These days, a guy can and will lose his FFL license for typographical errors. He won’t do what has been suggested if he is a licensed dealer with a shop and a lifestyle worth protecting. If his brother is buying guns from him, there is a direct and documented link between the two and the guns. If the bro goes on to sell guns to unqualified folks and those guns turn up at the scene of a crime, the dealer brother is in deep shit.
Indeed. What was spelled out isn’t a way to keep things technically legal - it was a criminal conspiracy.
So instead of his brother it’s his buddy that he happened to meet at a bar. How did they meet? The glory hole, of course. They’ve never seen each other, they just talk through the opening.
You act as though the technicalities of the law are being investigated and enforced. What I and others are suggesting is that the loopholes are so big you can engineer a 100 car freight train through them. The law is BS because it can’t be adequately enforced and no agency has the resources to do it. It is very disingenuous to pretend an ineffective law prevents criminal activity just because it is on the books. Shitheads are legally selling guns to criminals while defenders of “constitutional freedoms” are saying that it is OK because there is an unenforceable law on the books.
They are. I know of two FFL holders that have gone to prison after doing far better constructed gun-funneling operations then the ones you described.
No, they’re not. You just think they are because you don’t understand the laws as they are written, much like the Soccer mom who campaigns to ban ‘assault weapons’ because she doesn’t think that citizens have any need for ‘military weapons.’:rolleyes:
No.
They’re.
Not.
They’re illegally selling guns to criminals, and pretending they’re doing so legally.
I’ll admit I don’t really follow gun control laws. So educate me. (And let’s keep it to the procedures that are actual laws, not hypothetical ideas that could become law.)
My understanding is that some people have restrictions on their right to buy a firearm for doing something like using a gun during the commission of a crime. Laws were enacted that say licensed gun dealers are required to submit any potential customer’s name to law enforcement so they can verify that customer is not legally prohibited from buying a firearm. Once the background check is completed, the sale can go through.
The “gun show loophole” is that private sales of firearms are exempted from this procedure. The idea is that if you’re selling your old deer rifle to your brother-in-law it would be ridiculous for you to have to do a background check on him. The problem is that some people have stretched this common sense exemption past the point of common sense. They go to gun shows and sell firearms to customers they just walked in. For all practical purposes, this is not different than the kind of sales that go on in gun shops. But because it’s theoretically a “private sale” it’s not covered by the law and people do not have to go through a background check.
This is my understanding of the issue. But I certainly may be wrong and if so, please correct me. And like I said, stick with the actual law. Don’t bother with any explanations that start with “If the liberals had their way…”
And how do you intend to enforce a law against private transfers any more effectively than the existing laws against gun dealers doing the kinds of things you have described?
Firstly, it’s wrong to say that private sales are “exempt” from the requirement. This is really a nitpick, but that’s a bit like saying that people over 21 are “exempt” from the law that makes it illegal to buy alcohol, in that it seems to be approaching the question from entirely the wrong direction.
Private sales aren’t “exempt” – it’s the other way around. People who make a business out of selling guns have special requirements placed on them: they must hold an FFL, perform background checks on customers, and maintain certain records. Private sales are not subject to this law, wherever they occur; but it should be noted that if a private individual makes a habit of selling guns at gun shows, they’re quickly moving into the territory where they would be required to have an FFL in the first place.
In that sense, calling it the “gunshow loophole” makes about as much sense as calling it the “Starbucks loophole” on the grounds that private citizens can sell firearms to one another while sipping a latte at Starbucks. :dubious:
I’m more then willing, I’m happy, to educate anyone on anything Firearm related.
Yes, and any Felony.
This will vary from state to state (For instance, VA has a background check on top of…) so I’ll stick strictly to Federal Law.
Under Federal Law all gun purchases at FFL dealers require Form 4473 to be filled out, also called ‘the yellow sheet’ because of its color. A background check is then conducted by the FBI, and the individual is flagged “Approved, Delayed, Denied.”
Most Delayed’s are approved within the waiting period, but delayed because of clerical reasons (they want to make sure John F. Tiwoka of Kansas, the Felon, isn’t John F. Tiwoka of Virgina, they do this by referencing SSN’s).
Yes, and No.
The gun show loophole refers to people who rent booths at gun shows, liquidate private collections or their personal aquisitions (for profit), and don’t run background checks.
They’re not exempt, because the law only applies to people who have FFL’s by design. It never applied to everyone, with exemptions written in.
Yes.
FFL’s, Dealers, have to conduct background checks no matter where they are. Even at gun shows – Period.
You’re pretty close to accurate. You have a better understanding than most.
Most states require you verify Age / Residency when selling a firearm, some have no good faith laws, which require the seller to verify the status of the buyer, unless they’re positive of the purchasers status.
Handgun sales are required to be verified as in state residents, at a minimum, since 1986.
You’re close, but you make the mistake of thinking this is about gun shows.
Gun control advocates have long opposed purely private transfer. They see this “loophole” as a way to end these, since gun shows are alien to most people and frankly a little bit scary to some.
Now, you may think that this is the paranoid rant of a gun nut - but in fact it is the explicit aim of the gun-control organizations. All you need to do is read their literature:
Bolding mine.
So it is clear that it isn’t a “loophole” under attack here - but even those transactions among family and friends that aren’t terribly controversial to most people.
So there you go - and I never mentioned liberals once. Indeed, most liberals on this board are on my side.
It’s clear that you have no idea what you are talking about. It doesn’t matter if it is the dealer’s brother, gay lover, priest, wife, or a dick that he met on a message board. If those guns are going through his books as an FFL and they turn up in the possession of those who are not permitted to own them, those jackbooted thugs at the ATF WILL be knocking on or knocking down his door soon.
Every gun that a dealer has is tracked on his books and his 4473 forms. When it is sold it is also tracked as such. ATF thugs get a chubby the size of the Sears Tower when they get to investigate these guys. Get a clue.
How so? It’s not a crime to sell somebody a gun that they use to commit a crime with. I’m a licensed dealer. I sell a firearm to a customer and we do all the background checks the law requires. A month later he decides to sell it to a guy he plays poker with. The poker buddy turns out to be a criminal who holds up a liquor store that weekend and shoots the clerk.
So the ATF thugs put on their jackboots and unsling their chubbies and come to me. I tell them I sold the gun legally to a customer with no criminal record and I complied with all background check laws. The thugs take their boots and chubbies and go talk to the customer. He tells them he sold the gun to a guy he knew and had no reason to know was a criminal. He didn’t do a background check on the guy but he’s not required to.
In a perfect world.
So glory hole goes to another glory hole. Cummon, this is the easiest loophole to exploit since the “home office” deduction. FFL sells a gun, Jackshit Glory Hole Lover sells it and sells it and it gets sold again at a “gun show”. There is no real record of transactions for this gun. Find me a judge and a jury that, under the way the law is written, will convict the guy with the FFL. Like Sgt. Schultz in Hogan’s Heroes, “he knows nooooothing”.
Again, just because a law says it is illegal doesn’t mean that it stops crime. You are the one that has no idea of what they are talking about. You are just making excuses for lack of accountability for people with criminal minds that are accessories to criminal activity.
The initial scenario was that a group of thugs wanted to buy hardware to pull a job and the dealer was going to sell them in the parking lot. Then it spartydog changed it to the dealer’s brother selling the guns.
Those guns recovered at the crime scene would be tracked back to the dealer. The dealer’s paperwork would show that he sold them to his brother. The hot water would then begin.
Oh, I understand now.
You’ve made up your mind, and have no interest in reality. The current law is bad, doesn’t work, and is the root of all crime, despite numerous studies showing that the vast majority of illegally owned guns can be traced to robberies, not illegal gun sales.
No, the current system isn’t perfect; but no other system has been proposed that’s as effective and doesn’t infringe on civil rights.
And what the fuck does that have to do with a gun show? The way I read your fantasy, it was sold a couple times prior to the show. Once again, the gun show loophole is BS, plain and simple.
I’m not making any excuses. You are correct, gun control laws don’t work because criminals don’t follow the fucking law. That is why I don’t support most gun control measures, they inconvenience only the people who would never break the law anyway. Thanks for shedding light on that discovery. :rolleyes:
Just ask him, I’m sure he has the solution up his sleeve.
OK, have it your way. Now ask yourself, (truth time) if you are a criminal looking to buy a gun are you going to go to a dealer with an FFL or to a gun show? Reality check. Who’s made up their mind?
Neither, because must gun shows are full of cops and not unlicensed dealers. Sorry to once again put some reality in your fantasy land.
to get a gun, you are going to find an ad on Craigslist before it gets pulled, the local newspaper, or someone that you know that has guns for sale. Of course being a convict, buying a gun from any of those three is illegal, but you are a criminal so you don’t give a shit anyway.
Write me a law to stop him…
Neither. I go to another criminal. Those aren’t typically found running businesses at Gun Shows, where ATF agents frequent.
I’ve been in reality this whole time. I haven’t made up my mind, you just haven’t shown me facts, or even semi-realistic hypothetical situations.
And when they go to the brother the hot water would then end. The brother says he sold them to someone else and didn’t do any background check on them because he wasn’t legally required to. The gun dealer and his brother are shocked to hear that the guns were used in a bank robbery but they broke no laws.
You’re wrong there; even the slightest hint of suspicion that the gun dealer was channeling guns through his brother to make off-record sales, and he would be in a world of hurt. The standard (and scrutiny) for FFL holders is very high.