Am I anti-gun?

[John]

Ok... I did some research... it appears that loophole closing laws are specifically to ban private sales at gunshows only. Not in the parking lot or at home or other non-gun show location.

sorry if i caused any confusion, but still i can see them closing the "private sale loophole too".

Anygunanywhere... i'm with ya man... Just correcting my previous statements. I still disagree with closing the "gun show loophole".

[txmatt]

Let's play the what-if game here.
(no, I'm not really for any of these things I'm about to propose)

Let's say private sales are still legal w/o NICS or FFL, EXCEPT at gun shows.
At a gun show, you'd go to a "NICS BOOTH" pay $5-$10 and get a "bg check cert" for 2 peopel to sell a gun.

How many people would have a problem with this? It'd let the anti's think they ended the "gun show loophole" yet private party sales are still legal. As would meeting in the parking lot, 20 miles away to continue the transaction.

In return, we asked for no movement on an AWB for 4-8 years.

I might be ok with it if it were non mandatory. Give a person selling a gun the option to verify that the person buying the gun is not a prohibited person, but don't take any information about the gun being sold and make the law such that no records are kept.

It would work fine, IMHO, since those not concerned about selling to prohibited persons aren't going to follow the law anyway and those that are would do the check if there were any doubt about the person they were selling to.

Of course there is no way the legislature would stop at what I've just proposed and anything along these lines would simply be a stepping stone to a total ban on private sales, which is unacceptable. And I don't think accepting an infringement on private sales is in any way equitable with a temporary stay on an AWB. The ability for two people to get together (even at a gun show) and sell a firearm face to face without government interference is a much more fundamental issue than banning cosmetic features and particular firearm models.

I would much rather see a more reasonable approach to FFLs that would allow for people who deal firearms in small quantities as a hobby get a license (but not be forced to) which would lead to a significant reduction of non-FFL sales at gun shows.

[SCone]

The best way to eliminate ANY concerns would be to TATTOO anyone that is barred from owning a firearm. That'd make it easy for all of us law-abiding folks to go about our business and GUARANTEE that those that can't own firearms don't get them from any of us.

[KBCraig]

There is no gunshow loophole. I don't even like using the language, because it's easy to slip into the Brady Bunch argument if you use their terminology.

Say it with me:
There is no gunshow loophole.
There is no gunshow loophole.
There is no gunshow loophole.
There is no gunshow loophole.
There is no gunshow loophole.

The law at a gunshow is exactly the same as it is everywhere else. Every legal restriction still applies.

This is how you should respond when asked about the "gunshow loophole".

[bauerdj]

no one replied to this so i'll take a stab.

everyone who buys a gun at a gun show from a dealer, i.e. someone who has a table and is selling guns, already has to have a back ground check. it is already required by law.

This is another case of need to enforce laws already on books; at every gun show I have been too there are several tables of sellers that are dealers but name: they go to every gun show and have multiple tables with a large number of guns for sale. The only thing they do not do is sell new firearms. This helps give gun shows a bad name.

Dave B.

[anygunanywhere]

This is another case of need to enforce laws already on books; at every gun show I have been too there are several tables of sellers that are dealers but name: they go to every gun show and have multiple tables with a large number of guns for sale. The only thing they do not do is sell new firearms. This helps give gun shows a bad name.

Dave B.

Actually this is an example of a law that needs to be eliminated.

All gun control laws are about control. All gun control laws infringe.

Anygunanywhere

[SCone]

I suggested to a reporter that he needs to "hold" all stories for 3 days to verify all the facts. He went off on me about "1st Amendment & right of the press" and all. Then when I used his same arguement with the 2nd Amendment, all he said was, "But that's about guns, we don't need guns."

[Purplehood]

I might be ok with it if it were non mandatory. Give a person selling a gun the option to verify that the person buying the gun is not a prohibited person, but don't take any information about the gun being sold and make the law such that no records are kept.

If I understand you correctly, then there is no evidence that such a check happened in the first place.

[Target1911]

tag

[Oldgringo]

The best way to eliminate ANY concerns would be to TATTOO anyone that is barred from owning a firearm. That'd make it easy for all of us law-abiding folks to go about our business and GUARANTEE that those that can't own firearms don't get them from any of us.

Tattoo on the forehead

[txmatt]

I might be ok with it if it were non mandatory. Give a person selling a gun the option to verify that the person buying the gun is not a prohibited person, but don't take any information about the gun being sold and make the law such that no records are kept.

If I understand you correctly, then there is no evidence that such a check happened in the first place.

Yep. I know, it makes way too much sense and relies on the diligence and integrity of the people, which is why no legislator would ever go for it. I just find it ironic that an individual selling a gun is not allowed to check on the legal status of the person he is selling to even though the database exists.

Again, I would argue that most of these transactions would be regulated if the FFL rules were more reasonable.

[stevie_d_64]

The best way to eliminate ANY concerns would be to TATTOO anyone that is barred from owning a firearm. That'd make it easy for all of us law-abiding folks to go about our business and GUARANTEE that those that can't own firearms don't get them from any of us.

uh ohhhhh...

Dude...Step away from the keyboard...

In a moment of calm, just think about what you said here...

It's ok, I'm only giving you a good natured ribbing...

It does sound good, but I leave you with a quote...Free of charge...

"I do not fear my government, but I do fear the tyrrany of good intentions."

I certainly have my concerns and differences with elected officials, as I also have many agreements...It is a process, and that process is lined with many booby-traps...

If you desire to hand over privacy and other personal responsibilities, and allow the government to be accountable for your actions...

What does that make you???

[stevie_d_64]

The best way to eliminate ANY concerns would be to TATTOO anyone that is barred from owning a firearm. That'd make it easy for all of us law-abiding folks to go about our business and GUARANTEE that those that can't own firearms don't get them from any of us.

Tattoo on the forehead

Question is, do I have a choice as to what I can get tattoo'd on the noggin' there???

If I did, I might become the most interesting man in the world...And my wife would be extremely jealous...Ending that career path...

On second thought, I want to remain a mystery...Yep...That's the ticket!

[zach]

I might be ok with it if it were non mandatory. Give a person selling a gun the option to verify that the person buying the gun is not a prohibited person, but don't take any information about the gun being sold and make the law such that no records are kept.

If I understand you correctly, then there is no evidence that such a check happened in the first place.

Yep. I know, it makes way too much sense and relies on the diligence and integrity of the people, which is why no legislator would ever go for it. I just find it ironic that an individual selling a gun is not allowed to check on the legal status of the person he is selling to even though the database exists.

Again, I would argue that most of these transactions would be regulated if the FFL rules were more reasonable.

Realistically, diligence and integrity are nice for us law abiding citizens, but there are more than enough people out there that would take the extra fifty bucks to not go over to that table.

The only problem with having this a law that is mandatory, is that there would be absolutely no way to convince legislators that those checks should be just that- no record of sale or transaction, just a check.

More importantly- forgive my ignorance on the subject but what are the unreasonable FFL rules?

z

[txmatt]

zach-

The people that would take the extra 50 bucks to not do the check are the same people who wouldn't follow any mandatory check law anyway.

About the FFL rules, they have been made to discourage people who deal small numbers of guns as a hobby in their spare time from getting a dealer license. Two big rules that are problematic, are the requirement to have a physical place of business open to the public and the large fee for the license which makes it prohibitively expensive for someone not dealing guns for a living. And the physical place of business requirement serves to eliminate those who would just sell guns at shows. Also, the way the ATF is handling violations of minor paperwork mistakes is really appalling, and I'm sure this, too, dissuades those who would like to deal guns as a hobby. So these people who in reality are dealers, are pushed to operate without an FFL, and I think they probably account for most of the gun sales that take place at shows without background checks. But given how the ATF has operated under Bush I'm exactly expecting things to improve much under an Obama administration.