What is this "gun show loophole" they keep talking about recently?

At the gun shows out here in Colorado, you still have to pass a federal background check.

I’ve bought plenty of guns at gun shows. Never in at least 25 years have I not had the exact same background check performed just like at a retail store.

Maybe one of the anti-gun zealot, experts can splain us how it works…

Maybe it’s the loophole that the criminals don’t buy their guns at Gun Shows :slight_smile:

There is no “loophole” The use of this word implies that there is, somehow, a violation of the law.

There is no federal law that prohibits the sale of a gun from one private party to another. If there is a “loophole”, then the feds are the ones who failed to pass a law to close it.

Different states have different requirements for “retail” sales (from as gun store, first time sale). In Illinois, there is a requirement that the buyer a) has a FOID card (to get, there is a background check through the state police for criminal, identification and mental heath checks). And a three day (pistol) or one day (rifle) “waiting period”.

But, If I buy a gun from mey neighbor, that is between us.

BTW: The retail sale includes filling out all kinds of paperwork for the gun (serial number, reason for purchase, etc) but the state does not “register” the gun to the buyer (WHY THE HELL NOT? They have all the paperwork to do so, but they don’t.)

Gun shows are private owners displaying and selling their guns to other private owners. If this is a “loophole”, then surely the feds and the state are aware of this and could easily pass a law to plug the gap. But they don’t.

I wonder why?

I have bought at a gun show before and nothing more than a handshake. didnt sign a thing. I can buy ammo at the same table.

Same in TN Rob

A long gun maybe, not a pistol

My response is, so what.

I can meet someone on a street corner and exchange cash for a weapon.

The responsibility to obey the law is on the felon and is not the seller of a gun in a private transaction.

Someone explain how closing the “gun show loophole” is anything but more government intrusion on privacy.

Loophole is being used as a pejorative.

Some now call your mortgage deduction a loophole.

How does that sit with you fine folks?

Wake up, you are being played.

Sold and traded outside , Privately all the time here at the gun show

id like to see each school have a “response team” that would be couple teachers comfortable with carrying. pay them an extra buck an hour. pay them for training- require qulification at range every 6 mos or year. if no teachers at the school qualifiy then maybe you have to hire someone with that qualification and relocate some here or there. it WOULD save lives.

No system is perfect, if this system works then leave it alone. I agree with Rob train teachers qualified at the gun range of course.
Mass deaths at schools have been around for a long time even back in the 30’s

The loophole has to do with the concept of privsate owners exchanging or selling guns at the show, and the distributor or dealer with a massive display selling to the public.

The reality is that there will be Federal and State legislation. Not sayng if it is right or wrong, effective or not, but the regulations are coming and they will likely be pretty heavy.

Here in NY State, I anticipate legislation prohibiting the possession of everything from high-capacity magazines to certain classes of weapons; you wont be able to own these things. Yes, the criminals will still own and use them, but the citizens will not.

I also anticipate Federal Legislation banning the manufacture of some of these rifles, except to local, state, and federal law enforcement and the military.

Again, I have no dog in this hunt. I own a scatter gun. Recently, the local newspaper foiled the records of everyone in three counties that have pistol permits. They published them in the paper along with a map of the area. Local county clerk, mayor, and legislator refused, and got slapped by the State. They are trying to have legislation passed over privacy issues. No one is backing them.

The mindset has changed, for better or worse.

government has made schools “gun free zones” thus eliminating the law obiding citizen the ability to protect him/herself

Weren’t they already “gun free”?

I cant recall any administrator or teacher carrying a weapon to school, though there was an aquaintence of mine who brought a .45 into school when I was a senior ('76). He was accidentally shot with his own weapon, which is a story unto itself.

Not all “dealers” at a gun show are FFL licensed. Some are. If you are buying a used gun from an FFL, it is just like buying it at a pawn shop… Background check included. If you are buying from a private party, it is just like buying it at a yard sale.
I see no loophole. Its a buzz word that is mis-used just like the word “assault” weapon, which are already illegal (barring special licenses)

Few things would make me happier. I am truly scared for our kids.
Some of the best things I have ever read or heard are:
Gun-free schools zones “tell every insane killer in America that schools are their safest place to inflict maximum mayhem with minimum risk.
In my opinion any gun free zone does the same.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Would you rather have your 911 call bring a good guy with a gun from a mile away … or a minute away?
I have a question for you guys that work away from home every day and your loved ones are at home.
What should they do if someone starts to break into the house?
What would their best chance of staying alive be?
How long do you think it would take someone to break in? How long do you think it would take a cop to get there in the best case scenario?
**If a National Disaster strikes how will you protect your family from rioters, loiters or people who desperately need things for their loved ones? **Please think about these things before you jump on the anti-gun bandwagon.

If you set up a table at a gun show and sell firearms, you need an FFL and will be required to perform the standard paperwork and FBI background checks just like at your retail establishment.

True that does not apply to individuals making private sales in states that permit private sales.

The single largest purveyor of firearms to persons known to be criminals is our own Federal government, and they did it intentionally. Why has no one been jailed and charged with accessory to murder over this?

I believe that the 2nd amendment is about self-defense, ultimately.

The Police have guns (pistols, rifles, even automatic) for self-protection and protection of the public.

I believe that the level and firepower of the weapons that the public can own should be no greater and no less than that of the police.

Otherwise, how can we protect ourselves?

I also agree that gun owners should have background checks, including mental health, and have basic training (NRA).

Hope this helps;

You’re sound asleep when you hear a thump outside your bedroom door.

Half-awake, and nearly paralyzed with fear, you hear muffled whispers. At least two people have broken into your house and are moving your way. With your heart pumping, you reach down beside your bed and pick up your shotgun. You rack a shell into the chamber, then inch toward the door and open it… In the darkness, you make out two shadows. One holds something that looks like a crowbar. When the intruder brandishes it, as if to strike, you raise the shotgun and fire. The blast knocks both thugs to the floor. One writhes and screams while the second man crawls to the front door and lurches outside. As you pick up the telephone to call police, you know you’re in trouble.

In your country, most guns were outlawed years before**,** and the few that are privately owned are so stringently regulated as to make them useless…
Yours was never registered… Police arrive and inform you that the second burglar has died.

They arrest you for First Degree Murder and Illegal Possession of a Firearm. When you talk to your attorney, he tells you not to worry: authorities will probably plea the case down to manslaughter. “What kind of sentence will I get?” you ask. “Only ten-to-twelve years,” he replies, as if that’s nothing. “Behave yourself, and you’ll be out in seven.” The next day, the shooting is the lead story in the local newspaper. Somehow, you’re portrayed as an eccentric vigilante while the two men you shot are represented as choirboys.

Their friends and relatives can’t find** an unkind word to say about them… Buried deep down in the article, authorities acknowledge that both “victims” have been arrested numerous times. But the next day’s headline says it all: “Lovable Rogue Son Didn’t Deserve to Die.” The thieves have been transformed from career criminals into Robin Hood-type pranksters… As the days wear on, the story takes wings. The national media picks it up, then the international media. The surviving burglar **has become a folk hero.

Your attorney says the thief is preparing to** sue you, and he’ll probably win.** The media publishes reports that your home has been burglarized several times in the past and that you’ve been critical of local police for their lack of effort in apprehending the suspects. After the last break-in, you told your neighbor that you would be prepared next time. The District Attorney uses this to allege that you were lying in wait for the burglars.

A few months later, you go to trial. The charges haven’t been reduced, as your lawyer had so confidently predicted. When you take the stand, your anger at the injustice of it all works against you… Prosecutors paint a picture of you as a mean, vengeful man. It doesn’t take long for the jury to convict you of all charges. The judge sentences you to life in prison.

This case really happened.

On August 22, 1999, Tony Martin of Emneth, Norfolk , England, killed one burglar and wounded a second.* In April, 2000, he was** convicted and is now serving a life term…**** How did it become a crime to defend one’s own life in the once great British Empire? It started with the Pistols Act of 1903. ****This seemingly reasonable law forbade selling pistols to minors or felons and *established *that handgun sales were to be made only to those who had a license. *****

The Firearms Act of 1920 expanded licensing to include not only handguns but all firearms except shotguns… Later laws passed in 1953 and 1967** **outlawed the carrying of any weapon by private citizens and mandated the registration of all shotguns. **Momentum for total handgun confiscation began in earnest after the Hungerford mass shooting in 1987. **

Michael Ryan, a mentally disturbed man with a Kalashnikov rifle, walked down the street shooting everyone he saw. When the smoke cleared, 17 people were dead. **The British public, already de-sensitized by eighty years of “gun control”, demanded even tougher restrictions. ** (The seizure of all privately owned handguns was the objective even though Ryan used a rifle.)

Nine years later, at Dunblane, Scotland, Thomas Hamilton used a semi-automatic weapon to murder 16 children and a teacher at a public school. **For many years, the media had portrayed all gun owners as mentally unstable or worse, criminals. ** **Now the press had a real kook with which to beat up law-abiding gun owners. ** **Day after day, week after week, the media gave up all pretense of objectivity and demanded a total ban on all handguns. ** The Dunblane Inquiry, a few months later, sealed the fate of the few sidearms still owned by private citizens.

During the years in which the British government incrementally took away most gun rights,* ****the notion that a citizen had the right to armed self-defense came to be seen as vigilantism. **** ***Authorities refused to grant gun licenses to people who were threatened, **** claiming that self-defense was no longer considered a reason to own a gun.

Citizens who shot burglars or robbers or rapists were charged while the real criminals were released. **Indeed, after the Martin shooting, a police spokesman was quoted as saying, ** "We cannot have people take the law into their own hands."

All of Tony** ****Martin’s neighbors had been robbed numerous times, ** **and several elderly people were severely injured in beatings by young thugs who had no fear of the consequences. ** Martin himself, a collector of antiques, had seen most of his collection trashed or stolen by burglars.

When the Dunblane Inquiry ended, citizens who owned handguns were given three months to turn them over to local authorities. Being good British subjects, most people obeyed the law. The few who didn’t were visited by police and threatened with ten-year prison sentences if they didn’t comply. Police later bragged that they’d taken nearly 200,000 handguns from private citizens. How did the authorities know who had handguns?
The guns had been registered and licensed. Kind of like cars Sound familiar?



"…It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people’s minds."
–Samuel Adams

You had better wake up, because Obama and a few others are trying to** do**** this very same thing, over here, if he can get it done****.** And there are stupid people in congress and on the street** **that will go right along with him.

I also agree that voters should have background checks, including mental health, and have basic training (U.S Constitution)

Would for for exercise of voting rights too :mrgreen: