Do You Support The "Gun Show Loophole?"

[Vast LWC]

so if they sell a hundred guns but don't make a profit off of any of them its ok? where do you jokers dig this crap up anyway?

The Firearms Owners’ Protection Act of 1986.

The Gun Control Act of 1968 provides that persons “engaged in the business” of dealing in firearms must be licensed. Although Congress did not originally define the term “engaged in the business,” it did so in 1986 as part of the McClure-Volkmer Act (also known as the “Firearms Owners’ Protection Act&#8221.

That Act defined the term “engaged in the business,” as applied to a firearms dealer, as “a person who devotes time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms.”

Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence ? Gun Law Information Experts

 

[The Rabbi]

Right. If he intends to make a profit then he is a dealer.

 

[Spoonman]

I think a problem in this is that private sellers don't have access to the system.

Which is a good point.

The system should be expanded to be used by the general public, at minimal cost to the individual.

so i'm a gangbanger and i have a ton of guns. see i can get them because i don't follow the laws. So i'm going to sell joe average citizen a gun. Now i'll do a background check on him. and what do you know, i now have all kinds of personal information about him. and I just stole his identity. but at least i know he was ok to sell a gun to.

 

[Vast LWC]

yea some states have some very lenient laws. I wonder what the results of that are. must be really bad right?

I'm afraid you're mistaking me for someone who believes in strong gun control laws other than national registries and mandatory background checks.

Personally, I think anyone who is not a criminal or a lunatic should be allowed to carry their AR-15 wherever the hell they want, as long as the property owner agrees.

With the possible exceptions of some schools and most bars.

 

[Spoonman]

so if they sell a hundred guns but don't make a profit off of any of them its ok? where do you jokers dig this crap up anyway?

The Firearms Owners’ Protection Act of 1986.

The Gun Control Act of 1968 provides that persons “engaged in the business” of dealing in firearms must be licensed. Although Congress did not originally define the term “engaged in the business,” it did so in 1986 as part of the McClure-Volkmer Act (also known as the “Firearms Owners’ Protection Act”).

That Act defined the term “engaged in the business,” as applied to a firearms dealer, as “a person who devotes time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms.”

Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence ? Gun Law Information Experts

so as long as i am not showing a profit i can sell all the guns i want without being a dealer

 

[Coyote]

speech is not restricted. how you use the speech is restricted. you can't use speech to harm someone. just like there are laws that state you can't use a gun to harm someone. the difference it, with guns the limit what you can have as well as how you use them. there is a difference. a very significant difference.

Speech is and can be restricted along with "how" - that is what libel and slander laws are for. Profanity and blasphemy laws still exist in this country. You can't cuss a teacher out without repercussions. If your choice of WORDS is viewed as threatening in certain instances - that two can have restrictions.

because it's how you use it. libel and slander are using speech to hurt someone. just like shooting a person is used to harm someone. If you say, I don't want that person to be elected governor because they are a communist, and they aren't, they cn sue you because it is potentially damaging. but if they are a member of the communist party and you say it, it's ok to say. you can swear, that is perfectly legal. but if you cuss out a teacher it's wrong because of how you use if. it's not the word, it's how its used. with a gun, its the gun as well as how its used. there is a difference

I see the distinction you are making but I am not sure if I agree with your conclusions. I do agree that ownership of a gun in and of itself is nothing. However, that reasoning would mean nothing should be restricted and in terms of public safety I do not agree - the right to bare arms is not a clearly defined right - it has been interpreted many different ways for many different agendas and it was made at a time when most of the arms we have today did not exist.

Logically you should be able to own anything and only be punished for what you do with it. However - the problem with that kind of reactive policy is that a lot of innocent people can be hurt or killed in the process before there is a need to react. For example (this is a grossly exagerated example but it's to make the point) - the right includes any arms, I have a right to a suitcase nuke, I'm pissed at the world and decide to go to my office and let my boss know what I think of his latest motivational policy and annilate the entire building in the course of making my point. Of course, at that point, the police would get invloved and yada yada yada....and, it would be twinkie defense all the way with a lot of dead bodies.

 

[Vast LWC]

so i'm a gangbanger and i have a ton of guns. see i can get them because i don't follow the laws. So i'm going to sell joe average citizen a gun. Now i'll do a background check on him. and what do you know, i now have all kinds of personal information about him. and I just stole his identity. but at least i know he was ok to sell a gun to.

And if you're worried about that, you buy from a licensed dealer.

Problem solved.

 

[Vast LWC]

so as long as i am not showing a profit i can sell all the guns i want without being a dealer

According to the law, yes. And that's a large part of the issue.

 

[Coyote]

I think a problem in this is that private sellers don't have access to the system.

Which is a good point.

The system should be expanded to be used by the general public, at minimal cost to the individual.

Do you want people running background checks on your criminal history and other things without your knowledge? Because that's what will happen.
It is a felony to do so, btw. So you would be increasing crime, rather than decreasing it.

I think it could be done - if I understand the way it works, you don't get any information back on the background - only an answer on whether or not you can purchase a firearm. You can be required to sign a release.

 

[Spoonman]

yea some states have some very lenient laws. I wonder what the results of that are. must be really bad right?

I'm afraid you're mistaking me for someone who believes in strong gun control laws other than national registries and mandatory background checks.

Personally, I think anyone who is not a criminal or a lunatic should be allowed to carry their AR-15 wherever the hell they want, as long as the property owner agrees.

With the possible exceptions of some schools and most bars.

then we probably aren't that far off. I firmly believe there should be no restrictions to what can be owned. But I also feel there need to be restrictions to who can own what. If we can ever define what constitutes a threat. What are the restrictions that would prevent someone from being able to own a gun? its a very tough thing to define. do we rely on an existing record? and what are the crimes that constitute no gun ownership. These are the critical questions i feel are not being addressed. And the legislation that is currently on the table doesn't even go there. its a sweeping limitation. That's what I am very opposed to. and I have no problems that i can't bring my guns into a school or a federal building. I have no need to. but these outright bans they are talking about effect everywhere and everything

 

[Dubya]

Gun control lost Gore his own state in 2000. I propose that alot of the people who were OK with the "dont mention gun control" Obama are not OK with him now.

If 92% of americans really really wanted it why are there not millions of people rallying for it?

Polls for questions like that are worthless.

I don't find it very good political analysis to consider Tennessee and gun control costed Al Gore the election. It also isn't smart for a politician to call universal background checks gun control. A politician can only get away with that in a strongly red state and better not ever try to run for national office. Even the Republicans strongly favor UBC.

Then what cost him Tennesee? Even Bill Clintion admits the AWB and subsequent attempts at gun control screwed the Democrats over for a decade.

He. Lost. His. Own. State. He shares that with Romney, and Romney lost as well.

It was one of those Illinois needed to be three times as big things.

 

[martybegan]

I don't find it very good political analysis to consider Tennessee and gun control costed Al Gore the election. It also isn't smart for a politician to call universal background checks gun control. A politician can only get away with that in a strongly red state and better not ever try to run for national office. Even the Republicans strongly favor UBC.

Then what cost him Tennesee? Even Bill Clintion admits the AWB and subsequent attempts at gun control screwed the Democrats over for a decade.

He. Lost. His. Own. State. He shares that with Romney, and Romney lost as well.

It was one of those Illinois needed to be three times as big things.

Still, what cost him Tennesee?

 

[Polk]

A spin off of the other thread where I have asked numerous times and not a single right winger has answered, is if you support the gun show loophole.

For those that may not know, under current federal law if you wish to purchases a firearm, you have to be run in a background check to make sure you are not a felon, been convicted of a violent crime, been in a mental institution, etc,..before they give the go ahead to sell that person a weapon. However under the "gun show loophole", there are not background checks at all.

That's right, absoutly nothing. A violent thug fresh out of the penitentiary, a terrorist, or a nutcases ready to commit the next sandy hook could go down to their local gun show, or find a classified ad selling a firearm and they could purchase deadly weapons, with no questions asked.

Selling a firearm to a felon is already illegal, even if you are NOT a federal firearms dealer.

and what is the difference between a craiglist ad and some guy arranging a street buy for you?

More restrictions on legal gunowners, and no effect on the illegal gun trade.

I'd have to check the statute, but I highly doubt it's a strict liability offense. Meaning selling to a felon is fine as long as you don't know they're a felon.

 

[Spoonman]

Speech is and can be restricted along with "how" - that is what libel and slander laws are for. Profanity and blasphemy laws still exist in this country. You can't cuss a teacher out without repercussions. If your choice of WORDS is viewed as threatening in certain instances - that two can have restrictions.

because it's how you use it. libel and slander are using speech to hurt someone. just like shooting a person is used to harm someone. If you say, I don't want that person to be elected governor because they are a communist, and they aren't, they cn sue you because it is potentially damaging. but if they are a member of the communist party and you say it, it's ok to say. you can swear, that is perfectly legal. but if you cuss out a teacher it's wrong because of how you use if. it's not the word, it's how its used. with a gun, its the gun as well as how its used. there is a difference

I see the distinction you are making but I am not sure if I agree with your conclusions. I do agree that ownership of a gun in and of itself is nothing. However, that reasoning would mean nothing should be restricted and in terms of public safety I do not agree - the right to bare arms is not a clearly defined right - it has been interpreted many different ways for many different agendas and it was made at a time when most of the arms we have today did not exist.

Logically you should be able to own anything and only be punished for what you do with it. However - the problem with that kind of reactive policy is that a lot of innocent people can be hurt or killed in the process before there is a need to react. For example (this is a grossly exagerated example but it's to make the point) - the right includes any arms, I have a right to a suitcase nuke, I'm pissed at the world and decide to go to my office and let my boss know what I think of his latest motivational policy and annilate the entire building in the course of making my point. Of course, at that point, the police would get invloved and yada yada yada....and, it would be twinkie defense all the way with a lot of dead bodies.

but I can load a truck with a few bags of fertilizer or a few drums of gas and get the same result.

lots of people are hurt an killed everyday by reactive policy. i hate to use the same example over and over but drunk driving, driving while texting or on the phone. heck, even careless or aggressive driving. do you ban booze, do you ban phones, do you ban cars? they are doing more damage and taking more lives than the assault style weapons we are talking about banning. all of our laws are reactive when you think about it. even laws restricting speech. none of these laws prevent what they are intended to do from occuring. so what makes us think with guns it will be any different? illegal or not, banned or not, if someone want to get it and kill their boss, they will get it. so the end result is the boss is dead and millions of law abiding citizens enjoying their constitutional right are the ones impacted.

I think the 2nd amendment is very clear. and if you want clarification on what it was intended to mean look to James Madison who proposed it to congress and his views on gun ownership

"Americans need never fear their government
because of the advantage of being armed,
which the Americans possess over the people
of almost every other nation."

 

[M14 Shooter]

Logically you should be able to own anything and only be punished for what you do with it. However - the problem with that kind of reactive policy is that a lot of innocent people can be hurt or killed in the process before there is a need to react.

We don't restrict the exercise of a right - any right -because someone -might- do something illegal.
The right to arms should be treated the same as any other right.
So... there's no basis for restricting simple ownership/posession of any firearm.

 

[Dubya]

A spin off of the other thread where I have asked numerous times and not a single right winger has answered, is if you support the gun show loophole.

For those that may not know, under current federal law if you wish to purchases a firearm, you have to be run in a background check to make sure you are not a felon, been convicted of a violent crime, been in a mental institution, etc,..before they give the go ahead to sell that person a weapon. However under the "gun show loophole", there are not background checks at all.

That's right, absoutly nothing. A violent thug fresh out of the penitentiary, a terrorist, or a nutcases ready to commit the next sandy hook could go down to their local gun show, or find a classified ad selling a firearm and they could purchase deadly weapons, with no questions asked.

Selling a firearm to a felon is already illegal, even if you are NOT a federal firearms dealer.

and what is the difference between a craiglist ad and some guy arranging a street buy for you?

More restrictions on legal gunowners, and no effect on the illegal gun trade.

I'd have to check the statute, but I highly doubt it's a strict liability offense. Meaning selling to a felon is fine as long as you don't know they're a felon.

It's only illegal to knowingly sell to someone who shouldn't have a gun. That's why these occasional sellers at gun shows advertise: No paperwork, no ID required, no waiting period, no background check, and no questions asked.

 

[martybegan]

A spin off of the other thread where I have asked numerous times and not a single right winger has answered, is if you support the gun show loophole.

For those that may not know, under current federal law if you wish to purchases a firearm, you have to be run in a background check to make sure you are not a felon, been convicted of a violent crime, been in a mental institution, etc,..before they give the go ahead to sell that person a weapon. However under the "gun show loophole", there are not background checks at all.

That's right, absoutly nothing. A violent thug fresh out of the penitentiary, a terrorist, or a nutcases ready to commit the next sandy hook could go down to their local gun show, or find a classified ad selling a firearm and they could purchase deadly weapons, with no questions asked.

Selling a firearm to a felon is already illegal, even if you are NOT a federal firearms dealer.

and what is the difference between a craiglist ad and some guy arranging a street buy for you?

More restrictions on legal gunowners, and no effect on the illegal gun trade.

I'd have to check the statute, but I highly doubt it's a strict liability offense. Meaning selling to a felon is fine as long as you don't know they're a felon.

Wouldnt have an issue making it strict liability, only mitigated by the felon presenting viable false identification.

 

[Coyote]

Logically you should be able to own anything and only be punished for what you do with it. However - the problem with that kind of reactive policy is that a lot of innocent people can be hurt or killed in the process before there is a need to react.

We don't restrict the exercise of a right - any right -because someone -might- do something illegal.
The right to arms should be treated the same as any other right.
So... there's no basis for restricting simple ownership/posession.

Then nothing should be restricted right? Nothing.

What if one's religious practice required ownership of some part of an endangered species of animal that was not legal to kill? (there is one that does)?

 

[kwc57]

Selling a firearm to a felon is already illegal, even if you are NOT a federal firearms dealer.

and what is the difference between a craiglist ad and some guy arranging a street buy for you?

More restrictions on legal gunowners, and no effect on the illegal gun trade.

I'd have to check the statute, but I highly doubt it's a strict liability offense. Meaning selling to a felon is fine as long as you don't know they're a felon.

It's only illegal to knowingly sell to someone who shouldn't have a gun. That's why these occasional sellers at gun shows advertise: No paperwork, no ID required, no waiting period, no background check, and no questions asked.

uh-huh......except that gun show operators tend to keep the riff-raff out. But you'll never hear the MSM or Dems admit it.

Claude Hall's GUN SHOW RULES & REGULATIONS

 

[M14 Shooter]

Logically you should be able to own anything and only be punished for what you do with it. However - the problem with that kind of reactive policy is that a lot of innocent people can be hurt or killed in the process before there is a need to react.

We don't restrict the exercise of a right - any right -because someone -might- do something illegal.
The right to arms should be treated the same as any other right.
So... there's no basis for restricting simple ownership/posession.

Then nothing should be restricted right? Nothing.

Try not to go all non-sequitur on me.

Only that which causes harm or places others in a condtition of clear, present and immediate danger. As you said, simple posession/ownership of a firearm does neither, and so there's no basis for restriction.

One of three things is going to happen here:
- You're going to admit that there's no basis for restricting simple posession/ownership of a firearm
- You're going to change your argument and say that firearms -should- be treated differenrly than other rights (and be forced to provide a sound argument for same)
- You're going to move away from reasoned, civil discourse.