Confused about so called gun show loophole

[indycar02]

I keep hearing these anti-gun lefties talking about 40% of the guns sold today don't do a background check because they are sold at gun shows. Don't dealers at gun shows do the same check dealers do in their stores? Are they referring to individuals sell to each other?

 

[SSGSAD]

Therer is NO "gun show loophole". That is a "term" that the "liberals" use because it is LEGAL in so many states, for you to sell me a gun, with NO paperwork, or NO ffl......

 

[hooky]

They're talking about private sales. An FFL has to run every transaction on a 4473 and get the response from NICS, even at a gun show.

 

[Libertarian01]

To Indycar02 (et alia),

While it is true that FFL's must run a 4473 on every single sale this does NOT mean that private citizens are above the law as well.

If a private citizen sells to another citizen it can become illegal IF the seller has any reason to believe that the buyer is in a category that would prohibit the buyers ability to own a firearm. For example, if a potential buyer tells the seller, "Boy I sure am glad you aren't a dealer. I would never pass a background check" the seller could probably be nailed for selling to someone who is prohibited from owning a firearm.

This is why most responsible firearms sellers here at INGO require the purchaser to have their LTCH, because presuming they have their license this means that they have passed a background check by the state of Indiana already.

To add another layer of already existing government regulation I have an FFL03 license, commonly called a C&R (short for Curio & Relic) license. Should I buy or sell a C&R firearm I must record the basic information of who I bought or sold to.

I hope this doesn't muddy the water too much.

Regards,

Doug

 

[ATM]

...This is why most responsible firearms sellers here at INGO require the purchaser to have their LTCH...

I'd say that most responsible firearms sellers here on INGO require nothing further than what the law requires

...but yes, there are several who add further personal stipulations to their deals or are required to under certain circumstances.

 

[evsnova74]

I've been correcting a lot of people on this issue lately, then about a week ago someone posted this on my wall. I'm sure this has been discussed here:

http://www.nyc.gov/html/om/pdf/2009/pr442-09_report.pdf

To which I replied:

"solution one is dumb because those private sellers are breaking laws that are already on the books. I got another indicium for determining whether or not a private seller is engaged in the business: they rent a table at a freaking gun show! I hate stupid unnecessary laws that don't address real problems, but since we're probably not going to allow law abiding responsible gun owners to posses the means to defend their very life on this planet in these dangerous gun free zones, I guess I could see a law that requires all vendors selling firearms at gun shows to hold an FFL.

But stiffening the regulations for all private sales is stupid because that's not a problem in this country. I'm talking about VALID private sales, the kind not discussed in that study. The ones NOT engaging in the business. Browse some classifieds sections on some gun forums and notice how many sellers ask to see ID (to prove you live in the same state), CCW/LTCH (proving that you've passed a bgc and are a responsible law abiding gun owner), or even require a transfer through an FFL. These kinds of private sales are self regulatory. Law abiding citizens selling their guns privately don't want them to be involved in a crime and to come back on them. And if they do they're at risk of becoming a felon as well, thereby forfeiting their right to protect themselves for the rest of their lives. No responsible law abiding gun owner would risk that.

Now I would like to point out a major flaw in the study (as I see it), and that's the couples conducting the straw purchase. There are exceptions to straw purchase laws, such as a spouse buying for a spouse or even parents buying for their children. By making the straw purchasing couples appear to be married, not to mention asking questions one would probably ask about a potential firearm for their wife (looking for something small, with "stopping power", etc.), they increase the likelihood that the FFL will assume they're married which is a legal transaction. Now yes, that's still illegal and they should have made sure, but replay that same scenario with 2 guys with tattoos and I bet not a single FFL bites.

Otherwise I'm not big on people that say **** like "the vast majority of vendors and customers at gun shows are law abiding citizens out to enjoy a day with others who share a common interest", then proceed to paint a picture that makes it seem like the exact opposite. Especially when they also say "the very aspects of gun shows that make them attractive to criminals - the lack of background checks and recordkeeping - also make it IMPOSSIBLE to gather comprehensive information about undocumented sales that occur at these shows", (capslock added for emphasis) but go ahead and set up a deceitful study (as I described above) to prove their agenda despite that fact. But I think critically rather than letting officially registered websites think for me. LOL"