# define the term, "gun show loophole" **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 26, 2009, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/define-the-term-gun-show-loophole/487575 "2009-02-26T23:06:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Todderbob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e47774/32.png) [@Todderbob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Todderbob)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2009, 4:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/define-the-term-gun-show-loophole/487575/21 "2009-02-27T04:21:38Z")
> [@Cluricaun](#): > > Hmmmm…that’s an interesting idea. A very interesting idea indeed. The only kind I ever have! :D:p ---
**Author:** ![JXJohns](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jxjohns/32/469_2.png) [@JXJohns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JXJohns)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2009, 4:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/define-the-term-gun-show-loophole/487575/22 "2009-02-27T04:25:25Z")
> [@Cluricaun](#): > > Hmmmm…that’s an interesting idea. A very interesting idea indeed. In my state, it is my responsibility that if I sell a pistol to someone that I verify that they have either a concealed weapons permit or a pistol purchase permit, both of which are issued by my county sheriff. Much to Whack-a-mole’s chagrin on another active thread, I have no problem with this restriction. A permit holder in my state has the background check done every year to keep their permit active. If my county sheriff is cool with annual checks, so am I. ---
**Author:** ![Cluricaun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/bb73d2/32.png) [@Cluricaun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cluricaun)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2009, 4:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/define-the-term-gun-show-loophole/487575/23 "2009-02-27T04:25:34Z")
> [@Todderbob](#): > > The only kind I ever have! :D:p I’m still trying to figure out why it’s not a good idea, nothing personal mind you, just trying to figure out what the issue might be. Are addresses listed in there? ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2009, 4:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/define-the-term-gun-show-loophole/487575/24 "2009-02-27T04:29:03Z")
> [@Todderbob](#): > > There should be no requirement for the either the purchaser/transferee or seller/transferer to retain any data. I wouldn’t have a problem with a record that a check was done, but not one that kept on file any information about the gun being transfered. I agree that there seems to be no point in having the individual participants keep track of the paperwork, but ISTM that NICS would need to retain a record of the check. If the point is to ensure that all gun transfers pass a proper background check, then ISTM that there has to be some penalty for doing a firearm transfer without a proper background check. And I don’t see how you can do that without keeping a record of what checks are done. > [@Todderbob](#): > > They wouldn’t know if they were involved in an illegal sale by background checking the seller. Well, okay, they wouldn’t know if **this particular** gun was legally obtained by the seller, but at least they’d know whether or not the seller was a qualified firearm owner. ---
**Author:** ![JXJohns](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jxjohns/32/469_2.png) [@JXJohns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JXJohns)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2009, 4:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/define-the-term-gun-show-loophole/487575/25 "2009-02-27T04:33:24Z")
A good trade off for a mandated NICS check is to eliminate the FFL system. Let me as a resident of Iowa be able to order a pistol from a guy in AZ. I pass the check and he sends me my gun. I’d be down for that in a heartbeat. ---
**Author:** ![Todderbob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e47774/32.png) [@Todderbob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Todderbob)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2009, 4:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/define-the-term-gun-show-loophole/487575/26 "2009-02-27T04:36:58Z")
> [@Cluricaun](#): > > I’m still trying to figure out why it’s not a good idea, nothing personal mind you, just trying to figure out what the issue might be. Are addresses listed in there? Listed in the Bakcground check? It’s required to do the background check. > [@Kimstu](#): > > I agree that there seems to be no point in having the individual participants keep track of the paperwork, but ISTM that NICS would need to retain a record of the check. That **a** check happened, maybe… > [@Kimstu](#): > > If the point is to ensure that all gun transfers pass a proper background check, then ISTM that there has to be some penalty for doing a firearm transfer without a proper background check. And I don’t see how you can do that without keeping a record of what checks are done. Maybe you don’t mandate them as required, but opening up the NCIS just seems like the smart thing to do either way. > [@Kimstu](#): > > Well, okay, they wouldn’t know if **this particular** gun was legally obtained by the seller, but at least they’d know whether or not the seller was a qualified firearm owner. Qualified is irrelevant. What you mean to say is whether the seller is a legal gun owner, which is a moot point, because they already own the gun. Running a check on them serves no purpose, it doesn’t prevent someone who isn’t legally allowed to own a firearm from obtaining it, which is the point of the NCIS. There is **no** benefit. What do you do if it comes back as the seller is Delayed (one of three possible outcomes of a NCIS check: Delayed - Approved - Denied) or even Denied? Background checking both parties has no added benefit, period. ---
**Author:** ![Cluricaun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/bb73d2/32.png) [@Cluricaun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cluricaun)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2009, 4:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/define-the-term-gun-show-loophole/487575/27 "2009-02-27T04:41:18Z")
> [@Todderbob](#): > > Listed in the Bakcground check? It’s required to do the background check. Well then that’s a non-starter for me. I don’t want my address listed in the great online forum of people who own guns. It’s a security issue. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2009, 4:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/define-the-term-gun-show-loophole/487575/28 "2009-02-27T04:42:16Z")
Is there a debate here other than that the OP doesn’t like the word “loophole” to describe the gun show weasel hole that allows commercial vendors to sell guns without checks under the pretense that they’re “private sales?” It’s a loophole. You know, I know it, the American people know it. It’s not a private sale. It’s every bit as commercial as going to a gun store. Who do you guys think you’re kidding? ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2009, 4:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/define-the-term-gun-show-loophole/487575/29 "2009-02-27T04:44:31Z")
> [@JXJohns](#): > > A good trade off for a mandated NICS check is to eliminate the FFL system. Let me as a resident of Iowa be able to order a pistol from a guy in AZ. I pass the check and he sends me my gun. I’d be down for that in a heartbeat. Sounds sensible to me, though as I said, I’d like to see the check applied to both participants. The universal access to an online background-check system is also nice because it doesn’t impose undue burdens on buyers observing legally mandated waiting periods. If you have to wait 24 hours or 3 days or whatever between initiating a firearm purchase and actually getting your hands on the firearm, you can start the background-check process from wherever you happen to be, and then make the actual trip to the seller only once, to pick up your purchase when the waiting period has expired. (Hijack: I’d have a lot more sympathy for anti-abortion activists requiring mandatory waiting periods between pre-abortion counseling and abortion procedures if they provided this same kind of remote-access option for the preliminary step. Requiring people to wait a reasonable time before taking a potentially traumatic step is arguably a reasonable idea. But requiring people to make extra trips or spend extra time in a distant location in order to comply with waiting-period rules is not: its only purpose is to put obstacles in the way of carrying out their legally permitted choice.) ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2009, 4:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/define-the-term-gun-show-loophole/487575/30 "2009-02-27T04:45:01Z")
> [@Todderbob](#): > > What you mean to say is whether the seller is a legal gun owner, which is a moot point, because they already own the gun. Running a check on them serves no purpose, it doesn’t prevent someone who isn’t legally allowed to own a firearm from obtaining it It prevents them from selling it at a gun show, though, which is a giant benefit. ---
**Author:** ![Todderbob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e47774/32.png) [@Todderbob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Todderbob)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2009, 4:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/define-the-term-gun-show-loophole/487575/31 "2009-02-27T04:46:27Z")
> [@Cluricaun](#): > > Well then that’s a non-starter for me. I don’t want my address listed in the great online forum of people who own guns. It’s a security issue. The checks would be run individually, you enter your name, DOB, SSN, description, etc, into a form. It’s not a forum with names listed. > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Is there a debate here other than that the OP doesn’t like the word “loophole” to describe the gun show weasel hole that allows commercial vendors to sell guns without checks under the pretense that they’re “private sales?” People with FFL’s have to conduct background checks on individuals, whether the sales are at a gun show or at their shop. I know, I recently purchased a rifle at one. > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > It’s a loophole. You know, I know it, the American people know it. It’s not a private sale. It’s every bit as commercial as going to a gun store. Who do you guys think you’re kidding? And the gun sales done from FFL’s do have background checks done. Most shows wont let private individuals liquidate private collections at gun shows. ---
**Author:** ![Todderbob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e47774/32.png) [@Todderbob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Todderbob)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2009, 4:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/define-the-term-gun-show-loophole/487575/32 "2009-02-27T04:48:24Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Sounds sensible to me, though as I said, I’d like to see the check applied to both participants. **How is this beneficial?** > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > It prevents them from selling it at a gun show, though, which is a giant benefit. 1. No it doesn’t. 2. How would that be a benefit? ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2009, 4:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/define-the-term-gun-show-loophole/487575/33 "2009-02-27T04:56:23Z")
> [@Todderbob](#): > > Maybe you don’t mandate them as required, but opening up the NCIS just seems like the smart thing to do either way. Well, if you’re not mandating any background checks, what’s the point of having a background-check system in the first place? If running a background check is totally voluntary, it will be pretty much useless in screening out the bad guys. > [@Todderbob](#): > > What you mean to say is whether the seller is a legal gun owner, which is a moot point, because they already own the gun. Running a check on them serves no purpose, it doesn’t prevent someone who isn’t legally allowed to own a firearm from obtaining it, which is the point of the NCIS. There is no benefit. I disagree: it flags somebody who has no business participating in a firearm transfer. I’m all for letting the good guys know when they’re dealing with bad guys, so they can avoid them. > [@Todderbob](#): > > What do you do if it comes back as the seller is Delayed (one of three possible outcomes of a NCIS check: Delayed - Approved - Denied) or even Denied? If it’s Delayed, you wait till the delay is resolved. If it’s Denied, you don’t buy that gun from that person. ---
**Author:** ![Todderbob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e47774/32.png) [@Todderbob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Todderbob)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2009, 5:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/define-the-term-gun-show-loophole/487575/34 "2009-02-27T05:03:34Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Well, if you’re not mandating any background checks, what’s the point of having a background-check system in the first place? If running a background check is totally voluntary, it will be pretty much useless in screening out the bad guys. Believe it or not, most firearm owners would utilize it when selling firearms (I know this, because I’ve asked many first hand, and, myself included, have responded positively). Most (private) gun sales go on between individuals who are quite familiar with each other. For those, a background check isn’t typically needed – and wouldn’t necessarily be utilized. However opening up the NCIS, even if it’s purely voluntary, is a good idea anyway. > [@Kimstu](#): > > I disagree: it flags somebody who has no business participating in a firearm transfer. No it doesn’t, it flags someone who shouldn’t be purchasing or owning a firearm there’s a difference. > [@Kimstu](#): > > If it’s Delayed, you wait till the delay is resolved. If it’s Denied, you don’t buy that gun from that person. Leaving the firearm in the hands of someone who isn’t allowed to own firearms, which is what the NCIS was designed to prevent? It’s also added server strain and man hours, added expense and there is no added benefit. Extra man hours / server strain with little added benefit = wasteful legislation. If your worry is about stolen firearms, most intelligent people check with local databases of stolen firearm serial numbers before purchasing a firearm, it’s far less labor and server intensive. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2009, 5:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/define-the-term-gun-show-loophole/487575/35 "2009-02-27T05:28:30Z")
I don’t see the issue here. The gun show exemption makes no more sense that having a law that says that only liquor store owners are prohibited from selling alcohol to underage customers but anyone else can. ---
**Author:** ![JXJohns](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jxjohns/32/469_2.png) [@JXJohns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JXJohns)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2009, 5:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/define-the-term-gun-show-loophole/487575/36 "2009-02-27T05:34:51Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Sounds sensible to me, though as I said, I’d like to see the check applied to both participants. If I could order a gun through the mail and have it sent to my house based on a successful check, I don’t care who in the transaction gets checked. > [@](#): > > The universal access to an online background-check system is also nice because it doesn’t impose undue burdens on buyers observing legally mandated waiting periods. If you have to wait 24 hours or 3 days or whatever between initiating a firearm purchase and actually getting your hands on the firearm, you can start the background-check process from wherever you happen to be, and then make the actual trip to the seller only once, to pick up your purchase when the waiting period has expired. Just for the record, that is not how it works in ILL today. The waiting period does not begin until the purchaser fills out the 4473 form in person. ---
**Author:** ![JXJohns](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jxjohns/32/469_2.png) [@JXJohns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JXJohns)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2009, 5:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/define-the-term-gun-show-loophole/487575/37 "2009-02-27T05:36:46Z")
> [@Todderbob](#): > > People with FFL’s have to conduct background checks on individuals, whether the sales are at a gun show or at their shop. I know, I recently purchased a rifle at one. He knows that quite well. ---
**Author:** ![Todderbob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e47774/32.png) [@Todderbob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Todderbob)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2009, 5:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/define-the-term-gun-show-loophole/487575/38 "2009-02-27T05:39:54Z")
> [@JXJohns](#): > > He knows that quite well. This isn’t the _only_ way I know, just anecdotal evidence. I also know because I’m familiar with the law. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![JXJohns](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jxjohns/32/469_2.png) [@JXJohns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JXJohns)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2009, 5:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/define-the-term-gun-show-loophole/487575/39 "2009-02-27T05:51:06Z")
> [@Todderbob](#): > > This isn’t the _only_ way I know, just anecdotal evidence. > > I also know because I’m familiar with the law. 😛 When I said HE I meant DTC, not you. ---
**Author:** ![Stealth\_Potato](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d78d45/32.png) [@Stealth\_Potato](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stealth_Potato)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2009, 5:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/define-the-term-gun-show-loophole/487575/40 "2009-02-27T05:51:50Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I don’t see the issue here. The gun show exemption makes no more sense that having a law that says that only liquor store owners are prohibited from selling alcohol to underage customers but anyone else can. That point of view only makes sense if you view unregulated transfers between private individuals as a bad thing. I don’t, strictly as a matter of privacy and property rights. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/define-the-term-gun-show-loophole/487575.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/define-the-term-gun-show-loophole/487575.md?page=3)