Gun show loophole?

[lagavulin62]

When BHO made his "loophole" rant he also talked about "the ease" of buying on the internet. I have had many people ask me why it is people can buy guns on the internet w/o a background check. It is just incredible how stupid people are about gun laws and gun purchases. With their ignorance the gun controllers can say anything and they will believe it.

 

[coltle6920]

It's easy to research "gun show loopholes." I don't know the date of the article I got this from but here's a quote...

A total of 11 states require background checks for at least some gun purchases at gun shows. Seven of those states require background checks for all gun purchases, while four states require background checks for only handgun purchases.

That's not too bad considering there are 57 states.

You can read the rest of the article here...
Firearm Show Laws by State and "The Gun Show Loophole"

Nothing else on that page is pertinent to this discussion.

 

[sturtyboy]

Well...in California, all sales are required to go through an FFL, no matter whose selling or buying. Other requirements and exemptions apply. Then unless there is a law enforcement type of exemption, there is a 10 day waiting period and background check.

Private transfers are within the State only. Outside CA. sales of handguns must be on a State roster. And of course an FFL must do the transfer.

That's why so many out of state sellers don't want to mess with CA. The gun in an auction or dealer, must be on the Roster. If not...it goes back.

The roster is a limited list of State approved handguns. Manufacturers submit their handguns for approval. And it it very specific to that the exact SKU that appears on the list, barrel length and finish all apply. There's about less than 100 S&W's on the list The approved has a time limit. Guns go off and on this list throughout time.

So, I can only buy new rostered handgun or used handguns sold through private transfer from within the State. If I want to buy a used un-rostered gun out of State...I'm out of luck, unless I break the law and the seller doesn't care.

There are those individuals who would do a deal outside of the CA. law, regardless of it being a gun show or not. That can take place anywhere.

 

[Muss Muggins]

The "gun show loophole" is actually the "private party sale loophole." If a state allows private party sales without background checks (mine does), it is easier to find a gun at a gun show than it is on Facebook and the classifieds. Form over function.

 

[steelslaver]

Thing is they want to first have all gun transactions controlled and on paper. Then they will gather up the paper and form a data base thinking that they will have know who has what guns and be able to track each gun. So, simple and they will know every gun transaction and no prohibited person will be able to get one.

Except for the millions that are already in the system and have been sold prior to 1968 and those already sold via private sales. Plus, those that are stolen.

Except for someone who sets up a small CNC machine shop and starts making simple machine guns like the UZI or grease gun. Selling them to organized crime for distribution. We already have underground drug manufacturing, we hardly need underground gun manufacturing.

Honest rational people do honest rational things. Outlaw mean simply that, does stuff outside the law. I guess it is not that simple because many fail to grasp it.
The rates of murder and mayhem have gone up since the GCA 0f 1968 not down. More of the same won't fix it. Doing more of the same thing and expecting different results is a form of insanity. The insane should not be allowed to have guns OR VOTE.

ALL WE NEED IS A LAW. ALL WE NEED IS A LAW. ALL WE NEED IS A LAW. ALL WE NEED IS A LAW. all we need is a law. all we need is a law. all we need is a law. all we need is a law.

 

[Warren Sear]

Properly translated, "closing the gun show loophole" means "we want a complete and total ban on the private ownership of any and all guns".

 

[Black_Sheep]

In most states, person to person sales are perfectly legal as long as some simple criteria are met. (residency, age, etc...) That said, lately even the private sellers have been asking buyers for a valid permit to purchase or CCW to verify that the purchaser is not prohibited from owning a firearm. They aren't recording the info, they're just checking to cover their behind...

 

[Gamecock]

Any adult who is not locked up can get a gun.

 

[ladder13]

They, except one, said it the other night. They want "common sense gun control", but it's never defined.

 

[Warren Sear]

They, except one, said it the other night. They want "common sense gun control", but it's never defined.

"Common sense gun control" means the same as "closing the gun show loophole". It means they want an immediate, complete and total ban on the private ownership of any and all guns.

 

[Old TexMex]

They, except one, said it the other night. They want "common sense gun control", but it's never defined.

Here's the REAL definition:
Article II A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.


"Loopholes notwithstanding"

 

[Iggy]

Gee, just think sometime in 2017 with just a stroke of her pen, millions of us could become felons.
Nuff sed.

 

[PatriotX]

Gee, just think sometime in 2017 with just a stroke of her pen, millions of us could become felons.
Nuff sed.

Changing the constitution would require 30 states to sign off on the changes, IIRC.

The President could choose to take Executive Action in adding a Federal requirement of checks for every sale, but cannot do ANYTHING unilaterally to the Second Amendment.

 

[Gamecock]

"Common sense gun control" means the same as "closing the gun show loophole". It means they want an immediate, complete and total ban on the private ownership of any and all guns.

That's right. They are saying that they have common sense, and we DON'T!

 

[lagavulin62]

Changing the constitution would require 30 states to sign off on the changes, IIRC.

The President could choose to take Executive Action in adding a Federal requirement of checks for every sale, but cannot do ANYTHING unilaterally to the Second Amendment.

While this is true we are at a very serious crossroads as gun haters don't have to repeal the 2nd to eliminate our rights to arms. The strategy is to make it useless and out of reach of the common man. The problem is that most Americans have no clue what the real intentions are of gun controllers. So they believe this "safety" line along with their ignorance believing that govt only wants to help. It is a huge battle ahead and if our opponents make this an issue and continue to label their campain "gun safety", free of an opposing stance by us we will lose again in 2016. That's not a pretty picture because at that point "the vote" will be as pointless as this discussion. It is critical in my opinion we make this the issue of the day and paint a realistic picture of the opposition at all debates. Fortunately if our candidate takes on the challenge we have plenty of ammo to win this. The public needs to understand the truth of the 2nd, that there is no moderation. You are either for it or against it.

 

[CoMF]

The public needs to understand the truth of the Bill of Rights, that there is no moderation. You are either for it in its entirety or against it.

FIFY.

People need to understand that lawful firearm ownership is a basic human right, as much as the right to a fair trial by a jury of your peers, the freedom to speak without fear, or freedrom from unreasonable searches and seizures.

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

Here's the REAL definition:
Article II A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.


"Loopholes notwithstanding"

It's an amazing thing that even many gun owners think the 2A reads... the right of the people to keep and bear arms is secondary to government's right to infringe upon.

 

[Iggy]

You might want to encourage people to take a gander at the Third Amendment too.

It is a large part of why the Second Amendment came to be and is beginning to look pretty germain today.

 

[ladder13]

Changing the constitution would require 30 states to sign off on the changes, IIRC.

The President could choose to take Executive Action in adding a Federal requirement of checks for every sale, but cannot do ANYTHING unilaterally to the Second Amendment.

Actually, it's 38 states.

 

[Big Stick]

I have an extremely liberal leaning cousin, who along with her husband are in the education industry. She feels that guns are far too easy to obtain. Every time she states that on FacePlace, I ask her if she has ever walked down to her friendly LGS, and attempted to buy a pistol or assault type rifle. Thats usually the end of the conversation.....