Giant lie by anti-RKBA

http://www.safestatekansas.org/Gun%20Shows.htm

Gun Shows
"They might have booths at shows almost every weekend. But because they don’t consider buying and selling guns as their primary occupation, they don’t have to be licensed. And because they aren’t licensed, they don’t have to perform a background check. So, they really don’t have any way to be sure of who they are selling to."

I assume this was written for her Creative Writing 101 class. She invents her own standard of what constitutes a gun dealer. She basically says a person can say "I'm not a gun dealer if I say I'm not". Pure bullshit.

That's the important part.

state can legally sell transfer (sell) a firearm without a background check as long as it is not prohibited by local law.
http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/faq2.htm#b1
It does not matter where the sale is made as long as they are in their state of residence.

But of course the RKBA crowd think if they spin furiously they can keep people from learning that.

reading can decide which person is desperately spinning by their answers.

and its those trying to pretend that there is no gun show loophole...

...'private sale loophole' no one here can take you seriously.

before I CARE what the RKBA crowd thinks?

Good to see the RKBA crowd choosing sides.

but I'm not the one who's dizzy from it.

This whole unlicensed dealer BS is well covered under existing law.

Federal law makes it unlawful for any person except a licensed dealer to engage in the business of dealing in firearms. 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(1)(A). As applied to a firearms dealer, the term “engaged in the business” is defined as:

a person who devotes time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms, but such term shall not include a person who makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms

See:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=18&sec=922

the legal definition was kept deliberately vague (at the gun industry's insistence) to allow these unlicensed dealers to sell guns.

the legal definition was kept deliberately vague (at the gun industry's insistence) to allow these unlicensed dealers to sell guns.

Proof that the gun industry kept the definition of a dealer "deliberately vague"? I've heard this claim before and have never seen any proof behind it.

However a reasonable person might see that the definition as it exists makes it easier to prosecute someone engaged in the business of dealing in firearms by not establishing a minimum threshold of activity that must be met to be in violation of the law.


The prosecution can argue that whatever level of activity was being engaged in constitutes devoting time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms.

"a reasonable person might see that the definition as it exists makes it easier to prosecute someone engaged in the business of dealing in firearms by not establishing a minimum threshold of activity"
Yeah, I'm sure that's why the gun lobby put that in.

Yeah, I'm sure that's why the gun lobby put that in.

Since you haven't provided any proof to back up your claim that the gun lobby is responsible for the definition of a firearms dealer, and for a nefarious reason too, your claim is apparently just BS. Who would have thunk it?

Are you going to deny that the legal definition of a firearms dealer is somehow an impedance to prosecution? If so please explain.

As I pointed out that by not establishing a minimum level of activity it makes it easier to prosecute a case.

The current threashold was set by the McClure-Volkmer Act....drawn up by the NRA. Here's one of the dishonest pieces of shit that drew it up to NRA specifications....

http://www.nrawinningteam.com/volkmer.html

"Part of the blame can be laid at the feet of the GOP, because Republicans in the Bush administration and Congress delight in doing the dirty work of the National Rifle Association. Each year, the NRA pressures Congress to cut the ATF's budget. As former NYPD Commissioner Bill Bratton observed in '98: "The NRA has strenuously opposed increased financing for the bureau and has successfully lobbied against giving it the authority to quickly investigate the origins of gun sales."
This year, it's even worse. Congress has compelled the ATF to keep secret the identities of illegal gun sellers. In February, thanks to a rider that Rep. George Nethercutt Jr. (R-Wash.) slipped into a spending bill, gun sale statistics were exempted from the Freedom of Information Act. Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) is trying to undo this law because, he says, it shields from public scrutiny gun dealers who sell to criminals.
It's bad enough the ATF keeps the information from the public, but now it is limiting the data provided to police. The NYPD's gun task force still works closely with the ATF and apparently has not been affected by the policy change. But elsewhere cops have been having trouble with firearms tracing.
This fits nicely into the NRA's crusade to chip away at the ATF's effectiveness. The mainstay of that quest was the 1986 McClure-Volkmer Act, which blasted huge loopholes into the gun control laws. Previously, only authorized dealers had been permitted to sell firearms at gun shows. McClure-Volkmer lifted that reasonable restriction. It also limited the ATF to one - one! - unannounced inspection of a gun dealer per year. It raised the burden of proof for breaking federal gun laws. It deprived the ATF of the authority to fine lawbreaking retailers or to suspend their licenses. And it made the shuttering of crooked gun shops a long and tedious process."

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ideas_opinions/story/90655p-82435c.html

Now go pimp for right wing scumbags to somebody who gives a shit.

... and I haven't seen any of the rapid-fire retorts I'm so used to seeing here. Surely *someone* is going to prove all this to be false! Or at least call it names ...

Interesting info. I always appreciate insights like these into what and who make things tick, and how, down there.

.

it's been over 9 hours

Yes, some of us have to do work while we are at work and don't have time to play around on the internet until we have clocked off (thank you for that phrase I do like it) and gone home.

I knew you'd snivel about McClure-Volkmer (FOPA)

The current threashold was set by the McClure-Volkmer Act....drawn up by the NRA.

Yes, I know where the definition came into being, what you haven't shown is that the gun-lobby is responsible for that definition.

The existing definition is there because of prior BATF abuses.

A Senate Subcommittee received evidence that BATF has primarily devoted its firearms enforcement efforts to
the apprehension, upon technical malum prohibitum charges, of individuals who lack all criminal intent
and knowledge. Agents anxious to generate an impressive arrest and gun confiscation quota have
repeatedly enticed gun collectors into making a small number of sales--often as few as four--from their
personal collections. Although each of the sales was completely legal under state and federal law, the
agents then charged the collector with having "engaged in the business" of dealing in guns without the
required license. Since existing law permits a felony conviction upon these charges even where the
individual has no criminal knowledge or intent numerous collectors have been ruined by a felony record
carrying a potential sentence of five years in federal prison. Even in cases where the collectors secured
acquittal, or grand juries failed to indict, or prosecutors refused to file criminal charges, agents of the
Bureau have generally confiscated the entire collection of the potential defendant upon the ground that he
intended to use it in that violation of the law.

McClure-Volkmer Act passed the Senate 79-15, with 30 Democrats in favor and 13 opposed. Among the Democratic senators voting favor were Joe Biden, George Mitchell, John Glenn, and Al Gore.

FOPA passed the House 292-130, with Democrats voting 131 in favor and 115 opposed. House Democrats who voted for FOPA included Tom Lantos, Tim Wirth, Lee Hamilton, Dan Glickman, Jim Florio, Mike Synar, Tom Daschle, Tom Foley, and Les Aspin. The lead House sponsor, Harold Volkmer, was a Democrat.

Clearly this wasn't an NRA-GOP coup no matter how hard you try to push that line.

From your ridiculous editorial source Previously, only authorized dealers had been permitted to sell firearms at gun shows

What that really meant was that previously the only licensed dealers permitted to sell at gun shows were the dealers that were authorized to do so (none?). From the late 1960s until the mid-1980s, the policy of the Treasury Department and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) on the issue of where Federal Firearms License holders could conduct sales was consonant with the Gun Control Act of 1968: i.e., that licensing applied only to the premises where the applicant regularly engaged in the business of selling firearms—not temporary locations such as gun shows. Dealers were allowed to exhibit at gun shows, but actual sales had to be consummated at their place of business.

It damn sure didn't mean that only dealers were authorized to sell at gun shows, with individuals being prohibited from selling, as the author(s) so carefully worded it to imply.

Now go peddle your propaganda cycle somewhere else.

That's absolutely true...and you know it.

...the proof is staring you in the face and you refuse to believe it!
You had zero credibility before and now have a negative score.

Are you REALLY trying to pretend there isn't a gaping gun show loophole in Kansas?

...'private sale loophole' no one here can take you seriously.
<repeat as necessary>

Ask me if I CARE what the RKBA crowd wants to call the loophole.

...'private sale loophole' no one here can take you seriously.
<repeat as necessary>

I don't really give a crap what name they want to call it..

...'private sale loophole' no one here can take you seriously.
<repeat as necessary>

I don't really give a shit what the RKBA crowd wants to call it.

...'private sale loophole' no one here can take you seriously.
<repeat as necessary>

Next ask me if I care what the Mary Rosh fan club takes seriously.

...'private sale loophole' no one here can take you seriously.
<repeat as necessary>

and ask me if I care how some of the specimens in the RKBA crowd view anytihng.

...'private sale loophole' no one here can take you seriously.
<repeat as necessary>

"Federal law requires background checks for all firearms sales at gun stores. But a loophole allows criminals, illegal aliens and even terrorists to walk into a gun show and purchase a gun without ever undergoing a background check. That means no ID, no questions asked. A bill sponsored by Senators John McCain and Joe Lieberman would close this dangerous loophole. "

http://ww2.americansforgunsafety.com/the_issues_gun_loop.asp

buyer even at a gunshow.

edited 'cuz topic was cut off

It's called the gun show loophole...

.... you used 'private seller' and 'loophole' in the same message. Come on now, put them together and what do you have? A 'private seller loophole'.

It's the intellectually honest thing to say.

"Gee why do you keep saying that RoeBear?"

"Well" I would say "it's because if a law was passed to require background checks of privately owned guns sold at gun shows you would soon see that it would do nothing to stop disqualified people from purchasing guns."

why should I give a flying fuck what YOU call it?

When?

And I'm supposed to worry that YOU don't take me seriously?

"WASHINGTON, April 24, 2001 - The Reform Movement today applauded Senator Jack Reed (D-RI) for introducing the Gun Show Background Check Act. At a press conference this morning outside the Capitol, Jeff Mandell, Legislative Director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, joined Senators Charles Schumer (D-NY), Jon Corzine (D-NJ), and representatives from a wide array of public health, consumer rights, religious and gun safety organizations, in endorsing Senator Reed’s bill.
The complete text of Mr. Mandell’s statement follows:


Last week, we marked the two-year anniversary of the tragic shootings at Columbine High School. On a personal level, this also marked the two-year anniversary of my arrival in Washington as an advocate. One of my most lasting memories of that first week is the near unanimity with which our nation’s leaders were shocked by events and spoke publicly of their determination to find a legislative remedy that would at least help us assure such events would not become commonplace. It was in this atmosphere that then-Senator Frank Lautenberg - a true giant of social justice, someone who never shrank from a fight (even with the NRA) when he knew he had right on his side - proposed to close the “gun show loophole,” which allows for thousands of known felons, domestic abusers, mentally ill and minors to purchase guns without a mandated background check. Today, we join with Senator Reed, another fearless and tenacious advocate, to re-introduce Senator Lautenberg’s bill.

The fact that gun control is not the most discussed issue in Washington today in no way indicates that time has mitigated the need for this legislation. Indeed, while we all recognize that there is no legislative panacea for our culture of violence, there can be no doubt that today, having seen an unprecedented rash of school and workplace shootings in the past two years, closing the gun show loophole would make it harder for those who should not have guns to get guns." "

http://www.rac.org/news/042401a.html

n/t

"Marian Wright Edelman, Founder and President of the Children's Defense Fund
"Senator Reed is a true champion for children and I am grateful for his leadership on this important issue. The most deadly weapons used at Columbine two years ago today were purchased at a gun show. We lose 10 children and teens every day to gunfire. How many lives could we save by taking the simple step of having background checks at gun show sales? If we can save one child's life with this simple measure it would be immoral not to do it."

Susan Peschin, Firearms Project Manager, Consumer Federation of America
"CFA believes that how guns are distributed and sold in America is a consumer issue. It is high time for Congress to shut down the deadly gun show loophole, and Senator Jack Reed's bill is the most effective way to do it. The public wants this deadly loophole closed. The 1999 National Gun Policy Survey, conducted by the National Opinion Research Center, found that nearly eight out of 10 Americans (79 percent) would favor a law that required private gun sales to be subject to the same background check requirements as sales by licensed dealers. Gun owners support closing the gun show loophole as well. Two-thirds of Americans who own a gun support
such a law."

Robert K. Musil, PhD, Executive Director and CEO of Physicians for Social Responsibility
"As a national group of physicians and health professionals, Physicians for Social Responsibility emphatically supports the ‘Gun Show Background Check Act' introduced by Senator Reed. With 30,000 Americans killed with firearms each year, gun violence has severe public health implications. PSR firmly endorses the ‘Gun Show Background Check Act' because it extends the Brady Law to cover sales of firearms at gun shows in addition to sales in gun stores. PSR strongly believes the provision to permanently provide law enforcement with up to three business days to conduct thorough background checks on purchasers at gun shows is crucial. This bill's language was supported once before by the Senate as the Lautenburg Amendment to the Juvenile Justice bill. PSR encourages Members of the Senate to ensure that Senator Reed's version passes in this session." "

http://www.senate.gov/~reed/releases/remarks.htm

http://ww2.americansforgunsafety.com/the_issues_gun_loop.asp
But because the Brady Bill does not apply to private gun sellers, criminals and other prohibited buyers who cannot buy firearms at gun stores can skirt the law and obtain guns from private sellers at gun shows.

Mccain gunshow bill details:
http://ww2.americansforgunsafety.com/the_issues_bill.asp
Requiring a criminal background check at all gun shows and public events where at least 75 guns are available for sale;

• The bill corrects a flaw in previous legislation and excludes from background checks the sale of a gun either from a seller's home or to an immediate family member.

(end)


Are you saying that you only want the private sale loophole to be closed at gun shows, and nowhere else? :shrug:

Do you consider any private firearms transaction to be a "gun show?" :shrug:

Read and learn....

"The Gun Control Act of 1968 requires anyone in the business of selling guns to obtain 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 these unlicensed sellers are not required to perform a criminal background check on potential buyers. This makes it far easier for guns to fall into the hands of criminals and even children. "

http://www.gunfree.org/content/coalition/coal_gunshow.html

to a "private sale loophole" that has nothing to do with gun shows, other than the use of a "scary" descriptive buzzword. It's like when repukes rail against "baby killing" and parrot ad nauseum their push for a ban on "partial birth abortions." Obfuscate is, as obfuscate does.

This:
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.

is being labeled this:
The Gun Show Loophole refers to the fact that these unlicensed sellers are not required to perform a criminal background check on potential buyers.

"Two and a half years have passed since the tragedy at Columbine High School claimed the lives of 14 students and one teacher. Four of the guns used in the shooting were purchased at a gun show. However, Congress has yet to pass effective gun safety legislation to ensure background checks are conducted for all gun sales. It is time to close the gun show loophole!"

http://www.cdfactioncouncil.org/gunshow%20loophole.htm

...but weren't they bought from a 'dealer' at the gun show, and thus the girl who bought them had a background check done.

"In his weekly radio address on February 6, President Clinton called for action to ensure that all purchasers of firearms are subject to background checks and to stop the illegal sale of firearms at gun shows.

The issue of gun show regulation has been one of the major areas of concern raised by The U.S. Conference of Mayors through its Gun Violence Task Force.

It is estimated that 4,442 gun shows were held in 1998. There exists a loophole in federal law which allows non-licensed gun show participants to evade federal requirements that licensed gun dealers must comply with (identification checks, criminal background checks and the Brady waiting period, and record keeping requirements including multiple purchase forms).

The President's action came after he directed the Secretary of the Treasury and Attorney General to recommend what should be done to correct this loophole. Following the submission of written comments from a wide array of interested parties, including strong support from the Conference, the Administration released its report entitled, "Gun Shows: Brady Checks and Crime Gun Traces" which contains detailed recommendations for legislative and administrative changes to close the loophole."

http://www.usmayors.org/USCM/us_mayor_newspaper/documents/02_22_99/loophole.htm

...even though it would not have been affected by your dishonest proposal.

Until you can be honest and call it a...'private sale loophole' no one here can take you seriously.
<repeat as necessary>

"This week I joined Senator John McCain (AZ), Senator Joe Lieberman (CT) and New York's own Senator Chuck Schumer at a press conference to introduce our new companion bill, "The Gun Show Loophole Closing and Gun Law Enforcement Act of 2001." I was extremely gratified to welcome Senator McCain to this debate. Senator McCain has done an about-face on the issue of reducing gun violence in America, and his no-nonsense approach to this epidemic is sorely needed.

Let me explain how we want to keep guns out of the wrong hands by closing the gun show loophole.

The National Association of Police Organizations, the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations and the Million Mom March are just some of the groups who have endorsed this bill. They understand this bill is necessary to keep guns out of criminals' and children's hands.

That's the technical part of the bill. Here's what's happening in Congress. It's been two years since Columbine. EIGHT school shootings later, and still Congress remains in the NRA's stranglehold, not addressing gun violence in this country."

http://www.house.gov/carolynmccarthy/colmccainpresser.htm

One last time in terms you might understand.

Lets say before Columbine, the gun show loophole was closed and all sellers had to perform a background check. (forget that the 2 kids used straw purchasers) So with this loophole closed they couldnt buy a gun at a gun show without a background check. But they pick up a copy of the local newspaper and search through the ads for guns for sale. They find one and go buy the gun. Shoot up the school. Now what do we have? A "private sales loophole"? Or a "newpaper ad loophole"?

"New Poll Shows That 87 Percent of Iowans Support Closing Gun Show Loophole
Eight out of ten gun owners support law to require criminal background checks on all firearm sales at gun shows
Cedar Rapids, IA - Iowans for the Prevention of Gun Violence today released the results of a public opinion poll that shows that 87 percent of Iowans, including 8 out of 10 gun owners, support a bill introduced in the Iowa legislature that would require a criminal background check on all firearm sales at gun shows. Support was higher among women (93%) than men (81%). Among registered voters, 93 percent of Democrats, 80 percent of Republicans, and 90 percent of Independents support the legislation. Support was essentially equal between urban respondents (86%) and rural respondents (88%).

The poll was conducted by Frank N. Magid Associates, Inc., an independent research firm located in Marion, Iowa. The results were based on telephone interviews with a randomly selected sample of 400 adult Iowans between January 8-11, 2002. The margin of error is ± 4 percent. "

http://www.jointogether.org/gv/news/alerts/reader/0,2061,547845,00.html

Keep those fallacies flowing.

"Although federally licensed firearm dealers (FFLs) are required to conduct a background check before selling a gun to someone, there are still many gun sales by unlicensed, so-called "private sellers," who are not required to conduct background checks on gun purchasers. Many of these unlicensed dealers generate a huge profit at nationwide gun shows.

Eleven states have successfully closed the gun show loophole. However, there is still a long way to go. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) estimates that there are between 2,000 to 5,000 gun shows every year. In fact, the ATF found that approximately 10 percent of the guns used in crimes committed by juveniles and children were sold at gun shows and flea markets. Congress needs to wake up to the handgun epidemic and mandate a background check on every single handgun transaction in this country. "

http://www.comotionmakers.org/newsletter/2-1/loophole.html

Another misleading organization. I went there and couldn't find any info about how to get a free gun.


OH yeah- Until you (and the gun grabbing organizations that you like to quote) can be honest and call it a 'private sale loophole' no one here can take you (or them) seriously.
<repeat as necessary>

"The VPC's findings were confirmed in 1999 when the U.S. Departments of Treasury and Justice issued their own study, Gun Shows: Brady Checks and Crime Gun Traces. The study concluded, "Gun shows provide a large market where criminals can shop for firearms anonymously." More recently, a law enforcement sting that targeted gun shows and swap meets in Arizona resulted in the seizure of 1,500 illegal guns. The special agent in charge for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) told the Arizona Republic that illegal trafficking was rampant at gun shows and swap meets, which attract criminal weapons buyers because a legal loophole allows unlicensed sales without background checks. "They feel emboldened and secure in going to these locations because they know there will be a large number of firearms to choose from," the agent said.
There is growing sentiment that it is time to close the gun show loophole. In May 1999, the United States Senate passed legislation which would have effectively closed the loophole. A measure sponsored by then Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) passed as an amendment to juvenile justice legislation (S. 254). The National Rifle Association (NRA) offered competing proposals that would have significantly weakened existing federal gun laws. Unfortunately, the Lautenberg proposal failed in the House of Representatives and Congress never took final action on S. 254. On the state level, in November 2000 voters in Colorado and Oregon endorsed state-wide referenda to close the loophole by requiring background checks at all sales at gun shows. "

http://www.vpc.org/studies/gunloop.htm

Here is a link to a newpaper. Note: the gun show was last weekend, its done and over with now. So where could a felon go to get a gun without a background check when there is no gun show in town????? Thats right folks....the NEWSPAPER.

http://classifieds.nwsource.com/class/?st=results&dco=1&k=&cid=2283825&newflag=&Search.x=34&Search.y=12#493

See section 493 shotguns and rifles.
493 - Shotguns/Rifles Top of page


Browning Lightning O/U, $950. Rem 870-20 $175. Marlin 375 $200. OBO (425) 868-6867. (This ad is from 10/01/2003 to 10/07/2003.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gun Safe - HD 3/8" plate, like new, Pd $2K, sac $750. 425-753-6162
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Model 94 32 spec$450 253-854-8219
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Remington 710-30.06 - never used still in box $315obo 206/947-8754
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Winchester 1895 - 30-40 Krag $650, (360) 785-9812

My paper, on a wednesday, has 13 firearms for sale.

But like benchly says, No gun show, no loophole.

Gee, and this by you is an argument AGAINST gun control?

Amazing. Hey, criminals and loonies can get guns in newspapers, so let's arm them at gun shows too!

"Gun shows are temporary markets for guns and ammunition, usually held at meeting halls or fairgrounds. In 1998, over 4,400 gun shows were advertised around the country - 170 were held in North Carolina, the 7th highest total in the nation.

What is the the "Gun Show Loophole"?

Under current law, there are two categories of people who can sell guns: licensed dealers and private sellers. Licensed dealers are "engaged in the business" of selling firearms, and are required to conduct criminal background checks for all gun buyers. Private sellers, who sell guns from their "personal collections," are not required to conduct criminal background checks. At gun shows, it is estimated that at least 25% of those selling firearms are private sellers, thus creating easy access for convicted felons, domestic abusers, juveniles, and even terrorists to purchase guns with no background check, no questions asked.

Do criminals actually buy guns from gun shows?

Yes. The access to sales with without background checks and the availability of large numbers of guns makes gun shows attractive to criminals and other prohibited purchasers. According to Federal Law Enforcement, 26,000 guns were sold and trafficked to prohibited purchasers from gun shows between 1996 and 1998, making gun shows America's second largest source of crime guns."

http://www.ncgv.org/gunshow.htm

Gee, and this by you is an argument AGAINST gun control?

I never said i was AGAINST gun control. I am for gun control if it makes sense. I am against stupid gun control that doesnt work like waiting periods, assault weapons bans, and "gun show" loopholes.

Do you still think after reading my posts that closing the loophole at a gun show magically closes it when you are at your home selling firearms? I know youre not that stupid. You seems quite brite actually. I think you just keep dragging out this gun show bit to piss everyone off. Anyone moran with half a brain knows that the loophole extends far beyond a gun show that comes around a couple times a year.

"I never said i was AGAINST gun control."
Yeah, and I'm supposed to worry whether YOU take me seriously.....

"Close gun sale loopholes
Indiana should tighten regulations for sales at gun shows and designate the FBI instead of the overworked state police to handle background checks on handguns under the federal Brady Law.
Current loopholes appear to have contributed significantly to the state's dismaying eighth-place ranking in guns traced back to purchases in other states after their use in crimes. A report by Americans for Gun Safety found 1,684 used in crimes outside of Indiana were initially purchased in the Hoosier state. Ohio ranked seventh, with 1,697 guns involved in crimes committed elsewhere. The rankings are based on data obtained from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
The Brady Law requires criminal background checks for those buying firearms from licensed gun dealers. But the state has left a gaping loophole by allowing sales of personal firearms owned by free-lance sellers, including those at gun shows, to remain unregulated.
The statistics strengthen arguments for closing the gun show loophole. Firearms acquired through private transactions at gun shows sometimes are resold in other states to felons who are legally prohibited from buying them. Gun show regulations among the top 10 gun-exporting states show the importance of cracking down on non-licensed sellers. Of those 10, only California and North Carolina are among the 18 states requiring criminal background checks for all gun show customers."

http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/journalgazette/6638519.htm

Call it what you will. I dont see how you get such toleration around here with nothing but trolling, maybe its different when you post in the other forums???

Lets all do the NRA, GOP, and every convicted felon in america a favor and just close this gun show loophole, leaving all other loopholes wide open.

"I dont see how you get such toleration around here with nothing but trolling"
Gee, I just hand back what you guys hand out.

"Criminals and kids get guns. And they can do so easily because of a gaping loophole in state and federal law that allows them to get guns without undergoing a background check or even showing identification. These no-questions-asked transactions occur everywhere from alleyways to flea markets to gun shows.
Remarkably, an estimated 40% of the nation’s annual gun transactions are conducted in this unregulated manner, providing a ready supply of firepower to the very people who should be prohibited from buying a gun. Not surprisingly, the vast majority of guns used in crime come from this unregulated, “secondary market.”
Making matters worse, unlicensed sellers in the secondary market are not required to keep any records of the transaction. Without a paper trail, it’s much more difficult for law enforcement to trace these crime guns and bring the perpetrators to justice."

http://www.waveedfund.org/Loophole.htm

Bwah hah hah! What a joke. And I thought you had a twisted sense of humor.

I can just see those losers sitting around their board table discussing what to call their organization. After too many wines and too many joints someone suggests 'americans for gun safety'. "Dude, good idea!" mumbles someone "Yeah, far out, let's vote on that". Thus the paperwork is filled out and sent on it's way.


Oh and BTW- Until you can be honest and call it a 'private sale loophole' no one here can take you seriously.
<repeat as necessary>

"n addition, some promoters or firearms dealers sponsor "gun shows," where legitimate federal firearms dealers (Federal Firearms Licensees or FFL's, ) sell guns side by side with the so-called private sellers. In most states, FFL's at these events must comply with federal regulations regarding background checks and sales. The private sellers are under no such restrictions. Thus, the gun show becomes a place where those planning to use guns in crime are able to meet unlicensed sellers and avoid the very laws meant to cut down on gun violence.

Assault weapons? No problem. Thousands of them are in private hands and available for sale at gun shows because of grandfather clauses in the laws. How about 32-round ammo clips, banned in 1994 as part of the federal assault weapons ban? Just like the assault weapons themselves, clips manufactured before the ban are okay to sell -- and gun manufacturers like Miami's Navegar, creator of the infamous "TEC-9", stocked up as many as 50,000 of the clips in anticipation of the ban.

Even the National Association of Stocking Gun Dealers, a trade association of FFL's, supports regulating every firearm sale at gun shows and requiring that records be kept of all firearms transactions at gun shows."

http://www.campusalliance.org/solutions/gunshows.asp

...how many organizations are as intellectually dishonest as you are.
It must make you proud!

Until you can be honest and call it a...


...'private sale loophole' no one here can take you seriously.
<repeat as necessary>

Seems like I'll just have to settle for the rest of the world taking me seriously and forgo your approval. As if I give two shits what you call it.

"As part of the public health approach to reducing gun injury and death, physicians should advocate for policies that would reduce the easy access to, and availability of, guns. Closing the gun show loophole is one such policy. The gun show loophole originates from the 1994 Brady Law, which requires federally licensed firearm dealers to conduct criminal background checks on every firearm purchase, no matter if the gun is bought at a gun store, gun show, or other market. However, the law does not require non-licensed gun sellers or so-called “private collectors” to conduct these criminal background checks, and allows them to sell firearms at gun shows and other public markets with no questions asked. This loophole opens the door for prohibited purchasers such as felons, gun traffickers, domestic abusers, terrorists, those that have been adjudicated as mentally ill, and juveniles to purchase guns."

http://www.doctorsagainsthandguninjury.org/loophole.html

Seems like I'll just have to settle for the rest of the world taking me seriously and forgo your approval. As if I give two shits what you call it.

The "Rest of the World," as you describe it, is composed of people pushing an agenda, who apparently learned from the Right To Lifers how to come up with and push a meaningless buzzword to further that agenda.

When people hear "gun show loophole" they only think of a problem at gun shows. The "problem" is no background checks on some sales at those gun shows. Passing a law specifically requiring background checks at those gunshows will then be considered to have "solved" the "gun show loophole" problem. :eyes:

To wit:
The gun show loophole originates from the 1994 Brady Law, which requires federally licensed firearm dealers to conduct criminal background checks on every firearm purchase, no matter if the gun is bought at a gun store, gun show, or other market.

However, the law does not require non-licensed gun sellers or so-called “private collectors” to conduct these criminal background checks, and allows them to sell firearms at gun shows and other public markets with no questions asked."

- - -
As an aside, DAHI seems like an OK organization.
http://www.doctorsagainsthandguninjury.org/position.html

"people pushing an agenda"
And shitheels like the NRA aren't? Hahahahahahahaha!

Tell you what...you stand over there with Ted Nugent and Larry Pratt and I'll stand here with the sane people. The smell is much better.

"SEATTLE, January 16, 2002 - Washington CeaseFire, the State's largest and most active gun safety organization, today unveiled its agenda for the 2002 legislative session, announcing that its top priority will be to close the gun show loophole.

House Bill 2202, sponsored by Representative Ruth Kagi (D -32), seeks to treat gun shows in the same way as gun stores by requiring background checks of all purchasers. Approximately 60 gun shows are held annually in Washington State, mostly on weekends at regional exhibition centers and fairgrounds. Under current state law, private sellers are exempt from requiring a background check on gun purchases. Under the new law, all purchasers at gun shows would be required to undergo to a criminal and mental health background check before the gun is transferred.

"In this time of uncertainty, we must do all we can to ensure that guns do not fall into the wrong hands," said Bruce Gryniewski, executive director of Washington CeaseFire. "Closing the gun show loophole will help prevent criminals from gaining easy access to firearms. This bill represents common-sense legislation that is long overdue in Washington State." "

http://www.waceasefire.org/pr20020116.asp

sales AT GUN SHOWS!!!!!!

House Bill 2202, sponsored by Representative Ruth Kagi (D -32), seeks to treat gun shows in the same way as gun stores by requiring background checks of all purchasers.
****
Under the new law, all purchasers at gun shows would be required to undergo to a criminal and mental health background check before the gun is transferred.
****
Similar legislation is currently pending at the federal level, sponsored by Senator John McCain (R-Arizona), which would require background checks of all purchasers at gun shows nationally.


As an aside:
Since when do Nugent and Pratt and the NRA support BACKGROUND CHECKS FOR ALL FIREARMS TRANSACTIONS!!!!

I give up. :shrug:

edited to add:
http://www.waceasefire.org/lobbygroup.asp

These guys seem OK, too, except for their wanting only gun show private sales to get background checks, and their support for pie-in-the-sky ballistic fingerprinting.

"Since when do Nugent and Pratt and the NRA support BACKGROUND CHECKS FOR ALL FIREARMS TRANSACTIONS!!!!"
Koresh! Who claimed they did, besides you? They're the scum of the earth, so who cares what they support?

"Senator Carl Levin (D-MI)
"It is incredible to me that more than two years after Columbine, lawmakers have not reduced the availability of guns to young people and other prohibited persons by closing the gun show loophole. This bill - which is supported by major law enforcement organizations - simply applies existing law governing background checks to persons buying guns at gun shows. We should stand with our nation's law enforcement community and take this common sense step to reduce the number of Columbine tragedies which plague our schools and communities."

Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
"This bill represents a vitally important step in bringing an end to gun violence in America. By closing the Gun Show Loophole we can help keep guns out of the hands of criminals and protect our communities from the tragedy of gun violence."

Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)
"We need to get guns off our streets and out of our schools. To do this, we need to start by making sure that every gun bought in the United States is checked and registered. You have to have a registration to drive a car. You should also have to have a registration to own a gun. I am proud to be a cosponsor of Senator Reed's legislation to close the gun show loophole. This bill is an important step in the right direction."

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY)
"Keeping guns out of the hands of criminals is a goal we all share. Closing the gun show loophole will help protect our children and families from the crimes that result when criminals get guns from shows in the thirty-two states that do not require this common sense safety measure."

Senator Jon Corzine (D-NJ)
"Nearly half of the guns purchased at gun shows are sold without background checks. New Jersey has strong gun laws, but eighty percent of the guns used by criminals in New Jersey are bought outside the state - many of them from the gun shows in neighboring states. It is time for firearm deaths to end, it is time to ensure that no more families are torn apart by gun violence and it is time to take our communities back from the scourge of guns sweeping our streets. Closing the gun show loophole will go a long way towards achieving these goals." "

http://www.senate.gov/~reed/releases/remarks.htm

YOU are the one who lumped me in with those others as supposedly being like minded. Why else would I "go stand over there?" :eyes:

****

Again, all those quotes (except Mikulski, who seems to have been caught at a bad time) talk about SALES AT GUN SHOWS!!!!

Nothing about:
living rooms
kitchen tables
parking lots
shooting ranges

"Close gun-show loophole

Criminals should not be able to walk into a gun show and buy firearms. But they do.
    The federal Brady law requires a background check of gun purchasers, but there is a hole in the law that Congress annually refuses to patch. The law requires federally licensed gun dealers to check the backgrounds of would-be buyers, but the law does not apply the same requirement to unlicensed sellers. This loophole is particularly worrisome at gun shows, where investigations by the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms have reported that criminals are able to buy guns.
    Despite congressional paralysis, the Utah Legislature could close the gun-show gap with a state law. But it, too, has failed repeatedly to act. Bills drafted by former Rep. Dave Jones and by Rep. Scott Daniels, both Salt Lake City Democrats, never have gotten far in the Republican-controlled Legislature. Daniels' 2003 bill did not survive the black hole of the Rules Committee.
    This is no surprise in a legislative body that this year gave people with permits to carry concealed weapons an explicit invitation to bring guns into schools. Senseless, but not surprising. "

http://www.sltrib.com/2003/sep/09242003/opinion/95203.asp

...'private sale loophole' no one here can take you seriously.
<repeat as necessary>

"A bipartisan group of senators, including Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, and Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Connecticut, proposed legislation Tuesday designed to prevent criminals from buying firearms at gun shows.

Speaking from the Senate lawn, the legislators and supporters of the bill unveiled the Gun Show Loophole Closing and Gun Law Enforcement Act of 2001, which would require background checks at all gun shows where at least 75 guns are sold.

"Gun shows, simply put, have become a paradise for illegal firearms sales because felons frequent gun shows to avoid having to go through a background check," said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-New York, a supporter of the bill. "

http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/05/15/gun.show.bill/

...'private sale loophole' no one here can take you seriously.
<repeat as necessary>

Disqualified buyer reading newspaper headline
'Gunshow Loophole Closed'

"Hmmm... no more private sales at gun shows what
should I do? Hmmm...where's the classified section?"

"On Wednesday morning my staff met with Kathy Hagenian of the Michigan Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence. Kathy is in Washington this week as part of the National Network to End Domestic Violence Annual Meeting and Legislative Day. The Coalition's mission is to combat all domestic and sexual violence by supporting prevention and intervention programs in communities throughout the state of Michigan. One of the issues she raised was her organization's support of Senator Reed's Gun Show Background Check Act. I, too, support this common sense gun safety legislation. This bill would simply apply the background checks that are mandatory for guns purchased in stores to gun shows.

In 1996, the Congress closed the domestic violence loophole. Now it is time to close the gun show loophole. The lack of background checks at gun shows leaves battered women and their children vulnerable to violence. I urge my colleagues to support this important gun safety legislation."

http://levin.senate.gov/releases/061402pr1.htm

...'private sale loophole' no one here can take you seriously.
<repeat as necessary>

So if we close your version of the 'loophole' would we ever see another proposal referring to another sale 'loophole'?

(try to answer with a yes or no)

"In light of the recent terrorist attack against the United States, it’s vital that we put U.S. gun shows into a global context and seriously review our role in arming the various terrorist networks across the world.

On Sept. 10th, Ali and Mohamed Boumelhem were convicted on a variety of weapons violations plus conspiracy to ship weapons to the terrorist organization Hezbollah in Lebanon. They legally purchased an arsenal of shotguns, ammunition, flash suppressors, assault weapons parts, and a police scanner from an unlicensed dealer at a Michigan gun show.

Federal and state laws in Michigan do not require background checks for unlicensed dealers at gun shows. Heavy pressure from the NRA has prevented the state of Michigan from closing the gun-show loophole, evidently giving anyone carte blanche to purchase weapons for their terrorist organization of choice. "

http://www.citizen-times.com/editorial/18800843.shtml

...how would your proposal stop them from going to a newspaper ad and buying a gun?

Probably the only reason they got caught is because they did buy at a gun show.

Imagine, no more posts from roe...and yet I can still respond to his and point out in public what a pantload they are.

And remember, this is a fit of pique from someone who has been chanting for days that he doesn't take me seriously...

"Answer my question or go on ignore...
...how would your proposal stop them from going to a newspaper ad and buying a gun?"


If all the unlicensed dealers selling all those thousands and thousands of firearms at gun shows would just turn to the classified ads to ply their trade if the gun show loophole were closed ... wouldn't we be seeing at least a few newspapers lobbying for the closing of the loophole??

Think of all the money they'd make from all these classified ads! A classic capitalist opportunity: get the gummint to shut down the competition, and sit back and reap the profits from the captive market of vendors looking to contact purchasers. Wouldn't you think that at least some specialty periodicals for firearms afficionados would be looking to have the loophole closed? Imagine: make yourself look socially responsible, and set yourself up to earn big income at the same time. Why is no one apparently exploiting this golden opportunity??

Think of the paper trail that the unlicensed dealers would be leaving by advertising in the newspaper ... think of how hard it would be for them to characterize themselves as "private sellers" when they advertised regularly ...


I certainly imagine that a lot of people would like to close both the gun show loophole and the rest of the private sales loophole. I also imagine that few of them are so clueless or easily conned as to think that closing the first will result in all of its users rushing over to squeeze their wares through the other one, and that this is why closing the gun show loophole is often described as "a step in the right direction", and no more panacea for any problem than any other restriction on legal access to firearms.

Should I be surprised that anyone would so disingenuous as to suggest that closing this loophole will just result in a shift in practices on the supply side, when as far as I can see there is every reason to believe that it would not?


Motivations are so hard to discern, sometimes. Do those who oppose closing the gun show loophole really want criminals to get guns? Or do they just want all their chums who sell guns not to have to pay the fees and taxes normally associated with earning income that way ... and of course lose the profits to be made by selling guns to criminals?

.

instead of fixing the whole problem, just fix the gun show problem and then fix the newspaper problem later after everyone who thinks the loophole is only for gun shows wakes up and smells the gunpowder?

... wouldn't we be seeing at least a few newspapers lobbying for the closing of the loophole??

I think we're being spoken down to and scolded for thinking that people will continue to sell firearms, or instead sell them, in the rest of the private sale market after private sales at gun shows are subjected to pre-sale background checks.

... to stand up without falling over? Spinning like that, and probably with your shoelaces tied together.


"so what youre saying is
instead of fixing the whole problem, just fix the gun show problem and then fix the newspaper problem later after everyone who thinks the loophole is only for gun shows wakes up and smells the gunpowder?

Perhaps you could quote me saying that, and I'll then be able to answer your question. Just can't think of how I'd do it, at the moment.

So what *you're* saying is that no firearms transfers should be permitted without background checks?

I won't disagree for an instant. If I were where you are, I'd be signing up with whatever group you'd got to demand precisely that. Can you tell me who it might be?

.

"I won't disagree for an instant. If I were where you are, I'd be signing up with whatever group you'd got to demand precisely that. Can you tell me who it might be?"

Huh?

is a US senator. :crazy:

Really, who is surprised?

the RKBA crowd and Democrats are often one in the same. I love your unwillingness to accept the truth. This is why nobody takes you seriously Benchley. You don't have to respond to my posts anymore. I know you still read them however.

"the RKBA crowd and Democrats are often one in the same."
You mean one AND the same? Gee, the RKBA crowd is much more often right wing crackpots, racists and loonies....

And it's noticeable that whenever the RKBA crowd mentions a Democrat, it's to bash them.

"I know you still read them however. "
And I laugh my ass off too.

I found a site that might be of interest to you. Despite our differences I never hold a grudge and am always willing to help out my fellow man.

http://www.changethatsrightnow.com/problem_detail.asp?PhobiaID=1603&SDID=1431

when it comes to the "gun show loophole"

If he is dumb enough not to realize the extent of the problem, then yes, his dumb ass gets bashed to. Like i care what letter is behind his name. Im a third party voter most of the time anyway.

hahahahaha

Caring would leave us chasing our tails in circles for the rest of our lives. Excuse us if we don't fall for your bullshit.

people actually know WTF they are talking about . . .:eyes:

and lefty goes on agreeing with benchly for one reason....he is anti gun too. Guess that means that he must know what he is talking about when it comes to a loophole that allows you to buy a gun without a background check.

it hasn't stopped you from posting....

I know what I'm talking about.:hi:

"gun show loophole" <snicker>

"There is a dangerous loophole which we can close. Guns bought from licensed firearms dealers at gun shows require a background check of the purchaser. However, guns which are purchased from unlicensed dealers at the gun shows require NO background check. And, up to half of all purchases at gun shows are from unlicensed dealers.

HB 2202 and SB 6123 would close the gun show loophole. The two pieces of legislation would require background checks and waiting periods on everyone who buys a gun at a gun show. It’s all about keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, the mentally ill, and children.

There is very strong support by Washington State residents for background checks at gun shows. According to Washington CeaseFire, “in a March 2001 polls, an overwhelming 85% of Washington residents supported background checks of all purchasers at gun shows.” "

http://www.thewac.org/Alert/2002alert1.htm

:shrug:

Have fun wallowing in it.

how will requiring background checks on private transactions at gun shows reduce crime? Is there any evidence that such actions have, can or will reduce crime? By what mechanism should these checks be performed; by private sellers or by going thru an FFL? And can any of you who advocate doing away with private transactions at gun shows say that you wouldn't mind doing away with private transactions entirely, because it seems to me that's the goal of those who would close the "gun-show loophole".

It being the misnamed "gun-show loophole".

All sales by private individuals have to go through an FFL.

That has been the case for handguns for decades (since 1968?), and for long guns for several years. Gun-related crime continues to rise up and down roughly corresponding to the general state of the economy. There is not one shred of evidence that it's reduced violent crime. Criminals still can get guns, and they don't have to drive all the way to Nevada or Arizona to do it.

if you're going to confiscate.

It has created a de facto registry of handguns. The CA Department of Justice has been accumulating make, model, and serial number for all handgun sales since '68.

But it is not necessary to register guns or make permanent records of transactions in order to provide a system by which buyers' backgrounds can be checked, even in private sales.

I won't cast pearls before swine by restating my proposal for doing that, at least not here on the DU forums. It's always a waste of time. Every time I do I get shouted down by screaming anti-gun lunatics who are so convinced I'm Satan incarnate they don't even bother trying to comprehend it. I plan to write it up in great detail and put it up on the Web as a serious proposal for closing the misnamed "gun-show loophole".

If you are interested in hearing an honest idea to address the issue you can see the short version at http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=14724&mesg_id=14866&page= - However I will not respond to any questions or comments on the hostile DU forums.