America, shooting, again??
Discussion
AJL308 said:
The 'gun show loophole' is vastly overstated.
It isn't true that there are no checks done on guns bought at gun shows. Gun shows are mostly populated by registered dealers who are selling guns as a business so anything bought through them must be subject to the normal background checks and waiting periods.
Private individuals sometimes take stalls at guns shows to sell things from their personal collections but cannot sell things by way of trade. It is a transaction between private individuals involving their private property so is subject to whatever laws govern such transactions. As they aren't commercial sales they don't have to be background checked. It's no different from two members from a local hunting group agreeing to buy/sell a gun between them.
The exception to the above is California (there may be others) where any firearm transfer, even between private individuals, must be completed by a Federally licensed dealer who must perform the back ground checks. Both parties must be physically present at the gun dealers premises at the time takes place, I think.
That's not quite true though. Federally licensed gun dealers are required to do background checks. Many dealers at gun shows are not federally licensed and do not do background checks. It's also nonsensical that private sales should be excluded from any kind of checks. The California law makes sense and should maybe become the model.It isn't true that there are no checks done on guns bought at gun shows. Gun shows are mostly populated by registered dealers who are selling guns as a business so anything bought through them must be subject to the normal background checks and waiting periods.
Private individuals sometimes take stalls at guns shows to sell things from their personal collections but cannot sell things by way of trade. It is a transaction between private individuals involving their private property so is subject to whatever laws govern such transactions. As they aren't commercial sales they don't have to be background checked. It's no different from two members from a local hunting group agreeing to buy/sell a gun between them.
The exception to the above is California (there may be others) where any firearm transfer, even between private individuals, must be completed by a Federally licensed dealer who must perform the back ground checks. Both parties must be physically present at the gun dealers premises at the time takes place, I think.
The other thing that makes no sense is the idea of a permit for life. In many states you get a permit at 18 and never have to renew. That's ludicrous. You are required to renew your drivers license periodically but not your firearms permit permit? I would have thought they should be renewed every 5 years at minimum.
unrepentant said:
That's not quite true though. Federally licensed gun dealers are required to do background checks. Many dealers at gun shows are not federally licensed and do not do background checks. It's also nonsensical that private sales should be excluded from any kind of checks. The California law makes sense and should maybe become the model.
The other thing that makes no sense is the idea of a permit for life. In many states you get a permit at 18 and never have to renew. That's ludicrous. You are required to renew your drivers license periodically but not your firearms permit permit? I would have thought they should be renewed every 5 years at minimum.
Anyone selling firearms for commercial purposes is required to be an FFL. If people are doing so at gun shows and are not registered they are breaking the law. Gun shows are actually fairly closely checked by ATF officers. In fact I think it was becoming increasingly onerous on private sellers are they were continually being asked to prove that they were not selling for business purposes.The other thing that makes no sense is the idea of a permit for life. In many states you get a permit at 18 and never have to renew. That's ludicrous. You are required to renew your drivers license periodically but not your firearms permit permit? I would have thought they should be renewed every 5 years at minimum.
AJL308 said:
Anyone selling firearms for commercial purposes is required to be an FFL. If people are doing so at gun shows and are not registered they are breaking the law. Gun shows are actually fairly closely checked by ATF officers. In fact I think it was becoming increasingly onerous on private sellers are they were continually being asked to prove that they were not selling for business purposes.
AJL308 - You seem to have fairly in depth knowledge of gun shows and their enforcement. When did you last attend one?AJL308 said:
rscott said:
AJL308 - You seem to have fairly in depth knowledge of gun shows and their enforcement. When did you last attend one?
A long time ago but I do firearms related business with the US.Mario149 said:
Jimbeaux said:
I am not in line with those who advocate zero guns. While that is unconstitutional, the main reason is that then only the thugs or terrorists will have them. I am in favor of more stringent background checks. There needs to be background checks at gun shows, I think not having checks at shows is stupid. I believe those on a (name the crime) watch list should not be allowed to buy a gun. Now, there needs to be a due process and better management of said lists so they are accurate, both stopping criminals from falling through the cracks or, on the other extreme, some government worker expressing their opinion by adding someone to it without cause. Lastly, reform of the medical privacy laws regarding diagnosed mental patients' information if purchasing guns.
Forgetting the legal implications (or not) of the constitution for a moment, and apologies if you've answered this before, but in terms of people being able to own firearms in the US (and using concealed carry terminology but in the context of all gun ownership), do you think that a "may issue" licensing or "shall issue" licensing would be better and why? On the assumption you favour everyone having to be licensed at all.AJL308 said:
rscott said:
So no recent experience as to how they're actually policed and a potential interest in guns remaining pretty easily legally in the US.
Are you saying that what I have said is incorrect?Not all at gun shows, but using the same 'private seller's loophole.
unrepentant said:
AJL308 said:
The 'gun show loophole' is vastly overstated.
It isn't true that there are no checks done on guns bought at gun shows. Gun shows are mostly populated by registered dealers who are selling guns as a business so anything bought through them must be subject to the normal background checks and waiting periods.
Private individuals sometimes take stalls at guns shows to sell things from their personal collections but cannot sell things by way of trade. It is a transaction between private individuals involving their private property so is subject to whatever laws govern such transactions. As they aren't commercial sales they don't have to be background checked. It's no different from two members from a local hunting group agreeing to buy/sell a gun between them.
The exception to the above is California (there may be others) where any firearm transfer, even between private individuals, must be completed by a Federally licensed dealer who must perform the back ground checks. Both parties must be physically present at the gun dealers premises at the time takes place, I think.
That's not quite true though. Federally licensed gun dealers are required to do background checks. Many dealers at gun shows are not federally licensed and do not do background checks. It's also nonsensical that private sales should be excluded from any kind of checks. The California law makes sense and should maybe become the model.It isn't true that there are no checks done on guns bought at gun shows. Gun shows are mostly populated by registered dealers who are selling guns as a business so anything bought through them must be subject to the normal background checks and waiting periods.
Private individuals sometimes take stalls at guns shows to sell things from their personal collections but cannot sell things by way of trade. It is a transaction between private individuals involving their private property so is subject to whatever laws govern such transactions. As they aren't commercial sales they don't have to be background checked. It's no different from two members from a local hunting group agreeing to buy/sell a gun between them.
The exception to the above is California (there may be others) where any firearm transfer, even between private individuals, must be completed by a Federally licensed dealer who must perform the back ground checks. Both parties must be physically present at the gun dealers premises at the time takes place, I think.
The other thing that makes no sense is the idea of a permit for life. In many states you get a permit at 18 and never have to renew. That's ludicrous. You are required to renew your drivers license periodically but not your firearms permit permit? I would have thought they should be renewed every 5 years at minimum.
AJL308 said:
unrepentant said:
That's not quite true though. Federally licensed gun dealers are required to do background checks. Many dealers at gun shows are not federally licensed and do not do background checks. It's also nonsensical that private sales should be excluded from any kind of checks. The California law makes sense and should maybe become the model.
The other thing that makes no sense is the idea of a permit for life. In many states you get a permit at 18 and never have to renew. That's ludicrous. You are required to renew your drivers license periodically but not your firearms permit permit? I would have thought they should be renewed every 5 years at minimum.
Anyone selling firearms for commercial purposes is required to be an FFL. If people are doing so at gun shows and are not registered they are breaking the law. Gun shows are actually fairly closely checked by ATF officers. In fact I think it was becoming increasingly onerous on private sellers are they were continually being asked to prove that they were not selling for business purposes.The other thing that makes no sense is the idea of a permit for life. In many states you get a permit at 18 and never have to renew. That's ludicrous. You are required to renew your drivers license periodically but not your firearms permit permit? I would have thought they should be renewed every 5 years at minimum.
AJL308 said:
Some Gump said:
In your professional opinion, are preppers mostly fruitloops?
Professional and personal opinion. Yes.Edited by Jimbeaux on Thursday 16th June 16:24
rscott said:
Recent research seems to show that 15% of gun sales take place without background checks - http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/20...
Not all at gun shows, but using the same 'private seller's loophole.
I would think they very few would be at gun shows as even most shooters would probably never attend them. Most non-background check sales would be private individuals selling and buying amongst themselves.Not all at gun shows, but using the same 'private seller's loophole.
I'm surprised it's as low as 15%, to be honest.
Jimbeaux said:
unrepentant said:
AJL308 said:
The 'gun show loophole' is vastly overstated.
It isn't true that there are no checks done on guns bought at gun shows. Gun shows are mostly populated by registered dealers who are selling guns as a business so anything bought through them must be subject to the normal background checks and waiting periods.
Private individuals sometimes take stalls at guns shows to sell things from their personal collections but cannot sell things by way of trade. It is a transaction between private individuals involving their private property so is subject to whatever laws govern such transactions. As they aren't commercial sales they don't have to be background checked. It's no different from two members from a local hunting group agreeing to buy/sell a gun between them.
The exception to the above is California (there may be others) where any firearm transfer, even between private individuals, must be completed by a Federally licensed dealer who must perform the back ground checks. Both parties must be physically present at the gun dealers premises at the time takes place, I think.
That's not quite true though. Federally licensed gun dealers are required to do background checks. Many dealers at gun shows are not federally licensed and do not do background checks. It's also nonsensical that private sales should be excluded from any kind of checks. The California law makes sense and should maybe become the model.It isn't true that there are no checks done on guns bought at gun shows. Gun shows are mostly populated by registered dealers who are selling guns as a business so anything bought through them must be subject to the normal background checks and waiting periods.
Private individuals sometimes take stalls at guns shows to sell things from their personal collections but cannot sell things by way of trade. It is a transaction between private individuals involving their private property so is subject to whatever laws govern such transactions. As they aren't commercial sales they don't have to be background checked. It's no different from two members from a local hunting group agreeing to buy/sell a gun between them.
The exception to the above is California (there may be others) where any firearm transfer, even between private individuals, must be completed by a Federally licensed dealer who must perform the back ground checks. Both parties must be physically present at the gun dealers premises at the time takes place, I think.
The other thing that makes no sense is the idea of a permit for life. In many states you get a permit at 18 and never have to renew. That's ludicrous. You are required to renew your drivers license periodically but not your firearms permit permit? I would have thought they should be renewed every 5 years at minimum.
I'd like to think that the suggestions above - background checks including release of mental health information, permits requiring regular renewals,etc - could become law in the US, but sadly I can't see it ever happening. There seems to be a disproportionate influence exerted by the NRA which will probably block them.
rscott said:
It's reassuring to read that not everyone in the US shares 5oh's views on gun ownership.
I'd like to think that the suggestions above - background checks including release of mental health information, permits requiring regular renewals,etc - could become law in the US, but sadly I can't see it ever happening. There seems to be a disproportionate influence exerted by the NRA which will probably block them.
The things I listed are largely what Trump is likely to propose to the NRA in their upcoming meeting. I would not be surprised if they agree to support such things. You see, that is the gray area. Gun control is not an all or nothing proposition. There are those who want all guns banned, period, then there are the majority of us who want guns available but kept out of the hands of mentalists, terrorists, & criminals.I'd like to think that the suggestions above - background checks including release of mental health information, permits requiring regular renewals,etc - could become law in the US, but sadly I can't see it ever happening. There seems to be a disproportionate influence exerted by the NRA which will probably block them.
Jimbeaux said:
The things I listed are largely what Trump is likely to propose to the NRA in their upcoming meeting. I would not be surprised if they agree to support such things. You see, that is the gray area. Gun control is not an all or nothing proposition. There are those who want all guns banned, period, then there are the majority of us who want guns available but kept out of the hands of mentalists, terrorists, & criminals.
It may be the case, bizarrely, that DT may turn out to be the guy who can actually bring about a significant legislative change that can help prevent firearms falling in to the hands of unsuitable people.He is not a 'politician' as such so has no political baggage that gun owners can't square themselves with. He comes over as someone who says what he likes and who actually says it because he believes it, rather than saying what people want to hear so he can climb the greasy political pole. He may be person who can be believed when he says that he isn't about taking away guns from the law abiding and responsible and that the only people on his radar are the genuinely unsuitable.
What an unbelievably ironic thing it would be if the President (if he ever becomes that) who presided over one of the most effective and popular gun laws the US has ever enacted, one that actually took guns out the hands of a great number of morons, was the guy who only a few months ago was being mocked as an irredeemable lunatic who could barely manage to walk and fart at the same time.
AJL308 said:
It may be the case, bizarrely, that DT may turn out to be the guy who can actually bring about a significant legislative change that can help prevent firearms falling in to the hands of unsuitable people.
He is not a 'politician' as such so has no political baggage that gun owners can't square themselves with. He comes over as someone who says what he likes and who actually says it because he believes it, rather than saying what people want to hear so he can climb the greasy political pole. He may be person who can be believed when he says that he isn't about taking away guns from the law abiding and responsible and that the only people on his radar are the genuinely unsuitable.
What an unbelievably ironic thing it would be if the President (if he ever becomes that) who presided over one of the most effective and popular gun laws the US has ever enacted, one that actually took guns out the hands of a great number of morons, was the guy who only a few months ago was being mocked as an irredeemable lunatic who could barely manage to walk and fart at the same time.
Yep, we can rely on Donald....He is not a 'politician' as such so has no political baggage that gun owners can't square themselves with. He comes over as someone who says what he likes and who actually says it because he believes it, rather than saying what people want to hear so he can climb the greasy political pole. He may be person who can be believed when he says that he isn't about taking away guns from the law abiding and responsible and that the only people on his radar are the genuinely unsuitable.
What an unbelievably ironic thing it would be if the President (if he ever becomes that) who presided over one of the most effective and popular gun laws the US has ever enacted, one that actually took guns out the hands of a great number of morons, was the guy who only a few months ago was being mocked as an irredeemable lunatic who could barely manage to walk and fart at the same time.
https://youtu.be/n2iEes9bzbg
AJL308 said:
Jimbeaux said:
The things I listed are largely what Trump is likely to propose to the NRA in their upcoming meeting. I would not be surprised if they agree to support such things. You see, that is the gray area. Gun control is not an all or nothing proposition. There are those who want all guns banned, period, then there are the majority of us who want guns available but kept out of the hands of mentalists, terrorists, & criminals.
It may be the case, bizarrely, that DT may turn out to be the guy who can actually bring about a significant legislative change that can help prevent firearms falling in to the hands of unsuitable people.He is not a 'politician' as such so has no political baggage that gun owners can't square themselves with. He comes over as someone who says what he likes and who actually says it because he believes it, rather than saying what people want to hear so he can climb the greasy political pole. He may be person who can be believed when he says that he isn't about taking away guns from the law abiding and responsible and that the only people on his radar are the genuinely unsuitable.
What an unbelievably ironic thing it would be if the President (if he ever becomes that) who presided over one of the most effective and popular gun laws the US has ever enacted, one that actually took guns out the hands of a great number of morons, was the guy who only a few months ago was being mocked as an irredeemable lunatic who could barely manage to walk and fart at the same time.
AJL308 said:
Jimbeaux said:
The things I listed are largely what Trump is likely to propose to the NRA in their upcoming meeting. I would not be surprised if they agree to support such things. You see, that is the gray area. Gun control is not an all or nothing proposition. There are those who want all guns banned, period, then there are the majority of us who want guns available but kept out of the hands of mentalists, terrorists, & criminals.
It may be the case, bizarrely, that DT may turn out to be the guy who can actually bring about a significant legislative change that can help prevent firearms falling in to the hands of unsuitable people.He is not a 'politician' as such so has no political baggage that gun owners can't square themselves with. He comes over as someone who says what he likes and who actually says it because he believes it, rather than saying what people want to hear so he can climb the greasy political pole. He may be person who can be believed when he says that he isn't about taking away guns from the law abiding and responsible and that the only people on his radar are the genuinely unsuitable.
What an unbelievably ironic thing it would be if the President (if he ever becomes that) who presided over one of the most effective and popular gun laws the US has ever enacted, one that actually took guns out the hands of a great number of morons, was the guy who only a few months ago was being mocked as an irredeemable lunatic who could barely manage to walk and fart at the same time.
http://www.cosmopolitan.com/politics/news/a59375/d...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff