Coincidence? I think not.
With the recent turn of events in the ongoing Presidential races, the freedom-haters are already starting to move again in earnest. It's going to be a rough four years coming up; buying now may be a good idea.
Posted on 01/31/2008 12:15:00 PM PST by neverdem
People who buy guns at gun shows would have to undergo the same background checks as those who buy them at gun stores under a bill introduced Wednesday by Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg.
"It defies common sense that a loophole in federal law lets unlicensed dealers sell firearms at gun shows without running a background check on the buyer," Lautenberg, D-N.J., said at a Capitol news conference where a victim and several relatives of victims of the deadly shootings at Virginia Tech last year also spoke.
The shooter in that case, who had been treated for mental illness, did not buy at a gun show, but the victims and families have been pressing for stronger gun laws overall.
"If there's a way for a person to get a gun without a background check, then how can any background checks work?" said Andy Goddard, whose son was shot while in a French class.
Lautenberg sponsored a similar bill in 1999 that barely passed the Senate but died later in the legislative process. He said he believed the Virginia Tech killings should highlight the need for ensuring all gun purchasers are screened.
"It's a matter of urgency," Lautenberg said.
Court has your Second Amendment rights directly in its cross hairs
The current laws don't seem to be working where they're already implemented, so let's implement them everywhere... /sarc
I assume he means checks to see if those attending are legal residents of the United States.
Simple solution, if somebody’s too messed up to own or handle firearms, keep him locked up. That worked all during the 1800s.
Which reminds me, I need to buy some rope.
I’ve been to many gun shows and whenever I’ve purchased a gun there, I had to go through the whole process including the two week waiting period. The only time it wasn’t required was in the case of purchasing an “antique” gun— I think it had to be manufactured 50 years prior. That one I could walk away with.
Fixed it!
...and I’m sure the FBI’s NICS system will be up and running smoothly for every weekend gun show in America and not experience any I/T “outages” or “downtime” as happened regularly during the Clinton years.
Many states already require this; yours is probably one. The absurdity of it becomes very clear when you realize you can't even exchange/inherit guns among family without a background check.
So let me get this straight. A private citizen will not be allowed to sell a firearm at a gunshow without running a background check, but they and their potential customer can simply step outside of the auditorium where the gunshow is taking place and still do the transaction without a background check?
Yeah sure, that makes sense (???).
After they fix this “loophole” they’ll go after the dealers. Loutenberg simply wants to ban gun shows but he knows he hasn’t got the votes to do it all at once.
The shows I’ve been to don’t seem to allow non-licensed private individuals to sell— I am not 100% clear on the rules. It’s California. But all the non-antique guns I’ve purchased from multiple sellers were put through the system.
IIRC, the federal law states that if this should happen the dealer may proceed with the sale without penalty. I know in my state, under misinformation from the rumor mill/state police, dealers will not do this because they believe they will lose their license, but I'm sure that the original version of the law included this provision to ensure that the "our computers are down" excuse couldn't be invoked to create a de facto ban on all gun sales.
Wow, I thought Lautenberg was embalmed. I guess nothing will get a dead politician moving like a good ole gun banning bill.
Thia asshole is senile .It is time for him to go to pasture .
Rules are the same at gunshows. The Sen was senile decades ago.
Holy crap. I thought he was dead, too. Maybe he and Greenspan should go play some pinochle in the old folks home and leave the rest of us alone.
Makes sense.
Secondly, he's delusional.
If the pukes in Congress would give up their Capitol police, Secret Service and other body guards, they might have some moral stature to discuss this issue. Alas they're not going to give up their right of self-defense, so there's no sense in our allowing them to take away our right.
I’ve bought several guns at gun shows and have never been given the firearm without a background check - and I live in Utah. WTF are these people talking about?
And some ammo...
I hear there is a run on the Barrett’s gaining speed...
I’ll have mine before the end of the summer...Going to be extremely difficult to confiscate that...
You have to pass the background check at a gun show in Virginia - the only exceptions are "private sellers" and who that is, is guys selling Civil War relics etc. Anybody selling real guns that anyone would use either to commit a crime or to defend against one has his Federal Firearms Dealers license in a frame at his booth.
There’s no infrastructure set up to do background checks at gun shows, particularly for private citizens. Cars kill more people annually in the US than guns. Do you have to check to see if the person you sell your car to has a driver’s license?
Thanks for the information!!
Coincidence? I think not.
With the recent turn of events in the ongoing Presidential races, the freedom-haters are already starting to move again in earnest. It's going to be a rough four years coming up; buying now may be a good idea.
Posted on 01/31/2008 3:15:00 PM EST by evensteven
People who buy abortions at public and private clinics would have to undergo a background check under a bill introduced Wednesday by Sen. Gregory Schmuckman.
"It defies common sense that a loophole in federal law lets dealers sell abortions at clinics without running a background check on the buyer," Schmuckman, (I-MC), said at a Capitol news conference where a victim of an elective abortion and several relatives of victims of the deadly practice at local hospitals also spoke.
A customer in one case, who had been treated for mental illness, did not buy an abortion locally but the victims and families of other abortions have been pressing for stronger abortion laws overall.
"If there's a way for a person to get an abortion without a background check, then how can any background checks work?" said Lucille Brown, whose daughter chose to have an abortion after watching the movie, "Our Bodies, Screw You," produced by the National Organization for Childless Harpies, while in a 10th-grade social studies class.
Schmuckman sponsored a similar bill in 1999 that barely passed the Senate but died later in the legislative process. He said he believed the increase in abortions should highlight the need for ensuring all abortion purchasers are screened.
"It's a matter of urgency," Schmuckman said.
That's not correct in Virginia - you fill out the form at the dealer's booth, take it to the guy with the laptop and internet connection processing all the background checks for all the dealers, come back in 15 minutes or so and it will have run. You take the form back to the dealer and then you can buy the gun.
I am NOT against a background check. But I do have a very serious problem with the 2-week waiting period— that might be just a California thing.
I don’t know where you got the idea that I was against BG checks.
But when it comes to an unregulated, private-to-private transaction, there can be no reasonable expectation of a BG check.
I think most privately run gun shows and/or states forbid these types of transactions anyway.
LOL!
Could you use that infrastructure to sell me a modern firearm? Two private citizens?
>>Excuse my ignorance, but why would law and order conservatives be opposed to back ground checks.
Because they aren’t just background checks. They record the transaction and create a database, and essential tool for confiscation. When background checks are like an ID check for buying liquor, get back to me.
>>The extrapolation of the Idea that there should be no checks are in my view, that convicted criminals should be allowed to own guns.
It doesn’t matter if they are allowed. They DO own them.
>>Seems to me that if I have to wait a few minutes for a background check at a sporting good store then gun shows should have to abide by the same laws.
Gun shows don’t sell guns. Dealers and individuals sell guns at gun shows. Dealers must do a background check no matter where they sell. Individuals need not no matter where they sell. There is no “loophole.”
>>Otherwise the argument should be that any restriction applied to an American citizen owning a firearm is unconstitutional. I am not real thrilled with the thought of the 7000 plus bloods on the east coast or the 5000 plus bloods on the west coast willy nilly walking into any store to purchase any gun at any time.
They’re gonna get them. Why does it really matter how? And where is the evidence that prohibiting ordinary private sales at gun shows would affect criminals?
This stinks on ice. These retards won't be happy until it is completely impossible for legal gun owners to do anything without FedGov approval.
This usurpation of power by these traitors needs to STOP. Now. Before people start getting killed over it.
As a private citizen, I wouldn’t need to, whether I sold you a gun at a show or through a classified ad in the newspaper or through word of mouth. The “gun-show-loophole” is a straw man to forbid sales by private citizens in any venue.
I’m not sure if I COULD have you fill out a background check - there’s probably a box on the form for the dealer’s FFL number, and as a private citizen, of course I don’t have such a number. I could support allowing background checks to be run without an FFL.
There’s no chance of me paying whatever it costs to rent a table at a gun show to sell one gun.
If I were selling a collection I inherited but did not desire to keep, I would sell them as a lot to a dealer, rather than research their value, then spend a weekend at a gunshow hoping for buyers.
I look at it like this, those running for Pres. all will put firearm ownership at risk.
Take your time. Look carefully. You might also want to note the whole "shall not be infringed" thingie towards the bottom.
If it's a Right, why do you have to ask permission? If a criminal hasn't paid their due, why are we letting them out of jail? If they will arm themselves anyway, why are we taking legal guns out of the hands of the law abiding thereby making them easier targets for said criminals?
In fact, USC Title 18 Sect 241/242 make it ILLEGAL to deprive someone not subject to incarceration of their civil Rights. Doing so not only violates this Federal law, but may also rise to the level of "accessory to murder" as most of the victim disarmament loons know damn well that disarming innocent civilians does NOTHING to protect innocent civilians.
Does that cure some of your ignorance? If not, most pro-2A folks here have so many links you'll be reading for a year.
The anti-gun crowd uses the terms ‘gunshow loophole’ and ‘unlicensed dealer’ to distort the truth. In most states, the laws governing firearms transactions inside a gunshow are exactly the same as those outside a gunshow. In the states where the laws aren’t the same, it’s stricter inside the show for private sales.
What they’re talking about is private individuals selling part of their collection by either renting a table or walking around with a ‘for sale’ sign on a firearm. There is no such thing as an ‘unlicensed dealer.’ To legally deal in firearms, you must have the appropriate Federal Firearms License (FFL). I’ve been told, but can’t confirm, that the ATF does monitor shows and if a private seller starts becoming a regular or often has a changing line of guns for sale they can expect to have a discussion with the ATF about whether or not they’re operating a business.
The vast majority of firearms sales at gun shows are through licensed dealers. And those are subject to the exact same paperwork and background check as purchases from a dealer in a shop. The anti’s will trot out a statistic that something like 20% of the gun sellers at a show are ‘unlicensed.’ Even if that’s true, a typical private seller might sell one or two firearms. A dealer’s table will sell dozens or hundreds.
This is a nose under the tent scheme. If successful with this, their next step will be - ‘hey, wait a minute, private citizens can buy firearms from each other without a background check and parents can give gifts to their kids without a background check...’ The other aspect of this is record keeping - I haven’t seen this addressed, but in order for it to work there needs to be some record of the transaction, and since it isn’t reasonable to expect a private citizen to maintain detailed transaction records indefinitely, guess who would keep the gun registry - I mean transaction records.
The facts are that an extremely small percentage of firearms used in crimes come from gun shows. Bottom line, setting up the infra-structure to do this is a waste of resources that would be better spent going after criminals.
100 percent correct. This is an attack on your right to private property.
I echo what Beelzebubba said - every bit of it.
In addition, his statement that
“They’re gonna get them. Why does it really matter how? And where is the evidence that prohibiting ordinary private sales at gun shows would affect criminals?”
is right on the money. All that gun control does is affect law-abiding citizens. Most guns owned by criminals are stolen, or purchased illegally from those who stole them, or purchased from the guy who got a shipping container full off of the last Chinese ship to pull up to the dock. In short, only WE will bear the burden of this latest in a long train of abuses of our RKBA.
This is about control, alright - control of the average citizen. The government IS compiling lists of gun owners, I don’t give a damn what they tell us, they are doing it (in contravention of the law, I might add - but that’s only for us mere citizens to obey, not our betters). Lists = registration = the automatic potential for a future tyrant or tyrantess(?) to attempt a confiscation.
I pray that the Supreme Court affirms the Circuit Court decision in “Heller,” because if it doesn’t and the Dems win the WH and keep Congress (all of which is looking increasingly likely), then we’ll be entering VERY interesting times (in the Chinese curse sense of that phrase). Then the least of your concerns will be the gangs.
So we make a deal at the show, shake on it and leave the show.
The money and firearm exchange hands at a later time, at a different site, and there’s no gunshow.
It's called a private citizen face to face sale. There is absolutely no such thing as an unlicensed dealer because if you start 'dealing' firearms the ATF will be all over you like white on rice.
It's a freedom thing. This stupid law is a precursor to banning face to face private sales.
All except one. The constitutional-abiding 'kook' who is despised by big government 'conservatives.'
There, fixed it.
Most gun shows already require background checks for any firearm purchase, private seller or dealer. They have a cop or volunteer dealer who makes the phone call; takes about 3 minutes. I agree it’s a violation of 2nd Amendment rights, but it’s already de facto law. Still, it’s a good idea to fight the antis on this just to keep them occupied so they can’t move on to their next anti-gun issue.
Past due time to disabuse them of a few odd notions they've picked up over the last 10-20 years.
Correct; that, combined with the illegal keeping of lists (via scanning of the Forms 4473 at each dealer) of gun owners and their guns, will set the stage for confiscation (or at least an attempt at it).
unlicensed dealers = You, me, Grandpa when he wants to give his 12ga to your son, etc
Don't forget this prophetic scene:
"Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We WANT them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted -- and you create a nation of law-breakers -- and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."
-- Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
People like Lousyberg and Schemer want to make us potential criminals every time we step out of the door of our homes (and, in many cases, while we're still inside), so as to deprive us of guns, jobs, loans, etc. IOW, to make us completely dependent on Uncle Sucker, to make us into helpless serfs.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.