yes, Virginia, there is a gun show loophole [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : yes, Virginia, there is a gun show loophole


Bill Powell
12-21-2012, 11:27
As I said, there is a gun show loophole, and it has been made legal by our fathers in Washington.

I've been at a lot of gun shows and watched some vato, covered in gang and prison tattoos, dragging his mother or girl friend who has a clean record, and making her buy the gun of his choice. It's legal, it shouldn't be, but it's legal.

Curing that loophole would affect the inherit freedoms of several people and I'm not sure I would want to do that. I think I'd rather take my chances with the vato.

TK-421
12-21-2012, 11:29
It's not legal for purchasing alcohol, I don't see why it's legal for firearms. If you see a minor walk into your store, choose which alcohol he wants, and then he sends in a person who is legal to actually purchase the alcohol, you can spend some time in jail for selling to a minor. So why can this sort of thing happen for firearms?

Lone_Wolfe
12-21-2012, 11:38
That sounds like a straw purchase to me, which isn't legal.

TK-421
12-21-2012, 11:40
That sounds like a straw purchase to me, which isn't legal.

The problem is how do you actually prove beyond a reasonable doubt in court that it is indeed a straw purchase? The seller could say he had no idea the other person intended to give it to someone who is not allowed to own firearms, and the buyer could say he/she bought it for themself, and had no intention of buying it for their friend. What proof would a prosecutor have to go on that it was a straw purchase?

elsolo
12-21-2012, 11:41
How is it any different if a felon has his GF do a straw purchase at a gunshow, or if it happens at Walmart?

elsolo
12-21-2012, 11:44
The problem is how do you actually prove beyond a reasonable doubt in court that it is indeed a straw purchase? The seller could say he had no idea the other person intended to give it to someone who is not allowed to own firearms, and the buyer could say he/she bought it for themself, and had no intention of buying it for their friend. What proof would a prosecutor have to go on that it was a straw purchase?

I think it sometimes goes something like:

Felon gets caught with gun
They look into gun's previous transactions
They see the GF bought the gun, she knows he was a felon and she gets charged.

USMCsilver
12-21-2012, 11:45
He said/she said.

The "loophole" will be closed. I said it elsewhere, but I'll say it again:

Watch for "FFL Service Booths" to be set up @ the back of gun shows. For the low, low price of $20, they'll allow you to do a legal transfer at a show.

Of course, that has nothing to do with a straw purchase. But, I see few likely straw purchases at shows. However, I do see many "shady" folks only crusin' private sale tables and doing business with them. Granted, they may be legit...but I'm 100% certain that not all those fellas could pass a NICS check.

douggmc
12-21-2012, 11:46
Lone Wolfe is right. The OP is confusing and talking about two different things: 1) the so called "gun show loophole" and 2) straw purchases.

Totally not related. The OP is describing a straw purchase. Already illegal.

elsolo
12-21-2012, 11:49
He said/she said.

The "loophole" will be closed. I said it elsewhere, but I'll say it again:

Watch for "FFL Service Booths" to be set up @ the back of gun shows. For the low, low price of $20, they'll allow you to do a legal transfer at a show.

Of course, that has nothing to do with a straw purchase. But, I see few likely straw purchases at shows. However, I do see many "shady" folks only crusin' private sale tables and doing business with them. Granted, they may be legit...but I'm 100% certain that not all those fellas could pass a NICS check.

They will push for what CA has, all sales must go through a FFL and 10 day waiting period. No exemptions.

Gun shows here are extra stupid, you basically just make an appointment for a transaction at a gunshop rather than do an actual transaction at the show.

Private party sales will be targeted for mandatory background checks.

TK-421
12-21-2012, 11:50
I think it sometimes goes something like:

Felon gets caught with gun
They look into gun's previous transactions
They see the GF bought the gun, she knows he was a felon and she gets charged.

I sure do hope that would hold up in court, we need people to start realizing that buying guns for felons is not legal.

elsolo
12-21-2012, 11:55
I sure do hope that would hold up in court, we need people to start realizing that buying guns for felons is not legal.

It says so right on form 4473 that you have to check off specifically stating you are NOT buying the gun for somebody else who cannot buy it themselves.

There are also signs in gun stores that point out what a straw purchase is and remind you of it's illegality.

People aren't aiding and abetting felons in the acquisition of firearms because they are ignorant, they know exactly what they are doing but are the kind of person that associates with felons and has little respect for law.

Cubdriver
12-21-2012, 12:07
It says so right on form 4473 that you have to check off specifically stating you are NOT buying the gun for somebody else who cannot buy it themselves.

There are also signs in gun stores that point out what a straw purchase is and remind you of it's illegality.

People aren't aiding and abetting felons in the acquisition of firearms because they are ignorant, they know exactly what they are doing but are the kind of person that associates with felons and has little respect for law.

And I'd also imagine that they are VERY rarely prosecuted when caught. Perhaps that should change, and the fact that it has be publicised.

-Pat

TK-421
12-21-2012, 12:11
It says so right on form 4473 that you have to check off specifically stating you are NOT buying the gun for somebody else who cannot buy it themselves.

There are also signs in gun stores that point out what a straw purchase is and remind you of it's illegality.

People aren't aiding and abetting felons in the acquisition of firearms because they are ignorant, they know exactly what they are doing but are the kind of person that associates with felons and has little respect for law.

I'm just wondering how easy it is for them to be prosecuted. I'm guessing not very, unless it's just not publicized very much.

427
12-21-2012, 12:20
It's sometimes obvious when there's a straw purchase. The seller/ffl has to decide if they want to make a sale or not. Unless the FFL alerts the ATF of an attempted straw purchase how's the ATF or anyone else going to know?

Bill Powell
12-21-2012, 12:27
The gansta don't give a damn whan the wife/mother/girl friend has to check to finalize the sale. One solution would be an automatic 10 day waiting period for any gun show purchase. Maybe not.

elsolo
12-21-2012, 12:28
It's sometimes obvious when there's a straw purchase. The seller/ffl has to decide if they want to make a sale or not. Unless the FFL alerts the ATF of an attempted straw purchase how's the ATF or anyone else going to know?

Exactly.
How will anybody know, unless it is reported or the felon gets caught with it during another crime at a later date?

elsolo
12-21-2012, 12:30
The gansta don't give a damn whan the wife/mother/girl friend has to check to finalize the sale. One solution would be an automatic 10 day waiting period for any gun show purchase. Maybe not.

How will a 10 day waiting period have any influence whatsoever on straw purchases?

That's just a "crime of passion" law, so you don't get mad and go buy a gun right now to shoot me in an hour.

427
12-21-2012, 12:31
The gansta don't give a damn whan the wife/mother/girl friend has to check to finalize the sale. One solution would be an automatic 10 day waiting period for any gun show purchase. Maybe not.

What about private sales outside of a gun show?

winchester62
12-21-2012, 12:32
As I said, there is a gun show loophole, and it has been made legal by our fathers in Washington.

I've been at a lot of gun shows and watched some vato, covered in gang and prison tattoos, dragging his mother or girl friend who has a clean record, and making her buy the gun of his choice. It's legal, it shouldn't be, but it's legal.

Curing that loophole would affect the inherit freedoms of several people and I'm not sure I would want to do that. I think I'd rather take my chances with the vato.

As has been said, this is the very definition of a straw purchase and is just as illegal at the gun show as it is at any gun store. I hate to see folks on our side make the argument for the antis. You're a smart guy, Mr. Powell. The focus should be on the crazies, not ordinary law abiding folks.

G23Gen4TX
12-21-2012, 12:33
Do we really have a problem with private sales having to go through a BG check?

I mean if they charge a reasonable fee. Let's say $10-$20. I think it will prevent a lot of legally owned guns being sold to people who should not own one.

As a private seller there is no way for me to verify the guy I'm selling a gun to is legally allowed to own it unless I require them to present me with a CHL.

TheJ
12-21-2012, 12:34
The gansta don't give a damn whan the wife/mother/girl friend has to check to finalize the sale. One solution would be an automatic 10 day waiting period for any gun show purchase. Maybe not.

A straw purchase can happen at a regular dealer lgs just as easily as it can a gun show..... So I'm still no sure what the "gun show loophole" is you are referring to?


All the same laws apply outside of guns shows as inside.

TheJ
12-21-2012, 12:39
IMHO back ground checks have never prevented any crime. Neither have waiting periods. Conversely, they have cost innocent people their lives while having to wait to be ale to defend themselves.

HerrGlock
12-21-2012, 12:40
Do we really have a problem with private sales having to go through a BG check?

I mean if they charge a reasonable fee. Let's say $10-$20. I think it will prevent a lot of legally owned guns being sold to people who should not own one.

As a private seller there is no way for me to verify the guy I'm selling a gun to is legally allowed to own it unless I require them to present me with a CHL.

So, you're for 100% registration? That's what the goal is. Has nothing to do with background checks, has nothing to do with gun shows. Requiring a FFL check has to do with getting every purchase down on governmental paper to record every sale.

Lesh
12-21-2012, 12:40
I would accept this. You do the background check, and get a card good for 30 days. Buy whatever you want for 30 days without the serial number going to big brother.

427
12-21-2012, 12:51
I would accept this. You do the background check, and get a card good for 30 days. Buy whatever you want for 30 days without the serial number going to big brother.

Why 30 days? Why not a year?

What's going to stop people from doing straw purchases with your little card or even forging them?

Appeasement gets us nowhere.

elsolo
12-21-2012, 12:58
Do we really have a problem with private sales having to go through a BG check?

I mean if they charge a reasonable fee. Let's say $10-$20. I think it will prevent a lot of legally owned guns being sold to people who should not own one.

As a private seller there is no way for me to verify the guy I'm selling a gun to is legally allowed to own it unless I require them to present me with a CHL.

Since CA already requires this, here is how it goes:

There is a law limiting how much a gunstore can charge for a walk-in transfer, I think it is $35. Since we little people are required to go through a FFL for all transfers, all retail FFL's must accept private party transfers.

The going rate for a transfer is $75+
If you want to pay $35 or whatever, you can stand around all day until the store closes because they don't have the time to attend to you. With all the additional CA required paperwork for transfers, the FFL's are not the bad guys here. It takes 20+ minutes to do a transfer, and then the paperwork storage requirements for decades.

pmcjury
12-21-2012, 12:58
Do we really have a problem with private sales having to go through a BG check?

I mean if they charge a reasonable fee. Let's say $10-$20. I think it will prevent a lot of legally owned guns being sold to people who should not own one.

As a private seller there is no way for me to verify the guy I'm selling a gun to is legally allowed to own it unless I require them to present me with a CHL.

The closest thing to this that I would be on with would be allow private parties to access the electronic nics system. I don't think this should be mandated but it should be an option in the event that either party wants to use it

Sent from my ADR6410LVW using Tapatalk 2

Henry's Dad
12-21-2012, 13:02
So, you're for 100% registration? That's what the goal is. Has nothing to do with background checks, has nothing to do with gun shows. Requiring a FFL check has to do with getting every purchase down on governmental paper to record every sale.

If that's really the objective, then why is form 4473 kept on file with the ffl and NEVER sent to the ATF (unless a shop closes).

As I said in another thread, if form 4473 was really some master plan to track who has which gun(s), then keeping those forms stuffed in the filing cabinets of thousands of ffls hardly seems the most efficient route for Big Brother.

Listen in on the next NICS call you're a party to. No info about what gun, or even how many guns, you're buying is exchanges with the feds.

Lesh
12-21-2012, 13:03
Why 30 days? Why not a year?

What's going to stop people from doing straw purchases with your little card or even forging them?

Appeasement gets us nowhere.

Straw purchases are illegal. Why do we need another law making them "more illegal"?

I don't have a large issue with background checks. There are some people like felons who I don't think should have guns. My huge issue is the BATF using background checks to create a defacto gun registry.

Henry's Dad
12-21-2012, 13:07
Straw purchases are illegal. Why do we need another law making them "more illegal"?

I don't have a large issue with background checks. There are some people like felons who I don't think should have guns. My huge issue is the BATF using background checks to create a defacto gun registry.

See my post, immediately above yours. Thoughts?

ETA: And please correct me if I am mistaken about what info is exchanged on the NICS call. I'm working from memory.

427
12-21-2012, 13:12
Straw purchases are illegal. Why do we need another law making them "more illegal"? I didn't make the proposal for a 30 day free card, you did.

We have tens of thousands of firearms laws that need to be enforced, not have more hoop to jump through.

I don't have a large issue with background checks. There are some people like felons who I don't think should have guns. My huge issue is the BATF using background checks to create a defacto gun registry.
Very good!

cowboy1964
12-21-2012, 13:12
IMHO back ground checks have never prevented any crime.

Your opinion. Common sense says though that if there were no background checks then it would just be even easier for felons, druggies, etc, to get guns. Heck, let's stop IDing young people for booze too. They'll just get it another way anyway, right?

427
12-21-2012, 13:14
Since CA already requires this, here is how it goes:

There is a law limiting how much a gunstore can charge for a walk-in transfer, I think it is $35. Since we little people are required to go through a FFL for all transfers, all retail FFL's must accept private party transfers.

The going rate for a transfer is $75+
If you want to pay $35 or whatever, you can stand around all day until the store closes because they don't have the time to attend to you. With all the additional CA required paperwork for transfers, the FFL's are not the bad guys here. It takes 20+ minutes to do a transfer, and then the paperwork storage requirements for decades.

With all that mandated paperwork, how's that crime rate?

cowboy1964
12-21-2012, 13:17
ETA: And please correct me if I am mistaken about what info is exchanged on the NICS call. I'm working from memory.

The background check info is destroyed before the start of the next operational day. I know there will be some (many) who think that's BS, but whatever. If they believe that then contact the NRA, the GOA, their Congressman, and have them look into it. Conspiracists really start to get old after awhile.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/general-information/fact-sheet

elsolo
12-21-2012, 13:19
With all that mandated paperwork, how's that crime rate?
Better than Chicago or DC :rofl:

Just like any major population center, there are very safe cities and very unsafe ones, and the differences are largely predictable based on demographics. High density housing with poor people is going to be high crime no matter where.

G26S239
12-21-2012, 13:33
The gansta don't give a damn whan the wife/mother/girl friend has to check to finalize the sale. One solution would be an automatic 10 day waiting period for any gun show purchase. Maybe not.

That solution has not curtailed the murder rate in Oakland CA or LA CA. CA does have a 10 day wait and mandates that gun transfers go through an FFL. For some strange reason people who feel inclined to break laws against armed robbery, shooting into occupied dwellings and murder don't seem to care about respecting firearm acquisition laws.

Lesh
12-21-2012, 13:41
See my post, immediately above yours. Thoughts?

ETA: And please correct me if I am mistaken about what info is exchanged on the NICS call. I'm working from memory.

The NCIS form I recently filled out, and in the past as per my memory contained serial number and other identifying information about the gun. At one point that information was supposed to be destroyed within 24 hours, but I don't the the government ever destroys any data.

In terms of straw purchases, I agree, they can happen anywhere. It is not the job of the gun dealer to judge if you are the real buyer.

I say there is no gun show loophole. If you are a dealer you must do a background check no matter where the sale takes place. If you are selling your private gun, you don't need to do a background check no matter where the sale takes place. If the want to close the "loophole", they should do it by clarifying what a dealer is. 100 guns a year, 50, 1000?

TheJ
12-21-2012, 13:48
Your opinion. Common sense says though that if there were no background checks then it would just be even easier for felons, druggies, etc, to get guns. Heck, let's stop IDing young people for booze too. They'll just get it another way anyway, right?

I get that you see your opinion as common sense but..
Common sense says that ncis only checks for felony convictions (Not the rest of that stuff you mentioned) and its already illegal for felons to buy guns wether or not there is a background check. Common sense says they know that and will just obtain guns illegally. Common sense also says that not only can felons still get guns if they want but more imprtantly they don't need guns to commit crime/murder because there are an infinite numbers of other tools they can use to kill with. The only people who actually need guns are people looking to defend themselves.

It's a felony for a convicted felon to even fill out & sign the forms.. Go look up how many people have are actually serving time for that.

Btw it already is actually easier to get pot then alcohol for high school kids.

KalashniKEV
12-21-2012, 13:54
OP needs to get a clue.

That is all...

number1gun
12-21-2012, 14:06
Filled out form for background check ? What form ? Not in Florida. Last purchase was like all the previous ones. 4473 done and signed, phone call by dealer, firearm delivered. 5 minutes done. Has there been a change in the way they are conducted ? No serial numbers are given only personal info from DL and social. No different than going into he police station for a printed one. It is really only a non-information report. No information came back on the person so the sale is approved.

G23Gen4TX
12-21-2012, 15:12
I would accept this. You do the background check, and get a card good for 30 days. Buy whatever you want for 30 days without the serial number going to big brother.

I'm good with that too.

G23Gen4TX
12-21-2012, 15:18
IMHO back ground checks have never prevented any crime. Neither have waiting periods. Conversely, they have cost innocent people their lives while having to wait to be ale to defend themselves.

A background check prevented Adam Lanza from purchasing a gun over the counter.

I'm sure it prevented many other illegal gun purchases.

Getting a gun illegally IS the issue here.

RonS
12-21-2012, 15:23
Many years ago I sold a gun at a gunshow. That was years ago, when most of the people at gun shows were shooters and before I became aware of the aisle sharks cruising for people to buy guns from to resell. Now I seldom sell or trade, and if I do it will be to someone I know, to a LGS or to a dealer at a gunshow.

IMHO, there is no loophole. There are people getting away with breaking the law, but that is not the same as a loophole.

G23Gen4TX
12-21-2012, 15:26
Why 30 days? Why not a year?

What's going to stop people from doing straw purchases with your little card or even forging them?

Appeasement gets us nowhere.

30 days is a reasonable amount of time. A year is too long.

HerrGlock
12-21-2012, 16:10
If that's really the objective, then why is form 4473 kept on file with the ffl and NEVER sent to the ATF (unless a shop closes).

For now. Until the next time they want to add restrictions.

Anyone thinking that's even vaguely paranoid hasn't been paying attention.

427
12-21-2012, 16:18
A background check prevented Adam Lanza from purchasing a gun over the counter.

Weren't the weapons used by adam lanza purchased by his mother? If so, how would a background check have prevented lanza from stealing his mother's weapons after he shot her in the head? [/QUOTE]

427
12-21-2012, 16:20
30 days is a reasonable amount of time. A year is too long.

Why? Based on what?

Marlowe
12-21-2012, 16:25
In my experience, most sellers (with tables) at gun shows are FFLs. Still, individuals can go to gun shows and sell their personal firearms.

As I stated in another thread, the general public overwhelmingly supports background checks for gun purchases.

As responsible gun owners, we should want a system that keeps guns out of the hands of people already prohibited from possessing them.

California can be a pain in the ass, gun wise, but I support the requirement of all private party transfers being conducted through an FFL. If I sell a gun, I'd like to be sure the buyer isn't prohibited from possessing one.

I know many oppose the idea because they generally oppose government interference in their business, but I think the positives outweigh the negatives, here.

The person we need to reach now is not the gun rights advocate or the gun control proponent. Those folks are already committed one way or the other. The folks we need to appeal to are the people who are not hostile to gun ownership, but are concerned about public safety and the much talked about "ease" of getting a gun in the U.S. All of us here are accustomed to guns, which are as much apart of our lives as cell phones and cars. But for many, many people, guns and gun ownership is unfamiliar and a little scary. They want to be reassured that there is an effective system to prevent a prohibited person from acquiring a gun.

Bren
12-21-2012, 16:26
As I said, there is a gun show loophole, and it has been made legal by our fathers in Washington.

I've been at a lot of gun shows and watched some vato, covered in gang and prison tattoos, dragging his mother or girl friend who has a clean record, and making her buy the gun of his choice. It's legal, it shouldn't be, but it's legal.

Curing that loophole would affect the inherit freedoms of several people and I'm not sure I would want to do that. I think I'd rather take my chances with the vato.

No, Bill, it's not legal at all. In fact, a few hours ago this very day, I was in a gun store and the guy behind the counter was on the phone to another store saying a buyer picked a gun, then when he started the 4473, told him he forgot his license, so his father would do the form. He turned him down and called the other store to tell them to look out for the guy to try again - he was even giving them a physical description of the two.

It's called a straw purchase and it's already illegal, Virginia. Not to mention, what does a straw purchase have to do with a gun show? That can be attempted in a gun store or a show, exactly the same way.

Bren
12-21-2012, 16:29
It's not legal for purchasing alcohol, I don't see why it's legal for firearms. If you see a minor walk into your store, choose which alcohol he wants, and then he sends in a person who is legal to actually purchase the alcohol, you can spend some time in jail for selling to a minor. So why can this sort of thing happen for firearms?

It isn't legal, it's already a felony (actually, it's more than 1 felony).

Marlowe
12-21-2012, 16:32
Regarding straw purchases...clearly that's already illegal. It is hard to prevent, though. I've seen alert gun store sales people recognize a straw purchase and refuse to sell the gun.

The "one handgun" per month limitation imposed in some jurisdictions is purportedly intended to make this harder for organized criminals, who will send a non prohibited person in to multiple stores to make multiple purchases in a short period of time. I don't know if these one a month limitations actually work.

RonS
12-21-2012, 16:45
Gun control is a process, it has one end, a disarmed populace. It is not about crime, it is not for the children, it is not about reasonable limitations. It is about creating a society where the people have no ability to protect themselves from criminals or the government. It is about political power.

If not one single act of violence involving a firearm occured for a decade, Obama and the DNC would still push to ban firearms. They move faster when they can find excuses and slower when the time is not right. Right now they think they can deliver a knockout blow to liberty in America and take a giant step toward turning America into a state socialist nation.

countrygun
12-21-2012, 17:09
"Gun Show Loophole" is just another one of the terms, like "High Capacity Clip", "Assault Rifle" "Saturday Night Special", that are ginned up by the antis for their propaganda purpose. When we use them and respond to them we are legitimizing a baseless term . It is part and parcel of "war of words' being waged on gun owners.

what's next?
Telescope, 'Sniper" scopes.

"Night sights that let criminals shoot in the dark

laser attachments so shooter can't miss when they are on a rampage?

We end up defending against the Made up issues and the evil-sounding names they apply to them.

Let's re-frame the issues and not dance to their tune.

*ASH*
12-21-2012, 17:20
all folks need to do is be responsible , when i sell a rifle or handgun , the buyer MUST show me a valid nc drivers license,a valid concealed carry permit , and or a paper permit from the sheriffs office .

if those are not met no sale . i keep records , and make up a paper copy of i sold this gun to so and so , paid this ,

and have witness to sign it .

Bill Powell
12-21-2012, 17:51
I'm sorry I used the term loophole, and I know straw purchases are illegal. Again I screwed up trying to be cute. I have heard licensed dealers discussing these customers.
They know the sale is bogus but if the girl clears the background check, she owns the gun.

fitz4609
12-21-2012, 17:59
As has been said, this is the very definition of a straw purchase and is just as illegal at the gun show as it is at any gun store. I hate to see folks on our side make the argument for the antis. You're a smart guy, Mr. Powell. The focus should be on the crazies, not ordinary law abiding folks.

What it means is that my dad could not have "sold" me his Smith & Wesson Mod 10 .38 special when I turned 18.
In Florida you have to be 18 to own a pistol or revolver. You have to be 21 to buy a pistol from a FFL.
And that is the "loop hole", everybody goes through the FFL. No more sales to your best friend and godfather of your child, no sales/gift to your wife or daughter. It is not about gun shows, it is about tracing each firearm to its new owner. Thats the way I see it.

Henry's Dad
12-21-2012, 18:01
all folks need to do is be responsible , when i sell a rifle or handgun , the buyer MUST show me a valid nc drivers license,a valid concealed carry permit , and or a paper permit from the sheriffs office .

if those are not met no sale . i keep records , and make up a paper copy of i sold this gun to so and so , paid this ,

and have witness to sign it .

And what is required for an NC carry permit?

Requirements:
The sheriff shall issue a permit within 90 days after receipt of a complete application to an applicant who:
is a citizen of the U.S. and has been a resident of the State for at least 30 days immediately prior to filing the application;
is at least 21;
does not suffer from a physical or mental infirmity that prevents the safe handling of a handgun;
has successfully completed an approved firearms safety and training course which involves the actual firing of handguns and instruction in the law governing the carrying of a concealed handgun and the use of deadly force;
is not ineligible under federal or state law to possess, receive, or own a firearm;
is not currently or has not been adjudicated or administratively determined to be lacking mental capacity or mentally ill;
has not been discharged from the armed forces under conditions other than honorable;
is or has not been adjudicated guilty or judgment continued or suspended sentence for a violent misdemeanor;
has not had judgment continued for or free on bond or personal recognizance pending trial, appeal, or sentencing for a disqualifying criminal offense;
has not been convicted of an impaired driving offense within three years prior to the date on which the application is submitted.
Required Documents:
Application completed under oath on a form provided by the sheriff
Full set of fingerprints administered by the sheriff
An original certificate of completion of an approved safety course
A release that authorized and requires disclosure to the sheriff of any records concerning the mental health of capacity of the appliant


-------------------------



So, in effect, you are placing a much higher burden on the buyer than a NICS check or form 4473 would.

*ASH*
12-21-2012, 18:07
And what is required for an NC carry permit?

Requirements:
The sheriff shall issue a permit within 90 days after receipt of a complete application to an applicant who:
is a citizen of the U.S. and has been a resident of the State for at least 30 days immediately prior to filing the application;
is at least 21;
does not suffer from a physical or mental infirmity that prevents the safe handling of a handgun;
has successfully completed an approved firearms safety and training course which involves the actual firing of handguns and instruction in the law governing the carrying of a concealed handgun and the use of deadly force;
is not ineligible under federal or state law to possess, receive, or own a firearm;
is not currently or has not been adjudicated or administratively determined to be lacking mental capacity or mentally ill;
has not been discharged from the armed forces under conditions other than honorable;
is or has not been adjudicated guilty or judgment continued or suspended sentence for a violent misdemeanor;
has not had judgment continued for or free on bond or personal recognizance pending trial, appeal, or sentencing for a disqualifying criminal offense;
has not been convicted of an impaired driving offense within three years prior to the date on which the application is submitted.
Required Documents:
Application completed under oath on a form provided by the sheriff
Full set of fingerprints administered by the sheriff
An original certificate of completion of an approved safety course
A release that authorized and requires disclosure to the sheriff of any records concerning the mental health of capacity of the appliant


-------------------------



So, in effect, you are placing a much higher burden on the buyer than a NICS check or form 4473 would.





also im keeping THE FBI AND ATF FROM KNOCKING ON MY DOOR. IM NOT MAKING ANYONE BUY A GUN FROM ME , GO BUY FROM A GUNSTORE IF YOU FEEL THE NEED . IM GONNA COVER MY ASS. FOLKS HAVE A CHOICE .

FOR THE RECORD I HAVE SOLD EVERY GUN IVE HAD FOR SALE AND FOLKS DID NOT HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT .

Spiffums
12-21-2012, 19:24
As I said, there is a gun show loophole, and it has been made legal by our fathers in Washington.

I've been at a lot of gun shows and watched some vato, covered in gang and prison tattoos, dragging his mother or girl friend who has a clean record, and making her buy the gun of his choice. It's legal, it shouldn't be, but it's legal.

Curing that loophole would affect the inherit freedoms of several people and I'm not sure I would want to do that. I think I'd rather take my chances with the vato.

So you want to close the "gifting" aspect of the Firearms Laws. This isn't the gunshow loophole. The Gun Show Loophole is that clever name for a Private Seller to a Private Buyer, no FFL involved.

G23Gen4TX
12-21-2012, 20:12
Weren't the weapons used by adam lanza purchased by his mother? If so, how would a background check have prevented lanza from stealing his mother's weapons after he shot her in the head?

I don't know if you've noticed but he committed a crime when he stole her guns and murdered her.

If she didn't have guns he would have probably not been able to get any without breaking in to someone's house and stealing them.

G23Gen4TX
12-21-2012, 20:14
Why? Based on what?

The time it takes to commit a crime that prevents you from owning a fire arm and being convicted of it.

Henry's Dad
12-21-2012, 22:00
also im keeping THE FBI AND ATF FROM KNOCKING ON MY DOOR. IM NOT MAKING ANYONE BUY A GUN FROM ME , GO BUY FROM A GUNSTORE IF YOU FEEL THE NEED . IM GONNA COVER MY ASS. FOLKS HAVE A CHOICE .

FOR THE RECORD I HAVE SOLD EVERY GUN IVE HAD FOR SALE AND FOLKS DID NOT HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT .

Sorry if my post came at you the wrong way. I was actually applauding you for it. My emphasis was more on hoping others would see that this is how some of us view responsible gun transactions.

I've been on the receiving end of some grief lately because I hold the outrageous position (according to some) that felons should be barred from buying firearms.

Evidently, holding this opinion puts me in bed with Sara Brady.

*ASH*
12-21-2012, 22:03
Sorry if my post came at you the wrong way. I was actually applauding you for it. My emphasis was more on hoping others would see that this is how some of us view responsible gun transactions.

I've been on the receiving end of some grief lately because I hold the outrageous position (according to some) that felons should be barred from buying firearms.

Evidently, holding this opinion puts me in bed with Sara Brady.

ahh my bad . :wavey: i took it wrong . no worries

tehan2
12-21-2012, 22:22
Evidently, holding this opinion puts me in bed with Sara Brady.

nope, it just show people that you think it's ok for some (wo)men to be more free than others.

Henry's Dad
12-21-2012, 22:53
nope, it just show people that you think it's ok for some (wo)men to be more free than others.

If an individual values his or her constitutional liberties, he or she should act accordingly.

Convicted felons were free to not commit their crime in the first place. By choosing to commit their crime, they chose to give up their right to possess a firearm.

The fact that someone looses the right to possess a gun after commiting a felony is not a hidden trap in our legal system. The criminal should have thought about what they were risking before they committed their crime, not whine about it after the fact.

Perhaps if more people did that, we would have fewer people choosing to commit crimes.

I can't imagine that legally possessing a firearm is all that important to a person if he or she deliberately engages in behavior that puts that right in jeopardy.

Henry's Dad
12-21-2012, 22:55
ahh my bad . :wavey: i took it wrong . no worries

No problem at all. :wavey:

TheJ
12-22-2012, 04:28
A background check prevented Adam Lanza from purchasing a gun over the counter.

I'm sure it prevented many other illegal gun purchases.

Getting a gun illegally IS the issue here.

and what crime did that prevent?

He simply found another way as criminals will ALWAYS do. Again, you may prevent a legal purchase but you can not prevent crime with background checks. No matter how badly anyone wants to believe it.

czsmithGT
12-22-2012, 04:39
What it means is that my dad could not have "sold" me his Smith & Wesson Mod 10 .38 special when I turned 18.
In Florida you have to be 18 to own a pistol or revolver. You have to be 21 to buy a pistol from a FFL.
And that is the "loop hole", everybody goes through the FFL. No more sales to your best friend and godfather of your child, no sales/gift to your wife or daughter. It is not about gun shows, it is about tracing each firearm to its new owner. Thats the way I see it.

Parents and grandparents, husbands and wives, etc, under federal law, "can" give a gun to an immediate family member as a gift. Its not a straw purchase.

Bren
12-22-2012, 06:15
I'm sorry I used the term loophole, and I know straw purchases are illegal. Again I screwed up trying to be cute. I have heard licensed dealers discussing these customers.
They know the sale is bogus but if the girl clears the background check, she owns the gun.

Why not just steal the gun and run out the door? It's the same level of crime.

A "loophole" is a way of getting around the law without breaking it - also known as "something that is legal, but disliked by the person cvalling it a 'loophole'." You simply described committing a crime and the crime you describe is the most common one that FFL's are on the lookout for, because it's one ATF most often creates to entrap them with informants or undercover agents.

Straw purchasing is not nearly as casual or easy as you make i sound. A dealer who sells to the girlfriend after her boyfriend tries out a gun isn't going to stay out of jail long.

Bren
12-22-2012, 06:18
Weren't the weapons used by adam lanza purchased by his mother? If so, how would a background check have prevented lanza from stealing his mother's weapons after he shot her in the head? [/QUOTE]

So how would any new law prevent anybody from stealing anything after they shoot the owner in the head? We should make shooting somebody in the head illegal, to stop all of this crime, since new laws are the solution.

TheJ
12-22-2012, 07:07
If an individual values his or her constitutional liberties, he or she should act accordingly.

Convicted felons were free to not commit their crime in the first place. By choosing to commit their crime, they chose to give up their right to possess a firearm.

The fact that someone looses the right to possess a gun after commiting a felony is not a hidden trap in our legal system. The criminal should have thought about what they were risking before they committed their crime, not whine about it after the fact.

Perhaps if more people did that, we would have fewer people choosing to commit crimes.

I can't imagine that legally possessing a firearm is all that important to a person if he or she deliberately engages in behavior that puts that right in jeopardy.
While your position is "common sense" to many folks, a couple points..

1) Your belief (and the current law) is only just if you do not believe that the right of self defense is a fundamental right. If you do believe that the right of self defense is a fundamental right...Than prohibiting felons that have served their sentence already from having legal access to firearms (which again nobody needs to commit crimes but only "needs" for defensive purposes) is tantamount to removing the voice box of a person who falsely yelled bomb in a crowded airport after they served their sentence.
And again, since nobody needs a legal gun to murder because there are not only illegal guns available but more importantly an infinite number of other tools to do that with (many much more effective than firearms), if you cant trust them with legal firearms than why would we even allow them to walk free?

2) Have you ever heard of the Lautenberg Amendment? People (many innocent) who had many years ago plead out cases of "domestic violence" to pay the small fine rather then go through an expensive trial, unknowingly at the time gave up their fundamental human right of self defense for the rest of their lives. So those people are deprived of the fundamental civil right forever because a law that is seemingly in violation of the ex post facto clause. Unfortunately, it's a case where practically nobody is going to challenge it.

Henry's Dad
12-22-2012, 10:05
While your position is "common sense" to many folks, a couple points..

1) Your belief (and the current law) is only just if you do not believe that the right of self defense is a fundamental right. If you do believe that the right of self defense is a fundamental right...Than prohibiting felons that have served their sentence already from having legal access to firearms (which again nobody needs to commit crimes but only "needs" for defensive purposes) is tantamount to removing the voice box of a person who falsely yelled bomb in a crowded airport after they served their sentence.
And again, since nobody needs a legal gun to murder because there are not only illegal guns available but more importantly an infinite number of other tools to do that with (many much more effective than firearms), if you cant trust them with legal firearms than why would we even allow them to walk free?

2) Have you ever heard of the Lautenberg Amendment? People (many innocent) who had many years ago plead out cases of "domestic violence" to pay the small fine rather then go through an expensive trial, unknowingly at the time gave up their fundamental human right of self defense for the rest of their lives. So those people are deprived of the fundamental civil right forever because a law that is seemingly in violation of the ex post facto clause. Unfortunately, it's a case where practically nobody is going to challenge it.

In the abstract, I understand and can respect this argument on constitutional grounds. However,

(1) It's a dog that won't hunt when it comes to the public debate. It's hard enough to be a gun owner and 2A advocate for the rights of law-abiding citizens without having to stand up for the rights of convicted felons.

They're not making it any easier for me to hold onto my 2A rights (especially if their crime involved the illegal use of a firearm), so why should I waste my breath on them in the public debate over gun ownership.

(2) With recidivism rates above 60%, the argument that "they've paid their debt" is even less coinvincing. Also, I don't see why merely being released from prison constitutes having paid one's debt. The ripple effect of criminal behavior extends beyond serving a sentence.

A simple example: tell a woman whose rapist has served his time that the debt has been paid. She has to live with the horror of that crime the rest of her life. Now tell her that her rapist is having his rights violated by not being able to own a gun for his self-defense.

(3) I guess I can work my mind around the constitutional issue this way: some people choose not to own a gun for a variety of reasons. That's their right. No one is constitutionally mandated to own a gun for self-defense or any other reason. If you commit a felony, you are choosing not to own a gun.

Committing the crime was your choice. The illicit rewards of criminal activity were more important to you than legally owning a gun, just as some people feel that it is more important not to have a gun in the house because they have young kids. (I realize it's not a perfect analogy, but I think it comes close to what I'm trying to express.)

427
12-22-2012, 10:33
I don't know if you've noticed but he committed a crime when he stole her guns and murdered her.
Yes, I think I know that.:upeyes:

If she didn't have guns he would have probably not been able to get any without breaking in to someone's house and stealing them."If". :upeyes:

The fact is, she had weapons. She was legal. She jumped through all the legal hoops, federal, state and local, to get them.

Did AL commit any crimes that would've prohibited him from passing a background check?

How would a back ground check have prevented this, again?

427
12-22-2012, 10:39
The time it takes to commit a crime that prevents you from owning a fire arm and being convicted of it.
Wait. What?

Which crime? Most felonies take months, if not years to get through the court system.

30 days is just an arbitrary number.

janice6
12-22-2012, 10:51
So you want to close the "gifting" aspect of the Firearms Laws. This isn't the gunshow loophole. The Gun Show Loophole is that clever name for a Private Seller to a Private Buyer, no FFL involved.


There is no "Gun show loophole".

There has never been a loophole. This method of purchase is strictly according to all the laws and regulations governing the sales of guns. Both public sales and private.

In this country it is legal for you and me to sell "stuff" to others, without the government or other third parties, intervening in the transaction.

It is only called a "loophole" because there are people that want to control what you can and cannot do when selling guns.

These third parties do not like that you, as an individual, are permitted the right to sell an object you own to another individual, without supervision by a third party, that feels they need to control what you can and cannot do, without their permission.

It's just about control, not guns.

TheJ
12-22-2012, 10:53
In the abstract, I understand and can respect this argument on constitutional grounds. However,

(1) It's a dog that won't hunt when it comes to the public debate. It's hard enough to be a gun owner and 2A advocate for the rights of law-abiding citizens without having to stand up for the rights of convicted felons.

They're not making it any easier for me to hold onto my 2A rights (especially if their crime involved the illegal use of a firearm), so why should I waste my breath on them in the public debate over gun ownership.

(2) With recidivism rates above 60%, the argument that "they've paid their debt" is even less coinvincing. Also, I don't see why merely being released from prison constitutes having paid one's debt. The ripple effect of criminal behavior extends beyond serving a sentence.

A simple example: tell a woman whose rapist has served his time that the debt has been paid. She has to live with the horror of that crime the rest of her life. Now tell her that her rapist is having his rights violated by not being able to own a gun for his self-defense.

(3) I guess I can work my mind around the constitutional issue this way: some people choose not to own a gun for a variety of reasons. That's their right. No one is constitutionally mandated to own a gun for self-defense or any other reason. If you commit a felony, you are choosing not to own a gun.

Committing the crime was your choice. The illicit rewards of criminal activity were more important to you than legally owning a gun, just as some people feel that it is more important not to have a gun in the house because they have young kids. (I realize it's not a perfect analogy, but I think it comes close to what I'm trying to express.)

I do appreciate you at least consider my point of view. :)
I actually think of it less as a constitutional issue than a human rights issue though.

1) I do realize the public will not support and honest debate on this because of the emotion (rather than logic) around discussions of firearms.

2) Being released from prison doesn't constitute paying their debt, the law and courts do that. Yet firearms restrictions are separate and forever. If we don't like the sentences then we should change the laws. However, any feeling of safety provided from restrictions on firearms after somebody is released from prison and legally deemed to have served their sentence is merely that... "FEELING" of safety, absolutely no actual safety is achieved. Once somebody is free to move about society unsupervised, they are free to do whatever they want (criminal or otherwise) the only ones that firearm restrictions can possible have any effect on, are the ones who are actually choosing to follow the laws...

3) So you have no moral qualms with a woman being require to be defenseless (after serving her legally required sentence for felonious behavior). Even if this defenseless state leads to her being gang raped or getting murdered.... That doesn't seem to be a cruel and unusual punishment to deny her the basic human right of self defense in perpetuity?

4) Using the justification that "you knew the consequences and you made the trade off when you made the choice to commit a felony" only goes so far, no? That's one of the reasons the founders codified in the BOR that we have a god given right to not suffer cruel and usual punishments.

G29Reload
12-22-2012, 11:47
As I said, there is a gun show loophole, and it has been made legal by our fathers in Washington.

I've been at a lot of gun shows and watched some vato, covered in gang and prison tattoos, dragging his mother or girl friend who has a clean record, and making her buy the gun of his choice. It's legal, it shouldn't be, but it's legal.

Fail. It is NOT legal. It's called a straw purchase and punishable by up to 5 years in prison.


Curing that loophole would affect the inherit freedoms of several people and I'm not sure I would want to do that. I think I'd rather take my chances with the vato.

It is NOT a loophole, and I'd never be for restricting the rights of any lawabiding person at the expense of anything.

PBR Sailor
12-22-2012, 12:04
As I said, there is a gun show loophole, and it has been made legal by our fathers in Washington.

I've been at a lot of gun shows and watched some vato, covered in gang and prison tattoos, dragging his mother or girl friend who has a clean record, and making her buy the gun of his choice. It's legal, it shouldn't be, but it's legal.

Curing that loophole would affect the inherit freedoms of several people and I'm not sure I would want to do that. I think I'd rather take my chances with the vato.

It's called a Straw Purchase and is a criminal act under Federal law. Get your facts straight before posting something like this on the internet. An uneducated person may actually believe what you posted.

fitz4609
12-22-2012, 19:57
Parents and grandparents, husbands and wives, etc, under federal law, "can" give a gun to an immediate family member as a gift. Its not a straw purchase.

Not if they close the "Gun Show Loophole" It all comes down to every sale/gift going through a FFL. That is their loophole. It really does not exist.
And yes, my dad selling me his smith for a dollar is not now, nor has it ever been a straw purchase. I just wanted a bill of sale to show it was mine, fair and square.

czsmithGT
12-22-2012, 20:22
Not if they close the "Gun Show Loophole" It all comes down to every sale/gift going through a FFL. That is their loophole. It really does not exist.
And yes, my dad selling me his smith for a dollar is not now, nor has it ever been a straw purchase. I just wanted a bill of sale to show it was mine, fair and square.

You appear to be mistaken regarding gifting of firearms and the so-called "gun show loophole". The two are not related.

certifiedfunds
12-22-2012, 21:05
If an individual values his or her constitutional liberties, he or she should act accordingly.

Convicted felons were free to not commit their crime in the first place. By choosing to commit their crime, they chose to give up their right to possess a firearm.



Since we're talking about the Constitution and all, where is the bold part in that Constitution?

The 2nd Amendment was written and re-written 5-10 times before it was finally settled and ratified. You would think that if the founders intended to exclude certain classes of people they could have just gone ahead and written it that way. But they didn't. Instead, they wrote "Shall not be infringed".

certifiedfunds
12-22-2012, 21:16
It's hard enough to be a gun owner and 2A advocate for the rights of law-abiding citizens without having to stand up for the rights of convicted felons.



You don't have to stand up for the rights of convicted felons, just stand up for the 2nd Amendment as the founders wrote it.



(2) With recidivism rates above 60%, the argument that "they've paid their debt" is even less coinvincing. Also, I don't see why merely being released from prison constitutes having paid one's debt. The ripple effect of criminal behavior extends beyond serving a sentence.



Here is the major fail in your whole argument.

60% are repeat offenders. 40% walk the straight and narrow. Your numbers.

So 60% commit another violent crime, presumably with a firearm, despite the law. Your law did nothing to prevent the crime.

40% have reformed. Commit no further crime. Law abiding citizens. Now contributing members of society. But you've disarmed them.

Like all firearms laws, your law did nothing to keep guns out of the hands of the people who shouldn't have them but kept them out of the hands of the people who should.

fitz4609
12-23-2012, 13:10
You appear to be mistaken regarding gifting of firearms and the so-called "gun show loophole". The two are not related.

No, I understand that a sale or gift to someone you know or trust is not a straw purchase. My point, my friend, is that the libs and the media do NOT see any difference. If it is a transfer that does NOT involve a FFL the it is a straw purchase to THEM. Not me. I know the difference.

JuneyBooney
12-24-2012, 09:08
As I said, there is a gun show loophole, and it has been made legal by our fathers in Washington.

I've been at a lot of gun shows and watched some vato, covered in gang and prison tattoos, dragging his mother or girl friend who has a clean record, and making her buy the gun of his choice. It's legal, it shouldn't be, but it's legal.

Curing that loophole would affect the inherit freedoms of several people and I'm not sure I would want to do that. I think I'd rather take my chances with the vato.

No, there is not a gun show loophole. I guess you have gone to shows where people are selling guns without checks and then those are private transactions where no forms are even needed.

You also talk about people with tattoos etc and that is profiling which is wrong.

If I take you in to a gun show and buy you a wapon and it is a gift..then that is legal. But if you are technically prohibited and I know it then that becomes a straw purchase which is illegal.

The laws as written work fine. What happens is that when a lunatic goes and commits a low number mass murder the liberal media goes wild talking about things that had no part in the event and wanting these "loop holes" closed and they really don't exist accept for private sellers and we will never be able to stop private transfers and black market deals.