# The "Gun Show" loophole



## Don M. (Jan 6, 2016)

I have been to many Gun Shows, over the years...most recently, this past Fall.  One would think...by listening to some of the media "hype", that these shows are a primary source of weapons being used illegally.  That is Simply Not the case....at least in our area.  Here, one can purchase a shotgun, hunting rifle, or ammo, etc., in minutes.  However, All the gun shows in our area require the sellers to be licensed dealers with a current Federal Firearms License.  If someone wants to purchase a firearm, especially a hand gun, they have to fill out the required forms, and go through the normal background checks and waiting period, etc.  

The LOOPHOLE that needs to be addressed, IMO, is the STRAW PURCHASE Loophole.  In many of the horrific mass shootings we have seen in recent years...Columbine, Sandy Hook, and now this recent San Bernardino shooting, etc., the firearms were legally purchased by someone other than the shooter.  This is a problem that should be getting a High Priority, IMO.  If a friend, or relative buys a gun, then gives or sells it to an individual who commits a crime, or murder...that original purchaser should be held liable as an accessory.  Perhaps if such rules were enacted, it might reduce the number of weapons that "find" their way into the hands of the criminals and lunatics.  

It appears that the fool who bought the guns used in the San Bernardino shooting will be charged as such.  I hope that he receives some really harsh punishment that might send a clear message to others who might be contemplating buying or giving a gun to someone else that is of questionable character.


----------



## Shalimar (Jan 6, 2016)

Hear hear.


----------



## Debby (Jan 6, 2016)

Some of the most common sense ideas seem to come from the average citizen (governments seldom listen to them) and I think we just heard another one of them.  Such a great idea Don!  Yes always hold the original purchaser responsible.  I guess if the shooter stole the gun though, from the original purchaser, that would put a different perspective on the whole thing wouldn't it?


----------



## Don M. (Jan 6, 2016)

Debby said:


> Yes always hold the original purchaser responsible.  I guess if the shooter stole the gun though, from the original purchaser, that would put a different perspective on the whole thing wouldn't it?



Stolen guns are certainly part of the equation....albeit a fairly small part.  There is a thriving underground in gun trafficking in many of our major cities.  Chicago, for example, is one of the more violent cities...in the areas controlled by the street and drug gangs.  There are many reports of individuals without felony convictions going to rural Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin, etc., and making gun purchases legally, then returning to Chicago and selling them to these gang members.  These "merchants" sometimes get caught, and punished, but I would venture that for every one caught, several continue to operate.  Here is just one such report.  

http://abc7chicago.com/news/14-charged-in-chicago-area-gun-trafficking-operation/283371/


----------



## imp (Jan 6, 2016)

How much different is this from the scenario in which illegal drugs are bought where they are legal, then transported elsewhere and resold?   imp


----------



## Warrigal (Jan 6, 2016)

Are you talking about going from one state to another or about smuggling them across the border?
How you feel about it probably depends on whether you believe all drugs should be legal or not.


----------



## imp (Jan 6, 2016)

Warrigal said:


> Are you talking about going from one state to another or about smuggling them across the border?
> How you feel about it probably depends on whether you believe all drugs should be legal or not.



The "War on Drugs" is a sham of unprecedented proportions, and everyone knows it, including the politicos (law-makers), medical profession, and even the uninitiated. Through it's
imposition, governments have established the heretofore impossible precedent of confiscating private property.    imp


----------



## Warrigal (Jan 6, 2016)

Over here the law allows for the confiscation of property that is the proceeds of crime.
If that includes the McMansion, then so be it.

It does require a conviction and evidence that it was ill gotten money that bought the property.
What is your objection to what happens in the United States?


----------



## SeaBreeze (Jan 30, 2016)

Don M. said:


> I have been to many Gun Shows, over the years...most recently, this past Fall.  One would think...by listening to some of the media "hype", that these shows are a primary source of weapons being used illegally.  That is Simply Not the case....at least in our area.  Here, one can purchase a shotgun, hunting rifle, or ammo, etc., in minutes.
> 
> However, All the gun shows in our area require the sellers to be licensed dealers with a current Federal Firearms License.
> 
> If someone wants to purchase a firearm, especially a hand gun, they have to fill out the required forms, and go through the normal background checks and waiting period, etc.



You're correct Don.  Here a comedian goes undercover to gun stores and gun shows, not only to prove the anti-gun hype about gun show 'loopholes', but to also address the cries from the anti-gun people that Chicago is the victim of people who buy their guns in neighboring states with more lax gun laws and bring them into Chicago to commit crime.


----------



## Don M. (Jan 30, 2016)

SeaBreeze said:


> You're correct Don.  Here a comedian goes undercover to gun stores and gun shows, not only to prove the anti-gun hype about gun show 'loopholes', but to also address the cries from the anti-gun people that Chicago is the victim of people who buy their guns in neighboring states with more lax gun laws and bring them into Chicago to commit crime.



Interesting video....and quite truthful.  It has been my experience that those with strong Ant-Gun convictions....individuals, politicians, and even Barack Obama...simply do Not know what they are talking about.  Virtually every responsible gun owner I know has No problems with background checks and waiting periods, etc., but simply to try to ban guns outright is a Lame excuse for failing to address the real issues...criminals, mentally ill, etc.  When you hear a politician talking about "Automatic" weapons, like in this video, it quickly becomes obvious that they are "ill informed"...to put it mildly.


----------



## fureverywhere (Jan 30, 2016)

Really though, I just wonder among people who are gun owners and advocates. A background check? You would come through with flying colors right? So why not background checks on everyone? They could be an ex-felon or terrorist so it makes sense?


----------



## Don M. (Jan 30, 2016)

fureverywhere said:


> Really though, I just wonder among people who are gun owners and advocates. A background check? You would come through with flying colors right? So why not background checks on everyone? They could be an ex-felon or terrorist so it makes sense?



Like I said above, I know of no responsible gun owners who would object to a background check.  After all, a person has to take written and driving tests to get a drivers license, so a background check to buy a gun only makes sense.  The primary problem, as I see it, is stupid people buying a gun legally, then giving or re-selling it to a person who should Never be in possession of a firearm.  Those people should share the same cell as the criminal/murderer.


----------



## tnthomas (Jan 30, 2016)

Don M. said:


> Like I said above, I know of no responsible gun owners who would object to a background check.  After all, a person has to take written and driving tests to get a drivers license, so a background check to buy a gun only makes sense.  The primary problem, as I see it, is stupid people buying a gun legally, then giving or re-selling it to a person who should Never be in possession of a firearm.  Those people should share the same cell as the criminal/murderer.



I agree, and have no qualms about a background check and the 10 day waiting period[here in CA].   There are gun owners that fear the "big brother" aspect, but I would view those folks as belonging to the right-wing _fringe...._


----------



## Butterfly (Jan 30, 2016)

I don't have any problems with background checks, either. Even most jobs require those nowdays.


----------



## Warrigal (Jan 30, 2016)

What about a national register of firearms, identified by serial numbers, with the licenced owner's details recorded against each weapon?
As the guns change hands, the register to be updated with a new background check.

Acceptable or against the Constitution?


----------



## Linda (Jan 30, 2016)

Thanks for posting the video.


----------



## SifuPhil (Jan 31, 2016)

And when the day comes that the government decides to confiscate all firearms, they'll already have a complete list of names and addresses ... 

At least, that's how some folk think.


----------



## Warrigal (Jan 31, 2016)

SifuPhil said:


> And when the day comes that the government decides to confiscate all firearms, they'll already have a complete list of names and addresses ...
> 
> At least, that's how some folk think.



Why would any American government decide to confiscate ALL guns? It would be political suicide.
Even trying to take them away from criminally deranged people would be nigh on impossible 
but a register would help them to track some guns used in crimes back to the owners.


----------



## SifuPhil (Jan 31, 2016)

Warrigal said:


> Why would any American government decide to confiscate ALL guns? It would be political suicide.
> Even trying to take them away from criminally deranged people would be nigh on impossible
> but a register would help them to track some guns used in crimes back to the owners.



Understood, but we have a not-inconsiderable population of "survivalists" that believe the government is out to get them.


----------



## Warrigal (Jan 31, 2016)

So the tail is allowed to wag the dog?


----------



## SifuPhil (Jan 31, 2016)

Warrigal said:


> So the tail is allowed to wag the dog?



In one way, yes. But that's nothing new here.


----------



## Warrigal (Jan 31, 2016)

Tyranny wears many disguises.
 The government is probably the least disguised.


----------



## SifuPhil (Jan 31, 2016)

Warrigal said:


> Tyranny wears many disguises.
> The government is probably the least disguised.



Hmmm ... had to think about this one for a while ...


----------

