About that gun show loophole…

posted at 5:31 pm on January 12, 2013 by Jazz Shaw

Among the various helpful suggestions being stressed by liberals seeking areas where gun rights advocates and gun grabbers might find “common ground” is the question of the Gun Show Loophole in places such as Virginia and Kansas (among others). Just imagine… open forums where criminals, the deranged and the idle rich can wander in off the streets, plop down a fistful of cash and walk out with every weapon known to man with no background check. It’s an awful thing, isn’t it? Or at least it would be… if it were real.

In Virginia, one legislator is on the trail of a way to stop the madness whether it happens or not.

Legislators will be dueling over guns this year at the Capitol, with gun-rights advocates set to oppose efforts to close Virginia’s gun-show loophole. Alexandria state Sen. Adam Ebbin (D-30) and Arlington Del. Patrick Hope (D-47) have introduced legislation that would require a background check for every gun purchase. That includes the 40 percent of current gun sales that take place in a private transaction, which do not require any kind of background check to be conducted on the individual purchasing the weapon.

The article actually has some good information in it, even if portions of it are unintentional. The key point we should be addressing when this comes up is the fundamental fallacy of the greatly inflated stories about the “loophole” in question. When you go to one of these shows, there are sellers of all kinds. Some of them are dealers who bring large amounts of stock of various types to sell. And many of them will have some pretty high end, high tech weapons for sale. But here’s the thing… they are registered dealers, most of whom have regular store front operations, and they still have to do a spot background check before the sale.

But there are also other folks there who may only have a few – or even one – gun for sale. Some of them are collectors who are getting rid of their collections. Others may simply no longer have a need for their old hunting rifle and could use the cash. And they largely don’t have access to the system for doing an instant background check. That’s why the so called “loophole” exists. It isn’t a gun show loophole, it’s a private seller loophole.

Now we could certainly have a discussion about stopping people from acting as professional dealers under the guise of private sellers if they are seeking to avoid the normal commerce laws applicable to store owners. But a “solution” which sweeps up every individual who may want to sell their old rifle to their cousin is no kind of answer. Of course, that’s not what anyone wants, right? Oh… wait.

“And so the kinds of things that there’s an emerging set of recommendations, not coming from me but coming from the groups we’ve met with,” said Biden today, before a closed door meeting on gun control. “And I’m going to focus on the ones that relate primarily to gun ownership and the type of weapons can be owned. And one is, there is a surprising — so far — a surprising recurrence of suggestions that we have universal background checks. Not just close the gun show loophole but total, universal background checks, including private sales.”

I suppose that shouldn’t surprise us all that much. But there’s one more aspect to the whole background check and registration thing which doesn’t get quite as much attention. Why would anyone object to gun registration? Neal Boortz had a rather terse answer for Vice President Biden.

Biden was also miffed about the fact that our government doesn’t have a database and a way to track all of the guns in our country…

There is a reason there are laws to prohibit such things, you fool. The fact is that a criminal who is out to kill someone is going to get a gun through whatever means they can, legally or illegally. So why then restrict the people who seek to protect themselves from such evil? Liberals say it is the government’s job to protect you from such evil. But when your house is being broken into and you have a predator aiming a gun at you or your family, the government isn’t there to disarm the thug. That is your life on the line … and don’t let these liberals convince you that you don’t have an “unalienable right” to protect it.

Well, that’s enough depressing, gun grabbing news for one Saturday. So before we close, I’ll just invite you to have a look at some much needed gun control humor. Enjoy.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Loopie.

Bmore on January 12, 2013 at 5:37 PM

Doopie!

KOOLAID2 on January 12, 2013 at 5:37 PM

I should have waited Bmore…today was a two dozen Bishop day!

KOOLAID2 on January 12, 2013 at 5:39 PM

Guns again!

KOOLAID2 on January 12, 2013 at 5:39 PM

No kidding, Jazz. The progressives are using the Orwellian “gun show loophole” to further their plans at confiscation. Once they know who owns the guns and where they are, it’ll be much easier to confiscate the guns down the line. Yes, some will slip through the cracks, but again the law abiding citizens will follow the law and begin paper trails for every gun, which will very shortly evolve in to a “federal gun database”

Timin203 on January 12, 2013 at 5:40 PM

A rights loophole. Tell me about those 1st amendment loopholes please.

CW on January 12, 2013 at 5:40 PM

The Government has way too much on its plate already and is failing miserably. Never trust the Governments good intentions for you. Trust yourself.

Bmore on January 12, 2013 at 5:41 PM

What will the gun haters do when they realize that the easiest way to purchase a gun privately while providing some level of confidence that you are not a felon is to have a concealed weapon permit. So the end result of requiring everyone to go through a background check would be to dramatically increase the number of concealed weapon permits.

As for a national gun registry, never happen. Hussein Obama cannot decree that this happen and Congress will never pass any legislation for it.

iconoclast on January 12, 2013 at 5:43 PM

Biden was also miffed about the fact that our government doesn’t have a database and a way to track all of the guns in our country…

The Constitution specifically enumerates the right to keep and bear arms. Why would that be the business of government? Unless, of course, you want to begin confiscating them.

Happy Nomad on January 12, 2013 at 5:44 PM

Liberals say it is the government’s job to protect you from such evil.

Of course, the SCOTUS decided that states have no responsibility to provide police power to any of its citizens, not even to enforce court-ordered restraining orders and the like. SCOTUS determined that it is up to individuals to handle their own defense – which is true, anyway.

And we all saw how great things were for individuals after Sooper-Dooper Storm Sandy, when every level of government failed in its most basic responsibilities and left individuals to fend for themselves and protect their own persons and property … for weeks. But then those various governments went into overdrive afterwards, to steal money from unaffected citizens to pay off the people hit by Sandy to cover the government ineptitude, to cover the strangulating government regulatory schemes that have rendered our electric supply so brittle and unstable, and to cover for individuals who didn’t get appropriate insurance for their property.

About the only thing our various levels of government do well is to take tons of money from people in order to redistribute it to those who might vote for them.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on January 12, 2013 at 5:46 PM

The Government has way too much on its plate already and is failing miserably. Never trust the Governments good intentions for you. Trust yourself.

Bmore on January 12, 2013 at 5:41 PM

You allude to an interesting strategy for the GOP and conservative right. We need smaller and more efficient government because the government fails when it trys to take on too much. Pat the rat-eared wonder on the head and give him credit for trying to do it all. But at the same time point out that he and his party is a miserable failure for trying to do so. Then send them to bed with fondest wishes but without a cookie. Because, after all, they are miserable failures.

Happy Nomad on January 12, 2013 at 5:48 PM

Well, if the point of background checks is to make sure that those who would fail one not get guns, you have to prohibit individuals from re-selling their guns to those people. Honestly, though, I’m not sure any of these laws are all that effective at keeping guns out of the hands of criminals or the criminally insane.

Count to 10 on January 12, 2013 at 5:49 PM

Now we could certainly have a discussion about stopping people from acting as professional dealers under the guise of private sellers if they are seeking to avoid the normal commerce laws applicable to store owners.

Already illegal.

And it is already a crime to sell a gun privately to someone who you know is prohibited from owning one – but that does not even stop the ATF obviously.

And the states that already prohibit private transactions of firearms in state law are not crime free in any sense, indeed they are not seeing any drop in crime not seen outside of such states.

SPQR on January 12, 2013 at 5:53 PM

BiteMe should have cut to the chase and done a walk through of the South Side of Chicago (where gun laws are strict), interviewing its residents on their ideas about eliminating gun violence.

onlineanalyst on January 12, 2013 at 5:54 PM

Where can I access the data base that has all the thousands of actual assault weapons that Obama and Holder furnished to Murderous Mexican Drug Gangs with the names and addresses of all those who got ObamaGuns? Does anyone have a link?

VorDaj on January 12, 2013 at 5:55 PM

Guns again!

KOOLAID2 on January 12, 2013 at 5:39 PM

.
Aw yeah … you can’t have too many guns.

listens2glenn on January 12, 2013 at 5:55 PM

Time to call the Marxists liberal BS and demand this… Time for a Mandatory Federal Firearms Law, Enter the Affordable Firearms Act.

SWalker on January 12, 2013 at 5:56 PM

tell all those gun owners in New york why its a good idea to give the press access to a database on who owns a gun. The media publishing those names and address is reason enough that noone should have that information.

Also whenever Germany invaded a country the first thing they did was go to the local records and visit the gun owners to disarm them.

We don’t need to know who has a gun.

wonder what the KKK would have did with that type of information during the civl rights movement?

imagine a friendly government offical giving the database to a “kkk” type of group who then precedes to round up or disarm an entire minority group before they start terrorizing them…..oh wait that what Hitler did to the jews before the night of broken glass.

unseen on January 12, 2013 at 5:56 PM

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on January 12, 2013 at 5:46 PM

…they even had to add on PORK… to the Sandy aid!

KOOLAID2 on January 12, 2013 at 5:57 PM

Where can I access the data base that has all the thousands of actual assault weapons that Obama and Holder furnished to Murderous Mexican Drug Gangs with the names and addresses of all those who got ObamaGuns? Does anyone have a link?

VorDaj on January 12, 2013 at 5:55 PM

.
That’s classified. If you find out what that number is, they’ll have to kill you.

listens2glenn on January 12, 2013 at 5:57 PM

come to think of it just the government now has the power to force people to buy a product we should demand the government make every adult go buy a gun and 2 boxes of ammo for self defense. that why the government knows who has a gun=====everyone.

unseen on January 12, 2013 at 5:57 PM

My comment from the universal background check headline thread:

How hard is it to understand that the push for mandatory background checks on private transfers, sales and gifts of guns is a de facto gun and gun owner registry?

Does anyone fail to understand that this registry is the essential first step to confiscating guns?

novaculus on January 12, 2013 at 4:19 PM

novaculus on January 12, 2013 at 5:59 PM

come to think of it just the government now has the power to force people to buy a product we should demand the government make every adult go buy a gun and 2 boxes of ammo for self defense. that why the government knows who has a gun=====everyone.

unseen on January 12, 2013 at 5:57 PM

Heh heh… See my post at SWalker on January 12, 2013 at 5:56 PM

SWalker on January 12, 2013 at 5:59 PM

Registration is for confiscation, period.

Show me ONE registration system that has solved a crime because the gun is registered. There aren’t any. Why? because criminals dont register guns… You fools! =)

TX-96 on January 12, 2013 at 6:06 PM

I should add. I have never been to a gun show.

Bmore on January 12, 2013 at 6:11 PM

Again, I think I am living in an alternate universe.

A national gun registry, to which I am opposed, is a different thing from whatever kind of database is used to check someone’s criminal background.

And they largely don’t have access to the system for doing an instant background check. That’s why the so called “loophole” exists. It isn’t a gun show loophole, it’s a private seller loophole.

Last I looked, gun shows consist of lots of folks selling guns, and lots of folks buying guns, together in one location.

Also, last I looked, there is a thing called the internet, which enables access to a criminal database to anyone who has the proper equipment.

It would take very little effort to set up a universal hub at a gun show to which all dealers, large and small, registered or private have access, perhaps for a small fee.

Mr. Arkadin on January 12, 2013 at 6:13 PM

Show me ONE registration system that has solved a crime because the gun is registered. There aren’t any. Why? because criminals dont register guns… You fools! =)

TX-96 on January 12, 2013 at 6:06 PM

Let’s not forget that Chicago is a “gun free” city and yet chalked up the most gun-related deaths last year.

Jews in Poland went along with registration systems back in the late 1930s. How’d that work out?

Happy Nomad on January 12, 2013 at 6:15 PM

That includes the 40 percent of current gun sales that take place in a private transaction, which do not require any kind of background check to be conducted on the individual purchasing the weapon.

Even if you change that law what makes you think we will follow it. DC let the reporter off the hook for knowingly violating their law. Why should we be subject to or follow laws that will be arbitrarily enforced based on the amount of juice the violator has.

chemman on January 12, 2013 at 6:16 PM

Mr. Arkadin on January 12, 2013 at 6:13 PM

Of course you trust the FBI to have destroyed the record of the background check after it has happened.

chemman on January 12, 2013 at 6:18 PM

DISARM…..ENSLAVE.

Dictators and tyrants repeat as necessary.

Meanwhile in Orange County……..Tyranny enters a new phase.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/breakingnews/os-drones-sheriff-orange-20130112,0,4271383.story

PappyD61 on January 12, 2013 at 6:23 PM

Of course you trust the FBI to have destroyed the record of the background check after it has happened.

chemman on January 12, 2013 at 6:18 PM

So, what happens when I do a criminal background check? Do I have to check the box marked “prospective gun owner”? Do I have to go back and type “sale confirmed”?

Mr. Arkadin on January 12, 2013 at 6:29 PM

The ‘loophole’ is what ATF uses to aggregate their ILLEGAL registry of I rearms lready, despite their being legally enjoined NOT to create a national registry.
Legion are the anecdotes of ATF agents making ‘inspection’ visits to FFLs and bringing portable scanners / copiers for wholesale copying of records they are NOT entitled to. FFLs are to keep the 4473s for. Max of 20yrs then destroy them. FFLs that go out of business in less time get heir records taken by the ATF obstensibly to assist in tracing. But everyone tacitly admits the data is being digitized / entered into the sort of database the ATF is forbidden to have. N which the Statists desperately want.

rayra on January 12, 2013 at 6:39 PM

It would take very little effort to set up a universal hub at a gun show to which all dealers, large and small, registered or private have access, perhaps for a small fee.

Mr. Arkadin on January 12, 2013 at 6:13 PM

That already exists. Any registered dealer must run background checks before selling guns, whether at a gun show or in their store. What we’re talking about is me selling an old gun to my cousin for $300. Private sales. Where it’s already illegal to sell a gun to someone who you know is not eligible.

performing background checks on PRIVATE sales would just be a way for the government to begin to get the data on where the guns are and who owns them. It will quickly evolve into a national database, even if they don’t call it that. The ATF has already been caught holding on to info of who got background checks for longer then they’re supposed to, does anyone have any doubt that the government keeps those records?

Timin203 on January 12, 2013 at 6:39 PM

performing background checks on PRIVATE sales would just be a way for the government to begin to get the data on where the guns are and who owns them. It will quickly evolve into a national database, even if they don’t call it that. The ATF has already been caught holding on to info of who got background checks for longer then they’re supposed to, does anyone have any doubt that the government keeps those records?

Timin203 on January 12, 2013 at 6:39 PM

Fast and Furious was a database nightmare….
:)

Electrongod on January 12, 2013 at 6:42 PM

Well, if the point of background checks is to make sure that those who would fail one not get guns, you have to prohibit individuals from re-selling their guns to those people. Honestly, though, I’m not sure any of these laws are all that effective at keeping guns out of the hands of criminals or the criminally insane.

Count to 10 on January 12, 2013 at 5:49 PM

That’s where th Journal-News comes in, publishing a helpful map of where criminals can find guns.

rayra on January 12, 2013 at 6:49 PM

How many legislators, how many of our so-called “leadership,” have ever actually been to a gun show?

Not as an announced spectator, but the normal way, put the kids in the car, head over to the next county, park the car, walk in and smell canvas, cosmoline, and a lot of old guys doing what they do…buy, sell, swap and trade guns and stuff. You can tell the amateurs from the dealers…less flashy tables…and the dealers? They are clearly marked, and have to be so…there is liability in them there hills…

But, the more I see our “leadership” talking about gun control, gun shows, small clips, large magazines, automatic assault weapons, semi-automatic hunting weapons which look like assault weapons…you get the picture…I am convinced that few if any know the first damn thing about weapons, and wouldn’t know which end to point at the intruder in the first place.

The Second Amendment is enshrined in our Bill of Rights…it is fundamental to our Constitutional system.

Either pull the damn Amendment through act of Congress or act of stupidity (Executive order) or shut the hell up.

It is not about deer hunting…deer hunting appears no where at all in our Constitution, nor does hunting of any sort.

But, having been occupied and devastated by the King’s Rifles a few times too many, and knowing full well what a rag-tag bunch of irregulars could do to an established and regulated army…well, that Second Amendment is our last ditch when you get down to it…all the rest of the Constitution becomes suddenly meaningless without that Second Amendment.

And our current “leadership” knows this…full well.

They fear it.

Let them.

Make them.

Let them awake each night in a cold sweat over the prospects of “their people” turning against them in rage and fury.

Their fear is all we have today to prevent the type of governance the Progressives demand…the enslaved and the enlightened.

There is no in-between.

coldwarrior on January 12, 2013 at 6:49 PM

Show me ONE registration system that has solved a crime because the gun is registered. There aren’t any. Why? because criminals dont register guns… You fools! =)

TX-96
on January 12, 2013 at 6:06 PM

.
Let’s not forget that Chicago is a “gun free” city and yet chalked up the most gun-related deaths last year.

Jews in Poland went along with registration systems back in the late 1930s. How’d that work out?

Happy Nomad on January 12, 2013 at 6:15 PM

.
“Devil’s Advocate” here; … The liberals claim it’s our fault for not making EVERYPLACE (the whole country) a “gun-free zone”. Criminals can easily acquire firearms outside the current “gun-free zones”, and smuggle them in.
If we would just let them make the WHOLE COUNTRY one BIG gun-free zone, criminals would have NO PLACE to acquire guns, and the world would be a better place to live ! … : ) … (insert liberal celebratory music, HERE )
.
Of course it’s a bunch of (expletive), but that’s their meme.

listens2glenn on January 12, 2013 at 6:58 PM

tell all those gun owners in New york why its a good idea to give the press access to a database on who owns a gun. The media publishing those names and address is reason enough that noone should have that information.

Also whenever Germany invaded a country the first thing they did was go to the local records and visit the gun owners to disarm them.

We don’t need to know who has a gun.

wonder what the KKK would have did with that type of information during the civl rights movement?

imagine a friendly government offical giving the database to a “kkk” type of group who then precedes to round up or disarm an entire minority group before they start terrorizing them…..oh wait that what Hitler did to the jews before the night of broken glass.

unseen on January 12, 2013 at 5:56 PM

It’s why the (original) Red Dawn movie featured a scene where the commie invaders head to the gun store ‘to get the forms 4473…’

And the modern KGB – Google – will gladly hand the data to our Marxist dominated government. No warrants necessary.

rayra on January 12, 2013 at 7:00 PM

It isn’t a gun show loophole, it’s a private seller loophole.

 
Also sometimes referred to as “the law”.
 
Straight from the federal government.
 
I’m sure such an informed and unbiased administration will get it right this time and with no unintended consequences, though.

rogerb on January 12, 2013 at 7:01 PM

Warning! Graphic pics from Twitchy…we live amongst evil…whoever did this is pure evil. I will keep my guns.

d1carter on January 12, 2013 at 6:50 PM

Absolutely disgusting..

In my neck of the woods, a couple years ago, we had some horses that were shot by arrows…

Evil cannot be regulated or controlled by a central Government..

Only willing participants can be..

Electrongod on January 12, 2013 at 7:02 PM

Last I looked, gun shows consist of lots of folks selling guns, and lots of folks buying guns, together in one location.

Also, last I looked, there is a thing called the internet, which enables access to a criminal database to anyone who has the proper equipment.

It would take very little effort to set up a universal hub at a gun show to which all dealers, large and small, registered or private have access, perhaps for a small fee.

Mr. Arkadin on January 12, 2013 at 6:13 PM

. Yes but the government won’t make that freely available, without making it compulsory and a component of registration, which is their entire goal.

rayra on January 12, 2013 at 7:05 PM

This thread needs Theme Music,(sarc).

Wild, Wild West – The Escape Club

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8W9uvhdFZY

canopfor on January 12, 2013 at 7:07 PM

So, what happens when I do a criminal background check? Do I have to check the box marked “prospective gun owner”? Do I have to go back and type “sale confirmed”?

Mr. Arkadin on January 12, 2013 at 6:29 PM

Don’t be obtuse. The govt wants the info EITHER WAY.

rayra on January 12, 2013 at 7:11 PM

Happy Nomad on January 12, 2013 at 6:15 PM

Lest we forget, which is obvious we won’t, here goes a little reminder:

The history of gun registration has eventually led to gun confiscation and frequently to death.

Those who ridicule 2nd Amendment gun advocates that private ownership of guns is for the protection against domestic threats both private and public need only look at the last century, the first century of our modern era:

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.

(Stats via Paul Howe)

I am mindful that this is probably not a total number, that’s hard to find. Zimbabwe is missing off this list, as are other so-called ‘democratic’ nations who have enacted confiscation thus far namely the UK Australia Canada Germany and others.

Here’s a linky for you:
http://sherriequestioningall.blogspot.com/2012/12/lets-revisit-revolutionary-war-what-led.html

Why is it unreasonable to consider that gun registrations have traditionally provided governments with a convenient list for rounding up guns and non-conformists?

Scrumpy on January 12, 2013 at 7:16 PM

Warning! Graphic pics from Twitchy…we live amongst evil…whoever did this is pure evil. I will keep my guns.

d1carter on January 12, 2013 at 6:50 PM

.
For some reason, I’m reminded of Marcus Lutrell’s dog. : (

But at least he (and the Police) caught those guys.

listens2glenn on January 12, 2013 at 7:21 PM

I suppose that shouldn’t surprise us all that much. But there’s one more aspect to the whole background check and registration thing which doesn’t get quite as much attention. Why would anyone object to gun registration?
====================

The Canadian DeBauckle!

Gary Mauser: Why the long-gun registry doesn’t work — and never did
Dec 12 2011
***********

Gun laws generally tend to be passed during periods of fear or instability,

and only occasionally reversed afterwards. In 1913, for instance, a fear of immigrants prompted Ottawa’s first serious handgun legislation, requiring civilians to obtain a police-issued permit to acquire or carry handguns. Non-British immigrants found it difficult to get a permit.

n 2002, the auditor-general revealed that the Firearms Centre had grown out of control.

Despite political promises that the program would not cost over $2-million,

costs were expected to exceed $1-billion by 2005.

By 2012, this had ballooned to $2.7-billion.

The auditor-general uncovered irregularities including mismanagement and corruption. Her findings stimulated a parliamentary revolt. In 2003, Parliament imposed an annual spending cap. The auditors’ reports led to RCMP investigations of Liberal insiders and contributed to the fall of the Liberal government in 2006.

To this day, it has been claimed that the registry is important in protecting women.

But in fact, there is no convincing evidence that registering firearms has been effective in reducing either homicide rates overall, or spousal murders in particular.
(More….)
==========

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/12/11/gary-mauser-why-the-long-gun-registry-doesnt-work-and-never-did/

Even though homicide rates have been gradually falling since the 1970s,

canopfor on January 12, 2013 at 7:25 PM

Warning! Graphic pics from Twitchy…we live amongst evil…whoever did this is pure evil. I will keep my guns.

d1carter on January 12, 2013 at 6:50 PM

d1carter:Yup,sicko SOB,oh (sarc),time to ban arrows!:)

canopfor on January 12, 2013 at 7:28 PM

Even though homicide rates have been gradually falling since the 1970s,

canopfor on January 12, 2013 at 7:25 PM

Attrition is a funny thing…after a while, a whole lot of people you’d love to shoot full of wholes back in the 60′s just aren’t around after the first, maybe second, go ’round.

The rest?

Once the word gets out that you’d rather not be screwed with…the word gets out.

:-)

coldwarrior on January 12, 2013 at 7:29 PM

full of wholes?

OK…should be holes.

It is the mega-dosages of Norco they’ve got me on.

:-)

coldwarrior on January 12, 2013 at 7:31 PM

I think we need to close the stupidity and Marxist loophole in our government.

That would go a long way to solving a lot of our problems.

JellyToast on January 12, 2013 at 7:34 PM

Timin203 on January 12, 2013 at 6:39 PM

You make a perfectly valid point. But I am not referring to private sales between individuals. I am referring to Jazz’s perfectly pointless point above, that the gunshow loophole is really a “private sales” loophole, because, while big dealers at a show already must perform background checks at the show, small private dealers don’t because, well, they are small and private.

The gun show loophole made sense in a pre computer, pre internet age. It now makes no sense at all.

Requiring all sellers at a gun show to perform spot background checks before the purchase of a firearm is a tiny concession to make, and one that I think most 2nd amendment advocates could get behind.

Mr. Arkadin on January 12, 2013 at 7:40 PM

Arkiden seems to not understand basic facts already appearing in the original article. All dealers already do background checks whether at a “gun show” or not, under current law. The term “gun show loophole” is a deliberately misleading bumper sticker slogan.

States with the requirement for banning all private sales do not see any improvement in crime rates from that. As should be obvious because its impossible to enforce in practice and only burdens the law abiding.

SPQR on January 12, 2013 at 7:44 PM

Arkiden, there is no such thing as “small private dealers”.

SPQR on January 12, 2013 at 7:45 PM

The gun show loophole made sense in a pre computer, pre internet age. It now makes no sense at all.

Requiring all sellers at a gun show to perform spot background checks before the purchase of a firearm is a tiny concession to make, and one that I think most 2nd amendment advocates could get behind.

Mr. Arkadin on January 12, 2013 at 7:40 PM

So, basically you’re saying that all private sellers should have to perform background checks before they sell their guns to anyone, because, “in the internet age” that would only be “reasonable”.

Sorry. I won’t go with that. And gun show laws are for each state to decide. Federal background checks are a different level of government. Do you want background checks for all knife sales, too? Why not. In “the internet age” it’s easy and “a tiny concession” … and knives are very dangerous weapons, especially in the hands of a husband or wife with spousal murder on their mind. I guess we should have background checks for drain cleaner, too. That’s some nasty stuff that can kill pretty easily …

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on January 12, 2013 at 7:47 PM

…a gun thread with less than a hundred comments!
…is that a record?

KOOLAID2 on January 12, 2013 at 7:49 PM

…a gun thread with less than a hundred comments!
…is that a record?

KOOLAID2 on January 12, 2013 at 7:49 PM

“If this thread was a clip…

We would be heading in the right direction..” – Senator Feinstein

Electrongod on January 12, 2013 at 7:52 PM

Did Holder keep a list of the Mexican drug lords he supplied fully automatic weapons to? It really is a shame these great ideas weren’t instituted then.

trs on January 12, 2013 at 7:53 PM

KOOLAID2 on January 12, 2013 at 7:49 PM

We are gunning for a winner here!! ;-)

Scrumpy on January 12, 2013 at 7:53 PM

Did Holder keep a list of the Mexican drug lords he supplied fully automatic weapons to? It really is a shame these great ideas weren’t instituted then.

trs on January 12, 2013 at 7:53 PM

Every time that F&F fiasco is brought up my blood boils. Before any more gun control measures are discussed I want those on our side to bring that little issue up Loud and Clear.

arnold ziffel on January 12, 2013 at 8:07 PM

Requiring all sellers at a gun show to perform spot background checks before the purchase of a firearm is a tiny concession to make, and one that I think most 2nd amendment advocates could get behind.

Mr. Arkadin on January 12, 2013 at 7:40 PM

Under current law, any size dealer has to do a background check. The “gun show loophole” doesn’t exist. The only possible “loop hole” they are talking about is private sales. Yes, these occasionally occur at gun shows, but you’re painting with a very broad brush when you start getting in to private transactions between two people.

Timin203 on January 12, 2013 at 8:10 PM

SPQR on January 12, 2013 at 7:44 PM

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on January 12, 2013 at 7:47 PM

I did not say there is such a thing as “small private dealers”. Jazz did, in the article above. Perhaps I should qualify this as “small private sellers.” It is Jazz who asserts that “at a gun show” these small private sellers do not have to do spot background checks, while registered dealers must.

By claiming that the “gun show loophole” is really a “private seller loophole”, Jazz allows the issue of background checks to be pushed beyond the realm of a gun show, which is a mistake.

I am merely saying that, in the internet age, there is no reason for the gun show loophole to exist. Private sales between individuals outside the realm gun shows are another matter.

Mr. Arkadin on January 12, 2013 at 8:16 PM

No, Arkadin, “small private dealers” as a phrase is meaningless under your attempt to claim that there is some benefit to requiring private parties who are not dealers to conduct background checks at gun shows. The terminology is specific. A dealer who is unlicensed is already in violation of current law.

Requiring private parties selling at a gun show to conduct a background check is unenforceable. Illegitimate sales can occur in the parking lot, or later after an exchange of phone numbers. Your proposal remains silly and only shows your ignorance of the issue.

SPQR on January 12, 2013 at 8:22 PM

Bottom line: There is no such thing as a “gun show loophole”. That’s an intentional fraud perpetuated by gun control groups and dishonest media.

SPQR on January 12, 2013 at 8:23 PM

I am merely saying that, in the internet age, there is no reason for the gun show loophole to exist. Private sales between individuals outside the realm gun shows are another matter.

Mr. Arkadin on January 12, 2013 at 8:16 PM

There’s no “loophole” any more than there’s a “loophole” in that I can sell you a gun, privately. We met on the internet (where it’s easy for a single seller and buyer to meet) and can effect a private transaction. Your call would be the same as saying that all private transactions must include a background check. As I said, if you think that’s “reasonable” and made easy by the internet then similar background checks for private knife sales are just as reasonable. And drain cleaner and the rest.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on January 12, 2013 at 8:25 PM

The first question (there are of course many more) to ask regarding each anti-gun proposal: which shooting incident(s) would the proposal have prevented?

Barnestormer on January 12, 2013 at 8:26 PM

Timin203 on January 12, 2013 at 8:10 PM

If the gun show loophole does not exist, why does the left think it does?

If the gun show loophole does not exist, why do gun rights advocates pitch a fit anytime someone suggests it be closed?

If the gun show loophole is a fantasy in the minds of dumb leftists, gun rights advocates should embrace closing it. Make a big deal of it. Get the NRA to sign off on it. Go on all the talk shows and claim the yes, by God, we have now seen the light and agree to close the gun show loophole.

You look great, you look reasonable, you take the wind out of the other team’s sails, and you aren’t really doing anything to damage your own cause.

Mr. Arkadin on January 12, 2013 at 8:29 PM

The ATF has already been caught holding on to info of who got background checks for longer then they’re supposed to, does anyone have any doubt that the government keeps those records?

Timin203 on January 12, 2013 at 6:39 PM

There’s a whole, huge building over in West Virginia that serves just that purpose.

And another in Arlington, Va., that’s not so large.

Solaratov on January 12, 2013 at 8:31 PM

Arkadin. you glittering jewel of colossal ignorance…

face to face sales by private citizens do not need to be regulated.

tom daschle concerned on January 12, 2013 at 8:36 PM

Mr. Arkadin on January 12, 2013 at 8:29 PM

What are you saying? Do you want a feral law that says that only registered dealers can be represented at gun shows in all states? Are you in favor of federal legislation dictating that issue of state responsibility? Do you think that all gun law should just come from the feral government and the states ought to just get out of it? What is it that you want done?

Also, are you in favor of background checks for knife sales, since knives are deadly weapons and the internet makes such checks so easy? How about cars? There are lots of people who can’t pass gun checks but can still own cars, which are extremely dangerous weapons if one decides to use one that way. If someone runs over a street full of people should we start having feral background checks for all people before they can buy or rent cars? After all, 2500 pounds of metal barreling down at 60 mph is a lot of weapon.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on January 12, 2013 at 8:36 PM

Now we could certainly have a discussion about stopping people from acting as professional dealers under the guise of private sellers if they are seeking to avoid the normal commerce laws applicable to store owners.

We already do that. The BATF regularly dispatches under-cover agents to gun shows to arrest private gun owners for selling 5 guns instead of 4 and throwing them in federal prison for being an “unlicensed gun dealer”.

As for gun registration, it’s really hard to come up with a coherent reason for it when you consider that criminals are exempt from it. Since criminals can’t legally be in possession of guns, requiring them to register them would violate their 5th Amendment rights against self-incrimination. (Hayes v. US) So the only purpose for a gun registry would be to arrest people who otherwise have broken no laws. Think David Gregory on steroids.

Well, that and knowing where all the guns are when it’s time to confiscate them, that is.

Socratease on January 12, 2013 at 8:37 PM

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on January 12, 2013 at 8:25 PM

Again, I am only responding to what Jazz wrote above. Presumably, small private gun sellers were once exempt from having to perform background checks because they did not have ready access to such information, or that gaining such access would be unduly complicated and economically prohibitive.

Now, in the internet age, small private sellers who are selling at a gun show could have easy access to the same information previously only available to large dealers, because everyone is massed in one location. There is no longer any reason not to expand the need for spot background checks to all transactions that occur at a gun show.

I can easily argue that requiring spot background checks for all private gun sales outside the realm of gun shows continues to be unduly burdensome and wholly impractical.

Mr. Arkadin on January 12, 2013 at 8:42 PM

Arkadin, you seem to want to make “Not Getting The Point” into an Olympic sport.

I will reiterate the points you seem to pretend not to understand:

The “Gun Show Loophole” is a fraud because (1) gun shows are not exempt from the Brady Act – background checks are made in the same cases as outside of a gun show, (2) it isn’t a “loophole” because the GCA of ’68 and the Brady Act never applied to private parties of their own terms.

Any more than there is a “Craigslist loophole”, or a “Weekly Newspaper Classified Ad loophole”.

SPQR on January 12, 2013 at 8:44 PM

Presumably, small private gun sellers were once exempt from having to perform background checks because they did not have ready access to such information, or that gaining such access would be unduly complicated and economically prohibitive.

Your presumption is false. Private parties were exempt from performing background checks because Federal law did not regulate transactions between private parties who were residents of the same state at all.

SPQR on January 12, 2013 at 8:47 PM

So, what happens when I do a criminal background check? Do I have to check the box marked “prospective gun owner”? Do I have to go back and type “sale confirmed”?

The background check for gun sales (NICS, National Instant Check System) is a system set up by the Brady law that is operated by BATFE exclusively for gun dealers to do the required background checks on gun buyers. All background checks for other purposes (employment, etc) are completely separate from this system.
The dealer calls a special number used exclusively for NICS and if the sale is ok’d, ATF gives the dealer an authorization number which is written on the Form 4473 at the time of the sale.

I am merely saying that, in the internet age, there is no reason for the gun show loophole to exist.

And people are trying to make you understand that there is no gun show loophole. The laws are exactly the same in gun shows as they are everywhere else. Licensed dealers are required to do a Brady check. Individuals selling one or two of their own guns are not, unless required by state law.

Private sales between individuals outside the realm gun shows are another matter.

Why? The law doesn’t change depending on the venue of the sale.

single stack on January 12, 2013 at 8:49 PM

I am referring to Jazz’s perfectly pointless point above, that the gunshow loophole is really a “private sales” loophole, because, while big dealers at a show already must perform background checks at the show, small private dealers don’t because, well, they are small and private.

The gun show loophole made sense in a pre computer, pre internet age. It now makes no sense at all.

Mr. Arkadin on January 12, 2013 at 7:40 PM

Don’t be obtuse. ANY dealer – large, small or in-between – who is licensed by the government (FFL) as a “dealer”, is subject to the same laws and must phone in for the ‘instant background check’.

PRIVATE SELLERS – individuals who are not dealers – can make sales to other individuals. They cannot, however, truck in a hundred firearms, set up a booth and proceed to sell those guns. Quantity is the “regulator” there. Private sales involve one or two guns and are from one private person to another.

There is NO SUCH THING AS A “GUN SHOW LOOPHOLE”! Unless, of course, one is a lying leftist trying to propagandize those who don’t know any better.

Would you consider it a “reasonable requirement” that you perform a background check on someone who wanted to buy a car from you? After all, cars kill a LOT more people than guns, and the person who wants to buy your car might be prohibited from driving because of habitual drunk driving.

Solaratov on January 12, 2013 at 8:53 PM

Jazz Shaw writes like teenagers do chores.

Half-arsed and forced.

SD Tom on January 12, 2013 at 8:54 PM

Requiring all sellers at a gun show to perform spot background checks before the purchase of a firearm is a tiny concession to make, and one that I think most 2nd amendment advocates could get behind.

Mr. Arkadin on January 12, 2013 at 7:40 PM

In your statist dreams.

Solaratov on January 12, 2013 at 8:55 PM

The same Government that wants to control our guns is doing such a fine job of controlling spending!
No wonder the shelves are bare and I can’t get either of the new ones i want.

ConcealedKerry on January 12, 2013 at 9:00 PM

Requiring all sellers at a gun show to perform spot background checks before the purchase of a firearm is a tiny concession to make

It’s those “tiny concessions” over time that have accumulated and put our liberty in peril.

Do you know how to boil a frog?

single stack on January 12, 2013 at 9:05 PM

You look great, you look reasonable, you take the wind out of the other team’s sails, and you aren’t really doing anything to damage your own cause.

Mr. Arkadin on January 12, 2013 at 8:29 PM

You’re not a gun guy, are you?

Solaratov on January 12, 2013 at 9:07 PM

Monday, Obama will raise his hands and say, “Let the demagoguery begin.” and then they’ll be coming out of the woodwork calling anyone who doesn’t think like them a person who wants those children to have died in vain.

bflat879 on January 12, 2013 at 9:18 PM

Mr. Arkadin on January 12, 2013 at 7:40 PM

A “dealer” is described in law. “Dealers” are people engaged in trade as a business, whether full-time, or part-time. There is no such thing as a small, private “dealer”; what you mean to call that individual is a “seller”. A private individual is allowed, under Federal Law and Regulation, to dispose of his/her private collection in an incidental manner, as long as he/she is not engaged “in trade” – the ATF uses a benchmark of 6 sales a year. More than that, and you may have some questions to answer, and be subject to prosecution for being an unlicensed dealer.
As has been stated previously, all DEALERS are required to conduct a background check on a prospective purchaser, and have that individual fill out Form-4473 as a permanent record of the transaction – no matter where the transaction occurs.

Another Drew on January 12, 2013 at 9:28 PM

When you go to one of these shows, there are sellers of all kinds. Some of them are dealers who bring large amounts of stock of various types to sell. And many of them will have some pretty high end, high tech weapons for sale. But here’s the thing… they are registered dealers, most of whom have regular store front operations, and they still have to do a spot background check before the sale.

But there are also other folks there who may only have a few – or even one – gun for sale. Some of them are collectors who are getting rid of their collections. Others may simply no longer have a need for their old hunting rifle and could use the cash. And they largely don’t have access to the system for doing an instant background check. That’s why the so called “loophole” exists. It isn’t a gun show loophole, it’s a private seller loophole.

For all of you b*tching at me, b*tch at Jazz Shaw. He wrote the original article, not me. I am reacting to it.

You’re not a gun guy, are you?

Solaratov on January 12, 2013 at 9:07 PM

Wrong. You, on the other hand, appear to be a hysterical idiot. Single Stack just taught me something I didn’t know. You are just boring.

Mr. Arkadin on January 12, 2013 at 9:29 PM

Presumably, small private gun sellers were once exempt from having to perform background checks

Prior to passage of the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA-68) there was no Federal requirement for any kind of check or record keeping – it was strictly a State issue.
And, there was no such thing as a Federal Firearms License (FFL).

Another Drew on January 12, 2013 at 9:33 PM

I’m in Texas. Bought my first gun today. No registration, just background check. Bring it.

mimi1220 on January 12, 2013 at 9:37 PM

Jazz Shaw writes like teenagers do chores.

Half-arsed and forced.

SD Tom on January 12, 2013 at 8:54 PM

Get lost, start your own brilliant blog, and quit trolling.

Oh wait, that would require you to have the writing ability that God gave a talented 6th-grader and the IQ of a houseplant.

MelonCollie on January 12, 2013 at 9:45 PM

I am merely saying that, in the internet age, there is no reason for the gun show loophole to exist. Private sales between individuals outside the realm gun shows are another matter.

Mr. Arkadin on January 12, 2013 at 8:16 PM

How about f’n FREEDOM and LIBERTY and NOT HAVING MY GUN TRANSACTIONS RECORDED BY THE GOVERNMENT. You f’n assclown.

rayra on January 12, 2013 at 9:48 PM

Jazz Shaw writes like teenagers do chores.

Half-arsed and forced.

SD Tom on January 12, 2013 at 8:54 PM

Hear hear. His/her/its shit is invariably incomplete and sloppy as hell. Jazz doesn’t have anything but a superficial knowledge of the RKBA situation and I’ve flushed better analyses of the issue. Jazz’s commentaries on RKBA are strictly peanut-gallery level. Makes me wonder if the rest of the topic areas Jazz writes about are just as ill-served.

rayra on January 12, 2013 at 9:54 PM

[Leave Jazz alone!!1!]

MelonCollie on January 12, 2013 at 9:45 PM

Shut up, you fool.

rayra on January 12, 2013 at 9:57 PM

I am merely saying that, in the internet age, there is no reason for the gun show loophole to exist.

Mr. Arkadin

Stand and cheer happily then, because the gun show loophole doesn’t exist.

xblade on January 12, 2013 at 10:16 PM

Shut up, you fool.

rayra on January 12, 2013 at 9:57 PM

Come and make me, wh0respawn. You couldn’t shut up a stray dog.

MelonCollie on January 12, 2013 at 10:58 PM

I’m in Texas. Bought my first gun today. No registration, just background check. Bring it.

mimi1220 on January 12, 2013 at 9:37 PM

But I’m wondering if the background check is the same thing as a registration because our names must almost certainly now be in a database of some kind? I doubt that in this day and age with all the emphasis on computer info that they would purge your name right after the check is done?

Dr. ZhivBlago on January 12, 2013 at 11:01 PM

For all of you b*tching at me, b*tch at Jazz Shaw. He wrote the original article, not me. I am reacting to it.

Mr. Arkadin on January 12, 2013 at 9:29 PM

Whatever Jazz wrote may not have been clear, or he may have chosen the wrong words. You, on the other hand, have had the facts explained to you over and over, yet seem to be determined to display a level of willful ignorance never before seen by humankind.

That, or you’re the reincarnation of Emily Litella.

There is no gun show loophole. It’s a falsehood made up by the anti-gun lobby to push for background checks for firearm sales between private individuals–which would amount to de facto registration of firearms.

Which would undoubtedly be followed by confiscation.

Now do you understand?

PetecminMd on January 12, 2013 at 11:01 PM

“If this thread was a clip…

We would be heading in the right direction..” – Senator Feinstein

Electrongod on January 12, 2013 at 7:52 PM

We are gunning for a winner here!! ;-)

Scrumpy on January 12, 2013 at 7:53 PM

…LOL!…both funny!…

KOOLAID2 on January 12, 2013 at 11:18 PM

Shut up, you fool.

rayra on January 12, 2013 at 9:57 PM

Come and make me, wh0respawn. You couldn’t shut up a stray dog.

MelonCollie on January 12, 2013 at 10:58 PM

…BE NICE!

…(trying to get to 100!)

KOOLAID2 on January 13, 2013 at 12:46 AM

It would take very little effort to set up a universal hub at a gun show to which all dealers, large and small, registered or private have access, perhaps for a small fee.

Mr. Arkadin on January 12, 2013 at 6:13 PM

And you’re just going to let anyone walk up and run a check on anyone else? Wow, that wouldn’t be abused at all. One of the aspects of the “background check” system currently in place is that only licensed firearms dealers can access it. This is one of the reasons the “loophole” was left in there when that law was written – even the Democrat gun-grabbers couldn’t see their way to just opening the database to any old Schmoe.

GWB on January 13, 2013 at 1:10 AM

I am referring to Jazz’s perfectly pointless point above, that the gunshow loophole is really a “private sales” loophole, because, while big dealers at a show already must perform background checks at the show, small private dealers don’t because, well, they are small and private.

Mr. Arkadin on January 12, 2013 at 7:40 PM

No. If they are *dealers* they must do the background check. If they are not *dealers*, but merely private *sellers*, then they do not have to do a background check. You keep conflating the two.

GWB on January 13, 2013 at 1:19 AM

Loopholes. Hmmmm. How about closing the loopholes that enabled Fast and Furious, the Benghazi debacle or the pillaging of our Treasury? Or perhaps closing the loophole that exists between liberals ears? OK, that may be impossible. I can still dream, can’t I?

ghostwalker1 on January 13, 2013 at 1:33 AM

Comment pages: 1 2