Beto visits gun show in Little Rock.

[Scott Farkus]

The gun seller said he would support a requirement that gun-show sellers like him get a federal firearms license.

What does he mean "would support a requirement"? Does he mean that he would begin obeying the current laws if a new one were passed? If the ATF doesn't care now, why would they suddenly care in the future?

I was confused, sellers said he had tables at the gun show.
Sounded like he was a gun dealer. He didn’t do background checks.

Am I missing something?

Or do Hillary rules still apply in Arkansas?

It's a horribly written article, as these things always are because the people writing them have no clue what they're talking about.

It could mean he thinks all sellers should be required to get an FFL, which would be preposterous coming from a private seller at a gun show. It could also mean he's an FFL and sees private sellers as having a competitive advantage by not having to deal with the NICS checks, and he wants a more level the playing field. I would disagree but at least there's some logic to that.

It's also entirely possible the reporter misunderstood what the guy said and just wrote down what he thought would advance the narrative. And, as others have mentioned, he may well have just pulled a Dan Rather and made it up out of whole cloth.

But we don't know and can only speculate, because mainstream journalism is so horrible especially when it comes to firearms.

[MaduroBU]

The in the business of selling guns standard is reasonable, except that gun shows all have an ATF presence for running NICS checks. I'm not a big participant in gun shows, but my understanding is that selling off of your table with no NICS check in Texas essentially does not happen.

That is not correct. Every gun show I've been to has had a mixture of private sellers and licensed dealers and I've never seen or heard of a private seller conducting an NICS check. I've also never seen the ATF running NICS checks at any show, I have no idea where that comes from. The licensed dealers are all set up to run the checks, perhaps that's what you meant?

Now, private sellers could of course go to one of those licensed dealers and, for a fee, ask him or her to run a check but again, I've never seen it happen. I'm not sure who's telling you otherwise.

In fairness, there aren't usually that many private seller tables and they tend not to have a whole lot of guns offered for sale. Maybe 10% of the guns at a typical show are at private tables and that's being generous. But no, they don't run NICS checks on them, nor is it required, nor should it be.

The question of what constitutes a dealer or "in the business of selling guns" is a different discussion.

My source was prior threads here about experiences at gun shows. I think I went to one in maybe 2002. I was pretty turned off by the experience and haven't had the desire to go back since. Point being, I don't have any relevant personal experience. I thought that I'd read responses to other, similar circumstances to the effect that most gun shows here in Texas route all sales through an event ATF booth designated for that purpose. I could easily have misread that or maybe the statement was made but simply untrue.

I'm also fairly intolerant of people who want to hide behind the (very important) private sales exception to essentially run a business because my neighbor's dad growing up was an FFL. He kept it up as a side for his regular business, but it was mostly a service for friends and family to get firearms at dealer pricing. He went through all of the hoops to keep that license through the Clinton years (when the Clinton ATF tried to avoid renewing him for literally no cause, only to have the paperwork magically go through in February 2001 after months of inexplicable delay). If a law-abiding citizen wants to be an FFL, that process should be fair and open. If someone wants to sell a firearm to someone that they're willing to personally vouch for, that needs to be protected. I do NOT, however, support the right to sell guns to a complete stranger without any sort of checkup on them or an FFL and NICS check.

Sales on this website uniformly state via FFL or FTF only and require the presentation of a valid CHL at the time of the sale. I think that's completely reasonable,and it is a good standard to uphold. Ensuring that any background check law reflects a standard of behavior that we already adhere to rather than the deceitful attempt to register and confiscate firearms which the Democrats have been pushing for 30 years is, to me, the only reasonable course of action. Changing the law doesn't have to mean that things get worse. Refusing to acknowledge that there are gaping holes in the background check system, defending the status quo the the last, losing, and then getting the awful Democrat background check bill is the worst thing that can happen.

I will repeat that a searchable NICS list of prohibited buyers and real penalties if you're caught selling a gun to someone on that list would fix the vast majority of the issues here. It formally closes the "gun show loophole" without setting the NICS up to monitor sales and has no way of being turned into a registration scheme (which is what the Democrats actually want but won't admit to).

[K.Mooneyham]

I'm with Scott Farkus in that the gun shows I went to at (primarily) the Will Rogers in Fort Worth had only a handful of sellers who weren't FFLs. Seemed that mostly the private sellers had a few mil-surp bolt-actions, "hunting" bolt-actions with scopes, maybe an older shotgun or two, and nice, but well-used, revolvers. They usually wanted WAY too much, as they were obviously very proud of the firearms they were trying to sell. Or maybe the wives had told them they needed to sell something before buying something else, and they "priced accordingly". All the "cool" firearms such as ARs, AKs, and semi-automatic pistols were being sold by FFLs.

[rm9792]

I'm with Scott Farkus in that the gun shows I went to at (primarily) the Will Rogers in Fort Worth had only a handful of sellers who weren't FFLs. Seemed that mostly the private sellers had a few mil-surp bolt-actions, "hunting" bolt-actions with scopes, maybe an older shotgun or two, and nice, but well-used, revolvers. They usually wanted WAY too much, as they were obviously very proud of the firearms they were trying to sell. Or maybe the wives had told them they needed to sell something before buying something else, and they "priced accordingly". All the "cool" firearms such as ARs, AKs, and semi-automatic pistols were being sold by FFLs.

I have seen the "cool" firearms such as ARs, AKs, and semi-automatic pistols being sold at private tables plenty of times, it can be hard to distinguish the private sellers at first as some do not display that info. It is not at all uncommon. I go to the Houston shows and the surrounding areas such as Pasadena. I tend to only buy from private sellers as the prices can be good if you have patience and with the bonus of no paperwork. aside from he tables there are plenty walking around selling stuff privately as well. Thats where you see a lot of ARs and other SA rifles.
I have never, in 30 years of going, seen an ATF booth. I have seen the occasional agent. FFLs run NICS off their phones or laptops at the table right in front of you usually.

[Scott Farkus]

I'm also fairly intolerant of people who want to hide behind the (very important) private sales exception to essentially run a business because my neighbor's dad growing up was an FFL. He kept it up as a side for his regular business, but it was mostly a service for friends and family to get firearms at dealer pricing. He went through all of the hoops to keep that license through the Clinton years (when the Clinton ATF tried to avoid renewing him for literally no cause, only to have the paperwork magically go through in February 2001 after months of inexplicable delay). If a law-abiding citizen wants to be an FFL, that process should be fair and open. If someone wants to sell a firearm to someone that they're willing to personally vouch for, that needs to be protected. I do NOT, however, support the right to sell guns to a complete stranger without any sort of checkup on them or an FFL and NICS check.

Sales on this website uniformly state via FFL or FTF only and require the presentation of a valid CHL at the time of the sale. I think that's completely reasonable,and it is a good standard to uphold. Ensuring that any background check law reflects a standard of behavior that we already adhere to rather than the deceitful attempt to register and confiscate firearms which the Democrats have been pushing for 30 years is, to me, the only reasonable course of action. Changing the law doesn't have to mean that things get worse. Refusing to acknowledge that there are gaping holes in the background check system, defending the status quo the the last, losing, and then getting the awful Democrat background check bill is the worst thing that can happen.

I will repeat that a searchable NICS list of prohibited buyers and real penalties if you're caught selling a gun to someone on that list would fix the vast majority of the issues here. It formally closes the "gun show loophole" without setting the NICS up to monitor sales and has no way of being turned into a registration scheme (which is what the Democrats actually want but won't admit to).

You seem to be all over the map on private sales. You say the "private sales exception" is "very important" but then proceed to undermine it and advocate for laws restricting it.

I don't know what all goes into the NICS system but I suspect you're going to run into all kinds of privacy and false flag stuff if you open it up to the public ostensibly for the purposes of private sellers vetting potential buyers. What prevents my neighbor from entering my name and what happens if something comes up? More realistically, what prevents Moms Demand types from entering in everybody's name in a particular city or neighborhood and publishing all those that were flagged? I guess I don't really understand what your proposal would do other than potentially holding off full blown UBC's, which the left will never stop pushing for anyway, not to mention a cursory NICS check requirement would make it that much easier to expand to full UBC's down the road.

And you're right, all they really want from UBC's is the national registry it will necessitate. Not a single one of the recent mass shootings would have been prevented by a UBC and I've not seen any evidence that UBC's would make any meaningful difference in gun violence overall. If there are "gaping holes" in the existing background check system, it's not because we don't have UBC's.

Having said all that, I understand and sympathize with FFL holders who feel like some private sellers abuse the system insofar as skirting the rules about what constitutes a dealer. Again, that's a different discussion that doesn't really have anything to do with UBC's.

[MaduroBU]

I'm also fairly intolerant of people who want to hide behind the (very important) private sales exception to essentially run a business because my neighbor's dad growing up was an FFL. He kept it up as a side for his regular business, but it was mostly a service for friends and family to get firearms at dealer pricing. He went through all of the hoops to keep that license through the Clinton years (when the Clinton ATF tried to avoid renewing him for literally no cause, only to have the paperwork magically go through in February 2001 after months of inexplicable delay). If a law-abiding citizen wants to be an FFL, that process should be fair and open. If someone wants to sell a firearm to someone that they're willing to personally vouch for, that needs to be protected. I do NOT, however, support the right to sell guns to a complete stranger without any sort of checkup on them or an FFL and NICS check.

Sales on this website uniformly state via FFL or FTF only and require the presentation of a valid CHL at the time of the sale. I think that's completely reasonable,and it is a good standard to uphold. Ensuring that any background check law reflects a standard of behavior that we already adhere to rather than the deceitful attempt to register and confiscate firearms which the Democrats have been pushing for 30 years is, to me, the only reasonable course of action. Changing the law doesn't have to mean that things get worse. Refusing to acknowledge that there are gaping holes in the background check system, defending the status quo the the last, losing, and then getting the awful Democrat background check bill is the worst thing that can happen.

I will repeat that a searchable NICS list of prohibited buyers and real penalties if you're caught selling a gun to someone on that list would fix the vast majority of the issues here. It formally closes the "gun show loophole" without setting the NICS up to monitor sales and has no way of being turned into a registration scheme (which is what the Democrats actually want but won't admit to).

You seem to be all over the map on private sales. You say the "private sales exception" is "very important" but then proceed to undermine it and advocate for laws restricting it.

I don't know what all goes into the NICS system but I suspect you're going to run into all kinds of privacy and false flag stuff if you open it up to the public ostensibly for the purposes of private sellers vetting potential buyers. What prevents my neighbor from entering my name and what happens if something comes up? More realistically, what prevents Moms Demand types from entering in everybody's name in a particular city or neighborhood and publishing all those that were flagged? I guess I don't really understand what your proposal would do other than potentially holding off full blown UBC's, which the left will never stop pushing for anyway, not to mention a cursory NICS check requirement would make it that much easier to expand to full UBC's down the road.

And you're right, all they really want from UBC's is the national registry it will necessitate. Not a single one of the recent mass shootings would have been prevented by a UBC and I've not seen any evidence that UBC's would make any meaningful difference in gun violence overall. If there are "gaping holes" in the existing background check system, it's not because we don't have UBC's.

Having said all that, I understand and sympathize with FFL holders who feel like some private sellers abuse the system insofar as skirting the rules about what constitutes a dealer. Again, that's a different discussion that doesn't really have anything to do with UBC's.

Are you suggesting that anyone can call the NICS and demand that a third party be placed on the list? I completely agree that the scope of background checks hasn't been a factor in mass shootings, but the failure of the NICS system to recognize meaningful and disqualifying mental illness has been a major factor in nearly all of them. The nutjobs who are murdering people uniformly look like the kind of nutjobs who shouldnt have guns, and right now the law does not reflect that.

Expanded Background check laws have widespread support, and unless we get ahead of this and write one that actually does good things while keeping the government out of private sales, we will get a firearm registration law. I strongly believe that many here are choosing the wrong hill to die on with the end result our advocacy is completely ignored. "Do nothing" isn't a viable option, but "write things that we already do into the law" is.

[E.Marquez]

Sales on this website uniformly state via FFL or FTF only and require the presentation of a valid CHL at the time of the sale.

Can you point me to that forum rule?
I cant seem to find it.
I've looked in the "Read before posting" thread in firearm sales https://texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=10175
And I checked the Forum rules post https://texaschlforum.com/app.php/rules

Where did you read something that supports your position of "Sales on this website uniformly state via FFL or FTF only and require the presentation of a valid CHL at the time of the sale."

Thanks

[Soccerdad1995]

I will repeat that a searchable NICS list of prohibited buyers and real penalties if you're caught selling a gun to someone on that list would fix the vast majority of the issues here. It formally closes the "gun show loophole" without setting the NICS up to monitor sales and has no way of being turned into a registration scheme (which is what the Democrats actually want but won't admit to).

I agree with this idea. We would need to address privacy issues, of course. Here's one idea off the top of my head. I, as a potential buyer, can have the NICS system issue me a Unique ID number / code, that is not my DL#, SSN, etc. I then give that code to the private seller, and they see my name and that I'm not prohibited from buying, but no other personal info. At the sale, I show my ID to match the name, and we're all good. The requirement would be to use this system for all private sales where the buyer does not have an LTC, and would take effect 6 months after the system was up and running. First offense for not using it as a seller has to be a Class C misdemeanor, at most, to address potential innocent mistakes / ignorance.

And we DO NOT give on this or anything else for free, like we did with the "bump stock" ban. I'd propose National Reciprocity with minimum guaranteed carry rights, in exchange. States could go beyond those minimum rights, but must at least allow carry in public spaces, vehicles, etc.

Roll this all into one bill and let the Dems show just how much they care about the "gun show loophole".

[Scott Farkus]

Are you suggesting that anyone can call the NICS and demand that a third party be placed on the list? I completely agree that the scope of background checks hasn't been a factor in mass shootings, but the failure of the NICS system to recognize meaningful and disqualifying mental illness has been a major factor in nearly all of them. The nutjobs who are murdering people uniformly look like the kind of nutjobs who shouldnt have guns, and right now the law does not reflect that.

No, I wasn't suggesting that anyone call and demand somebody be put on the list but since you brought it up, that's a huge potential concern with red flag laws.

The point I was making is that I don't know what goes into the NICS system or what flags someone as being ineligible. It's possible that some of that information is privileged in some way and could cause issues if it became public and used against someone, such as a Moms Demand type group that published lists of all ineligible persons in a particular area. Something like a mass mailer to everybody on the street "warning" them that Joe in the corner house is not eligible to buy a gun, so be sure to call the authorities if you ever see him acting suspicious. There would be nothing to stop this from happening under your proposal, as I understand it.

This becomes even more problematic if we start adding mental health disqualifiers to the NICS, as you rope in medical privacy as well. I'm not necessarily saying these flags shouldn't be in the system, just that you open things up for lots more abuse if you're not really careful.

Expanded Background check laws have widespread support, and unless we get ahead of this and write one that actually does good things while keeping the government out of private sales, we will get a firearm registration law. I strongly believe that many here are choosing the wrong hill to die on with the end result our advocacy is completely ignored. "Do nothing" isn't a viable option, but "write things that we already do into the law" is.

This was the same argument used when we sat by quietly while Trump rammed through the bump stock ban - we can't "do nothing" so give in on this or it will be worse. And of course, the left didn't stop with a bump stock ban, they gave Trump literally no credit for it, and they STILL want all "assault weapons" banned. Except that now they're starting to openly demand a buyback, and we have a blueprint for a future Dem president to order a reclass of semi-auto to full auto via executive order.

You won't appease the left, ever. Stop trying and fight them.

[ScottDLS]

NO! Private intrastate sales/transfers should not be forced through NICS or FFL or any other federal "one size fits all" solution, whether at a Gun Show out of the back of a pickup truck, or grandpa giving me his WWII bringback Luger. For one, because it is unconstitutional federal intrusion on a state prerogative....yeah yeah...that ship has sailed...GCA 1968...GFSZA....etc. etc. I don't care. It is an UNCONSTITUTIONAL INTRUSION by the federal government. Another reason....because it wouldn't do any good. None of the mass shootings in the last 20 years would have been prevented by this. So what is the argument for it? Frankly, how many shootings of any kind have been prevented by NICS since 1997? The FBI will give statistics like 100,000 blocked sales....blah...blah...the vast majority of them are false positives, or people that didn't know they were prohibited. If not so, then why hasn't ATF prosecuted all the blocked sales? Fewer people are killed by rifles every year than hammers, and fewer of those by magazine fed semi-autos. SO what problem are we solving here? Giving political cover to Peter King (RINO-NY)?

NO private transfer restrictions.
NO semi-auto rifle "feature" bans.
NO magazine capacity restrictions.
NO waiver of due process ("red flag").
NO more loss of rights for convicted misdemeanants (if the crime is serious enough to warrant a suspension of gun rights, it ought to be a felony).
NO further federal restrictions of any kind.

[MaduroBU]

I agree that an NICS database that incorporates byzantine standards and a lack of accountability invites abuse. I think that might be the chief argument for an open and searcheable database. While soccerdad brings up a great point about privacy, right now the only way to know that you're prohibited is to try to buy a gun. If we write that law, it means that crazies get added to it (with provisions for penalties if thry aren't). If the Dems write that law, it means that gun sales not reported to the Federal government will be illegal (which will become a de facto registry and later a de jure registry).

Limiting the potential for abuse and punishing those who abuse the process in a law that we write kicks the legs out from under the Democrat talking points. I think that a similar process could work well for red flag laws, though they have the potential to be atrocious if written by people who want to ban guns.

[SQLGeek]

Sales on this website uniformly state via FFL or FTF only and require the presentation of a valid CHL at the time of the sale.

Can you point me to that forum rule?
I cant seem to find it.
I've looked in the "Read before posting" thread in firearm sales https://texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=10175
And I checked the Forum rules post https://texaschlforum.com/app.php/rules

Where did you read something that supports your position of "Sales on this website uniformly state via FFL or FTF only and require the presentation of a valid CHL at the time of the sale."

Thanks

Good question. I suppose I've violated that rule every time I've sold a gun here.

[Scott Farkus]

NO! Private intrastate sales/transfers should not be forced through NICS or FFL or any other federal "one size fits all" solution, whether at a Gun Show out of the back of a pickup truck, or grandpa giving me his WWII bringback Luger. For one, because it is unconstitutional federal intrusion on a state prerogative....yeah yeah...that ship has sailed...GCA 1968...GFSZA....etc. etc. I don't care. It is an UNCONSTITUTIONAL INTRUSION by the federal government.?

This, this this!!

In addition to the no-brainer arguments - UBC will require federal registration to enforce, it wouldn't have stopped ANY of the mass shootings and it's debatable whether it stops much gun crime at all, and CRIMINALS WON'T COMPLY ANYWAY - this one is the drop dead end of discussion show stopper, or at least it should be.

Federal regulation of private transactions between residents of the same state is absolutely indisputably 100% a violation of the interstate commerce clause. The federal government has no constitutional interest in this WHATSOEVER. I honestly don't know how they got away with the GCA 1968 with respect to intrastate transactions, but a federal UBC would be rank unconstitutional.

Sadly, I have no faith that the courts will apply the constitution here. They stopped applying the constitution to gun rights decades ago, with a slight and now almost meaningless pause for Heller.

[DynamicDan]

No more gun laws period, we already let the government pass over 20,000 of them already. Laws do nothing because guns are not the problem.

[MaduroBU]

Sales on this website uniformly state via FFL or FTF only and require the presentation of a valid CHL at the time of the sale.

Can you point me to that forum rule?
I cant seem to find it.
I've looked in the "Read before posting" thread in firearm sales https://texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=10175
And I checked the Forum rules post https://texaschlforum.com/app.php/rules

Where did you read something that supports your position of "Sales on this website uniformly state via FFL or FTF only and require the presentation of a valid CHL at the time of the sale."

Thanks

I read through the top 5 posts in the for sale section and all of them required a FTF transfer with presentation of a valid LTC (listed as preferred) or a Texas DL. I'm not making this up and it's easy to go look.