Hampton VA Closes Gun Show "Loophole?"

imported post

Personally, I don't agree at all with anything that effectively requires the FFL paperwork be filed for private sales. At that point, there is a perfect paper trail for every firearm you own....unless you're a criminal.

However, I would love it if it were easy for people to run a background check on themselves, with nothing indicating why it was run. As far as the government would be concerned, it could be anything from a private firearm transaction to some guy proving to a potential girlfriend that he really doesn't have a record. But some people would prefer to sell their private firearms to people that they know aren't criminals, just like some people prefer buying used guns through The Trading Post paper so the government doesn't have an easy time of knowing what they have.

Granted, I'd like to see purchases from dealers work that way too. Background check performed, but scrap all that paperwork that currently gets retained for years.

imported post

You know guys. ....if such a fool law were to pass, it wouldn't impact crime one bit. It's just feel good legislation.

I'm a great believer in personal RIGHTS.
Agent 9 posted:

if they object no sale.

Click to expand...

I support his right to do that.

OTOH....if (and to date no one has ever told me that) a potential seller told me that, I'd thank him for his time and wish him luck on the next buyer.

That's my right!

I understand Leo's thinking. His job is difficult and anything that gives him more information is good for him, however, anything that imposes additional hoops for law abiding gun buyers to jump through, IS GUN CONTROL and turns more law abiding buyers that have drawn the line, into people that skirt the law.

WE are living in what amounts to an open air prison anyway. How could any thinking person want to add yet another lock.

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

I would not mind seeing a national requirement for private sales to require a purchase permit proving they are eligible to purchase.It would expire after a certain period of time.

The permitcould contain the name of the person along with a control number that would identify him if needed by law enforcement. Then the person who sold the gun would be able to prove they no longer owned the gun used in a crime.

Keeping in mind... this is far less intrusive as thefew states that actually require you to REGISTER ALL YOUR GUNS with them. You control the documentthat proves YOU sold the gun.

Click to expand...

Missouri got rid of their purchase permits when CCW came along.



As far as a "control number"--in Ill-annoy--they call it a Firearm Owners Identification Card (aka FOID card)....FOID sucks, hence, why I am no longer there.



I suppose we should check every person who buys a car just to make sure they don't have any DUIs?



I hear what you are saying--and understand the logic behind it...but it is giving up that teeny much more freedom for little to no security we think we'll get.



BTW--the notion that this would have prevented Cho from his rampage is disingenuous. He bought his guns from a licensed dealer and lied on his 4473. I guess facts don't get in the way of a "good" news story.

imported post

The problem was his court ordered mental health treatment was not shared. Yes the bad guys will find a way to get a gun and we at times have to suffer for it. There is sometimes when there is no real perfect solution to a problem and we have to go with the one that sucks the least. I do agree that most time lawmakers have a knee jerk reaction and think if they pass a law that forbids it all will be ok.

imported post

Not only is Hampton's restrictions a violation of Va. Code §15.2-915 but it has also run afoul of Virginia case law.

"The Declaration of Rights of the State of Virginia, as it existed at the time of the passage of this act and under the new Constitution, guarantees in all capital or criminal prosecutions the right of trial by jury, in order 'that no man be deprived of his liberty except by the law of the land, or the judgment of his peers.'

The word "Liberty" as used in the Constitution of the United States and the several states, has frequently been construed, and means more than mere freedom from restraint. It means not merely the right to go where one chooses, but to do such acts as he may judge best for his interest, not inconsistent with the equal right of others; that is, to follow such pursuits as may be best adapted to his faculties, and which give him the highest enjoyment. The liberty mentioned is deemed to embrace the right of the citizen to be free in the enjoyment of all his faculties; to be free to use them in all lawful ways; to live and work where he will; to earn his livelihood by any lawful calling, and for that purpose to enter into all contracts which may be proper, necessary, and essential to his carrying out to a successful conclusion the purpose mentioned. These are individual rights, formulated as such under the phrase "pursuit of happiness" in the Declaration of Independence, which begins with the fundamental principle that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Young v. Commonwealth, 101 Va. 853, 45 S.E. 327 (1903).


The City of Hampton may not make illegal through ordinance or cohersion, or under the guise of the police power of the political subdivision, for no police power exists in this area. "No locality shall adopt or enforce any ordinance, resolution or motion, as permitted by § 15.2-1425, and no agent of such locality shall take any administrative action, governing the purchase, possession, transfer, ownership, carrying, storage or transporting of firearms, ammunition, or components or combination thereof other than those expressly authorized by statute. " Citing Va. Code §15.2-915.

What the General Assembly or the Constitution has made legal or protects, a political subdivisionn cannot deny. Since it is not illegal to conduct a person to person transfer, Hampton's actions amount to the police action of the county in contravention to §15.2-915. "Virginia adheres to the Dillon Rule of strict construction, which provides that "‘[local governing bodies] have only those powers which are expressly granted by the state legislature, those powers fairly or necessarily implied from expressly granted powers, and those which are essential and indispensable.’"6 Any doubt as to the existence of a power must be resolved against the locality.7 The Dillon Rule recognizes that localities are political subdivisions of the Commonwealth, which, in turn, rest on the foundation of Article I, § 14 of the Constitution of Virginia.8 "Op. Va. Att'y Gen. No. 02-29, April (2002).

"It is, of course, fundamental that local ordinances must conform to and not be in conflict with the public policy of the State as embodied in its statutes. ...Indeed, that principle is embodied in our statutes which require that local ordinances must "not be inconsistent with" the state law." King v. County of Arlington, 195 Va. 1084, 1085. (1954).

imported post

HankT wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

I am all for purchase validation in private sales.

Currently you can buy a gun from ANYONE who is not a dealer with NO CHECKS. We have a system in place to prevent felons, persons with restraining orders, and those who are mentally deficientfrom going out anbuying a gun froma dealer.Private sales circumvent these protective measures rendering them worthless.

When a gun purchased from a citizen is used in a murder... the ATF trail can end there at that sale or the last registered owner. The last known owner may not even know or remember who they sold the gun to.

Now I am, of course, thinking aboutcatching bad guys and keeping guns away fromthosewho are already subject togun control laws in place.

I would not mind seeing a national requirement for private sales to require a purchase permit proving they are eligible to purchase.It would expire after a certain period of time.

The permitcould contain the name of the person along with a control number that would identify him if needed by law enforcement. Then the person who sold the gun would be able to prove they no longer owned the gun used in a crime.

Keeping in mind... this is far less intrusive as thefew states that actually require you to REGISTER ALL YOUR GUNS with them. You control the documentthat proves YOU sold the gun.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

LEO 229,

Are you serious or are you just baiting us??

If we must get permission from the Federal Government to exercise our rights as you propose,

1. How would you link it to interstate commerce? (A private sale between 2 individuals in the same state?)If you cannot link it to interstate commerce, how could it be constitutional?

2. How would you prevent it from becoming a defacto gun registry?

3. What would happen to the person who sold a gun and then lost the permission slip?

:monkey

Federal firearms permission slips are a bad idea.

imported post

-C4- wrote:

It would seem they made some sort of "ordinance" or something requiring all booths at the gun show to be for licensed dealers only. I'm not actually certain they could enforce this though.... anyone else? I'm curious, because this seems like yet another attempt to break the no-preemption, etc.

Click to expand...

Hampton FOIA Inbound??

imported post

Thundar wrote:

LEO 229,

Are you serious or are you just baiting us??

If we must get permission from the Federal Government to exercise our rights as you propose,

1. How would you link it to interstate commerce? (A private sale between 2 individuals in the same state?)If you cannot link it to interstate commerce, how could it be constitutional?

2. How would you prevent it from becoming a defacto gun registry?

3. What would happen to the person who sold a gun and then lost the permission slip?


Federal firearms permission slips are a bad idea.

Click to expand...

No bait... just a thought on how to prevent those who are not allowed to have a gun fromgetting them thru private sales.

This could be managed all at the state level. Some states do this already for FFL transactions.

As we all know.... a convicted felon for "Murder" can find a gun for sale from a private citizen and buy it. There is NO WAY he can legally buy one from a FFL dealer.

Could he steal one? Ya... Could he buy one on the black market? Ya...

But why make it so easy for him to get it. Black market dealers could also get caught and fined for not requesting the background check from him. So they now stand to lose.

It would be a misdemeanor charge and a heavy fine. The fine would be more than the profit he would have made on the sale of the gun.

There would still be no "registry" since the SN is kept by those in possession of the gun. The certificate would justsay he can buy it. This is how it was in NC. They never knew what I bough if anything.

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

SNIP..
When a gun purchased from a citizen is used in a murder... the ATF trail can end there at that sale or the last registered owner. The last known owner may not even know or remember who they sold the gun to.

SNIP...
I would not mind seeing a national requirement for private sales to require a purchase permit proving they are eligible to purchase.It would expire after a certain period of time.

Click to expand...

Leo...

I feel sure you meant "transferee" and not "registered owner" so I'll not stoke the fire with that.

I in fact, do have the permit you speak of to purchase. Mine is signed by Thomas Jefferson.

Unless you require ALL firearms transfers to pass through an FFL holder and find a mechanism to punish both the noncomplaint seller and buyer, the ATF trace will have a point where it could go cold. This, I think, is dangerous to freedom on two fronts. One, the result is a defacto nationwide registration. If Doug buys a gun from ABC gun store then Doug should either have it, or know the XYZ gun store he transferred it to, so that LEO229 could receive it from XYZ gun store. Thus registration of guns becomes defacto.( I suspect FFL holders are salivating at the prospect of charging a $25 processing fee to handle the paperwork.) The second rub I have with this is the abolishment of my right to sell my property.

I can appreciate the spirit of your intent. I believe we all want to ensure firearm ownership is assured, swift and hassle free to persons entitled to own them.

As for the Hampton gun show. Do I now conclude that there will be no Military Surplus dealers, ammo only dealers, reloading supplies dealers, knife makers, coin / jewelry dealers, C&R only dealers, food vendors? Do I read that only FFL holders can rent a space? That'll be nice. :banghead:

imported post

Hey maybe we could get all those drug dealers and users to register so we can control the drug trade. I'll keep my liberty thank you. We don't need more gun control we need more criminal control and some hard ass judges to hand down hard time instead of smacking criminals on the hand.

It will start out as a back ground check then a registration and then who knows where. I for one don't trust those in government to do the right thing.

And if you look at England gun control hasn't really worked out for them.
Just my .02cents worth.

imported post

What is this website all about? Haven't we learned our lesson in the past time and again?

No new gun control, period.

Why even humor the idea?

imported post

doug23838 wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

SNIP..
When a gun purchased from a citizen is used in a murder... the ATF trail can end there at that sale or the last registered owner. The last known owner may not even know or remember who they sold the gun to.

SNIP...
I would not mind seeing a national requirement for private sales to require a purchase permit proving they are eligible to purchase.It would expire after a certain period of time.

Click to expand...

Leo...

I feel sure you meant "transferee" and not "registered owner" so I'll not stoke the fire with that.

I in fact, do have the permit you speak of to purchase. Mine is signed by Thomas Jefferson.

Unless you require ALL firearms transfers to pass through an FFL holder and find a mechanism to punish both the noncomplaint seller and buyer, the ATF trace will have a point where it could go cold. This, I think, is dangerous to freedom on two fronts. One, the result is a defacto nationwide registration. If Doug buys a gun from ABC gun store then Doug should either have it, or know the XYZ gun store he transferred it to, so that LEO229 could receive it from XYZ gun store. Thus registration of guns becomes defacto. ( I suspect FFL holders are salivating at the prospect of charging a $25 processing fee to handle the paperwork.) The second rub I have with this is the abolishment of my right to sell my property.

I can appreciate the spirit of your intent. I believe we all want to ensure firearm ownership is assured, swift and hassle free to persons entitled to own them.

As for the Hampton gun show. Do I now conclude that there will be no Military Surplus dealers, ammo only dealers, reloading supplies dealers, knife makers, coin / jewelry dealers, C&R only dealers, food vendors? Do I read that only FFL holders can rent a space? That'll be nice. :banghead:

Click to expand...

I was not talking about going back thru a FFL dealer.

Private sale is just that... The seller just needs to be sure the guy buying it is legal.

imported post

Tomahawk wrote:

What is this website all about? Haven't we learned our lesson in the past time and again?

No new gun control, period.

Why even humor the idea?

Click to expand...

This thread is about gun control. They closed a loophole at gun shows.

Are you scared our current conversationmightreally happen?

So let us humor each other and kick the idea around. See what the people think. You may not like it.. but we want to talk about it.

BTW: I still like you T-Hawk.

imported post

The unintended (or intended) consequences of criminalizing private sales is that it makes national registration possible or seem feasable. After that piecemeal confiscation becomes easier as well. As the trend seems to ask for more gun control after each previous efforts failure at stopping gun crime, I have no reason to think it won't go this way, and a private sale prohibition will fail to stop or reduce gun crimes. Which is why I dismiss closing the loophole as a reasonable gun control measure.

imported post

Background Checks are Bogus!

• It implies that I need the states permission to defend myself. I need no suited mans words nor any 200 year old piece of parchment nor a court decree made in more recent yearsto tell me I have the RIGHT to defend myself.
  
• It implies that enemies of the state are not permitted to purchase arms. Keep in mind that jews in Germany were enemies of the state. Same with theArmenians in Turkey. Same with Koresh. Same with Jefferson. Same with you some day? Lets not give them the key to that door...
  
• It implies that I must continually be judged by me yesterday and never by me today. That I may never change as a man. Under this fallacy, no man is capable of change and this implies that they cannot learn. I suppose anyone who argues in support that I must continually be judged by my past forever should also assume that I will never find god or change my ways through love or new found compassion and understanding.
  
• It implies that all laws we are in violation of or all court orders and rulings are just when this is most certainely and OBVIOUSLY not the case, ESPECIALLY when applied to gun owners and those who defend themselves with weapons (or unarmed for that manner).
  
• It implies that someone who has otherwise paid thier time or 'debt to society' (whatever thehell that socialist/collectivist load of shite means) must still continue to pay this debt even after the fact that it has been 'paid'. That he/she never fully regains his right to his own damn life.
  
• IT IMPLIES that the RIGHT TO OWN THE MEANS TO DESTROY THE STATEcan beLEGITAMATELY INFRINGED UPON BY THE STATE ITSELF. Whome you are supposed to have the right to abolish. This is like me saying you can end this contract anytime you please... except if I change my mind.
  (I do not see how the above is not self evidently erronious reasoning)

imported post

longwatch wrote:

The unintended (or intended) consequences of criminalizing private sales is that it makes national registration possible or seem feasable. After that piecemeal confiscation becomes easier as well. As the trend seems to ask for more gun control after each previous efforts failure at stopping gun crime, I have no reason to think it won't go this way, and a private sale prohibition will fail to stop or reduce gun crimes. Which is why I dismiss closing the loophole as a reasonable gun control measure.

Click to expand...

private sale prohibition is a violation of my right to private ownership. If I do not have the basic property right of the freedom to contract and trade what is my legitimately obtained property, then I have no real ownership of said property. If my property is subject to the whims of others, then the OTHERS are the true soveriegns and property 'owners' through force and coercion.

imported post

thorsmitersaw wrote:

private sale prohibition is a violation of my right to private ownership. If I do not have the basic property right of the freedom to contract and trade what is my legitimately obtained property, then I have no real ownership of said property. If my property is subject to the whims of others, then the OTHERS are the true soveriegns and property 'owners' through force and coercion.

Click to expand...

This reminds me that property rights as a concept must be embraced without compunction by pro-gun rights advocates. So, when Wal-Mart or some mall legallyprohibits some behavior by people who enter its property, we cannot come up with flippant and self-serving arguments about how it is so soooo wrong for the property owners to exert their property rights when we have such a noble right to bear arms.

Such caterwauling against the mall or against Wal-Mart would be inconsistent with thorsmitersaw's argument above, which is, really, unassailable.

Can't have it both ways. Only the extremists and dullards think you can...

imported post

if they object to providing their info no sale.

Click to expand...

I support his right to do that.
ifa potential seller told me that, I'd thank him for his time and wish him luck on the next buyer.
That's my right!

Click to expand...

Free will, isn't itgreat:celebrate

To date, no one has objected to providing their info during a private sale/purchase.

About 22yrs agoI unknowingly bought a stolen revolver.
WhenI had to register it in Las Vegas it came up stolen, luckilyI had the persons contact info.
My money was refunded and he putLE onto the person he bought it from.:lol:


EDIT:
Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me:exclaim:

"Spelling"

imported post

Currently you can buy a gun from ANYONE who is not a dealer with NO CHECKS. We have a system in place to prevent felons, persons with restraining orders, and those who are mentally deficientfrom going out anbuying a gun froma dealer.Private sales circumvent these protective measures rendering them worthless.

Click to expand...

The first sentence is partially true, the 2nd sentence above is false and the3rd sentence above assumes facts not in evidence.

You cannot lawfully buy a handgun from a non resident of the state. Why would a non resident be at one of our shows? Bigger selection of ammunition, accessories, maybe they find a deal they can get a legit FFL transfer to their home dealer.

We have a system in place which purports to prevent certain people from possessing firearms. It is my understanding that as recently as early this morning a felon was found in possession of a firearm. This "system" was put in place with no check on the system's incursion against liberty. An example of this is the way that the Lautenberg modification disabled thousandsof people ex-post-facto. This 'system' enables "ban by regulation"; it establishes a much, much lower hurdle for law makers to establish more restrictions. Any of these prohibited classes may simply "Bloomberg" a gun at an FFL and be on their way.

"For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction" - Newton.

It doesn't just apply to physics. When the government steps in creating a law, another freedom you had yesterday is gone today. When the government banned alcohol, alcohol consumption went underground and a flourishing industry of illegal manufacture, sale and transport liquor ensued.This eventually spawned NASCAR racing so at least something good came out of it. Junior Johnson was a bootlegger.

It doesn't have to be excessive regulation to have the effect of spawning a black market, but these examples give thebetter insight into the eventual effect.

Washington, DC, New Yawk, New Joizey, & Chicago have notoriously heinous restrictions on firearms and a booming black market for the same. The background checks with it's accompanying list of bad guys produces a smaller one, but also one that interacts with government spawned black markets for firearms in DC, NY, NJ, Chicago, etc.

Theseblack markets are the FAULT ofgovernment intrusion, directly caused by such as it has been since recorded history began. Background checks, protective orders, andfirearm bans for the "prohibited class" all provide a false sense of security to the general public which create undue burdens for good citizens. The more of these hurdles are erected, the more citizens who are discouraged from firearms ownership. The more citizens who are disenfrachised in this manner, the more who are dependent upon the false premise of government protection.

If you don't want felons to have guns, keep them locked up. If the legislature won't do this, replace them. If the judges won't do this, impeach them. If spousal abuse is such an issue that demands intervention, make it a felony. If folks who are committed are a problem then prosecute the peoplewho failed to follow up.

For every aspect of the background check that produces a prohibitive class a better solution exists than the current model.

imported post

HankT wrote:

thorsmitersaw wrote:

private sale prohibition is a violation of my right to private ownership. If I do not have the basic property right of the freedom to contract and trade what is my legitimately obtained property, then I have no real ownership of said property. If my property is subject to the whims of others, then the OTHERS are the true soveriegns and property 'owners' through force and coercion.

Click to expand...

This reminds me that property rights as a concept must be embraced without compunction by pro-gun rights advocates. So, when Wal-Mart or some mall legallyprohibits some behavior by people who enter its property, we cannot come up with flippant and self-serving arguments about how it is so soooo wrong for the property owners to exert their property rights when we have such a noble right to bear arms.

Such caterwauling against the mall or against Wal-Mart would be inconsistent with thorsmitersaw's argument above, which is, really, unassailable.

Can't have it both ways. Only the extremists and dullards think you can...

Click to expand...

Hank.. your not thinking clearly... People here want to do what ever they want.

Like go onto the property of another and bitch about being asked to leave because they have a gun. This is a violation of their constitutional rights. They have a right to bear arms and it does not matter where!! But the same does not apply when you go onto their property.Some want to ask a cop to remove his gun before entering their house.

You cannot sella gun to a young child. So based on this state restriction of sale...I guess the state already has ownership of all our guns.