Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Let's close the "gun show loophole"

  1. #1
    Accomplished Advocate user's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Northern Piedmont of Virginia
    Posts
    2,373

    Post imported post

    The following is the text of the message I've sent. Note the critical language, "without affecting the rights of Virginia to buy and sell personal property lawfully." If it were a felony to attempt to purchase a handgun illegally, by say, a New York resident, for example, who knows perfectly well that he is ineligible, then it would be appropriate to charge such person here, and extradite him for trial. And conspiracy to commit a crime results in exactly the same degree of criminal culpability as does the act itself. So, for example, if someone like, say, Michael Bloomberg, sent people into Virginia to attempt to purchase guns illegally, he'd be guilty of a felony conspiracy in Virginia. If you like what I've written, I invite you to copy it to your senators and delegates, too.

    I have observed that it is not a crime in Virginia to knowingly purchase or attempt to purchase, a handgun, when one is in fact ineligible to do so. Enacting such a statute would effectively close the "gun show loophole" without affecting the rights of Virginians to buy and sell personal property lawfully. I suggest that such a statute should provide that a violation constitutes a class-six felony (the law already provides that such may be treated as a class-one misdemeanor for sentencing purposes in the court's discretion). Finally, the word, "knowingly" is important, because that language makes it clear that it is a "specific intent offense", such that a purchase by one who does not know, or does not have reason to know, that he is ineligible will not be guilty. There are a number of statutes that make it a crime to be in possession of a handgun because of various specific kinds of factors (conviction of a felony, adjudication of insanity, etc.), but there is nothing governing the purchase of a handgun by a person who is not lawfully entitled to possession. A nonresident or minor, for example. The specific language I'd use in drafting such a statute is as follows: "No person shall purchase or attempt to purchase a handgun in Virginia who has reason to know at the time of the proposed purchase that he is not lawfully entitled to purchase orbe in possession of such handgun. A violation of this section shall be punished as a class-six felony. Actual ignorance of ineligibility shall constitute an affirmative defense."
    Daniel L. Hawes - 540 347 2430 - HTTP://www.VirginiaLegalDefense.com

    By the way, nothing I say on this website as "user" should be taken as either advertising for attorney services or legal advice, merely personal opinion. Everyone having a question regarding the application of law to the facts of their situation should seek the advice of an attorney competent in the subject matter of the issues presented and licensed to practice in the relevant state.

  2. #2
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,602

    Post imported post

    user wrote:
    The following is the text of the message I've sent. Note the critical language, "without affecting the rights of Virginia to buy and sell personal property lawfully." If it were a felony to attempt to purchase a handgun illegally, by say, a New York resident, for example, who knows perfectly well that he is ineligible, then it would be appropriate to charge such person here, and extradite him for trial. And conspiracy to commit a crime results in exactly the same degree of criminal culpability as does the act itself. So, for example, if someone like, say, Michael Bloomberg, sent people into Virginia to attempt to purchase guns illegally, he'd be guilty of a felony conspiracy in Virginia. If you like what I've written, I invite you to copy it to your senators and delegates, too.

    I have observed that it is not a crime in Virginia to knowingly purchase or attempt to purchase, a handgun, when one is in fact ineligible to do so. Enacting such a statute would effectively close the "gun show loophole" without affecting the rights of Virginians to buy and sell personal property lawfully. I suggest that such a statute should provide that a violation constitutes a class-six felony (the law already provides that such may be treated as a class-one misdemeanor for sentencing purposes in the court's discretion). Finally, the word, "knowingly" is important, because that language makes it clear that it is a "specific intent offense", such that a purchase by one who does not know, or does not have reason to know, that he is ineligible will not be guilty. There are a number of statutes that make it a crime to be in possession of a handgun because of various specific kinds of factors (conviction of a felony, adjudication of insanity, etc.), but there is nothing governing the purchase of a handgun by a person who is not lawfully entitled to possession. A nonresident or minor, for example. The specific language I'd use in drafting such a statute is as follows: "No person shall purchase or attempt to purchase a handgun in Virginia who has reason to know at the time of the proposed purchase that he is not lawfully entitled to purchase orbe in possession of such handgun. A violation of this section shall be punished as a class-six felony. Actual ignorance of ineligibility shall constitute an affirmative defense."
    Well thought out, direct and logical.

    Equally important it allows us (the pro community) to say that we closed the gun show loophole.

    Yata hey

    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  3. #3
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    Post imported post

    They'll never go for it. It doesn't target or blame law-abiding citizen gun owners.

    ETA: Isn't it ironic that for this one issue, the anti-gunners admit that criminals don't obey the law... so their solution is to infringe upon the rights of law abiding citizens to effect the change they desire.

    TFred


  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator ed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Loudoun County - Dulles Airport, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,848

    Post imported post

    I sent it to my delegate for review and comment.
    Carry On.

    Ed

    VirginiaOpenCarry.Org (Coins, Shirts and Patches)
    - - - -
    For VA Open Carry Cards send a S.A.2S.E. to: Ed's OC cards, Box 16143, Wash DC 20041-6143 (they are free but some folks enclose a couple bucks too)

  5. #5
    Regular Member Repeater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,519

    Post imported post

    user wrote:
    The following is the text of the message I've sent. Note the critical language, "without affecting the rights of Virginia to buy and sell personal property lawfully." If it were a felony to attempt to purchase a handgun illegally, by say, a New York resident, for example, who knows perfectly well that he is ineligible, then it would be appropriate to charge such person here, and extradite him for trial. And conspiracy to commit a crime results in exactly the same degree of criminal culpability as does the act itself. So, for example, if someone like, say, Michael Bloomberg, sent people into Virginia to attempt to purchase guns illegally, he'd be guilty of a felony conspiracy in Virginia. If you like what I've written, I invite you to copy it to your senators and delegates, too.
    What are you talking about? It's already illegal.

    § 18.2-308.2:2. Criminal history record information check required for the transfer of certain firearms.

    ...

    K. Any person willfully and intentionally making a materially false statement on the consent form required in subsection B or C or on such firearm transaction records as may be required by federal law, shall be guilty of a Class 5 felony.

    ...

    L1. Any person who attempts to solicit, persuade, encourage, or entice any dealer to transfer or otherwise convey a firearm other than to the actual buyer, as well as any other person who willfully and intentionally aids or abets such person, shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony. This subsection shall not apply to a federal law-enforcement officer or a law-enforcement officer as defined in § 9.1-101, in the performance of his official duties, or other person under his direct supervision.

  6. #6
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    Post imported post

    Repeater wrote:
    user wrote:
    The following is the text of the message I've sent. Note the critical language, "without affecting the rights of Virginia to buy and sell personal property lawfully." If it were a felony to attempt to purchase a handgun illegally, by say, a New York resident, for example, who knows perfectly well that he is ineligible, then it would be appropriate to charge such person here, and extradite him for trial. And conspiracy to commit a crime results in exactly the same degree of criminal culpability as does the act itself. So, for example, if someone like, say, Michael Bloomberg, sent people into Virginia to attempt to purchase guns illegally, he'd be guilty of a felony conspiracy in Virginia. If you like what I've written, I invite you to copy it to your senators and delegates, too.
    What are you talking about? It's already illegal.

    § 18.2-308.2:2. Criminal history record information check required for the transfer of certain firearms.

    ...

    K. Any person willfully and intentionally making a materially false statement on the consent form required in subsection B or C or on such firearm transaction records as may be required by federal law, shall be guilty of a Class 5 felony.

    ...

    L1. Any person who attempts to solicit, persuade, encourage, or entice any dealer to transfer or otherwise convey a firearm other than to the actual buyer, as well as any other person who willfully and intentionally aids or abets such person, shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony. This subsection shall not apply to a federal law-enforcement officer or a law-enforcement officer as defined in § 9.1-101, in the performance of his official duties, or other person under his direct supervision.
    Neither of those apply to private sales.

    TFred

  7. #7
    Regular Member 2a4all's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Newport News, VA, ,
    Posts
    1,586

    Post imported post

    user wrote:
    If you like what I've written, I invite you to copy it to your senators and delegates, too.

    I have observed that it is not a crime in Virginia to knowingly purchase or attempt to purchase, a handgun, when one is in fact ineligible to do so. Enacting such a statute would effectively close the "gun show loophole" without affecting the rights of Virginians to buy and sell personal property lawfully. I suggest that such a statute should provide that a violation constitutes a class-six felony (the law already provides that such may be treated as a class-one misdemeanor for sentencing purposes in the court's discretion). Finally, the word, "knowingly" is important, because that language makes it clear that it is a "specific intent offense", such that a purchase by one who does not know, or does not have reason to know, that he is ineligible will not be guilty. There are a number of statutes that make it a crime to be in possession of a handgun because of various specific kinds of factors (conviction of a felony, adjudication of insanity, etc.), but there is nothing governing the purchase of a handgun by a person who is not lawfully entitled to possession. A nonresident or minor, for example. The specific language I'd use in drafting such a statute is as follows: "No person shall purchase or attempt to purchase a handgun in Virginia who has reason to know at the time of the proposed purchase that he is not lawfully entitled to purchase orbe in possession of such handgun. A violation of this section shall be punished as a class-six felony. Actual ignorance of ineligibility shall constitute an affirmative defense."
    Done!
    A law-abiding citizen should be able to carry his personal protection firearm anywhere that an armed criminal might go.

    Member VCDL, NRA

  8. #8
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    What happens when the law changes tomake more and more people ineligible?

    And, what of the private seller? Is he involved in conspiracy by selling to someone who is inelegible? Imagine all the problems that can arise from that sort of thing. And, even if not today, what about 3 years from now when Brady nuts demand amending the law so that private sellers can be prosecuted for selling to an ineligible person? "Close the private sale loophole!" "Private sellers should...(bleat, bleat, bleat)"

    I would have to study this one out real thoroughly.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  9. #9
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    Post imported post

    user wrote:
    The following is the text of the message I've sent. Note the critical language, "without affecting the rights of Virginia to buy and sell personal property lawfully." If it were a felony to attempt to purchase a handgun illegally, by say, a New York resident, for example, who knows perfectly well that he is ineligible, then it would be appropriate to charge such person here, and extradite him for trial. And conspiracy to commit a crime results in exactly the same degree of criminal culpability as does the act itself. So, for example, if someone like, say, Michael Bloomberg, sent people into Virginia to attempt to purchase guns illegally, he'd be guilty of a felony conspiracy in Virginia. If you like what I've written, I invite you to copy it to your senators and delegates, too.

    I have observed that it is not a crime in Virginia to knowingly purchase or attempt to purchase, a handgun, when one is in fact ineligible to do so. Enacting such a statute would effectively close the "gun show loophole" without affecting the rights of Virginians to buy and sell personal property lawfully. I suggest that such a statute should provide that a violation constitutes a class-six felony (the law already provides that such may be treated as a class-one misdemeanor for sentencing purposes in the court's discretion). Finally, the word, "knowingly" is important, because that language makes it clear that it is a "specific intent offense", such that a purchase by one who does not know, or does not have reason to know, that he is ineligible will not be guilty. There are a number of statutes that make it a crime to be in possession of a handgun because of various specific kinds of factors (conviction of a felony, adjudication of insanity, etc.), but there is nothing governing the purchase of a handgun by a person who is not lawfully entitled to possession. A nonresident or minor, for example. The specific language I'd use in drafting such a statute is as follows: "No person shall purchase or attempt to purchase a handgun in Virginia who has reason to know at the time of the proposed purchase that he is not lawfully entitled to purchase orbe in possession of such handgun. A violation of this section shall be punished as a class-six felony. Actual ignorance of ineligibility shall constitute an affirmative defense."
    So just wondering out loud, how would this affect a situation where a LEO observes a private sale in the aisle or the parking lot of a gun show? Does this give them any more right to approach and question those involved? I would assume that a RAS is still required, and that would still be fairly difficult to obtain from simply observing a private transaction, no?

    The more I've had time to think about it, the more I am inclined to believe that the gun show loophole loopies will not bite on this one bit.

    I was half-joking in my earlier post, but I think it's true, antis target law abiding citizens in their efforts to restrict guns because they know full well that criminals do not obey laws. Changing the behavior of law abiding citizens is the only effective way they have to implement their desires.

    TFred

  10. #10
    Accomplished Advocate user's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Northern Piedmont of Virginia
    Posts
    2,373

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    What happens when the law changes tomake more and more people ineligible?

    And, what of the private seller? Is he involved in conspiracy by selling to someone who is inelegible? Imagine all the problems that can arise from that sort of thing. And, even if not today, what about 3 years from now when Brady nuts demand amending the law so that private sellers can be prosecuted for selling to an ineligible person? "Close the private sale loophole!" "Private sellers should...(bleat, bleat, bleat)"

    I would have to study this one out real thoroughly.
    1. That's a real problem, and my response is, "well, let's don't do that!" - but seriously, I don't see it as a bigger problem than the idea of shutting down otherwise lawful sales of privatepersonal property.

    2. Well, sure, conspiracy to commit a crime is the same as committing the crime. But there would have to be evidence that the seller had actual knowledge or reason to know that the purchaser was ineligible. It doesn't change the law in that regard. And there are private sellers who will "wink" at the suggestion that the purchaser believes himself to be ineligible - but what that does is create a duty on the part of the seller to satisfy himself that the purchaser is eligible before finalizing the transaction. Or simply walk away, or suggest that the deal be taken through an FFL just to be sure. I'm no more in favor of putting guns in the hands of criminals than anyone else.

    But what I've proposed will not make it a crime to sell a gun where the seller has no reason to believe that the purchaser is ineligible.

    I use my own canned bill of sale form for every transaction, available on this website, which contains an affidavit in which the purchaser "swears or affirms" under penalty of perjury that he is in fact eligible to purchase and be in possession of the firearm I'm selling to him.
    Daniel L. Hawes - 540 347 2430 - HTTP://www.VirginiaLegalDefense.com

    By the way, nothing I say on this website as "user" should be taken as either advertising for attorney services or legal advice, merely personal opinion. Everyone having a question regarding the application of law to the facts of their situation should seek the advice of an attorney competent in the subject matter of the issues presented and licensed to practice in the relevant state.

  11. #11
    Accomplished Advocate user's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Northern Piedmont of Virginia
    Posts
    2,373

    Post imported post

    TFred wrote:
    ...
    So just wondering out loud, how would this affect a situation where a LEO observes a private sale in the aisle or the parking lot of a gun show? Does this give them any more right to approach and question those involved? I would assume that a RAS is still required, and that would still be fairly difficult to obtain from simply observing a private transaction, no?

    The more I've had time to think about it, the more I am inclined to believe that the gun show loophole loopies will not bite on this one bit.

    I was half-joking in my earlier post, but I think it's true, antis target law abiding citizens in their efforts to restrict guns because they know full well that criminals do not obey laws. Changing the behavior of law abiding citizens is the only effective way they have to implement their desires.

    TFred
    It's true that there is a subculture in the U.S. of people who want everyone to be disarmed and defenseless. I see this as a part of anattempt by such people (and there is more than one group with similar aims, and all are working together at this point)to take over the U.S. Such people will never rest until the population of the U.S. is completely unable to resist tyranny. I don't see that as a gun problem, it's a much wider political problem.

    It's also true that such a statute would do nothing to affect the requirement that there be "reasonable suspicion" of a crime being committed before cops could insert themselves for investigative purposes. Actually, in Virginia, a cop who did so for the purpose of intimidating the parties would be civilly liable to both parties for "intentional interference with economic relations".
    Daniel L. Hawes - 540 347 2430 - HTTP://www.VirginiaLegalDefense.com

    By the way, nothing I say on this website as "user" should be taken as either advertising for attorney services or legal advice, merely personal opinion. Everyone having a question regarding the application of law to the facts of their situation should seek the advice of an attorney competent in the subject matter of the issues presented and licensed to practice in the relevant state.

  12. #12
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849

    Post imported post

    TFred wrote:
    They'll never go for it. It doesn't target or blame law-abiding citizen gun owners.

    ETA: Isn't it ironic that for this one issue, the anti-gunners admit that criminals don't obey the law... so their solution is to infringe upon the rights of law abiding citizens to effect the change they desire.

    TFred
    Not at all. This is precisely what they really want to affect. The banning of the purchase, ownership, use, and carrying of firearms of any kind. That's their ultimate goal.

    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •