Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Close the loophole
Dailypress.com ^ | 26 December, 2008 | Digg

Posted on 12/27/2008 8:34:11 AM PST by marktwain

Earlier this month, the Virginia State Crime Commission danced back from an opportunity to help reduce crime. It declined — let's hope temporarily — to recommend that the General Assembly close the gun-show loophole.

Loophole? Gun-rights advocates never tire of arguing that there's no such thing. There is indeed. Federal and state law require that people buying guns from licensed dealers undergo background checks. It's the front line in the effort to make sure that those whom the state and nation believe shouldn't own guns — convicted felons, the mentally ill, abusive spouses, for example — can't buy them. But at a gun show, any and all of the above can buy a gun — a handgun, a shot gun, an assault rifle. Because vendors who don't have federal licenses are permitted to sell guns at many of the popular gun shows.

------------------cut-------------------------

Not fine. So if you're a stalker who has a court restraining order against you, a gun show's the place to go to buy a gun. Or if you have a felony on your record, or a commitment to a psychiatric hospital. At any other legal selling point, the instant background check will foil you. And that's why it's called the gunshow loophole. There are a limited number of ways guns move into the hands of criminals. Some are able to buy them legitimately. Some buy them illegally on the street. Some steal them. Some buy them from licensed dealers — the crooked few — who don't bother enforcing the laws. And some buy them at gun shows. So if there's a way to staunch part of the flow of guns into criminal hands, why not do it?

(Excerpt) Read more at dailypress.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; News/Current Events; US: Virginia
KEYWORDS: banglist; gunshow; loophole; timkaine; va2008; vageneralassembly; virginia
There are new facts that are conveniently ignored by the article

We now have an academic study, done by academics (that appear to me to have an anti-gun bias) at the Universities of Michigan and Maryland, that compares freemarket gun shows in Texas with heavily regulated gun shows in California. While the authors do not advertise it in the abstract, the study shows that the freemarket shows in Texas actually *save* lives, about 250, over the course of the study.

Here is the link:

http://closup.umich.edu ./research/workingpapers/paper s/gunshows-sept08-final.pdf

1 posted on 12/27/2008 8:34:12 AM PST by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: marktwain
Here is the link in an click on edition:

http://closup.umich.edu ./research/workingpapers/paper s/gunshows-sept08-final.pdf

2 posted on 12/27/2008 8:38:13 AM PST by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Yup, all firearms sales in CA have to go thru a dealer with a background check and a ten day waiting period. This practice hasn’t made a dent in the number of guns criminals get.


3 posted on 12/27/2008 8:52:33 AM PST by umgud (I'm really happy I wasn't aborted)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
This is total B.S.

Any VENDOR has to fill out the 4473s and do the background checks.

What this dishonest writer is calling a "vendor" is a private owner who goes to the gun show to sell a personal firearm. That one time sale between private persons is not regulated anywhere, including at gun shows.

The so-called loophole is the right you have to sell your private property to somebody else. Drives the nanny-staters crazy because they want to control ALL the guns.

4 posted on 12/27/2008 8:54:13 AM PST by AnAmericanMother (Ministrix of ye Chasse (TTGC Ladies' Auxiliary - recess appointment))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
Criminals usually don't bother to buy guns they steal them. Cops confiscated the machine guns form the Hollywood bandits and gave them back by court order. I would rather live in an area where there were criminals with guns and I was allowed to have guns than the gun control cities where the criminals had guns and I was not allowed.
5 posted on 12/27/2008 8:57:28 AM PST by mountainlion (concerned conservative.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AnAmericanMother
This is an attack on private property and nothing else.
What if you were allowed to only sell your used car through a dealer? Got an old recliner? Take it to a furniture store.
6 posted on 12/27/2008 9:03:41 AM PST by Eric in the Ozarks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

The insidious and unending efforts are such that it is worth creating “legacy arsenals” of unregistered guns today, on the assumption that eventually, somehow, someway, the gun controllers are successful in their efforts.

This is the idea of taking weapons, carefully packed in stable chemicals, as well as the appropriate casings and bullets and equipment to reassemble them, and putting them in a “time capsule”, in such a place to insure they are not molested for 100 years, unless needed.

Unfortunately, this cannot be done with propellant and primers, which are the Achilles heel of the idea. So if possible, at least recipes of how to make them should be left with the cache.

Even if guns remain free, in 100 years, the arsenal would be a very valuable collection of antiques. But if society was disarmed, as is always the effort of the tyrant, even a small arsenal could change the course of the nation.


7 posted on 12/27/2008 9:03:43 AM PST by yefragetuwrabrumuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy
“Unfortunately, this cannot be done with propellant and primers, which are the Achilles heel of the idea. So if possible, at least recipes of how to make them should be left with the cache.”

If stored in a cool, dry place, propellant and primers last for many decades. The NRA even did a test of 100 year old ammunition, and most of it worked well. My experience is that WWII ammunition, which is now over 60 years old, still works well if it has been stored properly.

We certainly do not know what technology will be available in 100 years, but if recent history is a guide, firearms may well be effectively obsolete. Then again, they may be some of the highest level technology available!

8 posted on 12/27/2008 9:12:19 AM PST by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
So if you're a stalker who has a court restraining order against you, a gun show's the place to go to buy a gun.

ROFL. Umm buddy, the stalker isn't going to wait days or weeks for the latest gun show to come to his area, nor is he going to drive up to 500 miles to a gun show if he is intent on killing his victim NOW.

9 posted on 12/27/2008 9:17:26 AM PST by Extremely Extreme Extremist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Firearms almost cannot become obsolete, unless defenses against them are on 24 hours a day. Heck, even a rock isn’t obsolete as a weapon, much less spears or arrows.


10 posted on 12/27/2008 9:18:59 AM PST by yefragetuwrabrumuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy

“Firearms almost cannot become obsolete, unless defenses against them are on 24 hours a day. Heck, even a rock isn’t obsolete as a weapon, much less spears or arrows.”


I suppose it depends on how you define obsolete. Certainly all the older weapons can still be used with deadly effect, as buggies can be used for transportation, and teeth can be pulled without anethesia.

I think of obsolete as meaning that people using technology and science have found much more effective ways of doing things, rendering the old ways so much less effective that, given a choice, a rational person would choose the newer, more effective tools.


11 posted on 12/27/2008 9:28:18 AM PST by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy; marktwain

Well, my old bolt action military rifles may be obsolete but those 16” bayonets on the end of them will sure give anyone breaking in the front door second thoughts.


12 posted on 12/27/2008 9:48:51 AM PST by PeteB570 (NRA - Life member and Black Rifle owner)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Loophole? What Loophole?

The author claims to oppose the gun-show loophole. Ok, let’s be clear here. Throughout the nation, every firearms dealer has to run a background check for every gun sale, whether at a gun show, gun shop, or at the Easter Parade.

And if you’re not a licensed dealer, you may sell a gun from your collection without a background check, whether from home, through the want-ads, or at a gun show (several states prohibit this). The law at gun shows is the same as for every other location, no matter who you are. There is no gun-show loophole.

OK, now that we’ve gotten over the author’s deception, let’s look at the real agenda: Make ALL (not just gun show) gun sales subject to background checks, whether among friends, family, or community members. The reason for that? To create a complete registration database, which is the essential prerequisite for confiscation.


13 posted on 12/27/2008 10:00:42 AM PST by Atlas Sneezed (Guns don't kill people. Criminals and the governments that create them kill people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy

If it’s time to bury them, it’s *past* time to dig them up.


14 posted on 12/27/2008 10:10:37 AM PST by PLMerite ("Unarmed, one can only flee from Evil. But Evil isn't overcome by fleeing from it." Jeff Cooper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Yeah, because a piece of paper that says “Court Restraining Order” has some magic power that’s going to keep the abusive person away from the person that filed it.

Liberals are so stupid and naive it’s painful.


15 posted on 12/27/2008 10:10:56 AM PST by wastedyears (In Canada, Santa says "Ho Ho, eh?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Beelzebubba
Excellent post. I have stated the same many times, but it bears repeating, because it will never be stated in the MSM.

Registration is functionally equivalent to Confiscation.

16 posted on 12/27/2008 10:13:05 AM PST by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Fixed link:

http://closup.umich.edu/research/workingpapers/papers/gunshows-sept08-final.pdf


17 posted on 12/27/2008 10:15:50 AM PST by Atlas Sneezed (Guns don't kill people. Criminals and the governments that create them kill people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Beelzebubba

Thank you. I appreciate that!


18 posted on 12/27/2008 10:17:29 AM PST by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: AnAmericanMother

“Any VENDOR has to fill out the 4473s and do the background checks.”

Not exactly. In my state, Alabama, I’ve been to gun shows were private citizens did function as registered venders. All a ‘vendor’ is, in this state, is someone who rents a stall or both to sell a product. That might include camping gear or any other item. The last gun show I attended had a widow selling off her husbands guns. No background check.

Now, the ATF does ‘patrol’ gun shows and I’m sure that they will check-out any private citizen selling guns as a vendor.

What this article doesn’t say and I’m sure this is the point of your comments is that the ‘Lautenburg Amendment’ that addressed the ‘gun show loophole’ placed restrictions on gun shows that wouldn’t apply to a dealer doing business at his regular place.

For example. Suppose two friends meet at a gun show and in the course of events agree to private gun sale. No money or property changes hands at the gun show as they agree to meet later at another location. Under the ‘Lautenburg Amendment’, these private citizens would have committed a federal gun crime. Not only that but the gun show organizer would have been equally guilty even though he was unaware of the agreement. BTW, under current law, if these two friends met at a gun shop, and made the same agreement, no federal crime would be committed.

Since no gun show organizer would be willing to incurr the potential criminal liability involved in my example, the effect would be to close all gunshows. As I remember the ‘Lautenburg Amendment’ defined a gun show as any location where three or more gun sales were made. If you ran a flea market and three or more private individuals made private agreements on your premises, whether you were aware of these agreements or not, you would have been operating a ‘gun show’ and would have been under the previsions of the ‘Lautenburg amendment’. You would have been a criminal since you did not post all the required notices and did not ensure that no gun sales agreements took place.

The intent of those who want to ‘close the gun show loophole’ is to make all gun sales go through the federal background check.


19 posted on 12/27/2008 10:22:49 AM PST by DugwayDuke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Beelzebubba
See the second paragraph on page 4. It is particularly telling. They found a *decrease* of 20 homicides a year in Texas that was linked to free market gun shows, and it was statistically significant.

The title of the article should have been: “Free Market Gun Shows Save Lives”. The fact that it was not, and that the authors play down this finding, says a lot about their biases.

20 posted on 12/27/2008 10:30:43 AM PST by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Oops! Correction! It is 16 lives per year, not 20!


21 posted on 12/27/2008 10:39:31 AM PST by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: DugwayDuke
“Since no gun show organizer would be willing to incurr the potential criminal liability involved in my example, the effect would be to close all gunshows. As I remember the ‘Lautenburg Amendment’ defined a gun show as any location where three or more gun sales were made. If you ran a flea market and three or more private individuals made private agreements on your premises, whether you were aware of these agreements or not, you would have been operating a ‘gun show’ and would have been under the previsions of the ‘Lautenburg amendment’. You would have been a criminal since you did not post all the required notices and did not ensure that no gun sales agreements took place.”

Excellent points. If the public understood this, they would see the “gun show loophole” for the fraud that it is.
22 posted on 12/27/2008 11:37:05 AM PST by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy
The insidious and unending efforts are such that it is worth creating “legacy arsenals” of unregistered guns... today,

Good luck getting an unregistered gun THESE days - nobody I know who has any is selling them. All of ours are "on the books" - BATF is supposed to destroy the 4473's after some time period, but I wouldn't bet a nickel that they actually do.

23 posted on 12/27/2008 4:12:42 PM PST by nina0113 (Hugh Akston is my hero.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
still waiting..


24 posted on 12/27/2008 4:36:26 PM PST by xp38
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson