HB1234 - the fictional gun show loop hole.

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.

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:uhoh:

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.

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?

Click to expand...

The bold portion would apply to gunsmiths who do repair and customization, but who don't also sell firearms.

imported post

You do know that the bill is dead, right?

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?101+sum+HB1234

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

TFred

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

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

Click to expand...

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.

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

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

:banghead: Anti-gun news media brainwashing in action.

TFred

imported post

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

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

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

:banghead: Anti-gun news media brainwashing in action.

TFred

Click to expand...

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.

imported post

Here's my approach to this issue:

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