Gunshow Loophole

[Ben Lamb]

http://thehill.com/component/conten...ush-for-ban-on-assault-weapons-in-second-term

The article talks about the President's push to reinstate the 94 AWB, but he also brings up the gunshow loophole. Closing this loophole has been supported by folks like John McCain, and other pro-gun politicians.

We've all been to gunshows, and know that just about anyone can walk in and out with a firearm of dubious provenance. IIRC, the guns used by Kleebold and Harris (Columbine) were purchased at a gunshow by another individual.

A high profile poaching case involving the state director of one of our congressional members hit a dead end because "he sold a gun at a gunshow." No record of where that gun went.

I've sold many firearms at gunshows and face to face without background checks. But the more I think about it, the more I start to wonder if we do in fact need to close this loophole.

Thoughts?

 

[CILhunter]

While I am not in favor of the AWB, I am in favor of background checks. I would hope an instant background check would replace the stupid waiting periods we have in IL (24 hours for long guns & 72 hours for hand guns). I could see a booth at a gun show where all they did was call in background checks, then issue you a form saying that you have cleared, and are fine to buy a gun. I don't think any sane gun owner wants people to buy a gun who should not have one. Don't think it will do a thing to stop the straw purchasers, like the Columbine shooters used, but still a good idea.

 

[sagebrush]

Waste of time. Honest buyers would use the system, criminals would just bypass it by using straw purchasers.

 

[belly-deep]

I'm assuming this would ban ALL private purchases as well?

I see the problem you are talking about. However...

Once the "loophole" is closed the government will know where every gun in the country is (or is supposed to be) at every moment.

That idea makes my stomach churn a little.

 

[belly-deep]

Also, a majority the "gun violence," not including the psycho rampage stuff, is usually centered around illegal activity (drugs).

Doesn't seem as though making guns more difficult to purchase legally would fuel the illegal market more, thus causing more gun violence and not less? Isn't that one of the main arguments for legalization of marijuana--to reduce drug-related violence? Seems counter-intuitive that you would enlarge the illegal trade of something in an effort to reduce violence, when we know that illegal trade causes violence.

As significant as these mass shootings are, they're a drop in the bucket compared to the day to day homicides on the streets.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Not ban private purchases, but conduct them through a FFL holder so that the background check is accomplished. I will make this a condition of any future face to face sale personally. I don't think it's much of an inconvenience to get the NCIS check before purchase.

The NCIS database is supposed to be dumped so that no registration record is kept, despite efforts by congress and the former administration to do so. I'm not an advocate of registration, but think of this: Gun stores are required to keep their books which include who purchased and when. That's been helpful in many instances in tracking down killers.

Gang violence, drug violence, etc don't have the emotional and political gravitas that 20 dead kids do. I don't think you can do a comparative analysis based on that. You can use the background check as a deterrent though when it comes to putting guns in the hands of those who shouldn't have them.

Sagebrush - straw purchases are already illegal. Why not add an extra deterrent on top of that? You are correct, law abiding folks will still abide by the law. The goal shouldn't be an unreasonable expectation to stop all crime, but the reduce the instances of abuse.

 

[Rat Fink]

Not ban private purchases, but conduct them through a FFL holder so that the background check is accomplished. I will make this a condition of any future face to face sale personally. I don't think it's much of an inconvenience to get the NCIS check before purchase.

The NCIS database is supposed to be dumped so that no registration record is kept, despite efforts by congress and the former administration to do so. I'm not an advocate of registration, but think of this: Gun stores are required to keep their books which include who purchased and when. That's been helpful in many instances in tracking down killers.

Gang violence, drug violence, etc don't have the emotional and political gravitas that 20 dead kids do. I don't think you can do a comparative analysis based on that. You can use the background check as a deterrent though when it comes to putting guns in the hands of those who shouldn't have them.

Sagebrush - straw purchases are already illegal. Why not add an extra deterrent on top of that? You are correct, law abiding folks will still abide by the law. The goal shouldn't be an unreasonable expectation to stop all crime, but the reduce the instances of abuse.

Ben -

When you sell me that little 8x57 mannlicher I hope you don't make me go thru a FFL for a FTF transaction.

I do not favor closing the loophole. As stated previously, straw purchasers will keep the criminals awash with guns, and the only people that will suffer are the law abiding citizens. More expense, time, and government knowledge of gun purchases is bad all around. The more legal guns that can be sold without government knowledge, the better. If big gov came looking for our guns, it would be good to not have your name on record as an owner. Hence why I buy most of my guns used.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Ben -

When you sell me that little 8x57 mannlicher I hope you don't make me go thru a FFL for a FTF transaction.

Never gonna happen Cooter.

As stated previously, straw purchasers will keep the criminals awash with guns, and the only people that will suffer are the law abiding citizens. More expense, time, and government knowledge of gun purchases is bad all around. The more legal guns that can be sold without government knowledge, the better. If big gov came looking for our guns, it would be good to not have your name on record as an owner. Hence why I buy most of my guns used.

So you support eliminating age restrictions on buying booze?

I don't buy the entire "can't legislate morality" gambit. We do it all the time. Does making murder illegal stop people from killing others? No. Does increasing the penalties for those who are accessories help? yes. No different here.

 

[npaden]

Thinking through the entire process, something that I personally don't have an issue with is having to go through some type of a process to be able to legally own a gun(s).

Then if someone gets stopped and they have a gun, they can check if they have the permit for it or not and take it away if not. You could just show that permit and buy the gun, not deal with the background checks everytime you buy one.

People already do this for their concealed handgun permit and they already do this taking a hunters safety class to be able to hunt in most states.

Still is just a bandaid on the problem though, but way more effective than any of the crappy laws on the books on the subject now and better than banning my rock river arms AR-15.

People are fine with having to get a drivers license to drive a car, I personally wouldn't have any problem having to get a gun license to own a gun as long as they made it fairly reasonable to obtain and not very expensive.

That's where the slippery slope comes in. Before too long it could be like the class 3 license that costs a lot and is a pain to obtain.

 

[belly-deep]

Not ban private purchases, but conduct them through a FFL holder so that the background check is accomplished. I will make this a condition of any future face to face sale personally. I don't think it's much of an inconvenience to get the NCIS check before purchase.

I guess "ban" wasn't the right word. What I meant was, will all private sales have to go through a check.

The NCIS database is supposed to be dumped so that no registration record is kept, despite efforts by congress and the former administration to do so. I'm not an advocate of registration, but think of this: Gun stores are required to keep their books which include who purchased and when. That's been helpful in many instances in tracking down killers.

Supposed to be. The government does a lot of things they aren't supposed to. I think they've effectively brought us registration through NICS. As you said, they've used it to track down killers. The only "loophole" this would close is the weak link in their quasi-registration.

Lets face it, as far as preventing guns from getting in people's hands, the NICS is a piss-poor system.

Gang violence, drug violence, etc don't have the emotional and political gravitas that 20 dead kids do. I don't think you can do a comparative analysis based on that. You can use the background check as a deterrent though when it comes to putting guns in the hands of those who shouldn't have them.

I agree, its a much more emotional issue. I wasn't trying to argue gang violence is a bigger outrage. In my view, gang members all die of natural causes. Natural to the line of work they're in, that is, and I don't have a ton of sympathy for them. I was merely pointing out that scarcity breeds illegal markets, which breed crime. If guns were to be completely banned tomorrow in an effort to reduce violence, illegal gun dealers would spring up all over and kill each other over turf wars just like they do with cocaine. Not a good way to reduce violence overall, IMO, but it probably would cut down the body count in a few mass killings.

 

[Buckmania]

I'm all for a AWB, it would most assuredly be effective and work. I mean look at drugs, they're illegal and we have zero problems with them so by making certain types of guns illegal, it would make complete sense that it would elminate any issues with them.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I guess "ban" wasn't the right word. What I meant was, will all private sales have to go through a check.

I'm open to refinement, but yes.

Supposed to be. The government does a lot of things they aren't supposed to. I think they've effectively brought us registration through NICS. As you said, they've used it to track down killers. The only "loophole" this would close is the weak link in their quasi-registration.

Lets face it, as far as preventing guns from getting in people's hands, the NICS is a piss-poor system.

If we don't call it registration, then everything will be hunk-dory. For the Record I am opposed to registration especially at the Federal Level. Perhaps the state is a more appropriate entity?

I don't agree about NCIS - it stopped the Conn. killer from purchasing his own firearms. He stole those guns from his mother, then shot her and stole her car.

I was merely pointing out that scarcity breeds illegal markets, which breed crime. If guns were to be completely banned tomorrow in an effort to reduce violence, illegal gun dealers would spring up all over and kill each other over turf wars just like they do with cocaine. Not a good way to reduce violence overall, IMO, but it probably would cut down the body count in a few mass killings.

I don't think the goal should be to eliminate all crime and violence committed with a firearm. That's an impossibility. I do think that you cause more concern from people who would straw purchase a firearm for someone who is under age or otherwise unable to pass a NCIS check. Reduction in gun violence isn't just about gun control, but it's really more about redefining who we are as a people. As a deterrence and only one small piece of the puzzle, I still think that closing this loophole is important.

 

[smarandr]

I'm all for closing the loophole. I don't see how buying a gun from the store is any different than buying one from a gun show / individual. If the purpose is to weed out illegal buyers then it should be required whenever one is sold.

However, I have reservations about the application of closing the loophole since I don't know how the background reporting system works. Is there a cost associated with each check (much like there is a cost to pulling someones credit report/score). Is it possible to institute the background check system so that it's available to private buyers and sellers and not be over-burdensome? Would we as gun owners be willing to support a new excise tax on the sale of new guns and ammunition to support increased availability of the background check reporting system?

 

[wgiles]

I recently saw a post that said that private firearms sales in Australia have been prohibited and all sales must be made through a dealer. The problem that we in the US would have is that this only works with law abiding citizens.

 

[pointingdogsrule]

Not ban private purchases, but conduct them through a FFL holder so that the background check is accomplished. I will make this a condition of any future face to face sale personally. I don't think it's much of an inconvenience to get the NCIS check before purchase.

I agree with others, Ben. Law abiding citizens will comply. I want to see the day a gangster in Chicago goes to buy a gun and says: "lets go through the FFL system".

good luck to all
the dog

 

[sagebrush]

The answer to every issue is more and bigger government. How much will it cost to add all private transactions to NICS? The system already gets overloaded just processing dealer transactions. Most FFL's charge $35+/- processing fee per transaction.

 

[belly-deep]

The answer to every issue is more and bigger government.

Only to one-half of the country...

 

[Southwind]

Gun control measures shouldn't even be the topic. Those that believe it is are either motivated by politics or just plainly are lazy and have their heads in the sand.

 

[LuckyMike]

As a life member of the NRA, I support closing the gunshow loophole and private sales thru a FFL works for me. If assault weapons are banned, consideration should be given to banning computer games and the like from glorifying assault weapon use against people.
Another, perhaps far out, idea I have is to establish a hot line to appropriate law enforcement to be used anonymously by anyone seeing unusual activities related to firearms. Example: a wild eyed person dressed as a "Goth like" character buying 200 rounds of ammo. This hotlline could perhaps be as effective as "TipMont" is for Montana in reporting suspicious hunting related activities.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

I am in favor of it, and I would also like to see the ATF relentlessly pursue and prosecute those folks who try to buy a firearm when they are not eligible.