Opinions on the gunshow loophole as well as the private sale loophole in the US
Posted by KEBobliek@reddit | Firearms | View on Reddit | 95 comments
From what I've understood most gun owners in the US support making background checks mandatory in all firearm sales and purchases. When I say background check I'm talking about the one that has to be done if buying a gun through an FFL. I think it would be smart to close these loopholes since from what I read 30% of guns bought at a gunshow are used in crime after being purchased. Also this shouldn't really affect anyone else but people who need to buy guns from gunshows/sketchy private sellers since they don't pass the background check.
As a European I think the idea of being able to buy guns without a background check is ridiculous. But I want to hear other gun owners/enthusiasts opinions on this.
Quiet-Future864@reddit
You lost us at "As a european" You lost your gun rights long ago, and cant even control illegal immigrants taking over your countries
KEBobliek@reddit (OP)
Gun rights depend heavily country by country in the EU. E.g. the UK has dogshit laws while places like Czechia have good gun laws even on US standards. But yeah I do admit to the fact that gun ownership is a good bit harder over here which imo is a shame and unnecessary. I personally think that everyone who isn't seriously mentally ill or doesn't have a violent criminal past should be able to own however many of whatever kind of gun for any reason they wish.
Also, for the most part they're not illegal immigrants. They're refugees which have flooded in here because of the actions of the US and Israel in the middle east. Has the EU handled intergration of refugees perfectly? Definetly not. Do I like the EU? Fundamentally yes, but in it's current state it's just stripping the rights of the individual by for example having bullshit regulations on firearms which make zero sense.
Btw if you read past the "As a European" part you would've realised that I take back some of what I said and gave in to the fact that I made mistakes like A. I did not fact check my source well enough. B. I worded some parts poorly. C. Going against the grain on a sub which I should've known to be full of people who are going to disagree with me.
I'm still happy that I made this post, since it made me realise that I was spreading misinformation and was fundamentally wrong since I was asking about opinions on something which isn't an actual issue. I also got a healthy reality check on my fact checking skills and my ability to write questions in English so that's cool I guess.
InevitableMeh@reddit
All gun laws are tyranny. No informed American supports any of them. They are unconstitutional.
PoopShitty1@reddit
i support gun laws forbidding mentally ill people and criminals from obtaining firearms
PlemCam@reddit
“…from what I read 30% of guns bought at a gun show are used in crime…”
Let’s see that source.
KEBobliek@reddit (OP)
Poor wording on my behalf. Source is also not the greatest.
https://www.aap.org/en/advocacy/state-advocacy/universal-background-checks-for-gun-purchases/?srsltid=AfmBOoqN4cSOX-Yx793iMImI0rNDysu4nAOxpp3flTGSsXe5ZL97HOC7
"30% of guns involved in criminal trafficking are connected to gun shows, where background checks aren’t required. The trafficking of guns generally involves a highly efficient, organized, and profitable business that moves guns from legal manufacture to dealers to criminals and young people who can’t buy guns legally."
So, not necessarily directly used in crime, but trafficking guns and distributing them illegally certainly is a crime.
PlemCam@reddit
“Not the greatest”… understatement of the year.
Right off the bat, they’ve peddled an easily debunked lie: “gun shows, where background checks aren’t required.” Background checks are absolutely required at gun shows.. Even PolitiFact had to call bullshit on that one.
If they can’t even get that one right, as for the claim that legally purchased firearms are being trafficked, etc…that would mean the 20,000+ federal and state gun laws in this country are failing to do the one thing they’re designed to do. In which case, I see no reason to give the government even more power.
islesfan186@reddit
Source: trust me bro
If this stat were even close to being true, the amount of lawlessness in this country would be unparalleled. It would be like the Wild West
sqlbullet@reddit
I have bought 4-5 guns at gunshows. Background check every time as best I can recall, though I think my son may have gotten a revolver off a table from a non-ffl there.
As a non-US citizen what you might want to understand is that the laws that have been proposed for universal background checks are not structured in such a way as to facilitate background checks on private party sales with minimal intrusion. They are a federal gun registry and tracking system with a difficult and burdensome process to complete a background check.
I would also add that, at least in my state, it has become relatively standard for most law-abiding private party sales to require the buyer to show a current CFP.
KEBobliek@reddit (OP)
From what someone on here said, I understood that in 22 states, there are background checks at gunshows and private sales, and that in the rest of the states, there aren't. It is great that a conceal carry permit is standard practice when buying guns in your state. That sounds reasonable.
sqlbullet@reddit
Yeah...about that. Remember how I said burdensome?
I stopped buying guns at gunshows after my county started requiring them at municipal venues like the conference center where the gunshows are held. But I made the mistake once.
Prior to that I had purchased 5-6 guns off tables at the gunshow. 99% of the tables there are FFL's and they are required to do all the things: 4473, background check, etc. It had always been quick and easy. Fill out the 4473, hand them my ID, they would run NICS and I was on my way. Usually around five minutes.
Once the Government made them "mandatory" they could not figure out how attendees could "prove" a legally purchased gun from an FFL had undergone NICS scrutiny. So, they required ALL purchases to go through their counter, which was staffed by two people.
The new process: Select gun, be accompanied with the gun and the seller to the line to get the background check from the state. But, you have to fill out the 4473 in front of the state employee for reasons. The wait was 60 minutes to get to the front of the queue, though the line was only seven or eight people. The process with the state, the seller and me once we got to the front was about 20 minutes, hence the long wait. Once that was done I still had to return to the seller's booth to complete the financial side since they didn't want to charge me then have to refund me if it was denied. All in what used to be a 5-10 minute process took 90 minutes.
Oh, and the private sales? They now occur across the street at the 7-11 parking lot.
It has done nothing to prevent background check-less sales, has really killed gun sales at the show for legit businesses. But it helped 7-11 sell more big-gulps.
ShaggyRebel117@reddit
The hell you mean "30 percent of guns from gunshows"? Those come with an NICS background check too. Get citizenship ship here and try to buy a gun from a gunshows without paying twice as much and still having a federal background check. The only guy there that will sell to you without an FFL is a fed. What most people mean when they say "universal background checks" what they actually mean is "you have to register your firearms in a national data base, definitely not a registry though, lol."
Fear_The-Old_Blood@reddit
All gun laws are unconstitutional.
KEBobliek@reddit (OP)
Based. There shouldn't be a limit on what you can own.
I still think universal background checks should be implemented.
hcuimbtw@reddit
What type of law are requiring background checks for firearm purchases?
KEBobliek@reddit (OP)
Federal law if buying through an FFL and in 22 states also for private sales.
hcuimbtw@reddit
Which are specific to what type of product?
x8d@reddit
Background checks are unconstitutional gun laws.
HSR47@reddit
FTFY.
As far as I’m concerned, there’s a lot that our federal and state governments can legislate that would arguably qualify as “gun laws”, but do not violate 2A. For example:
I’d argue that all of these examples, and likely many more, would be the sort of policies that even the founders would agree do not violate the 2A.
Fear_The-Old_Blood@reddit
You know what, those are fair points. As long as the government isn't trying to prohibit people from owning guns, I'm all for it.
Fourteen_Sticks@reddit
“gUn SHoW pOopHoLe 🤪🤪”
It’s private property.
thatARMSguy@reddit
Your option doesn’t matter to us. Pretty much every single person here wants less gun laws, not more. The only people who want more laws are gun grabbers and liberal/boomer gun owners who think the second amendment is about hunting
KEBobliek@reddit (OP)
I understand my opinion is quite irrelevant. I think there should be zero restrictions on what kind of gun you can own. My only opinion that could be considered "anti-hun" is that, there should be universal background checks in all places.
I made this post out of curiosity to ask American gun owners' opinions on this.
that_one_2a_femboy@reddit
fun fact, there already is.
KEBobliek@reddit (OP)
In 22 states, there are universal background checks. In all states there is a background check, if buying through an FFL.
x5060@reddit
That isn't true. Only 15 states have Universal background checks, and only 2 of those states have any way of actually tracking a firearm and enforcing the law. The other 7 states you are counting have state laws with slightly more stringent background requirements, but they are NOT universal background checks.
Are you just getting random google sources?
FALTomJager@reddit
I literally have to get a background check every time I buy a gun from an FFL, someone allowed to make a living off selling guns. It’s private sellers that done have to, people that are selling one or a few guns just because they don’t want them. Maybe their father/grandfather passed away and had a bunch of guns, but the kid only like the world war military surplus and not the hunting rifles. He could sell those unwanted guns to an FFL, but he’d get 60% of what he could when selling them to another guy privately. ITS THE SAME THING AS NOT GOING TO A DEALER TO SELL YOUR CAR
Ornery_Secretary_850@reddit
I love Texas. My LTC serves in lieu of the background check.
KEBobliek@reddit (OP)
As I said, I have no problem with private gun sales. I am aware you need to do a background check when buying from an FFL. Someone here said that in the state he's from its common practice to show a conceal carry permit when doing private sales. Imo for private sales, that sounds reasonable.
FALTomJager@reddit
You say you don’t have a problem with private sales, but in your post, you say there should be background checks. How does a normal person get access to the FBI background check service, which is for FFLs. Also, almost have the states have constitutional carry ie no permit or license to conceal carry. So requiring someone to show their CCL would ban private sales in have the country.
KEBobliek@reddit (OP)
I don't know maybe by going through an FFL? For me even something like proving that you have a conceal carry permit would be enough to conduct a private sale. In states that don't require a conceal carry permit to carry maybe something that proves that you already own a gun or that you have passed the background check at an FFL?
joeyfreshwater24@reddit
If I'm selling a gun to a friend, I don't need a background check, a ccp check, or any other kind of "check" to know their background. FORCING me to do some kind of check is an infringement, plain and simple, and its unnecessary.
Negative_Bunch4271@reddit
Sounds like an infringement of rights
x5060@reddit
That is not correct. That is a cope that anti-gun people tell themselves to pretend they're right.
You're literally just making things up at this point.
Ah, ok, opinion discarded.
KEBobliek@reddit (OP)
https://www.aap.org/en/advocacy/state-advocacy/universal-background-checks-for-gun-purchases/?srsltid=AfmBOoqN4cSOX-Yx793iMImI0rNDysu4nAOxpp3flTGSsXe5ZL97HOC7
"88% of those surveyed in the US, including 85% of gun owners, favor universal background checks on sales of all weapons."
Of course, this survey is
"30% of guns involved in criminal trafficking are connected to gun shows, where background checks aren’t required. The trafficking of guns generally involves a highly efficient, organized, and profitable business that moves guns from legal manufacture to dealers to criminals and young people who can’t buy guns legally."
Poor wording on my behalf. Still, 30% of guns trafficked being connected to gun shows is still a ridiculous amount.
x5060@reddit
That survey was garbage. It never actually asked "Do you support background checks for firearms purchases" it asked "do you support measures keeping criminals from getting firearms" or some other biased nonsense then reinterpreted it to say that everyone supports background checks. Actually read the study if you're going to cite it.
Define what "connected" to gun shows even means. Its nebulous at best. Does that mean that it was purchased at a gun show and later stolen? Does that mean the person that used it in a crime simply attended a gun show? Does that mean that it simply passed within the vicinity of a gun show?
It's literally a propaganda piece that you just regurgitated
-ShotsFired@reddit
Source?
Also can you define what this loophole is exactly?
Stack_Silver@reddit
"gunshows loophole", aka private transfers
joeyfreshwater24@reddit
This whole post seems sus. Talks about gun owners generally being in favor of UBC's, which is absolutely not true, and brings up the liberal talking point "gun show loophole", which doesn't exist. If you buy a gun at a gun show from a vendor, they're an FFL, and they're doing a background check.
Stack_Silver@reddit
Yes.
A vendor with a FFL requires the documents, but some States have gunshows where the 4473 isn't required because private transfers are legal in those States.
Search "gun buyback fails, private transfers"
ProblemEfficient6502@reddit
You're conflating two completely different things. There is no loophole, just private sellers complying with the law.
Stack_Silver@reddit
Apologies, limited time earlier.
Some people think that private sales at a gunshow are illegal because 1)the laws in their State prevent private sales and 2) the people believe the propaganda without thinking about reality.
Stevarooni@reddit
Carefully-worded polls that conflate background checks with "universal background checks" without defining either.
TheFluffiestHuskies@reddit
Gun show and private sale compromise. Loophole implies it wasn't intentional and needs to be "closed" when it was actually a concession made when negotiating for the installment of background checks in the first place. This is how tyranny begins - ask for something, then keep asking for more until you get what you want (full ban) and can begin seizing even more liberties.
LegendActual@reddit
The gun show loophole literally does not exist.
The ability of citizens to sell legal property amongst themselves is not a loophole.
KEBobliek@reddit (OP)
This seems to be what most people on here have been saying. I don't have a problem with people selling guns to each other, but I think having a background check done would decrease the relatively small risk of the gun being bought by someone who wouldn't pass a background check.
vegangunstuff@reddit
The background check is federal, not state. 29 states also have constitutional carry.
KEBobliek@reddit (OP)
Background check is in all states when you buy from an FFL, universal background check states require background checks for private sales from what I've understood.
518nomad@reddit
If policymakers and the gun control lobby wanted universal background checks, they could have them tomorrow: Just open up the NICS website to all citizens. Then any citizen could enter the buyer’s information and run the check. This is the solution that has been offered by pro-2A policymakers and each time the gun control lobby and its allies refuse. Why? Because going through an FFL creates the paper trail they need to create a national firearms registry. This is illegal as a violation of the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986, which prohibits the federal government from creating such a registry, but they do not care about such a limitation on their power. They care only about getting a major step closer to confiscation, which is the only thing such a registry is for. No thanks.
vegangunstuff@reddit
Yes but they don't offer access to the system for non FFL people. So they're saying you have to go through a lengthy and expensive process to obtain an FFL if you want to run a check.
Able_Twist_2100@reddit
"Property"?
When is America going to do away with this crazy capitalism loophole?
Edrobbins155@reddit
State where you received this info?
This sounds like a troll post to me. No one can be that stupid, and since the op has not responded to anyone yet. Proves it’s a troll post.
KEBobliek@reddit (OP)
I have a life outside of reddit.
Anyways, I got my info from here https://www.aap.org/en/advocacy/state-advocacy/universal-background-checks-for-gun-purchases/?srsltid=AfmBOoqN4cSOX-Yx793iMImI0rNDysu4nAOxpp3flTGSsXe5ZL97HOC7
Edrobbins155@reddit
Thats the problem right there.
United-Advertising67@reddit
You understand wrong.
Your opinion doesn't matter.
KEBobliek@reddit (OP)
Did an edit and conclusion. Won't bother responding to any other replies.
joeyfreshwater24@reddit
Good, because most of your replies further cement my opinion that Europeans have absolutely no clue what they're talking about when discussing american gun laws and culture, and you should stick to what you guys are good at, which is starting massive, world ending wars on your continent.
HaroldTheSloth84@reddit
A few things to note: most vendors at gun shows hold a Federal Firearms License. As an FFL holder, you must perform a background check on all sales and keep detailed records of transfers. The overwhelming majority of sales are performed in this manner.
Also note that you cannot sell a gun across state lines without going through an FFL holder. The 1968 Gun Control Act set that up, I’m guessing as a means to prevent illegal trafficking.
Also note that the 10th Amendment of the Constitution limits the Federal government to only matters involving interstate commerce. This concept has been crapped on lately, but that’s the theory. This means the rules for private sales are a matter of state law, not federal.
However, while you can sell firearms privately in most states, it is still illegal to sell a firearm to someone you know is a drug addict, felon, has intent to misuse the firearm, etc.
I know it seems bizarre to you as a European, but the Second Amendment, the right to private ownership of arms, is important to us. Without private ownership of arms, our country wouldn’t even exist.
joeyfreshwater24@reddit
During covid, Australia was taking people who tested positive for covid coming back into the country, and making them go stay in camps (Howard Springs). I promise you, the only thing that stopped them from doing similar shit here in America during covid, was the knowledge that there would be incoming fire if they tried.
DrBadGuy1073@reddit
Get better sources because none of what you said is true.
joeyfreshwater24@reddit
I think OP has been drinking out of the mainstream media firehose.
Darksept@reddit
"I've understood most gun owners in the US support making background checks mandatory in all firearm sales and purchases" Based on what? I've heard very few people say this. Where are you getting your info from?
"I read 30% of guns bought at a gunshow are used in crime" Again, where are your stats from? If you look at the sheer statistics of guns bought at gun shows and crimes involving a gun, that stat isn't even possible.
Private sales have always been a thing. It's not a loophole; it's the law. You're making the assumption that guns are purchased through private sales almost entirely by people that can't pass a background check, aren't you? Are you aware of the law that prohibits selling to someone you suspect/know couldn't pass a background check? Do you know what percentage of guns used in crime are stolen instead of purchased?
Are you aware that the form you fill out when buying a gun is for the licensed dealers records and aren't in a government searchable data base? And that the FBI background check can be skipped in a lot of states by having a conceal carry licence? The government doesn't know half the guns Americans own. So and new or worsening gun violence can't be attributed to private sales.
KEBobliek@reddit (OP)
https://www.aap.org/en/advocacy/state-advocacy/universal-background-checks-for-gun-purchases/?srsltid=AfmBOoqN4cSOX-Yx793iMImI0rNDysu4nAOxpp3flTGSsXe5ZL97HOC7
"88% of those surveyed in the US, including 85% of gun owners, favor universal background checks on sales of all weapons."
The survey could've been done in a more left leaning state with gun owners that think the 2nd amendment is for hunting, which is false.
"30% of guns involved in criminal trafficking are connected to gun shows, where background checks aren’t required. The trafficking of guns generally involves a highly efficient, organized, and profitable business that moves guns from legal manufacture to dealers to criminals and young people who can’t buy guns legally."
Mistake on my part for saying that 30% of guns bought from gun shows are used in crime. Criminal trafficking isn't really the same as a gun being directly used in crime.
I don't have a problem with private sales. I think it's great that people can sell guns they don't want to other people who want them. I'd just rather they go through a background check. I do not have the presumption that the only people who want to buy via private sales are people who can't get guns through an FFL. What kind of punishment do you get if you sell someone a gun that wouldn't have passed the background check? I'm not aware of the percentage of stolen guns being used in crime, but I'd guess it's around 80-90 % in the US. In my opinion the minor inconvenience of needing to do a background check for private transactions is worth the slight decrease in illegally owned guns. Not 100% sure on how getting a conceal carry permit works, but you do need two people to vouch for you and I'd guess they face legal trouble if the person they vouched for does something illegal to do with guns. Also, I'd guess that you should already have a gun before getting a conceal carry permit.
DarthMonkey212313@reddit
That is an biased source as it admits being a advocacy page and citing Giffords fraudulent "stats".
Example the 30% stat came from a study so flawed it was never published, but still used a tallkign point by gun banning groups.
Academic Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2936974/
KEBobliek@reddit (OP)
Thanks for this source. Was not aware that the source AAP used was this flawed. I'll edit the post description and mention you for bringing this up. Was wondering on why I couldn't find the source for their claims on the site I used as a source. Biased source was something I was also considering.
NinjaBuddha13@reddit
Also, surveys are notoriously unreliable. We live in an age of psyops, data mining, and unprecedented meddling from both government and private companies in our lives. Many, possibly most, gun owners do not trust survey takers to be acting in good faith and will therefore either lie or simply not participate. For example, any time a surveyor contacts me, I will do one of three things: 1 - end the conversation before it begins by either walking away or hanging up, both without speaking a single word, 2 - inquire how much my opinion is worth and begin negotiating my compensation for participating in something they're going to use to make money, 3 - keep the surveyor involved for as long as possible in an attempt to waste their time and prevent them from bothering more people. In absolutely no circumstances will I actually provide answers to the survey. My view is hardly unique.
vargr1@reddit
"As a European I think" Your opinion has been noted.
GimpboyAlmighty@reddit
Background checks exist to separate the undesirables from guns.
Do you trust the government to define the undesirables class in a fair and just manner?
vegangunstuff@reddit
As a European, you've been fed constant lies and misinformation about our culture from corporate media. It's not just Europe, happens here too.
Stevarooni@reddit
Gun Control laws in the U.S. were explicitly written to allow private party sales without government involvement after extensive discussions.
DarthMonkey212313@reddit
They aren't loopholes, to call them such is disingenuous. They were the concessions in previous negotiations on gun control legislation. The fact that these are now called loopholes shows yet again that the gun grabbers can't be trusted and any "compromise" today is just a step for them, they will come after it again tomorrow. In light of this. NOT ONE MORE DAMN INCH (and I want my cake back).
Slowjuke@reddit
Canada every time you buy a fire arm it’s ran through a back ground check to make sure you have nothing against you but it’s also ran every day as a brick ground check but any non restricted firearms that you own are not registered
Stack_Silver@reddit
One main difference between the US Constitution and the European Constitutions is that each State is a form of a nation in itself.
Federal laws, such as inter-State commerce laws, apply to all States and other laws only apply inside one State, such as legal cannabis laws.
Federal law example
Federal law requires background checks when the transaction occurs between a Federal Firearm License (FFL) holder and a citizen.
The form is referred to as 4473.
Once the form is completed, the person with the FFL will contact NICs and the FBI performs a background check.
State law example
Each State has different laws for the purchase of a rifle, shotgun, pistol or firearm.
Person to person transfers are called private transfers.
Currently, there are 22 States requiring a NICs background check for private transfers, including transfers at gunshows.
Background checks for all transfers/transactions are known as "universal background checks".
KEBobliek@reddit (OP)
Thanks for breaking it down. So how come there still are 28 states that don't have a universal background check?
Stack_Silver@reddit
Welcome.
Rhetorical question- "How come some of the laws in Belgium are different than the laws in Switzerland or Germany?"
Each State is like a nation inside of a union. That means each State will have different internal laws.
For example:
Recreational cannabis is legal in Massachusetts, but not legal in Texas.
For the gun laws, some argue the laws save lives and others argue those intent on causing harm don't follow the existing laws.
It is a cheese wheel rolling down an infinite hill.
ilikerelish@reddit
Then you understand wrong. Most vendors at gun shows already perform the nics check, and fill out the 4473s. It only favors their business to keep the attendees from coming to agreements and selling at the shows. If I want to walk into a gun show with an 870 slung over my shoulder, and some guy offers me 600 bucks for it, I should be able to sell it. It is not a loophole. If I'd done the same thing though any site like Craigslist, or happened to bump into the guy on the street it would be legal, why not at a gun show? The answer is that the feds, particularly the liberal ones want to make the process as onerous as possible for the individual to buy and sell guns that younger lazier people won't even try to do it, or pick up their first. What you have read is entirely wrong. The guns used criminally usually originate from a legal sale, often times they are then sold nefariously, or stolen, and end up in criminal hands. If the ATF wants to go after straw purchasers, by all means.. they can. However, when they gunned down the Airport administrator who was turning over his collection a little to fast and regularly for them without warning, well.. that just goes to show you that again, they are trying to make the process of owning harder for people.
I'm someone who's been on both sides of the fence. The people aren't making buys from private sellers because they are sketchy, it's more of a matter of supply and demand. If all I have in my store is fresh off the presses new model year guns, and what the buyer wants is a Winchester 71 in 348.. Well.. he's going to have to go find one, and they are rare as hens teeth in dealers, especially at a reasonable price (last I saw was $11,000 at a dealer, for a special edition model; while a local guy was selling one for $900, same gun not special, but good looking example). Is a guy who wants to save a buck "sketchy"? How bout one who wants something that is hard to get commercially?...
Then, of course you are completely missing the big picture. If every gun is transacted through an FFL, that means that there is a registry. All the ATF has to do is go collect the 4473s. (which they are, in fact, doing which is completely illegal, to create said registry). As a European, it should be glaringly obvious to you why this is a problem. One of the first actions of a little man with a funny mustache was to agitate, and institute a gun registry. He then used that to go confiscate arms in Germany from his detractors and the populous. Do we all remember how that worked out for the world?
I would also challenge you to tell me why a universal background check is warranted (This would also necessitate an illegal registry). Essentially what you are saying is guilty until proven innocent. I predate the NICs check, I bought many guns before the FBI had to reach up my asshole and see what I had for dinner before approving of my purchase. We all did just fine back then, a damned sight better than we are doing right now. I also have a CCW (concealed license) now, which means I have not had a NICs check in decades, nor a reinvestigation, I simply pay a small fee, go to the DMV and have my picture retaken, and I get my new card in the mail within a month. In any case, I think that it is ridiculous to completely abandon and/or shit on one of our coveted beliefs in this country - innocent until proven guilty - because it would make someone here, or in Europe feel better about themselves, cause I assure you it won't make anyone safer. The best safety is the guy behind the desk selling the gun having good judgment, and ability to read the customer. Sadly, with big box stores, that has gone out the window. Guns are being sold impersonally, like appliances, though small brick and mortar places are still doing their part.
The next best defense against atrocities with guns would be to reinstitute mental institutions. We have a lot of crazy people on our streets, many imported within the last 4 years from all over the world. Weed madness out of our ranks, and you have less problems overall.
The next best defense against atrocities is situational awareness, and an acceptance that, yes, bad things do happen despite the best preparations. In that light, secure vulnerable targets instead of making them "gun free zones". Do you know what "gun free zone" means to a criminal with a mind to kill? It means "fish in a barrel". A place where they are going to be able to have a rampage uninterrupted until cops show up ages later, if at all....
I will finish with one thought. I have been collecting firearms for longer than many on this site have been alive. I have only used 2 of them to actually shoot another human being in that time. As I am here, free, typing to you, obviously both those instances were justified. It takes a lot of hubris to make assumptions about me based on your feelings about guns, and nothing else, and let's not bullshit each other, that is exactly what you are doing. Trying to criminalize me, for how you feel about guns.
NinjaBuddha13@reddit
Transferring property between people and private companies should be as simple as exchanging goods or currency in a mutually agreed upon quantity that both parties agree is fair value for the trade. No need to get a government involved at all. Uncle Sam shouldn't be allowed a cut of the action (taxes) let alone be allowed to register an opinion on whether it believes the parties involved are fit to possess the goods being exchanged.
Source?
Source?
Why should the government have a say in what my private property is and what i can and can't do with it?
As an American i think you should keep your person and opinions in Europe.
Fuck the government. Anything less than machine gun vending machines is unacceptable.
R4iNAg4In@reddit
First, those arent loopholes, they are the law. Every professional gun dealer in the United States is required to perform a background check on every firearms sale, without exception. Further, how would you even police background checks for private sales. With a dealer the government agency that should be a convenience store shows up for unannounced audits of your records. But they have a store and they are on the ATF's list. How would you police over 100 million gun owners to make sure no one is selling weapons without a background check. The only way to do that would be to treat ALL gun owners like gun dealers. Keeping those kinds of records on ordinary citizens would not go over well. (Keeping those kinds of records on dealers shouldn't be ok, but here we are. We call them slippery slopes for a reason.) And having the ATF show up at the houses of ordinary citizens for inspection, when those citizens have not been convicted of a crime, would be treasonous to the spirit and letter of the Constitution.
Secone, we live in a free society. That comes with certain risks. Part of that risk is that the bad guys ALSO have freedom. The counter to that is not to restrict the freedom of ordinary people. Fbad guys have freedom in restricted societies, too. After all, bad guys don't obey the law, and your freedom can be restricted by laws if you don't obey them. Every gun law further restricts the rights of ordinary people to defend themselves from bad guys, who don't have the same restrictions placed upon them.
That is why every gun law is an infringement.
Bob_knots@reddit
There are no loopholes
IllAssistance7@reddit
Europe doesn't even have free speech, and you're worried about background checks in the US? Play on your field man.
Mosspurge590@reddit
Declaring something a loophole doesn’t make it so. You didn’t even name a loophole, you’re just referencing an imaginary one. Explain what a loophole is, and then how whatever you’re referring to is a loophole. Dishonest conversations are dishonest.
jeropian-moth@reddit
Private sales aren’t a loophole. It’s the only thing that’s preventing a complete registry from being implemented.
Dependent_Ad_5546@reddit
I fell asleep after OP used loophole verbiage zzzzzz
Verthias@reddit
You’ve been sold a lot of bull about US gun laws and data.
All gun shows in the US involve FFLs who use the NICS background check system in all sales legally.
There is no ‘gun show loophole’ it’s a talking point that has been overused irresponsibly by people who have -no idea what they are talking about- In fact, 100% of people who use this phrase are full of shit.
70% of guns used in crimes and retrieved by police are reported stolen either before or after the crime has been committed. Most violent crimes committed with firearms involve organized crime like gangs and drug cartels.
National-Bench5602@reddit
The "loophole" is a certain political sides fallacy. If I owned a lamp that you wanted to purchase, would you call a bureaucrat to request permission!?
santanzchild@reddit
Tjatbfact you are calling clearly defined carve out of gun laws loopholes is enough to show you are not informed enough or biased enough to not be worth a discussion.
Worry about European gun laws amd keep your nose the hell out of mine.
LiberalLamps@reddit
If by loophole you mean a negotiated compromise that is the only reason the GCA passed in the first place. Without that compromise background checks at gun stores would never have become law.
And while I still think the entire law is unconstitutional, an exception being labeled a loophole is just propaganda designed to ignore the reality that it wasn’t an oversight but a compromise.
zupius@reddit
From another european, its not a loopholr if the law specifically allows it. Stop seallowing big globalist dick and be free. I wish my guns was paperless 🥲
firearmresearch00@reddit
Neither of those "loopholes" exists. Everyone gun show I've been to required 4473 transfer on all firearms. Private transfers are weird. Most states have different requirements for gifting a gun to a direct immediate family member vs selling a gun to a complete stranger. Guns aren't nearly as accessible as the uninformed media would have you believe.
stinky-cunt@reddit
The “gun show loophole” and “private sale loophole” are one and the same.Also it’s not a loophole. An FFL requires a background check, private sales do not. An FFL is a license for those who own a business in dealing/manufacturing firearms. They don’t even have an option for someone to do a private background check, you have to go to an FFL and pay them a fee to do it.
No gun owners I know support background checks on private sales being mandatory.
Lamont___Cranston@reddit
There is no loophole.
FFL’s were established to stymie interstate commerce without the federal government taking their cut.
You should be able to purchase a machinegun and dynamite at the hardware store without so much as a second look.
Where are your sources.
Potential_Space@reddit
There is no such thing as a gun show loophole.
Any firearm purchased at a gun show from a vendor requires you to fill out the 4473 form as you would do at any other place that legally sells guns. The only exception being if you have a curio and relics FEDERAL LICENSE. You may purchase an antique firearm of greater than 50 years old without filing out a 4473, but you do need to keep a record of any purchases and dispositions. HOWEVER, you are still going through a background check to acquire said license. It's not like you can just get one and boom 50 year old + firearm loophole.
As for the private party to private party sales "loophole", as the seller you cannot legally sell to a prohibited person.
Personally, I wouldn't feel comfortable doing that with a total stranger. In that specific case I actually would prefer having them do a background check, which is why I would never sell to a rando. However, if it's someone I know personally, and know they aren't someone that shouldn't have a firearm... Then I would totally sell a gun to them, no background check.
DieKaiserVerbindung@reddit
Share where you read such things. Just one source.
SaintSulla@reddit
There is no "loophole." It's just the power of semantics via language. The right to bear arms is enshrined in the constitution. It is not a privilege to be bargained for. A right delayed is a right denied.
Revenger1984@reddit
What one chooses to do with their own property is no one's business. Plain and simple