Thursday, April 29, 2010

Private Sellers

Thanks to Laci the Dog who dedicated this video to the folks who didn't think the Tracy Ullman skit was realistic. I'd like to dedicate it to all those who hate the undercover camera bit. I challenge you to look beyond that and consider what is revealed.



What do you think? Are many of the so-called private sellers really in the business of selling guns? Shouldn't those guys be subject to the rules like everybody else?

Please leave a comment.

19 comments:

  1. Again, I say if the gun controllers have such a problem with private sellers, they shouldn't have helped increase the price of an FFL by 600%.

    Lower the price of an FFL back down to $30. That way private sellers can become licensed dealers, do background checks, and be held to the same standards as any other dealer, thus eliminating the "loophole".

    ReplyDelete
  2. And in that case, AztecRed, would you sopport banning private sales?

    ReplyDelete
  3. One problem I have with these videos is that they are so heavily edited that there is no guarantee as to what you are seeing.

    For instance, the guy said he sold 348. 348 what? The video editor would like you to believe it was assault weapons yet there was nothing on the table but one bolt action rifle and a bunch of knives.

    I'm still not convinced any crimes were committed in these "stings" that resulted in no criminal charges or arrests.

    I'm not going to pretend that there are not some out there breaking the law and engaging in the business without a license. I have no doubt that each of the shows mentioned may have contained one or more of them but I have yet to see any evidence and the purported videos are so badly chopped that they could be showing anything.

    ReplyDelete
  4. WFM 'doubts' the authenticity of this video. Surprise, surprise!

    ReplyDelete
  5. He was selling a bunch of SKS's, not any "assault weapons"

    If the video is accurate then why is he not being charged with any crime huh MikeB?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Isn't this engaging in the business of selling firearms without the Federal Firearms License that the law already requires one to have in order to be engaged in the business of selling firearms?

    So isn't that already illegal? Most laws are broken by someone. When we catch them, we arrest them and prosecute them.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Look, it's no big secret that many FFLs sell guns 'under the table.'

    Yes, it's illegal but the chances of them getting caught is practically nil.

    Further, most FFLs will happily sell a gun to a known straw purchaser for a small fee. Again, the chances of getting caught are about none. NRA Member Emeritus Tim McVeigh made a living doing exactly this; he'd work with FFLs as a gun purchaser on behalf of those who couldn't pass a background check or didn't want to.

    --JadeGold

    ReplyDelete
  8. Jadegold: “Yes, it's illegal but the chances of them getting caught is practically nil.”

    Wait… didn’t these guys just get caught? That was pretty easy.

    ReplyDelete
  9. MikeB, I am responding to the "Meaning of Draconian" thread here because that one might be a little stale.

    MikeB: "TS told us about the California gun owner who failed to turn his allen wrench a couple times and became a felon as a result. "I’d call that “cruel”. How about you, MikeB?"

    I wouldn't say "cruel" as much as "excessive." I'd even call it abuse of power on the part of the cop."

    I read about this on a police officer’s forum. Many of the other cops were calling him out on it, calling it “excessive” and mean. The thing is, he was following the letter of the law, and I have a much bigger problem with the law that allows him to make that arrest, than the cop who didn’t give the gun owner a pass. This is why we protest laws like this. We shouldn’t have to leave it up to the discretion of a cop to be a “nice guy”. I wouldn’t think CA’s “assault weapons ban” is draconian if it weren’t for the fact that they make it a felony. That is life altering. Not only do you go to jail, but you lose your gun rights forever, lose your job, lose your whole career, hell- maybe even lose your marriage... that’s draconian.

    ReplyDelete
  10. JadeGold: "Further, most FFLs will happily sell a gun to a known straw purchaser for a small fee."

    This is a new one to me.

    Can you provide some documentation as to the average amount of the "small fee" that most licenced dealers supposedly require to "happily sell a gun to a known straw purchaser"?

    ReplyDelete
  11. "Can you provide some documentation as to the average amount of the 'small fee' that most licenced dealers supposedly require to 'happily sell a gun to a known straw purchaser'?"

    Fishy Jay:

    If you spent half as much time at gun shows that Jade pretends to, you would already know the answer to this question.

    The unlicensed dealers and the straw sellers usually set up between the Nazi display and the Truther Tables.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "The unlicensed dealers and the straw sellers usually set up between the Nazi display and the Truther Tables."

    Right across from the table that sells books showing you how to covert a rifle into a machine gun by filing down the firing pin.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "Again, I say if the gun controllers have such a problem with private sellers, they shouldn't have helped increase the price of an FFL by 600%.

    Lower the price of an FFL back down to $30. That way private sellers can become licensed dealers, do background checks, and be held to the same standards as any other dealer, thus eliminating the "loophole"."

    So, what is the price now, $180 (6 x 30)? Yeah, that's a show stopper alright. Never mind the issue of whether what the guy is doing is legal as far as the firearms business is concerned, the OH sales tax people will put this guy in jail for not paying them their share.

    ReplyDelete
  14. It was enough of a show stopper to reduce the number of privately held FFLs by almost 50%, thus creating the "gun show loophole" in the first place.

    That's pretty standard fare for the gun controller crowd: Push legislation that creates a loophole, then push for even more legislation to close the loophole.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I think there's a lot of exaggerating going on around here.

    One example is JadeGold's "most FFLs will happily sell a gun to a known straw purchaser for a small fee."

    Another example is AztecRed's, "That's pretty standard fare for the gun controller crowd: Push legislation that creates a loophole, then push for even more legislation to close the loophole."

    Maybe "exaggeration" only applies to JadeGold. I'd say "some" not "most" FFLs.

    AztecRed's remark is not so much an exaggeration as a distortion. To claim that gun control laws are responsible for the loophole in the first place is a big stretch, if you ask me.

    ReplyDelete
  16. It's not a stretch MikeB it's basic logic.

    If their is no law to circumvent/exploit their can, by definition, be no loophole.

    ReplyDelete
  17. To claim that gun control laws are responsible for the loophole in the first place is a big stretch, if you ask me.

    There is no loophole. You have admitted as much in previous posts of yours. The only people calling it loopholes are those that are ignorant on the subject or those perpetuating the "lie told often enough". Which are you?

    ReplyDelete
  18. RuffRidr says, "You have admitted as much in previous posts of yours."

    I believe what I've done is admitted "loophole" is not the best word to use to describe what we all understand to mean no background checks needed on private sales. What you seem to like doing is keep bringing us back to the beginning and hang up the whole discussion on the word.

    I have to admit that Mike W. has a point, as much as I hate to do that.

    If there were no laws, there could be no exceptions or "loopholes" if you will.

    Bravo, Mike, so let's do away with all the laws. Is that your idea?

    ReplyDelete
  19. "AztecRed's remark is not so much an exaggeration as a distortion. To claim that gun control laws are responsible for the loophole in the first place is a big stretch, if you ask me."

    It's not much of a stretch at all.

    Years ago, anyone with a clean record could get an FFL for a relatively low cost. If those people could get FFLs today, they would essentially be licensed dealers and have access to the NICS.

    However, the gun controllers along with the support of certain greedy gun dealers campaigned to make FFLs more expensive and harder to qualify for, leading to a lot of people losing their FFL, leaving those individuals no other choice but to sell guns as private sellers. The very private sellers the gun controllers now have a problem with.

    Had the gun controllers not campaigned to make FFLs all but impossible to get, there would be no excuse to be a private seller. Anyone who wanted to sell guns and do it on the up-and-up could get an FFL and do the background checks that the gun controllers desperately want.

    That's why I don't believe the gun controllers want to close the "loophole" for the sake of safety. If they did, they wouldn't have created the "loophole" to begin with.

    There is an ulterior motive, mikeb and I think you know it.

    ReplyDelete