Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
3. It's not a loophole
Tue Oct 23, 2012, 04:32 PM
Oct 2012

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."

I guess Wisconsin could set up their own background check system hack89 Oct 2012 #1
Who is obfuscating? sarisataka Oct 2012 #2
I'm sure I'd be vilified by hardliners, but I think I've got a reasonable solution. Glaug-Eldare Oct 2012 #5
I'm not opposed to it but gejohnston Oct 2012 #6
If I am reading your question correctly, ManiacJoe Oct 2012 #25
as far as I know gejohnston Oct 2012 #26
When a FFL here in FL... 57_TomCat Oct 2012 #61
I could agree with this.... PavePusher Oct 2012 #17
You pay for driver's licenses, passports, incorporation, occupational licenses, etc. Glaug-Eldare Oct 2012 #21
It's just another form of poll tax. PavePusher Oct 2012 #22
Your solution... discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2012 #23
No, it isn't the only solution possible. Atypical Liberal Oct 2012 #27
I could certainly dig most of that, Glaug-Eldare Oct 2012 #29
Yup, all true. Atypical Liberal Oct 2012 #31
Answers discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2012 #30
Answers to answers. Atypical Liberal Oct 2012 #32
More answers discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2012 #49
Me too. Atypical Liberal Oct 2012 #54
It's not a loophole gejohnston Oct 2012 #3
Sure, ruin a good rant with the facts... ManiacJoe Oct 2012 #4
How is it not a loophole when it is a loophole? jenw2 Oct 2012 #7
The background check is for Federal Firearms Licensees to use and no other person... Eleanors38 Oct 2012 #8
because I believe in dictionary definitions gejohnston Oct 2012 #11
Sexist, much? n/t PavePusher Oct 2012 #18
Why are you calling out men? AtheistCrusader Oct 2012 #44
Most of us completely support the "commerce clause" pipoman Oct 2012 #60
The head of mediamatters has employed an armed bodyguard. Eleanors38 Oct 2012 #9
I hope the bodyguard has better skill with his pistol than gejohnston Oct 2012 #12
Boy, the switch from print to Innertube media has left decent editing in the dust.nt Eleanors38 Oct 2012 #20
To SecularMotion.... Db Owen97 Oct 2012 #10
Don't expect much of a reply... Clames Oct 2012 #13
Unfortunately, there is a coven of folks who seem to have a peculiar fascination for thugs.nt Eleanors38 Oct 2012 #19
What loophole? ileus Oct 2012 #14
How does this map define "private transfer?" Glaug-Eldare Oct 2012 #15
Private Sales Not Yet Determined LOL ileus Oct 2012 #16
The real problem here is that unlicensed sellers of personal used firearms HAVE NO WAY to check... slackmaster Oct 2012 #24
This is why I support universal, anonymous licensing. Atypical Liberal Oct 2012 #28
Wait, the gun nuts all said there was no loophole! DanTex Oct 2012 #33
the dictionary says it isn't gejohnston Oct 2012 #35
No it doesn't. You say it isn't. The dictionary agrees with me. DanTex Oct 2012 #40
either you don't understand what you read gejohnston Oct 2012 #41
The law allows people to avoid a background check by purchasing from a private seller. DanTex Oct 2012 #42
ambiguity is the key word gejohnston Oct 2012 #43
LOL. It says "ambiguity or omission". DanTex Oct 2012 #45
yes we do, gejohnston Oct 2012 #46
Let me provide an analogy for you. Glaug-Eldare Oct 2012 #36
slight correction gejohnston Oct 2012 #37
FFLs can sell long guns to out-of-staters, but yeah Glaug-Eldare Oct 2012 #38
Yes I've heard the NRA talking points. DanTex Oct 2012 #39
Well said fightthegoodfightnow Oct 2012 #47
using tax law gejohnston Oct 2012 #48
4/10. You got seven buzzwords into that, but you left out "reasonable" and "children/youth(s)". friendly_iconoclast Oct 2012 #50
Of course it is a constitutional issue hack89 Oct 2012 #51
It's Established Constitutional Law fightthegoodfightnow Oct 2012 #55
I believe Obama used the same phrase gejohnston Oct 2012 #56
US vs Lopez says otherwise hack89 Oct 2012 #57
Limits But UPHOLDS Congresses Use of the Commerce Clause fightthegoodfightnow Oct 2012 #58
Which means Congress could regulate gun shows hack89 Oct 2012 #59
LOOP HOLE!!!!!!! fightthegoodfightnow Oct 2012 #34
Another post by you that does not mention guns. I still prefer a .45. oneshooter Oct 2012 #52
Poor thing fightthegoodfightnow Oct 2012 #53
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control & RKBA»Wisconsin Mass Shooter Ex...»Reply #3