President to Close Gun Show LoopHole

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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 :mad:, 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.
 
Private sellers who sometimes walk around selling guns will ignore this in my opinion, that is if it makes it past the courts.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
…………

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.
 
Last edited:
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."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top