A question about the "gun show loophole".

[beevul]

Why do those who are pushing for closing the "gun show loophole" tend to lean on events like VT and Columbine which had nothing to do with it, or contrive them as bloomberg has done now twice in violation of federal law?




If this is a problem that desperately needs solving, why not cite real and actual examples of the problem?

[RSillsbee]

1. I expect this will be a very quiet thread NT

[ProgressiveProfessor]

2. Because it gives them a base from which to spread theirs lies and hyperbole

[lawodevolution]

3. Because toddlers buy full auto AK47s at gun shows with high cap clips and shoulder thingies that

Go up. And I hope you gunners don't filibuster me.

[RSillsbee]

5. You forgot

That said toddlers also smuggle those AKs into mexico

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

23. I saw an infant, the other day, reselling AK47s with hicap mags in the parking lot of Olive Garden

The olive was directly adjacent to Chick-fil-A so he was getting some of those customers too.
The little guy had the cutest pitbull and was rocking out to Ted Nugent.
I almost got one, but he said the only ammo he had left were cop-killer bullets.

[shadowrider]

24. Oh, we won't

But please, let's have this be an adult converation, shall we? (Meaning you agree with me or on iggy you go).

[HankyDubs]

4. if the gungeon really wants to keep guns out of the hands of lunatics

...then why don't they want to close the loophole?

Truly I don't understand this. Previously I had proposed that we eliminate all background checks as part of a compromise, but I was attacked because "no one wants to eliminate background checks."

Clearly gun rights absolutists DO want to eliminate background checks, because they want this loophole to remain open. If you supported background checks because you don't want to be lumped in with maniacs and assassins (a SANE position), why not support ideas and laws that make it much harder for maniacs and assassins to get guns?

As for your question, perhaps you should direct it toward the families of the Va Tech victims who support closing the loophole. Direct your snark toward some of the victims, see how that pans out, whydoncha?

Oh, and here's your example:

http://washingtonindependent.com/79287/pentagon-shooter-exploited-gun-show-loophole

Now I know that the fact I answered this question won't change any minds here, because the question was pure snark and not intended to be part of an intelligent dialogue.

[bluerum]

6. Agreed. The loophole allows guns to be sold to people who otherwise not qualify.

[AtheistCrusader]

7. It's also a 'newspaper' 'garage sale' and 'friend at work' loophole.

The actual term is 'private transfers', as in, people selling their own personal firearms to another person directly.

Gun show is irrelevant.

[bluerum]

35. U guys are great at being dense.

[RSillsbee]

9. Except that isn't where criminals get their guns NT

[YllwFvr]

11. you meanyou want to ban all private sales

not a loophole

[HankyDubs]

12. nope

try again!

[YllwFvr]

32. Thats all the loophole is

private sales.
Any suggestions on how to close it?

[Callisto32]

27. How is people acting in compliance with the law a "loophole."

Every time I hear the word "loophole" I cringe. It always seems to mean "people are acting in accordance with the law we passed, but they are doing stuff we don't like legally. We can't say it is legal, and we don't like it because that makes it sound like we are prohibitionists, and we don't want that, we want to be FOR something, not against it. I know let's say we are for closing a "loophole" that doesn't actually exist, because the activity is entirely legal! Yeah, that'll work."

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[beevul]

10. Snark?

"As for your question, perhaps you should direct it toward the families of the Va Tech victims who support closing the loophole. Direct your snark toward some of the victims, see how that pans out, whydoncha?"

I'd love to know why they support closing this so called "loophole" when the VT shooter bought his guns at a retailer.



"Now I know that the fact I answered this question won't change any minds here, because the question was pure snark and not intended to be part of an intelligent dialogue."

You still haven't demonstrated that the "gun show loophole" is a probblem. 1 example does not prove anything. As your side is so fond of saying, anecdotes prove nothing.



You didn't answer the other question:

Why do those who are pushing for closing the "gun show loophole" tend to lean on events like VT and Columbine which had nothing to do with it, or contrive them as bloomberg has done now twice in violation of federal law?

Since I haven't seen you lean on VT yourself, nor have I seen you send off duty PD to another state to break federal law, I guess I thought it would have been clear that I wasn't refering to you when I said "those who are pushing for closing the "gun show loophole". The implication, was that I was referring to those that are public figures and in the public eye.

Perhaps you can tell me why THEY don't rely on real and pertinent events, since that was what I was asking about.



I really want to know.

Believe me, when I use snark, it will be obvious - and this wasn't it.

[HankyDubs]

13. allow me to quote you:

"If this is a problem that desperately needs solving, why not cite real and actual examples of the problem?"

I did that. Now I need to find some more specific examples or you won't be satisfied?

"Perhaps you can tell me why THEY don't rely on real and pertinent events, since that was what I was asking about"

Oh, I see. You wanted mayor Bloomberg and Rep Mccarthy to appear on this thread and answer your question. I'm afraid I can't speak for them.

"nor have I seen you send off duty PD to another state to break federal law"

From what I've seen on the gungeon, that's not what happened in AZ. Xdigger acknowledged that this didn't happen and since he is SOOOO biased I assume this means that this isn't what happened. According to a previous poster on one of the 5 threads on this topic, these were private investigators/off duty cops from Arizona that were hired by NYC officials.

"You still haven't demonstrated that the "gun show loophole" is a probblem"

I'm working on a snarky post about that.

[beevul]

15. Can you read?

"Oh, I see. You wanted mayor Bloomberg and Rep Mccarthy to appear on this thread and answer your question. I'm afraid I can't speak for them."

No, I want to DISCUSS why they aren't using real examples.

There, nice and simple.

Care to discuss it?


"From what I've seen on the gungeon, that's not what happened in AZ. Xdigger acknowledged that this didn't happen and since he is SOOOO biased I assume this means that this isn't what happened. According to a previous poster on one of the 5 threads on this topic, these were private investigators/off duty cops from Arizona that were hired by NYC officials."

Perhaps not this time, but they did before. And they still haven't been prosecuted. A gun crime you're ok with, no doubt.



Snarky, or otherwise, I'd love to see justification beyond what CAN happen, based on what actually IS happening - that justifies banning private sales of firearms. Since bloomberg and brady and all the other talking heads aren't providing any, I have to assume that none exists.

[HankyDubs]

18. I can't really say

Why people refer to the VT shooter or to the Columbine massacre I can't say...except for the fact that the gun "rights" crowd does facilitate these crimes with their absolutist attitudes. I also am sad about these massacres and I want to take steps to make them less frequent.

"A gun crime you're ok with, no doubt."

I am absolutely OK with investigations into illegal activities at gun shows. Yep. Why are you opposed to that? Don't you want to stop illegal sales to people who are unhinged? Why not?

Why the opposition to NICS background checks for all vendors at gun shows? As I said earlier on this thread...if I was a gun enthusiast, I would be PUSHING for that so that these illegal sales and violent incidents don't undermine my absolutist gun rights positions.

[beevul]

20. I already did.

"Why the opposition to NICS background checks for all vendors at gun shows? As I said earlier on this thread...if I was a gun enthusiast, I would be PUSHING for that so that these illegal sales and violent incidents don't undermine my absolutist gun rights positions."

Because I tend to be against the exercise of a power by the federal government that it was never granted to begin with.

Who are these absolutists you speak of? Seen any around here?

Do people that agree with current gun laws count as "absolutists"?


I'm just not seeing many violent incidents that are related to private sales, and I suspect there aren't enough for bloomberg and his ilk to use as examples, or else they would be.

[Euromutt]

21. Who says we don't want to close the so-called "loophole"?

You're going to find that a sizable majority of pro-RKBAers on this forum support background checks, and have zero objection to implementing some kind of scheme whereby sales between private parties can be accompanied by a background check on the buyer. We're just not interested in doing it on the suspiciously limited set of terms the MAIG, Brady Campaign, etc. seem to be willing to accept.

There have been suggestions thrown out to have the ATF run a NICS stand at gun shows where prospective buyers can get a one-day certificate stating that they passed a NICS check on the day in question. There have been suggestions of marking state-issued photo IDs with some kind of mark to identify the bearer as not being prohibited from possessing firearms (not a solution I particularly like, but it's an idea). We're just generally not interested in any approach that a) requires all sales to go through a Type 01 Federal Firearms Licensee (i.e. a licensed dealer), and/or b) involves a registry.

But for some odd reason, the only option MAIG and the Bradies are willing to countenance is requiring every transfer to go through an FFL. Why it's like they're not actually interested in closing the "gun show loophole" at all, but actually want to outlaw private sales. I'm sure that's just me being irrationally paranoid, as we gun owners are wont to be (or so certain people tell me), but that still doesn't answer why the MAIG, Brady Campaign etc. aren't interested in considering other options.

[one-eyed fat man]

25. How far are you going to stretch the Commerce Clause?

Congress gets to tell FFLs they will do background checks because they have a Federal license to do business. They are regulating "interstate commerce" which is a Constitutionally granted power of Congress.

Joe Bagadonuts selling a gun to his neighbor is 'intrastate commerce' which Congress has no authority to regulate. Even if you want to stretch that claim to say that Smith & Wesson revolver got to Arizona in 'interstate commerce' so Congress can meddle in what for any other legal commodity would be an intrastate transaction.

The Smith & Wesson factory is in Springfield, Massachusetts. If Joe's cousin, Josephine in Springfield sells her Smith and Wesson to a coworker, how has that gun moved in interstate commerce?

If the heir of an estate rents a table at a gunshow and liquidates a collection of firearms, how is that interstate commerce and with the regulatory grasp of the Federal government? What other LEGAL solely intrastate sale of personal property is subject to Federal regulation?

We have been down this road before with the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 which made it illegal to possess a gun within a half-mile of a school. The court found the law "in the full reach of its terms, is invalid as beyond the power of Congress under the Commerce Clause."

United States v. Alfonso Lopez, Jr., 514 U.S. 549 (1995) was the first United States Supreme Court case since the New Deal to set limits to Congress's power under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution.

You and the New York Times may not like it, but this is a question for the states. There is nothing that keeps a state from requiring any or all gun sales within its borders go through an FFL and thus a NICS check. To argue otherwise, ignoring the Constitutional limits on a Federal statute, is just pandering to hysteria. Shills calling for "closing the gunshow loophole" know it's deceitful crap, know it's likely unconstitutional, but it sure makes for a dandy soundbite to deceive the unknowing.

[Atypical Liberal]

31. Because the loophole is all that preserves anonymous ownership.

if the gungeon really wants to keep guns out of the hands of lunatics...then why don't they want to close the loophole?

I am all for closing the loophole, as long as it preserves anonymous firearm ownership.

The problem with the current system, which is opt-in, is that everyone who goes through the NICS system is now in a government database as a firearm owner. Yes, in theory the government is not supposed to keep the NICS information. I don't believe it for a second.

Private sales currently provide plausible deniability to anyone in the NICS database. You can simply claim to have sold your firearms privately.

[DissedByBush]

33. What loophole? n/t

[HankyDubs]

14. aw man

seems like I ruined this thread. I'm sowwy.

It was all set to be filled with snarky little remarks...this was going to be a great party until I pooped in the punchbowl.

Here's some interesting reading on opposition to the gun show loophole, though it is from 2001:

http://content.thirdway.org/publications/7/AGS_Report_-_No_Questions_Asked_-_Background_Checks_Gun_Shows_and_Crime.pdf

Some highlights:

-States that do not require
criminal background checks
at gun shows are flooding
the nation with crime guns.

-Nine of the ten states that supply the most
crime guns to out-of-state criminals do not
require background checks at gun shows.

-According to the Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco and Firearms, from 1996 to
1998, gun shows were the nation’s second
leading source of guns recovered in
illegal gun trafficking investigations,
accounting for 26,000 illegal firearms.

-A 15-month investigation of Arizona gun
shows (triggered by a gun being sold to a
convicted murderer) uncovered more
than 1,500 illegally sold firearms.

I suggest that those posters who say criminals dont get their guns at gun shows read this 15 page report.

[beevul]

16. A report by an anti-gun org?

I'll give it as much weight as you give a report from the NRA or GOA.

Which is to say NONE.

[HankyDubs]

17. the report cites statistical evidence

Refusing to even read the piece because it was written by an gun safety group is an admission that you can't refute it based on flaws or misrepresentations. I'd say that's a pretty strong endorsement of the report!

I'll remember this the next time you fellas quote Charles Krauthammer, cite the Heller decision (ruled on by two judges appointed by an illegitimate president) quote right wing think tanks etc etc etc.

[beevul]

19. Ok, you answered my earlier question.

You can't read.

"Refusing to even read the piece because it was written by an gun safety group is an admission that you can't refute it based on flaws or misrepresentations. I'd say that's a pretty strong endorsement of the report!"

I said I'd give it as much weight as you'd give a report from the nra or goa. I didn't say I wouldn't read it.

"I'll remember this the next time you fellas quote Charles Krauthammer, cite the Heller decision (ruled on by two judges appointed by an illegitimate president) quote right wing think tanks etc etc etc."

I'd be happy if you remembered it when relying on republican brady/helmke talking points too.


Of course, a supermajority of the nation agrees on the second amendment, while you rail not against not even the heller decision itself, but those that were involved in making it.

[Euromutt]

22. Okay, I read it

And I'm seeing a couple of problems with the report.

The first is that when it speaks of "crime guns," the actual data is ATF raw trace data (footnote 6, page 6). The problem with that is that not all crime guns are traced, and not all traced guns have been used in crimes, and it's dishonest to conflate the two without explanation, as this report does. It was precisely this kind of behavior that led to the Tiahrt Amendment, which prohibited the ATF from releasing trace data to anyone other than registered law enforcement agencies, and even then only in connection with an ongoing criminal investigation.

The second is that in pp.8-9, where it asserts that gun shows are a "major crime gun source," it makes no distinction between firearms sold by FFLs at gun shows (where they still have to run NICS checks) and firearms sold by private sellers at gun shows. Since the reports already acknowledges on p.3 that "between 50% and 75% of firearms vendors at gun shows are licensed dealers who already must perform background checks under the law" and on p.4 that the National Association of Arms Shows "readily admits that its estimate <of firearms sold> significantly undercounts the number of guns sold by licensed dealers," it cannot be assumed that all these crime guns--or even a significant portion--were necessarily sold at the gun shows in question by private sellers.

One of the report's sources is an ATF report titled Following the Gun (which can be found in .pdf form here: http://www.endgunviolence.com/vertical/Sites/%7BAAEC109F-616F-49FC-8E4C-EDEA9EDD71E9%7D/uploads/%7B1EBD35CD-CF32-475A-AEB4-E6B83049F790%7D.PDF). In contrast to what is implied in AGS report, however, the ATF report states (p.10):

The most frequent type of trafficking channel identified in ATF investigations is straw purchasing from federally licensed firearms dealers. Nearly 50 percent of the ATF investigations involved firearms being trafficked by straw purchasers either directly or indirectly. The investigations also involve trafficking by unlicensed sellers (more than 20 percent); by federally licensed dealers (just under 9 percent); and diversion from gun shows and flea markets by FFLs or unlicensed sellers (about 14 percent).

Emphases in bold mine. So there we have a problem: based on available data (admittedly now over ten years old), some 14% of recovered crime guns entered the criminal circuit via gun shows, but the source at those gun shows includes FFLs, who form 50-75% of firearm vendors at these shows. This, the AGS report conveniently fails to mention.

I suggest that those posters who say criminals dont get their guns at gun shows read this 15 page report.

The two findings are not mutually exclusive. The DoJ report Firearms Use by Offenders (http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf) states that 1.7% of respondents in 1997 said they'd acquired the gun used in the crime for which they were convicted at a flea market or gun show. But that concerns acquisition by the "end user" directly. The ATF report, by contrast, speaks of "diversion from gun shows and flea markets," which allows for situations such a trafficker (or a straw purchaser for the trafficker) acquiring guns at a gun show, then transporting them to another state, and there sells them to the "end user," possibly via a local intermediary. That way, the "end user" would not personally have acquired the firearm at a gun show, even though the gun did enter the criminal circuit that way. Another possible scenario is that the "end user" has a friend or family member go to the gun show for him.

As I say, the DoJ and ATF reports' respective findings don't rule each other out. I will acknowledge that some of my confederates are perhaps a little too eager to interpret the DoJ report's findings as meaning that gun shows are an almost negligible source of firearms to the black market (ignoring the possibility that the gun may travel via an intermediary), but again, the ATF report states that 14% of its investigations into trafficking involved guns that were diverted at gun shows, at least some of which (and possibly many or even most) were bought from FFLs, not from private sellers.

It's quite plausible that the so-called "gun show loophole" (i.e. private sellers at gun shows, as opposed to FFLs at gun shows) is responsible for less than 10% of guns diverted to criminal use, and very possibly less than 5%.

[beevul]

26. About that...

I dunno about him, but me, myself?


I don't think I'd be relying on the atf just now, for...um...anything credible. I think I'd be waiting a while til the dust clears, for that, myself.

[Euromutt]

28. Fair enough, but that only strengthens the argument

When the report from the (now long defunct) Americans for Gun Safety cites the ATF, and closer inspection reveals that what the AGS claims ("gun shows are major source of crime guns") isn't even supported by the ATF's report (14%, and that includes sales by FFLs at gun shows), it should be reasonable conclusive evidence that the AGS report consists of innuendo and distortion to arrive at a pre-determined conclusion.

And mind you, that ATF report was published over ten years ago. Still, I don't understand why the report didn't just divvy up the cases of guns "diverted" from FFLs at gun shows into the categories it had already established of "straw purchases from FFLs" and "trafficking by FFLs," instead of creating this "gun show" category without specifying the breakdown between purchases from FFLs and from private sellers. It's almost as if they were trying to muddy the issue.

[Euromutt]

29. Oh, I forgot to mention one more problem

Throughout, the AGS report makes it sound as if private sellers have a choice not to conduct a background check; the language is consistently along the lines of "private sellers are not required to conduct background checks." Not once does it mention that there is no way for private sellers to perform a background check, as NICS is accessible only to FFLs. Essentially, as the law currently stands, a requirement to conduct a background check on a private sale means a requirement to go through an FFL, who will charge you $35 or more for the privilege.

As an addendum to something I noted earlier, namely that the AGS report states that "between 50% and 75% of firearms vendors at gun shows are licensed dealers," it is curious that on page 4 (the following page), it states that:

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) estimates that as many as one-fourth of all firearms vendors at gun shows are unlicensed <...>

Wait up. "As many as one-fourth" logically implies that at most 25% of firearm vendors are non-FFLs. Yet a page earlier the report states that 50-75% of firearms vendors are FFLs. So if at a given gun show, 50% of the firearms vendors are FFLs, and at most 25% are private sellers, that leaves at least 25% unaccounted for. Does not compute.

[RamboLiberal]

30. In this debate IMHO Columbine is a valid argument

When Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold embarked on their shooting spree at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colo., in 1999, three of the four guns they used were purchased at a gun show by a friend who wasn’t subjected to a background check.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2010/0420/On-Columbine-school-shooting-anniversary-focus-on-gun-loophole

BTW Robyn Anderson the buyer for Harris and Klebold was not charged which I always thought was a crock since Manes & Duran were charged for selling them the Tec-9.

Harris and Klebold later bought a handgun from another friend, Mark Manes, for $500. Manes was jailed after the massacre for selling a handgun to a minor, as was Philip Duran, who had introduced the duo to Manes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_High_School_massacre

Who knows if Manes or Duran would've sold the Tec-9 handgun if they knew a buyer should undergo a background check. Or if Robyn Anderson would've been so willing is she had to undergo a background check.

And advocates of this law should stop labeling it the gun show loophole & properly call it private sale loophole.

[Euromutt]

34. I'm not so sure

Essentially, Harris & Klebold used Manes and Anderson as straw purchasers, and the whole point of straw purchasers is that their records are clean, with nothing to show up in background checks.

If I understand correctly, the decision to prosecute Manes and Duran, but not Anderson, was because the TEC-9 was (legally) a handgun, whereas the shotguns and Hi-Point carbine that Anderson straw purchased were long guns. Still, given that Anderson stated herself on television that the money she had used to buy the guns was Harris & Klebold's, she must have understood she was involved in something of dubious legality at best.

But I don't think a background check would have made any difference. A permanent record of the transaction, maybe, but I don't know that there wasn't one. After all, both Anderson and Manes were tracked down, despite Harris & Klebold not being in any fit state to finger them.