HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » Law enforcement officials...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 10:23 AM

 

Law enforcement officials back closing the 'gun-show loophole'

I for one am glad to see this and it has been a long time coming. This will close one of the gateways that is currently being used for people to buy guns who should't ordinarily be able to own a gun. I just hope they don't try and load up the legislation with a bunch of unrelated non-sense. Time will tell as I don't think any real legislation has of yet been written.


Law enforcement officials from across the state on Tuesday called for stricter background checks to make it more difficult for criminals to obtain firearms if they are prohibited by law from having guns.

"This is not about infringing on people's right to own guns, purchase guns, sell guns," Fairfax City Police Chief Richard J. Rappoport said. "Law enforcement and lawmakers ought to sit down and try to figure out how we can regulate that in a way that keeps guns out of the hands of dangerous people."

Rappoport, a past president of the Virginia Association of Chiefs of Police, joined several law enforcement officials from around Virginia and elsewhere at a news conference Tuesday at the Berkeley Hotel in Richmond.

Speakers said they support a federal law that would close the so-called "gun-show loophole," which allows buyers to purchase from unlicensed sellers without having to go through a criminal background check.

"We need a federal law to address these issues," said Hubert Williams, chairman of the National Law Enforcement Partnership to Prevent Gun Violence.

Rappoport said a solution needs to be found to keep dangerous people from going online, putting the word out that they need a gun and getting one without having to submit to a background check.

"A person can go on the Internet using the pseudonym 'Fred' and arrange to buy a semiautomatic weapon from someone using the pseudonym 'Sam' and meet in a dark parking lot and money exchange hands and weapons exchange hands," he said.

Rappoport said those kinds of sales need to be made illegal "so that we move legitimate buyers and legitimate sellers into a legitimate marketplace that's regulated."

Philip Van Cleave, president of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, a gun-rights organization, countered that people should be able to meet and sell guns just as they would sell anything else online at sites such as Craigslist.com.


***MORE AT LINK***

http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/virginia-politics/2012/jun/27/tdmet02-law-enforcement-officials-back-closing-the-ar-2015984/

24 replies, 2158 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 24 replies Author Time Post
Reply Law enforcement officials back closing the 'gun-show loophole' (Original post)
Meiko Jun 2012 OP
mvccd1000 Jun 2012 #1
discntnt_irny_srcsm Jun 2012 #8
PavePusher Jun 2012 #2
Meiko Jun 2012 #11
Glaug-Eldare Jun 2012 #3
NewMoonTherian Jun 2012 #5
Glaug-Eldare Jun 2012 #13
hack89 Jun 2012 #4
NewMoonTherian Jun 2012 #6
Glaug-Eldare Jun 2012 #14
hack89 Jun 2012 #17
NewMoonTherian Jun 2012 #7
Clames Jun 2012 #9
Hoyt Jun 2012 #10
Glaug-Eldare Jun 2012 #15
Hoyt Jun 2012 #18
Glaug-Eldare Jun 2012 #19
Hoyt Jun 2012 #20
Glaug-Eldare Jun 2012 #21
Hoyt Jun 2012 #22
Glaug-Eldare Jun 2012 #23
spin Jun 2012 #12
Atypical Liberal Jun 2012 #16
virginia mountainman Jun 2012 #24

Response to Meiko (Original post)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 11:29 AM

1. Not sure I agree...

... with the premise that private sales should be regulated.

If the feds want to regulate an industry or a business (firearms dealers), that's one thing. When they decide to regulate private sales, that seems to be an entirely different ballgame.

I have no interest in keeping paperwork to show that my sister-in-law appropriated one of my guns, or an old girlfriend another. I don't believe these are issues the federal (or state) government belongs in.

I'm open to discussion on the idea, but at first blush, I don't like it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mvccd1000 (Reply #1)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 02:32 PM

8. The 10A US Constitution (Bill of Rights)...

...specifically prohibits this sort of federal activity:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


It's a state matter. Period.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Meiko (Original post)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 11:47 AM

2. Worthless article and worthless topic....

 

as no specific proposals are in evidence.

What, exactly, do they want to do?

Edit: I didn't mean this as an attack against you Meiko, but against the vaporousness of the article and it's author. Sorry if there was any confusion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #2)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 03:07 PM

11. No problem

 

I noted that no legislation had been written and there won't be without NRA involvement, we know that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Meiko (Original post)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 12:16 PM

3. One thing people leave out when they describe the "loophole"

is that private sellers are FORBIDDEN from performing the same background check a dealer would. No matter how much a private seller wants to use the NICS system to screen the buyer, federal law prohibits them from doing so.

Also worth noting, private sellers are forbidden to sell to anybody they should reasonably suspect cannot legally buy a gun. They can be fined and imprisoned for breaking the rules FFLs are held to, but they are denied access to the tools FFLs can use to protect themselves.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glaug-Eldare (Reply #3)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 12:39 PM

5. That's easy to solve.

Just make private transfers go through FFLs. Sure, it will impose a punitive fee on a perfectly legal activity, but who cares? It only hurts those lousy rotten gun nuts. Maybe it'll prevent a few innocent people from ever obtaining a gun(with which they might become not-so-innocent), and maybe a few gun owners will instead take their guns to one of those awesome buyback events, so the cops can pick up some nice pieces on the cheap.



Boy, I'm in a MOOD this morning.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NewMoonTherian (Reply #5)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 04:39 PM

13. That's basically how MD does private handgun transfers

and I'm actually somewhat satisfied with the way they do it. There's no such thing as a strictly private sale in Maryland, but an individual wishing to sell a regulated firearm to another individual must do so through an FFL who arranges the background check with Maryland State Police, OR they can conduct the sale directly through the MSP at a barracks. The police take 7+ days to finish their state version of what NICS does in five minutes either way, but they only charge $10 to do the transaction whereas an FFL charges far more. I would prefer for them to switch completely to NICS, but apparently they don't like using computerized databases to do things efficiently. Maybe a Delegate's brother-in-law will start a software company, and then we'll get to pay them five times what it's worth to set up a functional system. Well, maybe partly functional?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Meiko (Original post)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 12:22 PM

4. How can a federal law regulate intrastate commerce?

as long as the seller and buyer are residents of the same state that the sale takes place in, there is nothing the federal government can do - it is matter for state law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #4)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 12:47 PM

6. Oh come now. You know better than that.

The feds have stretched and warped the commerce clause so drastically that there are basically no limits to their authority over intrastate commerce. The gun had to come from somewhere before arriving at the seller's home. You want to sell a Glock or Benelli? International commerce. If one or both parties used a car to get to the meeting place, maybe the EPA can take its pound of flesh too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #4)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 04:43 PM

14. Hell, look at Wickard v. Filburn

when SCOTUS ruled that the absence of intrastate commerce constituted interstate commerce that can be regulated. Long story short, a farmer is not allowed to feed himself unless the federal government graciously permits him to do so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glaug-Eldare (Reply #14)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 06:11 PM

17. Good thing the president has more sense than to try this. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Meiko (Original post)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 12:54 PM

7. How do they intend to enforce this?

With gun shows specifically, I can see that(massive "sting operations"). But the "GUN SHOW LOOPHOLE" is actually the private sale loophole(if we're being realistic, it's not a loophole at all, but whatever). You can't enforce any regulation of private sales without knowing who has legal ownership of the gun at all times. You can't close the "GUN SHOW LOOPHOLE" without nationwide registration.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Meiko (Original post)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 02:47 PM

9. I don't know what this guy is spiking his kool-aid with...

 

...but I'm sure it's an illegal substance.

Rappoport said those kinds of sales need to be made illegal "so that we move legitimate buyers and legitimate sellers into a legitimate marketplace that's regulated."



Yeah right. Legitimate buyers aren't the problem and these laws won't magically create more of them...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Meiko (Original post)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 03:05 PM

10. Gun culture has been telling us there is no "loophole" (I guess because they use it or might).

But, I appreciate your position.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #10)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 04:46 PM

15. It's not a loophole -- it's a prohibition.

But I don't know if you're capable of believing that there are gun sellers who don't want to sell to prohibited persons, or gun buyers who don't intend to stuff it down their pants and walk into Chuck E. Cheese.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glaug-Eldare (Reply #15)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 06:19 PM

18. Plenty do stick it in their pants. And, most sellers who don't check Back Ground just want cash.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #18)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 06:20 PM

19. "most sellers who don't check Back Ground"

You mean the sellers who are forbidden from using the NICS system.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glaug-Eldare (Reply #19)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 06:30 PM

20. All they have to do is go through FFL. It costs $35 or so. So pay it next time you sell a gun

if you really care who gets the gun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #20)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 06:45 PM

21. Maybe where you are it's $35, but not here

FFLs around here charge $75 and UP for simple transfers. Fortunately, we have the option of doing handgun/regulated firearms transfers through the state police for $10, but there's no telling where that option is or isn't available. Simply requiring everybody to go through an FFL means artificially driving up demand for the transfer service, which will drastically increase the rates and make safe, legal private sales impractical.

Wouldn't it be better for everybody to simply make NICS more accessible and require its use? That way, the ability to buy and sell is not contingent on the FFL transfer rates, and background checks are available for all firearms transactions. Private sellers will have the knowledge they need to comply with the law, and nothing to hide behind if they're caught violating it. Private purchasers would be screened the same way retail purchasers are, without having to pay a third party's outrageous fees. Police and prosecutors will be able to prosecute illegal sellers with greater certainty. FFLs still make money off of interstate transfers and sales. Who loses?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glaug-Eldare (Reply #21)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 06:54 PM

22. The problem with letting anyone use NICS is that one can check on their neighbor. You might only

find out that they can't legally buy a gun -- but that's a pretty good indication your neighbor might be a criminal. I don't think that would be right.

Just add the $75 to the gun and do it right through FFL. I bet if you really negotiated, you'll find an FFL willing to take $35 for a few minutes work.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #22)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 07:16 PM

23. How about this:

FFLs can use the telephone system to run a NICS check, and that's good. To prevent non-licensed sellers from abusing the NICS system, require them to either mail or fax a request, including the prospective buyer's deets and signature. Both parties are then notified of the results and who requested them. Any fraudulent request can be flagged by the supposed purchaser, and the suspect's address will be right there to show to the police.

This is just the first idea off the top of my head -- I'm sure there are ways to improve it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Meiko (Original post)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 04:08 PM

12. It has been my opinion and will continue to be that ...

the NICS background check system should be opened up and required for ALL private sales.This view will find little support from the NRA.

Currently I will only sell a firearm to someone that I personally know and he/she has to have a valid and current concealed weapons permit. Since I have little interest in selling my collection that is not a problem. Six years ago I did sell several handguns to a co-worker and fellow shooter who had a carry permit.

In the future I would like to have the ability to travel to a licensed gun dealer and have him run a background check on an individual who was interested in purchasing one of my firearms. Of course the fee for the service would have to be reasonable. Under my plan there would be no more registration of the firearms involved than in a sale to a customer by the dealer.

I would also like to see the NICS background check system improved and for states to receive federal financing to make sure that they update the system with the names of those who are considered to be illegible to buy a firearm on a more timely and comprehensive basis.

This would handle the "gun show loophole" and also would accomplish far more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Meiko (Original post)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 06:03 PM

16. There is only one way to close the "loophole - universal licensing.

 

And if I have to submit to that, then I expect to be able to go back to buying firearms through the mail without an FFL middleman again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Meiko (Original post)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 07:32 PM

24. As a Virginia resadent, and political activist..

This has a snowballs chance in HELL, and will only speed up the undoing of gun control.. Because now that their are more efforts at gun control, and it is in the news, it reminds us activists that their are forces that STILL wish to fight us. and it will help mobilize support anew, with the pro gun folks, you know the "real" gun lobby!


As I have long pointed out, The call for gun control tends to bring LESS gun control. As political activists, get riled up, internet message boards light up as people get coordinated and CRUSH the gun control forces, with a flury of phone calls, office visits, checks, and angry letters. It makes the politicians go to "prove their pro gun credentials" and calm down the angry phone calls, will pick another gun control law to consign to the dust bin of history...

As it has happened many times for over a decade.

Thank you for bringing this to our attention. Your part of the solution!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread