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.

[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?

[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.”

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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?

[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

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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....

[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.

[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.

[Breakaway500]

Death by 1000 cuts. The goal has always been, and will remain, the complete and total disarmament of ALL private citizens.May I not live long enough to see that happen here.

[Magnum_PI]

There is no "loophole." Never was.

He doesn't have the authority to make or declare anything that is clearly in line with a "law".

This "administration" proves daily to care little about rules, laws, or the way America is supposed to be governed, however. This is no different.

The gun show "loophole" is right up there with other ignorant terms like "assault weapon".

If they want people background checked, by all means, just make it where we can submit it in real time with the person's information... they won't though. It's all intended to infringe on your rights, while the rights of criminals remain basically unchanged.

[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.

[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.

[noonster]

I’ll state it if no one else will: it’d be helpful to our society if lots of you will help out those groups who will end up taking this travisty to court. And probably fighting it up to the SC. For us.

[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.

[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.”

[SteveJewels]

Originally Posted by fordson

……The intent may be worthy...

I hope I misunderstood what you meant.


"Gun control" is not about guns, it is about control.

Gun control is literally Hitler.

[SMSgt]

The president cannot "mandate" law, and SCOTUS will rule as such.

[fordson]

Originally Posted by SteveJewels

I hope I misunderstood what you meant.


"Gun control" is not about guns, it is about control.

Gun control is literally Hitler.

Yeah, you did…….

[robvious]

Sadly the law, not rule, allowing this to happen was passed by House & Senate and signed into law.. it takes affect in 30 days from yesterday...April 10th 2024... the only salvation from this unconstitutional step will rely on the courts... and it will take a very long time... and may not work...

[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.

[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.

[pawngal]

Calm down, this is much ado about just some wording defining "engaged in the business"
In the GCA the original wording to require an FFL was " “principal objective of livelihood and profit” and “engaged in the business”
The new wording is “predominantly earn a profit” (“PEP”) and “terrorism,”

If you are really bored, here is the bill
https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regula...earms/download

[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

[NYlakesider]

Originally Posted by SMSgt

The president cannot "mandate" law, and SCOTUS will rule as such.

When they get around to it!

Perhaps as a subject of NY I just see things a bit different!

[Retired W4]

Originally Posted by pawngal

Calm down, this is much ado about just some wording defining "engaged in the business"
In the GCA the original wording to require an FFL was " “principal objective of livelihood and profit” and “engaged in the business”
The new wording is “predominantly earn a profit” (“PEP”) and “terrorism,”

If you are really bored, here is the bill
https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regula...earms/download

Thanks. I don't have time to reads all 466 pages this morning but I did download all 2.4 MB to study later.

As a collector of S&W revolvers and someone who has been displaying my collection at gun shows for a long time my goal has never been PEP. On the rare occasion I sell or buy a gun I always do my due diligence with respect to local and federal law. If I were keeping score I know my activity has cost me more money in the long run. In other words I do not make a profit.

I am sick and tired of people like Janet Reno and Gareland hauling this toxic water for the powers that be.

[SAFireman]

A nation of free people, who have a right to arms should not need a background check.

Crooks don't buy at gun stores, legally, they seem to be stealing them from homes and cars.