Virginia and Gun Control: In-state poll shows support for ending gun show loophole

Virginia and Gun Control


Lost in the public polling fine print of the Virginia governor’s race is a strikingly vital statistic: a vast majority of Virginians want to plug the gun-show loophole that for years has fed the “Iron Pipeline” of weapons flowing into states and cities with stricter gun controls.

The issue of gun control has traditionally been a third rail in Virginia campaigning, and it still is. But a new poll for The Virginian-Pilot by Christopher Newport University found that 8 out of every 10 likely voters want to end the practice of allowing unlicensed dealers at “sportsmen” shows to sell guns wholesale outside the laws that mandate a background check of purchasers.

The loophole is no laughing matter, although the National Rifle Association is using a fictitious Soprano-like “Noo Yawker” to bolster Bob McDonnell, the Republican candidate for governor who favors leaving the loophole unchanged. “Fuhgeddaboud your freedoms” if Mr. McDonnell is not elected, the faux Mafioso warns Virginians in a TV ad. It’s payback for Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s recent stings documenting how Virginian dealers are a major conduit for crime guns in New York City.

The record in Virginia of the Democratic candidate, Creigh Deeds, closely parallels Mr. McDonnell’s fierce politicking as a defender of gun rights — with the notable exception of the gun-show loophole. Mr. Deeds felt obliged to honor the pleas from families whose loved ones were among the 32 fatalities in the Virginia Tech gun massacre two years ago. With that went the N.R.A. endorsement that the Democrat had enjoyed in the past.

<snip>

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/22/opinion/22thu4.html

that mandate a background check of purchasers."

People who aren't firearms dealers are forbidden from running a NICS check whether they're selling at a gun show, at their garage sale, through a classifieds ad, or whatever. What does this have to do with gun shows?

Gun shows are no different in that regard. Being an "unlicensed dealer" on the other hand is a violation of federal law.

Under federal law. Why not enforce that first?

There are limits set to what constitutes being a dealer, and what constitutes a private individual selling a piece of private property. It's not a real clear line, I'll grant you, but the idea is that if it becomes a significant source of income, or if you do it often enough, you are required to register and become a licensed FFL dealer. If you sell off a gun one day, six months later you sell two more to finance the purchase of another (or for any reason, really); you're not going to be in trouble. If you sell five guns a month for a year, somebody may be looking into you.

Just my layman's interpretation of the laws, anyone with more knowledge of it feel free to correct me.

Point being- selling guns for profit is not necessarily illegal.

haven't been to a gunshow yet

great enough to constitute dealer status is violating the law whether they do it over the kitchen table or at a rent-a-hall.

Nothing about gun shows provides protection for those violating the law.

.

If you are a Class 001 FFL, the vast majority of people selling guns at shows are, you must abide by all the normal rules; NICS check and any waiting period that you have to abide by at your store. No short cuts or under the table deals.

Even if you are a dealer and try to shortcut the waiting period you'll get busted. I watched it happen at the Kane County Gun Show in Illinois. A dealer tried to deliver a gun 4 hours short of the "1 day" waiting period. The BATFE led him off in cuffs.

If you are a private individual the NICS system is closed to you anyway and you can sell your private gun to another at the show, in the parking lot or at your kitchen table. Legally, it's all the same.

If you try to make a business out of doing that you are good for 10 years in club fed if any of the cops or BATFE people that cruise the gun shows regularly see you doing it.

But you already knew all that, I'm sure. It just makes a better headline to say they don't and count on some people not knowing any better.

There are no special rules, or 'loopholes' for locations like gun shows.

A federally licensed dealer must perform a background check on any individual they sell to through their business.

A private individual does not (indeed CAN NOT) perform a background check on a person when they sell a firearm in most states.

11 states have laws that say that private sales are regulated by the state, and must include a background check (depending on type for firearm.)

In these 39 states where private sales between residents are unregulated other than the illegality of knowingly selling to someone they know or have reason to believe is ineligible, sales can occur at a gun show, a flea market, via the local penny saver, out of the back of their car, or across their kitchen table.

Villager.

Fine, no private sales inside the actual building. They can declare the problem fixed and pretend that's the end of it.

The goalposts will just be moved. That's the problem with placating irrationality.

But you are right of course.

And we are ultimately going to win.

And America will be much better for it when we finally do.

and goodonya.

But persist at something that will work. The "gun show loophole" is a red herring.

Do tell.

After that we can discuss whether you are uneducated or dishonest.

pass a law that all car/vehicle sales can only be done through a licensed dealer. After all more people are killed by the illegal use of vehicles than by firearms!!

Oneshooter
Livin in Texas

Since we can now carry concealed in national parks, Heller vs DC was decided in our favor, the AWB is still gone and almost every state now has a concealed carry permit available to their constituents.

Ever since then you have been getting your asses kicked. Even Obama has backed away from gun control, after weakly endorsing it during his campaign. He put it on his web site, but shied away from it in his speeches.

"Look, look, we've won! We've taken away a civil right!"



I imagine the anti-choice people feel the exact same way and have the exact same motivation. And they will have the exact same success as you will. What is that headline I read about recently? Something about how the legality of abortion has no affect on the number of abortions performed?

But I guess the anti-choicers consol themselves with "now the only abortions are illegal abortions", and the women that die from back-alley abortionists are dismissed with a simple "well, live in sin, die in sin".

...but you won't win. In the mean time, progressive Democrats will have to answer for it -- like Jack Brooks.

They won't stop there.

The don't want to simply regulate guns, they want an outright ban. All this little outrages are steps in that direction.

It's a hookup.

It seems to me that regulating the "gunshow loophole" amounts to regulating social networking. Two guys could stand in the front office of the BATF and buy a truckload of AR-15's from each other using Twitter and a Paypal account on disposable cellphones and nobody would be the wiser.

At a gunshow:
"Hi. Nice day huh?"

"Yep. Nice Bushmaster. Wish I had one."

"Yeah? Text 11297."

Couldn't it be just that easy? The only solution I see is NICS access for private citizens. But I'm still thinking about it.

Edit for clarity

and outdoing each other on "who can be more to the right of most Virginians?"

I just don't get what the prohibition against non-dealer access to the national background check system has to do with gunshows. If you can explain that I might get on board with you. Like a lot of gun owners, I'd like access to the background check system if I wanted to do a private sale.

My hackles get raised by the term "gun show loophole", because it's not a "loophole", and it has nothing to do with gun shows.

And that's appreciated...

As for the loophole, I think Beac explains it well upthread, in succinct terms. What's not to understand?

People who are not licensed firearms dealers are prohibited from accessing the national background check system anywhere.

Federal laws are no different at gun shows than they are anywhere else. In some states, they are more strict at gun shows than anywhere else.

So, again, what does this have to do with gun shows?

That's what you're really talking about (obviously I was being a bit intentionally obtuse before). If you want to mandate that all firearm purchases, period, take place through a federally licensed dealer, just say so (that would be the only way to "close" this "loophole").

While not much compared to some that I see here in the gun forums, please see post #10 then come back and respond to the no name calling by the pro-gunners. It is always the antis that come up with the 'gun worshippers', 'gungeonites' and the like.

"allowing unlicensed dealers at “sportsmen” shows to sell guns wholesale outside the laws that mandate a background check of purchasers."

One piece at a time. "Unlicensed dealers." Being an unlicensed firearms dealer is a crime. If you're judged to be engaging in the sale of firearms as a business, then you must have a Federal Firearms License, or you go to prison. Individuals are allowed to sell their own guns to others without needing a license. That doesn't make them a "dealer" any more than selling your car makes you a car dealership.

"sell guns wholesale"

99% of individual transactions are just that, individual sales of used guns. Again, anybody who's selling in bulk is likely going to be classed as a dealer and arrested.

"outside the laws that mandate a background check of purchasers"

They mandate a background check by licensed dealers. Since individuals aren't allowed access to the NICS system, they're not required to perform a background check.

In short, there is no "gun show loophole." It's as much as myth as Saddam having WMDs; something that was created by continually repeating fact-free information.

How's the view from that glass house?

Give us a tool to solve this issue. Lying, to attempt to stop private transfers is a losing proposition.

:nuke:

Personally, I thought that was a fantastic idea. It provides private sellers with a means to get a background check done (though it might be more practical for the booth to issue a certificate, valid for that date only, to prospective buyers), while side-stepping any possible privacy issues (other than those that already exist) by keeping it government-operated. Okay, it would only be at gun shows, but since that's what all the kerfuffle is about, that's not a issue, right?

Of course an FFL can always call a check in on their cell if they want to, all they need is their FFL # and the 4473..

But at every gun show I've ever been to there has always been an area for the FFLs to go and call in their NICS checks. It's usually a little aside from the selling aisles so they can hear themselves on the phone. The booth is usually set up by the sponsoring club. I guess you could always ask/pay one of the FFLs to call in a check for you selling one to one. Might cost you a few bucks to handle the transfer ($25 to $75 around here), but the idea of a gun show, as opposed to going to Cabela's or the local store, is you might save some money. Kind of defeats the purpose.

I've noticed though that the people demanding the close of the "loophole" don't seem too interested in actually allowing private citizens the unlimited use of NICS. It's more about closing down gun shows than actually catching bad guys trying to straw purchase guns.

I'd love it if they opened NICS up to the public. Anyone could run a de facto gun store from their kitchen table. I'm sure the gun control people here would love that but I bet they haven't even thought that far ahead. Their next demand will be to limit private NICS checks to one a month or less, or more likely demand private sellers be licensed.

They also talk about how many "sellers are not licensed FFLs at every gun show". They're counting on the ignorance of most people to assume only people selling guns are there. They'd rather not point out all the jerky sales people and all the non-FFL stuff being sold. No doubt about it, that guy selling beat up WWII era canteens from Albania needs an FFL, same with the Korean guy at our local show that sells the holsters and belts his family makes. License 'em all dammit!

I wonder how common NICS booths are.

Or in Utah, Vermont or N.H.

Maybe I'm missing them?


Anyway, why should I have to pay a licenced dealer to run this check for me when it should be a 'free' government service, as it is already paid for by my taxes? More fees-for-rights?

Those who are not dealers sell straight-away. The good-for-a-day NICS tests of all those entering the show would be an interesting idea, though I would still have concerns about how "private" it would be. And I would not favor additional fees for this service.

it's not about being more to the right

it's about being RIGHT on the issue.

believing in constitutional rights is not a rightwing issue

It is against the law to knowingly sell to someone who cannot pass a background check.
It is illegal to sell the volume of firearms the fellow in the flannel shirt claimed, without a FFL/Dealer license.

Those people are already criminals, and I hope the BATFE spit-roasts every last damn one of them.

There is no loophole. Private parties can sell private property to other private parties, everywhere, whether at a gun show, newspaper classified ad, word of mouth, corkboard at work, garage sale, estate sale, whatever.

At a gun show, a dealer handles the background check for private sales including those hanging around outside the show and selling their personal firearms.

If I sell a firearm to someone when no gun show is involved, I go to a dealer who can run the background check on the buyer for a REASONABLE fee which I pass on to the buyer. Just the background check, no description of the firearm or the serial number.

I am sick of some individuals selling firearms to those who might be criminals. It sure as hell doesn't make pro-gunners look good. I personally refuse to sell a firearm to someone unless:

!) I know the buyer personally and have for sic months to a year.

2) The buyer has a current concealed carry license.

I don't know why they won't implement one of these good plans the gun guys have come up with to keep the criminals from getting guns, while still NOT creating a gun registration.

The Anti-Gun side, does not vote.

As it is not that important to them.....

And the Pro Gun Side, as evidenced by the outcome of many recent elections, does...



You best believe their is alot of Pro Gun voters in that croud..And I bet the NY Times did not call any of them...

BTW, that is the local gun show and flea market, held up about 10 minutes from my house.

Go ahead, piss those voters off some more....

It's well established that how you phrase the questions greatly affects the answers that you get, at least from respondents whose minds are not yet fully made up on the issue. It doesn't take a lot of skill to get one respondent to give answers that put him on both sides of the issue at once.

If the question asked was:

"Do you want to end the practice of allowing unlicensed dealers at 'sportsmen' shows to sell guns wholesale outside the laws that mandate a background check of purchasers?"

well, that's a question that's going to heavily skew the answers. It contains a lot of prejudicial language, such as the term "unlicensed dealer," selling firearms "wholesale." That's not an accurate description of the so-called "gun show loophole," because dealing in firearms wholesale without a Federal Firearms License is already illegal under the Gun Control Act of 1968.

So if that was the question asked, what you have is 8 out of 10 respondents saying they'd like to make something illegal that has already been illegal for forty years. You don't actually have 8 out of 10 respondents saying they want to close the "gun show loophole" because what you're described in the question is not the "gun show loophole."

"Would you like to end the practice of being able to sell a firearm to another Virginia resident, even a friend or family member, without having to find a federally licensed firearms dealer, present two forms of ID (three for certain semi-automatic firearms), pay a fee, fill out a form, and inform the government?"

I imagine it would be quite different.

Of course, it gets really interesting if you pose those two questions in the same poll, and see how many people are simultaneously in favor of both closing and maintaining the so-called "gun show loophole."

A link to the original story in the Virginian-Pilot:
http://hamptonroads.com/2009/10/tighten-gun-rules-most-virginians-say-poll

As for the poll question itself....


Sure looks like a leading question designed to elicit a specific outcome to me....

It is still quite leading, in that it doesn't point out that the "loophole" is not actually a loophole, but is only "known as" a loophole. It also conveniently omits to mention that the seller still has to establish that the buyer is 21 or over and resident in the same state, and cannot sell to someone he (the seller) reasonably suspects may be ineligible to possess a firearm, which could give the impression (to people unfamiliar with state and federal firearms law) that there's no regulation on sales between private parties at all.

Certainly, making the NICS available to private sellers would not be a perfect solution, but it would cut down on
sales to ineligible buyers.

Or would you prefer the good not get in the way of the perfect?

We are talking about a loophole here, right?
So the loophole takes advantage of some set of circumstances to circumvent a law that would make a sale between two people illegal otherwise, right?
If so, what are those circumstances and what law are they allowing the circumvention of?

Just out of curiosity, if there are no special circumstances or laws being worked-around... then what is is the gunshow loophole?

If indeed the poll asked whether they "want to end the practice of allowing unlicensed dealers at “sportsmen” shows to sell guns wholesale outside the laws that mandate a background check of purchasers".

It appears that your post was a bit "Premature".... And the paper you quoted was pulling numbers out of Sara Brady's ass...



The one good thing about McDonnell, was he is "basic ly" pro gun, Deeds, also shared this good fact.

I actively campaigned for Creigh Deeds, but never once pulled for his abhorrent anti civil rights attorney general. I just did not say a word about him, to the people I was talking too.

http://www.opposingviews.com/articles/opinion-nra-celebrates-pro-gun-election-day-victories-r-1257372716

Maybe now those rats in the Brady Campaign and Blomberg's mayors group, will get the message...

And that message is...

Go to Hell...

Well done; that's more than Obama did. Of course, Obama did heavily support Corzine in New Jersey, but neither Obama's support nor the $30m of his own money Corzine pumped into the campaign prevented him from losing.