Ohio Gun Show Arrests - Buyers not Sellers

[mikeb302000]

http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/crime/gun-show-buys-lead-to-arrests-1225442.html">The Dayton Daily News reports

Two years after a local gun show was a target of a New York City investigation highlighting a loophole in federal firearms laws, local authorities arrested four men Saturday on a variety of weapons violations.

The operation targeted “private” or “occasional” sellers and buyers at Bill Goodman’s Gun & Knife Show at the Hara Arena on Saturday. Under federal laws, licensed firearms dealers must conduct background checks on those purchasing weapons. Private sellers, however, are not covered by the requirement.

You see how it works? You break no laws of you sell guns to people who verbally say they are not disqualified. It's that simple. And you can claim to be responsible and law-abiding, and you'd be right.

That's why the law has to change and must be aimed at the law-abiding not the criminals. In this case I would call the private gun sellers "hidden criminals," whose numbers are legion among the law-abiding citizens who own guns. Gun owners who are truly responsible should be the first ones crying for tighter restrictions on this obvious "loophole" in the law. We need to make the "hidden criminals" choose sides.

What's your opinion? Should private gun sales be regulated much like those done by FFL dealers? In order to be effective, wouldn't there need to be licensing of gun owners and registration of guns? Wouldn't initiatives like those put a crimp in the gun flow into the criminal world?

http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/">(cross posted at Mikeb302000)

Please leave a comment.

[TheWraith]

1. Gun shows are already regulated EXACTLY like those done by FFL dealers.

Because they're governed by the same laws. Your blog-flogging and tired, factually wrong arguments notwithstanding.

[iverglas]

50. don't you feel foolish when you make yourself look like you can't READ?

The operation targeted “private”
or “occasional” sellers and buyers

Cripes, I just had eye surgery, and I could see it in regular font.

THOSE sellers are NOT "governed by the same laws" as "FFL dealers".

Your statement:

Gun shows are already regulated EXACTLY like those done by FFL dealers.

doesn't even make sense. FFL dealers sell guns. Gun shows do not sell guns.


Those sellers are "private" / "occasional" ... or at least purport to be. Gathered together in a big gun supermarket where people can shop for what they want and get it with no background check.

How come you think this is a good idea?

Okay, I'm assuming you think it's a good idea. If you don't, that's fine, just say so.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

2. Several problems what you propose

The main ones is that private sales are legal and there is no way for a private seller to access the existing tools to verify a buyer is indeed not disqualified. You could try and ban private sales but that leads to a host of other issues. It is not a loophole, it is there by design and it is quite legitimate.

To call citizens behaving legally "hidden criminals" is more hyperbolic nonsense from you. They are law abiding citizens and should not be demonized in the least, especially by someone with no skin in the game. Targeting the legal gun owners for additional repression makes about as much sense as penalizing teetotalers for people driving drunk. A more effective approach is to raise the penalties for gun crimes and not plea bargain them out.

Mandatory registration has failed in Canada and in parts of the US where it was tried. It is a long dead horse. Beating it from overseas is not going to change anything. It has done nothing to impact the criminal use of guns.

The NYC extra territorial nonsense should get Bloomie charged and jailed. It could happen if he tries that trick in the southern states again. NYC's repressive classist and racist anti gun rights laws need to go away.

Nothing in your screed will help in the least.


Unrec'd for blog spamming

[mikeb302000]

3. let's call it "private sale loophole" then n/t

[YllwFvr]

6. Ive done plenty of private sales myself

Just not at a gun show. Only purchased magazines at shows. Pistols require a background check, but not rifles or shotguns here. Like I saw another say, its not a loophole when it was put there by design.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

12. It's not a loophole at all though... so how about we just call them "private sales"

A loophole is an end-around, or technical/legal circumvention, around an existing law that would have otherwise applied to a particular situation. There has never been a law requiring private citizens to verify the purchasers honesty in the sale of a gun. If it is a "loophole" as you seem so intent on (mis)labelling it, then certainly you should be able to tell us what specific laws are being circumvented that would otherwise normally have applied.

Background Checks and records keeping are only an additional requirement for people who have additional licensing from the ATF (FFL). FFLs have greater access to factory-new firearms so naturally there are greater restrictions voluntarily undertaken by them for that privilege. FFL licensing, and it's ATF governed restrictoins, are the exceptions to the established firearms laws... they are not the standard.

[Hoopla Phil]

14. Under what authority does the Federal government regulate private

sales?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

16. Again no loophole, it is expressly in the law

[AtheistCrusader]

18. We've been suggesting that for years.

Then again, it illustrates it isn't actually a loophole.

[PavePusher]

20. Again with the "loophole" shtick....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk

Put the cudgel down, the equine is long expired.

[mikeb302000]

34. all you geniuses keep the focus on the word

"loophole" and whether it applies to this or not. Call it whatever you want, but the point is very clear to you guys, you keep dodging it. NO GUN TRANSFERS WITHOUT A BACKGROUND CHECK. That's what we're talking about, but you knew that.

Those of us who are more interested in communicating in English than disrupting the communication, often use the term "gun show loophole." Everyone knows what is meant. That's called communication. The ones who only want to block the discussion all line up to argue if the word is used rightly.

[X_Digger]

40. No, it's called 'framing the debate'

It doesn't work with fundies ('pro-abortion'/'pro-life') and it doesn't work with your feeble attempt.

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DanTex]

63. Actually, "loophole" is the correct word here. And "gun show loophole" is also appropriate.

No need to avoid words and phrases just because the pro-gun horde doesn't know their meaning.

loophole
1. an ambiguity, omission, etc., as in a law, by which one can avoid a penalty or responsibility

So, first off, the fact that it is legal to buy a gun from a private seller at a gun show without an IBC doesn't mean it's not a loophole. In fact, that's exactly what makes it a loophole -- that you can stay within the letter of the law, but violate the intent of the law, which is to is to prevent people from buying a gun without passing a background check.

One could argue that it should be called the "private sales loophole". But gun shows are a common venue where many people exploit this ability to purchase a gun without an IBC (e.g. the guns used in Columbine), so the term "gun show loophole" is also appropriate.

Actually, describing loopholes based on how they are exploited is very common. You've probably heard of the "hedge fund tax loophole", which allows hedge fund managers to pay lower tax rates despite earning huge amounts. The tax law here doesn't explicitly mention hedge funds, so you could argue that it should be called the "capital gains tax loophole". But one common and egregious use of this loophole involves hedge fund managers, which justifies the name.


In any case, the most important point here is the the ability to avoid IBCs via private sales facilitates the diversion and trafficking of illegal guns. Closing the loophole would have essentially no effect on anyone except for people who can't pass a background check and want guns, and people who want to sell guns to others who can't pass background checks. One has to wonder why the NRA types are so protective of both these kinds of people.

[RSillsbee]

80. Incorrect

So, first off, the fact that it is legal to buy a gun from a private seller at a gun show without an IBC doesn't mean it's not a loophole. In fact, that's exactly what makes it a loophole -- that you can stay within the letter of the law, but violate the intent of the law, which is to is to prevent people from buying a gun without passing a background check.

Private sale or not it is still illegal for a prohibited person to buy a gun. It is just as illegal to sell a gun to a person you know is prohibited from owning one.

In any case, the most important point here is the the ability to avoid IBCs via private sales facilitates the diversion and trafficking of illegal guns. Closing the loophole would have essentially no effect on anyone except for people who can't pass a background check and want guns, and people who want to sell guns to others who can't pass background checks. One has to wonder why the NRA types are so protective of both these kinds of people.

How do you proposed to enforce this w/out registration?

[DanTex]

81. Actually, what I said was correct.

You can, in fact, buy a gun from a private seller at a gun show without an IBC. That is a loophole, because if you went to an FFL you would need to pass an IBC. Closing the loophole means requiring IBCs for private sales a gun shows. This all seems pretty straightforward, and I'm not sure what you are confused about or object to.

There are a number of ways to require IBCs for private sales, either just at gun shows, or for all private sales. One method is to require all private sales to go through an FFL (I believe CA does this). Yes, people could just ignore the law, but that would require two separate parties to break the law. The way it is now, a law abiding seller can sell a gun to a criminal buyer -- only the buyer needs to break the law, and the seller will never know about it. If you require IBCs, criminal buyers will no longer be able to buy guns from law abiding sellers, thus reducing the ease with which guns are diverted to criminals.

Actually, I would support registration, at least for handguns, because that would make it even more difficult for guns to be diverted to criminals. Registration would make it hard for a person with a clean record to buy guns from FFLs and sell them to criminals, something that requiring IBCs alone would not do (the seller would just not conduct the IBC).

[RSillsbee]

82. Closing the loophole means requiring IBCs for private sales a gun shows.

This is what happens now in Colorado and no, it's not that much of an inconvenience at a gunshow It would would be a major frigging hassle outside a gunshow though. It would also be a hassle to the gun dealers who would have to accommodate the influx of people needing a BGC.

And as I said earlier it doesn't seem to be having an impact on crime here either so what's the point?


Serious question, have you ever been to a gun show? I'm going to one tomorrow (to buy sunglasses) I won't try to prove this but I bet if I walk into that building and throw a rock it will hit a cop.

Not the environment I imagine for criminal dealings

[DanTex]

83. An even better idea.

A license/registration system. To get a gun license you need to pass a background check. For a private sale, you just need to check the buyer's license, and then report the transaction to get the registration transferred. That way you don't even need to go to an FFL every time. Also, even more effective than the FFL idea for cutting down on diversion to criminal markets. This way, if you want to sell to the black market, the guns will still be registered in your name, unless you report them all as lost or stolen, which will start to look fishy after a while.

Regarding the impact on crime, the fact that you haven't noticed an impact doesn't mean the law isn't having an effect. And, as I'm sure you know, the Columbine guns were purchased at a gun show, and one of the purchasers has stated that if she had to pass an IBC, she wouldn't have gone through with the purchase.

More importantly, a lot of things affect crime rates, and it's just silly to argue that this law is having no effect just because you haven't noticed a drop in crime with your naked eyes. For example, during the GWBush decade, poverty went up, as did the percent of population living in urban areas, while crime rates dropped. Nevertheless, basically all people who know anything about crime agree that poverty and urbanization both cause higher, not lower crime rates. Is this a contradiction? Not at all. It just means that if poverty had dropped rather then increased, then crime rates would likely have gone down even more. Nobody finds any of this particularly controversial. I'm pretty sure you understand what I just described pretty well, and you would probably agree that the fact that poverty went up and crime went down doesn't disprove the link between poverty and increased crime. Correct me if I'm wrong.

But then when it comes to gun restrictions, the pro-gun side resorts to superficial grade-school level arguments.

I would actually guess that Colorado's crime rates have actually dropped since the gun show loophole was closed there. If I wanted to play silly games, I could pretend that this drop in crime was all due to the change in the gun law. But it's not, because as I said there are many factors. It is a fact, though, that requiring IBCs for private sales does stop a certain number of guns from being diverted to criminals. And the more difficult it is for criminals to get guns, the less gun crimes.

[RSillsbee]

84. Have you ever heard the saying "When Hell freezes over"?

Well, I'll support registration when Hell freezes solid.

Regarding the impact on crime, the fact that you haven't noticed an impact doesn't mean the law isn't having an effect.

Very true.

And, as I'm sure you know, the Columbine guns were purchased at a gun show, and one of the purchasers has stated that if she had to pass an IBC, she wouldn't have gone through with the purchase. (html issue)

The person you're talking about bought the guns legally she was one of the shooters ( both minors) adult girlfriend. Whether she wanted to take a BCG or not she would have passed one.

But then when it comes to gun restrictions, the pro-gun side resorts to superficial grade-school level arguments.

Let's keep it civil.

I would actually guess that Colorado's crime rates have actually dropped since the gun show loophole was closed there.

I keep hearing that but it seems to me that the crime rate is going up period

[DanTex]

85. There I agree.

There's no chance of a national gun registration program anytime in the forseeable future, regardless of what you or I think. There is a slim chance of getting a nationwide requirement for BCs at gun shows, but I'd say the odds are pretty low. This is despite the fact that requiring BCs at gun shows polls at 85%, and a handgun registry polls easily over 50% (around 65% IIRC). Such is special interest politics. The public option also polled well over 50%, along with raising taxes on the wealthy. And the recent debt limit "compromise" is to the right of even what Republicans voters want, according to polls. The Dems are doing something wrong...

The person you're talking about bought the guns legally she was one of the shooters ( both minors) adult girlfriend. Whether she wanted to take a BCG or not she would have passed one.
Yes, but she very clearly stated that she would not have purchased the guns if she had to go through a BC. Whether she would have passed is irrelevant. There would have been no BC, because the very requirement of a BC would have been enough to dissuade her from making the purchase.

You might argue that, if not for the gun show loophole, the shooters would have gotten the guns some other way. Maybe so, maybe not. But they definitely would not have gotten the guns the way they did. Whether Columbine would still have happened depends on how dedicated they were, and how easy the next-best source of acquiring a gun would have been. Put another way, of every 100 potential Columbines, closing the gun show loophole would have prevented some of them. How many? Maybe 20, maybe 50, maybe 80, there's no way to know exactly. But it's definitely more than 0 (and also less than 100, granted).

Let's keep it civil.
Fair enough.

I keep hearing that but it seems to me that the crime rate is going up period
I don't know this for a fact, so don't quote me. Just that the national trend is lower crime, so my guess would be there's less in CO as well.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

89. No, what you said is absolutely incorrect.

Forget the location of the purchase - ultimately what it comes down to is it is a private sale. Private sales, by law, are exempt from NICS checks - in fact, a private seller is not permitted to do a NICS check. Period.

There is no loophole - it is in fact absolute compliance with the law.

The fact that one can meet a private seller at a gun show is irrelevant. It is no different than meeting a private seller at a car show. It does not magically make him a dealer. It makes him a guy with a piece of property he chooses to sell.

Registration, besides being illegal, is impossible to implement. Ask Canada how well that has worked.

[SteveM]

22. The label "hidden criminals" must be used to maintain culture war. nt

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

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

[baldguy]

4. The myth of the "responsible gun owner".

The same laws which allow people these "fine, upstanding citizens" to purchase weapons easily also allow criminals to purchase weapons easily - as investigations of gun shows have repeatedly proven.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

13. And which investigations are those?

I'm sure you have actual facts to back up your claim....

[SteveM]

23. A "myth" you must promulgate to further culture war at all costs...

Again, it's all you got. Clear?

[Atypical Liberal]

27. As I recall...

As I recall, current data indicates that hardly any convicted criminals who used firearms during the commission of a crime obtained their firearms from gun shows.

Ah, here it is:

[baldguy]

30. Look at all those "responsible gun owners" letting their felon friends & relatives use their guns.

Thank you for proving my point so thoroughly.

[petronius]

31. I thought your 'point' had something to do with gun shows?

:shrug:

[X_Digger]

32. Where do you see 'let'?!?

If there was any 'letting' involved, it would fall under 'borrowed or given'.. 3.4%

[iverglas]

57. so what's your theory?

If there was any 'letting' involved, it would fall under 'borrowed or given'.. 3.4%

And if there was any stealing involved, it would have fallen under "theft or burglary".

Perhaps the large percentage whose source was "family or friend" got theirs by osmosis, a category the survey seems to have omitted.

Not yer best-designed survey, was it, then?

[iverglas]

86. chirp?

[X_Digger]

88. Must've missed it the first time around..

Definitely not the best designed survey, but it doesn't support the point that baldguy was attempting to make. It seems to mix 'source' and 'means'.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[baldguy]

39. I see Godwin is alive & well in the gungeon.

Taking statements from years ago out of context & twisting their meaning.

[Atypical Liberal]

42. You assume that someone "let" them use their guns.

Look at all those "responsible gun owners" letting their felon friends & relatives use their guns. Thank you for proving my point so thoroughly.

I would assume that if friends and relatives had "let" someone use their guns, this would fall under the 3.4% of guns "borrowed or given".

Almost certainly this 35.4% from "friends or family" was not a voluntary use of the firearm. Instead, they likely know that dad or uncle bob has a gun, and just steal it.

But this is neither here nor there. The OP was about how criminals get their guns from gun shows. And they hardly ever do. This should not be surprising. Why would criminals go to the highly controlled, police-monitored gun show to pay market prices for firearms?

[mikeb302000]

35. but they obtained them without background checks n/t

[Atypical Liberal]

41. But not in significant numbers.

but they obtained them without background checks

Yes, but not in any significant numbers.

What this shows is that all the pearl-clutching over criminals buying guns at gun shows is unfounded. Very few criminals buy their guns at gun shows.

But this should not be surprising. Why would a criminal go to a highly regulated environment, with an active police presence, to pay market prices for a gun? It seems, from the data, that most criminals know where dad or uncle bob keep their guns, and steal theirs instead.

So the hysteria about needing to "close the gun show loophole" is unfounded.

[iverglas]

52. I just love how the word of convicted firearms offenders is gospel around here

I mean, it's not just the reliability of the source, it's the ridiculous idea that this kind of survey is proof of anything other than what the people in this very, um, élite little group said.

If somebody surveyed me and my neighbours about where we get our vegetables and we said "our backyard gardens", would this be some sort of proof that nobody gets their vegetables from grocery stores? :eyes:

How about some legitimate, verifiable information? This one is a little long in the tooth now ... hey, maybe things have changed ...

http://www.atf.gov/publications/download/treas/treas-gun-shows-brady-checks-and-crime-gun-traces.pdf

In addition to analyzing the ATF investigations, ATF supplemented the information with data from the NTC. Approximately 254 individuals identified in the ATF gun show-related investigations were checked against data in the Firearms Tracing System and related data bases. Of these, 44 appeared in the multiple purchase records with an average of 59 firearms per person. Of the 44 individuals, 15 were associated with 50 or more multiple sale firearms; these individuals had a total of 188 crime guns traced to them, an average of approximately 13 firearms each. The largest number of multiple sales firearms associated with one individual was 472; this individual had 53 crime guns traced to him. These patterns are not in and of themselves proof of trafficking. Rather, they are indicators investigators use to assist in trafficking investigations.

It is difficult to determine the precise extent of criminal activities at gun shows, partly because of the lack of obligations upon unlicensed vendors to keep any records. Nevertheless, the information obtained from the ATF investigations demonstrates that criminals are able to obtain firearms with no background check and that crime guns are transferred at gun shows with no records kept of the transaction.

But oops, it can be a little difficult to get more up to date information.

http://www.wheredidtheguncomefrom.com/pages/illegalGun.html

Until 2002, the ATF released aggregate crime gun trace reports to local police departments, researchers, policymakers and public safety advocates. The reports revolutionized our understanding of where crime guns come from. They revealed for the first time that 1.2% of federally licensed gun dealers supply 57% of the guns used in crime. Bowing to pressure from the gun lobby, Congress voted to restrict police access to crime gun trace data and cut off public access altogether. These restrictions, known as the Tiahrt Amendments (named for the Kansas Congressman who sponsored the bill), have passed in every Department of Justice budget since 2003, despite the fact that prominent law enforcement associations oppose them as a serious threat to public safety.

Gotta love them gun militants and their hired guns. Law enforcement and public safety -- right at the top of their list of concerns!

And hey, once out of the the gun show, it's have gun, will travel.

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/westcoastnews/story.html?id=eacb8f20-4cad-45cd-b758-9a6f3fef505e

Firearms in Bacon's vehicle were purchased in United States

Three of four loaded guns found in a vehicle driven by Jamie Bacon in April 2007 were bought in Washington state and later resold at gun shows or traded for other guns, a document filed in Surrey Provincial Court says.

By Vancouver Sun December 14, 2010

... The first Glock was bought from the Cascadia Armament Corp on Jan. 31, 2006, by a man who told investigators he resold it later in 2006 at a gun show in Puyallup, Washington "to an older white male whom he had seen at previous gun shows." He had no receipt for the sale, the report said.

The second Glock was bought in May 2003 by a guard who lives in Seattle and told police he resold the gun in March 2004 to a man who claimed he sold it at a Washington Arms Collector gun show in Puyallup. He couldn't provide the ATF with documentation of the sale.

http://www2.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=3d5c6c9e-a648-4e5d-9278-9be49ce7a882&p=3

Brothers in crime

Police investigators say Jonathan, Jarrod and Jamie Bacon of Abbotsford illustrate the extreme violence of gangster life in B.C. Their father says they are innocent.

... Jamie pleaded guilty to robbery in 2007 in connection with a 2005 home invasion where a man was confined in his Abbotsford home and robbed of marijuana plants and growing-operation equipment. He was sentenced to time served.

At one point, the Bacons were associated with the United Nations gang, but later broke away from the group. Jonathan Bacon was connected to a cross-border marijuana smuggling operation using helicopters, in which a young woman died in a crash. He was never charged.

More recently, the Bacons have been closely aligned with a drug gang called the Red Scorpions, members of which The Sun revealed are suspects in the slaughter of six people -- including two bystanders -- in a Surrey apartment building last October.

The Bacon Bros. couldn't get the guns they needed in Canada, legally or illegally, so they imported them from the United States. Canada and Canadians thank you, Washington State.

[baldguy]

72. The Gun Lobby's policies support criminals getting guns.

[iverglas]

51. my goodness, you're right

No "family or friend" could ever have got the bleeding thing from a gun show ... no borrowed or given gun ever came from a gun show ... no gun obtained on the black market ever came from a gun show ... no gun obtained from a drug dealer ever came from a gun show ...

Has anyone ever said that street-level criminals who end up in prison buy their own guns at gun shows?

Gun shows ARE a source for trafficked guns (some of which DO end up on my streets). What sort of idiot would try to deny this?

The person who got caught with the gun didn't do go shopping at a gun show for it. Somebody else did that for them, and then sold it on. Nice little earner, gun trafficking.

[ileus]

5. Law must be aimed at the law-abiding not the criminals......what law isn't?

[Hoyt]

7. Won't happen -- too many gunners plan on making money selling off their cache without BG checks.

[ileus]

9. Never sell a gun that works...

I'd love to have back every good firearm I've ever sold. I'd be at least 100 ahead in the count right now...

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

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

[SteveM]

24. Let's see you proposals. We'll wait. nt

[NewMoonTherian]

8. We WOULD like private sellers to have access to NICS.

But the poison pill is something you cited yourself in the OP. To enforce background checks on private sales would require registration of all guns and their owners. Even moderate gun rights supporters(of which I am not one) reject the idea of registration and licensing schemes. They are sold in attractive packaging - "Cut off criminals' biggest supply of guns!", "Improve gun owners' public image!", "Now with no added sugar!" - but they will always, always become a racket to financially deter gun ownership, and eventually a tool in confiscation.

The 1934 NFA(correct me if I'm wrong) required a $200 tax stamp for ownership of automatic weapons. Fine. Pretty steep in depression-era dollars, but that was the idea. In the 1980's, $200 wasn't nearly as daunting a sum of money, so certain members of Congress snuck in the Hughes amendment to register every automatic weapon and prevent more from being manufactured or imported for civilian use. Now these weapons cost around $18,000 at a minimum, and are a nightmare to acquire and keep. A de facto ban for all but the well-off, or those nutty enough to sink their life savings into something they'll probably shoot once a year. American gun owners have wised up, become vigilant and don't intend to fall for that again.

So if you want to know why private sale background checks can't get any traction, you have unjust gun control measures of the past to thank.

[mikeb302000]

36. you are paranoid

"a racket to financially deter gun ownership, and eventually a tool in confiscation." Either you're really paranoid or you're mindlessly repeating the NRA bullshit.

[Atypical Liberal]

43. It's not paranoia when it has a history of happening.

"a racket to financially deter gun ownership, and eventually a tool in confiscation." Either you're really paranoid or you're mindlessly repeating the NRA bullshit.

OK, right here you have just demonstrated that you really have no grasp of the history of gun control.

In New York City, assuming you are connected enough to get a license, it will cost you $340, plus another $92 for fingerprinting. In the rest of the state, the permit is only $10. This is clearly intended as a barrier to firearm ownership, and is part of the reason why only wealthy and connected people in New York City can get permits for firearms.

Also, registration has been used to aid confiscation before. See the SKS rifle confiscation in California in 1999.

[NewMoonTherian]

71. I recounted an instance where it has already happened in the United States.

Paranoia (def. 2 on Dictionary.com): baseless or excessive suspicion of the motives of others.

My suspicion is based in history. It is based on what Congress has already done. If I could legally own an automatic weapon without blowing my life savings and letting FBI agents storm my house at random intervals, then I might concede that I was paranoid. Or I could cite the actions taken by Britain, Canada, Australia and a host of other nations as a perfectly sound basis for my distrust of a firearm registration scheme.

[rl6214]

10. So they arrested Bloomberg and his cronies?

No, of course they didn't. Fucking criminal republican...

Oh and unrec for blogspamming.

Worry about gun control in Italy.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

11. If you actually READ responses in the gungeon instead of just blogspamming for hits...

You'd see almost EVERY pro-RKBA guy around here wants private seller access to the NICS background check. We'd love to be able to be able to know if the people we sell our old guns to are qualified purchasers... but not much else can be done except asking them verbally at this time.

NICS checks are literally just a phone call with a supplied name, address, and social security number to which the federal agents on the other end of the line give a simple approved/denied answer. Nothing fancy and there's really no technical hurdle stopping the ATF from changing the policy to allow any seller to call in.

[mikeb302000]

37. you could drag them down to an FFL guy

but you'd rather whine about "not much else can be done except asking them verbally at this time" and exonerate yourself from any responsibility.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

44. Some FFLs don't do third party transfers... and every one of them charges a fee.

One FFL near me won't transfer anything they distribute... since they distribut just about every manufacturer except a few, you buy it from thier shelves or not at all. Another doesn't transfer "modern non-hunting" firearms at all. The other two shops around here charge about $50/transfer for any firearm ($100 for title II NFA) not from thier inventory.

So, when you do find a shop, you're asking a buyer to pay 10% or more extra to verify something they already know... they are allowed to own guns.

The ATF just needs to open up the NICS system. If that was done, a law could reasnably be written to hold those accountable who sell to unauthorized persons.

[Atypical Liberal]

45. Sure, and add another $25-$50 to the price.

FFLs don't do background checks for free.

The biggest gun store in town here charges $60 for transfer fees. Fortunately I have found a local gunsmith who will do it for $25, but still, it's another cost.

And the primary purpose of the cost is to eliminate competition. FFL dealers charge exorbitant transfer fees to make it unattractive to buy firearms over the internet and have them shipped through an FFL. By the time you pay the transfer fee, it would have been cheaper to buy it locally.

One thing is for sure, if I ever have to submit to licensing to own a firearm, I better get the right to buy them direct through the mail back again.

[PavePusher]

48. Sounds like a poll tax to me.... n/t

[iverglas]

53. isn't that special

You'd see almost EVERY pro-RKBA guy around here wants private seller access to the NICS background check.

And every firearms trafficker in the land would flock to do those checks ...

Do you think everybody who reads your words is a complete moron?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

79. No, but some here are quite questionable

No legitimate gun owner wants guns in the hands of bad guys. In states where private party transactions are allowed, there is no way to verify if someone is allowed to own firearms. The instant check and other tools are not open to civilians.

Traffickers are not good guys...they bypass any kind of check even in states where it is required.

You are the one looking like a complete moron

[iverglas]

87. ah, you and your mirror

Traffickers are not good guys...they bypass any kind of check even in states where it is required.

Please, sir. I have a question.

Where do traffickers get guns?

[rrneck]

17. Hyperbole.

How will you keep those nebulous, ill defined "restrictions" you keep flogging from keeping people who may need a gun to defend themselves from getting one?

How do you plan to track the chain of custody of over three hundred million items (and growing by over a million a month) which can be carried in a pocket or hidden in a closet? How will you do that without affecting the civil rights of the honest citizens who are the "target" of your regulations? How will you pay for it?

I'm pretty goddamn sick of petty ideologues and egotistical bloviators feeding off people's fears an profiting from human misery.

Unrec for egotistical, self serving, opaque, arrogant, condescending, self promotional, bullshit blogspam.

[ileus]

25. well stated...

[gejohnston]

19. Are you surprised since

the buyers were violation the law and were arrested? Who arrested them? If it were NY cops, I see a lawsuit coming and the crack head walking. In Ohio, I don't think they are legally cops. Kind of like practicing law in a state where you don't have a license for.

Some states do. Many do volunteerly, pay an FFL to background checks. I think most if not all thinks individuals should have access to NICS. Either way, I really doubt the commerce clause will allow the feds to regulate intrastate private sales (interstate is regulated on the federal level)

One thing, a real criminal is not going say that at a gun show, a place where cops tend to hang out. In other words, Bloomburg's James O'Keefe stunt is absurd as it is pointless. His stunts have also pissed off the ATF because he screwed up several of their investigations.

You break no laws of you sell guns to people who verbally say they are not disqualified

I am guessing that is a typo. Either way, using city funds for his legally questionable stunts, not good.

[SteveM]

21. You and the "News" need to be corrected. There is no "loophole"

Evidently you don't know (and don't want to know) how the NICS system works. The NICS law was passed to regulate Federal Firearms Licensees because that is the purview of the Feds. The various states can regulate as long as they don't violate the Constitution, esp., the Second and the Fourteenth. The Feds CANNOT regulate non-FFL dealers. These are individuals who can sell across the kitchen table -- or rent a table at a "gun show." Same difference. You shut down a gun show (that won't hold up, of course), the sellers can rent a vacant lot and sell out of trunks. You want everyone to go under the NICS test (a position which is seen as reasonable in theory by many 2A advocates), you have to explain how it is the Fed's authority (it isn't).

You want to put a number on guns sold by an individual to qualify him/her as a dealer, then propose it. You may be interested to know that in many states if you sell 5 or more cars, you come under that state's definition of a dealer with all the rights and privileges thereunto appertaining. But it is state authority.

You may further be interested in knowing that any individual who knowingly sells to an unqualified "buyer" is violating the law.

Shutting down gun shows (I don't know if that is your motivation) will NOT affect these sales, but it WILL curtail LEO's ability to catch some known (and profoundly stupid) thugs when purchasing at gun shows. Would you prefer ALL those sales to be on the street, out of sight, out of mind? Here's a clue: More than 96% of criminal gun sales do NOT occur at gun shows.

[Atypical Liberal]

28. No law intended to stop criminals should be aimed at the law-abiding.

You see how it works? You break no laws of you sell guns to people who verbally say they are not disqualified. It's that simple. And you can claim to be responsible and law-abiding, and you'd be right.

That's why the law has to change and must be aimed at the law-abiding not the criminals.

No law should ever be passed that is intended to deter criminals at the expense of the rights of law-abiding citizens.

In this case I would call the private gun sellers "hidden criminals," whose numbers are legion among the law-abiding citizens who own guns.

Private sellers are not in any way breaking the law. To call such people criminals of any sort is disingenuous.

What's your opinion? Should private gun sales be regulated much like those done by FFL dealers? In order to be effective, wouldn't there need to be licensing of gun owners and registration of guns? Wouldn't initiatives like those put a crimp in the gun flow into the criminal world?

The biggest hurdle is the fact that the federal government cannot currently regulate internal state sale of property (intrastate sales). So you would either have to solve that through a Constitutional amendment, or get all the states to sign up for such restrictions on their own, which is unlikely.

But assuming you could do one or the other, the second big issue is you must preserve firearm ownership anonymity. The purpose of the second amendment is to have a citizenry armed with weaponry that makes them able to function as, or at least be able to counter, federal military power. If you give the federal government a list of all firearm owners, you severely compromise their ability to serve as a counter to federal military power. Registration is a necessary precursor to confiscation, and it has been used to facilitate confiscations of firearms in the past. So any gun control measure that destroys firearm ownership anonymity is a non-starter.

There is, however, a way to screen all potential firearm owners and preserve firearm ownership anonymity. In Illinois, everyone who wishes to own a firearm must first obtain an FOID - Firearm Owner Identification. Then, whenever you wish to buy a firearm, from a FFL or a private seller, you must present your FOID, and the seller must keep a record of that FOID information for some number of years, or face a legal penalty. Sellers have an incentive to do this because anyone without a valid FOID who is trying to buy a firearm probably will use that firearm for nefarious purposes, and it will end up in the hands of the police, and then be tracked back to the last legitimate owner.

The problem with the Illinois system is that it destroys firearm ownership anonymity, because it is an opt-in system. That is, only people who are very very likely to own firearms will obtain an FOID.

The way to solve this is make the system opt-out, rather than opt in. Then, just because you have an FOID does not mean you are an actual firearm owner. To do this, simply run every applicant for a driver's license or state-issued ID through NICS and, assuming they pass, issue them an FOID, unless they opt out. Since there will always be some number of people who don't bother opting out, it is quite likely that anyone with an FOID does not actually own firearms. Thus the government will not be able to use a list of FOID holders as a list of firearm owners.

In this way, firearm ownership anonymity is preserved, and every legitimate buyer of firearms has been pre-screened as illegible to own firearms.

[gejohnston]

29. was the double negative a typo?

seriously. If you are using standard English, when you say that you are "not disqualified" that means you are "qualified".

[mikeb302000]

38. what's so difficult about the way I said it?

not disqualified means qualified, yes. As a private seller you break no laws if the buyer says he's not disqualified (or if he says he's qualified). This is true even if you guys are winking at each other and chuckling. It's called plausible deniability. That's why we need background checks on every one.

[friendly_iconoclast]

46. Then work to open up the NICS to private sellers.

I might even support making it mandatory, if proper privacy safeguards were in place.

Forcing people that wish to sell only to qualified buyers to go to a FFL to make sure is either harrassment ("fighting drunk driving by restricting the sober") or a enforced moneymaking scheme for FFL holders.

[iverglas]

55. so how would this "mandatory" with "proper privacy safeguards" work?

Let me quote this little tale for you again:

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/westcoastnews/story.html?id=eacb8f20-4cad-45cd-b758-9a6f3fef505e

Vancouver Sun December 14, 2010

... The first Glock was bought from the Cascadia Armament Corp on Jan. 31, 2006, by a man who told investigators he resold it later in 2006 at a gun show in Puyallup, Washington "to an older white male whom he had seen at previous gun shows." He had no receipt for the sale, the report said.

The second Glock was bought in May 2003 by a guard who lives in Seattle and told police he resold the gun in March 2004 to a man who claimed he sold it at a Washington Arms Collector gun show in Puyallup. He couldn't provide the ATF with documentation of the sale.

The Sig was bought at Paul's Sporting Arms, in Snohomish, in February 2005 and traded for another gun though the gun owner "could not remember with who."

ATF agents found the other man, who also did not remember details of the trade or provide documentation of the transaction.

Over to you.

FFL dealers are REQUIRED to retain records of transactions. It is their licence itself, and the oversight it allows for, that provide the incentive for compliance and the deterrent to non-compliance.

You want some sort of deal that would provide "proper privacy safeguards" for private sales. Like, the seller is not required to retain (is prohibited from retaining) information about the buyer? :eyes:

I'd have to agree, as I've oft said here. Why would anybody want some third party keeping a record of their personal information (like name, address, identification used) without any public oversight of that at all? Hell, sell the gun, steal it back again ... if you aren't just trafficking the gun and having the dog eat the records.

[Atypical Liberal]

56. What Illinois does.

You want some sort of deal that would provide "proper privacy safeguards" for private sales. Like, the seller is not required to retain (is prohibited from retaining) information about the buyer? :eyes:

I'd have to agree, as I've oft said here. Why would anybody want some third party keeping a record of their personal information (like name, address, identification used) without any public oversight of that at all? Hell, sell the gun, steal it back again ... if you aren't just trafficking the gun and having the dog eat the records.

In Illinois, if you sell a firearm to a private individual you have to keep a record of that individual's FOID information, is ID information, and the firearm serial number for 10 years. Failure to do so is a misdemeanor.

I like this system, because it does not create a centralized database of information about who bought firearms, which is a de facto registry of firearm owners. Yet the system does provide for manual police legwork to trace firearms if necessary.

This is sufficient to protect firearm ownership anonymity.

[iverglas]

58. you people down there just have no respect for privacy, do you?

In Illinois, if you sell a firearm to a private individual you have to keep a record of that individual's FOID information, is ID information, and the firearm serial number for 10 years. Failure to do so is a misdemeanor.

Lordy. Some member of the public, subject to no oversight, with a copy of your ID information kept on hand for 10 years. To use, to lose ... to sell ...

We gaze across the border and shake our heads.

[Atypical Liberal]

59. Well, we do have a better way to preserve privacy...

Lordy. Some member of the public, subject to no oversight, with a copy of your ID information kept on hand for 10 years. To use, to lose ... to sell ...

We gaze across the border and shake our heads.

To be fair, it's only Illinois that requires this, as far as I know. Here in Alabama, and every other state I've lived in, I can sell a firearm to anyone with no paperwork at all. It's the ultimate privacy. Of course, the problem with this approach is that it makes an easy way for disqualified people to buy firearms.

So if I had to choose between one private individual having my information, or my information being stored in a government database, I'll gladly choose the former.

Also, I would change the Illinois system to where all the seller had to keep was the FOID information.

[friendly_iconoclast]

64. Some of us don't trust either corporations *or* government with our private information.

Strangely enough, both groups claim to need it in order to 'protect' and/or 'serve' us better.

Better both groups have as little access to it as possible....

[iverglas]

66. and some of us would rather look like paranoid fools

that admit what our real motivations are.

Or so I have to assume.

:rofl:

[Atypical Liberal]

68. Right...

Because distrusting a single person with your personal information is rational, but distrusting a government or corporation is paranoia.

:roll:

[friendly_iconoclast]

70. Hmm, sounds like System Justification Theory to me... n/t

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[friendly_iconoclast]

60. That *is* odd, as criminals can get guns in the EU without background checks.

DUer Euromutt has described the Netherlands as Western Europes' venue of choice for black-market firearms sales.
Let us know when that situation has changed, and then come back and lecture us on our laws...

[mikeb302000]

73. what's that have to do with it?

"black market" exists everywhere. Only in the States do they dress it up as lawful, you know those private transactions.

[gejohnston]

62. since I am legally barred from doing so, how do you suggest I

do these background checks?

[mikeb302000]

74. go to an FFL guy n/t

[ProgressiveProfessor]

78. Love to but there isn't one in Wash DC

[gejohnston]

91. there are seven type ones in DC

SHAKESPEARE THEATRE INC
HENG, HARRY FOOK SUAN
SECOND AMENDMENT SAFETY & SECURITY LLC
SYKES, CHARLES W JR
WASHINGTON DRAMA CLUB INC
SUGARMANN, JOSHUA ALAN

Would they do it for you? Good question. I am guessing Josh Sugarmann would not.

http://www.atf.gov/about/foia/ffl-list.html

[iverglas]

54. what seems to be your problem?

Are there qualifications for acquiring/possessing firearms where you're at?

"Qualified" would presumably mean "of a particular age". Maybe there are other qualifications.

People who are otherwise qualified become DISQUALIFIED if they fall into certain categories, e.g. have been convicted of certain criminal offences.

I'm surprised at you, that you would talk of anyone being "qualified" to possess a firearm.

To my knowledge, no one in the US ever has to prove that they are qualified to possess a firearm, other than by age or perhaps residence.

What they have to prove, by submitting to a background check, is that they are not disqualified.

[gejohnston]

61. distinction without a difference.

Where I am at, you are qualified, age, no felony convictions, no domestic abuse convictions, not court committed or ruled mentally incompetent. Other than that, you are not qualified. If you are qualified to posses you are qualified to buy.

[iverglas]

67. so what was your point?

:shrug:

[gejohnston]

69. I'll let you know as soon as

I figure out yours.

[iverglas]

65. no problems at gun shows; move along

Doesn't seem to have been mentioned in this forum.

press release; no copyright issue; emphases other than headings mine

http://www.atf.gov/press/releases/2011/05/050211-sea-four-washington-state-men-indicted-for-unlicensed-dealing-at-gun-shows.html

U.S. Department of Justice
United States Attorney
Western District of Washington

Western District of Washington

www.justice.gov/usao/waw

For Immediate Release

Monday, May 2, 2011

Jenny A. Durkan, United States Attorney

FOUR WASHINGTON STATE MEN INDICTED FOR UNLICENSED DEALING AT GUN SHOWS
One Defendant Sold Gun Later Used in Murder of Seattle Police Officer

SEATTLE – Four Washington State men have been charged in three separate indictments by a federal grand jury following a lengthy undercover investigation by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) into illegal firearms sales at gun shows. Late last week, a federal grand jury in Seattle returned indictments against Roy Alloway, 56, of Belfair, Wash., for unlawful dealing in firearms. Kenneth Gussoni, 55, of Bremerton, Wash., and Mark Skiles, 46, of Belfair, were indicted for conspiracy to unlawfully deal in firearms and one count of unlawful dealing in firearms. Gussoni is also charged with possessing an illegal silencer and possessing a firearm with an obliterated serial number. David Devenny, 68, of Olympia, Wash., was indicted for unlawful dealing in firearms and two counts of selling firearms to a prohibited person. Devenny was arrested in November 2010, following the sale of a gun to a prohibited person working with law enforcement.

"Gun shows are legal, but funneling illegal gun sales through gun shows is not," said U.S. Attorney Jenny A. Durkan. "Illegal gun sales allow guns to get in the wrong hands and block our ability to trace guns used in violent crimes."

The indictments allege the men were purchasing hundreds of guns from Federal Firearms Licensed Dealers (FFL) and selling them at various gun shows. According to the indictment, Alloway purchased nearly 400 guns from three different FFLs between January 2005 and November 2010 and then sold guns to undercover ATF agents at three different gun shows in 2009.

The indictment also alleges Skiles and Gussoni purchased approximately 117 guns from licensed dealers in 2009 and 2010, and repeatedly sold firearms to undercover agents at six different gun shows in Monroe, Centralia and Puyallup, Wash. According to the indictment, Devenny purchased about 60 firearms in 2009-2010 and sold guns to undercover agents at gun shows in Centralia and Puyallup and from his home in Olympia.

When a Federal Firearms Licensed dealer sells a weapon, he is required to fill out certain forms and conduct a background check. These forms help law enforcement trace guns subsequently used in crimes. The forms are not filled out by private sellers at gun shows.

In the course of the investigation 229 guns were seized, including three machine guns. Agents also seized military grade explosives, grenades, a silencer and tear gas pen guns. The indictment seeks to forfeit these items to the government.

"ATF will continue to actively investigate and pursue those who feed the illegal supply of guns that impact our streets, threaten innocent lives and endanger our communities," said ATF Special Agent in Charge Kelvin Crenshaw.

Devenny was arrested in November 2010 for selling a firearm to a convicted felon. As detailed in the November 2010 criminal complaint, working with the ATF, the Seattle Police notified Devenny that a gun previously owned by him was used to murder Officer Timothy Brenton on Oct. 31, 2009. Devenny allegedly sold the gun at a gun show in Puyallup. Investigators believe the gun was sold one week before Officer Brenton was killed. Devenny stated he remembered selling the gun at a gun show in Puyallup, but did not recall who purchased it. The shooter, Christopher Monfort, goes on trial for aggravated murder this year.

The defendants have been summoned to appear for arraignment in U.S. District Court in Tacoma, Wash., on May 9, 2011.

The charges contained in the indictment are only allegations. A person is presumed innocent unless and until he or she is proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

A gun show in Puyallup. That's where one of those guns trafficked into Canada and found in the possession of a well-known gang-associated criminal came from ...


This sort of thing isn't exactly visible to the naked eye. It takes rather a lot of investigative work ... and money ... to identify and address.

But there are no problems at gun shows; what's next on the agenda?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

75. THe person under arrest was an unlicensed dealer not the occasional private party seller

He was most likely dealing out of his trunk and kitchen as well.

[iverglas]

76. and this is visible to the naked eye at a gun show ...

...

[ProgressiveProfessor]

77. It is not relevant to the buyer, nor his responsibility

If my local arms merchant does not have an FFL but claims he does, I have no way to verify that either.

[russ1943]

90. Why don't you?

Since you seem to have access to the internet, you could verify @
http://www.atf.gov/about/foia/ffl-list.html

[gejohnston]

92. thanks, interesting read

can anyone explain why Josh Sugarmann has an FFL? His FFL number is: 1-54-000-01-1C-00725. The business address is VPC headquarters.
:wtf:

[gravity556]

93. More blog-spam? Wheeeeeeee!

Also, once again you've shown that your target are the law abiding gun owners-NOT the criminals.

That's why the law has to change and must be aimed at the law-abiding not the criminals.

Also, it's against federal law for regular guys to access NICS. How about you lear about what the gun laws are and what they mean-and not from Brady or VPC-that'd be like hitting Rosie O'Donnell for charm lessons.

As for the seller catching shit because the buyer lied? It's the liar who is breaking the law by saying he's not a prohibited posessor and then being in posession of a firearm.
Let's arrest the salesmen who sell cars to people who already have DUIs when they have another, after all, it's not like the driver chose to consume alcohol and get behind the wheel! It's the sales clerk that rang up the beer and the guy that sold him the car. It's all their fault!

Here's the rules for FTF sale here in AZ. Need to be reasonably sure buyer is not a PP-this is usually done by asking. Need to make sure they're a resident of AZ-see a DL. Some folks want receipts, some folks don't. Then, generally, all prior points satisfied, cash changes hands as does the gun (or guns, depending on the sale/trade). Shake hands and go your seperate ways.

The good news is that as an FTF seller, if anything about the buyer seems hinky, (he doesn't speak english, gang tattoos, thug fashion, says the word "gat", utters the phrase "Yeah, picking this up for my boy/buddy cause he can't buy one because of his bullshit DV charge...") then off he goes. Money still in his pocket, gun still in my hand.