Poll Question concerning Gunshow Loophole

[trevilli]

I have a question regarding the gunshow loophole. I know that we have no such loophole in this state, as every gun transfer (excluding private party curio & relic) must go through an FFL. But in other states (I was born and raised in Ohio) private party transfers require no background check of any kind, they are cash and carry. My question to you is the following: Should California's model regarding private party transfers be the law of the land? I don't mean that a 10 day wait would be required, let's say it's just done in 5 minutes over the phone.

[Dreaded Claymore]

I'm prepared to be flamed, but this seems like an okay idea.

[johnny_22]

Uh, NO!

There is no gun-show loophole. Federal and state laws apply inside a gun show in all 50 states. Typically people are asked for ID to verify that they live in the same state. Some vendors are less careful, but, the ATFE sets up stings for them. Usually those stings catch the 80 year old guy selling some of his collection, forgetting that the law changed in 1968.

Making all firearm purchases have to go through a FFL, prevents me from giving my brother a firearm as a gift!

We should not expand this law, we should repeal the California Gun Show laws (Oregon, too for that matter; Face-to-face in parking lot OK, FFL required inside the show).

[wildhawker]

Said differently, I think an [instant] background check and transfer process probably would be found to not seriously infringe on your right to keep and bear arms if the ability to complete the check/transfer were accessible, the process narrowly-tailored, and not unduly burdened by large fees, discretion and other similar policies.

From a policy perspective, the government could mandate that law enforcement offices should handle them, in addition to licensed FFLs. Get rid of the waiting periods and you have what is essentially a 15 minute administrative process that requires a limited inconvenience (both parties generally travel to meet anyway).

[Dr Rockso]

Said differently, I think an [instant] background check and transfer process probably would be found to not seriously infringe on your right to keep and bear arms if the ability to complete the check/transfer were accessible, the process narrowly-tailored, and not unduly burdened by large fees, discretion and other similar policies.

From a policy perspective, the government could mandate that law enforcement offices should handle them, in addition to licensed FFLs. Get rid of the waiting periods and you have what is essentially a 15 minute administrative process that requires a limited inconvenience (both parties generally travel to meet anyway).

This. Also I'd exempt any intrafamilial transfers with a more expansive definition of what constitutes "family" than CA's definition (at least include siblings for christsakes...).

I really am worried what will happen if/when someone like Loughner, except who is a PP by virtue of being in the mental health system, buys a murder weapon at a gun show or similar. I'd rather our side write that legislation to be minimally restrictive than let the antis impose their own special brand of stupid bull****.

[HowardW56]

Said differently, I think an [instant] background check and transfer process probably would be found to not seriously infringe on your right to keep and bear arms if the ability to complete the check/transfer were accessible, the process narrowly-tailored, and not unduly burdened by large fees, discretion and other similar policies.

From a policy perspective, the government could mandate that law enforcement offices should handle them, in addition to licensed FFLs. Get rid of the waiting periods and you have what is essentially a 15 minute administrative process that requires a limited inconvenience (both parties generally travel to meet anyway).

[Werewolf1021]

If no costs were added on to the purchasing price and the process was convenient (could be done at local gun store, ffl, or Police department, etc) I would not have too many objections.

Main thing, in my mind, is adding cost to a privately purchased firearm. That is wrong.

Though I doubt if this happened the antis would shut up and still claim loopholes.


Though, I would not be heartbroken if this NEVER happened. Current system (in other states) is not a problem.

Edit: Exemption for inter-family transfers. Including Father, mother, son, siblings, aunt, uncle, grandparents, etc. Not California definition.

[Chris M]

This. Also I'd exempt any intrafamilial transfers with a more expansive definition of what constitutes "family" than CA's definition (at least include siblings for christsakes...).

As far as siblings goes...there's another 'loophole', if you will. You give the firearm to one of your parents, then your parent gives the firearm to their other child. Handguns will require documentation, of course, but long guns can simply be handed over between parent/child.

[Dr Rockso]

As far as siblings goes...there's another 'loophole', if you will. You give the firearm to one of your parents, then your parent gives the firearm to their other child. Handguns will require documentation, of course, but long guns can simply be handed over between parent/child.

As long as at least one of your folks is still around, I suppose. My definition would be parents, children, grandparents, grandchildren, siblings, aunts/uncles, great aunts/great uncles, first cousins, parents in-law, siblings in-law, and probably some others I'm forgetting.

[OleCuss]

What wildhawker said. And as long as there is no cost. And if the background check system is broken or does not give the answer within 15 minutes - the default is that you get the gun.

We don't need to perpetuate the idea that a functioning government bureaucracy is necessary for me to exercise my constitutional rights. (Remember that some of our citizens can't purchase firearms because the DMV has problems?)

[Werewolf1021]

As far as siblings goes...there's another 'loophole', if you will. You give the firearm to one of your parents, then your parent gives the firearm to their other child. Handguns will require documentation, of course, but long guns can simply be handed over between parent/child.

Orphan brothers are screwed.

[wash]

I really am worried what will happen if/when someone like Loughner, except who is a PP by virtue of being in the mental health system, buys a murder weapon at a gun show or similar. I'd rather our side write that legislation to be minimally restrictive than let the antis impose their own special brand of stupid bull****.

This has already happened in Columbine I think.

What people have a hard time seeing is that the number of crazy people who buy a gun and then go on a murder spree is vanishingly small, it just gets exploited by the media every time it happens.

Freedom has consequences, just like a totalitarian state has consequences. I prefer the consequences of freedom.

[jdberger]

If you can get past the idea that the government has a compelling interest in regulating private transactions of goods and services between citizens, there are a couple of ideas that would work (and IIRC have been floated to and rejected by the Bradys).

Drivers Licenses with a mark that states "Prohibited from Purchasing Firearms" for all PP. Similar to DLs with markings which tell the viewer when the holder turns 21 for liquor sales. All holders with unmarked DLs would be considered "unprohibited" and could purchase without a background check from any FFL in the Country.

The return of Kitchen Table FFLs. ATF under the Clinton Administration went after and shut down kitchen table dealers who were the majority of the small sellers at gunshows. Without the FFL, they were no longer required to run a Brady Check on purchasers. If ATF would be willing to allow the return of these small dealers who primarily got the license to be able to purchase wholesale and for family and friends, they'd have a few thousand additional FFLs submitting Brady Checks.

Getting either of those past the Bradys and Chuck Schumer would be a challenge.

[QQQ]

Background checks didn't stop Loughner.

An armed, law-abiding citizen might have.

[rromeo]

Background check costs $2 out, I believe. I haven't bought a gun from an FFL, so I'm not sure.
The house of delegates has actually introduced a bill to shut down the "gun show loophole" , but it only covers gun shows, so every all other private transactions would still be legal. I don't think it will pass though. This is an election year for them.