President to Close Gun Show LoopHole

[fordson]

Biden administration announces plans to expand firearms background checks

FYI……The intent may be worthy but as usual, the execution will probably be flawed……if not abused, as it probably will be……...write your Congressman and complain is about all we can do at this point……
This is just nonsense……and I’m tired of it…..

[Bald1]

The problem with wanting everyone to become a dealer is not everyone qualifies. Could be as simple as zoning or an HOA rule.

[CAJUNLAWYER]

Originally Posted by Bald1

The problem with wanting everyone to become a dealer is not everyone qualifies. Could be as simple as zoning or an HOA rule.

I'm old enough to remember back in the 90's when the ATF had a big push to get rid of the "kitchen table" dealers. Now they want to go back to it? I'm in.

[WCCPHD]

Originally Posted by CAJUNLAWYER

I'm old enough to remember back in the 90's when the ATF had a big push to get rid of the "kitchen table" dealers. Now they want to go back to it? I'm in.

They have not changed their minds. ATF and city/county zoning will preclude many/most of those they are targeting from qualifying for a FFL.

Its all part of the plan.

[ladder13]

I thought only Congress could ”close the gun show loophole”, heard that for many years.

How is a BGC done on someone recently given the ok to buy guns we know nothing about?

[glenwolde]

Originally Posted by ladder13

I thought only Congress could ”close the gun show loophole”, heard that for many years.

How is a BGC done on someone recently given the ok to buy guns we know nothing about?

Only Congress can authorize "Universal Background Checks". Closing "The Gun show Loophole" doesn't really stop private sales, just some abuses of the system. Mostly it's grandstanding.

These new rules are going to be fairly easy to monitor through online activity. Frequent gunbroker listings? You're a dealer.

Unintended consequences: gunbroker loses some business. These shadow dealers could, ironically, go to more gun shows as the online advertising is too visible.

Sell only at gun shows, only take cash, don't pay for advertising.

[Badmatrix]

Originally Posted by glenwolde

Only Congress can authorize "Universal Background Checks". Closing "The Gun show Loophole" doesn't really stop private sales, just some abuses of the system. Mostly it's grandstanding.

These new rules are going to be fairly easy to monitor through online activity. Frequent gunbroker listings? You're a dealer.

Unintended consequences: gunbroker loses some business. These shadow dealers could, ironically, go to more gun shows as the online advertising is too visible.

Sell only at gun shows, only take cash, don't pay for advertising.

Ye Right, brilliant…..and risk going away to jail for a firearms violation and lose the right to have firearms. No thanks.

[TheTinMan]

“The new federal rules will not create new law but will expand the definition of licensed firearms dealers.”

This is precisely how government regulators make new law while claiming that is not what they are doing.

Ever wonder how the IRS turned “innocent until proven guilty” inside out? They simply said “these are the new rules.”

[zeke]

Originally Posted by TheTinMan

“The new federal rules will not create new law but will expand the definition of licensed firearms dealers.”

This is precisely how government regulators make new law while claiming that is not what they are doing.

Ever wonder how the IRS turned “innocent until proven guilty” inside out? They simply said “these are the new rules.”

Expanding the definition is changing the definition, which is officially changing the law. One of the main reasons the "Brace" change got suspended.

Yet another election ploy of deliberately breaking the law so the response can be used in an election. They should be sued for others expense of defeating their deliberate breaking of the law, then charged with something.

[johngalt]

1) There is no gunshow loophole.

2) There is nothing worthy about the executive usurping the power of the legislature

[SnidelyWhiplash]

God forbid the government...federal...state...local...actually make laws that affect criminals rather than law-abiding citizens. But...that's too difficult. It's easy abusing the rights of the law-abiding.

[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.

[Telecaster]

So, a guy buys a gun at a gun show without a background check (because he would fail it), then goes out and commits armed robbery. What happens to him under this new "rule" that wouldn't happen now? From what I've read, the prosecutors tend to ignore the dozens of laws they break and only prosecute the easy ones like armed robbery.

It's just a feel-good proposal so they look like they've "done something"

[TheTinMan]

Originally Posted by Telecaster

So, a guy buys a gun at a gun show without a background check (because he would fail it), then goes out and commits armed robbery. What happens to him under this new "rule" that wouldn't happen now? From what I've read, the prosecutors tend to ignore the dozens of laws they break and only prosecute the easy ones like armed robbery.

It's just a feel-good proposal so they look like they've "done something"

This is one more step toward a mandatory national gun registry. That is the real goal of “universal background checks.” The fact that 90% or more of incidents where someone FAILS a Form 4473 and there is ZERO law enforcement follow up should tell you where the priorities are.

A recent example is that murderous psycho in Lewiston, Maine. He had failed a Form 4473 application shortly before his shooting spree because he admitted that he’d been involuntarily hospitalized for mental illness. Apparently law enforcement did nothing.

[glenwolde]

Originally Posted by TheTinMan

This is one more step toward a mandatory national gun registry. That is the real goal of “universal background checks.” The fact that 90% or more of incidents where someone FAILS a Form 4473 and there is ZERO law enforcement follow up should tell you where the priorities are.

A recent example is that murderous psycho in Lewiston, Maine. He had failed a Form 4473 application shortly before his shooting spree because he admitted that he’d been involuntarily hospitalized for mental illness. Apparently law enforcement did nothing.

He didn't break any law. If he had lied about his mental illness on the form they could have done something. Not they would have anyway but still...can't arrest a guy for telling the truth on a form.

[Jebus35745]

Actually your mental health is confidential, you can lie on the form and a background check wouldn’t bring it up. Only your criminal record comes up.

A lot of criminals are armed through straw purchases or however they get the gun. So background checks don’t work. They purposely ignore the real cause and let the law breakers go free daily till they commit a violent crime. This whole situation gets me angry what they get away with, Larry

[TheTinMan]

Originally Posted by glenwolde

He didn't break any law. If he had lied about his mental illness on the form they could have done something. Not they would have anyway but still...can't arrest a guy for telling the truth on a form.

No, he didn’t commit a crime by telling the truth in his 4473; however, he was preparing to commit heinous crimes. The fail on the background check was one of many clear indicators that he was on the path to mass murder. The police should have used the failed background check as a “we need to see what else is going on with this guy.” Had they done that, maybe they could have prevented him from murdering 18 people.

[Bald1]

Originally Posted by TheTinMan

No, he didn’t commit a crime by telling the truth in his 4473; however, he was preparing to commit heinous crimes. The fail on the background check was one of many clear indicators that he was on the path to mass murder. The police should have used the failed background check as a “we need to see what else is going on with this guy.” Had they done that, maybe they could have prevented him from murdering 18 people.

Oh no ! That is not a road we want to go down. The 4473 did its job. It prevented the sale. No need or right to investigate the person. That’s a slippery slope

[LVSteve]

Originally Posted by Telecaster

So, a guy buys a gun at a gun show without a background check (because he would fail it), then goes out and commits armed robbery. What happens to him under this new "rule" that wouldn't happen now? From what I've read, the prosecutors tend to ignore the dozens of laws they break and only prosecute the easy ones like armed robbery.

It's just a feel-good proposal so they look like they've "done something"

"Do-something-itis", the modern plague of the Western world.

[Buford57]

Originally Posted by Telecaster

So, a guy buys a gun at a gun show without a background check (because he would fail it), then goes out and commits armed robbery. What happens to him under this new "rule" that wouldn't happen now? From what I've read, the prosecutors tend to ignore the dozens of laws they break and only prosecute the easy ones like armed robbery.

It's just a feel-good proposal so they look like they've "done something"

I don't know how many armed robbery cases you've worked but the only ones I thought were easy were the ones where the perp was captured or killed at the scene.

I would consider the paper felonies like a false statement on a 4473 to be the low hanging fruit.

[EX11B]

Originally Posted by Telecaster

So, a guy buys a gun at a gun show without a background check (because he would fail it), then goes out and commits armed robbery. What happens to him under this new "rule" that wouldn't happen now? From what I've read, the prosecutors tend to ignore the dozens of laws they break and only prosecute the easy ones like armed robbery.

It's just a feel-good proposal so they look like they've "done something"

This new rule only effects the seller, there is no penalty for the buyer. It is set up to punish law abiding people

[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.

[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…

[Telecaster]

They can't even keep track of illegal aliens; they'll never keep track of guns under a "gun registry." Not that I'm ok with them trying, quite the opposite.

[moosedog]

The slow. erosion of a once great representative republic continues and over half of the country still votes it in. Very sad, but historical times we live in.

[jeffrefrig]

I always thought you had to get a BGC at gun shows all along. It's been a long time since I've been to one. Was PA different than other states? IDK

[gwpercle]

There is no gun show loop hole ... at least in Louisiana .
If you sell 3 or more firearms a year you need a dealer FFL
If you are a FFL you do background checks on all sales ... no matter where the sale occurs ... even at gun shows .
I have bought several at gun shows and every one had a back ground check done ...

So ... where / what is this Loop Hole ... I don't understand ???

Gary

[Bald1]

Originally Posted by gwpercle

There is no gun show loop hole ... at least in Louisiana .
If you sell 3 or more firearms a year you need a dealer FFL
If you are a FFL you do background checks on all sales ... no matter where the sale occurs ... even at gun shows .
I have bought several at gun shows and every one had a back ground check done ...

So ... where / what is this Loop Hole ... I don't understand ???

Gary

There is none. It’s a 30 yr old talking point. If a dealer sells a gun he does a BGC. Most sellers at shows are dealers. If an individual sells a gun the BGC is dependent on state laws. Here in NY an individual sells a gun to another individual and they both walk over to an FFL which does a BGC and collects a small fee.

[diyj98]

Originally Posted by Bald1

Most sellers at shows are dealers.

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

[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.

[edwardyoung]

It’s an election year

[old tanker]

They want to be seen as doing something. And they want make an example of SOMEBODY, while they are doing it.

Maybe somebody high profile, like the Executive Director of the Little Rock Airport?

[WCCPHD]

Gun show loophole, like climate change, gun violence, safety, etc. Just another leftist created term to name something so their sheep can rail against it, call for more laws and further erode the rights of honest people, all the while producing more real criminals that are given a pass on their crimes.

[s&wchad]

I suspect this new policy will be challenged. Congress would need to enact new laws to change the 1968 GCA.

This is a part of a summary by the Congressional Research Service...

Gun Control Act
The GCA supplemented the NFA and significantly
expanded the scope of federal firearms regulation. The
GCA principally sets forth various requirements concerning
the sale, purchase, and possession of firearms. For instance,
persons “engaged in the business” of manufacturing,
importing, or selling GCA- or NFA-covered firearms must
receive federal licenses from the Attorney General. But a
license is not required for those who make only
“occasional” firearm sales or purchases for the
enhancement of personal collections...

U.S. Gun Policy: Framework and Major Issues

[gwpercle]

You know what ... I think I have it figured out ...
... They simply want to put an end to Gun Shows ...
I believe they want to put an end to us owning guns ...
A group of free men are too hard to control if they are armed ...
Gary

[petepeterson]

Originally Posted by gwpercle

I believe they want to put an end to us owning guns ...
A group of free men are too hard to control if they are armed ...
Gary

They don't seem to be having trouble controlling them now.
They don't have to take hundreds of millions of guns. Just one, hundreds of millions of times.

[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.

[Eddietruett]

Originally Posted by gwpercle

You know what ... I think I have it figured out ...
... They simply want to put an end to Gun Shows ...
I believe they want to put an end to us owning guns ...
A group of free men are too hard to control if they are armed ...
Gary

I think you hit the nail on the head

[wbraswell]

Originally Posted by gwpercle

You know what ... I think I have it figured out ...
... They simply want to put an end to Gun Shows ...
I believe they want to put an end to us owning guns ...
A group of free men are too hard to control if they are armed ...
Gary

You've got all of that right, but you forgot that they also don't want you voting and someday they will be trying to take that too....shortly after they get your guns.

[Truckman]

I'm pretty sure the street corner drug market loophole can be closed by requiring all heroin peddlers to become licensed pharmacists...It's brilliant I tell you......Ben

[Jon651]

First off, every time I've purchased a gun from a private seller (all from members of this forum, BTW) I had to undergo a background check because my FFL wouldn't allow me to take possession of it unless I did. The same goes for every one I've purchased at a gun show so I've not seen this loophole first-hand. I've got zero problems with that, as apparently this only applies to in-person, non-dealer sales.

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?

Now don't yell at me because I'm asking a legit question , and I frankly don't care if anyone likes the law or not. However, I can certainly see in the future where I would want or need to thin out my collection and naturally friends and family get first right of refusal so I probably should find out sooner so I don't end up in trouble later.

[ladder13]

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?

………..

Here in NC private sales are legal, at least for now. No paperwork is needed.

A CHP is accepted as a NICS check in NC.

Some people ask for a BOS or copies of a NCDL and CHP. Some accept a peek as good enough.


To clarify, nothing except a NCDL is required, but a CHP gives you that confidence the buyer is qualified.

HTH.

[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

[Muddyboot]

Private sellers who sometimes walk around selling guns will ignore this in my opinion, that is if it makes it past the courts.

[Oldengineer]

I think it’s safe to say that collectors and enthusiasts like us are not the folks this action is aimed at. When I decide to sell a firearm, usually to upgrade, I willingly pay my local FFL his cut to insure I’m “off-the-books” as the owner. The only exception is family and friends — which is entirely legal here in Arizona.

Over the years going to local gun shows, I’ve gotten to know who the dealers without licenses are, and they are clearly profiting by the flipping of guns. They tend to do a brisk business because it’s cash and carry with no receipt or questions. My guess is that some of these sales end up in crime or Mexico or both.

I do wonder how this new initiative will be enforced. I recall seeing a recent ad in the Arizona Republic newspaper looking for ATF compliance agents with the starting pay of $17.00/hr. Not exactly cream of the crop wages. I wonder if having a 03 curios and relics license makes sense to make it easier to stay out of the way of this action.

[zeke]

Originally Posted by Oldengineer

I think it’s safe to say that collectors and enthusiasts like us are not the folks this action is aimed at. .

Am more concerned about who it actually affects, than who they say it is aimed at. Haven't actually read the particulars yet, but experience shows not to believe the spin.

[BKLooney]

It's an easy thing to persecute the innocent and morally upright legal citizen as we don't hide, it's doing it to the criminals they just can't seem to accomplish....

[GypsmJim]

The "loophole", as its called, is to stop 2 private people from dealing in the parking lot at the gun show. We have had that law in NY for quite some time now. Is it against the second amendment? Of course. Has it hurt gun sales In NY? Not a bit.

One of my friends is a dealer. He also has a big sign at his table: "NICS CHECKS". For 25 bucks its all legal.

If you want to sell a rifle to your neighbor down the block, you need to go to a dealer and pay the fee. Yeah, right! Do you really think anyone will do that with a friend? Thus, the law is useless.

My buddy used to own a gas station. At least once a month a big black Caddy would drive in with a trunk full of weapons. A little warm? You've gotta be kidding. The law didn't stop them and never will.

I have never dealt with Caddy trunks, nor people I didn't know. It's just freaking common sense.

I've been filling out 4473's for 50 years (or whatever). NICS checks for 30 years (or whatever). The new law is merely window dressing to make those opposed to guns think he is doing something.

[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.