Gun show loophole?

[RVTECH]

However, as far as anti-gun people are concerned, this in itself is a "loophole".

Yep - I had this 'debate' with my very liberal cousin (who is not anti-gun) but believes any gun sale should be subject to heavy legal intervention and scrutiny.

 

[bnsaibum]

I am positive that at the very least anti-gun people want UBCs. They should truthfully state so and offer sound reasoning for it instead of manipulating the uninformed masses with the "loophole" fallacy. I know that pigs will probably fly before that happens though.

Most people generally understand what a loophole is and without actually looking at the law they buy into the Bliss Ninnies' lies. Make sure they know this one for the lie it is.

 

[RVTECH]

They should truthfully state so and offer sound reasoning for it instead of manipulating the uninformed masses with the "loophole" fallacy.

His reasoning is "Well if it just saves one life" - but then that is his reply to most everything.

 

[The Heretic]

His reasoning is "Well if it just saves one life" - but then that is his reply to most everything.

That's because their underlying philosophy is "for the common good", even when something doesn't bring about the common good.

The other half of it is that this philosophy is based on emotion, and not reality or facts. Collectivism simply doesn't work in the real world, but the response is usually something along the lines of "they didn't try hard enough" or "the people at the top were the wrong people".

 

[jbett98]

If universal background checks for firearms save lives, then why aren't they demanding breath analyzers for automobiles.

 

[IronMonster]

"That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's cottage, is the symbol of democracy. it is our job to see that it stays there"

-- George Orwell

 

[deen_ad]

< Why they don't have school shootings in Israel.
Notice the long gun slung over the teachers shoulder?

His reasoning is "Well if it just saves one life" - but then that is his reply to most everything.

Which is why we need guns, they are used far more often to stop a crime than to commit one!

Deen
NRA Life Member, Benefactor Level
"Defender of Freedom" award
NRA Golden Eagle member

"Having a gun is like a parachute, if you need one and don't have it you may never need it again"

 

[RVTECH]

Which is why we need guns, they are used far more often to stop a crime than to commit one!

This would not be a consideration for him.Like I said he is not anti-gun but more like anti-freedom in that everything needs some sort of control, regulation or rule. He is a very 'dogmatic' liberal and will not listen to any reason, especially if is has the words conservative, republican, freedoms attached to it. One of his 'famous last words' (more a statement) is "FOX news isn't REAL news" He seems to equate anything I say to my listening to the 'untrue' FOX news - which I never mention.

 

[PiratePast40]

I was at a local sporting goods store and got into a discussion of UBC. The clerk was OK with background checks. I asked why they needed the gun information, and her response was that it was needed to insure the gun wasn't stolen. I then asked her how many stolen guns were discovered at her store. She was a little miffed that I suggested that they sell stolen guns, but I got my point across.

The government doesn't require "stolen property checks" for TV's, refrigerators, lawn mowers, furniture, or other common goods, so why so for guns?

 

[GunRightsCoalition]

FYI, the FFL's I know oppose I-594 as much as I do. They recognize that it will have a chilling effect that will actually reduce business rather than add it.

 

[GunRightsCoalition]

His reasoning is "Well if it just saves one life" - but then that is his reply to most everything.

That one is easy to argue. Look to other places with these same types of laws. They actually cost lives. If you save one life and cost 3 others then that is not a win.

 

[RVTECH]

If you save one life and cost 3 others then that is not a win.

Oh hey, I agree - Unfortunately he would never accept a rational argument on this because of his distorted liberal views on everything. It parallels how I believe the liberal view of self defense is it's better to be a victim than to defend yourself. In other words if one is saved due to say, a hypothetical increase in laws or regulations, yet three are lost due to lack of action by the victims then the libs STILL see this as a WIN because the one WAS saved due to what they perceive as increased laws BUT the three that were lost will not be regarded because the 'laws' simply were not 'there' to protect them and liberal thinking does not consider personal responsibility or action when it comes to self defense. Its really backwards.

 

[ak56]

Oh hey, I agree - Unfortunately he would never accept a rational argument on this because of his distorted liberal views on everything. It parallels how I believe the liberal view of self defense is it's better to be a victim than to defend yourself. In other words if one is saved due to say, a hypothetical increase in laws or regulations, yet three are lost due to lack of action by the victims then the libs STILL see this as a WIN because the one WAS saved due to what they perceive as increased laws BUT the three that were lost will not be regarded because the 'laws' simply were not 'there' to protect them and liberal thinking does not consider personal responsibility or action when it comes to self defense. Its really backwards.

If one was saved but three were lost, they'll just decide that even MORE laws are needed to save the three.

 

[Modeler]

Isn't it true though in Oregon ALL gunshow sales MUST be via FFL transfer? I thought this was now the case. If so then the term 'loophole' is a moot term - at least in Oregon anyway.

Yes - it is true unfortunately.

Any transaction that started in a gun show must be completed via FFL.

That's not true. All sales at gun shows in Oregon must go through an OSP background check, but they don't have to go through an FFL. A private citizen can call OSP to perform the required background check without involving an FFL.

Not advocating it, just want to make sure we all know the law

 

[PiratePast40]

Below is a section from the federal law concerning private transfers. Notice that this is federal law and is in no way a "loophole".
[18 U.S.C. 922(a)(3) and 922(b)(3)]
What record-keeping procedures should be followed when two private individuals want to
engage in a firearms transaction?
When a transaction takes place between private (unlicensed) persons who reside in the same
State, the Gun Control Act (GCA) does not require any record keeping. A private person may
sell a firearm to another private individual in his or her State of residence and, similarly, a
private individual may buy a firearm from another private person who resides in the same State.
It is not necessary under Federal law for a Federal firearms licensee (FFL) to assist in the sale or
transfer when the buyer and seller are "same-State" residents. Of course, the transferor/seller may
not knowingly transfer a firearm to someone who falls within any of the categories of prohibited
persons contained in the GCA. See 18 U.S. C. §§ 922(g) and (n). However, as stated above, there
are no GCA-required records to be completed by either party to the transfer.
There may be State or local laws or regulations that govern this type of transaction. Contact State
Police units or the office of your State Attorney General for information on any such
requirements.
Please note that if a private person wants to obtain a firearm from a private person who resides in
another State, the firearm will have to be shipped to an FFL in the buyer's State. The FFL will be
responsible for record keeping.
http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/faqindex.htm

Here's a link to the Oregon section about private (non-FFL) transfers at a gun show: http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/166.438

 

[Mongo1]

That's not true. All sales at gun shows in Oregon must go through an OSP background check, but they don't have to go through an FFL. A private citizen can call OSP to perform the required backgLNG waitnd check without involving an FFL.

Not advocating it, just want to make sure we all know the law

There is a form available at gunshows. There are instructions, fill out the form and call in for an approval and a transaction number for your records. Cost is $10. It also protects the
buyer from buying a stolen gun. Only problem, sometimes a long wait on hold.

 

[The Heretic]

That's not true. All sales at gun shows in Oregon must go through an OSP background check, but they don't have to go through an FFL. A private citizen can call OSP to perform the required background check without involving an FFL.

Not advocating it, just want to make sure we all know the law

Yes - you are right - I mispoke.

Either way - the result is the same - the BGC includes the make/model and serial #.

 

[Modeler]

Either way - the result is the same - the BGC includes the make/model and serial #.

Indeed.

 

[bnsaibum]

What, exactly, is the OSP procedure when they run their FICS? Do they only look within the Oregon criminal database, or do they also run the check through NICS?

 

[jbett98]

It's run through the national data base.