a REAL issue

[Inigoes]

I do agree that if you rent a table at a gun show, you should have an FFL so you can sell everything you damn well please. I don't mind people selling unregulated firearms without an FFL as long as all proper rules are followed.

What you said, is straight to the point. Would you like Bloomberg and his minions to have more rules enacted for you to follow?

 

[kalister1]

The term that's been thrown around lately is "Unlicensed Firearm Dealers" or "Unlicensed Gun Dealers".

Meaning you and I are the target of this abomination of legislation.

Well if you compare that to an "Undocumented Alien" Maryland should be all for it, we don't need no stinkin' license......
Maryland wanted to and did give a drivers license to anybody who had a BGE bill, why stop there, give them a business license too!

 

[aquaman]

I dunno about all this, I don't see the 60 votes. That and the fact the supreme court nominee battle is about to start which will consumer the entire summer. Not to even mention bloomberg has zero credibility. Any political capital left will go towards a financial regulation bill before the SCOTUS deal pops off.

 

[HardHatMan]

What you said, is straight to the point. Would you like Bloomberg and his minions to have more rules enacted for you to follow?

No, what I meant was keep the tables open to people who can sell EVERYTHING. Not just a couple .22 rifles and an old 870 that they used to hunt with.

 

[joppaj]

I dunno about all this, I don't see the 60 votes. That and the fact the supreme court nominee battle is about to start which will consumer the entire summer. Not to even mention bloomberg has zero credibility. Any political capital left will go towards a financial regulation bill before the SCOTUS deal pops off.

I agree that this isn't nessesarily feasible, but we need to make sure that gun control remains a political third rail. The fact that they're even trying it means that either they've decided to try something while they still have a majority or they're trying to set the public up to see new laws as "reasonable".

 

[twimc]

Can some explain why this "loophole" shouldnt be closed.
I understand that it will cost more to go through an FFL, but it seems like the antis stand on private sales making it easier for criminals/ illegals/ etc... to get guns has more weight behind it.
While my heart tells me it shouldn't be touched, my more logical side needs some help rationalizing the benefit VS. harm argument. TIA

 

[Inigoes]

Can some explain why this "loophole" shouldnt be closed.
I understand that it will cost more to go through an FFL, but it seems like the antis stand on private sales making it easier for criminals/ illegals/ etc... to get guns has more weight behind it.
While my heart tells me it shouldn't be touched, my more logical side needs some help rationalizing the benefit VS. harm argument. TIA

Private sales are regulated by state law, and to an extent National Law.

Would you like to ask for permission to sale your car/ATV/lawn tractor? All can be considered dangerous weapons if used improperly.

 

[twimc]

Private sales are regulated by state law, and to an extent National Law.

Would you like to ask for permission to sale your car/ATV/lawn tractor? All can be considered dangerous weapons if used improperly.

I think thats to simple a reason.
The way i see it, Its not stopping someone from selling or buying, it just makes it mandatory that both party's involved are legal.

Kinda like checking ones ID before selling them alcohol................... Maybe instead of a FFL, people could apply for a traders license of sort. It would allow seller an buyer to verify the legality of the other individual while keeping gov out of the individual transfers.

 

[HardHatMan]

I think thats to simple a reason.
The way i see it, Its not stopping someone from selling or buying, it just makes it mandatory that both party's involved are legal.

Kinda like checking ones ID before selling them alcohol................... Maybe instead of a FFL, people could apply for a traders license of sort. It would allow seller an buyer to verify the legality of the other individual while keeping gov out of the individual transfers.

How would that keep the government out of the transaction? All "quick" checks are done with the NICS (National Instant Criminal Background Check System:

It is linked to the National Crime Information Center and the Interstate Identification Index among other databases maintained by the FBI.

There is no way to keep the government out of background checks.

 

[BenL]

Can some explain why this "loophole" shouldnt be closed.
I understand that it will cost more to go through an FFL, but it seems like the antis stand on private sales making it easier for criminals/ illegals/ etc... to get guns has more weight behind it.
While my heart tells me it shouldn't be touched, my more logical side needs some help rationalizing the benefit VS. harm argument. TIA

"Death by 1000 cuts", "slippery slope", "camel's nose", "give an inch, they take a mile", "sorites paradox", etc... Pick your favorite metaphor.

 

[pcfixer]

What is the loophole exactly?

I feel like that if you had a beef jerky convention and called it a gun show there would still be someone talking about loopholes.

The anti's call it a loophole. In reality it private sales between two
private citizens. Also can including to give your 15 year old grandson
your favorite rifle as a present.

 

[twimc]

I have no problem with National Criminal Background Check for buying a gun.

But what I was thinking of coud be as follows.
If you want to buy / sell guns via private sales you apply foe the traders license.

Maybe that license is good for 5 to 10 years.

During that time you can but / sell to anybody that is licensed w/o needing a FFL

If you wish to buy/sell from an unlicensed person you go the FFL route.

After 5-10 years you get another background check if you want to keep your license if not it expires like a drivers license.

All sales between "gun traders" can be treated like regular private property.

I think something like that could effectively "close the loop" while keeping the gov out of each individual sale (which i think is the real concern)

 

[oather]

Can some explain why this "loophole" shouldnt be closed.
I understand that it will cost more to go through an FFL, but it seems like the antis stand on private sales making it easier for criminals/ illegals/ etc... to get guns has more weight behind it.
While my heart tells me it shouldn't be touched, my more logical side needs some help rationalizing the benefit VS. harm argument. TIA

It is illegal to sell to any of those people. It is your responsibility as a seller to verify as much info as you can about the person you are selling to.

 

[oather]

But what I was thinking of coud be as follows.
If you want to buy / sell guns via private sales you apply foe the traders license.

What part of "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" don't you understand?

What you are proposing can't be legally justified using any foundational documents in this country. I don't ASK permission from the ****ing Fed.Gov to sell my personal property.

 

[HardHatMan]

What part of "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" don't you understand?

What you are proposing can't be legally justified using any foundational documents in this country. I don't ASK permission from the ****ing Fed.Gov to sell my personal property.

+1

 

[pcfixer]

What part of "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" don't you understand?

What you are proposing can't be legally justified using any foundational documents in this country. I don't ASK permission from the ****ing Fed.Gov to sell my personal property.

Well Said. +2

 

[twimc]

It is illegal to sell to any of those people. It is your responsibility as a seller to verify as much info as you can about the person you are selling to.

Ok Its my responsibility..... so am i going to do a background check on them...NO, Do i know if they are mentally unstable...NO The most i can do is check there id to see if they are old enough. So how does that do anything?

What part of "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" don't you understand?

What you are proposing can't be legally justified using any foundational documents in this country. I don't ASK permission from the ****ing Fed.Gov to sell my personal property.

So I should be able to have a working tank, or a couple of GTA missiles, or a nuke, or a felon should own a fully auto, or i should be able to carry around C4 and nitroglycerin....... its infringed.

Setting up a system that would allow one party to know the legality of the other is not infringement. How we can responsibly accomplish this is the question.

 

[Inigoes]

Ok Its my responsibility..... so am i going to do a background check on them...NO, Do i know if they are mentally unstable...NO The most i can do is check there id to see if they are old enough. So how does that do anything?

It is actually you're personal responsibility. When the ATF does a trace on how a felon got a firearm, they can possibly trace the firearm to you. Personally, I like to know whom, I actually am selling a firearm too.

So I should be able to have a working tank, or a couple of GTA missiles, or a nuke, or a felon should own a fully auto, or i should be able to carry around C4 and nitroglycerin....... its infringed.

Actually, you can own them. Dynamite used to be bought at the local hardware store, it was no biggy. To this day you can buy binary explosives.

The only thing I disargee with is the felon; once convicted, you should lose some rights, as a deterent.

 

[BenL]

So I should be able to have a working tank, or a couple of GTA missiles, or a nuke, or a felon should own a fully auto, or i should be able to carry around C4 and nitroglycerin....... its infringed.

Interesting... you use the same Reductio ad absurdum arguments that anti's use.

The biggest problem with your argument (besides the fact that it's rhetoric and ridiculous) is that no "license" is required for other rights outlined in the bill of rights. For instance, you don't need a license to practice religion and you don't need a license to enjoy free speech.

 

[twimc]

It is actually you're personal responsibility. When the ATF does a trace on how a felon got a firearm, they can possibly trace the firearm to you. Personally, I like to know whom, I actually am selling a firearm too.....

So you do background checks before you sell a firearm privately ?

And do you honestly believe the majority of people that have privately sold firearms, only did so after a background check of the buyer?

The case goes cold as soon i you say "but i sold it to Joe blow..."