There is no "gun show loophole."

"... a political term in the United States referring to sales of firearms by private sellers."  Wiki cited below

------------

Obama is evidently about to try to restrict transfers of firearms between private individuals.  He seems to intend to do that without legislated authority.   There is no "gun show loophole."  Vendors participating in a gun show are registered holders of federal firearms dealers licenses and are required to conduct instant background check from the show before selling a firearm. 

Nevertheless, there is endless prattle about "expanding background checks," and closing the "gun show loophole."  Obama is mounting a maximum IO effort against the American people in this matter.  CNN is now running back to back adds directing what domestic audience CNN has to a "town hall" on Thursday on GUNS.

Let us take note of the awkward fact that just about all mass shootings in the US are done with firearms purchased legally under present law from holders of federal firearms dealers licenses (FFL) and for which the required instant background checks were conducted by the FFL holder.

Sales between private individuals out in the parking lot of gun shows are just that.

There is also talk of making internet sales of firearms subject to background checks.  Well, pilgrims, they already are subject to such checks.  If you buy a gun on line, and I have done so as an experiment, the dealer ships the weapon to an FFL holder near you and that dealer runs the background check BEFORE delivery of the weapon.

So, what are we talking about?

IMO we are talking about eventually, if not now, requiring any transfer of a firearm to require a federal background check whether the transfer is; a private sale, a gift, a loan, a bequest, etc.

FFL holders will love this.  They will make a lot of money in fees for handling the  background check and paperwork.  I might obtain an FFL myself.

Obama's crowd want to make the kids play nicely in the schoolyard.  This would be a major step in that direction.  pl

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_show_loophole

Comments

[no one]

"IMO we are talking about eventually, if not now, requiring any transfer of a firearm to require a federal background check whether the transfer is; a private sale, a gift, a loan, a bequest, etc."

I agree. That's one objective of what Obama is going to announce.

However, it seems to me that in order for private transfers - especially among family members - to be effectively subject to such regulation, first guns must be registered; all guns.

Otherwise, how would they know that Uncle Bill gave me the old M1 carbine yesterday and that we failed to background check? I could just say I've had it so long I can't remember when I obtained it (and, anyways, I obtained years before the new law).

Then again, "effectiveness" may not be as important as legacy, but I remain suspicious that registration is of all firearms is next (if not now) and that confiscation, at least of certain classes of arms, would follow under a Clinton administration.

[The Twisted Genius]

pl,

Internet sales sites are very similar to gun shows. The intent is to buy and sell firearms through FFL holders and have background checks conducted. However, the online sites provide more opportunities for private parking lot-like sales. A private phone number is often attached to an ad to sell or a desire to purchase a firearm. This allows the transaction to go offline and circumvent the FFL route.

[turcopolier]

TTG

I am not in favor of regulating private firearms transfers. pl

[The Twisted Genius]

pl,

Nor am I. Attempts to regulate private firearms transfers would only make outlaws out of more of us, myself included.

[RM]

Actually, I see mandatory background checks as a major step towards the goal of a firearms registry.

My state (Oregon)recently passed a mandatory background check for all firearms transfers. As "no one" indicated above, it would be difficult to prove that any gun I sold was transferred without a background check unless the I or the purchaser wanted to admit to that. A comprehensive state (or federal) gun registry would make the background check requirement easier to enforce. It would of course also make confiscation easier should a state or the feds later decide to make a type of gun no longer legal.

[Rex]

Lately have been thinking of how best to transfer my collection to my heir, in will. Also complicates that casual sharing in the family, often back and forth depending on season. More reason to apply for that Curio and Relic FL, I guess. Could get pricey as few FFL holders are willing to transfer several guns at once, and BATF has some notice requirements for transfer of certain type and quantity of guns in the border area.

[Nightsticker]

Col Lang,

I agree. The 2nd amendment is one of
the most important provisions of The Bill of Rights.

I would however be open to debate on regulating
Obama's 1st Amendment right to free speech,as an
emergency measure,of course.

I believe it would save lives.

Nightsticker
USMC 65-72
FBI 72-96

[Degringolade]

One of the main features of the current administration is its ability to manufacture a simulacrum of action for public consumption.

Pandora's box has been opened for quite a while now. The idea of gun control beyond what little is done now will take greater ruthlessness and courage than any current politician is capable of. Even should laws be passed, the chances of people with guns actually obeying said laws is pretty dang slim.

No, this is a public relations move from a man wishing to enhance his "Legacy". Looks good on paper.

Move along, nothing to see here.

[Old Microbiologist]

I believe it is absolutely unconstitutional for any firearm regulations on anyone. The 2nd Amendment is very non-specific other than all citizen, which to me means everyone. The firearms themselves also can be anything including nuclear weapons as it doesn't define this at all. Until we get a new Constitution which clearly delneates who, what, where, and when all of this splitting hairs is UN-constitutional. The Federalist papers very clearly show the debate and what was really the purpose of the Amendment, that is to permit the overthrow of a tyrannical government by the citizens. So, I do not understand how anyone can try and regulate something that is a right.

[scott s.]

There is a "gun show" provision (not a loophole) in that normally a licensed dealer is only allowed to conduct business at the "licensed location". But licensed dealers are allowed to conduct business at "gunshows", though a distinction is made between in-state dealers and out-of-state dealers.

IME gun show tables are a mix of licensed dealers with new and consignment arms and private sellers, mostly with arms with collector interest. In particular, when there was widespread importation of milsurp guns from Europe. That source has pretty much dried up. Note that there is also the category of "antique firearm" which is exempt from federal gun control laws, and these also show up at shows (prime example, Springfield "trapdoor" rifles and carbines from M1873). Also, after the Civilian Marksmanship Program was transferred from the Army to a private entity during Clinton admin a large number of M-1 and M1903/1903A3 rifles and M-1 carbines were sold via the CMP and some of these show up a gun shows.

Private sellers (transferors) generally must abide by the requirement to not "knowingly" sell to a prohibited person or non-resident of transferor's state. IME most sellers want some sort of ID such as driver's license.

There is also a federal license known as "Type 03" for collectors of curio & relic firearms, which allows the licensee to buy C&R firearms across state lines. Licensed collectors were the source of much of the buying that was seen in "Shotgun News" (from before "online") and then from online listing sites. These were/are essentially "classified ad" aggregations.

Many states impose requirements that exceed what the federal law requires. It seems like those most vocal about the need for new federal regulations come from those states so that any new regulation wouldn't affect their states at all (for example, Illinois requirement for FOID, California requirement for DROS, etc).

[erik]

I'm not either. But anyhow, how the hell would they regulate private transfers? We see how well that works with drugs sales. Suppose they actually tried, what then? More undercover ATF agents and prison terms for me selling you an old 1911 or maybe trading for something else?

[Daniel Nicolas]

Who will comply with a gun registry? Who will comply with a 'turn your guns in' order?

These types of 'laws' have been passed in NY and CT and almost completely ignored (~1% compliance) by the gun owning population.

What then? Does the Borg dare go door to door to collect and disarm everyone that does not comply? So far - the answer has been: no.

[The Twisted Genius]

Old Microbiologist,

Compared to what we already accept as restrictions on our 2d Amendment rights, this talk about closing loopholes is inconsequential. Our rights to own automatic weapons and "destructive devices" are severely limited. If the purpose of the 2A is to permit the overthrow of a tyrannical government, we need wide access to destructive devices. We need wide access to demo ranges to learn the craft of constructing IEDs and those of us with enough land should have a bunker out back where we stash our explosives. That's how you stay prepared to overthrow a tyrannical government. Instead we all get the vapors if someone buys a pressure cooker.

[The Twisted Genius]

Rex,

I'd think about getting your firearms transferred before you join the choir invisible. As with a lot of things, this is probably a lot easier while you're still here. And you can do it gradually.

[turcopolier]

scott s.

"IME gun show tables are a mix of licensed dealers with new and consignment arms and private sellers, mostly with arms with collector interest." Not in my experience. Was this in Virginia? pl

[walrus]

Obama is attempting to continue the Fabian socialist strategy with regard to guns - a war of attrition.

Once background checks are extended, the next battle is over the power of the Federal Government to force removal of legally acquired firearms from people who subsequently develop mental illness, are involved in domestic disputes, marriage breakups, etc.

And of course that requires firearm registration……

Meanwhile over here in Australia, my registered firearms are at constant risk of theft because either corrupt Police or public servants are selling registration details to bike/drug gangs who control the illegal amphetamine trade. The gangs use their younger members who are "clean skins" to steal them from isolated farmhouses such as mine. They rip the gun safes straight out of walls.

And of course the country is awash with illegally imported hand guns as well although the gangsters tend to use them only on each other.

…And don't even think about using a firearm for self defence here, or castle laws, etc.

[no one]

Degringolade,
President Trump, in his first week in office, will just un-do whatever executive action Obama has created. So the whole thing is moot.

[Old Microbiologist]

Yep. And maybe it was whittled away on purpose. Still, there are a lot of veterans out there, many with these skill sets, with years now of combat experience, and who still remember. So, the citizenry must be perceived as posing an existential threat to the plutocracy and must be curtailed. I wonder how much the people can take before they actually decide the government is the enemy of the people? I am pessimistic watching the shenanigans on Wall a street again. We need solutions but none are forthcoming except to additionally restrict our civil rights.

It is interesting, as I recall buying a 22 cal rifle (Armalite survival rifle) back in 1967 when I was 16 without any background checks. I went hitchhiking around the country with it and backpacked the Salmon River all fully armed. I wonder when it all changed as 2 years later I entered the Army and stayed until 2009.

In my spare time I developed several versions of high energy particle weapons and UV laser systems for directed energy use all in my back yard. Not too good for the neighbors TV reception though. I suppose all of that would be considered terrorism now.

[Degringolade]

Sort of off topic, but I read this quote in an article about Luttwak and I thought it very applicable to anything that the BHO administration attempts.

"But only in America was the career of Edward Luttwak possible. The perpetually renewable reservoir of naivety at the highest levels of the US government has been good for business."

[ex-PFC Chuck]

re "One of the main features of the current administration is its ability to manufacture a simulacrum of action for public consumption."

Hammer meets nail on head. Especially on the domestic front just about EVERYTHING the Obama administration has done has been Kabuki theater. All image and no substance.

[robt willmann]

People who want to disarm the public or reduce its capacity to use guns to next to nothing can only use one organization. People believe that an individual state can only exercise authority within its boundaries, and so the governor of California is not be able to order the people in the other 49 states to follow his decrees. The only organization available is the federal government, and enough people inside and outside of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of that government must agree that it can do so, for centralized gun control to exist.

The point to pay attention to is who claims the power to give orders about guns. All the talk about "background checks" and "gun shows" is not what is important; those topics only exist if I say I have authority in the first place to control guns, which is what the fight is really about. It is the age-old struggle between individual freedom and centralized authority.

The power grab was the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), which made it through after Robert Kennedy was assassinated during the presidential primary. The National Firearms Act of 1934 was a type of tax law, and the Federal Firearms Act of 1938 did not do much. The GCA cleverly focused on commercial firearms transactions and said that you could not engage in the business of manufacturing, importing, or dealing in firearms without getting a federal license. The power to license is the power to control completely. Dealers then had to identify buyers and maintain records. The GCA also established the power to decide who could receive a gun from a dealer or through interstate commerce, and ultimately who could possess one. It did not matter that the list was small, such as felons, minors, and some others. What mattered was to establish the power to do so. Efforts could be made to expand the list later.

After the GCA, the next big one was the Brady Bill, signed by Bill Clinton on November 30, 1993. It made the power to deny a gun to a person much more effective by establishing the instant background check system. Then the issues became what the reasons would be to block a person from buying a gun and who decides what the reasons would be and who writes the words that describe the reasons, along with what was in the databases to be searched. But the scope of the control was still limited to those engaging in the business of dealing in firearms.

That brings us to the present time. The claimed power to control guns by the federal government is almost complete; it is just the scope and reach of the power that still has some limits.

This is the con game president Obama is playing. He knows that what he has been proposing is not going to reduce gun crime, especially since his town of Chicago is saturated with shootings, even with the laws of Illinois and Chicago. It was quickly shown that his wish list would not have stopped any of the recent shootings with multiple victims. What he wants to do -- illegally -- by executive order is to increase the scope and reach of the existing centralized power over guns. But who knows, he might try to increase the power itself.

In my opinion, the status of the situation looks kind of like the following. If I want power over guns, I want to control--

1. The manufacture and importation of guns. Done through the GCA.

2. The transfer of guns, by sales and other ways. Partly done by controlling those engaged in the business of dealing in firearms through the GCA. Obama will probably try to expand the context and types of people involved in transferring guns, whether it is a sale for money or not.

3. The ability to receive guns. Partly done through the GCA and the Brady Bill. This can be greatly enlarged by what is included in a background check.

4. The ability to possess guns. Partly done through the GCA and the Brady Bill. This can be greatly enlarged by what is included in a background check.

5. How guns are stored. This seems to be largely untouched and open, except for local attempts to require trigger locks, etc.

6. The use of guns. This is the biggest one, and is largely untouched and open, but it does not matter if I can fully control who can have a gun and what type.

If I control those 6 things, I control everything. And for the most important ones -- control points 1 through 4 -- the federal government already says it has the power to do them.

The desire to control guns can be made easier by requiring that the guns be registered so there is a database of the owners. This has been partly done by making gun dealers keep a record of sales; it creates a partial database that is split into many separate parts in the form of the different dealers. But claiming the power to say that a record is to be kept of who owns a gun at a particular point in time has been done; it is just limited to the gun dealer's sale.

The final -- and ultimate -- desire is to track all guns. There is a quite advanced technology called a radio frequency ID chip (RFID). They are in passports, passport cards, toll road passcards, and in some credit cards, and are used to track inventory. One more step....

On the question of gun confiscation, remember what happened in New Orleans at
the time of Hurricane Katrina. A person or persons gave an order to confiscate guns from some people who were not causing any trouble. The order was obeyed.

[James Brennan]

Exactly. Obama's base is quite disappointed with his domestic legacy to date, so he needs to do something to generate excitement.

But this is all grand-standing. No matter what your interpretation of the Second Amendment may be, it is obvious that the president cannot just decree a law into existance without an act of congress. The first time the ATF (or whoever) tries to enforce such a 'law', it will result in a legal challenge and the courts will throw it right out.

Of course, Obama will already be out of office, so he probably doesn't care.

[Fred]

Walrus,

"... the next battle is over the power of the Federal Government to force removal of legally acquired firearms from people who subsequently develop mental illness, are involved in domestic disputes, marriage breakups, etc."

I agree. The first group they will go after will be veterans with any disability ratting for PTSD.

[steve]

Well put.

While he could make grand gestures more substantial in p.r. terms--such as some proposed executive order curtailing financial institutions--he doesn't, for the simple reason that even though it would still be kabuki, it would upset his patrons.

The financial industry couldn't care a whit about gay marriage, gun control, abortion, or any other hot button social/cultural issues, so what Obama does with this sort of meaningless gesture is fine with them. In fact, cultural identity politics is the best thing; it affects nothing of importance in their world.

[steve]

"The Federalist papers very clearly show the debate and what was really the purpose of the Amendment, that is to permit the overthrow of a tyrannical government by the citizens."

Yet, Article I, Sec. 8, explicitly gives Congress the power to call up the militia to suppress insurrection and to enforce federal law.

Of course, the ruling in the DC v. Heller case divorced the right to bear arms from the militia itself and recognized it as an individual right and, in your reading of the Federalist papers, an individual right to overthrow the government.

But Heller stated that this individual right was limited to "traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home" which would seem to preclude overthrowing the government.

Though, if a person's goal is to overthrow the government it seems ultimately unnecessary and contradictory to use that government's law as a justification.