arma virumque cano (et alia)
If a tiny minority of gun shops are selling guns to persons prohibited why not go after the dealers who are breaking the law rather than passing more gun control?
What is an "unlicensed dealer"? What law covers this term? None, no such thing.MikeB, ever notice how you are about the only anti-gunner that allows comments? Why is that do you suppose? These cowards don't even allow YouTube comments and rebuttals for their lies.
"What could possibly motivate someone to oppose closing the gun show loophole?"Same question, same answer: While there are many gunowners who oppose more regulation on rights grounds, there are also many gunowers like me who are willing to compromise on a system that would enable and require private sellers to access the background check system at gun shows. The main obtacle to such compromise has been the intrangience and extremism of gun control advocates. For example: I would consider legislation giving private sellers at gun shows access to the current instant background check system, but gun control advocates want to ABOLISH the instant background check system and replace it with a mandatory waiting period system of 5 days or more, which is unacceptable to gunowners. Also, in some of those states which HAVE required checks at gun shows, gun control advocates have CONTINUED to attack gun showns there by attempting to ban them in the most popular (or sometimes only) locations. This recently occurred in California, and is obviously unacceptable to gunowners. Moderate gunowners are open to reasonable compromise: Background checks for sales by private sellers at gun shows IF gun control advocates agree to NOT abolish the instant check system and NOT continue to attack gun shows. But gun control advocates have NOT been open to reasonable compromise.
Wow, I think FishyJay nailed it...it comes down to the 'give them an inch, they take a yard'. It's the deception of the gun control groups claiming to want one thing (the inch) with the full, long-term intention of taking more.Some examples...requiring a spent shell casing for any firearm sold to 'help solve crimes'. This waste of legislation has never solved a crime. No one has an intelligent way for it to help solve a crime. Yet the legislation was enacted. One can only conclude that there is another agenda for such a thing, such as setting a precedent for making firearm manufacturers go through red tape for each gun manufactured. Taxes on ammunition (always claims various purposes, while the reality is to see how far they can go towards disallowing firearms from the other end). Limitations on materials. Artificial standards of safety, with huge requisite expenses.The similarity is, like the 'gun show loophole', the real goal isn't to do what the legislation claims to do, it's to take another small step toward the real goals.The requirement of background checks for all firearm transactions (something I've actually stated that, done properly, I would support) is seen as a step towards registration (which, I believe has universally eventually led to confiscations, but would need to do more research on it), extended waiting periods, and other incremental annoyances that the control advocates hope will eventually force manufacturers, dealers, and buyers to simply give up.I say to both sides, COME CLEAN (although the anti side would have a much harder time of this...the 'pro' side is mostly 'leave things alone and use the current laws'). Get the real goals and issues out on the table, use real research and statistics, and let's have a REAL conversation about the real issues!
CJ: "Wow, I think FishyJay nailed it..."Thanks. However, I differ with some other gunowner advocates in that I (and many other moderates) would accept closing the "gun show loophole" if it was part of a reasonable compromise.We would need credible assurance from major gun control groups that the new law would not be a step toward abolishing the Instant Check system and making further attacks upon gun shows.Also, the Federal bill by gunowner- hating Sen. Lautenberg is (not surprisingly) unacceptable, making it difficult to hold gun shows at all. The answer? Colorado has a law closing the "gun show loophole." It works fine, without as yet any undue burden on gunowners or gun shows, and any Federal law should be based upon Colorado's.
What about the "gun buy-back" loop hole?You know, where hundreds of firearms change hands with no background check, no questions asked.What's that favorite phase of Helmke's?"No background check, no gun, no excuses."How do you fee about the immunity people would receive if it was discovered that the gun was used in a murder?How do you feel about that evidence being destroyed?
Fishy Jay, You speak as if it's up to the gun control groups to allow or disallow things. I don't think that's true anymore than it's up to the NRA. These would be opposing factions both trying to influence government. The problem is twofold, as I see it.First, the pro-gun community is more involved and more passionate than the gun control people.Second, folks tend to treat this like a battle in which never giving in and never admitting anything is the strategy. I think the pro-gun guys are more prone to this than the gun control guys, but I admit it happens in both camps.
Mikeb: "Fishy Jay, You speak as if it's up to the gun control groups to allow or disallow things. I don't think that's true anymore than it's up to the NRA."Right: It's not up to gun control groups OR the NRA -- it's up to the swing-vote moderate gunowners. And as long as gun control groups pay them only lip service and refuse to negotiate with them, the moderates will come down on the side of the NRA.
I (and many other moderates) would accept closing the "gun show loophole" if it was part of a reasonable compromise.We would need credible assurance from major gun control groups that the new law would not be a step toward abolishing the Instant Check system and making further attacks upon gun shows."Fishjay - The problem with this approach is that gun owners inevitably get screwed. We've seen anti's CA say that certain rifles were OK, then change there mind and require them to be turned in despite the fact that they were legal at the time of purchase (SKS's in the 1980's)When anti's speak of "compromise" what are they giving up? The problem with "compromise" is that we cede more of our rights and then they attack us again. Look at how "compromise" and continually promises that all they wanted was "reasonable gun laws" worked out for gun owners in the UK.The problem with closing the loophole (private sales) is simple. Once they accomplish that all sales MUST go through an FFL. Then it becomes easy to go after the FFL's (fees, further regulations etc.) to reduce their number. Or they can use zoning restrictions like they have in DC, where there's only one FFL operating.If you think that's outlandish remember that Obama supported legislation that would have banned most of the FFL's in this country.
Mike W: When anti's speak of "compromise" what are they giving up?Nothing, of course. When anti's speak of wanting "compromise," it turns out that what they really want is "capitulation."When I speak of "compromise," I am willing to concede some things that other gunowner advocates will not -- but I insist upon reasonable compromise from the gun control side in return. I keep the offer open to be true to my principles, but it sure looks like there won't be anything but more extremism and intrasigence from them anytime soon.So the net effect is that you don't have to worry about me as long as the gun control side is like that -- unless you think that they intend to honestly change(and I have followed this issue long enough to spot the BS and call their bluffs).
How about if I put it this way: closing the gun-show loophole, or better put, requiring background checks on private transfers of guns, does not require compromise. This is the very definition of what some gun control folks always say: common sense gun laws.
I see, so just call the proposal "common sense" and then we don't have to consider compromise?
Why doesn't it require compromise?You want to infringe upon my rights and I won't have it. I know why they want to ban private sales. They want it because then they can focus their assault fully on FFL dealers.My FFL runs his out of his home and he's a small-volume guy, but tack on a few extra fees and requirements and he and other small FFL's will close up shop.Right now I can walk to my FFL's house, but If people have to drive hours to get to the nearest gun shop and that shop charges $50-100 for a simple transfer that goes a long way towards the end goal of anti-gun folks. Reducing civilian ownership of firearms.Look at DC. Due to zoning restrictions there is ONE FFL in the whole city. Kinda hard to buy guns legally when you have very limited access to an FFL and he charges $100 for a transfer. If you're a poor black man then forget about it.
Look at DC. Due to zoning restrictions there is ONE FFL in the whole city.Mike W, you understated the numbers by 100%. There are TWO FFLs in the whole city. The one that will actually do transfers and our good buddy Josh Sugarmann. Since the purpose of the FFL is to buy and sell firearms for a living, can we then assume that Mr. Sugarmann is part of the "dealer problem"?
This is nice video about Loophole Gun Show. It is very informative post for me. There are several benefits that come along once you get class 3 license. First of all you get to purchase NFA weapons tax free and as such you can reap major profits from selling them. Thanks....