Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Kanluwen wrote:No, when I say "gun show loophole" I mean that "gun shows are a loophole in the system, which requires vendors to essentially police themselves and act on the honor system when it comes to criminal record checks".

Which is no different than regular venders. The ATF doesn't have an agent at every gun store in the country, and even if they did, they wouldn't be immune from corruption or otherwise breaking the law.

Kanluwen wrote:Are there vendors who abide by the system in place? Sure.

But there's also individuals who do not--which leads to..."the gun show loophole".

So again, you're upset that people are breaking the law. I agree that people breaking the law create a problem.

Kanluen wrote:

I agree that people acquire guns illegally. But they generally don't acquire guns illegally from a gun show.

Prove it. The ATF and LAPD have said otherwise in many circumstances, as has the DEA.

Well, there's this. Gun shows aren't even mentioned in the report. If you're not afraid of interested parties on the issue, there's this article, which points out:
1) No attacks against LEOs were by guns purchased at a gun show.
2) Less than 1% of "crime guns" came from gun shows
3) Less than 2% of felons who owned guns came from gun shows.

You're turn. Please substantiate your claim.

Stormrider wrote:Kan, if you are an FFL dealer, you must do a background check on anyone buying from you, (unless said weapon is an antique or the buyer has a C&R License) no exceptions.

And yet, it doesn't always get done.

The people who sell guns without a check are doing so via private transactions. Which aren't illegal or subject to federal jurisdiction. It's not a loophole.

You're really going to say that "people selling guns without a check are doing so via private transactions" isn't a loophole?

So just because you're not a dealer, you can sell a gun without a background check as long as you declare it a private transaction.

Sorry, but no. That should damned well be subject to federal jurisdiction or require a background check and a mountain of paperwork.

Kanluwen wrote:

Stormrider wrote:Kan, if you are an FFL dealer, you must do a background check on anyone buying from you, (unless said weapon is an antique or the buyer has a C&R License) no exceptions.

And yet, it doesn't always get done.

The people who sell guns without a check are doing so via private transactions. Which aren't illegal or subject to federal jurisdiction. It's not a loophole.

You're really going to say that "people selling guns without a check are doing so via private transactions" isn't a loophole?

So just because you're not a dealer, you can sell a gun without a background check as long as you declare it a private transaction.

Sorry, but no. That should damned well be subject to federal jurisdiction or require a background check and a mountain of paperwork.

Why? What's being done illegally? Your advocating criminalizing legal activities. This sounds like the 18th Amendment. I don't even like the ATF, I think they're onerous.

All FFL dealers must also inventory their weapons and report any that are stolen, which then goes into the database. The ATF would investigate any that were sold illegally as they wouldn't be recorded in the ATF's database as "sold to Person X". Any dealers who break the laws lose their licenses and the ATF has the jurisdiction to go take the illegally sold weapons away. The ATF is incredibly thorough regarding this. Your arguing against a phantom.

Stormrider wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

Stormrider wrote:Kan, if you are an FFL dealer, you must do a background check on anyone buying from you, (unless said weapon is an antique or the buyer has a C&R License) no exceptions.

And yet, it doesn't always get done.

The people who sell guns without a check are doing so via private transactions. Which aren't illegal or subject to federal jurisdiction. It's not a loophole.

You're really going to say that "people selling guns without a check are doing so via private transactions" isn't a loophole?

So just because you're not a dealer, you can sell a gun without a background check as long as you declare it a private transaction.

Sorry, but no. That should damned well be subject to federal jurisdiction or require a background check and a mountain of paperwork.

Why? What's being done illegally? Your advocating criminalizing legal activities. This sounds like the 18th Amendment. I don't even like the ATF, I think they're onerous.

Nothing about that suggests "criminalizing legal activities".
It suggests implementing responsibility and oversight.

All FFL dealers must also inventory their weapons and report any that are stolen, which then goes into the database. The ATF would investigate any that were sold illegally as they wouldn't be recorded in the ATF's database as "sold to Person X". Any dealers who break the laws lose their licenses and the ATF has the jurisdiction to go take the illegally sold weapons away. The ATF is incredibly thorough regarding this. You're arguing against a phantom.

And you're assuming that the database isn't faulty.

What's to stop a FFL dealer from reporting a gun stolen, but selling it to someone without a background check?

Kanluwen wrote:Nothing about that suggests "criminalizing legal activities".
It suggests implementing responsibility and oversight.

It's currently legal to privately sell your firearm to someone without a background check. You are suggesting that this shouldn't be allowed. That's criminalizing legal activities.

Then again, the "criminalizing legal activities" argument doesn't hold much water. All criminal laws "criminalize" what would otherwise be "legal activities."

Kanluwen wrote:What's to stop a FFL dealer from reporting a gun stolen, but selling it to someone without a background check?

Presumably the same thing that's stopping a FFL dealer from dealing drugs or not paying his income taxes. If he gets caught, he's going to prison for a while.

How do you deal with the problem of people breaking the law? You can't have an ATF agent looking over everyone's shoulder all the time.

biccat wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Nothing about that suggests "criminalizing legal activities".
It suggests implementing responsibility and oversight.

It's currently legal to privately sell your firearm to someone without a background check. You are suggesting that this shouldn't be allowed. That's criminalizing legal activities.

No, it's not "criminalizing legal activities".
It's revising a stupid gap in American firearm laws. "Criminalizing legal activities" would be "You cannot privately sell guns, ever!".
Adding a dimension to it doesn't necessarily criminalize it.

Then again, the "criminalizing legal activities" argument doesn't hold much water. All criminal laws "criminalize" what would otherwise be "legal activities."

Ehhhh.

Just because there's not a law saying you can't do it doesn't necessarily mean it's a "legal" activity.

Kanluwen wrote:What's to stop a FFL dealer from reporting a gun stolen, but selling it to someone without a background check?

Presumably the same thing that's stopping a FFL dealer from dealing drugs or not paying his income taxes. If he gets caught, he's going to prison for a while.

If he gets caught for what? How are you going to prove that he was selling guns he reported stolen?

When it comes down to it, it ends up being a "he said, she said" with the person who owned the illegal firearm saying that "Oh, FFL dealer Dave sold it to me off the books for cash" and the FFL dealer, who presumably has to have passed a crapload of screening to become a FFL dealer in the first place says "He's lying, he stole it and I reported it as stolen--check your records".

How do you deal with the problem of people breaking the law? You can't have an ATF agent looking over everyone's shoulder all the time.

Sure, you can't have an ATF agent looking over everyone's shoulder all the time.

But you can have an ATF agent being required when the gun is actually being handed over to the buyer, or on hand to ensure that the person who's buying the gun is who the criminal background check was on.

Kanluwen wrote:Just because there's not a law saying you can't do it doesn't necessarily mean it's a "legal" activity.

That's pretty much exactly what it means. Unless you're talking about torts, but you're probably not.

Kanluwen wrote:If he gets caught for what? How are you going to prove that he was selling guns he reported stolen?

Well, presumably if he's selling guns he reports as "stolen," he's not doing it in a single instance. So you look at his tax records, inventory, history of making such claims, and the consequences of the theft.

Kanluwen wrote:When it comes down to it, it ends up being a "he said, she said" with the person who owned the illegal firearm saying that "Oh, FFL dealer Dave sold it to me off the books for cash" and the FFL dealer, who presumably has to have passed a crapload of screening to become a FFL dealer in the first place says "He's lying, he stole it and I reported it as stolen--check your records".

Even if it's a "he said, she said" situation, the ATF can still use repeat issues as the grounds to remove someone's license to sell firearms.

Kanluen wrote:But you can have an ATF agent being required when the gun is actually being handed over to the buyer, or on hand to ensure that the person who's buying the gun is who the criminal background check was on.

Not really, there's a lot of transactions that happen every year. But this still wouldn't get past the problem of straw purchases or under-the-table dealings. If a firearms dealer doesn't want the ATF to show up, he'll just report "no sales today" and the ATF won't show up. What a great time to sell some illegal weapons!

I think you're seriously underestimating the drive of criminal actors to circumvent the law and their ingenuity in doing so.

And I think you're seriously overestimating the honesty of gun salesmen

Yey, they are blaming it on games again since the guy played CoD: MW2

Kanluwen wrote:And I think you're seriously overestimating the honesty of gun salesmen

You're really going there? Why would a dealer risk going to the Federal pen for 15 years to do what you're claiming? Give me a break.

As for the "claimed stolen, sold illegally" argument, the local police do get involved in stuff like that. This would involve faking a break in and coming up with a believable story. Not only is this unfeasible, it's downright fantasy.

All of this to sell a gun the dealer might make 3% (could be a little higher or a little lower depending on the firearm in question and quantities of said firearm bought by the dealer) of profit on?

Not bloody likely.

You sound very naive on the subject.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Soladrin wrote:Yey, they are blaming it on games again since the guy played CoD: MW2

Of course, blame the game that has "Mature" on it for a reason. That word implies both body and mind.

Clearly we need a law making it illegal to sell guns to Ukranians. Thats should help.

Storm/Kan...

Interesting discussion... But lets keep perspective. Many tv shows and movies have included a character running either a gun store or, more frequently, a pawn shop, that both buys and sells guns illegally. Is this just Hollywood fiction, or is it based on real incidents where real people had been found to be doing these things?

I know of a few businesses that had been doing just that.... as well as reporting a real break in and theft, then over reporting what was stolen... including several weapons. In the one case, the pawn shop owner got caught 3 years later selling a gun, he had reported stolen 3 years prior, to an undercover cop.

helgrenze wrote:Storm/Kan...

Interesting discussion... But lets keep perspective. Many tv shows and movies have included a character running either a gun store or, more frequently, a pawn shop, that both buys and sells guns illegally. Is this just Hollywood fiction, or is it based on real incidents where real people had been found to be doing these things?

I know of a few businesses that had been doing just that.... as well as reporting a real break in and theft, then over reporting what was stolen... including several weapons. In the one case, the pawn shop owner got caught 3 years later selling a gun, he had reported stolen 3 years prior, to an undercover cop.

I wouldn't put it past a pawn shop to do stupid crap like that. Pawn shops are much more seedy than gun stores.

helgrenze wrote:Storm/Kan...

Interesting discussion... But lets keep perspective. Many tv shows and movies have included a character running either a gun store or, more frequently, a pawn shop, that both buys and sells guns illegally. Is this just Hollywood fiction, or is it based on real incidents where real people had been found to be doing these things?

I know of a few businesses that had been doing just that.... as well as reporting a real break in and theft, then over reporting what was stolen... including several weapons. In the one case, the pawn shop owner got caught 3 years later selling a gun, he had reported stolen 3 years prior, to an undercover cop.

oh wow so fething what. Every law might be broken. Whats your damn point?

Newspapers are blaming a game called Modern Warcraft 2, which has "a hyper-realistic mission where you must slaughter as many people as possible in an airport for points". They are also pointing fingers at Counter-Strike and FarCry 2, the same games that German guy played who went on a rampage last year.

Business as usual for the media, then.

Yeah, the Dutch variant of the Daily Mail has been hard at work gathering ammo for another one of their big "opinion of the people" pieces. Down with this sort of thing and all that, but I doubt anything will come from it. Aside from Modern Warcraft 2's No Russian the other game that kicked up a storm was Carmageddon waaaaaay back then.

Back on track, they are now saying the shooter might have been doped up and / or drunk. Next perp on the list of things to blame: the guys coffee shop.

Doped up and hungry.

Carmageddon was awesome. My favorite video game scandal was definitely the whole Mass Effect Sex Box thing. Gotta love people with literally no idea what they are talking about.

What about the Hot Coffee episode in Grand Theft Auto?

Heh, from what I recall, it didn't cause a stir or anything around here, the games were just quietly replaced with a newly boxed version that bumped the rating from 16+ to 18+ after that big lawsuit in the US I think it was.