TexasCHLforum.com

Bradys are sending email excited about "gun show loophole" bills introduced in the house and senate by our old friends Lautenberg and McCarthy...

Bills to Close the Gun Show Loophole
Introduced in U.S. Senate and U.S. House

U.S. Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) and U.S. Representatives Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) and Mike Castle (R-DE) have introduced legislation to close the gun show loophole. The loophole allows people to buy guns at gun shows in most states without passing a Brady criminal background check.

Our national policy should be: no background check, no gun, no excuses.
[more crud deleted...]


http://www.bradycampaign.org/action/gun ... _year=2009" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
(disinfect after reading)

Hey, they have to find something to get excited about since they can't go to a Federal park anymore without staring a loaded AK-47 in the face on their hiking trips!

I am going to stir-up a hornet's nest here, but here goes...

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".

Being a relative nOOb/novice to gun shows I have patiently read the posts on this forum regarding the issue, and attended just a few gun shows here in Houston and Pasadena.

I have observed the following:

I walk up to a dealer/booth at a gunshow and proceed to purchase a firearm. The first show I went to was prior to issuance of my CHL. So I went through a background check via phone and bought my first Glock. The next show I went to was after I had been issued a CHL, and bought another firearm after the dealer confirmed that I was exempt from a check by virtue of said CHL.

At the Pasadena gunshow, I watched people walk around with weapons in their hands outside the vendor area and sell them to folks on their way in. The only exchange I noticed was one of money and firearm, and not information. No background check was evident.

Is this indeed the "loop" that the Brady-bunch refers to? And if so, why do posters persistently deny that it exists?

I look forward to any response with bated-breath.

Purplehood wrote:I am going to stir-up a hornet's nest here, but here goes...

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".

Being a relative nOOb/novice to gun shows I have patiently read the posts on this forum regarding the issue, and attended just a few gun shows here in Houston and Pasadena.

I have observed the following:

I walk up to a dealer/booth at a gunshow and proceed to purchase a firearm. The first show I went to was prior to issuance of my CHL. So I went through a background check via phone and bought my first Glock. The next show I went to was after I had been issued a CHL, and bought another firearm after the dealer confirmed that I was exempt from a check by virtue of said CHL.

At the Pasadena gunshow, I watched people walk around with weapons in their hands outside the vendor area and sell them to folks on their way in. The only exchange I noticed was one of money and firearm, and not information. No background check was evident.

Is this indeed the "loop" that the Brady-bunch refers to? And if so, why do posters persistently deny that it exists?

I look forward to any response with bated-breath.

You seem to be anticipating angry responses with little reasoning. I hate to disappoint, but I'm going to.

I recommend reading this article: http://www.keepandbeararms.com/informat ... sp?id=1017

Basically, closing the "gun show loophole" isn't about any actual loop hole, but about not allowing private citizens to conduct private sales of firearms. It is a first step, much as registration would be the logical first step for confiscation.

There was a very good article in "America's First Freedom" about the so called gun show loophole showing crime actually goes down in areas after gun shows. Doesn't seem much of a detriment to crime to stop gun shows, does it?

You must have purchased from a dealer booth...he was a dealer that had a booth at the show but also a storefront somewhere else. He was required to run your information by virtue of that store front.

I can sell you my Ruger handgun, my Mini-14 Ranch gun or a set of tires without getting any information from you. If a person at a gunshow sees a gun that another person wants to buy, then that is a personal transaction...and does not need anything else.

This is how I see it...

Doug "visit me on the Frio for Memorial Day"

74novaman wrote:

Purplehood wrote:I am going to stir-up a hornet's nest here, but here goes...

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".

Being a relative nOOb/novice to gun shows I have patiently read the posts on this forum regarding the issue, and attended just a few gun shows here in Houston and Pasadena.

I have observed the following:

I walk up to a dealer/booth at a gunshow and proceed to purchase a firearm. The first show I went to was prior to issuance of my CHL. So I went through a background check via phone and bought my first Glock. The next show I went to was after I had been issued a CHL, and bought another firearm after the dealer confirmed that I was exempt from a check by virtue of said CHL.

At the Pasadena gunshow, I watched people walk around with weapons in their hands outside the vendor area and sell them to folks on their way in. The only exchange I noticed was one of money and firearm, and not information. No background check was evident.

Is this indeed the "loop" that the Brady-bunch refers to? And if so, why do posters persistently deny that it exists?

I look forward to any response with bated-breath.

You seem to be anticipating angry responses with little reasoning. I hate to disappoint, but I'm going to.

I recommend reading this article: http://www.keepandbeararms.com/informat ... sp?id=1017

Basically, closing the "gun show loophole" isn't about any actual loop hole, but about not allowing private citizens to conduct private sales of firearms. It is a first step, much as registration would be the logical first step for confiscation.

There was a very good article in "America's First Freedom" about the so called gun show loophole showing crime actually goes down in areas after gun shows. Doesn't seem much of a detriment to crime to stop gun shows, does it?

I don't disagree with the statement regarding crime and gunshows. But I do believe that the loophole does exist, and wonder how folks turn a blind-eye to it. Why is it okay to go through a background check inside the vendor area, but it is not necessary or desired in the lobby? Call me confused.

It's not an ok not ok thing. The law requires FFL's to do background checks as part of their licensing. If anyone who is not an FFL sells a gun there is no background check required today. Its not really a "gun show loophole" as it doesn't matter where the transaction occurs if its a non-ffl sale. If they require private citizens to do background checks this will make it more difficult for people to sell their guns. Its likely that this will lead to all sales going through FFL's.

Yea! What he said...

Doug

the term "loophole" makes it sound like a deficiency in the law.

I don't think thats the case. The law is acting as designed: You need a federal license to engage in the business of selling firearms.
The law is NOT designed to regulate the selling of firearms between individuals, therefore there is no "loophole"

nitrogen wrote:the term "loophole" makes it sound like a deficiency in the law. I don't think that's the case. The law is acting as designed: You need a federal license to engage in the business of selling firearms. The law is NOT designed to regulate the selling of firearms between individuals, therefore there is no "loophole"

In this context, the term "loophole" is being be used as political spin. It's kind of like "getting off on a technicality." If it "technically" isn't against the law, then it isn't illegal.

[quote="Purplehood"
I don't disagree with the statement regarding crime and gunshows. But I do believe that the loophole does exist, and wonder how folks turn a blind-eye to it. Why is it okay to go through a background check inside the vendor area, but it is not necessary or desired in the lobby? Call me confused.[/quote]

An FFL is required to sell new firearms. If one has an FFL, then they must also record their used gun sales. It's a condition the FFL.
If a private citizen sells a weapon, it is used. From one private citizen to another.
Both can be at a gunshow, because gunshows are not really any different than flea markets, except for the name.
If the supposed loop hole is "closed", then the flea market atmosphere will resume, as it was years ago. Except now it will be in the parking lot of the gunshow. Perfectly legal citizen to citizen transactions. Just with a more open air and probably a little rougher crowd that would not normally show up in a hall with a deputy at the door.

Purplehood wrote:And if so, why do posters persistently deny that it exists?

Because the laws that apply outside the gun show also apply inside the gun show.

Ergo, no "gun show loophole" exists.

lrb111 wrote:An FFL is required to sell new firearms. If one has an FFL, then they must also record their used gun sales. It's a condition the FFL.

Just a minor technical correction. An FFL is required to be in the business of selling firearms. They can be all new, all used, or some mix thereof. But if you do it as a business, you need a license.

In this one case, cars make a good comparison. You need a dealer's license to sell cars as a business. This is regardless of whether they are new, used, or some mix. But any individual can legally sell his car without a license.

While we generally find it easy to find a used car lot with no new cars on it, we don't generally think that way for guns. But many pawnshops are in the business of selling used guns and are not dealers for new ones. They must also have an FFL.

I think the whole issue doesn't get down to new or used firearms. 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. On the other hand, a private individual cannot be expected to run a background check on an individual that he/she is selling to.
I guess my whole concern is that this "loophole" does really exist as I see absolutely no means of preventing this. In in fact this is the case, it makes me wonder why a professional firearms dealer should have to run the same background check. Wouldn't it be a mere formality?

Purplehood wrote: 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".