• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

The GUN SHOW LOOPHOLE FIGHT IS BACK - Congressional Hearings 8/19/2010 in CHICAGO!

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,946
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
Link: http://www.wbez.org/Content.aspx?audioID=43910


National Lawmakers Meet in Chicago to discuss Gun Control
Produced by Sarah Smith on Thursday, August 19, 2010

National lawmakers were in Chicago holding a Congressional hearing on proposed gun control legislation today.

The Closing the Gun Show Loophole Act would require private sellers at gun shows to perform background checks before selling firearms. Illinois passed a similar law in 2005.
 

trooper46

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2010
Messages
150
Location
, ,
What "Gun Show Loophole" are they referring to? One simply does not exist.

The one that allows people to buy weapons from private dealers at the gun shows without any type of back ground check. There is plenty of video evidence that confirms this occurs on a regular basis.

I'm sorry, if your a criminal or mentally insane, I don't want you to be able to buy a weapon at gun show. That way I don't have to shoot your ass the next time your try to rob me just like you already did someone else.

When a criminal chooses to violate another's rights, he forfeits his own, including his second amendment rights. That's why I support back ground checks.
 
Last edited:

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
The one that allows people to buy weapons from private dealers at the gun shows without any type of back ground check. There is plenty of video evidence that confirms this occurs on a regular basis.

I'm sorry, if your a criminal or mentally insane, I don't want you to be able to buy a weapon at gun show. That way I don't have to shoot your ass the next time your try to rob me just like you already did someone else.

When a criminal chooses to violate another's rights, he forfeits his own, including his second amendment rights. That's why I support back ground checks.

As someone pointed out, there are no "private dealers." There are private citizens and licensed dealers. Licensed dealers have to do background checks, gun show or no. Private citizens do not, gun show or no.

The gun show is merely the venue for the sale. It does not define the participants. Any sale upon which the government foists the requirement for a background check can simply be completed outside the show by the same participants with no check.

It is a silly law that adds no protection for anyone, but places additional burden on some transactions.
 

Doug Huffman

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
9,180
Location
Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin,
If a felon may properly be disbarred his rights under color of law then we can all be

If a felon may properly be disbarred his rights under color of law then we can all be legally disarmed merely by sufficiently lowering the bar of felony as has been done for allegations of domestic abuse and to distressed veterans.

Commenting on this trooper's narrow minded opinion, we can only hope that he gets to wear the tyrant's boot up his fundament.
 

trooper46

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2010
Messages
150
Location
, ,
As someone pointed out, there are no "private dealers." There are private citizens and licensed dealers. Licensed dealers have to do background checks, gun show or no. Private citizens do not, gun show or no.

The gun show is merely the venue for the sale. It does not define the participants. Any sale upon which the government foists the requirement for a background check can simply be completed outside the show by the same participants with no check.

It is a silly law that adds no protection for anyone, but places additional burden on some transactions.


By semantics they are not "dealers" only. But there are a number of citizens that make a living off of selling their "personal collections" without an FFL. I do not approve of selling a weapon to someone without a background check for the reasons previously stated. If you are criminal, I do not want you to have any kind of access to a firearm. You have forfeited that right when you became a non-law abiding citizen.

Honestly, the background check takes about 5 minutes, don't try to tell me that it's such an inconvenience. Anyone who's purchased a firearm from an FFl knows damn well that by the time you fill out the form the back ground check is usually done. In most cases it takes one phone call.

I support the idea of requiring back ground checks on for anyone who wants to purchase a firearm from any source. Its the only way to insure that a violent criminal does not get his or her hands on a firearm. If a step towards that means banning non FFL dealers from selling at gun shows, OR requiring private dealers to run background checks at the gun shows, I'm all for it.
 

trooper46

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2010
Messages
150
Location
, ,
If a felon may properly be disbarred his rights under color of law then we can all be legally disarmed merely by sufficiently lowering the bar of felony as has been done for allegations of domestic abuse and to distressed veterans.

Commenting on this trooper's narrow minded opinion, we can only hope that he gets to wear the tyrant's boot up his fundament.

A criminal forfeits his right to the 2nd amendment in the same way that he forfeits his right to life when he attacks you or I.

As to your personal attack, thats just what I expect from a known TROLL on these forums.
 
Last edited:

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
If you can establish that someone is a dealer and is deceptively claiming to be an individual selling his "personal collection," then by all means, go after him for not having the appropriate license. But, requiring private citizens (and this will require private citizens) to do a background check to sell the rifle that has a little "for sale" sign stuck down the barrel is an unnecessary infraction on the rights of individuals.

And, it won't keep criminals from getting guns. Criminals don't hesitate to break laws to get what they want. Passing another law will only inconvenience law-abiding citizens.

The size of the inconvenience is irrelevant. As small as a camel's nose is, it is relevant.
 

Hef

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2007
Messages
524
Location
Bluffton, South Carolina, USA
By semantics they are not "dealers" only. But there are a number of citizens that make a living off of selling their "personal collections" without an FFL. I do not approve of selling a weapon to someone without a background check for the reasons previously stated. If you are criminal, I do not want you to have any kind of access to a firearm. You have forfeited that right when you became a non-law abiding citizen.

Honestly, the background check takes about 5 minutes, don't try to tell me that it's such an inconvenience. Anyone who's purchased a firearm from an FFl knows damn well that by the time you fill out the form the back ground check is usually done. In most cases it takes one phone call.

I support the idea of requiring back ground checks on for anyone who wants to purchase a firearm from any source. Its the only way to insure that a violent criminal does not get his or her hands on a firearm. If a step towards that means banning non FFL dealers from selling at gun shows, OR requiring private dealers to run background checks at the gun shows, I'm all for it.


I don't need the permission of the state to sell my property. I only need the permission of the state to engage in business, whether I'm selling guns or cars or produce. That's the way it should be. There is no "gun show loophole", because gun shows aren't magical places where state and federal firearms laws are suspended. I can sell my AR, AK, or .38 revolver out of the trunk of my car at the Walmart parking lot or at a gun show and the laws governing the transaction remain the same.

You can't legislate firearms out of the hands of criminals. It just ain't happening, buddy.
 

Doug Huffman

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
9,180
Location
Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin,
A criminal forfeits his right to the 2nd amendment in the same way that he forfeits his right to life when he attacks you or I. As to your personal attack, thats just what I expect from a known TROLL on these forums.
you can always complain to the administrator about your perceived attack. But I will gladly add your "troll" epithet to the others,

I-ANAL, a coward (DustiniaC), an 'anus' (GLOCK34), and now troll (trooper46, waiting to take command of his battalion with 28 posts).
 
Last edited:

trooper46

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2010
Messages
150
Location
, ,
If you can establish that someone is a dealer and is deceptively claiming to be an individual selling his "personal collection," then by all means, go after him for not having the appropriate license. But, requiring private citizens (and this will require private citizens) to do a background check to sell the rifle that has a little "for sale" sign stuck down the barrel is an unnecessary infraction on the rights of individuals.

And, it won't keep criminals from getting guns. Criminals don't hesitate to break laws to get what they want. Passing another law will only inconvenience law-abiding citizens.

The size of the inconvenience is irrelevant. As small as a camel's nose is, it is relevant.

I agree that criminals don't obey laws , thats why I carry. They will likely purchase their illegal weapons from an illegal dealer.

However, if we make private sales require a background check, that limits the market for criminals to buy their weapons and the cost of an illegal hand gun goes up. Thus, making it more difficult for the typical convicted felon to acquire one. Also, you must consider the fact that without a background check, the well intentioned private seller...as I assume you are referring to when discussing inconvenience issues.....cannot be sure that he is not selling a deadly weapon to a criminal who intends to use it for his nefarious deeds.

Even if the a private seller wanted to conduct a background check to ensure he is not selling his weapon to a criminal, he would be at a severe disadvantage in competition with others who don't care who they put a gun into the hand of. If you had a law requiring private sales to use back ground checks, that would put the well intended seller on the same level with other sellers.

As to the size of the inconvenience, I would respectfully argue that the prevention of a criminal from acquiring a firearm out weighs the inconvenience of a 3-5 minute phone call.
 
Last edited:

trooper46

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2010
Messages
150
Location
, ,
you can always complain to the administrator about your perceived attack. But I will gladly add your "troll" epithet to the others,

I-ANAL, a coward (DustiniaC), an 'anus' (GLOCK34), and now troll (trooper46, waiting to take command of his battalion with 28 posts).

Lol, let me give you a little help there. It's actually platoon, not battalion you wonderful troll, you :) . You kinda have to actually read the posts to get all them big words. I'm honored to be added to your list.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
I agree that criminals don't obey laws , thats why I carry. They will likely purchase their illegal weapons from an illegal dealer. The law has no point if it won't stop the criminal from getting a gun.

However, if we make private sales require a background check, that limits the market for criminals to buy their weapons and the cost of an illegal hand gun goes up. Thus, making it more difficult for the typical convicted felon to acquire one. Also, you must consider the fact that without a background check, the well intentioned private seller...as I assume you are referring to when discussing inconvenience issues.....cannot be sure that he is not selling a deadly weapon to a criminal who intends to use it for his nefarious deeds. As an individual, it is not my responsibility to ensure another is not breaking the law. Despots use ordinary citizens to "keep each other in line."

Even if the a private seller wanted to conduct a background check to ensure he is not selling his weapon to a criminal, he would be at a severe disadvantage in competition with others who don't care who they put a gun into the hand of. If you had a law requiring private sales to use back ground checks, that would put the well intended seller on the same level with other sellers. Again, the private seller should not have to worry about putting a gun in a criminals hand. We are not the police, and I don't want private citizens being required to act as such. Despots use citizens for police.

As to the size of the inconvenience, I would respectfully argue that the prevention of a criminal from acquiring a firearm out weighs the inconvenience of a 3-5 minute phone call. Maybe YOUR 3-5 minutes, but not mine. Keep your hands off my time and freedom. BTW, it takes 3-5 minutes (twenty, the last time I bought a firearm) for a dealer. An individual selling his .22 rifle is going to have to figure out the process and risk breaking some obscure law or pay someone to handle the process for him. The net effect of require checks for private sales will be the virtual elimination of private sales. Quite probably, this is the real goal.

My responses are in blue.

I have laid out the rational argument against forcing individuals making private sales at gun shows to do background checks. I know I will not change your mind. However, for those reading the thread and not responding, a counter-point has been provided to your justification for just a little bit more confiscation of Liberty.

So, I will shut up. I trust the vast majority of folks, once armed with the facts, will make a judgment for Liberty.

Moving on.
 

trooper46

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2010
Messages
150
Location
, ,
My responses are in blue.

I have laid out the rational argument against forcing individuals making private sales at gun shows to do background checks. I know I will not change your mind. However, for those reading the thread and not responding, a counter-point has been provided to your justification for just a little bit more confiscation of Liberty.

So, I will shut up. I trust the vast majority of folks, once armed with the facts, will make a judgment for Liberty.

Moving on.

I think we just come different perspectives of the centuries old balance of security and liberty debate. Not to say that I fully subscribe to one side (rarely do). Both arguments rational, I agree that it will be up to the people to decide how far the laws will lean in one direction or the other on this particular issue.
 

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,946
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
Hey Trooper, chew on these points if you really care

By semantics they are not "dealers" only. But there are a number of citizens that make a living off of selling their "personal collections" without an FFL. I do not approve of selling a weapon to someone without a background check for the reasons previously stated. If you are criminal, I do not want you to have any kind of access to a firearm. You have forfeited that right when you became a non-law abiding citizen.

Honestly, the background check takes about 5 minutes, don't try to tell me that it's such an inconvenience. Anyone who's purchased a firearm from an FFl knows damn well that by the time you fill out the form the back ground check is usually done. In most cases it takes one phone call.

I support the idea of requiring back ground checks on for anyone who wants to purchase a firearm from any source. Its the only way to insure that a violent criminal does not get his or her hands on a firearm. If a step towards that means banning non FFL dealers from selling at gun shows, OR requiring private dealers to run background checks at the gun shows, I'm all for it.

OK Trooper, lets put the philosophical arguments about whether background checks really do more good than harm aside.

Here are 3 really good arguments:

1) Significant cost. The background check can only be provided by a Class I FFL. They normally charge $30 to do the work. Who should pay for this? The buyer? Would you be so kind as to open your wallet for this cause?

Ruins Gun Collecting. Licensed Gun collectors are FFLs (FFL III) that are permitted to buy and sell interstate. There are lots of these guys at gun shows. They will not be allowed to engage in interstate gun trading at gun shows if this law passes. FFL I (Dealer) cannot transfer that nice vintage Colt 45 to you if you are from out of state. Yup the law you are supporting is extremely destructive to gun collectors.

No Constitutional Basis. The law would restrict intrastate trade in firearms, which is not permitted under the US Constitution. Yup the law you are supporting tears at the founding principles of our Republic.
 

Ponch

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2010
Messages
50
Location
Western PA
The one that allows people to buy weapons from private dealers at the gun shows without any type of back ground check. There is plenty of video evidence that confirms this occurs on a regular basis.

By "this" you mean face-to-face transactions without an FFL or PICS check? You can't mean "criminal or insane people stocking up on firepower at gun shows," because there ISN'T plenty of video evidence of that. If they could prove that prohibited persons and criminals did their shopping at gun shows, we'd be seeing the clips 24x7 on CNN.

In fact the opposite is so much the case that if I went looking, I'd expect to see clips of gun shows with reporter narration about how they're overrun with lower-middle-class white redneck working-poor racists--by which they'd mean that it's full of ordinary guys in blue jeans without gang colors or hoodies. Since the last big anti-gun-show crusader was Clinton, and the enemy du jour was "the militia movement," I'm even willing to put some money on that prediction.

I'm sorry, if your a criminal or mentally insane, I don't want you to be able to buy a weapon at gun show.

Last time I was at a gun show, I remember how spooky it was to watch this guy with a zigzag scar on his face, an eye patch, and his pants on backwards kept muttering about how "this'll keep them daggone sumbiches out'n muh head!" I asked the seller, "Why would you sell your gun to a guy like this? Doesn't he give you the creeps?" He told me he had to sell the gun, because the aliens in his big toe told him to.

Well, actually I lied. That didn't happen. :rolleyes:

When a criminal chooses to violate another's rights, he forfeits his own, including his second amendment rights. That's why I support back ground checks.

I agree that a criminal forfeits his rights; that's why force can be used against him at the time, and why he can be punished afterward. However, I am not a criminal and have not forfeited my rights, so I am not willing to be subjected to such egregious violations of them.
 
Last edited:

Jack House

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
2,611
Location
I80, USA
A criminal forfeits his right to the 2nd amendment in the same way that he forfeits his right to life when he attacks you or I.

As to your personal attack, thats just what I expect from a known TROLL on these forums.
Complain about someone making a personal attack against you, then direct a personal attack against them. Nice job.

You may hate Doug, I might have a distaste for him. But that doesn't change the fact that he's right about it being wrong to infringe on the rights of the people to keep and bare arms, regardless of the circumstance.

He's also right that denying the right of "criminals" to own and carry weapons is a slippery slope that we are already sliding down. Did you know that under the current law, you can have right to self defense restricted for life over a simple third degree misdemeanor?
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
... Did you know that under the current law, you can have right to self defense restricted for life over a simple third degree misdemeanor?

It is still a crime. Rights are routinely revoked after conviction of a crime via due process. That a right can be revoked under such circumstances is undeniable. Which rights and for how long they are denied is a matter of policy to be determined using republican methods of legislation.

I would argue that a policy revoking the RKBA for only a third degree misdemeanor is unduly harsh and should be changed. But, the ability of the State to revoke the RKBA for life for certain crimes is reasonable in theory and in practice.
 

rodbender

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
2,519
Location
Navasota, Texas, USA
Doug may be a lot of things, a troll he is not. He is a liberty loving individual with some really good thoughts (occasionally). More times than not actually.

Lets see, shall not be infringed, giving up liberties for security, lowering the bar of felony seems like a pretty good one if you ask me. If the despots in power want to disarm the American persons, all they have to do is...let's say make speeding, running a red light or stop sign, failure to use turn signal, jaywalking, cursing in public and a host of other infractions a felony. That should do the trick. All of a sudden you have probably 7 people left in the U.S. that still have the RKBA.

This GCA '68 really stinks to high heaven.

Edit: He's up to 31 posts now. He'll be taking over the entire forum shortly.
 
Last edited:
Top