<strong>There is no gun show loophole. The law already <a href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=18&sec=923"; target="_blank">requires</a> anyone in the business of selling guns to be licensed by the ATF. That includes dealers who sell at gun shows.</strong><hr></blockquote>Yeah, "in the business of," that's the loophole. There's lots of people selling guns at those shows who are not in "the business" of selling them. They're just individual hobbyists or collectors. So they don't have to keep records or do background checks. Closing the loophole would require anyone selling at a show, even if they're not covered by the "in the business of" language now, to keep records and do checks.
<strong>Yeah, "in the business of," that's the loophole. There's lots of people selling guns at those shows who are not in "the business" of selling them. They're just individual hobbyists or collectors. So they don't have to keep records or do background checks. Closing the loophole would require anyone selling at a show, even if they're not covered by the "in the business of" language now, to keep records and do checks.</strong><hr></blockquote>
As a former holder of a Federal Firearms License and collector I will tell you right now you are flat WRONG on the issue of keeping records or doing background checks. You are confusing the issue of having an FFL vice having a Buiseness License two different animals all together. You can sell weapons with an FFL and NOT have a buisness license but it does not work the other way around. It is up to the local governments in the towns holding gun shows to enforce the buisness license issue. I was required to have records and my inventory ready for inspection at ANY time by the ATF. Where do you think the loophole is here? Get your facts straight before making absurd statements such as this. By the way, when I obtained my FFL my PERSONAL gun collection became part of my "inventory" that the ATF could inspect at any given time. Just having the FFL makes you subject to heavy fines and/or inprisonment for not keeping records or running the required background screenings when one is purchasing a hand gun. Long guns were excempt from the background check at the time I had my FFL, I did not agree with that policy..you could kill someone just as easy with a pistol or shotgun so why not check the person out anyway? As I have stated though, the "loophole" you refer to does not exist and the penalties for disregarding the stated rules of your FFL are severe.
<strong>Where do you think the loophole is here? Get your facts straight before making absurd statements such as this.</strong><hr></blockquote>Are you saying that people without an FFL are required to do checks and keep records at shows? My understanding is that they are not required to do so, and that's what people mean when they talk about a loophole.
Closing the loophole would mean that everyone selling at a show, even those without FFLs, would have to do checks and keep records.
[quote]While FFLs are required to maintain careful records of their sales and, under the Brady Act, to check the purchaser's background with NICS before transferring any firearm, nonlicensees have no such requirements under current law. Thus, felons and other prohibited persons who want to avoid Brady Act checks and records of their purchase buy firearms at these shows. Indeed, a review of criminal investigations by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) reveals a wide variety of violations occurring at gun shows and substantial numbers of firearms associated with gun shows being used in drug crimes and crimes of violence, as well as being passed illegally to juveniles.<hr></blockquote>
The ONLY items you can legally sell without an FFL are stocks, grips, holsters, cleaning kits, etc. To sell firearms and ammunition requires an FFL. Those attending shows and selling guns and ammo without an FFL should be arrested on the spot by local law enforcement or ATF, whoever is monitoring the show. Anyone selling illegaly who is not arrested...shame on local police/ATF for not enforcing the law!! I NEVER sold at shows because I did not like the questionable element that uses these shows as a front for illegal dealings. This is not to imply that ALL GUNSHOW DEALERS are crooks...just the opposite. The few that are rotten make a bad name for those who are above board and in compliance with all state and federal laws regarding gunshow sales. I am in agreement that these shows should be monitored better than they are presently doing. It has always been my thought that you should have to present all required documents: ffl, buisness license, proof of insureance etc. before being allowed to set up and sell at a show. However this is sadly not the case. Sorry if I came across a little harsh, I apologize for this, but I was one of those FFL holders that followed the law to the letter and then some. It irks me at the lack of responsability of some gun show vendors..they make a bad name for us who abide by the law.
P.S. Let me also add that the private citizen who wishes to sell a gun does not have a requirement to file any paperwork, nor notify ATF of this sale.
P.S. Let me also add that the private citizen who wishes to sell a gun does not have a requirement to file any paperwork, nor notify ATF of this sale.
<hr></blockquote>
That's the "loophole," dude. I can rent a booth at a gunshow as a "private citizen" and sell from my collection when I want to. Without keeping records. Without checking backgrounds or age.
Of course, as happened in Colorado, if someone then uses what I sell them to commit a crime, it's my a** as well as theirs. So there IS some followup here.
Regardless of the "loophole," changing the law is just another example of incrementalism which is compromising our self-defense rights. I doubt folks would accept such incrementalism when it comes to their other, more readily recognized fundamental rights.
That's the "loophole," dude. I can rent a booth at a gunshow as a "private citizen" and sell from my collection when I want to. Without keeping records. Without checking backgrounds or age.
Of course, as happened in Colorado, if someone then uses what I sell them to commit a crime, it's my a** as well as theirs. So there IS some followup here.
Regardless of the "loophole," changing the law is just another example of incrementalism which is compromising our self-defense rights. I doubt folks would accept such incrementalism when it comes to their other, more readily recognized fundamental rights.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I am not aware of anyone being allowed to sell guns at a show without an FFL. However, my license was issued in 1986 and I voluntarily gave mine up in 1996 due to the new laws being passed which amounted in more paper trails on my behalf as a collector. Which states do you know of where gunshows allow un-licensed dealers to sell?
This was unheard of when I applied for my license. Guess I am not up to date on the regulations anymore
<strong>Everything is interpreted... your a damn fool if you believe in the mono-vocity of a literal reading of anything.
etc.
. . . which is on the fence right now any</strong><hr></blockquote>
I have to say that this quote screams at me, "who ever is most clever can circumvent any law or limit put forth". This is a problem, those of simple views are oft times past by, when in fact many times it's wisdom they represent.
Interpretation based on antiquated script needs to be tempered with a great deal of conservativism.
Has the world changed? It sure has, and just because it has does not mean we are more clever than those who come before us. We have more technology readily available, but that technology does not make us smarter than they were.
The men who created the consitution lived in a world we can not understand. This world inspired them to put forth a group of protections that guarded us against intrusions by tyranny. A tyranny which they fully felt and worked hard against. They tried to do it in a form that limited it's use for illicite purpose as well as extreme views. They did very well.
The second amendment read any way you choose grants the right to the people. It says nothing in any interpretation that i can come up with about "if the goverment so permits" it calls for a well regulated militia, as far as i know a militia is a group of uninitiated citizens forming a group under leadership. I believe in this right, and i own guns. I also believe that more people need to be, if in a household where guns are kept, taught to respect them and the people around them. Hiding something or denying it to someone does not make it go away.
The second amendment read any way you choose grants the right to the people... it calls for a well regulated militia...</strong><hr></blockquote>
And on that phrase gun control advocates attempt to build their project - the ones who try to make a Constitutional argument, that is. Others don't give a rip about the Constitution.
I came across a page the other day (I'm having trouble finding it again) that had a list of states that had the right to bear arms in their Constitution. (Connecticut was one of them.) So even if we allowed for an interpretation of the Second Amendment that tied the right to bear arms to membership in a state's militia, most of the states recognized the right as an individual right anyway. Question for the gun control advocates: Can you show a single instance where the state took away someone's weapons because they weren't part of a militia?
One more thing: the Constitution is not like Holy Scripture. It's a lot shorter, not nearly so old and we can read it in the original language. There's less room for interpretation than there is for Scripture, or there should be.
Put some prespective on this for us. Otherwise I am going to have to put forth that you have a christian based belief that guns are inhabited by demons and should be exorcised before being sold. Whether you mean it as funny or serious. <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
<strong>^ What the hell are you asking?</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is the last time i will ever reply to one of your posts. I am asking you if, based on what i wrote and what i have posted elsewhere, you know that i was putting you down. Do you know my religious affiliation? Could it be that i hold to what i wrote when someone posts about evil in another context?
For comparison the second part of what you can not comprehend was.
I posted a view that had just ONE facet to it. It could have read "based on the beliefs of Voodoo should we then intercede with a ceremony to ask the God of Light to restore balance to it's harmony" but you immediately knew it was a put down. Not a reasonable statement of my beliefs as gathered from what you wrote.
I had insulted you.
Take your chip and go elsewhere. In terms not to be confused by the likes of you P*ss off.
I am not aware of anyone being allowed to sell guns at a show without an FFL. However, my license was issued in 1986 and I voluntarily gave mine up in 1996 due to the new laws being passed which amounted in more paper trails on my behalf as a collector. Which states do you know of where gunshows allow un-licensed dealers to sell?
This was unheard of when I applied for my license. Guess I am not up to date on the regulations anymore
I haven't actually tried to do this, and I haven't been to many gun shows in the past few years. BUT I know that prior to 1998 or so anyone could buy or sell guns at gun shows in NC, SC and VA. I saw it with my own eyes. I imagine that organizers changed it subsequent to the hubub, but there's probably not any specific state regs in those states regarding gunshows. It certainly isn't a NATIONAL restriction.
In other words, I can sell my own guns any time I chose. All I have to do is declare that I'm not a dealer. Whether or not the gunshow sponsors would let me rent a table is something else entirely.
Comments
[ 06-14-2002: Message edited by: spaceman_spiff ]</p>
<strong>There is no gun show loophole. The law already <a href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=18&sec=923"; target="_blank">requires</a> anyone in the business of selling guns to be licensed by the ATF. That includes dealers who sell at gun shows.</strong><hr></blockquote>Yeah, "in the business of," that's the loophole. There's lots of people selling guns at those shows who are not in "the business" of selling them. They're just individual hobbyists or collectors. So they don't have to keep records or do background checks. Closing the loophole would require anyone selling at a show, even if they're not covered by the "in the business of" language now, to keep records and do checks.
<strong>Yeah, "in the business of," that's the loophole. There's lots of people selling guns at those shows who are not in "the business" of selling them. They're just individual hobbyists or collectors. So they don't have to keep records or do background checks. Closing the loophole would require anyone selling at a show, even if they're not covered by the "in the business of" language now, to keep records and do checks.</strong><hr></blockquote>
As a former holder of a Federal Firearms License and collector I will tell you right now you are flat WRONG on the issue of keeping records or doing background checks. You are confusing the issue of having an FFL vice having a Buiseness License two different animals all together. You can sell weapons with an FFL and NOT have a buisness license but it does not work the other way around. It is up to the local governments in the towns holding gun shows to enforce the buisness license issue. I was required to have records and my inventory ready for inspection at ANY time by the ATF. Where do you think the loophole is here? Get your facts straight before making absurd statements such as this. By the way, when I obtained my FFL my PERSONAL gun collection became part of my "inventory" that the ATF could inspect at any given time. Just having the FFL makes you subject to heavy fines and/or inprisonment for not keeping records or running the required background screenings when one is purchasing a hand gun. Long guns were excempt from the background check at the time I had my FFL, I did not agree with that policy..you could kill someone just as easy with a pistol or shotgun so why not check the person out anyway? As I have stated though, the "loophole" you refer to does not exist and the penalties for disregarding the stated rules of your FFL are severe.
[ 06-14-2002: Message edited by: Robertp ]</p>
<strong>Where do you think the loophole is here? Get your facts straight before making absurd statements such as this.</strong><hr></blockquote>Are you saying that people without an FFL are required to do checks and keep records at shows? My understanding is that they are not required to do so, and that's what people mean when they talk about a loophole.
Closing the loophole would mean that everyone selling at a show, even those without FFLs, would have to do checks and keep records.
[edit]
Found <a href="http://www.atf.treas.gov/pub/treas_pub/gun_show.pdf"; target="_blank"> this link</a> about gun shows from the ATF:
[quote]While FFLs are required to maintain careful records of their sales and, under the Brady Act, to check the purchaser's background with NICS before transferring any firearm, nonlicensees have no such requirements under current law. Thus, felons and other prohibited persons who want to avoid Brady Act checks and records of their purchase buy firearms at these shows. Indeed, a review of criminal investigations by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) reveals a wide variety of violations occurring at gun shows and substantial numbers of firearms associated with gun shows being used in drug crimes and crimes of violence, as well as being passed illegally to juveniles.<hr></blockquote>
[ 06-14-2002: Message edited by: BRussell ]</p>
<strong>
[ 06-14-2002: Message edited by: BRussell ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
The ONLY items you can legally sell without an FFL are stocks, grips, holsters, cleaning kits, etc. To sell firearms and ammunition requires an FFL. Those attending shows and selling guns and ammo without an FFL should be arrested on the spot by local law enforcement or ATF, whoever is monitoring the show. Anyone selling illegaly who is not arrested...shame on local police/ATF for not enforcing the law!! I NEVER sold at shows because I did not like the questionable element that uses these shows as a front for illegal dealings. This is not to imply that ALL GUNSHOW DEALERS are crooks...just the opposite. The few that are rotten make a bad name for those who are above board and in compliance with all state and federal laws regarding gunshow sales. I am in agreement that these shows should be monitored better than they are presently doing. It has always been my thought that you should have to present all required documents: ffl, buisness license, proof of insureance etc. before being allowed to set up and sell at a show. However this is sadly not the case. Sorry if I came across a little harsh, I apologize for this, but I was one of those FFL holders that followed the law to the letter and then some. It irks me at the lack of responsability of some gun show vendors..they make a bad name for us who abide by the law.
P.S. Let me also add that the private citizen who wishes to sell a gun does not have a requirement to file any paperwork, nor notify ATF of this sale.
[ 06-14-2002: Message edited by: Robertp ]
[ 06-14-2002: Message edited by: Robertp ]</p>
[QB]
P.S. Let me also add that the private citizen who wishes to sell a gun does not have a requirement to file any paperwork, nor notify ATF of this sale.
<hr></blockquote>
That's the "loophole," dude. I can rent a booth at a gunshow as a "private citizen" and sell from my collection when I want to. Without keeping records. Without checking backgrounds or age.
Of course, as happened in Colorado, if someone then uses what I sell them to commit a crime, it's my a** as well as theirs. So there IS some followup here.
Regardless of the "loophole," changing the law is just another example of incrementalism which is compromising our self-defense rights. I doubt folks would accept such incrementalism when it comes to their other, more readily recognized fundamental rights.
<strong>
That's the "loophole," dude. I can rent a booth at a gunshow as a "private citizen" and sell from my collection when I want to. Without keeping records. Without checking backgrounds or age.
Of course, as happened in Colorado, if someone then uses what I sell them to commit a crime, it's my a** as well as theirs. So there IS some followup here.
Regardless of the "loophole," changing the law is just another example of incrementalism which is compromising our self-defense rights. I doubt folks would accept such incrementalism when it comes to their other, more readily recognized fundamental rights.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I am not aware of anyone being allowed to sell guns at a show without an FFL. However, my license was issued in 1986 and I voluntarily gave mine up in 1996 due to the new laws being passed which amounted in more paper trails on my behalf as a collector. Which states do you know of where gunshows allow un-licensed dealers to sell?
This was unheard of when I applied for my license. Guess I am not up to date on the regulations anymore
<img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
<strong>Everything is interpreted... your a damn fool if you believe in the mono-vocity of a literal reading of anything.
etc.
. . . which is on the fence right now any</strong><hr></blockquote>
I have to say that this quote screams at me, "who ever is most clever can circumvent any law or limit put forth". This is a problem, those of simple views are oft times past by, when in fact many times it's wisdom they represent.
Interpretation based on antiquated script needs to be tempered with a great deal of conservativism.
Has the world changed? It sure has, and just because it has does not mean we are more clever than those who come before us. We have more technology readily available, but that technology does not make us smarter than they were.
The men who created the consitution lived in a world we can not understand. This world inspired them to put forth a group of protections that guarded us against intrusions by tyranny. A tyranny which they fully felt and worked hard against. They tried to do it in a form that limited it's use for illicite purpose as well as extreme views. They did very well.
The second amendment read any way you choose grants the right to the people. It says nothing in any interpretation that i can come up with about "if the goverment so permits" it calls for a well regulated militia, as far as i know a militia is a group of uninitiated citizens forming a group under leadership. I believe in this right, and i own guns. I also believe that more people need to be, if in a household where guns are kept, taught to respect them and the people around them. Hiding something or denying it to someone does not make it go away.
[ 06-14-2002: Message edited by: Ruhx ]</p>
<strong>
The second amendment read any way you choose grants the right to the people... it calls for a well regulated militia...</strong><hr></blockquote>
And on that phrase gun control advocates attempt to build their project - the ones who try to make a Constitutional argument, that is. Others don't give a rip about the Constitution.
I came across a page the other day (I'm having trouble finding it again) that had a list of states that had the right to bear arms in their Constitution. (Connecticut was one of them.) So even if we allowed for an interpretation of the Second Amendment that tied the right to bear arms to membership in a state's militia, most of the states recognized the right as an individual right anyway. Question for the gun control advocates: Can you show a single instance where the state took away someone's weapons because they weren't part of a militia?
One more thing: the Constitution is not like Holy Scripture. It's a lot shorter, not nearly so old and we can read it in the original language. There's less room for interpretation than there is for Scripture, or there should be.
[ 06-15-2002: Message edited by: spaceman_spiff ]</p>
<strong>Guns are evil! <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Put some prespective on this for us. Otherwise I am going to have to put forth that you have a christian based belief that guns are inhabited by demons and should be exorcised before being sold. Whether you mean it as funny or serious. <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
[ 06-15-2002: Message edited by: Ruhx ]</p>
<strong>^ Sure.. put me down for that <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
It was an "put down" or it was a statement made from one side?
<strong>^ What the hell are you asking?</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is the last time i will ever reply to one of your posts. I am asking you if, based on what i wrote and what i have posted elsewhere, you know that i was putting you down. Do you know my religious affiliation? Could it be that i hold to what i wrote when someone posts about evil in another context?
For comparison the second part of what you can not comprehend was.
I posted a view that had just ONE facet to it. It could have read "based on the beliefs of Voodoo should we then intercede with a ceremony to ask the God of Light to restore balance to it's harmony" but you immediately knew it was a put down. Not a reasonable statement of my beliefs as gathered from what you wrote.
I had insulted you.
Take your chip and go elsewhere. In terms not to be confused by the likes of you P*ss off.
<strong>
I am not aware of anyone being allowed to sell guns at a show without an FFL. However, my license was issued in 1986 and I voluntarily gave mine up in 1996 due to the new laws being passed which amounted in more paper trails on my behalf as a collector. Which states do you know of where gunshows allow un-licensed dealers to sell?
This was unheard of when I applied for my license. Guess I am not up to date on the regulations anymore
<img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
I haven't actually tried to do this, and I haven't been to many gun shows in the past few years. BUT I know that prior to 1998 or so anyone could buy or sell guns at gun shows in NC, SC and VA. I saw it with my own eyes. I imagine that organizers changed it subsequent to the hubub, but there's probably not any specific state regs in those states regarding gunshows. It certainly isn't a NATIONAL restriction.
In other words, I can sell my own guns any time I chose. All I have to do is declare that I'm not a dealer. Whether or not the gunshow sponsors would let me rent a table is something else entirely.