HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » Wisconsin Mass Shooter Ex...

Tue Oct 23, 2012, 04:20 PM

Wisconsin Mass Shooter Exploited Background Check Loophole That NRA Says Isn't A Problem

The National Rifle Association's media arm, NRA News, recently downplayed the public safety threat posed by a loophole in federal law that allows domestic abusers and other prohibited persons to purchase firearms without undergoing a background check. But the alleged perpetrator in an October 21 shooting at a Brookfield, Wisconsin spa that left three dead and four wounded reportedly abused that same loophole to obtain his firearm.

Today the Associated Press reported that Radcliffe Haughton purchased a handgun without a background check from a private seller, and obtained the weapon two days after becoming subject to a restraining order that required him to turn any firearms he owned into police.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/10/23/wisconsin-mass-shooter-exploited-background-che/190872

61 replies, 3425 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 61 replies Author Time Post
Reply Wisconsin Mass Shooter Exploited Background Check Loophole That NRA Says Isn't A Problem (Original post)
SecularMotion Oct 2012 OP
hack89 Oct 2012 #1
sarisataka Oct 2012 #2
Glaug-Eldare Oct 2012 #5
gejohnston Oct 2012 #6
ManiacJoe Oct 2012 #25
gejohnston Oct 2012 #26
57_TomCat Oct 2012 #61
PavePusher Oct 2012 #17
Glaug-Eldare Oct 2012 #21
PavePusher Oct 2012 #22
discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2012 #23
Atypical Liberal Oct 2012 #27
Glaug-Eldare Oct 2012 #29
Atypical Liberal Oct 2012 #31
discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2012 #30
Atypical Liberal Oct 2012 #32
discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2012 #49
Atypical Liberal Oct 2012 #54
gejohnston Oct 2012 #3
ManiacJoe Oct 2012 #4
jenw2 Oct 2012 #7
Eleanors38 Oct 2012 #8
gejohnston Oct 2012 #11
PavePusher Oct 2012 #18
AtheistCrusader Oct 2012 #44
pipoman Oct 2012 #60
Eleanors38 Oct 2012 #9
gejohnston Oct 2012 #12
Eleanors38 Oct 2012 #20
Db Owen97 Oct 2012 #10
Clames Oct 2012 #13
Eleanors38 Oct 2012 #19
ileus Oct 2012 #14
Glaug-Eldare Oct 2012 #15
ileus Oct 2012 #16
slackmaster Oct 2012 #24
Atypical Liberal Oct 2012 #28
DanTex Oct 2012 #33
gejohnston Oct 2012 #35
DanTex Oct 2012 #40
gejohnston Oct 2012 #41
DanTex Oct 2012 #42
gejohnston Oct 2012 #43
DanTex Oct 2012 #45
gejohnston Oct 2012 #46
Glaug-Eldare Oct 2012 #36
gejohnston Oct 2012 #37
Glaug-Eldare Oct 2012 #38
DanTex Oct 2012 #39
fightthegoodfightnow Oct 2012 #47
gejohnston Oct 2012 #48
friendly_iconoclast Oct 2012 #50
hack89 Oct 2012 #51
fightthegoodfightnow Oct 2012 #55
gejohnston Oct 2012 #56
hack89 Oct 2012 #57
fightthegoodfightnow Oct 2012 #58
hack89 Oct 2012 #59
fightthegoodfightnow Oct 2012 #34
oneshooter Oct 2012 #52
fightthegoodfightnow Oct 2012 #53

Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Tue Oct 23, 2012, 04:29 PM

1. I guess Wisconsin could set up their own background check system

considering how it is not a federal issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Tue Oct 23, 2012, 04:29 PM

2. Who is obfuscating?

On August 29, Cam Edwards, the host of Cam & Company on NRA News, obfuscated the loophole during a segment in which he expressed opposition to a proposal by Mayors Against Illegal Guns to require background checks on nearly all gun sales.
<snip>
Edwards' focus on where guns are sold is a distraction from the real issue: the lax regulation of private gun sales creates a venue for prohibited persons, like Haughton, to obtain firearms.


But then the article spends about 80% of its time talking about gun shows. Isn't it always referred to as the "Gun Show Loophole"?

But if a pro-rights person points out that private sales are prohibited from doing background checks, regardless of where the sale is made, it is an NRA Talking Point.

Many here have repeatedly voiced their opinion in favor of removing this prohibition so private sellers may conduct background checks...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarisataka (Reply #2)

Tue Oct 23, 2012, 04:41 PM

5. I'm sure I'd be vilified by hardliners, but I think I've got a reasonable solution.

It's not federal business, so it shouldn't be a federal law, but I think private sellers should be required to have a background check performed on buyers. They should have two options for this: 1) Have an FFL perform the NICS check for them, at their own price, or 2) have any law enforcement agency in the state perform the NICS check for them, with a small, legally-capped fee. No additional registration requirement should be imposed on sales facilitated by police, and sales records must be subject to the same privacy as those held by FFLs. This way, all buyers are checked, sellers aren't required to pay through the nose for an FFL's help, and no private seller is unreasonably far from a provider of NICS checks. NICS remains a private system with controlled-access, and the ability to conduct private sales in a convenient, timely way is protected. Just meet at the police station parking lot, in and out, everybody wins. Naturally, we should get rid of dumbass waiting periods.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glaug-Eldare (Reply #5)

Tue Oct 23, 2012, 04:46 PM

6. I'm not opposed to it but

don't FFLs have to log the gun in as inventory then log it back out via 4473 in the process? If so, I would like to see the GCA amended to make it less of a hassle for brokering private sales. There should also incentives for compliance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #6)

Tue Oct 23, 2012, 07:50 PM

25. If I am reading your question correctly,

there is no gun to be logged from the FFL perspective. The NICS check contains no gun data except for the type (rifle, shotgun, handgun); that is needed only because the age of the buyer is keyed to the gun type.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ManiacJoe (Reply #25)

Tue Oct 23, 2012, 08:02 PM

26. as far as I know

perhaps an FFL can clarify

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ManiacJoe (Reply #25)

Fri Oct 26, 2012, 10:43 AM

61. When a FFL here in FL...

does a background check the approval number must be logged on the 4473 that is filled out for ALL gun purchases through said FFL. Different states might have different requirements. The key is how to document the background check approval number or allow for the FFL to simply confirm the background passed.

Even then you run into the "Cash is KING" crowd who disregard the law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glaug-Eldare (Reply #5)

Tue Oct 23, 2012, 06:35 PM

17. I could agree with this....

 

except for the fees you propose. If it benefits everyone, as claimed by the anti's, then everyone can help pay for it through tax dollars.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #17)

Tue Oct 23, 2012, 06:52 PM

21. You pay for driver's licenses, passports, incorporation, occupational licenses, etc.

I don't see anything unfair about requiring an individual paying a fee to comply with the law. Maryland has a legislatively-defined fee of $10 for transfers. Ten bux seems fair to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glaug-Eldare (Reply #21)

Tue Oct 23, 2012, 06:57 PM

22. It's just another form of poll tax.

 

Your examples are not. That is the critical difference.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glaug-Eldare (Reply #5)

Tue Oct 23, 2012, 07:02 PM

23. Your solution...

...is the ONLY solution possible.

Background checks: All states have the option to participate in the NICS as a point of contact. Most states that do this run a check of state and county records in addition to the federal check. Conflicts with privacy laws are the number one reason why most states don't report some mental issues to the federal database. I like the idea of having NICS checks available through a LEO at county offices.

I like the availability to an NICS check by law enforcement for private sales. Some folks will only be comfortable this way. I stop a bit short of making it mandatory. I don't like the idea of demanding documentation of seller as these things have a way of becoming registration.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #23)

Tue Oct 23, 2012, 08:22 PM

27. No, it isn't the only solution possible.

 

The problem with his solution, requiring NICS checks for all private and commercial sales, is that the only people likely to request a NICS check are people likely to be purchasing, and thus owning, a firearm.

Consequently, this creates a registry of all firearm owners.

A better solution is to issue run NICS checks on everyone who applies for a driver's license or state-issued ID, except those who opt out, and issue Firearm Owner IDs to everyone who passes.

Then, the FOID has to be recorded for all firearm sales, private and public.

This has a few advantages over the NICS at point of sale solution:

1) It preserves firearm ownership anonymity.
2) It provides a traceable chain of custody for firearms.
3) It allows easy transfers of firearms between individuals anywhere, without having to meet at a place capable of doing NICS checks.
4) Since everyone with an FOID has already had a background check, they can buy firearms through the mail without having to ship through an FFL dealer, with the associated fees.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atypical Liberal (Reply #27)

Tue Oct 23, 2012, 09:16 PM

29. I could certainly dig most of that,

but it has some serious weaknesses.

1. The FBI has finite resources. Running a NICS check on every single driver's license issuance (and FOID renewal) would put an unreasonable burden on a system that wasn't designed for it.

2. Private purchasers have no way of determining whether any given FOID is valid or not. By omitting the check at purchase, they may sell to a person known by NICS (or even the state) to be disqualified, but whose FOID was not confiscated.

Changing it to an opt-in system would drastically reduce the NICS burden, and perhaps allow for an expanded NICS to withstand schemes similar to Utah's(?), where I'm told they perform frequent checks on all carry permits, and immediately revoke those of recently-disqualified people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glaug-Eldare (Reply #29)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 08:09 AM

31. Yup, all true.

 

1. The FBI has finite resources. Running a NICS check on every single driver's license issuance (and FOID renewal) would put an unreasonable burden on a system that wasn't designed for it.

True, but the NICS check should be automated and should happen in seconds. If your SS# is not in the database, you're clear.

2. Private purchasers have no way of determining whether any given FOID is valid or not. By omitting the check at purchase, they may sell to a person known by NICS (or even the state) to be disqualified, but whose FOID was not confiscated.

True, but FOIDs will expire like drivers' licenses. So they would not be able to buy firearms forever with an old FOID.

Changing it to an opt-in system would drastically reduce the NICS burden, and perhaps allow for an expanded NICS to withstand schemes similar to Utah's(?), where I'm told they perform frequent checks on all carry permits, and immediately revoke those of recently-disqualified people.

Opt-in is a registry of firearm owners, and I won't comply with that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atypical Liberal (Reply #27)

Tue Oct 23, 2012, 09:41 PM

30. Answers

Running NICS checks does not create a registry. FOIDs need to be renewed and leave an open window of time where a crime can be committed by someone with a valid FOID. Plus if you record the FOID for all sales, you again have a registry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #30)

Thu Oct 25, 2012, 03:54 PM

32. Answers to answers.

 

Running NICS checks does not create a registry.

In theory, NICS data is supposed to be deleted after a certain amount of time. I do not believe that it is for an instant. This is a government that routinely and actively monitors all electronic communications of everyone, everywhere. This is not paranoia or a conspiracy theory, this is a known fact. My father-in-law worked for Nortel for 30 years. Their equipment is specifically engineered, by design request of customers and governments, to have back-end hooks to enable complete surveillance. There are locked rooms in the trunk offices of all the major telecom industries for NSA equipment. If you think the government is getting rid of that electronic data (not to mention the difficultly of truly deleting electronic data in the first place), I think you are mistaken.

FOIDs need to be renewed and leave an open window of time where a crime can be committed by someone with a valid FOID.

This is true. The good news is FOIDs do expire just like driver's licenses do. It's not like a lack of FOID is really going to stop criminals from obtaining firearms anyway - all of this is just a feel-good measure to appease anti-gun folks.

Plus if you record the FOID for all sales, you again have a registry.

Yes, but not a very easy-to-access one, because the records would be dispersed among millions of individuals in a non-electronic format. The only way you could follow the records would be with good old fashioned police work going to the FFL log book, to the customer of record, demanding the sale records for the next customer of record, and so on. Very time consuming and expensive. Not something that will be done routinely except in the event of a crime that warrants it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atypical Liberal (Reply #32)

Thu Oct 25, 2012, 08:59 PM

49. More answers

NICS data: My understanding is that it is never recorded to start with. Yes I do realize how naive one would have to be to really believe that. I've been involved with DARPA and had friends that worked for DIA. I know about the facilities in Sugar Grove, on Kent Island, at Menwith Hill and in New Zealand. I'm familiar with the NRO. Some international traffic both voice and data is carried by satellite and the satellites have monitoring provisions. Ever heard of the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency?

FOIDs: I just dislike the idea of having someone "check my papers" before I get to exercise a right.

FFL logs: How long will it be before they are computerized?


Patrick Henry: "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #49)

Thu Oct 25, 2012, 10:15 PM

54. Me too.

 

FOIDs: I just dislike the idea of having someone "check my papers" before I get to exercise a right.

I agree. But as I propose it, it's harmless to us, and gets us the right to buy firearms through mail order again.

FFL logs: How long will it be before they are computerized?

I'm surprised they aren't already.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Tue Oct 23, 2012, 04:32 PM

3. It's not a loophole

because it was intentionally written into federal law. It is also inaccurate to say "private sellers are not required to" because private sellers are prohibited by federal law. In fact when you call the NICS call center, assuming you come up with the phone number, the operator will ask for your FFL number. Some states do require private sales be brokered by an FFL or the cops. Most don't.

BTW, the MM editors should have changed "required him to turn any firearms he owned into police" to "required him surrender any firearms he owned to police."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #3)

Tue Oct 23, 2012, 04:37 PM

4. Sure, ruin a good rant with the facts...


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #3)

Tue Oct 23, 2012, 05:01 PM

7. How is it not a loophole when it is a loophole?

 

You must have a headache from those mental midget gymnastics.

Seriously, there is a HUGE loophole that is providing thousands of dangerous weapons to men that shouldn't have them. Really, you support that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jenw2 (Reply #7)

Tue Oct 23, 2012, 05:21 PM

8. The background check is for Federal Firearms Licensees to use and no other person...

The Feds can do this because of the Interstate Commerce clause. However, any individual who sells within his/her state to someone else in his/her state, is not subject to the NICS system for B.G. checks, nor could they use such if they WANTED to. The states may or may not regulate these sales; otherwise, the Feds do not have the power under the Constitution to perform such.

Those who have posted in this group for the last several years have kicked around the notion of a "universal" check system, and whether or not it would have any effect on a social problem. But the crux of the matter is that the Feds are constrained from taking action.

I would point out that ANY time a prohibitionist scheme is established, there are people willing and quite able to circumvent it. Be aware that most states will resist an effort in this direction if for no other reason than the track record of gun "controllers:" They want prohibition of almost all arms, tight regulation on what the remaining ones can be used for, and a blank check for more prohibition in the future.

If you have a suggestion as to how to deal with the problem, please employ your mental colossus parallel bar and present it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jenw2 (Reply #7)

Tue Oct 23, 2012, 05:32 PM

11. because I believe in dictionary definitions

not newspeak and buzz words. How I feel about the cause or which side is using them doesn't matter. Principle should always transcend ideology, even if it is inconvenient.

loophole
n
1. an ambiguity, omission, etc., as in a law, by which one can avoid a penalty or responsibility
2. (Military / Fortifications) a small gap or hole in a wall, esp one in a fortified wall
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/loophole

There is no ambiguity in the Brady Law that created the situation. If you call the NICS center with without an FFL number, the FBI employee will hang up on you, because the law says you may not use the system. That is why it is not a loophole. Since we are talking about intrastate private sale of legal products, I don't think the commerce clause would allow federal regulation. As I said, I am not opposed to the states requiring it and I support amendments to the Gun Control Act to make it simple for FFLs to provide the service.


IIRC, in The Netherlands, Dutch police are not allowed access to mental health records when processing gun license applications. If someone with schizophrenia gets a license, is that a loophole?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jenw2 (Reply #7)

Tue Oct 23, 2012, 06:36 PM

18. Sexist, much? n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jenw2 (Reply #7)

Thu Oct 25, 2012, 06:33 PM

44. Why are you calling out men?

Just curious.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jenw2 (Reply #7)

Fri Oct 26, 2012, 09:33 AM

60. Most of us completely support the "commerce clause"

in the US constitution. By definition it isn't a "loophole" at all, it is a legitimate limitation on the power of the Federal government.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #3)

Tue Oct 23, 2012, 05:27 PM

9. The head of mediamatters has employed an armed bodyguard.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #9)

Tue Oct 23, 2012, 05:47 PM

12. I hope the bodyguard has better skill with his pistol than

the editor has with his or her blue pencil.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #12)

Tue Oct 23, 2012, 06:45 PM

20. Boy, the switch from print to Innertube media has left decent editing in the dust.nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Tue Oct 23, 2012, 05:32 PM

10. To SecularMotion....

 

You seem to always find fault with everything and everyone except the criminal act of ....well a criminal.

Why try to make the issue your own and by doing so disrespect the victim.

It isn't the fault of any gun owner or organization.

The only guilt and all blame should go to the criminal alone,because said person is the only one to make the choice to commit such actions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Db Owen97 (Reply #10)

Tue Oct 23, 2012, 06:05 PM

13. Don't expect much of a reply...

 

...the OP is known for doing little else that dumping what he/she finds on Google here. Does nothing to facilitate discussion, does not defend positions taken in the articles, and is an overall disruptive element in this group.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Db Owen97 (Reply #10)

Tue Oct 23, 2012, 06:41 PM

19. Unfortunately, there is a coven of folks who seem to have a peculiar fascination for thugs.nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Tue Oct 23, 2012, 06:05 PM

14. What loophole?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ileus (Reply #14)

Tue Oct 23, 2012, 06:27 PM

15. How does this map define "private transfer?"

Private transfers are legal in Maryland, after a fashion. Handgun transfers require compliance with a scheme broadly similar to the one I laid out in #5, and face-to-face rifle transfers are completely legal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glaug-Eldare (Reply #15)

Tue Oct 23, 2012, 06:32 PM

16. Private Sales Not Yet Determined LOL

http://www.opencarry.org/?page_id=252



Looks like they're confused on MD law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Tue Oct 23, 2012, 07:24 PM

24. The real problem here is that unlicensed sellers of personal used firearms HAVE NO WAY to check...

 

...the background of a potential buyer.

The law prohibits use of the ONLY source of truth - NICS - by anyone except licensed dealers, i.e. Type 01 Federal Firearms Licensees.

NICS should be made available for use by non-licensees, and by licensed collectors like me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Tue Oct 23, 2012, 08:34 PM

28. This is why I support universal, anonymous licensing.

 

I support universal, anonymous firearm licensing.

Under my proposed system, everyone who applies for a state-issued ID or a driver's license will automatically be run through a NICS background check, unless they opt out. Of course, people without either of those can still apply for an FOID.

Everyone who passes the NICS check is issued an FOID. Because the system is opt-out, rather than opt-in, there is no way to know which people with FOIDs actually own firearms or not. Consequently, there is no registry of firearm owners. Anonymous firearm ownership is preserved.

Then, as in Illinois today, every time a private individual sells a firearm to another private individual they must record the buyer's FOID information and keep those records for some number of years. If the firearm is recovered from a crime scene, it can be traced, with manual police legwork, from the original FFL dealer through each legitimate owner until the last legitimate owner is discovered, provided it is within the time limit of records keeping for individuals.

Thus there is an incentive for private sellers to comply with the law and keep a record of their private sale, and a disincentive to sell to someone without an FOID, as it is likely then that such arms would be used in crime and thus traced back to them, where punishments can be issued.

In Illinois, it is currently a misdemeanor to not record the private sale of a firearm. I would suggest that if the firearm is consequently used in the commission of a crime then the penalties for selling without recording a valid FOID be very steep.

In this manner, everyone who lawfully buys a firearm will have undergone a background check.

The advantages to this system are numerous:

1) All lawful buyers of firearms will have undergone a background check.
2) People who commit disqualifying crimes can have their FOIDs revoked and firearms in possession confiscated.
3) Anonymous firearm ownership is preserved.
4) Since anyone with an FOID has already had a background check, they can buy firearms through the mail without need of going through an FFL.
5) It allows the sale of firearms at any location, simply by observing and recording the buyer's FOID.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Thu Oct 25, 2012, 05:23 PM

33. Wait, the gun nuts all said there was no loophole!

This couldn't have happened! Maybe NRA will argue that the victims of the shooting aren't really dead.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to gejohnston (Reply #35)

Thu Oct 25, 2012, 06:00 PM

40. No it doesn't. You say it isn't. The dictionary agrees with me.

This is another case of NRA-versus-the-rest-of-the-world.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #40)

Thu Oct 25, 2012, 06:04 PM

41. either you don't understand what you read

or you don't understand the law. The law prohibits non FFLs from doing background checks. What is ambiguous about the law?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #41)

Thu Oct 25, 2012, 06:11 PM

42. The law allows people to avoid a background check by purchasing from a private seller.

The intent is to prevent certain people (e.g. criminals) from purchasing weapons, but by omitting private sales from the background check requirement, it allows those people to evade the intent and acquire weapons anyway. It is one of the most perfect textbook examples of a loophole that one can imagine.

: a means of escape; especially : an ambiguity or omission in the text through which the intent of a statute, contract, or obligation may be evaded

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/loophole

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #42)

Thu Oct 25, 2012, 06:20 PM

43. ambiguity is the key word

an ambiguity or omission in the text through which the intent of a statute, contract, or obligation may be evaded
Which begs the question, why wasn't it addressed when the law was passed? Ultimately it is up to the State of Wisconsin. I never said I was opposed to private sales being brokered by an FFL, or a law requiring it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #43)

Thu Oct 25, 2012, 06:35 PM

45. LOL. It says "ambiguity or omission".

Ahh, the good ol' gungeon. A fascinating place. I mean, where else can I find people who don't know what the word "or" means?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #45)

Thu Oct 25, 2012, 06:37 PM

46. yes we do,

So why did they omit it? It implies unintentional omission.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #33)

Thu Oct 25, 2012, 05:38 PM

36. Let me provide an analogy for you.

The DOT DOES regulate interstate trucking, because the Constitution DOES empower the federal government to do this. Individual states do NOT have this authority Truck drivers who transport freight across state lines ARE required to take and pass a DOT physical, and MAY OR MAY NOT be required to take and pass a state physical.

The DOT does NOT regulate intrastate trucking, because the Constitution does NOT empower the federal government to do this. Individual states DO have this authority. Truck drivers who transport freight within a state's borders are NOT required to take and pass a DOT physical, and MAY OR MAY NOT be required to take and pass a state physical.




The ATF DOES regulate interstate firearms sales, because the Constitution DOES empower the federal government to do this. Individual states do NOT have this authority Firearms sellers who trade in firearms across state lines ARE required to perform NICS checks for retail sales, and MAY OR MAY NOT be required to fulfill additional state regulations.

The ATF does NOT regulate intrastate firearms sales, because the Constitution does NOT empower the federal government to do this. Individual states DO have this authority. Firearms sellers who trade in firearms within a state's borders are NOT required to perform NICS checks for retail sales, and MAY OR MAY NOT be required to fulfill additional state regulations.


Some states impose additional regulations on the sales of firearms between citizens of that state, and some do not. The absence of a state requirement to perform background checks is NOT a loophole in federal law. It is a choice made by the state where the firearm is sold.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glaug-Eldare (Reply #36)

Thu Oct 25, 2012, 05:42 PM

37. slight correction

the FFL holder engages in interstate trade via wholesalers etc. He may not sell to an individual who is not a resident of that same state.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #37)

Thu Oct 25, 2012, 05:55 PM

38. FFLs can sell long guns to out-of-staters, but yeah

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glaug-Eldare (Reply #36)

Thu Oct 25, 2012, 05:59 PM

39. Yes I've heard the NRA talking points.

Meanwhile, outside the NRA bubble, it is a loophole, and there aren't any people besides full-on right-wing gun fanatics who think that there is any constitutional problem with closing the loophole. First off, gun trafficking obviously affects interstate commerce. Beyond that, private transfers of full-auto weapons are currently regulated by federal law, so there is already precedent.

The problem is not constitutional. It is political. The NRA and pro-gun extremists would rather have people die instead of imposing common sense gun laws. And the Republican party does what the NRA wants.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #39)

Thu Oct 25, 2012, 08:09 PM

47. Well said

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #39)

Thu Oct 25, 2012, 08:40 PM

48. using tax law

because of the tax stamp. That is why before 2004 the ATF was under the Treasury dept. Before ATF was created in the 1970s, federal gun laws were enforced by the IRS. ATF was called the Misc. Tax Unit in the IRS, responsible for collecting federal sales taxes and regulating those three items.
Unless you are saying that there should be a transference tax on title one weapons. It has nothing to do with the commerce clause.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #39)

Thu Oct 25, 2012, 09:01 PM

50. 4/10. You got seven buzzwords into that, but you left out "reasonable" and "children/youth(s)".

You also forgot to gratuitously name-drop a recent shooting incident, so there's that...

Oh well, everyone has an off day now and then.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #39)

Thu Oct 25, 2012, 09:44 PM

51. Of course it is a constitutional issue

where does the Federal government get the power to regulate intrastate commerce?

I have no problem with background checks for private sales - my state is one of five that does exactly that. But it is a state issue that requires each state to pass legislation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #51)

Thu Oct 25, 2012, 11:29 PM

55. It's Established Constitutional Law

This alternative universe where fact is turned on it's head sounds creepily like the sound bite of another political party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #55)

Thu Oct 25, 2012, 11:31 PM

56. I believe Obama used the same phrase

but I don't believe I heard any Republican mentioning it, or were you talking about the Greens or Constitutional Party?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #55)

Fri Oct 26, 2012, 08:17 AM

57. US vs Lopez says otherwise

the Court, identified the three broad categories of activity that Congress could regulate under the Commerce Clause:

* the channels of interstate commerce,

* the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or persons or things in interstate commerce, and

* activities that substantially affect or substantially relate to interstate commerce


Me selling my private property to another citizen of my state while in my state doesn't fit anywhere into those criteria.

Something to think about. Proposed Federal law deals only with private sales at gun shows - because that could possibly fit under the above criteria. What is telling is that there is no proposed Federal legislation to ban private sales outside of gun shows.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #57)

Fri Oct 26, 2012, 09:10 AM

58. Limits But UPHOLDS Congresses Use of the Commerce Clause

...and was specific to the facts of that case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #58)

Fri Oct 26, 2012, 09:14 AM

59. Which means Congress could regulate gun shows

but not intrastate gun sales in general.

There has to be a link, however tenuous, to interstate commerce. Me selling my private property within my state to another state resident cannot be linked to interstate commerce.

Why else do you think proposed federal legislation only attempts to regulate private sales at gun shows? It looks like all those Democrats in Congress understand the constitutional issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Thu Oct 25, 2012, 05:32 PM

34. LOOP HOLE!!!!!!!

I can literally see the heads rotate 360 for some in gungeon land.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #34)

Thu Oct 25, 2012, 10:05 PM

52. Another post by you that does not mention guns. I still prefer a .45.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oneshooter (Reply #52)

Thu Oct 25, 2012, 10:09 PM

53. Poor thing

See the LOOP HOLE refers to the GUN LOOP HOLE. I was in no way referring to your loopy, creepy love affair with your .45.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread