Don't gun shows circumvent having to use a straw purchase if you're not

[no_hypocrisy]

supposed to have a firearm?

In other words, let's say you have a criminal record and can't/shouldn't possess a weapon.

If you go to a gun show, nobody knows you have purchased a weapon because there isn't any registration or identification check.

But if you have a friend with a yellow card who can legally purchase a firearm and then sell it to you (private sale), it's a straw purchase and both of you can be indicted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_purchase

Does this make sense? If it doesn't what am I missing in my analysis?

[gejohnston]

1. not really,

since 1987 gun shows have been dominated by licensed dealers (FFLs), all federal and state laws apply. Private sellers seem to offer the antique, rare, and unusual at prices beyond the average meth head (or working class person looking for a good deal). Some show promoters have a mechanism for background checks as a service for private sellers, depending on insurance company and state. A DoJ study in 1983 showed that criminals don't go to gun shows. Most of them get them "on the street". Your "undocumented pharmacist" can get a gun at 90 percent below retail.
Of course, there is non-gun related stuff.
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/Photocopy/97099NCJRS.pdf

[AzureCrest]

2. Someone who has an FFL (Federal Firearms License)

will conduct the same background check at a gun show as if they were at their business.

There is nothing about a sale at a gun show that magically makes it exempt from the laws that apply elsewhere. Private sales are exempted from Federal laws regarding background checks because the seller cannot access the NICS system if they do not hold an FFL.

[bettyellen]

3. Well then get them access to the system. Private sales were like 30% of gun show purchases and its

States that don’t regulate who are responsible for the flow of guns into states that do regulate. It’s a HUGe loophole and we are sick of excuses for it. If they can attend a “show” they can be part of the system.

[gejohnston]

4. States that dont regulate who are responsible for the flow of guns into states that do regulate.

I agree on principle, but the ATF hasn't provided evidence that it is a problem. The only claims I saw was some very flawed "research" by some ER doc who is an activist.

[bettyellen]

6. The NRA has lobbied to block research- and block regulations. Do the math.

[gejohnston]

7. no they didn't

They blocked only advocacy by the CDC. The Dicky Amendment is public record, go read it. AFAIC, no tax money should be used to promote any policy.
The NRA is like any other advocacy group. BTW, they wrote and supported the background check system, the bump stock ban, and parts of the Gun Control Act.

[bettyellen]

12. They only support backround checks with the loophole. And research is not advocacy for fucks sake

That’s what the NRA- and you- are doing. Advocacy by making excuses about the private sale loopholes and fighting them. Becasue they want to sell the maximum amount of guns to anyone who wants one- the rest of us be damned. Enough.

[gejohnston]

15. The "loophole"

is because of the Commerce Clause and the 10th Amendment.
Valid research that follows the scientific method, and is open to peer review, isn't advocacy. "Research" with a predetermined conclusion by activists who hide their data from peer review (or can't be replicated when they do) is advocacy. The worst example is Author Kellerman
https://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x334436
When the CDC was banned from advocacy in 1993, the DoJ carried out 32 studies from 1993-1999
The problem is that gun control activists don't like the results.

[bettyellen]

16. I dont give a shit about excuses for allowing the loophole- well regulated does not mean

Given loopholes to escape ALL regulation. Fuck that.

[gejohnston]

17. IOW,

you don't give a shit about the Constitution, just what you want and the ends justify the means. "Well regulated" meant "well functioning".
The real world is far more complex than ideologies and culture wars.
What kind of data should be in these background checks? We all know about the two where USAF and Broward County didn't do their jobs. Those are obvious. Most of the people denied sales are due to old non-violent convictions (like pot possession 30 years ago), medical marijuana card holders etc. Not dangers to society.
I argue those people should have all of their rights returned, guns and voting.

[bettyellen]

18. You think loopholes are well functioning? Bullshit.

[friendly_iconoclast]

19. And yet again, the default intellectual level of gun control advocacy is confirmed...

[bettyellen]

20. He argued that the loopholes existing are equivelent to well functioning or well regulated ...

That’s nonsense he or you hasn’t countered.
And yeah, that’s bullshit.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

21. re: loopholes

The only federal nexus into laws governing individuals pertains to business with a federally licensed firearms dealer. The feds license the FFLs and have authority to determine how they are permitted to conduct business.

Each state makes laws regarding the conduct of and business between private citizens.

In the language of the day (late 18th and early 19th century) the term "well regulated" would mean functioning properly. A "well regulated" militia would be one that is effective. How can the militia be effective if some of its members (the unorganized militia) are not permitted to own, use nor carry arms?

[bettyellen]

22. youre actually arguing everyone deserves to have a weapon. Violent abusive people. Nope.

No one buys that crap, sorry. Becasue of the difference in gun registration laws from state to state they are NOT functioning properly according to the majority of the population.

[friendly_iconoclast]

23. It would be polite to take *your* straw argument out of *his* mouth

No one buys that crap, sorry

And no one here is selling it

(T)hey are NOT functioning properly according to the majority of the population.

And you know this how, exactly? Some evidence beyond a mere assertion would be helpful to
your case.

[bettyellen]

24. The people are in favor of sensible gun regulation- the loopholes prevent it from functioning.

Poll after poll show that.

You can’t argue that some regulation is okay- as long as it actually doesn’t work. That is garbage.

[friendly_iconoclast]

25. Putting your straw into *my* mouth is also impolite. I'll thank you to remove it

You can’t argue that some regulation is okay- as long as it actually doesn’t work. That is garbage

I said nothing of the sort.

The people are in favor of sensible gun regulation

Everyone is in favor of "sensible gun regulation", myself included.
Everyone also has a different interpretation of what's 'sensible'

What's yours?

[bettyellen]

26. I was replying to the claim that laws full of loopholes are functioning. By definition they do not.

But you knew that.

[friendly_iconoclast]

27. "But you knew that." I 'knew' nothing of the sort, and you've proposed no clear means...

...of ending what you've termed loopholes.

[bettyellen]

28. Close the loopholes, all transfers require a check. Period. Thats regulation.

What we have now, is not.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

29. I will do my best to explain what I understand as the truth

US Bill of Rights 5A -

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

It is the premise of the Founders that rights are innate in humans. You can argue that to be true or false but it is a foundational principle the Founders articulated in organizing the government. Governmental powers and authority derive from the just consent of the governed people. The people have certain liberties to act, organize, socialize and accumulate wealth as they see fit. Everyone has these rights and liberties until due process has taken place. If you beat a family member or other person, your freedom to repeat that will be seriously limited. (IMHO assaulting someone smaller, weaker and less able than yourself should get locked up or at the very least ankle monitored probation for life.) I strongly support anyone's access to weapons be as restricted as possible if they are by due process determined to be a danger to themselves or others. Convicted criminals are a demonstrated danger and should not be able to buy a firearm.

** We all start out equal but those who choose violent crime can't and should not be able to buy a gun. **

The law says gun sales by FFLs require a BG check. In most states private citizens have no access to the NICS. I favor a federally funded program giving NICS access to all persons transferring ownership of a gun at a local law enforcement office. A LEO identifies the buyer, runs the check and gives a yes/no on the transfer. It would be there for everyone to use. Individual states could make it mandatory but the feds could develop and finance the infrastructure needed for everyone to take advantage of it.

It's fine to say whatever a Congressperson wants to say but if you want to make a federal law about an intrastate gun transfer you will need to do a few things. First, you will need to find funding to add federal law enforcement in every county nationwide to enforce that law. Second, these agents will need training, support, supervision and logistics to do their job.

The real and effective way to make any gun laws work is to get individual states to accept, enact and support those laws.

Obama made a bunch of incredible progress on several issues. However, getting hundreds of Senators and Representatives from places thousands of miles away from each other to all agree on something requires months of negotiation and an incredible degree of leadership. Our whole background check system is less than 3 decades old. It needs improvement, refining and expansion. It will cost a lot.

My underlined italics above are what I see as progress toward a better system. I believe most people are basically good. Empowering private sellers to access the BG system is a start.

I welcome your comments and any discussion. Have a great night and thanks for discussing this.

[Wellstone ruled]

5. Gets even worse.

No one mentions what happens in the Parking Lots and Parking Garages. You got the cash,you got the toy.

[gejohnston]

8. I call that the Brussels Train Station Loophole

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11818920/French-train-attack-Belgian-station-is-close-to-notorious-weapons-supply-line.html

[Wellstone ruled]

9. Yes.

[EX500rider]

11. "Private sales were like 30% of gun show purchases" link? I doubt that..

...at least not at the ones I have been to in Fla, tons of tables with tons of guns, all requiring a back ground check with a few guys walking around the parking lot or show trying to sell one rifle over their shoulder privately does not seem to add up to 30%.

[Nitram]

10. It is still against the law.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

30. It's not until we stop expecting laws to control people that we will make progress

Many restrictionists have adopted without proof the idea that a law will actually control those who don't want to be controlled. This type of thinking needs to change.

[Nitram]

31. I'm not defending this law as a fool-proof deterrent to gun violence. I'm just pointing out

that there is actually a law against it which some on the thread didn't seem to realize.

[ManiacJoe]

13. The location of the sale does not change the rules of the sale.

The same rules for invalid buyers apply to both dealers and private sellers, regardless of location.

Licensed dealers always have to do a NICS check as part of their buyer verification process.

Private sellers are prohibited from using the NICS check as part of their verification process. Any sale to an invalid buyer can be prosecuted if some type of verification was not done. Requiring the buyer to have a concealed carry license is a common verification since it shows that the state did the background check. Selling to friends/family is "safe" because you know their backgrounds. Many people will sell to strangers with no checks because the vast majority of the population are legal buyers, just playing the odds usually works.

To answer your question, a private sale may not need a straw purchaser if there is foolishly no check being done by the seller. The result is a simple illegal sale to an invalid buyer. If a straw purchase is used, you have the illegal purchase by the straw purchaser plus the illegal sale by the straw purchaser to the invalid buyer. If any of that was to be prosecuted, it is up to the DA. Unfortunately, many (most?) times it is not prosecuted.

[krispos42]

14. A gun show is basically a temporary mall.

The gun show only sells table space to retailers. People buy guns from the retailers AT (not FROM) the gun show.

Nearly all the retailers are licenced gun dealers and have to comply with all federal, state, and local laws, including background checks, waiting periods, etc.

Licenced gun dealers have to comply with the laws regardless of where geographically they are conducting the sale.

Most guns used in crime are either stolen or were legally bought by the perp. Example: jealous husband threatens wife's lover with a handgun that he bought legally a decade ago.