I will start this off by saying that I know very little about the so-called gun-show loophole.  I understand that it is a loophole (or maybe not) and it really applies to any private sale or transfer.

 

I understand it to allow private transfer without the requirement of a NICS check.  And I do not have a problem with it for truly private transfers.  Obviously laws like the new Nevada and Washington state goes too far

 

I just finished a book written by an FFL who was recruited into Fast & Furious (Mike Detty) and he makes a comment in the book without really taking a side.  But he is selling at shows and, as an FFL, is required to do the 4473 and NICS etc.  But there is a guy set up next to him, with a similar inventory and sales, yet he is a private seller and is exempt from having to perform NICS and I believe exempt from form 4473.  Obviously the "private seller" has a competitive advantage over the FFL.

 

So regardless of the argument on background checks, should these "private sale" guys be allowed to sell in shows and at similar quantities as the FFL? When the FFL is subject to greater ATF scrutiny, regulation, and audits?  I would think the FFLs would be up in arms about this and calling for some kind of reform.

There is no loophole. The guy could sell across the street in the parking lot and still be legal.

 

I never did a gun show. I could care less about a non dealer selling his personal inventory. Did he just buy the guns and is selling them for a profit? I would not be against the ATF looking into that.

 

Just after Newtown, as a dealer, I sold an AR lower to a NJ resident. A few days later I see the lower on GunBroker for more than he paid me for it. And, he haggled me down on the price. It pissed me off. There could have been a logical explanation for it like buyers remorse, so I just forgot about it.

^^^ Good on you PK90 for letting it go. 

 

While I appreciate what FFL Dealers do, from 2A perspective, the "Interstate Commerce" clause has been abused by Feds.  The "loophole", if you one like to call it, is the same loophole that lets Jack sell his used car toaster / ax / hacksaw / knife on Craigslist. 

 

Having said that, I have no problem ATF pounding people who buy / sell in quantities just like I don't have problem with Govt going after a guy selling stuff that generally needs licensing for mass commerce activity. 

 

I do have problem with Anti's making this an issue of "background checks". 

I would note that private sales or transfers are only legal between residents of the same state, and must meet that state's requirements (if any). And I believe that means while in that state.

Enjoy the "loophole"

There's the "loophole" and then there's the loophole. 

 

The private seller at the gun show, if there is a loophole there, it is poor enforcement of the law. IF he is doing that more than once in a very long while to liquidate a collection or something, he's a dealer and needs to be licensed as such. 

 

Then there's the "loophole" the gun grabbers talk about which is private sales. Well, the federal government hung their gun control hat on the interstate commerce clause. Private citizen to citizen sales within a state are about as absolutely removed from that justification as you can get. To argue against it would be to argue that EVERYTHING is interstate commerce. 

There's the "loophole" and then there's the loophole. 

 

The private seller at the gun show, if there is a loophole there, it is poor enforcement of the law. IF he is doing that more than once in a very long while to liquidate a collection or something, he's a dealer and needs to be licensed as such. 

 

Then there's the "loophole" the gun grabbers talk about which is private sales. Well, the federal government hung their gun control hat on the interstate commerce clause. Private citizen to citizen sales within a state are about as absolutely removed from that justification as you can get. To argue against it would be to argue that EVERYTHING is interstate commerce. 

I completely agree with this.  And I thought the private sales was all the so-called loophole amounted to.  But the stuff Mike Detty describes in his book seemed a little over-the-top for a private sale.  I think I would be a little angry if I were an FFL, had jumped through all the hoops and whistles to obtain and maintain my license, then see someone doing the same thing under the guise of "private sale."  It makes me wonder if this is common, or if Detty was overstating the issue (and he really did not make a big deal about it in his book, just mentioned it briefly).

 

It seems like every state law passed to combat the perceived problem only serves to interfere with much more legal activity that is deemed evil by the authors of the laws, than stopping any illegal activity.

And it seems like the abusers of the so-called loophole are few.

And BTW, what a CF the whole "Wide Receiver" and "Fast & Furious" were.  You'd think people would have gone to jail!

There is no loophole. The laws are the way they are. The anti's call everything they want to change a loophole. So after universal background checks what will the next loophole they want to close. So I purchased a firearm and got a background check. But next week I might commit a felony. The loophole is that I still have my gun. So if we required a background check every time the firearm leaves my house that would fix the problem. This is all bs. We know they have only one political objective and that is to ban/destroy all private firearms. There is no point in giving them an inch and being "reasonable". Fortunately more and more regular (non-gun) people are not buying their lies as seen by recent poles. OK off of my soapbox.

I would note that private sales or transfers are only legal between residents of the same state, and must meet that state's requirements (if any). And I believe that means while in that state.

So let's say I was going to the Oaks Gun Show next weekend, I as an NJ rez couldn't buy a long gun from a private seller since I am not from PA? Or am I missing what you're saying (which is more than likely the case)

You would have to find a ffl to do the transfer

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Enjoy the "loophole"

That video is hysterical and educational all at once! THANK YOU!

So let's say I was going to the Oaks Gun Show next weekend, I as an NJ rez couldn't buy a long gun from a private seller since I am not from PA? Or am I missing what you're saying (which is more than likely the case)

Exactly...you would have to go to one of the dealers and have then do a transfer. 

So let's say I was going to the Oaks Gun Show next weekend, I as an NJ rez couldn't buy a long gun from a private seller since I am not from PA? Or am I missing what you're saying (which is more than likely the case)

 

Nope. You can only do a private sale to another NJ resident.You both have a FPID card which required you both to get a background check so no loophole.

Nope. You can only do a private sale to another NJ resident.You both have a FPID card which required you both to get a background check so no loophole.

I am confused by your statement.

 

Sent from an undisclosed location

I am confused by your statement.

 

Sent from an undisclosed location

Me too   Only the buyer needs a FPID not the seller. Usually the seller will have one but not necessarily (could have moved from another state, inherited the firearms, etc). Sorry for responding too quickly and not thinking first but this loophole thing gets me crazy.

There is no loophole. The laws are the way they are. The anti's call everything they want to change a loophole. So after universal background checks what will the next loophole they want to close. So I purchased a firearm and got a background check. But next week I might commit a felony. The loophole is that I still have my gun. So if we required a background check every time the firearm leaves my house that would fix the problem. This is all bs. We know they have only one political objective and that is to ban/destroy all private firearms. There is no point in giving them an inch and being "reasonable". Fortunately more and more regular (non-gun) people are not buying their lies as seen by recent poles. OK off of my soapbox.

If there's no loophole then what is the difference between the current law and universal background checks? Seems to be some thing that they want and we don't.