[427]

Originally Posted by number1gun

Even within our own ranks we are quite divided on some issues. The reasonable and the flat out cant see the Forrest folks. I believe an absolute no compromise attitude will bring us to a point of failure this time around. Giving something that is already pretty much accepted and expected is not unreasonable. IMO. It's a freebie that costs nothing but a phone call.

"Something that is already pretty much accepted and expected", by whom?

[GunHo198]

So Gunshow loop hole aside. If the mother purchased the weapons legally, and it was her mentally challenged son that committed the crimes with her firearms at a school with poor security. Where does the fault lie? Should they blame the states school system for having poor security, or the mother for not securing her firearms from a mentally challenged child. Perhaps not allowing a purchase to someone with a person diagnosed with a mental disability living in the household would be a preference. But then there's always the people that will sue because they are discriminating against the handicapped.....

[RyanBDawg]

Originally Posted by M&P15T

Let me ask another way.

Has anyone every seen a private seller, with a table set-up inside a gunshow, selling firearms without NICS checks?

I haven't..

Close this loophole, makes no difference to me..

But sites like armslist and craigslist will always be up and people can buy guns from private citizens that way if they want.

[superjoe76]

Originally Posted by M&P15T

Let me ask another way.

Has anyone every seen a private seller, with a table set-up inside a gunshow, selling firearms without NICS checks?

I have only been to a handful of shows in Indiana, and here it is perfectly legal. I browse them just as much as the Vendors.

I am sure they want to ban it across the board, not just at gun shows. Even two private citizens will have to go through the NICS to get approved.

[JuneyBooney]

Originally Posted by superjoe76

I have only been to a handful of shows in Indiana, and here it is perfectly legal. I browse them just as much as the Vendors.

I am sure they want to ban it across the board, not just at gun shows. Even two private citizens will have to go through the NICS to get approved.

I have been to a number of gun shows and I have never seen someone selling any so called "assault rifles" at a table without NCIC III checks. I have seen old antique rifles being sold outside etc but never anything else.

[gwalchmai]

Originally Posted by Henry's Dad

This all started over a disagreement regarding felons owning guns.

I say they shouldn't.

You say they should.

Actually, the disagreement was over whether private sales need to be run through NICS. My point was that the seller is the ultimate decision maker over whether the buyer seems OK. You wanted that decision to be made by the state. I and others then pointed out that even FFLs have to trust the buyer about certain disqualifying questions on the 4473 which aren't checked by NICS. You conveniently ignored these facts.

Now, our disagreement about felons seems to hinge on the concept of crime and punishment. Your position is that someone convicted of a felony is forever punished by loss of rights. I and others believe that once someone pays his debt to society he should have his rights returned. I believe we are right in this opinion.

Other than that, you and I probably don't have much disagreement between us.

[dugo]

Originally Posted by number1gun

I never said an individual should not be able to make an occasional sale to another person. What I am saying is if you are one of the fringe dealers that shows up to every show with new stock...you are a gun dealer and should abide by the rules AS A Gun dealer. It is simple..4473, background, etc. You have a duty to the public at large to make an effort to not transfer firearms to persons that do not meet the very small amount of criteria asked for. The fringe dealers are the 40% being talked about. I will never support you. So again for the slow people. If you make a regular income from the sale of firearms...you are a dealer and should be required to have an FFL and abide by the rules.

Excuse me if this has already been covered (I am short on time this morning), but isn't the so-called "loophole" at gun shows mostly trumped up? I mean, I can't remember the numbers, but only a miniscule percentage of crimes involve guns from this source, isn't that right?

AND, isn't it true that most proposals for closing the "loophole" have involved more than just closing the "loophole", effecting private sales in general and creating or leading towards general gun registration? (Which has historically tended to lead to confiscation...)

If so, what are we really talking about, here?

And, to those who tend to do so, we should be cautious about trivializing the "slippery slope" danger. The law absolutely moves incrementally, and people, especially organized ones, absolutely can and do change law by moving it incrementally.

One other thing: I didn't have time to read the whole thread, but I didn't think private sales made up any meaningful percentage of sales at gun shows anyway, much less 40% of anything.
Did I miss something? (I will check back later.)

[m51]

Originally Posted by M&P15T

Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?

As a former FFL holder and still with many friends who have FFL's, yes the non FFL holder does set up his table at gun shows. Yes he sells new and used weapons without going through the BATF licensing requirements. Ask any FFL holder who participates in gun shows what he thinks of these scabs selling at shows without going through FFL licensing requirements. They will tell you get rid of this type of scab. Some of the non educated will say things like, what is wrong with that, well it's a loophole that should be closed! Also, try going to a gun show within 75 miles of the Mexican border and look up one of these fine citizens that are non FFL holders, oh yeah, real winners. But it's cash and carry, sort of like Somalia in the US. Not everyone with cash purchasing weapons is an upstanding citizen.

[jeager]

Originally Posted by M&P15T

Let me ask another way.

Has anyone every seen a private seller, with a table set-up inside a gunshow, selling firearms without NICS checks?

Yes,
buy and sell
in retrospect
sacramento 2002
shotgun for a rifle and $

[certifiedfunds]

Originally Posted by number1gun

Even within our own ranks we are quite divided on some issues. The reasonable and the flat out cant see the Forrest folks. I believe an absolute no compromise attitude will bring us to a point of failure this time around. Giving something that is already pretty much accepted and expected is not unreasonable. IMO. It's a freebie that costs nothing but a phone call.

I don't believe you are within our ranks. I think you are an enemy of liberty.

You've called for the insertion of the state into a private transaction where no legal foundation exists for it.

You've called for using the IRS as an enforcement mechanism to end commerce you don't agree with.

You are not one of us. You are one of them.

[G36's Rule]

Originally Posted by certifiedfunds

I don't believe you are within our ranks. I think you are an enemy of liberty.

You've called for the insertion of the state into a private transaction where no legal foundation exists for it.

You've called for using the IRS as an enforcement mechanism to end commerce you don't agree with.

You are not one of us. You are one of them.

Yeah, that is pretty obvious now after reading a few post.

[blk69stang]

Originally Posted by M&P15T

Let me ask another way.

Has anyone every seen a private seller, with a table set-up inside a gunshow, selling firearms without NICS checks?

Yep. I went to a table with a nice assortment of handguns for sale. I saw a nice little NAA .22lr/.22WMR convertible mini-revolver for a nice price. I decided to buy it, and when I asked for a 4473 to fill out, the seller told me that he was a private individual. I showed him my valid in-state ID, made an affirmation that I was not a prohibited posessor, gave him the cash, and he gave me the gun.

And strangely enough, that gun did not cause me to go on a shooting rampage, rob a liquor store, nor kill a cop, contrary to what the lamestream media would have you think about such a "loophole" sale.

[whoflungdo]

Originally Posted by RyanBDawg

I haven't..

Close this loophole, makes no difference to me..

But sites like armslist and craigslist will always be up and people can buy guns from private citizens that way if they want.

I see it at just about every gun show I go to. You wouldn't know it if you didn't know the people at the tables or have dealt with them before. Have you ever been to a gun show in Jackson, MS?

[Henry's Dad]

Originally Posted by gwalchmai

Actually, the disagreement was over whether private sales need to be run through NICS. My point was that the seller is the ultimate decision maker over whether the buyer seems OK. You wanted that decision to be made by the state. I and others then pointed out that even FFLs have to trust the buyer about certain disqualifying questions on the 4473 which aren't checked by NICS. You conveniently ignored these facts.

Now, our disagreement about felons seems to hinge on the concept of crime and punishment. Your position is that someone convicted of a felony is forever punished by loss of rights. I and others believe that once someone pays his debt to society he should have his rights returned. I believe we are right in this opinion.

And I pointed out that in 2011, 900,000 buyers were rejected by NICS.

Of those 900,000:

--96,000 had domestic violece convictions
--72,000 were addicted to a controlled substance
--40,000 were under a restraining order
--11,000 were illegal aliens
--8,000 were adjudicated mentally defective

You're comfortable with the idea that those rejected buyers could then turn around and acquire a firearm through a private sale.

I'm not.

The categories I listed are all people who have either (a) not paid their debt to society, (b) are still in the system, or (c) actively engaged in a criminal act (illegal aliens). Those adjuducated mentally defective obviously comprise a separate category.


Full 2011 NICS report, if interested:
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nic...ns-report-2011

[whoflungdo]

Originally Posted by Henry's Dad

And I pointed out that in 2011, 900,000 buyers were rejected by NICS.

Of those 900,000:

--96,000 had domestic violece convictions
--72,000 were addicted to a controlled substance
--40,000 were under a restraining order
--11,000 were illegal aliens
--8,000 were adjudicated mentally defective

You're comfortable with the idea that those rejected buyers could then turn around and acquire a firearm through a private sale.

I'm not.

The categories I listed are all people who have either (a) not paid their debt to society, (b) are still in the system, or (c) actively engaged in a criminal act (illegal aliens). Those adjuducated mentally defective obviously comprise a separate category.


Full 2011 NICS report, if interested:
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nic...ns-report-2011

OR they could just steal one like what happened in CT. Your proposal of involving the government in private transactions between individuals will not stop the theft and would not have prevented the Sandy Hook tragedy as CF and others have pointed out to you several times in this thread. You are willing to give up my rights and involve the federal government where it has no authorization to make yourself feel better. Which side does that sound like?

ETA: Not only that, but your proposal wouldn't have stopped ANY of the latest shooting sprees. The guns were all bought by either legal means with a background check or were stolen...

[tehan2]

Originally Posted by number1gun

Even within our own ranks we are quite divided on some issues. The reasonable and the flat out cant see the Forrest folks. I believe an absolute no compromise attitude will bring us to a point of failure this time around. Giving something that is already pretty much accepted and expected is not unreasonable. IMO. It's a freebie that costs nothing but a phone call.

I'm so glad I read this post....I've completely changed my mind ...What was I thinking that we should fight for our constitutional rights and smaller government?

But where should it end? next year when it's "pretty much accepted and expected" that the government can regulate what is typed on an internet forum?
when pretty much accepted and expected the the government can regulate what God we pray to?
when it's pretty much accepted and expected that the government can put soldiers in our homes?
when it's pretty much accepted and expected that you can be stopped and questioned at anytime by the government?
when it's pretty much accepted and expected that you can be tried for a crime as many times as it takes to get a guilty, or not tried at all?

should I continue?

[Adams454]

Originally Posted by M&P15T

Again, only at gun shows. Just pacify the anti-gunners. We all know it won't really change anything. Let them think they have won something.

Folks could still meet at a gun show, walk out to the parking lot and do a face-to-face....we all understand that.

With how ignorant of all things firearms the anti-gunners are, they won't be able to grasp the specifics. They won't know it really does nothing. But they will not have that talking point to blab on T.V.

The problem is, that won't pacify them. When the law gets passed, and crime doesn't drop, they'll go further. When that fight comes we will already be one step closer to the anti's goal. So no thank you.

[ctfireman]

Here in CT (gun show or not) a long gun can be sold between two parties without any authorization from the state. Handguns need an authorization number & paperwork has to be sent to the state & town that the buyer lives in. Without permit numbers, you can't get an auth number.

[ctfireman]

Originally Posted by GunHo198

So Gunshow loop hole aside. If the mother purchased the weapons legally, and it was her mentally challenged son that committed the crimes with her firearms at a school with poor security. Where does the fault lie? Should they blame the states school system for having poor security, or the mother for not securing her firearms from a mentally challenged child. Perhaps not allowing a purchase to someone with a person diagnosed with a mental disability living in the household would be a preference. But then there's always the people that will sue because they are discriminating against the handicapped.....

Those firearms should have been locked up & stored responsibly.

[whoflungdo]

Originally Posted by ctfireman

Those firearms should have been locked up & stored responsibly.

What good is a firearm if it's locked up when you need it? I agree the mother should have been more responsible and shares half the blame for what happened. However, if all of the firearms are locked up how can they be used for self-defense?

[Henry's Dad]

Originally Posted by whoflungdo

OR they could just steal one like what happened in CT. Your proposal of involving the government in private transactions between individuals will not stop the theft and would not have prevented the Sandy Hook tragedy as CF and others have pointed out to you several times in this thread. You are willing to give up my rights and involve the federal government where it has no authorization to make yourself feel better. Which side does that sound like?

ETA: Not only that, but your proposal wouldn't have stopped ANY of the latest shooting sprees. The guns were all bought by either legal means with a background check or were stolen...

Part of the discussion we've been having has been related to how we, as gun owners, are going to engage the debate that is coming in the wake of 20 dead first graders. This debate will be a reality, whether you want to accept it or not.

Sure, we can stand on the ground of constitutional absolutism. But as I've pointed out, constitutional absolutism is a fiction. (See my quote from Scalia in the Heller case.) You will not find a single judge in America, left, right, or center, who will tell you that any of your rights are absolute. Speech, arms, religion, privacy. None of them are absolute.

I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I have never felt unconstitutionally "burdened" by filling out a 4473 and waiting for the automated call to NICS. Maybe others have, but that's for them to decide.

I've tried to offer the counter-points as to why background checks are not the worst idea in the world, both in terms of law enforcement and public relations. Others see it as a slippery slope, and I get their concerns.

Yes, I know NICS would have done nothing to prevent the CT shooting. But could NICS have denied the Aurora, Virginia Tech, or Arizona shooters their sales if there had been better integration with mental health screening? That would have required some concessions from the mental health privacy crowd, but I think the CT shooting will push them to make some changes on their end. (See Charles Krauthamer's op-ed in today's Washington Post for a good discussion of this.)

The bottom line is that the debate is underway. Will we be at the table, or outside the room screaming about constitutional absolutes?

[MrGlock21]

"Closing the gun show loop hole" is, like so many other phrases, a way to suggest more than what the phrase carries.
Which is new laws that would require an FFL holder as middle man between ANY firearm transaction, ANY TIME no matter where, why etc the transaction takes plase.

No more buyin and selling at gun shows, parking lots, private homes ... without a license.

The left has always been brilliant in changing, distorting and manipulating the language such that their rotten stinking helldog actually does hunt eventually.

[whoflungdo]

Originally Posted by Henry's Dad

Part of the discussion we've been having has been related to how we, as gun owners, are going to engage the debate that is coming in the wake of 20 dead first graders. This debate will be a reality, whether you want to accept it or not.

Sure, we can stand on the ground of constitutional absolutism. But as I've pointed out, constitutional absolutism is a fiction. (See my quote from Scalia in the Heller case.) You will not find a single judge in America, left, right, or center, who will tell you that any of your rights are absolute. Speech, arms, religion, privacy. None of them are absolute.

I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I have never felt unconstitutionally "burdened" by filling out a 4473 and waiting for the automated call to NICS. Maybe others have, but that's for them to decide.

I've tried to offer the counter-points as to why background checks are not the worst idea in the world, both in terms of law enforcement and public relations. Others see it as a slippery slope, and I get their concerns.

Yes, I know NICS would have done nothing to prevent the CT shooting. But could NICS have denied the Aurora, Virginia Tech, or Arizona shooters their sales if there had been better integration with mental health screening? That would have required some concessions from the mental health privacy crowd, but I think the CT shooting will push them to make some changes on their end. (See Charles Krauthamer's op-ed in today's Washington Post for a good discussion of this.)

The bottom line is that the debate is underway. Will we be at the table, or outside the room screaming about constitutional absolutes?

And that's why you debate with facts and statistics, not emotions and feelings. Offering up something you know will not work, has not worked, and gives a demonstrably false sense of security is insane. Saying, "I know this will not work and has never worked, but I'll do it to make you feel better" does no good for anyone. It harms everyone especially the people it is supposed to protect.

[whoflungdo]

Originally Posted by MrGlock21

"Closing the gun show loop hole" is, like so many other phrases, a way to suggest more than what the phrase carries.
Which is new laws that would require an FFL holder as middle man between ANY firearm transaction, ANY TIME no matter where, why etc the transaction takes plase.

No more buyin and selling at gun shows, parking lots, private homes ... without a license.

The left has always been brilliant in changing, distorting and manipulating the language such that their rotten stinking helldog actually does hunt eventually.

Exactly. And those supposedly on our side that help them are worse than the anti's themselves...

[gwalchmai]

Originally Posted by MrGlock21

No more buyin and selling at gun shows, parking lots, private homes ... without a license.

Which of course requires registration, which has always been the goal behind the whole "gunshow loophole" nonsense.