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.

 Vaktathi wrote:
The big issue with the background checks is that for people engaged in small scale trading or personal sales, they simply don't have access to the background check system, and would have to go to an FFL (on a day they're open and during business hours), pay both the FFL for doing the check and the state (since the state charges a fee each time), in order to conduct a transaction, which, in many places, can be both very time consuming and expensive. If you're Yokel Farmer Bob and want to sell your old .22 to your neighbor Jimbo to give to his son Billy-Bob, having to drive two counties over to the nearest gun store for an $80 transaction, pay the state $10 and the FFL their cut (usually something like $25), that gets...well...quite irritating. Likewise, if you're at the gun show buying an old Mosin or a K-98 from the WW2 collectibles booth and the guy sells like 12 guns a year, the firearms are really a side niche in view of the larger gig the guy is engaged in. That's why the "loophole" was specifically written into the law in the first place, it was intentional, for stuff like that.

So fix the background check system. It's 2015 and the whole thing is just an online yes/no check anyway. Make a public site where a person can, for free, request a "permission to buy" code that they can give to the seller (who can then verify its legitimacy through the same site). That gets rid of the "personal sale to a friend" excuse and removes any reason for it to be legal to sell a gun without going through the background check process.

 d-usa wrote:
It's a loophole because it allow people who cannot legally purchase firearms from walking into a single place, pick from an inventory of hundreds of weapons, and purchase them without a background check.

Okay, let's set aside facts and examine your statement as truth. Even if people who cannot legally own a firearm could just walk into a gun show and buy one anyway, show me one time where a "mass shooting" has been committed with firearms obtained via this loophole.

 d-usa wrote:
It's a loophole because it allow people who cannot legally purchase firearms from walking into a single place, pick from an inventory of hundreds of weapons, and purchase them without a background check.

And it's an easy fix, that's why it's stupid not to address it.

It is not a loophole by any objective definition. It is a provision that allows private sellers to sell their property without the burden of government regulation. Continually claiming that it is a loophole does not make it so.

Out of curiosity what is the difference between a prohibited person attempting to purchase a firearm at a gunshow v a prohibited person attempting to buy a firearm through the classifieds. Both involve private sellers and a large range of firearms to choose from.

 motyak wrote:
So I just read that Obama may be executive ordering something for background checks? Does anyone have anything that isn't a clickbait site for this?

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/12/31/politics/obama-to-announce-new-executive-action-on-guns/

No, I read the same story in the same place. No real detail, but this is the time to do it for him - there won't be the votes to overturn an EO, and if somehow things go horribly wrong in 2016 and the votes materialize, it will no longer be as urgent as (whatever is going on in January 2017).

 Vaktathi wrote:
As far as it allowing people who cannot legally purchase firearms to do so, well, closing that "loophole" isn't going to change much for them, they're probably going to meet the same people in the same alley to buy the same guns they were before, they'll just be breaking one *more* law in the process to add on post-facto to the other felonies they're already committing.

From the buyer's point of view there's no difference. There's a significant difference from the seller's point of view. I'd be willing to bet that there are a lot more people willing to do legal no-check sales at a gun show than people willing to do an illegal "meet in the alley behind the show" sale where the mere fact that they sold a gun without a background check is enough to send them to prison.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Out of curiosity what is the difference between a prohibited person attempting to purchase a firearm at a gunshow v a prohibited person attempting to buy a firearm through the classifieds. Both involve private sellers and a large range of firearms to choose from.

There isn't much difference. Both should require background checks.

 Breotan wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
It's a loophole because it allow people who cannot legally purchase firearms from walking into a single place, pick from an inventory of hundreds of weapons, and purchase them without a background check.

Okay, let's set aside facts and examine your statement as truth. Even if people who cannot legally own a firearm could just walk into a gun show and buy one anyway, show me one time where a "mass shooting" has been committed with firearms obtained via this loophole.

Show you a mass shooting that was performed with a firearm acquired by someone who couldn't pass a background check, who used the person to person no check method to acquire a gun? ... sure!

 Peregrine wrote:
So fix the background check system. It's 2015 and the whole thing is just an online yes/no check anyway. Make a public site where a person can, for free, request a "permission to buy" code that they can give to the seller (who can then verify its legitimacy through the same site). That gets rid of the "personal sale to a friend" excuse and removes any reason for it to be legal to sell a gun without going through the background check process.

And will there be a fee every time for private individuals?
What if I just loan a firearm to a friend?
If I do not perform this background check how will I be caught?
Do I have to document each sale?

 Breotan wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
It's a loophole because it allow people who cannot legally purchase firearms from walking into a single place, pick from an inventory of hundreds of weapons, and purchase them without a background check.

Okay, let's set aside facts and examine your statement as truth. Even if people who cannot legally own a firearm could just walk into a gun show and buy one anyway, show me one time where a "mass shooting" has been committed with firearms obtained via this loophole.

Are we going to come up with a new random and stupid criteria if I do?

I found one, so we'll know imminently.

 Ouze wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
It's a loophole because it allow people who cannot legally purchase firearms from walking into a single place, pick from an inventory of hundreds of weapons, and purchase them without a background check.

Okay, let's set aside facts and examine your statement as truth. Even if people who cannot legally own a firearm could just walk into a gun show and buy one anyway, show me one time where a "mass shooting" has been committed with firearms obtained via this loophole.

Show you a mass shooting that was performed with a firearm acquired by someone who couldn't pass a background check, who used the person to person no check method to acquire a gun? ... sure!

So, we're talking about gun show "loophole" purchases and instead you bring in an example of an illegal purchase made with no gun show involvement. That's not even apples to oranges, that's more like apples to Nike shoes.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
It's a loophole because it allow people who cannot legally purchase firearms from walking into a single place, pick from an inventory of hundreds of weapons, and purchase them without a background check.

And it's an easy fix, that's why it's stupid not to address it.

It is not a loophole by any objective definition. It is a provision that allows private sellers to sell their property without the burden of government regulation. Continually claiming that it is a loophole does not make it so.

Out of curiosity what is the difference between a prohibited person attempting to purchase a firearm at a gunshow v a prohibited person attempting to buy a firearm through the classifieds. Both involve private sellers and a large range of firearms to choose from.

I don't know, the fact that someone can walk into a building and walk back out 5 minutes later with a illegally owned gun rather than having to spend multiple days trying to set up a purchase?

Why does ANYONE purchase ANYTHING at a gun show rather than the classifieds? It's a miracle that such an unsustainable business model even exists anymore...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Breotan wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
It's a loophole because it allow people who cannot legally purchase firearms from walking into a single place, pick from an inventory of hundreds of weapons, and purchase them without a background check.

Okay, let's set aside facts and examine your statement as truth. Even if people who cannot legally own a firearm could just walk into a gun show and buy one anyway, show me one time where a "mass shooting" has been committed with firearms obtained via this loophole.

Show you a mass shooting that was performed with a firearm acquired by someone who couldn't pass a background check, who used the person to person no check method to acquire a gun? ... sure!

So, we're talking about gun show "loophole" purchases and instead you bring in an example of an illegal purchase made with no gun show involvement. That's not even apples to oranges, that's more like apples to Nike shoes.

So we are taking about apples, then you bring up oranges, and get upset when another mentions kiwis? That's rich.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
And will there be a fee every time for private individuals?

I don't know. But if there is a token fee then at least you're free of the burden of driving to a store, paying the store a fee, etc. The fee should certainly not be high enough that it is used as a means of discouraging poor people from owning guns.

What if I just loan a firearm to a friend?

A loan is not a sale.

If I do not perform this background check how will I be caught?

How are people currently caught doing illegal sales?

Do I have to document each sale?

The same system that handles the background check should be able to do any required documentation.

 Ouze wrote:
I found one, so we'll know imminently.

Nope. I said to show me a mass shooting done with a firearm purchased via the gun show loophole. Your example had nothing to do with gun shows.

Mass shootings have been done with legally obtained firearms. They've been done with stoles firearms. They've even been done with firearms obtained via straw purchases. None have had a connection to a gun show.

 d-usa wrote:
So we are taking about apples, then you bring up oranges, and get upset when another mentions kiwis? That's rich.

Ouze brought in the unrelated example.

That was the literal definition of what the "gun show loophole" is, as discussed in this thread. If you wish to move the goalposts, feel free to do so.

Also, hilariously, there are the mass shooting at gun shows by responsible gun owners. But that's a different, funnier issue.

 Ouze wrote:
That was the literal definition of what the "gun show loophole" is, as discussed in this thread.

The "gun show loophole" requires a gun show. If you want to consider each and every private sale a "gun show loophole" then you need to stop calling it that and start calling it the "private sale loophole". In any event, private sales to someone who cannot legally purchase a firearm is illegal already. So are straw purchases.

 Ouze wrote:
If you wish to move the goalposts, feel free to do so.

Goalposts? I'd just like it if you guys would stop changing meanings of things mid-discussion.

 Ouze wrote:
Also, hilariously, there are the mass shooting at gun shows by responsible gun owners. But that's a different, funnier issue.

Seriously? Your example is a jack-arse who loaded a shotgun at a gun show? This is a better example of why gun shows in Washington State don't allow people to load any weapons on the premises. Liability can be a bastich.

That wasn't my example of anything, I just thought it was amusing. When googling "mass shooting gun show loophole" I found a surprising amount of shootings at gun shows.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
While I get your point of view Stanman, protection for the police/military/etc should not at all enter the equation when discussing the 2nd Amendment.

The primary purpose the 2nd Amendment was put into the Constitution was to ensure that the populace had a means to combat those people should it come down to it.

When we allow the government to restrict that, we are just giving the government that much more power over us.

Do you really think this 2nd amendment will make any difference in the case of civil war or revolution in the US? There have been plenty of peoples who brought down their governments without a right to bear arms. The key in such a situation is military support. If the rebels can get a significant part of the military on their side, they have a good chance of succes. We see this in Ukraine, Syria and Lybia, where the core of the rebel forces are defected military. Civilians simply are no match for an organised military force, those light weapons won't help you. To fight a government requires heavy weapons: tanks, aircraft, artillery and such. The 2nd amendment comes from a time when the heaviest weapons were muskets and 12lb cannons. It is meaningless in the modern era.

Well, the 2nd amendment was assuming there wouldn't be a disparity in armament. So technically we should be allowed to have any weaponry we want, up to and including armed aircraft and tanks.

Than why is owning tanks, warplanes and other heavy weaponry not allowed in the US? Clearly that is a violation of the Constitution than? And if it is okay to ban heavy weapons, why shouldn't it also be okay to ban assault weapons?

 Grey Templar wrote:
To say it wouldn't help is completely wrong. An armed civilian population is a significant threat. Hence why most dictatorships don't like their subjects having weaponry of any kind.

Almost no state, Western democracies as well as dictatorships, likes people having weaponry of any kind (Switzerland and the US being exceptions). Outside of the US, it is widely believed that violence, and therefore weapons, should be the monopoly of the state.
As for dictatorships, they fear opposing ideas much more than weapons. Ideas are more powerful than guns. Free speech and thought are the most important things seperating democracy from dictatorship, not a right to bear arms.

Lets try not to do the overthrowing government tyranny thing, if we could.

 Ouze wrote:
That was the literal definition of what the "gun show loophole" is, as discussed in this thread. If you wish to move the goalposts, feel free to do so.

Also, hilariously, there are the mass shooting at gun shows by responsible gun owners. But that's a different, funnier issue.

Which definition of "mass shooting" are you using here? The most commonly accepted is 4 or more killed per the FBI. That was clearly not the case here as 3 people were injured and no one killed

 Ouze wrote:
That wasn't my example of anything, I just thought it was amusing. When googling "mass shooting gun show loophole" I found a surprising amount of shootings at gun shows.

Shootings, or negligent discharges? For most people a shooting involves at least some intention to harm another person

 Peregrine wrote:
I don't know. But if there is a token fee then at least you're free of the burden of driving to a store, paying the store a fee, etc. The fee should certainly not be high enough that it is used as a means of discouraging poor people from owning guns.

So what other rights are you happy to see a poll tax on?

 Peregrine wrote:
A loan is not a sale.

Good, you aren't thinking of using the Washington State law which required a background check for all transfers

 Peregrine wrote:
How are people currently caught doing illegal sales?

Don't dodge the question. The whole point of a new legislative regime should be that it is an improvement over the old one. If I do not perform this background check how will I be caught?

 Peregrine wrote:
The same system that handles the background check should be able to do any required documentation.

But FFL dealers are required to hold the forms for a number of years, and allow the ATF to inspect them, even though all the information is already entered. Will those not involved in the business of selling firearms be obliged to keep similar records?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
I don't know, the fact that someone can walk into a building and walk back out 5 minutes later with a illegally owned gun rather than having to spend multiple days trying to set up a purchase?

You mean like instead of waiting months for a gunshow? Sellers can meet up pretty quickly depending on schedules.

 d-usa wrote:
Why does ANYONE purchase ANYTHING at a gun show rather than the classifieds? It's a miracle that such an unsustainable business model even exists anymore...

Maybe it is because of a non-existent loophole that people keep insisting is real.

We have gun shows at least monthly here, even though according to you nobody uses them because it's easier to use classifieds.

And I have explained the loophole to you, but I can't understand it for you. It exists, it is real, and refusing to admit it just makes all gun owners look stupid.

It's an easy fix, so fix it.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
So what other rights are you happy to see a poll tax on?

I never said there should be a fee, and specifically stated that there shouldn't be one that is intended to discourage people from buying guns rather than covering legitimate costs of the background check. The fact that, according to a previous example here, there currently is a fee for the check pretty strongly suggests that keeping the same kind of fee with a hypothetical new system would continue to be ok.

Don't dodge the question. The whole point of a new legislative regime should be that it is an improvement over the old one. If I do not perform this background check how will I be caught?

I'm not an expert in police investigations, so I can't answer it. But the fact that we currently have laws about illegal gun sales is clear evidence that it is possible to catch people selling illegally. And even if the police fail to catch most transactions making it illegal still cuts the number of people willing to do it and makes it harder for a criminal to find a seller.

But FFL dealers are required to hold the forms for a number of years, and allow the ATF to inspect them, even though all the information is already entered. Will those not involved in the business of selling firearms be obliged to keep similar records?

Honestly, this just sounds like a combination of pre-internet laws and paranoia about having the records in government hands. The more reasonable way to do it would be to have all of those dealer records also automatically stored by the government and remove the requirement for the dealer to keep them.

 d-usa wrote:
We have gun shows at least monthly here, even though according to you nobody uses them because it's easier to use classifieds.

I said that nobody uses them? Can you show me where exactly I said that, because I'd hate to think you're closing out 2015 with a strawman argument.

 d-usa wrote:
And I have explained the loophole to you, but I can't understand it for you. It exists, it is real, and refusing to admit it just makes all gun owners look stupid.

You have not explained it because it is;
1) Not a loophole. It is a feature of the law to protect private sellers not in the business of selling firearms
2) Not specific to gunshows as it is designed to protect private sellers not in the business of selling firearms. It is the same protection whether a seller is selling at a gunshow, online, through classifieds, or to a friend.
On the other hand it has been explained to you why your belief is wholly incorrect, but you refuse to accept it. But if you want to believe that by actually knowing the law and how it applies somehow makes an entire class of people look stupid then that is your prerogative to do so.

 d-usa wrote:
We have gun shows at least monthly here, even though according to you nobody uses them because it's easier to use classifieds.

Doesn't change the validity of the previous point.

Let's compare this to Games Workshop & other companies sci-fi stuff. People still buy 40k/whatever at full retail at conventions even though they can easily get the same thing cheaper at their LFGS and over the internet. There will always be people who pay more than you would for a given item just because it is there, or because it is new, or for some other reason. Doesn't change the fact that LFGS and internet sellers are easier and a better value, does it?

We can only speak about our individual experiences. It's easier for me to go into a gun shop or Box Mart store and buy ammo than it is to go to the local gun show and do the same. It's also easier and a LOT cheaper for me to order firearms over the internet and have them delivered to a local FFL so I can pick them up. Still, people do buy guns, ammo, and other stuff at gun shows despite it not being the best value for the money or the most convenient way to obtain whatever it is you're buying.

 Peregrine wrote:
I never said there should be a fee, and specifically stated that there shouldn't be one that is intended to discourage people from buying guns rather than covering legitimate costs of the background check. The fact that, according to a previous example here, there currently is a fee for the check pretty strongly suggests that keeping the same kind of fee with a hypothetical new system would continue to be ok.

So would you be open to a fee for voting?

 Peregrine wrote:
I'm not an expert in police investigations, so I can't answer it. But the fact that we currently have laws about illegal gun sales is clear evidence that it is possible to catch people selling illegally. And even if the police fail to catch most transactions making it illegal still cuts the number of people willing to do it and makes it harder for a criminal to find a seller.

So you are advocating for a proposal that you have no idea how to implement

 Peregrine wrote:
Honestly, this just sounds like a combination of pre-internet laws and paranoia about having the records in government hands. The more reasonable way to do it would be to have all of those dealer records also automatically stored by the government and remove the requirement for the dealer to keep them.

You have not answered the question; Will those not involved in the business of selling firearms be obliged to keep similar records?
Where is the government getting this brand new computer system and training?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
So would you be open to a fee for voting?

No, and stop trying to assume that the two are equal. Voting fees are explicitly unconstitutional. Fees for mandatory gun sale background checks are apparently not, because that's what we have right now. Stop trying to turn my acknowledgement that a fee currently exists into some kind of "let's have a poll tax" straw man.

So you are advocating for a proposal that you have no idea how to implement

The fact that I don't know all of the details of how to implement it is irrelevant. It's possible for experts to figure out those details and make it work.

You have not answered the question; Will those not involved in the business of selling firearms be obliged to keep similar records?

I answered it: the question is not a very relevant one to me because the whole system should be updated anyway.

Where is the government getting this brand new computer system and training?

The same way they get any new computer system. The fact that computers and training cost money is not a reason to be stuck with 1990s technology forever.

Again, I'll type it slowly do maybe it's easier to understand.

It's the "gun show" loophole because it allows a buyer who cannot purchase firearms to walk into a single place, look at a large inventory of firearms, and walk back out minutes later without having to undergo any sort of background check.

It doesn't have much to do with sellers, although there are some private sellers who pretty much use buying/selling of private firearms as a side business under the label of "private sales" which is a separate issue, but with the buyers who use them to make purchases that would be flagged as illegal if background checks were ran.

The reason criminals use gun shows rather than classifieds is that it is quicker and more convenient, same as most other persons that use them. The other reason criminals use gun shows is because for them it had all the benefits of going to a regular gun store with none of the background checks. That's the loophole.

Seriously, the only thing dumber than most of the crap proposed by gun control advocates is the trash that gets repeated by gun advocates, including here on Dakka. Heck, just these past few weeks we have had "all .308 are alike, there is no high-power or low-power ammo" which was easily disproven by a single chart from a single manufacturer and which we all know wasn't true to begin with because we look at the damn box when we buy ammo to see what the load is, we have had "gun ownership is up and suicide rates are down" which was disproven by a simple look at actual facts, and now we have people pretending that the gun show loophole isn't s thing.

Want anti-gun folks to stop thinking of us gun owners as idiots? We could start by not repeating idiotic things.

Gun show loophole, easy fix, just do it.

An individual's rights need to be limited by the rights of others. My rights end where another's begin. It should not be a right, to possess a firearm capable of killing indiscriminately from long range, in rapid succession. There is no greater good served by allowing the general populace to possess such weaponry. Any more than it would be reasonable for the general populace to possess grenades, or dynamite.

Rapid fire, high capacity WEAPONS are intended, specifically, to kill lots of people in a short time. For war, in other words. They should be treated like grenades. You wouldn't use a grenade for anything other than killing people, in any reasonable sense. You wouldn't use an... I don't know... AK-47? for anything but killing people, either. You could use it for hunting, but that would be substantially overkill. If you don't get the kill in two shots, you've lost your opportunity when hunting.

Slower fire, low capacity FIREARMS are intended, specifically, for hunting game. For survival, in other words. They are less suitable for killing people, as the available ammunition is in shorter, less sustainable supply. I wouldn't take an over-under shotgun to war. I'd want an... again, not a big follower of assault weapons... AK-47? They seem to get the job done well enough.


A particular individual may not be a threat to society. They could safely possess what would be a "Prohibited Weapon" in Canada. Some do. But law is not concerned with the individual, it's concerned, hopefully, with the greatest good. One must realize that with access to weapons capable of causing rapid-succession loss of life, that at some point a person that is disrespectful of the right to live will gain access to those weapons.

The greatest good is not served by allowing widespread access to those weapons. What other purposes to firearms possess, other than killing humans? Killing for meat. Killing to be rid of pests. Really, that's the purpose that firearms serve. These purposes can be served by firearms with limited ammunitions.

"But it's my Right!" perhaps, but it shouldn't be. That right does not bring about the greatest good, and eventually removes the right of innocent persons to live, given a long enough time-span. It is eventual. Restricting such deadly arms limits that potential, and serves a greater good.

What are you defining as rapid fire, here? Fully automatic weapons are already heavily regulated here.

 greatbigtree wrote:
Slower fire, low capacity FIREARMS are intended, specifically, for hunting game. For survival, in other words.

No, they're all designed for killing people.

As Ouze said, machine guns are heavily regulated and almost impossible for private citizens in the USA to own legally. Nothing in the bill quoted in the OP affects this in any way. Also, ubiquitous firearm of the US Military is an AR-15 variant not a machine gun, so I don't really understand the point you are trying to raise.

The gun show part might not actually be a very big thing, but the way straw purchases can be made is IMO not good even if you think the 2nd Amendment is the next best thing after the Bible (or better). Over here I can pretty much buy any gun I want (kk, not full-auto) but the thing is firmly registered on me and if I'm selling it on the new owner needs to pass the same background checks.

I mean - your drugs come from Mexico but the illegal guns the Mexican drug cartels use, well, 70% of them are brought in from the USA.