerance policy.




Finally, the rule clarifies that a licensee transferring a firearm to another licensee must do so by following the verification and recordkeeping procedures in 27 C.F.R.
§ 478.94, rather than by using a Firearms Transaction Record, ATF Form 4473. The rule is likely to be challenged in court as exceeding the scope of authority granted to the ATF pursuant to the BSCA.”

They keep shifting the goal posts. People forget there was no such thing as a Federal Firearms License prior to the Gun Control Act of 1968. By continually redefining what "engaged in the business" means is that the definition is nebulous enough that an overly zealous ATF could charge anyone who makes a couple of casual sales. It does not matter how frivolous the case may be, the legal fees in successful defense are likely to financially ruin the target.

Given the current climate it doesn't take much to draw the conclusion that the spectacularly disastrous search warrant in Little Rock is the result of "someone" wanting make an example an "unlicensed dealer" exploiting the "gun show loophole."

[dave1918a2]

I was not aware that a President could write law. I was under the impression that was the job of the House and the Senate.

[Sistema1927]

Ambiguous regulations with ambiguous definitions exist for only one purpose. To allow government to punish whoever they want.

[noonster]

When I “do” a gunshow table, I’m expected to make reasonable attempt to ensure the buyer is “OK.” Age/Residence: check his DL. Other: ask. If he lies, he lies. Short conversation helps: you aren’t planning on doing anything illegal with this are you? If he shows any wrong leanings, the deal is off. I’ve turned down a number of sales cause I got wrong answers. Better safe than sorry. Who knows which guy is a govt informer or not. Sure I could do other but I don’t want to risk the hassles if the guy is anti-me. Hassles or $$$. I don’t want to mess with either. We oughta be asking for ID. The buyer oughta be asking for ID. You don’t HAVE to sell it to the guy. We have a sneaky govt, we’re learning.

[noonster]

And Dept: the pres cannot write law. He can and will get away with whatever he can get away with. This is why we have checks and balances. The problem is that the other two branches of govt don’t always do their job to reign in the third branch. We need to put our watchdogs to work. Some congressmen do… some don’t…

[bushmaster1313]

I read parts of the Rule publication in the Federal Register.

Very hard to make sense of what the new standard is or isn’t or how it would impact me personally.

But one thing I know for sure, if an anti-2A Administration is for it—I’m against it.

And, when they try to determine if I am engaged predominantly for a profit, will they look at what I actually paid or what I told my wife I paid

[GypsmJim]

Originally Posted by noonster

When I “do” a gunshow table, I’m expected to make reasonable attempt to ensure the buyer is “OK.” Age/Residence: check his DL. Other: ask. If he lies, he lies. Short conversation helps: you aren’t planning on doing anything illegal with this are you? If he shows any wrong leanings, the deal is off. I’ve turned down a number of sales cause I got wrong answers. Better safe than sorry. Who knows which guy is a govt informer or not. Sure I could do other but I don’t want to risk the hassles if the guy is anti-me. Hassles or $$$. I don’t want to mess with either. We oughta be asking for ID. The buyer oughta be asking for ID. You don’t HAVE to sell it to the guy. We have a sneaky govt, we’re learning.

I go to shows, but I do not sell. Just buy sometimes.

I have a friend who is a licenced dealer. Nice guy, always on the up and up.

I was standing at his table once when a group came up and looked at his ARs. He had a stack of them. Looking at the "group" there was no question in my mind that they were a "Gang".

I watched them walk away and talk to 2 other guys standing in the corner. Both had jackets and ties on, and no tatoos.

The young man came over and bought the entire stack. My buddy had a deer-in-headlights look. The young boy started to fill out the 4473 and commented that his brother, the lawyer, was going to help him carry them out to his car. He passed all of the questions in flying colors.

The NICS went thru fine, the boy looked and talked respectably. What was my buddy supposed to do? He did his best but certainly didn't want to end up in court on a discrimination lawsuit.

[ladder13]

Pretty easy to see the potential straw purchases here.

Miscreant and baby mama walk in, he goes to table with baby mama,looking over her shoulder as she fondles the plastic.

They love Glocks and AR’s.

He whispers into her ear or nods.

I even see them at some gun shops, same MO.

Guess who takes out the DL.

[zeke]

Imo and ime, changing a definition is changing the law. Congress's job. Unfortunately adding a definition of a previously undefined term may not be changing the law, and a large part of what rule making is designed to do.

Very similar to a State office writing a code to add to, or clarify a State Statute.

[LVSteve]

I must have missed it. What Little Rock search warrant?

[22hipower]

Originally Posted by Jon651

Let me ask the unpopular question, because I've never sold a firearm and frankly I'd really like to know: If you are selling or giving a gun to someone in person without going thru a dealer, exactly how do you know that person is legally eligible to possess a firearm?

Varies by state I presume but in Texas all you have to do is see the buyer's driver's license or other proof of age and being a Texas resident. We pretty much treat them like hammers here when buying from one another.

Jeff
SWCA #1457

[Matt_X]

A couple people have asked about this, and its useful to know beyond this particular topic.

"The Law" consists of Statuatory law, Rules & Regulations, and Court opinions and precedents.
The legislature writes and passes the statuatory law.

The agencies responsible for carrying them out have to develop the specifics including the procedures for executing them.

Decisions in court can further clarify (or muddy) the interpretations. (This is when lawyers from both sides come in with examples of at some other time/place/situation the same law was applied with the outcome they arguing for.)



This rule and definition change (already summaried and linked to) was ATF's job to come up with, post for comment, etc. because of the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act passed by Congress in June 2022.
S.2938 - Bipartisan Safer Communities Act

If the changes don't seem to align with the Act, then when enforcement begins, the person(s) affected will have grounds to challenge in court.

The same three parts of law come into play when deadly force is used for self defence. IMO for this reason alone, fire arms owners in particular ought to be familiar with this, and the relevant specifics of all three for the locality you are in.

[22hipower]

Haven't read the whole bill but what it appears to do is expand the notion of what "being in the business" means. If you're selling guns "to make a profit" you need a FFL. In shows I visit I see the same guys show after show year after year buying from attendees and selling to attendees with no paperwork much less a NICS check. If the ATF has the resources I think they could fairly easily prove a profit motive for these sales and frankly, these folks sure appear to me to be "in the business."

The exclusion from needing a FFL for those collectors selling their collections still exists.

I doubt that the ATF has the manpower, or can get it, to implement what Biden is "ordering." However, those setting up at gun shows multiple times a year and buying from whoever walks by and then reselling, might want to consider getting an FFL.

The next election may have some impact on the effort to implement the President's order.

Jeff
SWCA #1457

[pharmer]

It would do more good to close the geek show pie hole. How about going after the "end users" that are murdering each other in droves in "conveniently located aggregate centers." Oh darn, I repeat myself.

Anyone trying to explain how this is a "good concept for use of .gov resources" needs a re-read of the US Constitution. Joe

[Truckman]

Originally Posted by GypsmJim

the boy looked and talked respectably. What was my buddy supposed to do?

He could have told the suit that the public conference with the others, followed by the large multiple transaction could be construed as a possible straw sale...He could have then turned down the sale...He's not required to sell a gun to anyone, and neither am I...I'm a private citizen walking the aisles, and I've turned away people who want to buy what I have in my hand, including vendors who look shady...

There are other reasons for being at a gun show than selling what you brought......Ben

[biku324]

Originally Posted by Bozz10mm

If there are so many illegal gun dealers at gun shows, why doesn't the ATF just go there and arrest them? Why make up a new rule to burden law abiding citizens?

I'll answer the question: Because there aren't any to arrest.

Not true. Here's an example...and folks are mad because BATFE DID enforce the law. Released search warrant affidavit shows details of ATF case against Little Rock airport executive Bryan Malinowski | KARK

[deadin]

I need a usable definition of just what "profit" is.
If I bought gun in 1975 and paid $200.00 for it and sell it tomorrow for $1000.00, have I made a profit of $800.00 or a loss of $120.00 due to inflation.? (And would any loss be tax deductible....?)

[Beemerguy53]

Originally Posted by WCCPHD

Background checks are worthless for keeping guns away from criminals.

The last time I "ran the data" the US Government prosecutes less than 1/10 of one percent of those that lie on a 4473 and are denied the ability to buy a gun. AND the most important thing is that almost all of those prosecutions are just add on charges when the person is charged with other offenses.

One more attempt at criminalizing honest people while turning a blind eye toward criminals.

It’s not just people who lie on a 4473 who don’t get prosecuted. Last year in the City of Baltimore (population 570,000) there were more than 900 armed carjackings (in addition to about 11,000 simple car thefts). Armed carjacking is a federal crime, yet so far as I know, not one of these criminals was prosecuted by the US Attorney for Maryland. Disgusting…

[Valmet]

Another “reinterpretation” from a ATF. Talk about a rogue gov agency…

[WCCPHD]

There is another angle to this.

First, the rewrite will define many more people as being engaged in the business so they will need an FFL.

Second, getting an FFL is much more difficult than it used to be. The government cracked down on "table top dealers" some time ago. Many will not qualify as they don't have a store front or local zoning precludes a business being operated from a residence.

Third, ATF is cracking down on FFL's, putting many out of business for minor paperwork violations.

Take all this together it is obvious the intended outcome is to stop sales of guns.

IF you can't sell 'em, you can't have 'em.

One more cut in the death by a thousand cuts of the gun grabbers in their ultimate goal of repeal of the Second Amendment and confiscation of those guns in private hands.

[CH4]

Originally Posted by diyj98

Perhaps in NY, but in the shows in my area, non FFL outnumber FFL's by a large margin.

Always wondered how FFLs feel about this. Seems non FFLs are the path of least resistance, especially in states where private party sales that don’t require BGs sales are legal. Unfortunately, many FFLs just have new guns and not the cool stuff I am looking for. It’s the non FFLs who have the vintage Smiths, Colts, Marlins, pre 64,Winchesters, etc.

[HJBM&P22Custom]

Yea, so they should just make criminals have a background check to buy a gun at a gun show. Law abiding citizens should not be forced to do that.

[FZ1UKS&W]

Well,
I'm not a FFL but I have bought and sold for the betterment of my collection. Some of the purchases I have made were guns not even in my wheelhouse just so I could improve my collection.

Since I have joined this forum starting with a Model 28 (S prefix) I've improved at a steady pace to an increase of quite a bit LOL. I will continue to buy and sell as I see fit rule or no rule as its all for the betterment of my collection. Most of my buying is from Organizations with memberships, meaning if you don't know somebody you don't get in the club. They are not open to the public. We meet every few months buy and sell no BGC. Even if I fit the definition how does the BATF get in the show? We have members that are Leo's none of them would raise an hand to even bother. Most members are truly collectors. Coming in by warrant will not work as everyone will simply pack up and leave. As I see it ,it is simply unenforceable in my circle. I guess I could be tracked by purchases from FFL or internet buys? Hopefully it ends in the courts to be decided and life goes on without it harming us LAC's

This really just banter as I usually thumb my nose to Libtards anyways. People on this forum are all LAC's and I thank you for the help I have received, the purchases I have made and all around excellent knowledge.
Just my 2 pennies
Ed

[TXBryan]

First things first. I am no fan of additional restrictions on our freedom and rights.

I do not know if it "counts" as anything like a "loophole" associated with gun shows but I've had new experiences since I began attending rural gun shows - as opposed to big city shows.

There is a regular show in a relatively small town near where I live that has no restrictions on selling table space to non-FFLs. That was, apparently, new to me as previously I had no concept whatsoever of what a gun show loophole might be. In Austin and close proximity there was the occasional guy walking the show with a firearm he would obviously like to sell and I believed that was the extent of a gun show loophole. Not a very big deal as the local police always checked these guys out on the way into the show and ensured they knew state and local law.

The small town show I attend is a bit different as most of the sellers do not possess an FFL. They generally look at an I.D. (I show them my concealed carry license), you write a check, and pick up your new toy. This seemed to me to be a bit more characteristic of a "loophole" than I had previously experienced. I have no particular issue with this procedure as I've never witnessed anyone purchasing that looked the slightest bit nefarious.

Does the new Biden rule cover this sort of situation/transactions?

Bryan

[pawngal]

Originally Posted by TXBryan

First things first. I am no fan of additional restrictions on our freedom and rights.

I do not know if it "counts" as anything like a "loophole" associated with gun shows but I've had new experiences since I began attending rural gun shows - as opposed to big city shows.

There is a regular show in a relatively small town near where I live that has no restrictions on selling table space to non-FFLs. That was, apparently, new to me as previously I had no concept whatsoever of what a gun show loophole might be. In Austin and close proximity there was the occasional guy walking the show with a firearm he would obviously like to sell and I believed that was the extent of a gun show loophole. Not a very big deal as the local police always checked these guys out on the way into the show and ensured they knew state and local law.

The small town show I attend is a bit different as most of the sellers do not possess an FFL. They generally look at an I.D. (I show them my concealed carry license), you write a check, and pick up your new toy. This seemed to me to be a bit more characteristic of a "loophole" than I had previously experienced. I have no particular issue with this procedure as I've never witnessed anyone purchasing that looked the slightest bit nefarious.

Does the new Biden rule cover this sort of situation/transactions?

Bryan

Yes, that is what is referred to as the "gun show loophole"
Whether it is covered under the latest ruling depends on what kind of business they are doing. If they are selling mostly new guns they are considered a for profit dealer and need to have an FFL. And the BATF will be very interested in how they sourced new firearms without an FFL.
So far, a person can sell at a gun show as a non-FFL to sell from their personal collection and buy and trade to add to their collection.
Hope that helps clarify it for you.

[Oldengineer]

The fact remains that people from out of the country and out of the state, and just generally illegal know that gun shows have vendors (dealers with out licenses) that will sell a firearm without asking any questions except if the buyer has the cash. If you can’t legally buy a firearm in California, no problem - drive to Arizona with a pocket full of Franklins; problem solved. A back ground check forces the buyer to identify him/herself.

[walnutred]

Originally Posted by Oldengineer

The fact remains that people from out of the country and out of the state, and just generally illegal know that gun shows have vendors (dealers with out licenses) that will sell a firearm without asking any questions except if the buyer has the cash. If you can’t legally buy a firearm in California, no problem - drive to Arizona with a pocket full of Franklins; problem solved. A back ground check forces the buyer to identify him/herself.

I suspect that someone who can't pass a background check but has cash is also likely to have connections on the street that can provide a firearm. They have connections to purchase other items not available legally, why not firearms. At a gun show they run the risk of being spotted by an undercover LEO of some sort. The shows I attend have uniformed officers for security.

[22hipower]

Originally Posted by deadin

I need a usable definition of just what "profit" is.
If I bought gun in 1975 and paid $200.00 for it and sell it tomorrow for $1000.00, have I made a profit of $800.00 or a loss of $120.00 due to inflation.? (And would any loss be tax deductible....?)

There is no recognition of the impact of inflation on profit when an item is sold. You bought it for $200 and sold it whenever for $1000. You have an $800 profit on which you're expected to pay income tax. I'm no accountant but on our Form 1040 there's a line item for miscellaneous income and I suppose that's where, as an individual rather than a business, you'd report your "profit." For a business it's a little more complicated as there are accounting provisions for writing down the value of inventory but I don't think that applies to individually owned firearms which have appreciated in value.

Jeff
SWCA #1457

[22hipower]

Originally Posted by WCCPHD

There is another angle to this.

First, the rewrite will define many more people as being engaged in the business so they will need an FFL.

Second, getting an FFL is much more difficult than it used to be. The government cracked down on "table top dealers" some time ago. Many will not qualify as they don't have a store front or local zoning precludes a business being operated from a residence.

Third, ATF is cracking down on FFL's, putting many out of business for minor paperwork violations.

Take all this together it is obvious the intended outcome is to stop sales of guns.

IF you can't sell 'em, you can't have 'em.

One more cut in the death by a thousand cuts of the gun grabbers in their ultimate goal of repeal of the Second Amendment and confiscation of those guns in private hands.

Wouldn't an option be for repeat sellers at gun shows to partner with an FFL to run the NICS check for them? Pay the FFL dealer to do it but of course it is the buyer who actually pays. More cost for the buyer but what else is new. Everybody's legal at that point, are they not? Plenty of FFLs around here willing to accept shipments and do the NICS check and paperwork for whatever transfer fee they can get. Would some of those at gun shows not be willing to do it too?

Jeff
SWCA #1457

Jeff
SWCA #1457

[glowe]

Originally Posted by GypsmJim

The "loophole", as its called, is to stop 2 private people from dealing in the parking lot at the gun show . . .

Not exactly true. Today, sellers in most states do not need an FFL to rent a table at a gun show. Gun show sellers in most states do not need an FFL to sell long guns at their table, simply cash and carry. Handguns, on the other hand are controlled in most states. To buy a handgun at a gun show needs to have a NICS check or the buyer needs to have an FFL.

in my area, Wisconsin and Michigan differ greatly. Recent laws in Michigan require NICS checks by an FFL before leaving a gun show. In Michigan, FFLs can be set up at some shows to transfer guns from a private seller to the buyer before leaving the show. No FFL, no handgun. This is what the Biden administration is trying to do for all firearms at all gun shows everywhere. In Wisconsin, there are no background checks required unless buying from a dealer or being an out-of-state buyer. A felon can walk into a gun show and buy just about any gun for sale without ID unless buying from an FFL.

If you buy a gun on the street in WI, two WI residents meeting outside of a gun show can sell anything to a buyer as long as the state laws allow. That transaction has nothing to do with a gun show loophole.

[ken158]

Loophole closed - border wide open…

[WCCPHD]

Originally Posted by 22hipower

Wouldn't an option be for repeat sellers at gun shows to partner with an FFL to run the NICS check for them? Pay the FFL dealer to do it but of course it is the buyer who actually pays. More cost for the buyer but what else is new. Everybody's legal at that point, are they not? Plenty of FFLs around here willing to accept shipments and do the NICS check and paperwork for whatever transfer fee they can get. Would some of those at gun shows not be willing to do it too?

Jeff
SWCA #1457

Jeff
SWCA #1457

In NC a NICS check is not required IF the buyer has an NC Concealed Carry Permit.

The real issue is that criminals do not buy legally. They get others to straw purchase or just steal the guns.

The new regulations are only to hinder honest people and do NOTHING to stop criminals, as is typical of how the US government works today.

[Zoner]

The gun show loophole is another myth....like global warming(oops it's now morphed into climate change). I live in Kalifornia. I go to gun shows,well,the few that are left anyway. Every gun sale,rifles,shotguns,and handguns has to go thru a FFL by state law. I think you can still buy a BB gun without a DROS form background check. If I were at a gun show here and someone offered to sell me a gun FTF the alarms would immediately go off. I would assume the seller is law enforcement and the FTF deal was a trap.

[TXBryan]

Originally Posted by pawngal

Yes, that is what is referred to as the "gun show loophole"
Whether it is covered under the latest ruling depends on what kind of business they are doing. If they are selling mostly new guns they are considered a for profit dealer and need to have an FFL. And the BATF will be very interested in how they sourced new firearms without an FFL.
So far, a person can sell at a gun show as a non-FFL to sell from their personal collection and buy and trade to add to their collection.
Hope that helps clarify it for you.

Thank you pawngal. Your reply makes perfect sense and clears lots up for me. I think the sellers I see at this small show are liquidating used, sometimes very used, firearms from collections. The new stuff I see there is exclusively at tables rented by FFLs.

I have a C&R FFL and my "new" firearm purchases are rare. I don't sell many - two or fewer a year and always to people I know well. Thus I'm guessing this new rule won't affect me much.

[fordson]

Originally Posted by pawngal

Yes, that is what is referred to as the "gun show loophole"
Whether it is covered under the latest ruling depends on what kind of business they are doing. If they are selling mostly new guns they are considered a for profit dealer and need to have an FFL. And the BATF will be very interested in how they sourced new firearms without an FFL.
So far, a person can sell at a gun show as a non-FFL to sell from their personal collection and buy and trade to add to their collection.
Hope that helps clarify it for you.

Can’t help to think that this is the “intent” of this new regulation along with forcing BGC on all sale, private and commercial. However, the wording appears vague and open to interpretation, thereby leaving the actual execution of this regulation, and the down stream fallout, open to abuse, which will be another matter altogether.
I get tired of this political nonsense…..

[wbraswell]

The term GSL actually means private gun business between 2 free persons.
The administration wants all guns to be tracked, and be able to locate them. They are wanting to make you and me criminals because we fit their definition of that, and mostly, we don't support their efforts. They deceive with terms like "loophole", "mental illness", and "assault weapon", when the actual problems are ruthless, cunning predators.
How many of you have sold a car? Did you ask the buyer if he had any DWIs? How about vehicular manslaughter? Did you even ask to see a license?
They don't want "us" to own firearms or sell them. But if they catch us and convict us, they can also make sure we don't vote either.

[Xfuzz]

So, this "rule" starts when ?

[glowe]

Originally Posted by WCCPHD

In NC a NICS check is not required IF the buyer has an NC Concealed Carry Permit . . .

This is another can of worms. Michigan passed the same rules along with their FFL sales only everywhere law. Problem is that hardly anyone knows this and I have not yet found a dealer that would take my CFL, their choice apparently. That is why I carry my C&R FFL, don't leave home without it.

[ladder13]

I have never had an issue with using my CHP as a NICS check here in NC. Brick and mortar or gun show FFL’s don’t even hesitate.

I have heard big boxes like Cabelas and Academy don’t, though I have not bought a gun at either. Must be corporate policy.

[WCCPHD]

Originally Posted by ladder13

I have never had an issue with using my CHP as a NICS check here in NC. Brick and mortar or gun show FFL’s don’t even hesitate.

I have heard big boxes like Cabelas and Academy don’t, though I have not bought a gun at either. Must be corporate policy.

That's why I would never buy a gun from them.

I don't do business with companies who care more about bowing to the government than upholding people's rights.

[CH4]

All the Cabelas and Bass Pros in Nevada don’t do background checks if you have a ccw. They follow the state laws in which they’re located. If I find a gun at a cabelas or BP in another state, they ship to my nearest store, free of charge.

[old tanker]

Originally Posted by LVSteve

I must have missed it. What Little Rock search warrant?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime...id/ar-BB1leoGS

[biku324]

^^^^^^^ Not true. About 10% do indeed by at retail; another 5.9% use a straw purchaser.
https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/suficspi16.pdf

[Greyman50]

Thank God I live in a free state, CCW and no back ground check.
Excuse me but when I do sell any gun I ask to see their drivers license or CCW. By chance no CCW they have to show me their drivers license, vehicle registration card And vehicle insurance cards ALL with the Same address. Also ask them few other questions and ask buddies if they know or have seen the “buyer before”. Just a CMA.

[glowe]

Many criminals have drivers licenses, so seeing it means nothing other than they might be able to drive the getaway car!

[LVSteve]

Originally Posted by glowe

Many criminals have drivers licenses, so seeing it means nothing other than they might be able to drive the getaway car!

A lot of them on that Cops show don't.

[llowry61]

"Gun Show Loophole" is a semantic game that seems to be the standard playbook of big government lovers.

If state law allows residents to sell to other residents of the same state, then it is not a loophole. What it equates to is the federal government's inability to control the transactions.

They label it a loophole because it sounds more sinister to the non-gun community. It creates visions of a nefarious scheme employed by right wing gun nuts to further the evil gun culture agenda.

The expansion of the definition as stated before is nothing more than shameless pandering to special interest groups.

Funny how these folks never really want to talk about policies and outcomes of the policies. They judge themselves by intention and others by results.

Makes me wanna puke.

[zeke]

Originally Posted by glowe

Many criminals have drivers licenses, so seeing it means nothing other than they might be able to drive the getaway car!

Pretty sure it's it's Federal law you can't directly buy a pistol in another state. It needs to go through FFL in your home State. Believe in Wi that also applies to long guns in most instances.

This is why private sellers ask to see ID.

[MelvinWalker]

Originally Posted by gwpercle

You know what ... I think I have it figured out ...
... They simply want to put an end to Gun Shows ...
Gary

I would almost say, beef jerky, Beanie Babies and cheap Chinese red-dots have almost taken care of that "problem" already.

[Rustyt1953]

Originally Posted by MelvinWalker

I would almost say, beef jerky, Beanie Babies and cheap Chinese red-dots have almost taken care of that "problem" already.

Once Alton Brown showed how to make "box fan jerky" I had no need of gun shows.