That has nothing to do with gun shows. It deals with private transactions between private citizens and could be just as easily related to ebay or newspaper adds.You lack credibility.There is a gun show loophole. Under the terms of the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986, individuals “not engaged in the business” of dealing firearms, or who only make “occasional” sales within their state of residence, are under no requirement to conduct background checks on purchasers of guns or maintain records of sales of guns.
Why not tell the truth about gun shows and the loophole in the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 ?
Those same laws do not restrict the private sale of guns at dunkin donuts so it probably should be considered the Dunkin Donut loop hole. After all it is as applicable to dunkin donuts as it is to gun shows.I say not. You said there is no gun show loophole.
This is totally and completely false. This is an outright falsehood which can easily be checked by anyone.
Under the terms of the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 individuals “not engaged in the business” of dealing firearms, or who only make “occasional” sales within their state of residence, are under no requirement to conduct background checks on purchasers of guns or maintain records of sale. Do you deny that this is true or not?
What is the “gun show loophole”?
The Gun Control Act of 1968 requires anyone engaged in the business of selling guns to have a Federal Firearms License (FFL) and keep a record of their sales. However, this law does not cover all gun sellers. If a supplier is selling from his or her private collection and the principal objective is not to make a profit, the seller is not “engaged in the business” and is not required to have a license. Because they are unlicensed, these sellers are not required to keep records of sales and are not required to perform background checks on potential buyers, even those prohibited from purchasing guns by the Gun Control Act. The gun show loophole refers to the fact that prohibited purchasers can avoid required background checks by seeking out these unlicensed sellers at gun shows.
You have falsely stated that there is no gun show loophole, when there is one and this can be easily verified. There are 33 states which do not restrict private, intrastate sales of firearms at gun shows.
csgv.org/issues-and-campaigns/gun-show-loophole/gun-show-loophole-faq
So what this means is , the real “loophole” is the one that allows private citizens to sell or transfer their firearms without having to check in with NICS. It’s not a “gunshow loophole”, that’s just a phrase used by gun control advocates to drum up support for something that if it were honestly addressed (that they don’t want unregulated sales or transfers of ANY kind) would be more unpopular. Same goes for the term “assault weapon”, a term invented to demonize a segment of firearms that look scary to those unfamiliar with firearms.What is the “gun show loophole”?
The Gun Control Act of 1968 requires anyone engaged in the business of selling guns to have a Federal Firearms License (FFL) and keep a record of their sales. However, this law does not cover all gun sellers. If a supplier is selling from his or her private collection and the principal objective is not to make a profit, the seller is not “engaged in the business” and is not required to have a license. Because they are unlicensed, these sellers are not required to keep records of sales and are not required to perform background checks on potential buyers, even those prohibited from purchasing guns by the Gun Control Act. The gun show loophole refers to the fact that prohibited purchasers can avoid required background checks by seeking out these unlicensed sellers at gun shows.
You have falsely stated that there is no gun show loophole, when there is one and this can be easily verified. There are 33 states which do not restrict private, intrastate sales of firearms at gun shows.
csgv.org/issues-and-campaigns/gun-show-loophole/gun-show-loophole-faq
I agree, disarm the criminals; but it has to be a two-way street; as long as law abiding citizens have handguns, they will find there way into the hands of criminals; as such you need to severely restrict private ownership of them.OK, disarm all of the criminals then get back to us and we will then discuss the rational of disarming law abiding citizens.
In all honesty, that’s not relevant to this conversation.Like it did for pre WWII Germany, Stallinist USSR, and Cuba?
That is like saying getting rid of fire extinguishers will eliminate fires.I agree, disarm the criminals; but it has to be a two-way street; as long as law abiding citizens have handguns, they will find there way into the hands of criminals; as such you need to severely restrict private ownership of them.
Restricting private firearm ownership will just increase the blackmarket. Gun crime has risen in Great Britain since they all but banned them. They are smuggled in from out of the country or homemade. Making a simple firearm is not rocket science.I agree, disarm the criminals; but it has to be a two-way street; as long as law abiding citizens have handguns, they will find there way into the hands of criminals; as such you need to severely restrict private ownership of them.
Highly unlikely as military weapons are normally kept secured in Armory. I know of no civilian who maintains an Armory which is kept under constant guard.That is like saying getting rid of fire extinguishers will eliminate fires.
FYI military and police weapons also find their way into criminal hands. Are you advocating disarming them also?
After you disarm the police, military, and criminals, we can talk about the only group whose right to carry is documented in our constitution.
This is a falsehood because there are 33 states which do not restrict private, intrastate sales of firearms at gun shows.That has nothing to do with gun shows. .
Helena, no one here (at least not that i’m aware of) is advocating the total elimination of all guns. Just handguns; people would be able to keep their rifles and shotguns. And as such could use them to defend themselves.Restricting private firearm ownership will just increase the blackmarket. Gun crime has risen in Great Britain since they all but banned them. They are smuggled in from out of the country or homemade. Making a simple firearm is not rocket science.
Without guns, criminals could still use knives, bats, fists, etc, and women, the elderly, and smaller men would be forced to rely on outside assistance to protect themselves from harm. That doesn’t seem very fair.
But if you sell your car privately to someone, you have to register the sale with the state. At least in California and in other states also, the sale must be recorded and registered regardless of whether or not you are a private person or a business. This is not true for gun sales (by private non-business people) at gun shows in 33 states as I have discussed above. This is where the gun show loophole comes in.There in lies the distinction; if I sale a car or boat or gun to someone on an occasional basis, then it is not a business…
It would be very difficult for me to carry a rifle or a shotgun around as a self defense weapon. They’re not exactly easily portable, unless I slung it over my shoulder, which might look a little odd away from the gun range (not to mention, an obvious target for a mugger). A handgun is easily concealable, and harder for an assailant to take away. It’s also faster to access and fire. These things are vital for self defense in an outside- of- the- home setting.Helena, no one here (at least not that i’m aware of) is advocating the total elimination of all guns. Just handguns; people would be able to keep their rifles and shotguns. And as such could use them to defend themselves.
A loophole implies that someone is getting around the rules on purpose. This is a biased way of presenting the information. Private sales at gunshows are just a continuation of the same rules that apply OUTSIDE of gun shows-that private citizens can sell or transfer their property without the NICS, and without registering the sale. I actually was at a gunshow earlier today, and have been to many, and the number of private sellers are always tiny in comparison to the many licensed dealers. Most of the merchants who are not licensed firearms dealers are selling products that are NOT guns (crafts, books, random antiques, etc).But if you sell your car privately to someone, you have to register the sale with the state. At least in California and in other states also, the sale must be recorded and registered regardless of whether or not you are a private person or a business. This is not true for gun sales (by private non-business people) at gun shows in 33 states as I have discussed above. This is where the gun show loophole comes in.
Why are you denying this loophole?
The law requires that when ownership of a car changes, this is recorded and registered in the state of sale. This applies even if it is a private sale. This does not apply to gun sales between private indviduals and so it is a loophole and a way of getting around the rules which require the registration of the sale and the background checks before the sale has taken place.A loophole implies that someone is getting around the rules on purpose. This is a biased way of presenting the information. Private sales at gunshows are just a continuation of the same rules that apply OUTSIDE of gun shows-that private citizens can sell or transfer their property without the NICS, and without registering the sale. I actually was at a gunshow earlier today, and have been to many, and the number of private sellers are always tiny in comparison to the many licensed dealers. ).
WRONG it has nothing to do with gun shows unless you can point to a specific law which specifically exempts gun shows from other gun transaction laws.This is a falsehood because there are 33 states which do not restrict private, intrastate sales of firearms at gun shows.
That is still a violation of human rights. How would you feel if they banned specific groups of religions but said since you could still be hindu or budist they were not violating the constitution?Helena, no one here (at least not that i’m aware of) is advocating the total elimination of all guns. Just handguns; people would be able to keep their rifles and shotguns. And as such could use them to defend themselves.
I own two former military owned weapons.Highly unlikely as military weapons are normally kept secured in Armory. I know of no civilian who maintains an Armory which is kept under constant guard.
It’s very rare that a police officer has his/her handgun stolen or lost. Civilians are much more likely to have theirs stolen or lost.
Contrary to what you may think, its not up to me whether restricted gun laws are put into place, that falls under the purview of the politicians. They’ll be the ones disarming you and others, not me. I have no guns, so it doesn’t affect me either way; Its them you should talk to.
Everyone is denying the relation to gun shows.But if you sell your car privately to someone, you have to register the sale with the state. At least in California and in other states also, the sale must be recorded and registered regardless of whether or not you are a private person or a business. This is not true for gun sales (by private non-business people) at gun shows in 33 states as I have discussed above. This is where the gun show loophole comes in.
Why are you denying this loophole?
IT"S NOT A LOOPHOLE! What do you not understand about this? When the law was written, the politicians had to know full well that private sales went on at gun shows. The purpose of the law was to stop anybody who decided to set up shop at a gun show and sell multiple firearms as if they were a dealer. If they had intended to stop ALL private sales at a gunshow it is reasonable to believe they would have passed another law years ago to stop this. There is a world of difference between me coming up to you at a gunshow asking if you would be interested in selling the shotgun you just bought b/c I can’t find another like it for sale at the show and me setting up a table and selling to every Tom, Dick & Harry w/o having a FFL.But if you sell your car privately to someone, you have to register the sale with the state. At least in California and in other states also, the sale must be recorded and registered regardless of whether or not you are a private person or a business. This is not true for gun sales (by private non-business people) at gun shows in 33 states as I have discussed above. This is where the gun show loophole comes in.
Why are you denying this loophole?
You must not read the news much. Fairly common to have weapons stolen out of police cruiser trunks and SWAT vans. There has been a problem for years of soldiers at Ft. Bragg having their weapons stolen while on the orientering course in the wilderness; they make easy targets since they travel alone or in pairs.Highly unlikely as military weapons are normally kept secured in Armory. I know of no civilian who maintains an Armory which is kept under constant guard.
It’s very rare that a police officer has his/her handgun stolen or lost. Civilians are much more likely to have theirs stolen or lost.
You would be just as guilty as those politicians that would pass a law to disarm american citizens b/c of your support for such legislation.Contrary to what you may think, its not up to me whether restricted gun laws are put into place, that falls under the purview of the politicians. They’ll be the ones disarming you and others, not me. I have no guns, so it doesn’t affect me either way; Its them you should talk to.