They can’t be buying them wholesale without an FFL license. So either they are buying used/never fired guns from private parties and reselling them, or they are buying retail and jacking up the price. Which makes no sense to buy from them. I’m a dealer and no private seller could buy retail and undercut my price on the resale. It’s not possible. Even with the background check fee and sales tax my price would still be cheaper.
I really don’t think you understand the mechanics of a gun fight. Even people who practice a great deal hit with less than half their shots, on average (and no, the NYPD’s “hits” on bystanders don’t count in that stat). And people can be shot many times and still be in a fight. Guns aren’t magic wands that give you one-shot stops every time. Far from it.
^^^ Yes, multiple shots required for each hit * multiple hits to kill or incapacitate * multiple intruders can quickly exceed 10. Granted that’s not a likely scenario but it’s not out of the question vs a single meth addict looking for drug money, but people want to be prepared for it.
A lot of private party sellers that sell at gun shows are collectors. Say you collect mainly WWII era military rifles as I do, there’s dozens of different combinations of countries, makers, and models even if you only have one of each. Say I already have a high serial number 1903 Springfield and I find another one that’s nicer than the one I have. I buy it and then rent a booth at a gun show and sell the old one so I can put the money into either guns I don’t have or the mortage payment.
There is a certain absurdity when, if you can’t pass the background check, you can search out an alternative seller at the same venue. The “gun show loophole” phrase highlights that. But the main problem is don’t ask-don’t tell gun trafficking. Gun sales to people with criminal records should be regulated similarly regardless of sales venue, or how often the person sells guns. The only rational exemption from the background check would be one based on how deadly the weapon is (BB guns, less deadly), not how few you sell.
Of course, real legal loopholes rarely exist. The law is written the way it is because there was a constituency that wanted it that way.
Are you really for twelve-a-year don’t ask-don’t tell sales, or are you just trying to come up with a political compromise?
Agreed, and more or less answers question I asked at the end of my last post.
Yeah, maybe. If your point is that it unnecessarily impugns gun shows, then I agree but that just happens to be where a lot of the commercial “private sellers” set up shop.
I have seen “private seller” selling glock 27s for the same price as dealers. How do you think they manage that? As far as I can tell, the mark-up on guns for the dealer is somewhere around 10-20%. There isn’t a lot of room in there to split the difference with a large retail buyer who can then flip it at the retail price.
I’m trying to find a compromise that will do some good and won’t get people screaming about having to do a background check on their son.
I also support a national firearms license that lets you to transport a firearm in any state and to have a firearm in your home in any state, perhaps even a national CCW. You would need to present this to purchase a firearm.
I would also support a national registry. I know that some folks think that registration is the first step to confiscation but I don’t buy it. I think the benefit of reducing the flow of firearms into the hands of criminals is worth any extremely remote risk that a tyrannical government will confiscate our firearms.
Sure it would cost a lot of money to start up but it could largely be computerized after that.
They can do the same thing in their garages. If they’re breaking the law, then it’s not a loophole, it’s a crime. There is no exception in the law that pertains to gun shows. (And I suspect you know it.)
The laws for a private seller at a gun show are the exatly the same for a private seller anywhere else. The laws for a dealer at a gun show are exactly the same as the laws for a dealer anywhere else. You know it, and are intentionally trying to confuse the issue. This is what is nauseating to me about the anti-gunners.
deleted
To answer your question: yes. The laws for a private seller at a gun show are the exactly the same for a private seller anywhere else. The laws for a dealer at a gun show are exactly the same as the laws for a dealer anywhere else.
If I go to a gunshop to buy a gun, I have to pass a federal check, because the gunshop is a dealer and must have an FFL. If the same dealer sets up a booth at a gunshow, he’s still a dealer, he still must have an FFl, and I stell must pass the check.
If I buy a gun from the guy down the street, no federal check is required because he’s not a dealer (not conducting a business) and therefore doesn’t require an FFL. If the same guy goes to a gunshow, I can still buy the same gun from him without a check because he’s still not a dealer and still doesn’t require an FFL.
This is the current law as it exists. You can argue the merits of it, but to keep spreading the lie that there’s a “gun show loophole” is wrong. And you ought to question the motives, integrity, and intelligence of those who do so.
Just a thought, but why put the burden of a background check on the seller of a firearm? Instead, why not require anyone wanting to purchase a gun either from a dealer or private citizen be required to have a pre approved license, for lack of a better word. If you want to buy a gun, you would visit either a state or federal agency that would run the required background checks. If you pass, you get an identification card or license that allows you to legally purchase a gun. Make it only good for say 30 days. Anyone wanting to sell a gun MUST verify that the buyer has this “card”. Selling to someone who doesn’t has severe penalties.
My God, it’s so simple. The background check is done and the loopholes are eliminated. If someone is willing to still a gun to someone who doesn’t have this permit, then there probably isn’t much we could do to prevent it anyway. A dealer doesn’t have to waste time running background checks and a private seller doesn’t have to be concerned he’s selling to someone who shouldn’t be buying. You can thank me later.
China Guy, if you’re sincere, I’ll try to answer.
I would prefer to refer to it as “the current law on private transfers of firearms” or something similar. It has nothing to do with gun shows.
As to the passionate response:
For years and years, I (and many others) have listened to lies and distortions from the anti-gun crowd.
I don’t have a semi-automatic version of an assault rifle that fires one shot per trigger pull, I have an assualt rifle that sprays bullets.
I don’t own guns for self-defense, I have a small penis and harbor a secret fantasy about being a hero.
I don’t have a small affordable handgun, I have a Saturday night special.
The second amendment, that says “the people”, is really about the national guard, or slave owners, or something. But not about the people.
The only purpose for magazines that hold more than ten rounds is to kill as many people as in as short amount of time as possible. That’s why the police have them.
I’m an incompetent redneck who will more likely shoot myself, a family member, or have my gun stolen than I will be to use it for self defense. Despite the fact that I’m 47 years old, have owned, shot, and carried guns since I was 12, and have never shot myself, a family member, or had my guns stolen. And that I know dozens, if not hundreds, of people who can say the same thing.
I’m 42 times more likely to shoot myself, a family member, or a friend than I am to use my gun for self-defesne. But only if you only counts incidents where the perpetrator is shot as “self defense.” And only if you include suicides. And only if you count anybody you ever met, include the stalker who you dates once, the crazy guys from your workplace, and your drug-dealing neighbor as “friends”. And only if you use out tax dollars to pay for thsi “study.”
So after all this BS, these distortions and insults, along comes the “gun show loophole”. This one is as clear as it gets. It is indisputably, inargubaly, most certainly a flat-out lie. There is no gun show loophole. It doesn’t exist. Not just a distortion, or an exaggeration; it is a 100% flat-out lie. It says a lot about the motives of the people who created it, and those that spread it. A lot of people aren’t as good at citing or debating as others. But this one is easy. It’s a lie so blatant even a child could understand it.
That exists already exists in most states. The ATF has ruled that the the holder of a concealed weapons permit has passed a satisfactory background check, and the dealer is not required to “call-in” the purchase. This applies to FFL sales, though you still have to fill out form 4473. The last time I bought a gun from a dealer (a really fun Henry lever action .22 rimfire*), I mentioned, as the salesman was processing the sale, that I had a valid concealed wepons permit. “Bless you, my son” were his exact words.
But this wouldn’t do anything at all for dishonest private sales. If you made this the law, sure, guys like me would make sure the buyer has the proper paperwork. But criminals wouldn’t. Why would this be different?
The trick is, find a way to stop criminals from getting guns. Guys like me are easy, but we’re not criminals in any case. We generally jump through whatever stupid hoops are implemented. Except every once in a while, we get sick of it and say “That hoop is so stupid, I’m not jumping through it.” Then we vote the stupid hoopmakers out.
ChickenLegs, your wording was “The term “gun show loophole” is used by distorters of the truth in an attempt to make the uniformed public think that there are different rules for gun shows than there are for FFL dealers or private sales.” Eg, I read it as gun shows = FFL dealers = private sales.
That’s not the same as your clarification of “The laws for a private seller at a gun show are the exactly the same for a private seller anywhere else. The laws for a dealer at a gun show are exactly the same as the laws for a dealer anywhere else.” This makes more sense.
At least for me, I’ve got no hidden agenda nor being a bald faced liar. I stated my views above. With all due respect, you seem mighty quick on the trigger ( 
I slay me 
) to shoot off the passionate defense and take (in my case) ignorance of the nuances of a passionate second amendment defender, or clips vs magazines, or any other fanboy jargon.
From a common sense point of view, the people who are for all intents and purposes acting like FFL dealers in volumes that are clearly beyond “enthusiast” levels and not paying taxes for the pleasure don’t appear to be “private sellers” as most people would recognize the term. It is legal as I understand the laws, but at least falls in a grey area. You might try to be a little forgiving of a laymen who would call it a loophole with no hidden agenda. The old “I think private transfer of firearms is an unloaded way of saying the same thing.” (tired pun intended).
I’m okay with “private sellers” but don’t think that’s an accurate term for someone that sells dozens if not hundreds of guns at shows per year (or off the internet or in McD parking lots). Is there a middle ground between “private sellers” and “gunshow loopholes”?
Yes it is. If you don’t understand it, or believe me, look it up. I’m not inventing this. It’s the damned law.
I have never called someone out for “clip” vs. 'magazine". I’ve got a a book on my shelf written by Bill Jordan where he refers to a magazine as a “clip”. If it’s good enough for Bill Jordan, it’s good enough for me.
Then they are criminals. There is no loophole in the current law. And certainly nothing to do with gun shows. Just stop it.
The ATF has a definition that determines who is in the business of selling firearms, and who is an individual conducting private sales. Take it up with them if you don’t like it, but please stop spreading lies about a “gun show loophole.”
And China Guy, If you REALLY can’t understand why there is no gun show loophole, just PM me or ask for my email address. I’ll walk you through it step by step. Otherwise, stop. I’ve explained it in the simplest terms I can suitable for a mesage board. It’s simple, and you’re wasting time and space on this board.
Yeah so? They don’t that kind of street traffic in their garage. Noone sets up shop in their garage. People set up shop at a gun show. That is why the phrase “gunshow loophole” is used, it highlights a particularly obvious abuse of the private sale loophole.
Some of these examples are better than others but I will take issue with your objection to the phrase saturday night special. The phrase wasn’t created out of thin air. It is no more dishonest than the phrase partial birth abortion.
What do you think I am trying to achieve when i use the phrase “gun show loophole”
Am I a gun grabber? I think every gun control advocate in this thread would disagree with that assessment.
The rules for private sales are a flaw in the system and the flaw becomes most obvious at gun shows where private seller have half a dozen tables worth of guns, and two or three of those tables are new guns.
I will agree with you that legal gun owners tend to be a pretty law abiding bunch. The range I go to has a lot of cops (I would have thought they had their own range but they come to my range a lot).
Two veapons vere valking down der Strasse, und vun of dem vas an assault! Veapon.
You’re absolutely right that my idea would do nothing to stop a dishonest seller, but it would satisfy those who scream “but, but the gun show loophole”. The point is, something has to be done to strike a balance between law abiding gun owners, like you and I, having unencumbered access to firearms and keeping those who shouldn’t have them from getting them. If a procedure like this was put in place I think all that can be reasonably done has been done. The loophole had been closed, no longer can the anti-gun crowd scream there is a legal way to get a gun without a background check. However, it won’t change much, for those intent on getting a weapon will always find people willing to overlook the law. What kills me about the logic of anti-gun people is their reliance on laws and their willingness to think enacting new ones will change anything. Those intent on committing murder, especially mass murder will not be deterred by a law saying they can’t purchase a firearm. They will find a way. And I think when you have a nut job like the Sandy Hook shooter, he would have carried out his plan with or without a firearm. He was intent on killing himself and taking those children with him. If he couldn’t find a gun I’m willing to bet he wouldn’t of called of his rampage. A few containers of gas and a lighter would have probably worked just as well for him.
See, the problem is the anti-gun people have an agenda. They have always believed that you and I have no right, no reason to own a gun. They want and will stop at nothing to get that accomplished. What they are doing is taking advantage of a tragedy like Sandy Hook to further their agenda. Their goal is not to look for meaningful ways to keep weapons out of the hands of mentally unstable people, but rather keep guns from everyone. I’ll get many comments here saying how I’m over reacting, but listen to what they say “who needs a semi automatic gun”, “who needs more than ten rounds”, “you gun nuts can’t wait to shoot someone”, etc… What you don’t hear is “we need to find a way to identify the mentally ill”, “we know it’s impossible to stop every person intent on causing harm, so how do we provide protection”. The only thing you hear is ban this and ban that, even they know that if every gun in America was confiscated we would still have mass murders. They will be committed by different means, but they will still happen. The point being is I see no effort being made to get to the root of the problem, that being identifying and doing something about people unhinged enough to commit mass murder. The gun didn’t commit that crime, the person pulling the trigger did.
Oh, I know there isn’t really a “loophole”, so I apologize for repeating the myth. My sole intent with my suggestion was to placate those that keep screaming it. But it won’t matter, fix that perceived flaw and they’ll find another to replace it. Thinking more on the subject, it really pisses me off at the attitude of some of those who want to ban guns, inferring that those of us who want to defend our right to own them somehow are unconcerned or are uncaring when it comes to the illegal use of firearms. Like we somehow, by our wish to own guns and or wish to be able to purchase them, don’t have a problem with an occasional mass murder or two, as long as we can still fulfill our childish dreams of playing Rambo with our toys. Every single gun owner I know is sickened by the events that have led to this debate and are just as motivated to find a solution as those caring anti-gun people. But the difference is that we think we need to find something that will actually work, not knee jerk policies that will do nothing but trample on the rights of law abiding citizens.