Guns for sale: No background check needed
This article has been read 1506 times.
Gun shows provide more loopholes in already weak laws
click image to enlarge
To capture the essence of a classic Socratic quandary, imagine this scenario: You know that the right thing to do is to return your friend’s gun to him or her if you have taken it. But should you return it if you know that person is mentally unstable and would use it against others?
I’m betting that most people would say no, and with good reason. Even though the Second Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms, in reality, not everyone has the right to gun ownership — the background check is a mechanism to prevent guns from falling into the wrong hands.
It’s a simple enough concept but one that is not enforced as often as it should be.
The background check is basically non-existent at events like gun shows — forums where private sellers convene for a great American pastime: lusting after guns.
In the black market, I would expect for just about anyone to walk right up to a seller and buy a gun, no questions asked.
So why is the shadow of the black market falling on a legal venue?
To expose gun shows for their lax take on background checks, Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York City commissioned a sting operation that went beyond its borders. Investigators equipped with hidden cameras went to seven different shows across the country, including one in Reno, Nev.
Their results were appalling. They found that many gun sellers simply did not care to whom they were selling, even if it meant selling to a guy who told them himself that he would not be able to pass a background check.
Private sellers, by law, are not required to conduct background checks, so there is a gun show “loophole.”
But the law does say this: If the seller has reason to believe that a background check is in order, they cannot sell a gun.
If they continue with the sale in such a situation, it is considered a felony — plain and simple.
But undercover investigators found that even when buyers blatantly admitted that they would not pass background checks, they were sold the guns anyway.
To such admissions, the sellers responded with “I couldn’t pass one either,” or laughs and conspiratorially winks. One seller dared to “jokingly” ask if the inquirer had “done something bad.” One simply stated that he “did not care.”
Bloomberg is an advocate of closing the loophole nationwide, either through national or state legislation, and this sting makes an excellent case for doing so.
Advocates of the “gun show loophole” claim such occurrences are rare. Well, as proven in the sting operation, I wouldn’t exactly call 19 out of 30 sellers willing to sell a gun to someone who says they will not pass a background check a rarity.
I call that 63 percent.
Even if it’s true that most sellers ask questions, the claim is not sufficient to convince me that the loophole should remain. Because even if most check, there are plenty that don’t ask questions and disregard red flags waving right in their faces.
Also, is it safe to assume that the potential gun buyers would respond honestly even if they were asked questions?
It makes no sense.
I don’t see how any rational person would have a problem with getting rid of the loophole. The shows would still run and people would still be allowed to buy guns.
Demanding that the loophole be shut down is not tantamount to taking away constitutional rights from a mentally stable, law-abiding citizen. But it does ensure that fewer guns fall into suspicious and unsavory hands.
But for some reason, the National Rifles Association tried to diminish the significance of this investigation.
In a statement to CNN, the NRA said, “We believe anyone who breaks the law should be arrested, prosecuted and punished.
Instead of working with law enforcement to bring those who may have broken the law to justice, Bloomberg chose to use this information for a press conference. Bloomberg’s priorities are clearly media first, justice later.”
But along with bringing criminals to justice, in a democracy, it is crucial that such information be shared with citizens to clear misconceptions. Nineteen of the 30 sellers broke the law. That speaks volumes in itself, particularly in conveying just how easy it is for guns to change hands.
Of course, the NRA wouldn’t want media coverage of this issue. But we deserve to know the truth.
Closing the loophole would mean fewer guns for those who are not qualified to get them. But it seems that the NRA’s priority, as much as they scoff Bloomberg, is to make it as easy to sell as many guns as possible, regardless of the hands they may fall into.
While they may be all for enforcement of the law, actions speak louder than words — or in this case, the lack of action in advocating the closure of a dangerous loophole.
As far as I’m concerned, there should be no difference in the requirements for background checks when it comes to licensed gun dealers or private sellers.
At the end of the day, they are selling a deadly weapon and have no right to treat this with a cavalier attitude.
Proper background checks are not infringing on anyone’s right — that tired argument needs to be put to rest.
To preserve public safety, it is imperative that guns not be sold to established criminals, future criminals or mentally unstable persons in such an open and easily accessible arena.
The gun show in Las Vegas starts on Saturday and lasts through the weekend.
I wonder just how many of us could go up to a private seller, tell him or her that we could not pass a background check and walk out of there with a firearm.
this is jeff agian i was out of marines and navy hospital for 20 years or so when went to va hospital ,and cant buy after that stay i want to say im an american and obey all laws ,never been in trouble with noone ,GOD Bless AMERICA
i was in marines in vietnam ,was wounded and came home after long hospital stay , went in hospital in vetrans hopital after been out of service in tn. i was able to buy any weapon till i went in hospital with nerves i have never hurt none ,but after hospital stay about 3 weeks for nervious condition ,and take meds for it ,i cant buy a weapon no more and i think its a bad thing they are trying to take away my 2nd addmentment rights any body want to tell me how to get it back use my email ,i would only use one if my home and family was in danger thanks jeff
I wish to buy a gun without going through all the crap or waiting. Please dont understand how I feel. I was attacked and raped and should not have to wait in fear for my protection or waste money that the gov. wants from me that I just dont have. Please, is there anyone that can help me find someone selling a handgun in virginia that I can buy and have now….I will sit and do an interview with that person etc…I just want to protect myself
7 years ago i was arrested for “attempt to possess narcotics”. actually i was arrested for possession because a baggy with residue was found in the back seat of my car. there was also a passenger in the front seat who wasnt arrested. since the state couldnt get the possession charge to stick and i didnt want to go back to jail to await trial – which in florida could easily be another 6 months- they offered a plea bargain that i would accept a “attempt to possess” charge. i hate jail and i wanted the whole ordeal behind me and my public defender was utterly useless so i sadi screw it – and took the plea – i had never owned a gun and figured it was no big deal…. there hasnt been a presidential candidate worth my vote in the past 20 years so i didnt consider losing the right to vote any big deal either…but know i live in a neighborhood where there has been 6 murders in the past 4 months. twice they got the guy they were actually aiming at… the other 4 were innocent bystanders including 2 kids age 6 and 3. i want to buy a gun to protect myself because moving away from here would cost thousand that i dont have but i sure would feel a lot safer if i had a gun on me nowadays. that charge i caught was the first and only time i have ever been arrested. it has been 7 years and in that time span i have not had any trouble with the law. the fact that the baggie in the backseat actually really wasnt mine (even though i was using drugs at the time) is irrelevant to my basic right to be able to protect myself right? does anyone think i shouldnt be allowed to own a gun? will you think i should once the law that has marked me a felon is changed when drugs are legal like they were 80 years ago, or will anyone change their mind when i get robed at gunpoint and decide to say “over my dead body N******R” and end up in the obituaries. it is totally retarded that i am not legally allowed to buy a gun in my own home state but i can take a 12-15 hour drive and buy 5 ar-15′s in 20 minutes and maybe even an rpg while i am at it but the best i can do here at home is add an extra deadbolt to my front door. i am a felon, folks. my felony may not even be a felony in 5 years, but will i be here to see it? as it stands i am a convicted felon… does anyone here on either side of the gun argument think i shouldnt be allowed to own a gun? because i promise you all that within the next 2 weeks i will own one and there isnt a law in the land that can prevent it even though there are plenty that are in place to prevent me from doing so.
As somebody noted earlier, obviously Husna is blaming guns instead of the people who use them–try going to an actual gun show before you write your opinion piece.
[This comment has been removed due to terms of use violation]
I understand how many people come to the same conclusions as you. Most of my extended family would be on your side. However, please do a little more research and maybe go to a gun show with a friend. It’s one of the safest places you’ll ever go!
“You know that the right thing to do is to return your friend’s gun to him or her if you have taken it. But should you return it if you know that person is mentally unstable and would use it against others?”
The question presupposes you KNOW “that person is mentally unstable”.
The more relevant question is “should you return it if for all you know (and he IS your friend, so you would know) that person is mentally stable and would never unduly harm others?”
There’s a difference between KNOWING someone is dangerously unstable, vs. going on “fishing expeditions” when there is no reason to believe there might be a problem.
And yes, most private sellers at gun shows would not make a sale to someone they feel is dangerously unstable. Virtually all gunshow attendees are actually among the most law-abiding people in this country (despite the bigoted biases of some naysayers).
I have to wonder what kind of people the author counts as “friends”.
Anyone who is a not a danger to society should be able to purchase any kind of firearm without anyone’s permission or knowledge.
Anyone who IS a danger to society should be behind bars.
“As far as I’m concerned, there should be no difference in the requirements for background checks when it comes to licensed gun dealers or private sellers. ” Your statement is pure illusion since private citizens are precluded from using NICS.
This statement by the author, “the background check is a mechanism to prevent guns from falling into the wrong hands,” is simply a lack of understanding about criminals and the law. Criminals do not obey the law, so they will get a firearm, to ply their trade, if they so choose.
Criminals, more often than not, do not use a firearm in their crimes. There are even some criminals masking themselves in BAFTE clothing and getting off from their offensives through crooked reviews, as well as, a biased justice system.
Take for instance the biased view over the debacale at Waco: An exchange of gunfire resulted in the deaths of four agents and six followers of David Koresh. A subsequent 51-day siege by the Federal Bureau of Investigation ended on April 19 when fire destroyed the compound. Seventy-six people (24 of them British nationals)[12] died in the fire, including more than 20 children and two pregnant women.
All of this over $9,600 in taxes on 48 firearms which were modified to fire full automatic and about $50,000 in fines for having the weapons. One of the other reasons these people died was to get David Koresh away from the women, who were suspected of being abused, and the minor young girls who were suspected victims of statutory rape. But this solution was sorta like killing the chickens along with the wolf who was attacking them.
Actually if one goes to the latest report, the Brady Background Check & Firearms Transfer report 2008, one will see out of 99 million checks since 1994,1.67 million valid rejections of which 58% were felons, and since 1994, a reduction of 68% of felons attempting to buy from a licensed source.
Speaking of sources, the USDOJ a government, noN biased, non illegal study in 1997 identified that felons obtained their firearms 80% from street private sales, 12% retail stores, 2% gun shows and flea markets. Now that 68% reduction in ATTEMPTED buys from licensed sources means that 68% x 14% as per the survey, equals a 9.52% increase in private sales.
How is that, well since the report identifes only 13,024 of those rejected being prosecuted between 2000-2008 or less than 1%, you of course have the hard data to prove those 1.66 million plus rejections didnt then go on to buy a firearm from an unlicensed source and commit a crime, do you? Nor do you have all the details as to “what” those felons were actually convicted of, there is a difference. So exactly what does the Brady Check do to prevent the 9 undesirables as described by law of not obtaining a firearm, not one damn single thing, prove otherwise!
Yeah, real impressive how well the poster child of all gun controls laws is enforced, yet the same happens to ALL the gun control laws, no enforcement.
Lets talk about this fantasy that Mayor Blooming Idiot rants about the so called “Gunshow loophole”, which based on the unbiased USDOJ government survey, was less than 2% in 1997, and reduced by 68% since. So in fact access to firearms by felons from gunshows is 2% – 68% = .64% or less than 1%. WOW that is REALLY SOMETHING to be concerned about, NOT!
Wow all those private sellers, yeah, guess who created that larger portion of that monstrosity, and here is the funny part, the government did! See before 1986 Mc Clure Volkner Act, the ATF had a nasty succesful history of prosecuting anyone who sold more than 2 firearms and wasnt licensed as a dealer. So in fact many curio and colectors, became Type 1 FFL licensed and the business as a rule was out of their own house. Enter 1994 and the era of Gun Control nut Clinton, and the changes to the ATF requirments for being licensed. A 40 times increase in license fee’s, automatic and random unannounced inspections of the business, an unintentional typo on the paperwork essentially means the dealer was charged with a felony. There are multiple other reasons, but these three catch the most attention. As a result over the next 7 years, the majority of the 70% reduction in total FFL license were type 1 FFL’s who didnt renew due to the buereacratic complexity and cost.
That means 100′s of thousands of no requirments to record or report the sales. Bravo, such wonderful unintended consequences, all because the gun control freaks wanted to force people out of the gun business, now helping to create a significant portion of the “private sales” they complain so often about as “the gun show loophole”. Rather than fix this buereacratic snafu of their own making though, the government wont make it easy to be a license holder, thereby making it easy to get more information, records and such.Bravo you ATF idiots for your uintended consequences you helped to create!
Funny too how if all those incidents reported on by the “illegal” methods, were actually violations, please show us the arrests and prosecutions. Wow, they arent happening, maybe because to do so, would expose Mayor Blooming Idiot to prosecution as well, lol. Love those catch 22 problems eh?
Like every single college article on gun control, your premise, research, and support of said research were pathetic. I truly hope this in not an indicator of the skill set you are being taught at the school as frankly, you reflect very poorly on the academic standards and ethics of a journalist!
[This comment has been removed due to terms of use violation]
Here’s an idea… why don’t we just dispose of all “criminals, future criminals or mentally unstable persons”… you know the “undesirables”. Put em in a giant meat grinder or something. Then, we wouldn’t have to worry about who’s buying guns cause everyone who makes it past the screening process would be government certified OK. The ultimate background check!
I think a compromise is brewing between the concealed carry movemnet and the background check crowed. I wonder what the response would be if the Congress agreed to force all states to recognize the others carry permits in exchange for background checks at “gun shows” would both sides go for it?
Your reasoning is somewhat reasonable, but it is based on a faulty statistical foundation.
Your “19 of 30″ number is NOT based on all those hundreds of sellers actually present at the referenced gun shows, but only those 30 selected to be shown by Mayors Against Gun Ownership (the correct name for the Bloomberg group). The report itself notes that they selected those sellers to “sting” because they seemed suspicious.
Let us assume that something uttered is true, even though we know it is false. In this case pretend that there really is a “gun-show loophole.” That might be defined as “a legal provision that allows one to sell or buy a firearm while inside a structure where a gun show is in process.”
If the parties relocate so they’re no longer beneath the roof of the gun-show structure–into the parking lot, for example–and conduct the transaction at that place, does the “gun-show loophole” cease to exist? If so, does that mean that the transaction ceases to enjoy its exemption; i.e., the “loophole” no longer exists and it becomes ILLEGAL to sell the gun?
In other words, is it legal for an individual to sell his personally owned firearm to another individual ONLY within the confines of a gunshow building?
Consider the undesirable socia/economic discrimination that this would constitute. Let’s assume another “fact” which isn’t very far from the truth. Consider that I live in near poverty and need cash to purchase my fanilies’ groceries for the next week and perhaps to buy the special eyedrops that will prevent Little Timmy’s going blind. I own a very nice handgun–the one I used in the engagement that led to my being decorated for valor before I was discharged because of the permanent disabling injuries I sustained in the battle. [Sob! I\'m nearly overcome now.]
There is a gun show on the far outskirts of town where all the suitably sized buildings are (the buildings must be quite large in order to accommodate dealers, the attending public, and Mayor Bloomberg’s B-Men). I can’t walk there because of my disability. I haven’t an automobile because of my poverty. There is no public transportation, which I couldn’t use in any event because I’d be carrying a gun. I can’t afford a taxi. Oh, woe! What can I do?
Oh, I know. I’ll ask interested purchasers to come to my shabby home. Oh, no! There’s no “gun-show loophole” at my house. Game. Set. Match.
Jimmy, let’s get you started on your Braille lessons, my brave little boy.
Sometimes a cigar is only a cigar, Dr. Freud. Perhaps a gun-show building is only one more place where a private individual can sell his gun to another private individual.
Strict gun laws don’t work, just ask our friends in England and Australia where crime rates have grown exponentially since they banned guns.
It is also funny how Mr. Bloombergs city, and other strict gun law cities like Chicago have an inverse relationship between gun ownership and crime…the less gun owners the MORE crime..this is proven. Instead of more laws, we need to enforce the ones we have now.
And while we’re at it, we need to get rid of the ridiculous gun registration and “blue card” required in Clark County. We should have state preemption as well. Oh yea, and we should be allowed to carry on campus.
Ok I’m done now.
Dear Sir,
Most of the firearms that I purchase do not go through the background check and there is no paperwork to fill out, they are private sales. One citizen selling their property to another citizen without gov’t interference. Why does this scare you and others so much? Are you afraid of me or the firearm? Or is it the fact that I am willing to take the responsibility to own and operate a firearm without some gov’t official saying that it is ok frightening to you? Is it your irresponsibility as an American afraid to exercise your duty the problem? Do you pay others to take care of you?
Sincerely,
H.Krebs
I believe the weapon should be available to everyone that can buy a car and drink and drive. There is no weapon more deadly than a car driven by an impaired driver. Lets register DUI offenders and preclude them from buying cars. The same logic applies.
I believe there will come a time when you will actually have to know what you are talking about before you can repeat those things.
EVERYTHING in your rant/paper/propaganda is incorrect. Enforce existing laws. Do some research. Learn the laws. If you had done that, you would know that laws were already broken.
Typical, another person blaming guns for all our problems and not the criminals who use them.
The term “gunshow loophole” is a misnomer. There is no place in this country of ours where the laws regarding firearm transfers become moot. Those who choose to use the term scream quite clearly their political bend. Laws that apply to individuals are in place on either side of the door to the gunshow. Licensed dealers, who must perform checks in their shops, still arerequired to perfrom the exact checks while selling their wares at a show.
The only laws being broken in the Bloomberg fiasco were done so by the Bloomberg agents attempting to buy handguns while not in their home states. These are felony charges and should be presented to the ATF for prosecution.
Thanks Sailorcurt. It’s nice to see a lucidly-written and common sense reply. It is absolutely true that at gun shows, any licensed dealer needs to perform a background check. And the problem with closing these “loopholes” is that it then also requires inviduals to meet requirements when giving away or selling their personal property.
Tell me, how would it be just if my dad wants to bestow his rifle collection to me, we have to take them to a dealer, pay THEM to perform a transaction, and involve the federal government and fill out forms for something that should justifiably be private.
And no responsible gun owner thinks people should be breaking the law. There’s over 60,000 gun laws in this country. If prisoners would be kept in prison, and broken laws were prosecuted properly, you’d have your answer. What isn’t the answer is more intervention in peoples’ private lives.
I’m mentally unstable and might do something harmful to myself or to you with a car. Should I have a background check before I can buy a car too? Or a hammer? Or a chainsaw or a baseball bat?
1. The claim that “The background check is basically non-existent at events like gun shows” is a bald-faced lie. The vast majority of gun sales at gun shows are through licensed dealers…who are required to run background checks just like at their storefront.
2. The provision in the law that does not require private citizens to get permission from the government before selling their personally owned property was an intentional provising designed to protect the property and privacy rights of those citizens. It does not, any any way, fit the definition of a “loophole”.
3. The provision in the law that does not require private citizens to get permission from the government before selling their peronsonally owned property applies equally everywhere. It has nothing to do with gun shows.
In other words, there is no gun show loophole to be “closed”. What you are proposing is creating a special case in the law that applies ONLY at gun shows and requires supposedly free citizens to get the permission of a government official before selling their personal property…arguably a violation of the fourth amendment.
4. Every transaction documented in Bloomberg’s criminal enterprise is already a federal crime. All the “documentary” proved is that law enforcement is not effectively enforcing current law.
If current law is not being enforced, how is making it “more illegal” by passing ANOTHER law, criminalizing ANOTHER previously lawful activity going to help?
If Bloomberg really cared about crime, he would have turned his video evidence over to the ATF to investigate and his outcry would be a demand to enforce the laws already on the books…which his criminal conspiracy documented being broken.
I’ll buy the idea of trying some new laws after we try the novel concept of enforcing the current ones for a while. Versus criminalizing law abiding citizens with no criminal intent, how about we just send the criminals to prison using the laws we currently have on the books?