Third gun control bill proposed since Tucson shootings -"fire sale loophole"

[RamboLiberal]

High-profile gun violence has historically renewed legislative interest in the cause of gun control, and the shootings of twenty people in Tucson, Arizona is no exception -- only this time, the measures face steeper hurdles than before.

Rep. Gary Ackerman, a Democrat from New York, is the third congressman to propose a gun control bill in the wake of the murders on Saturday. (The other two are also New Yorkers.)

His bill seeks to accomplish a goal other gun control advocates have tried and failed to do in recent years: close the "fire sale loophole," which permits unauthorized gun dealers to sell firearms at gun shows and allows buyers to purchase them without an otherwise mandatory FBI background check.

Jared Loughner, the 22-year-old accused of perpetrating Saturday's shootings, purchased his firearm legally, passing an instant background check in a state many consider to have the most lax gun laws in the nation. Arizona does not require a permit for concealed carry.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/01/ny-dem-proposes-guncontrol-bill-tucson-shootings/

WHAT IS THE FIRESALE LOOPHOLE? Even after ATF revokes a gun dealer's license for chronic non-compliance with federal law, it has allowed dealers to sell their remaining guns without recordkeeping or background checks - by transferring hundreds guns from their "business inventory" into their "personal collections."

Current law requires dealers who sell from their business inventory to run background checks under the Brady Law and to keep records of sales so the gun can be traced.

These requirements also apply to some sales from dealers' personal collections:

If a licensed dealer transfers a gun from his business inventory to his personal collection and then sells it within a year; or

If a licensee sells a gun out of his personal collection "for the purpose of willfully evading the restrictions placed upon licensees."

In these cases, "such firearm shall be deemed part of such licensee's business inventory" under 18 U.S.C. § 923(c).
These requirements no longer apply, however, once ATF has revoked someone's license, because they are no longer a licensed dealer.

http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/federal/dealer_firesales.shtml

Mayor Corey Booker mentioned this Tuesday night on Rachel's show which was one of the few truthful things IMHO on the show that night.

IMHO this should be the law the Dems push. Except for perhaps an exception for antique guns (I'd say dating back at least to 19th century and perhaps being single shot or black powder) make every private gun sale have to go through NICS.

That being more damn sensible than getting back on the ban high cap magazine ban limit (which did diddly except jack the price of high caps) bandwagon.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

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

[RamboLiberal]

2. Speak for yourself

I bet vast majority would rather see Pelosi as speaker.

[Tesha]

3. Lawmakers develop a much-greater understanding of how much gun violence there is in America...

...once *THEY* start getting shot.

NB: This post in no way advocates violence against
our lawmakers. It merely makes an observation about
human psychology.

Tesha

[Flyboy_451]

4. a few thoughts...

A person without an FFL does not have access to NICS, so once the FFL has been revoked or suspended, the former dealer has no ability to perform background checks.

Frequently, FFLs are revoked, not because of violation of federal laws, but because of clerical mistakes. This can be as simple as things such as mistakenly recording a date as 1/6/10 rather than 1/6/11 after the new year arrives. Tell me you have never done this when writing a check...These types of errors, when found during an audit are listed as violations by the ATF and the dealer is given a list of these. If it is a high volume shop, with multiple employees, the chance for these mistakes rises. This is only one example. One of my customers actually did battle with the ATF in court over how he signed his name. Their claim was that it was not a "proper" signature because it did not include his last name. The judge was nearly in disbelief that he was hearing this, and ruled in favor of the customer in less than 10 minutes with some very stern words for the ATF.

If the dealers FFL is revoked for true violations of federal law, how is it that they are not charged with a crime, and how is it that they would be allowed to own firearms at all after such "violations of federal firearms law"? The answer is, that they have not violated federal firearms law. They have committed the unforgivable sin of clerical errors.

While their license may be revoked, they are still the rightful owner of their inventory, and unless they have committed some crime that would preclude there legal right to own guns, there is no reason for them not to be allowed to transfer this inventory to their personal collection. They are obviously able to pass a NICS check, or they would not have an FFL to begin with. And once this is done, they are no different than any other legal gun owner, and they are able to make individual transactions without the need for a background check.

It seems to me that this is less of a loophole than it is a mechanism to allow a former dealer to maintain ownership and disposal of legal property in the event that his FFL is revoked for less than criminal reasons. What else should be done with these items? Should he not be allowed to keep property that he has paid for, particularly when no crime was committed? I prefer not to even go down that road.

JW

[mimitabby]

5. I wish them luck with this one.

rec'd!

[Flyboy_451]

6. why?

Why do you wish this bill luck? If the dealer is truly in violation of FEDERAL LAW, prosecute and get a conviction, and they can no longer own firearms, thus preventing them from transferring inventory into a personal collection. If they are not in violation of federal law, there is no reason that they should not be treated as any other LAW ABIDING gun owner, and be able to dispose of their collection in a manner of their choosing.

They already own the firearms, bought and paid for. What should be done with them if they cannot be transferred into private inventory? Keep in mind that I am only speaking about dealers who have lost their FFL for non-criminal reasons. There is already a mechanism for dealing with those who lose it for criminal reasons.

Jw