Is there a lot of paper work and waiting for you to sell a gun from your private collection at a gun show...to anyone who walks up to your display table?

strictly by the letter of the law (here in TX) there is no paperwork required if I wanted to sell my revolver to my neighbor or some stranger from the other side of town, no matter where i'm at. Personally, I have a bill of sale in two copies that states i'm selling said gun, serial # to whoever is buying for said amount. I put in a disclaimer paragraph that the buyer signs stating he/she is not prohibited by law from possessing a firearm. I do this for my protection in the event he/she really is not and the authorities decide to have a chat with me.

is that bill of sale that you've drawn up legally binding? i know nothing about contractual law

it protects both the buyer and myself. I can't later claim it was stolen, because he/she has a signed copy with my name on it, and it can't later be used in a crime traceable to me because I have a signed bill of sale indicating transfer. It never gets filed with any government agency at any time. just like any standard mutually agreed upon contract.

For the purposes of law enforcement, it functions just like a receipt.

The only time 'contracts' will come in to play is if the buyer disputes something with the seller.

A) You buy a handgun from a licensed dealer and you are subject to a background check.

B) A complete stranger buys that handgun from you at your table at a gun show in 30+ states and he is not.

A+B = Loophole

not a loophole, at all. read the law please.

I would take this to mean that you believe ALL firearm transfers, commercial or private, should be NICS checked. How many other items of private property should be subject to federal regulation? Anything that can be used as a weapon?

I read the law (but not recently) and the concept of "private collection" is not clearly defined...so there is your loophole...allowing you to sell virtually any weapon w/o you being required to be a licensed dealer.

And NO, I dont believe ALL firearms transfers should be NICS checked. You can sell what you want out of your own home. I just dont believe you should be able to pose as a "collector" at a gun show in order to sell your old handguns.
-----Added 21/1/2009 at 06 : 32 : 17-----
Like rb, I am now officially bored with this discussion.

Obama and the Democrats in Congress know how to count votes.

And they know, particularly with so many new Democrats being from the South and West, that any new federal gun control legislation would be DOA, particularly in the Senate, and not worth wasting a valuable chip.

It aint gonna happen.....period...end of discussion.

a 'private collection' is firearms owned by a private individual NOT in the business of selling firearms. That does not make a loophole. You really should read the GCA of 68 and then the later amendments made during the clinton anti-gun years to see how FFL laws were remade in order to stop what you're referring to as a loophole. It was actually quite effective. I repeat, there is no loophole.

if you're bothered by private sales at gun shows, then you're stuck with defining what a private collection is and isn't. Do we say 3 firearms, 5 firearms, or 8 firearms is just a private collection and anything over that constitutes dealer status? In order to own more than 8 firearms you must obtain and FFL license?

or do you want to federalize all state run gun shows to stipulate that ONLY licensed FFL dealers can sell at them? All that would do is prompt more parking lot sales.

Or do you want to redefine FFL dealers as anyone who sells a firearm outside of their personal residence? If that's the case, then you need to rewrite entire sections of the GCA68.

I don't want criminals to easily get around background checks in 30+ states in the country. whatever it takes to do THAT please

keep them in prison. If they can't be trusted with a weapon, why should they be trusted without a custodian?

what if this is their first crime?

no no, you're right, life sentences for all criminals is far more practical

once again, if they can't be trusted with a weapon (because even if you banned guns entirely, weapons would still be available), they shouldn't be out of prison. Therefore, it only seems plain and obvious that ONLY violent prone criminals should have life sentences and all other NON-VIOLENT criminals can have their rights restored upon getting out of jail.

Re: Gun Show Loopholes.

If you are a DEALER, then you MUST do a background check before selling a firearm. Period.

If you are a private firearm owner who wants to sell a weapon (but is not doing so on a regular basis or for profit) then you sometimes do not, depending on the state. It makes no difference whether the transaction takes place in a house, a parking lot, or a gun show. It is a private person to person transaction. So while you may be able to call this a.... Loophole, it is not a Gun Show Loophole which according to the brady bunch allows felons to purchase weapons willy nilly.

As a private citizen you are not allowed to sell a weapon to anyone you suspect or know to be an unlawful buyer, but the onus is really on the person purchasing the weapon.

If you closed the "gun show loophole" and simply prevented private sales at gun shows you would only serve to inconvenience those looking for a good way to sell their private firearms and criminals would just buy their illegal guns...illegally or out of the shotgun news from another private citizen who is not at a gun show.

Gun Shows provide private citizens with a good way to sell specialty and collectors pieces. You put a sign down the barrel and walk around until you bump into another collector looking for what you have.



And Roachboy: Sure, the comment I quoted was towards the bottom of the page, but it was sorted not by precedence but by category. Also, since this is a thread concerning what will happen regarding firearms during Obama's administration, it would be inappropriate to discuss some of the other items he mentioned which I take equal offense to.


The child locks law does sound perfectly reasonable. I would even support a law requiring a lock to be sold with every firearm (many states already have this). It is a good, simple way to provide the OPTION of locking up your firearm if/when you have children in the house. However, nearly every proposed law focuses instead on rendering the weapon itself somehow unusable to children which in turn usually makes it very difficult for the homeowner to use also. They are typically aimed at reducing gun sales more than actually helping children.

Repealing the Tiarht Amendment would impose a defacto gun-registry in the USA. Something that has been widely fought against as firearms registration often leads to confiscation. It wouldn't really help solve crimes because if the police have the 'murder weapon' in their possession, they will be granted access to the information for that particular weapon and thus can track down the owner. If they don't have the weapon then they wouldn't know where to start anyways. It is feared that free access to such information will allow someone who falls under any suspicion to be instantly categorized as the next Ted Kaczynski simply because they own several firearms.

slims--i suppose in the end that time will tell. like i said, i watched the attorney general confirmation hearings, as i have been watching some of the others in order to get a sense what the new administration is likely to do--and i saw no reason to doubt his repeated statements that this is not on the administration's radar, that he cannot imagine it being on their radar. maybe you have information i don't, but i doubt it.

but i'd say that given the magnitude of damage left behind after 8 years of focused conservative incompetence and 30 years of neoliberalism, given the extent to which it is clear that the obama administration is a wholesale repudiation of that 30 years--and so given the extent to which they have to confront very complicated questions very quickly and assemble teams capable to implementing a very different type of policy orientation--and so a different kind of state---not the neoliberal state--but something else---i would expect this question to be very very far down on the agenda.

but it's also possible that a case will wend it's way through the court system that could change things.

barring that, i don't see anything really happening on this any time soon.

i don't know whether this is of any interest, but the fact is that this issue doesn't move me. i grew up with guns around, but i never took an interest in them. i was more taken with bow shooting at targets. hunting never really appealed to me. when i went hunting, i liked tracking but found that guns were heavy and got in the way and i never had any intention of shooting them at anything anyway. i preferred hiking. so i don't really have an iron in the fire.

but i have lived most of my adult life in cities, as i've said before in these debates.

so i have no particular problem with folk having guns, hunting or whatever in areas that are not densely populated--but i can't for the life of me figure out why there's an assumption that guns mean the same thing in a city. again, population density--it's as simple as that.

so i see gun regulation as a pragmatic matter perhaps best resolved at the local level--as i've said before, i see no reason why there should not be very different regulations in urban and other environments. to me, it's just common sense.

i've participated a little in this thread because i wanted to understand why the above was apparently such a problem for other folk. and there's a range of positions, some which makes sense to me, some which don't at all.

it's strange how polarized these things get. it doesn't seem necessary. but there we are.

safe storage laws only create defenseless victims, case in point the carpenter family in merced california.

Keep and Bear Arms - Gun Owners Home Page - 2nd Amendment Supporters

jeebus, isn't this thread dead yet?

roachboy, my morbid curiosity requires me to ask just how do you think gun laws should be different in densely populated areas, other than what they are right now in say, chicago, nyc, los angeles, newark nj and what effect would they have if the ones that are so onerous now are not working.
-----Added 21/1/2009 at 08 : 44 : 56-----
no, and why should it be? so far it still seems like a civil debate. should it die?

dksuddeth: I was very careful to say that locks should be sold with firearms, not that their use should be mandatory.

I keep a pistol on the nightstand, but I don't see how you can claim safe storage laws ONLY create defenseless victims. Be realistic, if all firearms were stored in gun safes, it would be far more difficult for children to hurt themselves. It is and should be an individual decision based on risk/lifestyle, but making inflated claims won't help anything. I remember all the trouble I got into with firearms as a child, and it is only because some of my friends were 'trusted' to not screw around with guns. It is a miracle we were never arrested, or that we didn't shoot someone and end up in jail.

If you have children and leave firearms out, eventually they WILL play with them when you are not around. If you taught them safe weapons handling they wont' shoot each other, but there is a lot a 13 year old boy doesn't know yet.

It is, however an issue I think should be left to personal responsibility.

On an unrelated note. The reposting of that 'AWB' thing on the whitehouse website has me worried. Is that a pander to the base, or should I go ahead and purchase my LWRC M6A2 on credit?

Sigh.

Me too. I've got enough for a M107 knock-off. Hell, might be a good investment.
-----Added 21/1/2009 at 09 : 34 : 06-----
This is the issue that the anti-gunners don't want to confront. Responsibility means relying on an individual's judgment and action. You can't trust that. Better pass a law to control everybody. Only way to be sure. Safety is better than responsibility.

if all gun owners were responsible, the law wouldn't be necessary. but since some parents aren't responsible enough to keep their guns out of the hands of their children, measures must be made to protect the children. yes, the idiots "ruin" it for the good guys.

So rather than pass laws that limit everyone why don't we work together towards laws that prosecute idiot irresponsible parents? Or just idiot irresponsible people that leave a gun lying around within a childs reach?

I personally think that if you intentionally cause harm do something intentionally irresponsible that causes harm to your child you should be taken to the edge of town and stoned to death. I think if this was public policy suddenly we would have the best parents in the world. But this is only my opinion. So as an example of this let's say I am a parent that leaves a gun out where my child can access it and they get it out while I'm away and accidentally shoot themselves or another child. I know I will be tried and should I be convicted then I know what my sentence will be. How many guns do you think will be left unattended in a place where small children could access them? Absolutely none.

I guess that should mean that because a few people use kitchen knives to kill people, we should outlaw or license kitchen knives......wait, i think somewhere they are trying that. :orly:

or maybe because we've got a few really bad cops that have gone and killed civilians, we should remove all guns from cops?

you don't see how patently absurd it is to punish a whole group of people for the unlawful/irresponsible acts of a few?

Okay, we're not talking about kitchen knives or bad cops. Can we stay focused here?

Can child safety measures on guns be compared to seat-belt legislation? Making it a law that people must use safety measures that will likely prevent accidental deaths?

One more reason to believe that gun control, particularly an AWB, has no chance of passage in the 111th Congress (for those who still think it is on the Democrats agenda):

NY governor Patterson is expected to appoint Congresswoman Kirsten Gillebrand to Hillary Clinton's seat. Gillebrand is a gun-toting upstate NY centrist/right centrist Democrat with a 100% rating by the NRA.

Count one less vote for an AWB on the Democratic aisle in the Senate, effectively killing it for certain, if there ever was any doubt.
-----Added 22/1/2009 at 11 : 49 : 34-----
I just heard her described as a Democratic answer to Sarah Palin.....young mother, hunter, relatively new and unknown in national politics, fiscal conservative....but with a brain!

Aw man please give it a rest. The lady was crucified in the press because she was perceived as a serious threat to the Senator from Illinois. Your side won, whether it was fair and square is always open to debate, nevertheless let's move on and see what we collectively can do rather than 4 more years like the last 20 or so.

This from a guy who mockingly likes to refer to B Hussein Obama as the savior?

But putting that aside, as well as the absurdity of whether the "fairness" of Obama's overwhelming electoral victory "will always be open to debate"....the larger point is that Gilllibrand is not a typical eastern liberal in the manner that the right wing media like to portray all Democrats.

Like many of the 50+ Democratic House members elected in the last four years from Republican districts, these folks are a large part of the new face and growing tent of the Democratic party for whom gun control is not an issue.

And she can probably see Canada from her window!
-----Added 23/1/2009 at 08 : 33 : 39-----
Who is Kirsten Gillibrand
The Blue Dog Coalition is not to be ignored in the Democratic Party and Obama/Pelosi et al know it as well as anyone.

her appointment seriously lowered my concern about any gun laws for the next two years.

Anyone ever thought about a march on Washington with empty holsters, if another AWB bill gets to the floor of the legislation?

No they can't. Seat belts don't inhibit the owners ability to drive. Forcing someone to install an integral lock on a weapon does. I don't have children and have no need to secure all my weapons. If I had them, I would choose what level of security is appropriate for my family and I. I would weigh the odds of a home invasion where I live against the risk to my children if they find a weapon and act appropriately.

Oh, and DKsuddeth, there is absolutely no way on this earth I would walk around DC with an empty holster. It just isn't going to happen. I have never understood how that sort of protest does anything other than make the protesters look like a bunch of idiots.

If you want to change a law then lobby, it is the only really effective way in most circumstances.

Empty holsters = empty heads.

How about a protest where we burn holsters? Or maybe our concealed carry licenses?

And the pen is mightier than the gun. :)

But the point is that the locks would possibly prevent thousands of accidents.

Don't you have to think of resale?

Children can be unpredictable. That's why accidents happen.

Many states already mandate a gun lock must be sold with every gun. Many gun manufacturers (S&W, Taurus, Remington) have integral locks inside them.

You can't force people to use locks just like you can't force people to use seat belts. You can provide them the locks and keys (even by law) and create penalties for not using them. And that's all.

...

Baraka...

There are no "accidents" with guns, only operator negligence or equipment malfunction.

I don't need a lock to make a firearm safe. I can disassemble it or put it in my safe.

Children kill themselves every day with things you can't ban or regulate.

Cruel or not, I'd rather hand out Darwin Awards than more feel-good-do-nothing legislation.

...

There needs to be more firearm education and less firearm legislation.

I'm all for mandatory training. I'm against silly placebo laws.

It might not be a loophole currently, but I see this as something this administration might look into changing.

I could see them making the seller do a background check on the person buying the gun in order to transfer it. It probably wouldn't be that hard to setup the ATF or FBI to handle this type of program for non gun dealers. Maybe they would just have to go to a licensed gun dealer to get a certificate stating that they are able to buy a gun and the seller has to do the same thing so they know that the other person is able to buy a gun.

How about a barcode tattoo?

I think the laws we have now are great. Let's get to enforcing them, m'kay.

I would agree, which is why i'm not the one that suggested it.
-----Added 23/1/2009 at 10 : 41 : 49-----
all this would amount to is full scale registration which could/would lead to full scale confiscation. just like canadas firearm registry, just like californias Assault weapons registration, too many people would not comply. Once it was determined that only a small amount of people would actually comply, how is it going to be enforced?

explain why registration = confiscation please

WOLVERINES!

Sorry, that pops out every time somebody says "confiscation."

Pfft.

...

Only issue with full registration is that it makes it easy for The Man to inventory who has what and how much.

Not like that don't do that with every other aspect of our lives. I mean, hell... the DoD has my frickin' DNA.

without going in to all the same historical essay that i've done in the past, registration=confiscation is not only easy to follow, we have actual occurrences of it right here in this 'never happen here' country.

1) chicagos handgun ban. When first implemented, it grandfathered in all handguns registered before a certain date. This led to the creation of CAGE (Chicago Area Gun Enforcement) units who then served warrants and raided homes of people who's registration expired. They also managed to get access to firearm purchase records if the buyer listed a chicago address. Any new gun purchase from someone with a chicago address received a surprise visit from these CAGE units looking for the gun.

2) Californias AWB. Before the ban, there was proposed registration. Lots of people registered the listed weapons if they owned any. they were told at that time that these weapons were not going to be banned, but the new law aimed at crime prevention demanded that all the weapons indicated needed to be registered ever so often. Then the roberti-roos AWB was implemented. Those who were foolish enough to actually register a weapon listed on that ban received notice to turn them over to police. Those that didn't turn them over received a nice little police raid looking for registered weapon.

If you choose to stick your head in the sand and trumpet that it would never happen here, thats fine. I know I will never comply with registration. I know that tens of thousands never will also.