Gun show loop hole

[GMtoblat]

Was finding something to watch last night and saw on HBO a documentary on gun rights. I cant remeber what it was called i caught the tail end of it but it intrigued me. I'm still new to the civilian gun world and have yet to go through the process of buying a gun. The show tried to portray both sides but seemed a lean a little more towards anti-gun focusing on inner-city gun violence. but a point was brought up about the gun show loop hole. about how non-private sellers i.e. gun shops had to do a back round check to sell a gun and if you were a private collector there is no such requirement. the anti-gun lobbyist were atleast trying to close this loop hole. any thoughts on the subject?

 

[Pinchaser]

 

[OneBadV8]

It's a private sale between two citizens. It's not only at gun shows. Its no different than selling a gun to your neighbor. The Libs want everyone to have to pay a gun shop to "transfer" ownership. The term "Gun Show Loophole" is their attempt at fear mongering.

All about more control, its the dumbest thing ever.

 

[GMtoblat]

but why the double standard?

 

[OneBadV8]

but why the double standard?

Because they're liberals. If it weren't for double standards they wouldn't have any standards at all.

 

[cosermann]

A "loophole" is liberal code talk for anything that's perfectly fine and legal, but that they'd like to be made illegal.

It's like saying the tax deduction for mortgage interest is a tax "loop hole."

Repeat after me 5 times:
There's no such thing as the gun show "loophole."
There's no such thing as the gun show "loophole."
There's no such thing as the gun show "loophole."
There's no such thing as the gun show "loophole."
There's no such thing as the gun show "loophole."

A REAL loop hole is an untended ambiguity, omission, or technicality in the system that allows someone to avoid the clear intent of the system.

Things that are simply and intentionally NOT covered by a system, are NOT loopholes.

Things that are outside the scope of a law are NOT loopholes.

Furthermore, things that are specifically allowed, like the mortgage interest deductions are NOT loopholes.

By constantly casting things they don't like as "loopholes," liberals try to portray those engaged in related practices as something less than honorable. It attempts to portray people as "taking advantage" of something, or "sneaking around" a requirement.

As with most other liberal tactics, it is reprehensible and I'm calling them on it.

The gun show "loophole" is simply ==>> private sales.

Liberals are advocating for expanding legislation to cover private sales at the Federal level. That's what it is - plain and simple. Calling it a "loophole" is disengenuous.

AND IT'S NOT A LOOPHOLE!

 

[GMtoblat]

is it so bad to make sure the person your selling a gun to is not at least a felon? there is a form of backround check on INGO. "WTS suchnsuch....must see drivers license and/or LTCH"

 

[GMtoblat]

ok its not a loophole but again is it so wrong to make sure your not a felon before selling you a gun?

 

[T.Lex]

but why the double standard?

It isn't a double standard - it is 2 separate standards for 2 separate situations.

Do you pay sales tax on services? (No - well, not in Indiana at least.) Different rules for different situations.

(We could get into the constitutional role of the federal government and try to figure out how a private transaction between individuals has any measurable impact on inter-state commerce, but people would end up falling asleep.)

ETA:
Who says the private seller might not still be liable for selling a firearm to a felon? That's why in many private sale transactions in Indiana, the seller will ask to see the buyer's LTCH. If the buyer has that, it is strong evidence that they are not a felon.

 

[GMtoblat]

It isn't a double standard - it is 2 separate standards for 2 separate situations.

Do you pay sales tax on services? (No - well, not in Indiana at least.) Different rules for different situations.

(We could get into the constitutional role of the federal government and try to figure out how a private transaction between individuals has any measurable impact on inter-state commerce, but people would end up falling asleep.)

i disagree, its not two seperate situations, a gun is still being transferred. and im not talking about taxing im just saying haveing some sort a reciept that you did a backround check. would you want to sell to a person if you knew he was a felon?

 

[chris46131]

ok its not a loophole but again is it so wrong to make sure your not a felon before selling you a gun?

Just because something might be a good idea doesn't mean there should be a law passed about it.

 

[OneBadV8]

ok its not a loophole but again is it so wrong to make sure your not a felon before selling you a gun?

You're supposed to already. It's illegal to sell a firearm to someone who can't legally possess one.

 

[DThurston]

ok its not a loophole but again is it so wrong to make sure your not a felon before selling you a gun?

Citizens are completely free to use a dealer for precisely this reason.
However, current federal and IN law prohibits citizens from running those same b/g checks. In other words, I CAN'T do it on my own, even if I want to. I HAVE to use a dealer, who has no reason to do it for free (takes time, log storage, etc), so it increases costs to the buyer and/or lowers return for the seller.

 

[OneBadV8]

Just because something might be a good idea doesn't mean there should be a law passed about it.

Government shouldn't have to mandate common sense. That's like saying the state should pass a law requiring training for a License to Carry a Handgun. Is it a good idea? Yes, should it be required by the Gov't? No.

 

[GMtoblat]

ETA:
Who says the private seller might not still be liable for selling a firearm to a felon? That's why in many private sale transactions in Indiana, the seller will ask to see the buyer's LTCH. If the buyer has that, it is strong evidence that they are not a felon.[/QUOTE]


thats what im trying to get at, its already being done to a point so would it be so bad to make it a law that even private sellers have to make sure that they arent selling to "the bad guys"

 

[rockhopper46038]

It's not a loophole, it's a legal transaction between two individuals. Just like buying a bike. The only people who think it's a loophole are those that wish to restrict the 2nd Amendment.

 

[shibumiseeker]

It is illegal to knowingly sell a gun to a felon. As a felon it is illegal (in most cases) to be in possession of a gun.

It is a federal law that a firearms dealer do paperwork and a NICS check on buyers. It is not a law that private individuals do so. This is not a loophole.

Much gun control has been done through regulation and legislation, and much posturing on both sides of the political spectrum has been about it, but there has not been much enforcement of existing gun laws and regulations, so why on earth would one believe that MORE will make a difference?

Many of us feel that most of the existing gun laws violate the spirit, if not the letter, of the second amendment and are not in favor of more, especially when there is no demonstrable gain. As has been said many times, gun control is about control.

 

[OneBadV8]

thats what im trying to get at, its already being done to a point so would it be so bad to make it a law that even private sellers have to make sure that they arent selling to "the bad guys"

You want the Gov't telling you how things have to be done? It's just going to lead to even more restrictions and possibly taxes.

It's already illegal for a Felon to posses a firearm. You should just ask to see a LTCH and call it good. If they don't have a license to Carry they either should get one or can't own a gun.

 

[GMtoblat]

Government shouldn't have to mandate common sense. That's like saying the state should pass a law requiring training for a License to Carry a Handgun. Is it a good idea? Yes, should it be required by the Gov't? No.

there are a lot of laws that mandate common sense...its illegal to rob a bank, steal someones identity. theres alot people out there who dont use common sense, people are stupid, i.e. Costas you could go on and on, point is people dont use common sense

 

[shibumiseeker]

there are a lot of laws that mandate common sense...its illegal to rob a bank, steal someones identity. theres alot people out there who dont use common sense, people are stupid, i.e. Costas you could go on and on, point is people dont use common sense

And this can be fixed through more laws?

Personally I'd rather see stupidity carry the penalty it used to.