That is the way it is done in my state today for handguns. Get your “purchase permit” or your CCW permit from your local Sheriff and they wave ALL background checks when buying from dealers, and no handgun sales between individuals are allowed unless the buy has said permit. Our CCW’s are good for 5 years.
Long gun sales do not require any permits.
I’m not sure what you’re trying to achieve. I know what the the originators where trying to achieve, though, and it’s largely worked.
I can’t count the number of otherwise rational people I’ve talked to who believed that there is some kind of exemption in the law pertaining to gun sales at gun shows. The conversation usually goes something like this:
Deceived Person: Yeah, I agree with you mostly, but I still think they should close the gunshow loophole.
Me: (plays dumb) What’s that?
DP: You know. The loophole in the law that let’s people buy guns at gunshows without a background check.
Me: There is no loophole in the law that pertains to gunshow sales. I can sell you a gun right now without a background check, and it’s legal, because that would be a private sale. If a dealer makes a sales, even at a gunshow, he has to do a background check. The law was written that way on purpose.
So the antis have distorted reality to convince the average guy that there are a a huge number of dealers selling guns at gunshows without a background check, and that’s legal. They pretty much believe that dealer, who must perform a check in his own shop, can go to a gunshow and sell a gun without a check, and this is allowed, legally, under some loophole in the law.
Remember, this lie originated in the pre-internet days, when private sales at gunshows were a much larger percentage of person-to-person sales than they are now.
Remember also, the goal of the rabid anti-gun people is to reduce the number of guns and impede the the transfer of guns in anyway possible, a little at a time, to eventually achieve their goal of a total ban.
Here’s a cite in advance, for the wiseapples:
ChickenLegs, you’ve certainly prodded me to do more searching on the internet.
You’re right in that there literally is not a gun show loophole.
I’d say that there is a reasonable assumption in many people’s minds that those who created the “private sales” laws and regulations, *probably *didn’t intend it to cover someone that is a “professional” gun show private seller with several tables and selling dozens or hundreds of firearms per year. But mind reading intent is a loaded question. I would be willing to bet real cash that those who created “private sales” laws and regulations at a minimum would not have wanted someone selling a substantial amount of firearms without giving Uncle Sugar his due tax on it.
And in all seriousness, would you find the phrase “private sales at gunshows” to be a decent alternative/descriptor?
Here’s another lie from last time around on the AWB: The deliberate attmpt to confuse semi-automatic weapons with fully-automatic weapons.
I was there. The TV stations used to show footage of fully-automatic weapons (machine guns) when discussing the proposed assault weapons ban. This was a deliberate lie, just like the “gun show loophole.”
"Assault weapons—just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms—are a new topic. The weapons’ menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.
The collaborators are excused, of course. They know they are spreading lies and confusion to achieve their goals. Everybody else, why do you keep falling for these things?
You presume a degree of honesty and willingness to seek out valid information on the part of gun-confiscators that just isn’t there. If it was, they wouldn’t be gun-confiscators, would they?
I don’t presume that. I understand that there a people who, for various reasons, wish to ban guns, and will use any means possible to achieve their goal, including lying to and duping uninformed people. I’m not speaking to the liars. I’m speaking to the dupes, and the potential dupes. “Fighting ignorance” as it were.
China Guy - thanks for that. Yes, I would agree that “private sales at gunshows” is a more honest phrase. And I would be happy to discuss the pros and cons of that with you, honestly and intelligently.
One more point. Nobody really “created the ‘private sales’ laws and regulations.” Everything, including private sales of guns, was unregulated at one time. Laws are only created to prohibit things, never to allow them.
For example, in Wyoming, I’ve been asked “What laws allows you to walk into a grocery store wearing a revolver on your hip?” The correct answer is “There is no law that prohibits it.” Things are legal unless forbidden by law.
Also, China Guy, if you’re ever in Wyoming, let me know. The ammo and the beer are on me (in that order.)
Be well.
Grumph: “Ug. You have spear with stone on tip. I not like. You take stone tip spear maybe and kill me. I say you must have spear with wood tip only.”
Ug: “WTF are you talking about?”
Unfortunately lying about issues and the distortion of facts is the backbone of this political party’s playbook. They have used it, quite successfully, on many issues. Basically it’s the “If you repeat it enough times it becomes the truth” strategy. They are aware of what they are doing, but the ends justify the means. Sadly, the members of this political party are not only willing to distort facts, but they have no problem destroying the character of an individual if it will get the job done.
Even sadder is the fact that large members of the public buy these lies hook, line and sinker. Some buy it because their political beliefs are the same as those mouthing the lie. Others are convinced by these false truths because they see them repeated and endorsed by the media, who they haven’t figured out yet has it’s own political agenda. The tragic part is that even when confronted with the truth, no matter how well explained or documented, they will never admit that their leaders and their mouthpieces tried to device the public.
I am not naive enough to think that the other side never participates in this kind of propaganda. However the side that wants to deny law abiding American citizens their right to bear arms and protect themselves has developed this strategy into a science. Those that think it’s “just politics” and continue to support and elect those that do this will one day be the most outraged when the subject that’s being manipulated is one that they care deeply about.
Agreed, and well-spoken, but sadly I think “lying about issues and the distortion of facts” is the backbone of both (major) political partys’ playbooks.
But that’s why we’re here. To fight ignorance, and to educate ourselves.
Thanks! I’ll take you up on that. 
Actually, I’m a native of Moorcroft, or would have been if the nearest hospital at the time wasn’t in Rapid City.
In the meantime, I’ll count on you to keep me honest on the “private sales at gunshows” instead of loopholes.
That’s very interesting. In Florida I recently (within the last year) purchased a shotgun, rifle and pistol. Each on required a $25 fee and about 30 minutes of waiting to be approved. The long rifles were able to leave the store with me as soon as the background check was completed. The pistol required me to return to the store three days later to pick it up. None of the background checks were any inconvienence to me and should be a part of purchasing a gun. (I don’t have a concealed permit, so I am not sure if the background check is waived in Florida for CWP holders) The flaw in the system seems to be the private selling of a firearm. There really is no system in place for a seller to know if he is selling his gun to someone that shouldn’t have it. It is unreasonable to expect the private seller of a gun to pay for and somehow conduct his own background check. The issuing of a “buy” permit seems like a very simple, practical and effective solution to the problem.
As a gun owner and supporter of our 2nd Addmendment right to bear arms I have no problem with legistlation enacted to make our society a safer place. Where I have a problem is knee jerk, feel good legistlation that sounds impressive at first glance, but does little or nothing to solve the problem. We all agree that something has to be done, we just can’t agree on the best way to achomplish that goal. The anit-gun crowd always seems to want to go too far and the pro-gun crowd never seems to want to go far enough. I believe that this is an issue that is important to all of us and it is time for both groups to stop behaving like children and meet in the middle. Together I am positive that we can come up with a reasonable plan to keep us all safe. (MY GOD, I just re-read that and I sound just like a politician. Somebody give me a swift kick and knock me back to my senses please!:smack:)
Nobody has given a good reason as to why you oppose this proposal. What is so bad about limiting magazines to ten rounds? What is so bad about banning high-assault weapons?
The original post of this thread answered your question and gave plenty of good reasons why to oppose this proposal. Many people have in many other threads as well. Your lack of knowledge of the subject matter plus your irrational assumptions about self defense and life in general make most folks shy away from “debating” with you. Case in point:
High-assault weapons? WTF is that? Describe what you think a high-assault weapon is and we can go from there.
First of all, true knowledge is in knowing you know nothing. Okay, I don’t. Now I am more interested in debating the 10 round limit, not high-assault weapons. I don’t know what they are (the OP has them, and plus I know nothing, so I take back all those assumptions). Now tell me, why are you opposed to limiting magazines to 10 rounds? That is what I am really interested in knowing.
To begin with why do you think the limit should be 10? NY just passed a limit of 7, Maryland has imposed a limit of 20, New Jersey is 15 rounds, and Ohio is 30 rounds. If those states can’t come to the same agreement on what the safe number of rounds a magazine should be limited to hold, why do you set it at 10?
Well you need some arbitrary number. So Obama has decided 10. You need to have some limit. Plus, this shouldn’t be a state issue but a federal issue. That is the problem. They are letting the states decide the limit where it should be the federal government that sets these limits. Now since the states are setting the limits, obviously there is going to be some variation. It won’t be consistent until we let the federal government set the limits.
I’m trying to make the argument that universal background checks are good. The poster child for WHY universal background checks are good is the amount of “private sales” that go on a gun shows.
I’m making the argument that a national registry and a national gun license (and perhaps a national CCW) make sense despite the fact that some people are afraid that the government is going to come and confiscate all the guns one day.
I ascribe about 10% of these isntances to ignorance and only 90% to deliberate attempts to misinform and mislead the public.
Who is defending the liars?
A lot of people have never handled (or even seen) an AR 15 or AK47. They probably couldn’t tell the difference between them if their lives depended on it. So they just believe what they are told.
Please point out one instance where the federal governemnt passed or even voted on laws that would confiscate guns. I think the AWB is stupid but it wouldn’t confiscate your AR15, it would prevent you from buying a new one.
Thats what a loophole is. Its something that the law doesn’t cover that allows you to get around the intent of a law.
Aside from this gun control stuff, Democrats seem a LOT more honest than Republicans.
You are misusing the quote. Its not apprrpriate in these sort of debates. the fact that YOU know nothing doesn’t mean that we ALL know nothing.
So are you conceding that the AWB is indefensible?
Tell me why you support a limit on magazine capacity.
There is a constitutional right to bear arms. If you want to restrict that right, it is up to you to justify the infringement of a constitutional right.
A ban on high cap mags is slightly more defensible than an AWB but not by much. I personally don’t care because i already have dozens of high cap mags and NOONE is proposing confiscating any of the HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of “high cap” mags already out there (the most popular guns come with magazeins of 15 or 17). I am also a pretty good shot so I can probably hit more often than not BUT most handguns are not one shot stoppers and a lot of folks don’t get down to the range frequently enough.