# 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:** 18\ **Page:** 6
**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:** [March 3, 2009, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/define-the-term-gun-show-loophole/487575/101 "2009-03-03T03:13:59Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > …and that there are virtually no gun sales that occur without going through a licensed dealer. At a gun show this is true. I have no cites, but I would imagine there are FAR more sales between individuals, than through licensed dealers outside of shows. ---
**Author:** ![Kevbo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/e47774/32.png) [@Kevbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kevbo)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2009, 3:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/define-the-term-gun-show-loophole/487575/102 "2009-03-03T03:43:55Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > So let’s face facts - there’s probably a significant number of buyers who are buying firearms at gun shows because they would fail a background check. You claim to be stating fact, yet hedge your bet with a “probably”. The only fact here is that you are engaged in speculation. Contrary to your belief, gun shows do not exist to skirt background check laws. They exist for exactly the same reasons that skiers, motorcyclists, ham radio operators, crafty ladies, fly fishermen, etc. etc. have thier own swap meets. It is a place you can go and have a high likelyhood of finding the gun you are looking for at a reasonable price. what with all the knives, holsters, ammo, books, reloading equipment, shooting benches, chronographs etc. Actual gun sales probably account for less than half the commerce that happens at a gun show, especially if you count the register at the snack bar and the entry, vendor, and parking fees. I’ve been to perhaps two dozen gun shows and only bought a gun once…from an actual FFL holder that ran a background check. ---
**Author:** ![ExTank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@ExTank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ExTank)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2009, 4:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/define-the-term-gun-show-loophole/487575/103 "2009-03-03T04:24:00Z")
I’ve been to dozens of gun shows over the years, and agree with **Kevbo.** I have an even dozen firearms in my gun safe. I’ve purchased one handgun at a gun show, but 5 of my six “long guns” came from a gun show. Only one was purchased without a background check; a Winchester Model 70 3-shot bolt-action rifle, from an old boy selling off his dead brother’s collection. Other things I’ve bought at gun shows: Crimson Trace for a .45 ACP Compact. Carry cases to go to-and-from the gun range. Various cleaning supplies. A spotting scope. Magazines (not the reading type). Magazines (the reading type). Books. Those cinnamon roasted pecans. I can’t pass those damned things up. Anywhere. Various homemade jellies, mustards, and jerky. Loaves of fresh baked breads; carrot bread (not as sweet as cake) was my favorite. A nice handwoven blanket. A case of MREs going cheap. A camp cot. A Dutch oven. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2009, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/define-the-term-gun-show-loophole/487575/104 "2009-03-03T15:17:29Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I’ve admitted I know relatively little about this issue and I’m genuinely interested in learning about it. So think of this as an opportunity to sway someone who’s undecided on this issue over to your side. But I said right from the start that I’ll be persuaded by reason and evidence not emotional appeals. And I’m not a convert looking for a cause to join - I’m not going to accept everything’s that said to me without question. If I see what appears to be a gap in the logic I’m going to poke a finger at it and see if the whole thing crumbles. I’m not looking for an argument or a choir singalong - I’d like a genuine debate where people have an opportunity to disagree with each other and to defend their positions. That’s fine. And I certainly agree that one method of testing the truth of a proposition is to vigorously advocate for its converse, to test its strength. But those tactics don’t require the approach of stating, as assumed, things that simply aren’t true. If you genuinely doubt the truth of a proposition, surely it’s more appropriate to frame it as a question. > [@](#): > > For example, so far I’ve heard (from different people) that the authorities want to stop all gun sales; that these same authorities can take away anyone’s license to sell guns for no reason; and that there are virtually no gun sales that occur without going through a licensed dealer. Can you see the problem here? If all three of these things are true then there would be no guns sold in this country. So somebody must be stretching the facts a bit. Well, I don’t adopt any of those positions. There is no monolithic force of “the authorities.” Some people in power are perfectly fine with private gun ownership, some wish to apply minimal restrictions, and some wish to end the practice entirely. It’s true that the federal firearms license can be taken away on very little evidence, but, like any other governmental action, this is subject to challenge and review. There’s an expense associated with this process that may make it a less palatable option for some people. Finally, the vast majority of legal gun sales do go through an FFL dealer; there are many weapons sold in an overly criminal manner from start to finish that do not. Private, individual legal sales are a small fraction of the total. ---
**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:** [March 3, 2009, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/define-the-term-gun-show-loophole/487575/105 "2009-03-03T17:06:46Z")
Well then let me get back to the basics of the thread. What exactly is the “gun show loophole”? What is the supposed loophole that proposed laws are supposedly trying to close? ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2009, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/define-the-term-gun-show-loophole/487575/106 "2009-03-03T17:59:23Z")
And again - some politicians and organizations are trying to sharply curtail or eliminate purely private transfers - but they never say this flat out. They always describe this as some sort of loophole that needs to be closed. I think a case can be made for it, honestly, but only if it is managed so as to not be made a tool of registration/confiscation schemes. Given the government’s record in this area, I think that will be very hard to do, but I am open to listen. Also, I think it would be helpful for advocates of this law to note exactly what they are advocating so that this can be openly debated. It isn’t a loophole - it is private transfers, no different, as noted, than that which legally brought my grandfather’s shotgun into my possession. And if a politician wants to end this practice, he needs to justify it mindful that excessive controls may well be seen as unconstitutional. ---
**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:** [March 3, 2009, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/define-the-term-gun-show-loophole/487575/107 "2009-03-03T18:31:42Z")
> [@](#): > > And again - some politicians and organizations are trying to sharply curtail or eliminate purely private transfers - but they never say this flat out. They always describe this as some sort of loophole that needs to be closed. > > I think a case can be made for it, honestly, but only if it is managed so as to not be made a tool of registration/confiscation schemes. Given the government’s record in this area, I think that will be very hard to do, but I am open to listen. Also, I think it would be helpful for advocates of this law to note exactly what they are advocating so that this can be openly debated. > > It isn’t a loophole - it is private transfers, no different, as noted, than that which legally brought my grandfather’s shotgun into my possession. And if a politician wants to end this practice, he needs to justify it mindful that excessive controls may well be seen as unconstitutional. It appears there are essentially three groups of firearm sales. For the sake of argument I’ll call them acquaintance sales, gun show sales, and gun store sales. Gun store sales are the easy one. These are the sales of firearms that occur in a business setting where the seller is a licensed gun dealer. Acquaintance sales are a sale (or gift) of a firearm from one person to somebody else he knows personally. These sales are very minor in number - a person might only sell a one or maybe two firearms like this in a year. The gun show sales are the gray area in the middle. These are sales by people who are running a business for all practical purposes. They are selling firearms on a regular basis to customers “off the street”. Now on the issue of background checks. Gun store sales are already covered by background checks. Acquaintance sales are not covered by background checks and, in my personal opinion, there’s no need for background checks in these sales. The buyer and seller know each other and a formal background check would just be a redundant waste of time and money. So the issue is gun show sales. What I seem to be getting from people here is that there’s actually no such thing as gun show sales as I’ve defined them. Gun show sales are actually just like gun store sales and the same laws cover them. The proposals for regulating gun show sales is actually a smoke screen for a move to regulate acquaintance sales. Am I grasping this correctly? ---
**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:** [March 3, 2009, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/define-the-term-gun-show-loophole/487575/108 "2009-03-03T18:38:27Z")
> [@](#): > > Finally, the vast majority of legal gun sales do go through an FFL dealer; there are many weapons sold in an overly criminal manner from start to finish that do not. Private, individual legal sales are a small fraction of the total. This seems to be the issue of the debate here. FFL sales are already regulated. Criminal sales are not the topic under discussion. So the question is how large a fraction of total firearm sales are private individual legal sales? Most people here seem to be saying it’s very small. The people who are claiming there’s a “gun show loophole” seem to feel it’s large enough to need to be addressed. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2009, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/define-the-term-gun-show-loophole/487575/109 "2009-03-03T19:20:42Z")
> [@Todderbob](#): > > You _require_ a SSN/[alien alternative] to complete the BGC online. A SSN does not give you access to someones criminal record. It’s easy to get a SSN. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2009, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/define-the-term-gun-show-loophole/487575/110 "2009-03-03T19:23:49Z")
> [@JXJohns](#): > > I didn’t get that at all from that last post. Who is the felon? The guy buying or the guy selling? Either way it doesn’t matter as it is illegal for one to buy a gun if you are a convicted felon and it is also illegal to own a gun if a felon which is what you must do first, prior to selling one. FTR a NICS check is either a go or no go, not a “no, and here’s why…” > > If I am still missing the point you are trying to make, it is by accident, I’m not trying to be an ass. 🙂 > > . No buying or selling at all is involved in my scenario. The point was is that you could use the NICS check to invade someones privacy without a gun sale taking place at all, under "Todderbob’s idea to “open the NCIS up online, so anyone can use it, regardless of whether or not they have an FFL.”. Got it? ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2009, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/define-the-term-gun-show-loophole/487575/111 "2009-03-03T20:04:59Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > The gun show sales are the gray area in the middle. These are sales by people who are running a business for all practical purposes. They are selling firearms on a regular basis to customers “off the street”. > > …So the issue is gun show sales. What I seem to be getting from people here is that there’s actually no such thing as gun show sales as I’ve defined them. Gun show sales are actually just like gun store sales and the same laws cover them. The proposals for regulating gun show sales is actually a smoke screen for a move to regulate acquaintance sales. > > Am I grasping this correctly? Pretty much. An awful lot of FFL holders don’t have a brick-and-mortar store. They have an FFL to conduct trade in curio and replica firearms, or internet sales, or to do business at booths at gun shows. But in doing this they are subject to FFL regulations identical to those obeyed by the dealer down the street. Now, a private individual may go to some shows (depending on their rules) and sell firearms to the FFL holders or to the other patrons milling around. Since most shows won’t rent booth space to a non-FFL holder for the purpose of selling guns, he would be limited in this to the quantity he can carry in cased or locked. And since he can make verbal offers to other patrons and potentially close a sale offsite, the legislation would seek to ban this activity, as noted above. The cite I mentioned above from the Brady Campaign shows that they do not see this as an isolated instance - they would want to ban sales through classified ads, websites, and the like as long as the sale did not go through an FFL holder. Frankly we have seen, too, what can happen when these are restricted - for years the Second Amendment rights of DC residents were violated in large part because there were no FFL holders in the District that could legally process their transactions. And just because _Heller_ mentioned this problem and the constitutionality of such does not mean I trust the government any more in managing this. ---
**Author:** ![Todderbob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e47774/32.png) [@Todderbob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Todderbob)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2009, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/define-the-term-gun-show-loophole/487575/112 "2009-03-03T21:07:37Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > The gun show sales are the gray area in the middle. These are sales by people who are running a business for all practical purposes. They are selling firearms on a regular basis to customers “off the street”. > > Now on the issue of background checks. Gun store sales are already covered by background checks. Acquaintance sales are not covered by background checks and, in my personal opinion, there’s no need for background checks in these sales. The buyer and seller know each other and a formal background check would just be a redundant waste of time and money. > > So the issue is gun show sales. What I seem to be getting from people here is that there’s actually no such thing as gun show sales as I’ve defined them. Gun show sales are actually just like gun store sales and the same laws cover them. The proposals for regulating gun show sales is actually a smoke screen for a move to regulate acquaintance sales. > > Am I grasping this correctly? Gun show sales are, 99.9999% of the time, Gun Store sales that happen off-premises. These are still covered by the same laws as Gun Store Sells. ---
**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:** [March 3, 2009, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/define-the-term-gun-show-loophole/487575/113 "2009-03-03T22:47:58Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > … So the issue is gun show sales. What I seem to be getting from people here is that there’s actually no such thing as gun show sales as I’ve defined them. Gun show sales are actually just like gun store sales and the same laws cover them. The proposals for regulating gun show sales is actually a smoke screen for a move to regulate acquaintance sales. > > Am I grasping this correctly? You are correct. ---
**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:** [March 3, 2009, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/define-the-term-gun-show-loophole/487575/114 "2009-03-03T22:49:21Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > No buying or selling at all is involved in my scenario. The point was is that you could use the NICS check to invade someones privacy without a gun sale taking place at all, under "Todderbob’s idea to “open the NCIS up online, so anyone can use it, regardless of whether or not they have an FFL.”. Got it? Like I said, the return info is either a yes or no. No other info is given out. If someone already has the SSN or other personal info in order to run a check, they wont be getting anything else as a result of the check. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2009, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/define-the-term-gun-show-loophole/487575/115 "2009-03-04T01:41:34Z")
> [@JXJohns](#): > > Like I said, the return info is either a yes or no. No other info is given out. If someone already has the SSN or other personal info in order to run a check, they wont be getting anything else as a result of the check. They do indeed. They enter the SSN, etc then they get back whether or not that person is legally eligible to buy a firearm or not. ---
**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:** [March 4, 2009, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/define-the-term-gun-show-loophole/487575/116 "2009-03-04T01:53:17Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > They do indeed. They enter the SSN, etc then they get back whether or not that person is legally eligible to buy a firearm or not. With that same info, actually less, I can look up anyone on the [Iowa Courts Online system.](http://www.iowacourts.state.ia.us/ESAWebApp/DefaultFrame) Trials, convictions, charges, etc. I don’t see it as breach of privacy when the .gov is happily providing far more information. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2009, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/define-the-term-gun-show-loophole/487575/117 "2009-03-04T02:02:31Z")
> [@JXJohns](#): > > With that same info, actually less, I can look up anyone on the [Iowa Courts Online system.](http://www.iowacourts.state.ia.us/ESAWebApp/DefaultFrame) Trials, convictions, charges, etc. I don’t see it as breach of privacy when the .gov is happily providing far more information. That’s _Iowa_, dude.😛 ---
**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:** [March 4, 2009, 3:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/define-the-term-gun-show-loophole/487575/118 "2009-03-04T03:16:53Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > That’s _Iowa_, dude.😛 I agree, and I managed the project to develop that and our Sexual Offender Registry (ISOR) We got a heaping helping of code from other states who had already implemented such systems. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/define-the-term-gun-show-loophole/487575.md?page=5)