'Gunshow Loophole'Myth

definitely not that easy as the liberals envisioned,go in say I want this handover cash walk out the door psh!

Well, I think "gun show loophole" is a convenient over-simplified shorthand, which grossly distorts the issue. Lots of that going around, on all sides.

What they really mean is that private gun sales don't have to go through the NICS checks (right?)... no matter that private gun sales are a small fraction of gun show turnover (right?).

I'm not advocating background checks for private sales. I just think this video kind of misses the point. (Or maybe it doesn't.)

Yeah, I thought the "gun show loophole" was in reference to private sales. Didn't hear any mention of that in the piece.

One think that I did notice was the guy that said "you will most likely be arrested" if you fail a background check. Is that true. People fail nics for some pretty benign things that they sometimes don't even realize makes them prohibited...

Mark K said:

Well, I think "gun show loophole" is a convenient over-simplified shorthand, which grossly distorts the issue. Lots of that going around, on all sides.

What they really mean is that private gun sales don't have to go through the NICS checks (right?)... no matter that private gun sales are a small fraction of gun show turnover (right?).

Click to expand...

This is why it's not shorthand, not myth, it's an outright falsehood.

Mark K said:

Well, I think "gun show loophole" is a convenient over-simplified shorthand, which grossly distorts the issue. Lots of that going around, on all sides.

What they really mean is that private gun sales don't have to go through the NICS checks (right?)... no matter that private gun sales are a small fraction of gun show turnover (right?).

I'm not advocating background checks for private sales. I just think this video kind of misses the point. (Or maybe it doesn't.)

Click to expand...

Actually, depending on the type of firearm and state of sale (or states) the private sale may need to go through another check.A instate sale of a regulated firearm, or a sale between residents of different states.

protegeV said:

Yeah, I thought the "gun show loophole" was in reference to private sales. Didn't hear any mention of that in the piece.

One think that I did notice was the guy that said "you will most likely be arrested" if you fail a background check. Is that true. People fail nics for some pretty benign things that they sometimes don't even realize makes them prohibited...

Click to expand...

I thought the term referred to a sale where just the phone call to NICS takes place, as opposed to a regulated sale here.

Because you know libtards don't like it when you take your gun home the same day.

The 'gun-show loophole' is 100% b. s. just like how they they said 'Cho bought the gun on the internet' refering to the Va. Tech psycho.

They made it sound like he ordered the gun from the Montgomery Ward catalog and it came right to his house. They never mentioned he bought it from an FFL who sent it to another FFL, where passed the required backgrounds.

Sling Blade said:

I thought the term referred to a sale where just the phone call to NICS takes place, as opposed to a regulated sale here.

Click to expand...

I don't think so. It's private gun owners selling at gun shows, without doing the checks required by FFL dealers:

http://civilliberty.about.com/od/guncontrol/a/Gun-Shows.htm

I do agree that using the term is an intentional falsehood when used by those who know better.

But again, I think that the guy on the video, who wants to "disprove" the "gun show loophole" by apparently only interviewing dealers about the required checks, is missing the point. And not much more honest than the antis.

Mark K said:

Well, I think "gun show loophole" is a convenient over-simplified shorthand, which grossly distorts the issue.....What they really mean is that private gun sales don't have to go through the NICS checks (right?)...

Click to expand...

spot on. It merely refers to private sales, be they at a gunshow or between two parties elsewhere (WM parking lot, range, etc). In MD, it only includes non-banned long gun sale between two MD residents. In other states, like AZ or Mizzo (I think), you can similarly sell handguns between residents with no background check. Different states, different rules. But the "Gunshow loophole" label encompasses all of those private sales, and you have to admit that name is catchier than the more realistic "No background check needed for a private firearm sale between two residents of the same state, while still following all applicable federal, state, and local regulations loophole" name.

Personally, I think private citizens should be able to sell whatever private property we want to to other citizens without government hinderance/registration, but we should have access to the NICS system to checkout a potential buyer. If only for our own piece of mind...at minimum we could know if a buyer is "Not Disapproved"

K31 said:

This is why it's not shorthand, not myth, it's an outright falsehood.

Click to expand...

In many states the only place a private sale must have a nics check is gun show.. and they know it.

Mark K said:

I don't think so. It's private gun owners selling at gun shows, without doing the checks required by FFL dealers:

http://civilliberty.about.com/od/guncontrol/a/Gun-Shows.htm

I do agree that using the term is an intentional falsehood when used by those who know better.

But again, I think that the guy on the video, who wants to "disprove" the "gun show loophole" by apparently only interviewing dealers about the required checks, is missing the point. And not much more honest than the antis.

Click to expand...

Really? He is not missing the point. They can't call it a private sale loophole, because that's not a loophole -- its not trade so the feds have no juristiction. they want to end gundhows...why? The same reason Md wants an hql to put small dealers out of businesses.... ( large dealers are easier to regulate and intimidate as the bass pro example shows).

We keep fighting fair and we should lose...

No Brownie points for giveing the oposition a break.

BG checks do not prevent felons from getting guns. Period.. it serves no purpose. That's the reality.

Brooklyn said:

Really? He is not missing the point. They can't call it a private sale loophole

Click to expand...

OK, that makes sense from that point of view. If the guy was demonstrating the point that the term is wildly inaccurate, then OK.

While I agree with you that background checks "do not prevent felons from getting guns," I do believe they make it more difficult for them to get guns. You may see things differently, but I'm not sure I want convicted felons to be able to walk into a store and buy a handgun without any checks.

Mark K said:

OK, that makes sense from that point of view. If the guy was demonstrating the point that the term is wildly inaccurate, then OK.

While I agree with you that background checks "do not prevent felons from getting guns," I do believe they make it more difficult for them to get guns. You may see things differently, but I'm not sure I want convicted felons to be able to walk into a store and buy a handgun without any checks.

Click to expand...

Why not?
1. They only do it if they think they are not affected.
2. The paper trail is proof of ownership... can' t just dump the gun and run.
3. It will eliminate a source if revenue for organised crime. ( same argument for legal pot the left loves)
4. Most NICs delays are for folks with security clearances for his sakes.. think maybe the FBI might be better used doing you know useful work
5. The real issue is metal Heath NICs does not help because some of the bluest states do not paricipate.
6.it a recipe for abuse... ie gluten Berg amendment.. if they can not. Use it properly it must be taken away
7. Bad data..
8. Issues with substantive due process.


Frankly the public was sold a bill of goods. And gun owners ate paying the bill.

I am only willing to put up with Background check if substantive due process applies... and don't get me started on the. Gin owner database and how that will be abused by public and private sector alike.

What we have is a mess. Its not useful and its not cobs fictional under 14a and likely 4a. And 5a.

We are forced to waive 4a rights in order to ex 2a rights. Big problem.


Now there is a way to do this.. it would be like the no fly list. To get on the no gun list the gov needs a court order. Substantive due process etc etc.

You provide nothing but I'd, and they bounce agaist the list.. done and done.

But., the oposition could not abuse that system.. ..

Its sill may not "work" but it would at least be narrowly tailored to the legitimate state interest. Imagine that. Respecting rights and still being as useful as it could ever be.