TexasCHLforum.com

why do we continue to let the left use this term in an attempt to scare the uninformed public into believing that "anything goes" at the gun show. We all know this is a first attempt towards some type of reporting by making the face to face sale of privately owned property illegal without an ffl transfer. Certainly, the hard core anti gun lobby would like to do away with gun shows in general, but they will chip away at us for sure if they make face to face transfers illegal.

They do this for the same reason they call our black rifles "assault rifles" it sounds devious and helps to further drive home their point and gain the support of the scared and uneducated. It also brings us a step closer to registration, which in my mind is what this whole thing is about. Really, there is no reason I should have to go through an FFL to sell my personal property. Most of the time I do but that is my choice and it shouldn't be made for me.

It's also why they call standard-sized magazines "High Capacity Clips", and AR-15's "High Power".

This "Loophole" if they were to decide to make it illegal to sell firearms without going through an FFL, that would mean you couldn't pass on your firearms as well I assume. A few months back I was in my buddy's gun store and two guys came in to do a transfer on a Saiga. The seller apologized to the buyer for the hassle but then told us a horror story. He had previously sold a firearm to an individual that used it to murder his wife. As you can imagine he had to be put in an uncomfortable situation. That is the reason I prefer to go through an FFL to avoid that scenario. I do not however, wish that my son has to spend all day and vasts amounts of money to transfer all of my firearms to him when I die.

Making it difficult for individual transactions to take place between two private citizen is just another step to full gun contol/ban and registration. IMO.

mr surveyor wrote:why do we continue to let the left use this term in an attempt to scare the uninformed public into believing that "anything goes" at the gun show. We all know this is a first attempt towards some type of reporting by making the face to face sale of privately owned property illegal without an ffl transfer. Certainly, the hard core anti gun lobby would like to do away with gun shows in general, but they will chip away at us for sure if they make face to face transfers illegal.

Some of the rules for radicals:

* RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.

* RULE 7: “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” Don’t become old news. (Even radical activists get bored. So to keep them excited and involved, organizers are constantly coming up with new tactics.)

* RULE 8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. (Attack, attack, attack from all sides, never giving the reeling organization a chance to rest, regroup, recover and re-strategize.)

* RULE 10: “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog.

* RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)

-------------------------------------------------------

You are dealing with Radicals... learn their tactics. You tell a lie often enough and long enough... people start to believe it. What people begin to believe in... they usually act upon it. If you try and use truth and logic... you will be attacked for it. The Republicans are weak and have no counter for all of this.

It is easier when the radicals are in Media and use "journalism" to brainwash the the sheeple.

My 17 year old nice said guns were discussed in a class yesterday (HIgh School- mostly a pro-gun outcome she said... Teacher had just returned from a hunting trip or something; anther 16 year old-ish student got a some number pointer deer too ....Small-ish Country town school) so there were plenty sensible people to counter the anti-gun guys.

She laughed when I mentioned private used diewasher sales needed regulating, somone could buy a hi-capacity washer and climb a building like charles Whitman did and drop it on people .... and used cars ... someone could drive onto a playground .... she was cracking up laughing (her dad voted for Obama, but me and the rest of the city oare rubbing off on her ... 4 years ago her Facebook said she was Democrat (because her dad is- so she thought it was like what church does your family belong to ...) .... she got tired of others laughing at her so now it doesn't

Boy, I saw the thread title, and clicked through thinking, "I am going to ask people to stop using the gun-grabber terminology for private sales."

See you were already all over it!

OK.... I'll take the bait....

Is there more that can be done to prevent criminals from obtaining guns through private sales? What exactly?
IMO, if our best answer is "I always ask for ID" or some similar response, we've lost.

The way I see it, it's all too easy for a criminal to have a shave, put on some clean clothes and meet with a private seller to buy a gun.

Seller: Are you prohibited from owning a firearm?
Buyer: No
Seller: (well, he looks ok, so, let's do it)... Ok, here it is..

I completely understand the concept of "private property", but I would love to have a tool of some sort to verify that a private buyer is not a prohibited person. Wouldn't you? And I'd like that tool to provide legal protection that will hold up in court if that gun ever turns up as having been used in a crime.

If I ever put a gun up for sale, you can expect a bill of sale to be involved. At least I'm covered for having a documented sale date. But how do I, as a responsible citizen that wants to help keep guns away from criminals, make certain my buyer is not prohibited other than taking their word for it.?

RoyGBiv wrote: If I ever put a gun up for sale, you can expect a bill of sale to be involved. At least I'm covered for having a documented sale date. But how do I, as a responsible citizen that wants to help keep guns away from criminals, make certain my buyer is not prohibited other than taking their word for it.?

A few of options:

1) Ask them to do a transfer through an FFL.
2) Sell only to friends you know aren't prohibited.
3) Sell only to those with a CHL (still not a guaratee but pretty good).

If the gun haters get their way, option 1 may be the only one pretty soon.

OK, maybe I let y'all off the hook with that "how do I" question. I really did know the answer to that one already..
I intended to try and solicit broader answers than "my" situation.. Sorry for being unclear.

Let me rephrase..

1. Do we agree that it's easy for criminals and other prohibited persons to exploit private-sale opportunities and obtain guns?

2. Do we, as concerned citizens, see this as a problem? Or, is this just "Something we have to live with in the name of Liberty?"

3. Are there steps we can take to reduce or eliminate this situation? What steps are we willing to take? What steps are we willing to impose on ourselves, on our gun-owning community, if any, to further reduce criminals access to guns?

jdhz28 wrote:This "Loophole" if they were to decide to make it illegal to sell firearms without going through an FFL, that would mean you couldn't pass on your firearms as well I assume. A few months back I was in my buddy's gun store and two guys came in to do a transfer on a Saiga. The seller apologized to the buyer for the hassle but then told us a horror story. He had previously sold a firearm to an individual that used it to murder his wife. As you can imagine he had to be put in an uncomfortable situation. That is the reason I prefer to go through an FFL to avoid that scenario. I do not however, wish that my son has to spend all day and vasts amounts of money to transfer all of my firearms to him when I die.

How does going through an FFL change that? Unless the husband had a restraining order that the federal government knew about or was a convicted felon, the FFL check is going to come back clean and then he's going to kill his wife. The background check potentially changes nothing.

RoyGBiv wrote:OK, maybe I let y'all off the hook with that "how do I" question. I really did know the answer to that one already..
I intended to try and solicit broader answers than "my" situation.. Sorry for being unclear.

Let me rephrase..

1. Do we agree that it's easy for criminals and other prohibited persons to exploit private-sale opportunities and obtain guns?

2. Do we, as concerned citizens, see this as a problem? Or, is this just "Something we have to live with in the name of Liberty?"

3. Are there steps we can take to reduce or eliminate this situation? What steps are we willing to take? What steps are we willing to impose on ourselves, on our gun-owning community, if any, to further reduce criminals access to guns?

I for one don't see the private sales of firearms as a prime area for criminals to proliferate and exploit. I bought my 1911 for around $900. I am not going to sell it for $100. I have been to many gun shows and I don't see that kind of striking deals either. Perhaps there are some prohibited individuals purchasing, but they probably are not the type that intend to use it illicitly. I believe most of the criminal related shootings are gang related, meaning urban youth. During all of my gun show visits, these folks don't seem to frequent these, probably too uncomfortable for them. My friends and I joke that gun shows are the last bastion for folks like us. Getting away from gun shows; I guess if a criminal, read again urban gangbanger, wants to purchase a handgun/etc, they could exploit craigs list, newspaper want ads, and etc. (I don't know if craigs list allows gun sales, just an example). But, are they willing to pay the prices being asked? As well as putting themselves out in the open for questions and etc. Or probably just simply steal one or even go to their peers and get a stolen one for the least amount of money as well as being in an environment they are used to? I and probably all of my acquaintances wouldn't sell to these that are committing most of the crimes and these types probably wouldn't even come to me to attempt to purchase. So I personally believe this is just a smoke screen by the left. Just getting that nose under the tent and exploiting the recent tragedies. I believe they are seeking to not only get to their final conclusion of no guns, but also are working to prevent me from giving my guns to my children/grandchildren and etc. Such as, if all guns have to go to an FFL prior to delivery; when I die, who will hold my firearms until the FFL transfer occurs? Probably L.E. and at that time are they pro or anti? My guns will then be destroyed, see what occurs when L.E. gets someone's guns for whatever reason. Has anyone, without largess been able to get them back in some sort of reasonable time period? Always Lawyers have to be involved, right?

So to item 1, Yes criminals probably could easily exploit private sells. But do they? Depends on what is meant by private sells, another gangbanger perhaps? Yes and they do. Someone who is a law abiding citizen, I say no...

Item 2, Again I don't see this as a problem and it is taking away from liberty, not living with something that enhances liberty.

Item 3, the Government could probably take many steps to prevent this, but I am not willing to initiate the process or even support it. (I might have to live with it, like in Cali, but I will not support it). I am willing to do as I do now, sell only to those who I believe are not from the criminal element, same as cars, trailers, cattle or whatever.

baldeagle wrote:

jdhz28 wrote:This "Loophole" if they were to decide to make it illegal to sell firearms without going through an FFL, that would mean you couldn't pass on your firearms as well I assume. A few months back I was in my buddy's gun store and two guys came in to do a transfer on a Saiga. The seller apologized to the buyer for the hassle but then told us a horror story. He had previously sold a firearm to an individual that used it to murder his wife. As you can imagine he had to be put in an uncomfortable situation. That is the reason I prefer to go through an FFL to avoid that scenario. I do not however, wish that my son has to spend all day and vasts amounts of money to transfer all of my firearms to him when I die.

How does going through an FFL change that? Unless the husband had a restraining order that the federal government knew about or was a convicted felon, the FFL check is going to come back clean and then he's going to kill his wife. The background check potentially changes nothing.

I don't think it does anything to stop anything bad from happening, his personal thought was that if they had to trace the firearm back the cops wouldn't be knocking on his door again. I can see where he was coming from, it isn't always about prevention, sometimes it's about keeping your nose clean. If you purchased a firearm new and later sold it and the buyer committed a crime with it, then it was traced back to you as the buyer...could you imagine how bad you feel, not mention a little violated. I'm sure the investigators made him feel like he was part of the ordeal. If not, and the investigation was so peachy then I would assume he wouldn't have made the effort to go through the FFL.

To address the OP's original question about terminology, it should start with us - the law-abiding proponents of the 2nd Amendment. We need to stop using the phrases that the liberal msm / anti-2A / gun-grabbers are using that frame the debate & discussion in their terms. There is no gunshow loophole. If you go to a gunshow and buy a gun from a vendor, they do a background check the same as if you were buying from any store. When they say 'gunshow loophole', what they're talking about is private sales & individual to individual transfer. The anti's don't like those phrases because there's no shock value & their phrase paints a darker more nefarious picture than what actually happens. So we need to stop playing by their rules. There is no gunshow loophole, it's a private sale. Also 'gunmen' & 'shooters' should be referred to pshychopaths and/or mandmen. And please, get rid of 'assault weapon'. They're rifles just the same as the .22s that the alligator hunters use in every episode of Swamp People.