Man Opposes 'Gun Show Loophole'

[Lint Head]

by Amanda Hara

NASHVILLE, Tenn. - Are gun shows a gateway for criminals to buy firearms? One local man thinks so.

For more than two decades, Bob Pope ran gun shows in the Mid-state.

But now he's asking for a new law that would make sure convicted felons aren't buying guns, or unloading stolen ones, at gun shows.

Bob Pope started running gun shows in 1983, and retired in 2008. During that time, he said he noticed a major flaw in the industry.

http://www.newschannel5.com/story/16192965/are-gun-shows-gateways-for-criminals

[safeinOhio]

1. Excellent point

""The background check is not just a thing that's done on the individual it's also running the background history on the gun. The last thing I'd want to do is go to a gun show and buy a gun from an individual that was used in a crime or was stolen. You don't know anything about that gun or where it came from," he said."

[Angus86]

4. It would be an excellent point...

if only it were true.

The only information about the gun that is relayed to NICS over the phone is whether it is a 1) long gun 2) handgun or 3) both (when purchasing multiple firearms).

So no, whether a gun is stolen is NOT checked even when purchasing retail, probably because there is (to my knowledge) no national database of stolen guns.

[gejohnston]

6. but NCIC does, that is

if it was reported stolen and the local cops told the FBI.

[michreject]

15. That information is not available when you buy a gun

FFL holders can't access that database.

[gejohnston]

17. I know, the idea was to

give prospective buyers access to the stolen firearms data base, as well as allow private sellers access to NICS.

[Oneka]

7. Not sure how it works,

but recently i took possession of some guns that had been in police custody, after being removed from a crime scene. these guns were taken for
"safe keeping" with no warrant issued. they all had their serial numbers ran through some sort of database, and one did in fact come back as stolen, in California, this all happened in Minnesota btw. The gun was later found to be not stolen at all as a clerical error had happened in
California and a number or two had gotten transposed in their records.

Perhaps someone here at DU, who works in Law enforcement could shed some light on this subject for us, i would be interested to know what sort of database exists on such things.

[gejohnston]

8. The FBI developed the National Crime Information Center in

the 1960s. There is a stolen property file in NCIC.

http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fbi/is/ncic.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Crime_Information_Center

[Oneka]

11. Thanks for the links N/T

[We_Have_A_Problem]

19. Except it isnt a point...

its a fantasy..

[LAGC]

2. A better idea might just be to just open up basic records checks to the public.

This doesn't just go for guns, but other "big ticket" items bought used like bikes, cars, etc.

Just a free web-site that could be easily accessed from a cell phone, where anyone could anonymously plug in a serial number and see if an item was ever reported stolen.

That way you wouldn't necessitate the "Big Brother" feel of forcing every buyer to undergo a full background check, which is really de facto registration, especially if the item in question is being checked along with the buyer.

[gejohnston]

5. Open NCIC to the public?

worth exploring.

[pipoman]

14. No it isn't.

NCIC hold records about everyone. It is, in fact, a crime for a leo to access NCIC unless there is a crime under investigation, or a routine check of a serial number not associated with an individual. Any PD will run an NCIC check on a gun, car, or anything else, the only requirement is an willingness to reveal the whereabouts of the item checked if the item comes back as stolen.

[gejohnston]

21. I am guessing that

I spaced out where I was going. I think it would be good idea to enable the potential buyer to see if he or she is buying a stolen gun.

[pipoman]

22. I have ran every gun I have ever purchased from an individual

through NCIC. Most of the time they do it while I am on the phone. A few times they have taken my number and called me back. I just call the local sheriffs office and tell whom ever answers what I want. Every time they have asked if I am willing to tell them the whereabouts of the item if it comes back stolen, to which I agree. One time I told the seller I was going to do this before paying, he snatched the gun back and said, "never mind then"...

[Hoyt]

9. There you go, you can call in a check to see if your neighbor has some kind of issue.

You might not know the exact issue from the background check, but you'd know it was bad enough to keep people from acquiring guns. Heck, employers could use it to check on applicants. Or if you wanted to get back at someone. Not a good idea.

A better solution is to have all gun sales go through an FFL who has something to lose if they aren't responsible. That's right, if you wanted to sell a gun, you'd have to pay an FFL $35 bucks or so. But, if one is really a responsible gun owner, it's the right thing to do.

[LAGC]

10. No, I was just saying call-in checks to see if items are stolen, on property not on people.

I'm more ambivalent on the idea of background checking people.

On the one hand, its not like employers or others can't do it already -- never heard of web-sites like Intelius?

On the flip-side, there are privacy concerns if people don't want the government to know they own guns. People should be able to buy and trade anonymously without paper-trail, which you can't avoid if you deal with an FFL.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

20. Define "right"?

I don't believe it is the right thing to do at all. Force people to pay money to sell their private property? How amazingly liberal of you...

[Oneka]

3. took him 25 years,

running gun shows and,ostensibly, make his fortune from them, before he decides that they are flawed?

He retired before he came to this realization? Sounds insincere as hell to me..

"The background check is not just a thing that's done on the individual it's also running the background history on the gun.

Never had a NICS check yet that even listed the gun to be purchased.

Pope proposed a new law that would require background checks on any gun sale at gun shows, even transactions between private parties.

Sounds to me like this guy is "proposing" a quite a bit more then just background checks at gun shows.
Perhaps Tennessee has it's own background check in addition to the NICS check that all non private sales at gun shows have to go through.
The article could be a bit more clear on this.

[PavePusher]

12. I wonder who's being paid....

and by whom...

[Oneka]

16. VPC

Rady, rightwng, douchebaggery ,,, YUP!!!

[Euromutt]

23. This *is* odd, isn't it?

Kind of like Smedley Butler spending 34 years in the Marine Corps and being passed over for appointment to the post of commandant before he had his "road to Damascus" moment.

[mistertrickster]

13. I've been to plenty of gunshows . . . the only "loophole" is sellers unloading overpriced junk. nt

[one-eyed fat man]

18. Now there is an interesting question?

"Can a party acquire title to stolen property sufficient to defeat the rights of the registered owner? If so, can the same government which mandates registration and which maintains the central registry of such property acquire such title to stolen property when it has actual knowledge of the registered owner?"

Short story, a legally registered 1904 Maxim gun is stolen from a New Jersey VFW Post during remodeling.

Years later, this exceedingly rare gun turns up in the museum at the West Point military Academy.

The gun is listed by serial number in the NFA registry as belonging to the Plaintiff, who, armed with his registration certificate, sues the Army to get his gun back.

The ATF argues the registry was never intended to return stolen property to its lawful owners. (That should give lie to those posters here who proselytize the benefits of registration.)

Please re read that. A lawyer for the Federal government, argued in front of a Federal judge, the registry of NFA firearms WAS NEVER INTENDED to reunite owners with their stolen property.

The Federal Judge rules the owner of the stolen property has no standing to sue for the return of his property. By the simple expedient of ruling that the Plaintiff has no standing, the judge also ensure the case can never be revived or appealed.

So, evidently, if the government has possession of stolen property long enough it gains title to it because it says so. The very same government that issued the registration also issues the court order saying he has no right ask for it back.

Or let's put it in simple English, and answer me this:

How long does something have to be stolen before the original owner has no claim the property?

No doubt if a certain Klugscheißer were hooked to electrodes they would evince his glee at the government playing down and dirty with some veteran's souvenir an exemplary abuse of power.

Wheaton vs. Caldera, et al