The Bradys are excited: Time to get to work.

[Purplehood]

It gets down to the simple fact that if I were a convicted felon gang-banger I could easily purchase a weapon at or outside of a gunshow as long as I keep it a private matter.

If you were a convicted felon, you could also probably have contacts in the black market and could buy a firearm that had been stolen.

The idea that people who have already broken the law (convicted felons) are going to NOT break the law again to acquire a firearm is insane. All this would do is keep honest citizens from being allowed to privately trade or sell guns, pass down guns to a son or daughter, etc.

And that is the real fallacy of the gunshow "loophole".

However fallacious it might be, it is the issue that gets wrung out over and over with the Brady bunch. What really sucks about the whole thing is that I don't want my gun-rights to be infringed upon, but I don't like seeing the bad guys still be able to do this regardless of them doing it anyway because they are bad-guys.

This is one of those things that in my viewpoint you are damned if you do, and damned if you don't.

[74novaman]

I understand your concern, and hope you don't misread my previous post. I'm not attempting to call you insane, but I can't understand how anyone can rationalize the idea that if we pass more laws, people with a proven track record for breaking them will magically start respecting these laws.

Instead, they merely curb our freedoms. So if I am given a choice between restricting my rights or passing laws the bad guys will just ignore anyway, I'll take my rights, thanks.

[Purplehood]

I understand your concern, and hope you don't misread my previous post. I'm not attempting to call you insane, but I can't understand how anyone can rationalize the idea that if we pass more laws, people with a proven track record for breaking them will magically start respecting these laws.

Instead, they merely curb our freedoms. So if I am given a choice between restricting my rights or passing laws the bad guys will just ignore anyway, I'll take my rights, thanks.

LOL. No I didn't take your post as stating I am insane. But I do appreciate the clarification.

I am not interested in instituting new laws. I am disturbed by the situation as it stands now, and wish that I could come up with some great insight that would correct the situation.

[MBGuy]

It's the same falsehood that the argument about an AWB would help the Mexico drug cartel situation lives in. The reality is that although some ARs are going from Academy/Carters/etc through straw purchases to Mexico, there's a huge black market. Doing an AWB is going to effect us only, not the criminals, and at the end of the day the only losers are law abiding citizens. The same with the wrongly termed gun show loophole. There's no way for them to draw the line on where a private-to-private transaction can/can not occur, therefore they'll cover ALL private transactions, even within families. With the black market that exists for criminals already (it's not like they're sitting around waiting for the next gunshow to come around to buy their next gun), the only losers will be us.

In addition, right now what makes registration a daydream for these people is that they have no way of knowing what is where. A stepping stone would be to begin tracking the ownership transfers via the 20 year rule of FFLs, and then when they get registration they confiscate those records and bam, instant registration even if you don't go down and voluntarily register your firearm, and it all goes downhill from there.

So, it's technically not a loophole as sold to the media, and the only people it would affect is the law abiding. They know it as well.

[A-R]

The "gun show loophole" that the Brady bunch wants to close is really an end to all private-party unregulated sales. As previously posted, this would have the effect of forcing everyone who wanted to sell (or even just transfer) a gun to use an FFL to broker the transaction. This seriously could require your grandpa to take all his old guns down to the local gun store or pawn shop in order to legaly give them to you. Could add another step to the probate process if grandpa wills the guns to you after his death. Kinda ridiculous when you put it that way, isn't it?

But we already do a state-monitored/approved transaction like this for cars. A private individual sells a car to another private individual, money and vehicle change hands, then the new owner goes down the local DPS office and applies to change title to his/her name (I'm probably flubbing the technical legal wording of this - but we've all done this).

So, if an end to private party gun sales does get rammed down our throat by the Bradys, why not propose a similar system to car sales? The seller and buyer exchange guns for money, the sellers goes on his merry way. The BUYER then has the legal responsibility within a proscribed time to go ask the state for "permission" (yeah, I know, hate the idea too) to own this gun legally. Not a perfect solution, but at least it does not add hassle or extended time to the SELLER. The buyer is who they really want to "check" anyway, so why hold up the transaction for the seller?

I think Purplehood's concerns are valid and I've always believed that free-for-all private party sales were an endangered species. I don't know how long a lobby even as powerful as the NRA can hold off the general public and politicians from wanting to stop this. So, as soon as all means to keep private party sales free and open have been exhausted, we - as a gun owners - should have a Plan B in place that will make a transition to some sort of private party sales background check as painless as possible.

I've been proposing for a long time that I would be willing to support private gun sales background checks as long as it did not increase the time or cost of selling my guns. We live in the 21st century now. I can pay my bills, apply for a loan, and post my thoughts for you wonderful people to read all free of charge with a click of a few buttons on a computer. Why can't I input gun purchase background check information into a computer and get a true INSTANT real-time response and OK to complete the transaction - not just for FFLs, but for anyone (like me, and apparently Purplehood) who would prefer NOT to transfer a gun to felon if we can avoid doing so. Heck, this could be a special "booth" AT A GUN SHOW where private-transaction buyers go, swipe their DL or CHL into a computer scanner, and get an "APPROVED" printout in under a minute. Then they can go around to any booth in the show and buy whatever they want and just show this "APPROVED" paper.

Anyway, all of the above is hypothetical "what if" scenarios if the anti-gunners truly do get traction on stopping all private party sales. Obviously, I'd prefer to keep the current system as is. But I'm not sure how likely that is long term.

[Purplehood]

The "gun show loophole" that the Brady bunch wants to close is really an end to all private-party unregulated sales. As previously posted, this would have the effect of forcing everyone who wanted to sell (or even just transfer) a gun to use an FFL to broker the transaction. This seriously could require your grandpa to take all his old guns down to the local gun store or pawn shop in order to legaly give them to you. Could add another step to the probate process if grandpa wills the guns to you after his death. Kinda ridiculous when you put it that way, isn't it?

But we already do a state-monitored/approved transaction like this for cars. A private individual sells a car to another private individual, money and vehicle change hands, then the new owner goes down the local DPS office and applies to change title to his/her name (I'm probably flubbing the technical legal wording of this - but we've all done this).

So, if an end to private party gun sales does get rammed down our throat by the Bradys, why not propose a similar system to car sales? The seller and buyer exchange guns for money, the sellers goes on his merry way. The BUYER then has the legal responsibility within a proscribed time to go ask the state for "permission" (yeah, I know, hate the idea too) to own this gun legally. Not a perfect solution, but at least it does not add hassle or extended time to the SELLER. The buyer is who they really want to "check" anyway, so why hold up the transaction for the seller?

I think Purplehood's concerns are valid and I've always believed that free-for-all private party sales were an endangered species. I don't know how long a lobby even as powerful as the NRA can hold off the general public and politicians from wanting to stop this. So, as soon as all means to keep private party sales free and open have been exhausted, we - as a gun owners - should have a Plan B in place that will make a transition to some sort of private party sales background check as painless as possible.

I've been proposing for a long time that I would be willing to support private gun sales background checks as long as it did not increase the time or cost of selling my guns. We live in the 21st century now. I can pay my bills, apply for a loan, and post my thoughts for you wonderful people to read all free of charge with a click of a few buttons on a computer. Why can't I input gun purchase background check information into a computer and get a true INSTANT real-time response and OK to complete the transaction - not just for FFLs, but for anyone (like me, and apparently Purplehood) who would prefer NOT to transfer a gun to felon if we can avoid doing so. Heck, this could be a special "booth" AT A GUN SHOW where private-transaction buyers go, swipe their DL or CHL into a computer scanner, and get an "APPROVED" printout in under a minute. Then they can go around to any booth in the show and buy whatever they want and just show this "APPROVED" paper.

Anyway, all of the above is hypothetical "what if" scenarios if the anti-gunners truly do get traction on stopping all private party sales. Obviously, I'd prefer to keep the current system as is. But I'm not sure how likely that is long term.

Your suggestion makes sense, but once again it comes down to the bad-guy complying with the law. Once the money changes hands, what is to keep him from never taking it to the authorities to get it licensed/registered? With cars it is apparent that they have been registered by virtue of license plates and sticker.

The problem I see is that however we want to talk about our rights and privacy, the system as it now exists still allows the sale of firearms to people that are by law not allowed to have them. In all honesty, even 100% background checks wouldn't stop this. Since we don't have registration of firearms, there is absolutely no way to avoid this in the first place. If we did have registration, I still don't see how it would prevent it. Would we put stickers on the weapons? Would we all have photo ID's with each individual weapon and its serial number shown? The only thing I see registration accomplishing is letting the Feds (and on down the food-chain) know what we have, and that is really none of their business.

I think this is a loophole and I think it is going to haunt us as long as the anti-2A's are around.

[barres]

I've been proposing for a long time that I would be willing to support private gun sales background checks as long as it did not increase the time or cost of selling my guns. We live in the 21st century now. I can pay my bills, apply for a loan, and post my thoughts for you wonderful people to read all free of charge with a click of a few buttons on a computer. Why can't I input gun purchase background check information into a computer and get a true INSTANT real-time response and OK to complete the transaction - not just for FFLs, but for anyone (like me, and apparently Purplehood) who would prefer NOT to transfer a gun to felon if we can avoid doing so. Heck, this could be a special "booth" AT A GUN SHOW where private-transaction buyers go, swipe their DL or CHL into a computer scanner, and get an "APPROVED" printout in under a minute. Then they can go around to any booth in the show and buy whatever they want and just show this "APPROVED" paper.

Anyway, all of the above is hypothetical "what if" scenarios if the anti-gunners truly do get traction on stopping all private party sales. Obviously, I'd prefer to keep the current system as is. But I'm not sure how likely that is long term.

My criminal history is none of your business. I cannot stand even the idea of you being able to run a background check on me. And what would stop people from abusing this system to run checks on people who have no intention of buying a firearm? My right to privacy is dear to me, especially in this day and age of identity theft. Not to mention the ease with which someone could forge a self-generated "permission slip." There is no way to implement a background check in a private transaction that is not costly, cumbersome, and time-consuming. Not to mention flat-out wrong.

If we want to keep guns out of the hands of violent felons, how about we keep them in prison until we don't care if they can get their hands on guns anymore? They either rehabilitate or die there. With a "two strikes and your out" backup. If a violent felon is released as rehabilitated and commits another violent crime, he's automatically sentenced to life without parole or death.

[Purplehood]

I would agree with the above regarding violent criminals, but we currently live in a society where no one actually takes responsibility for their actions. As a result, we don't make them do it either.

[A-R]

A few clarifications:

1. Under no circumstances am I proposing a background check where another private citizen would see any data what so ever other than a simple APPROVED or DENIED decision. The data that determines this decision would be strictly between the proposed buyer or transferee and the government department (DPS? ATF?) set up to run this.

2. I am not saying I WANT my proposal to happen (though I'd be OK right now with a purely voluntary system such as this). Only IF the Brady Bunch gets their way and we are forced to eat it on private party sales should this be our version of a COMPROMISE. At that point, we're going to be scrambling to save as much of our rights as we can.

3. I fully understand that my proposal leaves open the possibility of a private party buyer just not completing the background check. But that's the whole idea: Take the burden AND LIABILITY for this off of the seller, put the burden solely on the buyer, and if he doesn't submit to the background check within mandated time limit, then he is guilty of a crime. Technically, as I understand it, this is the current scenario for a private car purchase. This is a COMPROMISE between what we want - unregulated private party sales - and what the Brady Bunch wants - no guns change hands without PRIOR government stamp of approval. And it is designed from as much of a libertarian perspective as we're likely to get antis to agree to - let the commerce take place unimpeded, then file the paperwork later. A law abiding citizen is going to file the paperwork, just like we do for car purchases. A criminal is not, but at least now LEOs & DAs have this criminal on one of those lesser stepping stone crimes as they work him over in an interrogation room building up to a charge on the larger crime ... "Why did you not register the gun you purchased you gang-banging punk?" AND MOST IMPORTANTLY you - as the law abiding seller - are off the hook for any legal liability. If a criminal is going to try to purchase a gun, why is it MY JOB - as an average citizen - to try to stop him? As it is now, if you unwittingly sell to a criminal, you not only lose the gun you sold, but the Feds can come back and confiscate the money the crook paid you for it too - it's "evidence" you know.

4. Like it or not, a person's criminal history is EVERYONE'S business. We live in a civilization and like it or not, there are laws. You as a free citizen have a right to influence what those laws say. But once you break those laws, you live with the consequences. I am a firm believer in second chances (Lord knows I've needed a few along the way). But breaking the law is a serious issue and I don't believe there are many "petty crimes" that don't matter. If an action is so petty as to be labeled a "petty crime" then I must ask "why is it a crime at all?" I do believe in rehabilitation and I also believe in pardons and clemency and legal expungement (sp?) and think there should be more official clearing of past criminal transgressions when the time is served and rehabilitation complete. But until all that is in place, the law is the law. And those who have broken laws in a violent manner do not deserve the RIGHT to bear arms. Commit violent crimes and you give up those rights.

[Purplehood]

I fully understand that my proposal leaves open the possibility of a private party buyer just not completing the background check. But that's the whole idea: Take the burden AND LIABILITY for this off of the seller, put the burden solely on the buyer, and if he doesn't submit to the background check within mandated time limit, then he is guilty of a crime. Technically, as I understand it, this is the current scenario for a private car purchase. This is a COMPROMISE between what we want - unregulated private party sales - and what the Brady Bunch wants - no guns change hands without PRIOR government stamp of approval. And it is designed from as much of a libertarian perspective as we're likely to get antis to agree to - let the commerce take place unimpeded, then file the paperwork later. A law abiding citizen is going to file the paperwork, just like we do for car purchases. A criminal is not, but at least now LEOs & DAs have this criminal on one of those lesser stepping stone crimes as they work him over in an interrogation room building up to a charge on the larger crime ... "Why did you not register the gun you purchased you gang-banging punk?" AND MOST IMPORTANTLY you - as the law abiding seller - are off the hook for any legal liability. If a criminal is going to try to purchase a gun, why is it MY JOB - as an average citizen - to try to stop him? As it is now, if you unwittingly sell to a criminal, you not only lose the gun you sold, but the Feds can come back and confiscate the money the crook paid you for it too - it's "evidence" you know.

I actually agree with the above. I also strongly believe that government picks & chooses which laws it wants to enforce and those which it fails to enforce adequately. Or more especially, fail to punish for violating.

[Bart]

Some states require a purchase permit from the local sheriff even for private sales. I don't see why the feds have to get involved in local commerce within a state. Or where the constitution allows it.

[Mithras61]

I fully understand that my proposal leaves open the possibility of a private party buyer just not completing the background check. But that's the whole idea: Take the burden AND LIABILITY for this off of the seller, put the burden solely on the buyer, and if he doesn't submit to the background check within mandated time limit, then he is guilty of a crime. Technically, as I understand it, this is the current scenario for a private car purchase. This is a COMPROMISE between what we want - unregulated private party sales - and what the Brady Bunch wants - no guns change hands without PRIOR government stamp of approval. And it is designed from as much of a libertarian perspective as we're likely to get antis to agree to - let the commerce take place unimpeded, then file the paperwork later. A law abiding citizen is going to file the paperwork, just like we do for car purchases. A criminal is not, but at least now LEOs & DAs have this criminal on one of those lesser stepping stone crimes as they work him over in an interrogation room building up to a charge on the larger crime ... "Why did you not register the gun you purchased you gang-banging punk?" AND MOST IMPORTANTLY you - as the law abiding seller - are off the hook for any legal liability. If a criminal is going to try to purchase a gun, why is it MY JOB - as an average citizen - to try to stop him? As it is now, if you unwittingly sell to a criminal, you not only lose the gun you sold, but the Feds can come back and confiscate the money the crook paid you for it too - it's "evidence" you know.

I actually agree with the above. I also strongly believe that government picks & chooses which laws it wants to enforce and those which it fails to enforce adequately. Or more especially, fail to punish for violating.

You actually have a system like this available to you and in place already. It's really quite simple: Don't sell to, or buy from anyone who doesn't hold a CHL. You don't have to run a background check. You have assurance that they aren't a felon, and you can have confidence that they have at least a basic (admitedly VERY basic) understanding of safe firearms handling. The government doesn't need to be involved anymore than it already is (quite intrusively so, IMHO), and no new laws are required.

BTW, no one has brought this up yet... I was under the impression that the NICS system was not available for private transactions, only for FFL-assisted ones. Am I mistaken?

[LarryH]

BTW, no one has brought this up yet... I was under the impression that the NICS system was not available for private transactions, only for FFL-assisted ones. Am I mistaken?

You are exactly correct. A private individual does not have access to the system.

[srothstein]

I have noticed that the majority (99.9%) of posters on this forum absolutely and unequivocally believe that there is in reality no "gunshow loophole".

I just wanted to bring up one other reason the loophole is a fallacy and the claim is a deliberate lie. Now that others have explained to you about the private sale and we all understand the potential problem with it (yes, a person may unknowingly sell to a felon - if they do it knowingly they are committing a crime), I wanted to show you why the loophole itself claim is a lie and why the private sellers are the real target.

The claim made about the gun show loophole is that the guns are being sold by "unlicensed dealers". Of course, the Brady Campaign will say they are not trying to stop some private individual from selling his gun, but they are worried about all of these unlicensed dealers selling. But, there is no such thing as a legal unlicensed dealer. As I was pointing out, if a person is in the business of selling firearms, the federal law requires a license. It is a felony to be in the business and not have the license. And the really neat part of the law is that it does not define what is meant by in the business. Obviously, profit is not part of the equation (many businesses make no profit for years). No where is the number of firearms sold stated as a guide, either.

If I make a habit of buying one firearm each month at the gunshow and then selling it the next month, the ATF could call me a dealer. I might be able to defend myself in court by explaining that I just like to try a lot of different guns as a hobby and show I did not ever try to make a profit on them (the intent might help but is not part of the law), but this is not a sure defense. Another example is if I have been collecting firearms for several decades and now want to liquidate my collection. I set up a table and put 100 guns on it. Am I a dealer now? The ATF might claim so and I might be able to defend against it, but it is not a sure thing.

But if I am a dealer and do not have a license, I am committing crimes. It seems like it would be fairly easy to make the case against me for being an "unlicensed dealer" if I set up at more than one gun show. And if I am a licensed dealer, the same laws apply to me at the gun show as at my store.

Thus, there is no such thing as a gunshow loophole. I am either a legal dealer obeying the law, a felon committing crimes, or a private individual selling my personal property.

If the Brady bunch want to have a debate on the reasonability of requiring all gun sales to go through a background check, this is different than making up some claim of a loophole to deceive people. I am a firm believer that when someone starts lying to me about a proposed law, the target must be something other than what he is saying. In this case, there are two possible targets. The first is to stop the private individual from selling at all without going through a dealer. The second possibility is that they are trying to stop gun shows altogether, using this as a means to reduce the numbers of guns in the citizen's hands. Given the onerous requirements that keep getting proposed for the gun show promoter, I tend to lean towards the second with the first as a hoped for by-product.

But, there is no loophole like the Brady Bunch claims, and this makes anything they say suspect.

[nitrogen]

The second amendment says, "Shall NOT BE INFRINGED"

It doesnt say "Shall not be infringed unless we don't like you"

There's no constitutional protection to own a car. There is one to own a weapon.

It may or may not be a good idea to try and keep felons from owning weapons, but our constution currently doesn't say "criminals cannot own weapons"