Private party sales have to occur among same state residents that aren’t prohibited posessors to be legal. If you know the person is under age or a criminal, then a private sale will be also be illegal.
Yeah, except the SF gov’t has said they have no intention of implementing that law (currently). Probably because they don’t want to have to spend the money to fight lawsuits that the NSSF and the NRA have promised to file the minute it goes on the books.
Right. That’s a nuance I left out of my post. Doesn’t change the meaning of “gun show loophole,” though.
Mold is right. The map looks just like mold on bread.
If you read the OP, you’ll notice that he references someone in Austin. Nothing intelligent or reasonable comes out of the People’s Republic of Austin except Highway 290.
And who is Molly?
Did you forget which forum you’re in, friend? Since this isn’t the Pit, I’ll ask you for a cite or retraction in reference to your blanket statement about Austin.
Molly is Molly Ivins, brilliant, witty, and award-winning columnist for the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, syndicated nationally and linked to here in discussions in GD, the Pit, and GWB-knows-where-else over the last seven years. As most of us recognized.
Ah, well, at least that’s not as stupid as confusing Liberalism with Libertarianism. (Hi, Liberal! 
)
Well, would a better term be “private sale loophole”? Because it seems like these private sales are a way for people who otherwise wouldn’t pass a background check to get a gun without having one.
Is that all true? I own one semi-auto rifle (or was your comma misplaced?) and two used pistols. Plus one used pistol. It’s interesting to note that the BMG was banned by our wonderful governor - a republican.
San Francisco doesn’t count. 
If it’s classified as an assault weapon and it’s not registered, then your breaking the law. You also can’t resell it to another civillian in CA. No semi-automatic AR-15s, no semi-automatic AK clones, no GB style Mini-14s, etc.
If it’s a semi-auto pistol or double action revolver and you sell it to a dealer or trade it for something, then the dealer can’t resell it in CA.
Because it seems like these private sales are a way for people who otherwise wouldn’t pass a background check to get a gun without having one.
[/QUOTE]
A “loophole” is usually described as an unintentional omission, or anomaly, in a law or contract, which can be exploited by only a small portion of the persons the law, or contract, is intended to regulate. So, I suppose this could be called a loophole, although it’s a damned big one since there has never been any intention in the law to require private firearms transfers to pass thru the NICS.
Which is actually kinda surprising. Because the NICS is one of the very few successful and not overly intrusive gun regulations in existence. I would support a measure extending the law to do just such a thing though - require all firearms transfers to be conducted thru FFL holders and thereby making an NICS check mandatory. At least I would if an acceptable means of doing the check “in bulk” for estate settlements was written into the measure. And perhaps if the intended recipient, if he’s doesn’t pass the check to be able to consign the guns to a broker so that he’s not deprived of the value of the things.
Even more surprising, is that the NRA has stated on more than one occasion that they would support mandatroy NICS checks on all firearms transfers, too. The NRA is often wrongly painted as adamantly opposed to all firearm regulation, but that’s flat incorrect. The NRA does indees support many gun control measures. They, in fact, wrote most of the current law covering the NICS checks. They also wrote most of the law banning the sale of the so-called “cop-killer” bullets to private citizens.
Yeah, it probably is. Although it is illegal for a private citizen to transfer a firearm to a person known to him to be unable to obtain one thru a licensed dealer, that is quite obviously an extremely difficult thing to enforce and/or prove in court. Most guns used in crimes, however, reach the hands of the perpetrator thru other means - they’ve been stolen in previous crimes, or a bad guy “borrows” one from an “associate.” At least that’s what several studies by the DOJ/ATF conducted among prison inmates have concluded.
Right. The banned weapons are on a list prepared by the state Attorney General. The list is revised from time to time. The revisions sometimes ban firearms that have been previously acceptable. There are many stories about persons receiving approval to buy a gun one year (meaning they’ve been allowed to register it), and then receiving a letter in a later year notifying them that they must turn over that gun to the authorities or they’ll be prosecuted. California, while not quite having the most restrictive gun regulations on the books in the nation, does have the most troublesome and capricious implementation of them. The regulatory winds in CA are strong and variable.
Dealers sell a lot of semi-auto pistols here 
My latest Ruger Mark II is used. I don’t own a revolver, but I see them (used) for sale too. I must be missing something in your posts.
Had you said “some semi-” or “certain semi-” or used any other qualifier, I’d have taken in your post and went on to the next. But your statement said (or implied) that all semi-auto rifles are illegal in California, and that’s not true. Not yet.
The people of San Francisco voted to ban handguns in that city. I don’t agree with the vote, but it is their right to vote that way if they so choose. Whether the ban is enforced or stands the test of law is another matter. I, for one, wouldn’t have it any other way. But I do have some discomfort with those from outside bringing economic might against something that doesn’r directly apply to them.
Dealers sell a lot of used semi-auto pistols here.
That’s pretty much what Gary said.
Some folks are now speaking up, which was pretty rare maybe thirty years ago.
You’d be suprised what people will tell you when they’re stoned and don’t feel threatened. Peer pressure is a truly powerful force. Who wants to be “Ain’t Right”, huh?
Thank you for the link to Molly Ivins. I’ve never read anything of hers, so later on, I’ll check it out.
As far as the forum, I missed the change to GD. This thread didn’t start here, so all I can base my comment on is 12 years experience living in the Twilight Zone community of Austin, TX, plus a lifetime of being a Texan. If your objection was to my referencing Highway 290, please feel free to substitute Highway 71 or I-35 if you so desire.
Like the ACLU? Not that I have a problem with the ACLU and I can see your point but can you honestly tell me you wouldn’t desire any outside help for a cause you supported?
Marc
You can’t ban handguns, but you must ban marraige? Both of these things decreed by mostly outside conservatives. What is it with you folks, anyway?
Honestly? I said “discomfort”. I don’t like bullying.
I imagine it would depend on the cause, and how it came about. If the people of Berkeley vote for a gun ban, and it’s enforced, I’d most likely abide. I wouldn’t like it. I would locally fight it.
If handguns are banned in SF is Dallas likely to be forced to follow suit?
Remember that silly law passed in a city that required people to own guns? I didn’t like that one either.
Isn’t the ACLU not anti-gun, generally? (Note that I didn’t say pro-gun)
Yeah, the ACLU is neutral, just as I thought.
mangeorge
Adopting the “collective right” view is NOT a “neutral” stance; it’s firmly anti-gun.
That’s not true. It’s just one more of those inflammatory statements of the type used by minority groups to attempt to seemingly add the middle to their side of an issue. It’s really no different than claimimg "You’re either for us or you’re against us’. It’s akin to claiming the “undecided” in a poll, as Bush’s handlers sometimes tried to do.
The ACLU’s stance is firmly neutral, really saying “no” only to the pros interpretation of the Second.
A right is most often just that because it is collective. That, to semi-quote Martha Stewart, is a “good thing”. The middle is what usually buffers the extremists on both sides of an issue. Otherwise the wackos would run the country (they don’t).
If the pro-gun faction pushes too hard against San Francisco, they run the risk of pissing off a large chunk of that middle (who are already a little shaky on handguns).