Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: HB1234 - the fictional gun show loop hole.

  1. #1
    Regular Member buster81's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,461

    Post imported post

    So, I had some time this morning between tasks and decided to kill some brain cells by reading HB1234 with regards to the fictional gun show loop hole.

    As I read this, the bill wants to adda definition as follows:

    "Dealer in firearms" means (i) any person, firm, partnership, or corporation engaged in the business of selling, trading or transferring firearms at wholesale or retail; (ii) any person, firm, partnership, or corporation engaged in the business of making or fitting special barrels, stocks, or trigger mechanisms to firearms; or (iii) any person, firm, partnership, or corporation that is a pawnbroker.

    Aren't the folks who are in the business as defined above already required to do background checks?

    The bill would have also added this definition:

    "Engaged in business" means as applied to a dealer in firearms a person, firm, partnership, or corporation that 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 repetitive purchase or resale of firearms, but such term shall not involve 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.

    The part in red is what I'm puzzled about. Isn't the goal of the anti's (at least the first step) to eliminate private transactions at gun shows? Am I missing something, or would this bill have done nothing at all? It's late and I'm short on sleep, so go easy if I've overlooked the obvious.



  2. #2
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580

    Post imported post

    Everyone wants a first step Buster. Pro gun wants a first step into new areas and so does anti gun.

    It's a never ending race

  3. #3
    Regular Member buster81's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,461

    Post imported post

    Sure, I know everyone wants a first step, but I'm not seeing what has changed. Private sales are still ok, and licensed vendors have to do background checks. Help a brother out.

  4. #4
    Regular Member 2a4all's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Newport News, VA, ,
    Posts
    1,585

    Post imported post

    buster81 wrote:
    So, I had some time this morning between tasks and decided to kill some brain cells by reading HB1234 with regards to the fictional gun show loop hole.

    As I read this, the bill wants to adda definition as follows:

    "Dealer in firearms" means (i) any person, firm, partnership, or corporation engaged in the business of selling, trading or transferring firearms at wholesale or retail; (ii) any person, firm, partnership, or corporation engaged in the business of making or fitting special barrels, stocks, or trigger mechanisms to firearms; or (iii) any person, firm, partnership, or corporation that is a pawnbroker.

    Aren't the folks who are in the business as defined above already required to do background checks?

    The bold portion would apply to gunsmiths who do repair and customization, but who don't also sell firearms.
    A law-abiding citizen should be able to carry his personal protection firearm anywhere that an armed criminal might go.

    Member VCDL, NRA

  5. #5
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    Post imported post

    You do know that the bill is dead, right?

    http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp...101+sum+HB1234

    01/28/10 House: Subcommittee recommends passing by indefinitely by voice vote

    TFred


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

    Post imported post

    Looking a little closer, you missed what this bill was actually intending to change. I suggest you pull up the full text and use the "hilite" link at the top of the page, which literally highlights the difference in text.

    Here's the direct link.

    This bill left the definition of "Dealer in firearms" and "Engaged in business" untouched, but it added a new category altogether, a "Firearms show vendor" which would include any joe schmoe who might be on site, trying to sell one of his personal firearms.

    Fortunately as I posted, this bill is dead for this year, but I'm sure it or a close relative, will be back again.

    TFred


  7. #7
    Regular Member buster81's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,461

    Post imported post

    TFred wrote:
    Looking a little closer, you missed what this bill was actually intending to change. I suggest you pull up the full text and use the "hilite" link at the top of the page, which literally highlights the difference in text.

    Here's the direct link.

    This bill left the definition of "Dealer in firearms" and "Engaged in business" untouched, but it added a new category altogether, a "Firearms show vendor" which would include any joe schmoe who might be on site, trying to sell one of his personal firearms.

    Fortunately as I posted, this bill is dead for this year, but I'm sure it or a close relative, will be back again.

    TFred
    Yes I knew it was dead, but did not know about the hilite feature. Now I can say I've learned something today. Thanks.

    I was just getting around to reading this after a debate with a work colegue who is ademant that the loop hole needs to be closed, but cannot define what it is.

  8. #8
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    Post imported post

    buster81 wrote:
    TFred wrote:
    Looking a little closer, you missed what this bill was actually intending to change. I suggest you pull up the full text and use the "hilite" link at the top of the page, which literally highlights the difference in text.

    Here's the direct link.

    This bill left the definition of "Dealer in firearms" and "Engaged in business" untouched, but it added a new category altogether, a "Firearms show vendor" which would include any joe schmoe who might be on site, trying to sell one of his personal firearms.

    Fortunately as I posted, this bill is dead for this year, but I'm sure it or a close relative, will be back again.

    TFred
    Yes I knew it was dead, but did not know about the hilite feature. Now I can say I've learned something today. Thanks.

    I was just getting around to reading this after a debate with a work colegue who is ademant that the loop hole needs to be closed, but cannot define what it is.
    Anti-gun news media brainwashing in action.

    TFred


  9. #9
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Midlothian, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    596

    Post imported post

    The Senate version is still alive, but for all practical purposes, on life-support now.


  10. #10
    Regular Member buster81's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,461

    Post imported post

    TFred wrote:
    buster81 wrote:
    TFred wrote:
    Looking a little closer, you missed what this bill was actually intending to change. I suggest you pull up the full text and use the "hilite" link at the top of the page, which literally highlights the difference in text.

    Here's the direct link.

    This bill left the definition of "Dealer in firearms" and "Engaged in business" untouched, but it added a new category altogether, a "Firearms show vendor" which would include any joe schmoe who might be on site, trying to sell one of his personal firearms.

    Fortunately as I posted, this bill is dead for this year, but I'm sure it or a close relative, will be back again.

    TFred
    Yes I knew it was dead, but did not know about the hilite feature. Now I can say I've learned something today. Thanks.

    I was just getting around to reading this after a debate with a work colegue who is ademant that the loop hole needs to be closed, but cannot define what it is.
    Anti-gun news media brainwashing in action.

    TFred
    Yup. The conversation generally ends up being so brain numbingly stupid, it's hard to believe he is an adult. This last one was just dumb and went something like this:

    Him: [some comment about the gun show loophole]

    Me: I know we've discussed this before, but can you refresh my memory of what happens inside this loophole you keep mentioning?

    Him:"People buy guns for criminals."

    Me: "Kind of link astraw purchase, where a person fills out the forms, buys a gun, and gives it to someone who is not allowed to purchase a gun...like a felon?"

    Him: YES!

    Me: "Soyou're saying this is legal at a gun show, but illegal elsewhere?"

    Him: "It may not be legal, but it happens." [getting agitated now]

    Me: "But if it's not legal, then a law is already being broken. Where is the loophole?"

    Him: [scowl]

    Me: [shakes head and walks away...again]

    This caused me to read the bill that he was so hot on. I doubt he has bothered to read it.

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

    Post imported post

    Here's my approach to this issue:

    http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum54/37450.html
    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.

Posting Permissions

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