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

I did not say there is such a thing as “small private dealers”. Jazz did, in the article above.

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

No, he didn’t. At least not where I can find it – by reading, or using search. You were the only person to use that phrase.

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.

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

It’s not an assertion, it’s the law.

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. ….

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

Wow, that’s ignorant. The crowd thinks it exists because the leftists in the media keep telling them it exists. Why? Because they want to register all handgun sales, so they can eventually keep a registration database for purposes of confiscation at a later point. The reason we pitch a fit when they talk about it is because IT DOESN’T EXIST! It, therefore, can’t be closedexcept by requiring all firearms purchases, everywhere, by everyone, be recorded.

Do you want a feral law ….

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on January 12, 2013 at 8:36 PM

Heh. That made me chuckle. :)

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

They are supposed to purge the info after a certain period of time. But, they have been caught not doing so and aggregating the information elsewhere.

GWB on January 13, 2013 at 1:36 AM

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

When will you gun nuts stop comparing weapons and cars?
Cars weren’t designed to kill people!
You’re more dead when you’re shot.

soundingboard on January 13, 2013 at 1:40 AM

DIRNAST?^
/

soundingboard on January 13, 2013 at 1:43 AM

If they do pass a “universal check law” it will be done through a requirement that all private sales must be made through a FFL holder (licensed dealer for those who may not know) with a Form 4473 and a call to NICS, complete with an authorization number like dealers with sales in their stores or at gun shows do now. The requirement will include gifts to family members or friends. You and a buddy want to swap guns? See ya at the gun shop. Don’t forget the fee the dealer is going to charge each of you.
Expect massive disobedience if this crap becomes law.

single stack on January 13, 2013 at 2:39 AM

single stack,
“massive disobedience” is an understatement.
Even those “law abiding” Brits only gave up 15% of their weapoms during the confiscation.
The schmucks in power do not understand America’s attachment to the ideal of Liberty and Freedom.
III/0317

dirtengineer on January 13, 2013 at 3:01 AM

dirtengineer on January 13, 2013 at 3:01 AM

You got that right. I know cops who say they won’t obey or enforce any new gun laws.
One thing the gun grabbers need to understand – there are a lot people preparing to do very nasty things to them.
This massive purchase of guns and ammo isn’t being done by people who expect to give them up. This is a society preparing for war.

single stack on January 13, 2013 at 5:43 AM

Lets put another ineffective law on the books to harass the innocent… those wishing to get guns for criminal purposes can get them cheaper on the streets.

And the onus of the law is that the seller is required to do the minimum of getting contact information for a private sale enough so that the person you are selling to has no apparent criminal background, mental problems or other such prohibiting conditions. Since most people will first go in-family or in-neighborhood, they have a better overview of their potential buyer than the NICS does. It is the rarity of private sales at gun shows that is the point here… when you want to sell a perfectly legal product to someone who is legally allowed to own it you don’t need the government to get in the way of that sale. This isn’t about ‘gun shows’ it is removing you liberty to sell a product you have owned to someone who can legally own it without the overhead involved. Imagine if we treated cars like we do guns… the average person has no idea of just how many gun laws there ALREADY ARE and how restrictive they are, to boot.

ajacksonian on January 13, 2013 at 8:11 AM

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

They run everything in my name, not theirs. So from what I understand after asking that similar question, the guy told me that it only shows that a background check was conducted – it does not say why or through whom. I’ve had background checks done recently anyway due to where I work.

mimi1220 on January 13, 2013 at 8:29 AM

Just like dear leader promised to have electric bills skyrocket, the price of guns and ammo are skyrocketing. Every thing this guy touches makes it cost more or go out of business. The fact that Biden ignores facts about gun use and crime and the compliant media goes along with all of it, churning up emotions all the way, is what we are all fearful of. The new rules and regulations are coming and we don’t won’t to have to criminalize ourselves to live as a free people, but we will. Has Biteme turned in his Beretta yet?

Kissmygrits on January 13, 2013 at 8:48 AM

There needs to be a national discussion on TOO MUCH GOVERNMENT.

albill on January 13, 2013 at 9:28 AM

It’s not the weapons the left is really after although they want you to believe it is so they can continue on with their real goal. And while the left is publicly targeting weapons their real goal of taking away ammunition is being accomplished at warp speed.

bgibbs1000 on January 13, 2013 at 9:49 AM

Oh, Geez, sorry Komisar Biden. I sold my gun(s) already. Nope, no guns in this house. “In” being the key word. I never said anything about them being buried in the back yard, yet easily accessable.

Gun confiscation? So, they are going to break down my door and “confiscate” them? or, are they going to rely on me to willfully turn them in? Last I checked, I’m willfully unreliable.

RandallinHerndon on January 13, 2013 at 10:03 AM

And while the left is publicly targeting weapons their real goal of taking away ammunition is being accomplished at warp speed.

bgibbs1000 on January 13, 2013 at 9:49 AM

Exactly, which is why I am buying ammo in bulk as often as I can.

RandallinHerndon on January 13, 2013 at 10:05 AM

I don’t think the government should be able to infringe on someone’s right to sell their gun. If you say we have the right to keep and bear arms but not the right to buy and sell arms, then the loophole is all yours.

Buddahpundit on January 13, 2013 at 10:10 AM

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

Those “records” are allegedly purged in short order, it’s the LAW.
(as if that means anything to the Ø’Cabal)
Maybe some day, an ATF whistle-blower will tell us about the secret database.
Keep pushing, Adolph Øligula!
Meanwhile, rots o’ruck to those who aren’t already well-prepared.
~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on January 13, 2013 at 10:36 AM

“Loophole” is a misnomer. There is no “gun show loophole”. It is within the law to allow for private sales of firearms. It is just like saying I am not going to by a car from a dealer, but instead a private citizen as to avoid the new car ‘loophole’.

Absurd.

nazo311 on January 13, 2013 at 11:15 AM

Things get sold in parking lots all the time.

Chainsaws, Deer, IDs, women, children…we really should pass laws against that too.

Something must be done.

For The Children.

CorporatePiggy on January 13, 2013 at 11:15 AM

Saw a great one over at AoSHQ today:

Shotguns are for hunting;
Pistols are for personal protection;
Assault weapons are for when the government tries to disarm us.

ss396 on January 13, 2013 at 11:16 AM

They must shut down private transfers. That way, if you ever enter the database for owning a gun, they can come collect it. Private transfers means that Bobby can trade his Luger to David for his Colt .45, and Gasp!) the Government doesn’t KNOW! When it comes time to collect the guns, a nice neat database will help guide the “Collection Officer”.

God help you if you don’t have it anymore. Then you are a “black market dealer” and Jamal awaits you in prison.

Bulletchaser on January 13, 2013 at 11:35 AM

Of Course they know what guns you have. What do you think those BATF 4473 forms GO? They are copied and then sent to your local police dept so that when its time to collect them and you don’t have them, well you are Selected.

Remember “Red Dawn” when the invading Army told its Officers to go to the Police Station and look up “form 4473″? Name, address and serial number of gun.

Bulletchaser on January 13, 2013 at 11:42 AM

When will you gun nuts stop comparing weapons and cars?
Cars weren’t designed to kill people!
You’re more dead when you’re shot.

soundingboard on January 13, 2013 at 1:40 AM

So…people who kill people with cars are innovators?

btw, nutburger, dead is dead. There’s no ‘more or less dead’.

Solaratov on January 13, 2013 at 11:42 AM

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

Awww. Poor arkadin is all butthurt. Poor baby.

You’re either a fool who is willing to accede to over-regulation by the state because you don’t know any better…or you’re an anti-gun troll who thinks it’s presenting arguments that might persuade others to give up their rights.
I’m leaning toward the troll explanation. Nobody can be as dense as you.

Solaratov on January 13, 2013 at 11:50 AM

soundingboard on January 13, 2013 at 1:40 AM

Personally, and I’ve said it before, more people die from forks than anything else and we simply MUST regulate them. Forks cause obesity. Look at all the people forks hill every single year! We must especially regulate and perhaps even ban “High Capacity” “Military Style” “Assault Forks.” After all, who needs one of these anyway?

Everything put forward by the socialists on this topic is absurd on its face and we must mock, laugh at and ridicule these knuckleheads at every opportunity.

We must point out the arrogance and ignorance of their statements and positions.

Liberty is hard. It seems common sense is too.

dogsoldier on January 13, 2013 at 12:13 PM

I’m willfully unreliable.

RandallinHerndon on January 13, 2013 at 10:03 AM

Bwahhahahahha!!!! I’m gonna steal, er have to confiscate that.

ghostwalker1 on January 13, 2013 at 12:15 PM

You know civilian’s in 1776 were rifleman, it was the military who carried muskets.

Until WWII civilian’s commonly were better armed at least on an individual basis.

Speakup on January 13, 2013 at 12:24 PM

There needs to be a national discussion on TOO MUCH GOVERNMENT.

albill on January 13, 2013 at 9:28 AM

lol we just had that on Nov6 and 3/4 of the eligible public didn’t give a shit to stop it.

rayra on January 13, 2013 at 12:58 PM

lol we just had that on Nov6 and 3/4 of the eligible public didn’t give a shit to stop it.

rayra on January 13, 2013 at 12:58 PM

They actually did, but rampant vote fraud guaranteed a democrat win.

nazo311 on January 13, 2013 at 1:21 PM

When will you gun nuts stop comparing weapons and cars?
Cars weren’t designed to kill people!
You’re more dead when you’re shot.

soundingboard on January 13, 2013 at 1:40 AM

So…people who kill people with cars are innovators?
btw, nutburger, dead is dead. There’s no ‘more or less dead’.
Solaratov on January 13, 2013 at 11:42 AM

I’d like to know more about how to be less dead by getting run over by a car or truck. So if someone hits me with a car and kills me, I’ll only be a little dead vs like really really dead from a piece of lead? Can you be brought back to life easier if you’re “less dead”?

It doesn’t matter that cars were not designed to kill people. The simple fact is they actually do kill more people than guns. Why is that not a relevant concern in this debate? Politicians keep saying “we have to do something” and “even if it saves just one life its worth it” and other crap like that. Simple fact – rifles (as in assault rifles) kill a few thousand people a year in the US – cars/trucks kill over 38,000. If you’re so concerned about saving “just one life” – let’s start with the cars since they’re a much bigger problem.

dentarthurdent on January 13, 2013 at 1:37 PM

dentarthurdent on January 13, 2013 at 1:37 PM

My mistake – deaths in the US per year by rifles – i.e. “long guns” number only in the hundreds – not thousands.

dentarthurdent on January 13, 2013 at 1:48 PM

When will you gun nuts stop comparing weapons and cars?
Cars weren’t designed to kill people!
You’re more dead when you’re shot.

soundingboard on January 13, 2013 at 1:40 AM

So…people who kill people with cars are innovators?

btw, nutburger, dead is dead. There’s no ‘more or less dead’.

Solaratov on January 13, 2013 at 11:42 AM

DIRNAST?^
/

soundingboard on January 13, 2013 at 1:43 AM

^Do I Really Need A Sarc Tag?
/

soundingboard on January 13, 2013 at 1:51 PM

Loopholes. Hmmmm. How about closing the loopholes that enabled Fast and Furious, the Benghazi debacle or the pillaging of our Treasury?

Close the David Gregory Loophole!

Socratease on January 13, 2013 at 1:53 PM

We must point out the arrogance and ignorance of their statements and positions.

dogsoldier on January 13, 2013 at 12:13 PM

Kinda the point of the “more dead” phrase.

I do think it’s telling that the ignorant ranting of the hoplophobes from all corners of State Run Media has rendered sarcasm all but invisible.

soundingboard on January 13, 2013 at 2:02 PM

dentarthurdent on January 13, 2013 at 1:37 PM

soundingboard on January 13, 2013 at 1:51 PM

soundingboard on January 13, 2013 at 2:02 PM

soundingboard on January 13, 2013 at 2:04 PM

You’re more dead when you’re shot.

soundingboard on January 13, 2013 at 1:40 AM

So…people who kill people with cars are innovators?
btw, nutburger, dead is dead. There’s no ‘more or less dead’.

Solaratov on January 13, 2013 at 11:42 AM

I’d like to know more about how to be less dead by getting run over by a car or truck. So if someone hits me with a car and kills me, I’ll only be a little dead vs like really really dead from a piece of lead? Can you be brought back to life easier if you’re “less dead”?

dentarthurdent on January 13, 2013 at 1:37 PM

.
Haven’t you guys ever seen the “Pricess Bride”?

“He’s only ‘mostly dead’.
‘Mostly dead is still ‘slightlyalive’.”

.
Ok, here’s the deal, soundingboard . . . . . guns kill BY DESIGN. This included people before it did animals, as guns were a product of the “arms race” during the Dark Ages.
This fact did not somehow escape the notice of the Founding Fathers, when they wrote the Second Amendment.

They fully intended for ‘We The People’ to have privately owned deadly force.
I would further add, that advancements in weapons technology does not make null and void the Second Amendment.

listens2glenn on January 13, 2013 at 2:18 PM

I do think it’s telling that the ignorant ranting of the hoplophobes from all corners of State Run Media has rendered sarcasm all but invisible.

soundingboard on January 13, 2013 at 2:02 PM

.
OOPS . . . . . I’m sorry … (blushing)

listens2glenn on January 13, 2013 at 2:19 PM

soundingboard on January 13, 2013 at 2:04 PM

I have a custom built 308 bolt rifle that is “designed” to put 5 rounds into a very small hole on a paper target from hundreds of yards away. I find it quite “nutty” that you think of firearms purely as an object designed to kill people.

B-Ri on January 13, 2013 at 2:46 PM

B-Ri on January 13, 2013 at 2:46 PM

I do think it’s telling that the ignorant ranting of the hoplophobes from all corners of State Run Media has rendered sarcasm all but invisible.

soundingboard on January 13, 2013 at 2:02 PM

.

soundingboard on January 13, 2013 at 3:08 PM

listens2glenn on January 13, 2013 at 2:19 PM

;)

soundingboard on January 13, 2013 at 3:10 PM

Gasoline.

Bmore on January 13, 2013 at 3:17 PM

B-Ri on January 13, 2013 at 2:46 PM

listens2glenn on January 13, 2013 at 2:19 PM

Apparently my invisible sarc theory is correct. hah

It would be funnier if it weren’t so sadly true.

soundingboard on January 13, 2013 at 3:20 PM

soundingboard on January 13, 2013 at 1:51 PM

Ya know, sometimes, some folks, just don’t get it.

Now, how and where does “mostly dead” fit in?

coldwarrior on January 13, 2013 at 3:21 PM

Gasoline.

Bmore on January 13, 2013 at 3:17 PM

Happyland Social Club.

Perfect example of the dangers of assault fuel.

soundingboard on January 13, 2013 at 3:26 PM

coldwarrior on January 13, 2013 at 3:21 PM

lol

soundingboard on January 13, 2013 at 3:30 PM

Loopholes. Hmmmm. How about closing the loopholes that enabled Fast and Furious, the Benghazi debacle or the pillaging of our Treasury?

Close the David Gregory Loophole!

Socratease on January 13, 2013 at 1:53 PM

Or the loophole that allowed someone to get elected without any proof of citizenship…oh my bad, I guess Barry already cleared that up didn’t he?

Nutstuyu on January 13, 2013 at 4:33 PM

Of Course they know what guns you have. What do you think those BATF 4473 forms GO? They are copied and then sent to your local police dept so that when its time to collect them and you don’t have them, well you are Selected.

Remember “Red Dawn” when the invading Army told its Officers to go to the Police Station and look up “form 4473″? Name, address and serial number of gun.

This is incorrect.
Form 4473s are retained by the dealer as long as he is in business. Copies are not sent to the police unless required by local ordinance, and even then there are privacy act restrictions.
The dealer copies information from them to his “bound book” which must be retained for at least 20 years or he goes out of business, whichever occurs first.
He is required to make his Form 4473s and his bound book available for ATF inspection during business hours on request.
When a dealer goes out of business he is required to turn over the Form 4473s and his bound book to the ATF, where they are stored in a warehouse. One of the complaints of the Brady bunch is that they are not collated into a database.
Using Form 4473 in a registration scheme is specifically forbidden by federal law.

In Red Dawn the Cuban commander ordered his men to go to the gun stores to retrieve the Form 4473s, not the police station.

single stack on January 13, 2013 at 6:34 PM

I have an idea. Why not put people that commit violent crime with a firearm (if they’re not shot dead in self defense) in prison and leave them there.

mike_NC9 on January 13, 2013 at 7:12 PM

I have an idea. Why not put people that commit violent crime with a firearm (if they’re not shot dead in self defense) in prison and leave them there.

mike_NC9 on January 13, 2013 at 7:12 PM

I would be fine with the death penalty. Because if you deliberately and knowingly misuse a tool whose sole purposes are to intimidate or kill human beings, you’ve just declared yourself to be more dangerous to society than a rabid dog, and should be treated accordingly.

But then again, that would require us to have the balls to enforce the death penalty in the first place. And we don’t even do that anymore for convicted murderers.

MelonCollie on January 13, 2013 at 8:03 PM

Do I Really Need A Sarc Tag?
/

soundingboard on January 13, 2013 at 1:51 PM

Yes
1) I’ve never seen your name on here, at least not recently, so you’re not a well known satirist like Bishop.
2) Your comment looked exactly like the things the usual libtard trolls (like Libtardfree, bayam, and others) are actually saying on this subject – with no hint of sarcasm to it.

dentarthurdent on January 13, 2013 at 8:19 PM

When will you gun nuts stop comparing weapons and cars?
Cars weren’t designed to kill people!
You’re more dead when you’re shot.

soundingboard on January 13, 2013 at 1:40 AM

Haven’t you guys ever seen the “Pricess Bride”?
listens2glenn on January 13, 2013 at 2:18 PM

Yes – but soundingboard did a VERY poor job of referencing Princess Bride if that’s what was intended.
Look at his post and tell me how easily we’re supposed to get the Princess Bride “mostly dead is still partly alive” quote out of that.
Clearly not a Bishop level sarc master…..

dentarthurdent on January 13, 2013 at 8:24 PM

GWB on January 13, 2013 at 1:36 AM

I believe the gun show loophole actually might exist at the federal level. I think it depends on who is selling the firearm at the gun show. Some states, such as Colorado, have already closed that loophole years ago. In Colorado the same background check is required at a gun show as at any other gun dealer – at least if the seller is a licensed firearms dealer – which many/most of the sellers at gun shows are – in my personal experience. I don’t think the Colorado requirement applies to private person to person sales – i.e. no licensed firearms dealer involved.

dentarthurdent on January 13, 2013 at 8:32 PM

I believe the gun show loophole actually might exist at the federal level. I think it depends on who is selling the firearm at the gun show. Some states, such as Colorado, have already closed that loophole years ago. In Colorado the same background check is required at a gun show as at any other gun dealer – at least if the seller is a licensed firearms dealer – which many/most of the sellers at gun shows are – in my personal experience. I don’t think the Colorado requirement applies to private person to person sales – i.e. no licensed firearms dealer involved.

dentarthurdent on January 13, 2013 at 8:32 PM

The “loophole” is a citizen to citizen transaction. no dealers, no table, no background check. people take their firearms they want to trade or sell and walk around the gun show waiting to make a deal with someone. I usually see guys in camp with a hunting rifle slung over a shoulder with a price sticking out of the gun barrel. there would not be a background check if you walked up to him and offered cash. he would write a bill of sale and you would part ways.

tom daschle concerned on January 13, 2013 at 8:42 PM

I believe the gun show loophole actually might exist at the federal level.

It doesn’t. The Brady Law requiring a background check to buy a firearm is a federal law. The phrase “gun show loophole” is a lie created for propaganda purposes.

Some states, such as Colorado, have already closed that loophole years ago. In Colorado the same background check is required at a gun show as at any other gun dealer – at least if the seller is a licensed firearms dealer – which many/most of the sellers at gun shows are – in my personal experience. I don’t think the Colorado requirement applies to private person to person sales – i.e. no licensed firearms dealer involved.

No, Colorado didn’t close anything. Background checks by anyone “engaged in the business” of selling firearms, ie, federally licensed firearms dealers, ie, FFL (Federal Firearm License) holders, are required by federal law everywhere in the country – no exceptions. Where the sale takes place, whether it’s a brick-and-mortar store, a gun show, or the dealer’s home is irrelevant.
The Brady law does not require utilization of the NICS for people who are not engaged in the business of selling firearms and are selling a few guns (limited to 6/year, if memory serves) from a private collection.
State laws have nothing to do with it, though some states do regulate private sales.

single stack on January 13, 2013 at 9:02 PM

single stack on January 13, 2013 at 9:02 PM

From 2001, when this took effect:

http://www.wnd.com/2001/04/8681/

A new Colorado law that requires background checks for firearms purchases at gun shows has taken effect, though critics say the law will do little to stop gun-related violence.

The law, which took the form of a state constitutional amendment, passed overwhelmingly last November, the Denver Rocky Mountain News said yesterday. Passage of the law was boosted after news reports said Columbine killers Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris used weapons that were purchased by others at a gun show.

Under federal laws, all gun dealers — who are licensed by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms — have long been required to perform background checks on potential buyers. The information is sent to an FBI facility in West Virginia built especially for the purposes of complying with the federal requirements.

The paper said the new Colorado law extends the requirement to collectors, hobbyists, sportsmen and other “unlicensed dealers” who, in the past, could sell their guns to others without subjecting them to a check.

The paper added that some antique and collectible firearms are still exempt from the new law.

dentarthurdent on January 13, 2013 at 9:14 PM

The paper said the new Colorado law extends the requirement to collectors, hobbyists, sportsmen and other “unlicensed dealers” who, in the past, could sell their guns to others without subjecting them to a check.

Now that is going to work real well, “unlicensed dealers”? Are they going to arrest all the gang bangers now? or just the sportsmen?

stormridercx4 on January 13, 2013 at 9:26 PM

http://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/state-laws/colorado.aspx

Before a gun show vendor transfers or attempts to transfer a firearm at a gun show, he or she shall require that a background check, in accordance with the national instant criminal background check system, be conducted of the prospective transferee, and obtain approval of the transfer from the Colorado Bureau of Investigation through a licensed gun dealer. It is also unlawful to transfer a firearm if any part of the transaction takes place at a gun show, unless a licensed dealer first obtains a background check on the prospective transferee. This does not apply to firearms defined as antiques, curios or relics under federal law.

A Colorado resident who is otherwise qualified can purchase or receive delivery of a rifle or shotgun in a state contiguous to Colorado, so long as the sale fully complies with the legal conditions of sale in both states and the purchaser and seller have complied with federal law applicable to interstate transactions.

The interpretation of the part I highlighted is that it applies to ANYONE who sells a gun AT a gun show. So if you walk into a gun show to sell your gun and someone there wants to buy it, you have to get a dealer to do a background check on the buyer.
If however you make the sale at your house or anywhere else, and you are not a licensed dealer – no check required.

I’m just pointing out the facts of how it currently works in Colorado. It doesn’t mean I agree with the gun grabbers.

dentarthurdent on January 13, 2013 at 9:31 PM

Now that is going to work real well, “unlicensed dealers”? Are they going to arrest all the gang bangers now? or just the sportsmen?

stormridercx4 on January 13, 2013 at 9:26 PM

Typical vague and clueless wording from liberals writing unconstitutional laws. It allows the people in power to enforce the law however they want to – and on whoever they want to.

dentarthurdent on January 13, 2013 at 9:33 PM

dentarthurdent on January 13, 2013 at 9:14 PM

This is the sort of thing I was referring to when I wrote this:

State laws have nothing to do with it [meaning the Brady Law's background check requirement], though some states do regulate private sales.

The phrase “unlicensed dealers” is a misnomer since legally there is no such thing. Someone selling a few guns from his collection is not a “dealer” under the law. A firearms dealer is specifically defined in the law. An “unlicensed dealer” is also known as a “felon”.

single stack on January 13, 2013 at 9:40 PM

The phrase “unlicensed dealers” is a misnomer since legally there is no such thing. Someone selling a few guns from his collection is not a “dealer” under the law. A firearms dealer is specifically defined in the law. An “unlicensed dealer” is also known as a “felon”.

single stack on January 13, 2013 at 9:40 PM

Ya – that’s the problem with this entire debate on gun control and the 2nd Amendment. Far too many people (mostly the liberals) don’t understand the terms they keep throwing around, and they keep writing laws that don’t do what they claim they’ll do and always have far different (unintended) consequences.

dentarthurdent on January 13, 2013 at 10:00 PM

dentarthurdent, there is no “gun show loophole” any more than there is an “Internet loophole”, a “Craigslist loophole” nor a “Weekly classified ad throwaway paper loophole”.

The GCA of ’68 and the Brady Act did not intend to regulate these transfers, so that they happen without a background check is not a “loophole”.

The Colorado law is so ridiculous, and so vague, that gun clubs in Colorado have to forbid their members from even discussing sales of firearms at club events for fear that they might create legal liability as a “gun show”. Like my club’s holiday potluck dinner.

SPQR on January 13, 2013 at 10:12 PM

dentarthurdent on January 13, 2013 at 8:24 PM

Didn’t pick up he sarc in “more dead”? Or see the post immediately following?

That’s OK. I don’t post often.

You are correct about “The Princess Diaries”, I wasn’t using that as a reference.

Now, who’s Bishop? /

soundingboard on January 13, 2013 at 10:19 PM

SPQR on January 13, 2013 at 10:12 PM

Read the other posts.
It’s not my term – I use it only to take part in the debate.
It’s one of those vague made up terms the libs like to use to confuse the issue.
What it REALLY means is the libs just haven’t gotten total control of everything yet.

dentarthurdent on January 13, 2013 at 10:21 PM

Didn’t pick up he sarc in “more dead”? Or see the post immediately following?
That’s OK. I don’t post often.
You are correct about “The Princess Diaries”, I wasn’t using that as a reference.

Now, who’s Bishop? /

soundingboard on January 13, 2013 at 10:19 PM

Well no – because the quote in The Princess Bride (from Miracle Max) was “he’s only mostly dead, and mostly dead means he’s still slightly alive”.
Sorry to have to say this, but The Princess Diaries was a very different movie.

Bishop is a long time regular. There’s a running joke with many that if they get to make the first post on a new thread they put “BISHOP!!” – I guess because he has a history of being the first to comment.

dentarthurdent on January 13, 2013 at 10:26 PM

soundingboard on January 13, 2013 at 10:19 PM

I understand now what you were trying to say. But there are libtard trolls on this site who actually say things like that – and actually mean it seriously.

I feel your pain though – I’m not sure everyone always gets my brand of sarcasm either – and it took me awhile to catch onto some of the “sarc masters” like Bishop.

dentarthurdent on January 13, 2013 at 10:35 PM

Yes, Princess Bride. Brain fart.

I keep using his symbol…/…does it not mean what I think it means?

soundingboard on January 13, 2013 at 10:39 PM

I understand now what you were trying to say. But there are libtard trolls on this site who actually say things like that – and actually mean it seriously.

I feel your pain though – I’m not sure everyone always gets my brand of sarcasm either – and it took me awhile to catch onto some of the “sarc masters” like Bishop.

dentarthurdent on January 13, 2013 at 10:35 PM

Lol. I hear ya. I was actually channeling some Facebook friends of friends with my original comment.

I wonder if Bishop is available for sarc training? ;)

soundingboard on January 13, 2013 at 10:44 PM

This is the guy we need to argue for our gun rights. His name is Keith Morgan and he does an excellent job of explaining why we are not jumping on the “gun control” band wagon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ECxDvwObwZk.

delicountessa on January 13, 2013 at 11:15 PM

If a lunatic drove a Prius into a crowd of schoolchildren and killed them all would the government start calling for Prius control?

profitsbeard on January 13, 2013 at 11:33 PM

Buy. Sell. Trade. Enjoy. Screw ‘em.

johnnyU on January 14, 2013 at 8:59 AM

When will you gun nuts stop comparing weapons and cars?
Cars weren’t designed to kill people!
You’re more dead when you’re shot.

soundingboard on January 13, 2013 at 1:40 AM

Driving a car is not a right it is a privilage, however, you don’t see ANYONE trying to take away driving privilage’s permanently.

Why do “gun nuts” compare weapons and cars probably because of the fact that cars were not made to kill people but MORE people get killed by cars than by guns.

You’re more dead when you’re shot.

Seriously? I hope you had a “here is your sign” moment.

TturnP on January 14, 2013 at 9:03 AM

Loophole. The area you try to place a nice group?

Bmore on January 14, 2013 at 9:45 AM

I keep waiting for our brave leaders to close the gang loophole. Why is it that the Crypts, Bloods, MS-13 operate with impunity while causing the vast majority of mayhem? I even wonder about conservatives, pundits, for not hammering the left for their complicity with gangs.

Child In Time on January 14, 2013 at 12:21 PM

Comment pages: 1 2