Have You Ever Wondered Exactly How Easy It Is To Get An Assault Rifle? (IMAGES)

Many people know of the “gun show loophole” that allows individuals to purchase guns without background checks or any sort of paperwork at gun shows. Currently, most states do not require any sort of background check at gun shows – and I can attest to that fact as I purchased a .243 Savage through a cash transaction of $400 plus tax this past spring. No questions asked, no paperwork filled out, and we parted ways not even knowing each other’s names.

Known as the “gun show loophole,” most states do not require background checks for firearms purchased at gun shows from private individuals — federal law only requires licensed dealers to conduct checks.

Under the Gun Control Act of 1968, federal law clearly defined private sellers as anyone who sold no more than four firearms per year. But the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act lifted that restriction and loosely defined private sellers as people who do not rely on gun sales as the principal way of obtaining their livelihood.

“Today, private parties sometimes sell large numbers of new and used firearms while claiming hobbyist status and exemption from the requirements imposed on licensed retailers,” according to Inside Gun Shows: What Goes on When Everybody Thinks Nobody’s Watching, a 2009 report from the Violence Prevention Research Program at University of California Davis. (Source)

Now, I was only purchasing a small capacity, bolt action hunting rifle but I could have just as easily walked out with a semi-automatic AR-15 and high capacity magazines – and still not have gone through any more trouble than going to the ATM and pulling out some cash. I’m also a mentally stable individual with no criminal record, but not everyone purchasing weapons through gun shows is mentally stable or without a felony record.

And then there’s the whole world of social media which makes buying a gun even easier, especially if you’re someone trying to avoid any sort of paper trail or background check. On Facebook, I belong to a number of gun groups for the purposes of keeping up with current prices, NRA talking points on assault rifles and checking out the really cool guns some people have. One of the disturbing things I’ve found is that while some of these individuals require that their sale be processed at a FFL (Federal Firearms License) dealer, many of them don’t. The upside to going through a FFL is that you’re ensuring you aren’t selling directly to a felon, and that you can also have a record of the sale should that firearm ever be involved with a crime. Here’s just a few examples of some high-capacity, semi-automatic weapons you can buy, no background check, no paperwork – and this is just from one gun group. (Click on any image for a larger view.)






Above are three semi-automatic, high velocity rifles which can accurately deliver multiple rounds out to 500 yards and beyond. In close quarters, like a school, they’re absolutely devastating. These aren’t rifles designed for hunting (although they can be used for such), these were designed for the military, for killing people. Not deer, not wild hogs, not bears – people. These are indeed the very definition of an “assault rifle.”

Below we have two high-capacity pistols, both capable of unloading 30+ rounds of 9mm or .40S&W ammo in a very short period of time. Both of which are offered for sale, with no background check or any other precaution.




The two weapons above have zero usefulness when it comes to hunting. These are “street sweepers” which are guns designed to spray a large number of bullets as fast as you can pull the trigger, especially the Tec-9 Brandon is selling.

The Intratec TEC DC-9 “assault pistol”, also known as DC-9, TEC-9, or, if manufactured after 1994, as AB-10, bears the dubious distinction of being one of the most widely used “criminal” guns in USA. It was used in several mass murder cases, as well as in unknown, but definitely large number of street fights and other violent crimes. TEC-9 became “famous” for its “evil” appearance, large magazine capacity (which offered significant firepower), and for low price. Unsurprisingly, these features made TEC-9 very popular among various marginal types. For any serious or professional shooter this gun vas (sic) of little value – it was too big and heavy to be carried comfortably, it was too unreliable when firing anything but FMJ ammunition, and the accuracy with very crude fixed sights was about marginal. (Source)

So here we have various high-capacity weapons, passed from one individual to another individual without a background check or other documentation via Facebook. On none of these offers was it noted that the buyer had to make the purchase via an FFL dealer (there’s tons of them here in the Lafayette, LA area in case you’re wondering) which means none of these sellers were really concerned about who might potentially get their hands on these weapons. This doesn’t even take into consideration the multiple shotguns, handguns and other rifles offered in just this one group. Let’s also not forget that Louisiana has one of the loosest sets of gun laws in the nation, and the highest gun death rate per capita.

“The five states with the highest per capita gun death rates in 2011 were Louisiana, Mississippi, Alaska, Wyoming, and Montana. Each of these states has extremely lax gun violence prevention laws as well as a higher rate of gun ownership. The state with the lowest gun death rate in the nation was Rhode Island, followed by Hawaii, Massachusetts, New York, and New Jersey. Each of these states has strong gun violence prevention laws and has a lower rate of gun ownership.” (Source)

I’m not saying that we need to ban these weapons, although I would certainly not have a problem with requiring special licensing and training like a hunter’s safety course for ownership, but shouldn’t these sellers at least make sure that they’re not selling to a felon? If you call yourself a “responsible gun owner” and want to avoid arming criminals, I’d think that’s the least you could do.


Facebook comments

  • Matthew Reece

    Why should felons not have their gun rights restored after they make restitution for their crimes? Especially when one considers how many felons today did nothing but possess a substance (marijuana, cocaine, etc.) that has been outlawed by sociopaths (politicians) who happened to win popularity contests (elections).

    • John E. Conway

      Sure, I want to allow a pcp using ex con to be able to own an ak-47. Real intelligent.

      • Charles Vincent

        Felons already own them in both semi auto and full auto what’s your point. Second in order to get a criminal to rehabilitate you have to give them incentives to do so.

      • JT

        So in order to rehabilitate someone convicted of a serious crime, bribe them with something that is frequently involved in serious crimes?

        Do note that felons are convicted for serious crimes such as murder, manslaughter, arson, kidnapping, child pornography, aggravated assault, etc. These are not crimes that people stumble into, they are not “mistakes” to be made. They are intentional, willful, and knowing choices.

        Sure, incentives felons in their recovering and reintegration into society. But maybe pick something less likely to shoot you in the foot (or face).

      • Charles Vincent

        “Do note that felons are convicted for serious crimes such as murder,
        manslaughter, arson, kidnapping, child pornography, aggravated assault,

        Possession of drugs is a felony currently marijuana is a schedule 1 drug deemed more of a problem than cocaine and heroin.

        “Do note that felons are convicted for serious crimes such as murder, manslaughter, arson, kidnapping, child pornography, aggravated assault, etc. These are not crimes that people stumble into, they are not “mistakes” to be made. They are intentional, willful, and knowing choices.”

        Straw-man argument I actually Qualified my statement which you conveniently ignored.

        “Second in order to get a criminal to rehabilitate you have to give them incentives to do so. I also think we should differentiate between career criminals and people that made a mistake or two.”

      • JT

        First, no, possession of drugs is in itself not a felony: it’s a misdemeanor. However, possessing drugs with an intent to sell is a felony.

        Second, I was specifically addressing your clause with which you qualified your statement. Namely, you claimed that we should differentiate between criminals who commit felonies by mistake and those who commit felonies intentionally: I highlighted that felony crimes are not of the nature where they can be committed accidentally. To return to your misinformation about drug possession: it is only after repeated drug possession offenses that an individual can be charged with a felony. Or, in other words, it is only a felony after it is clear that the individual has no regard for the law.

        Third, please learn what a strawman argument is. Even if I was using a logical fallacy, strawman wasn’t it as I wasn’t presenting your argument (and thus did not have the potential of misrepresenting it), but rather responding to it.

        Fourth, neither did John give a Strawman argument. In his case, he accurately represented your argument. To quote you: “Second
        in order to get a criminal to rehabilitate you have to give them
        incentives to do so.” As this was in direct response to a discussion on restoring a felon’s ability to own guns, it is clear that you did indeed say that a gun is an incentive in rehabilitation. That fact that you are claiming otherwise now is entirely dishonest, and rather blatant.

      • Charles Vincent

        “First, no, possession of drugs is in itself not a felony: it’s a misdemeanor. However, possessing drugs with an intent to sell is a felony.”
        Possession is a felony

      • JT

        First, your own website confirms my assertion that possession is NOT a felony.

        For example, from that website’s Factor 1 section:

        “…in many situations, the quantity of the drug in the defendant’s
        possession will also result in felony rather than misdemeanor charges.”

        Also pay attention to their Factor 2 section:

        “Possessing drugs for personal use usually incurs less severe charges than possession with the intent to sell.”

        Second, no, a Strawman Argument requires that I state what your arguments are, and that I specifically misrepresent them in order to make them easier to refute. For example: “Vincent claims that pedophiles are decent people and should be allowed to own guns” would be a Strawman Argument, if it wasn’t here being used exclusively for educational purposes. Responding to your arguments, rather than representing them, inherently prevents the possibility of a Strawman. To be fair, if my comments didn’t actually address your arguments, that could be a number of other fallacies, although this is itself a non sequitur as I did address your arguments.

        Third, as stated (but as you misrepresented), the context of your statement makes your intent crystal clear.

        Here, let’s walk through it. Matthew said that felons should have their rights restored and thus be allowed to own guns. John mocked that by noting that he had no desire for an ex-con to have an assault rifle. You responded to John, thereby setting the expectation that you were engaging in the discussion of if felons should be allowed to own guns. Your first point directly addresses that topic (you noted that felons already own guns), thereby signalling that you were aware of the topic and were engaging with it. In short, you confirmed the above noted expectation. Your second point, without an intervening disclaimer or change of topic, was that one needed a reward to promote rehabilitation. As there was nothing to signal a change in argumentation, it is without question that your comment regarding rehabilitation is in the context of felon gun ownership.

        So either your second point was entirely a non sequitur (it was not engaging with the then current discussion, which was if felons should have guns), you have no idea how to effectively communicate (really, a subset of the first option), or you were intentionally and specifically claiming that guns should be used as a reward to promote rehabilitation.

        Fourth, you made the statement that felons can be categorized into two groups of people (those who are career criminals and those who make mistakes). By elucidating the fact that felonies are not crimes that can be made “by mistake,” I was not misrepresenting your argument, but rather demonstrating that you were presenting a false dichotomy (you were proposing two options where only one is valid).

      • Charles Vincent

        “First, your own website confirms my assertion that possession is NOT a felony (to be clear, you used the example of marijuana, thereby setting the level of crimes you were referencing).”
        You didn’t read far enough the amount carried can make it a felony and I was including all illicit drugs not just marijuana. For example any amount in Utah is a felony.

        There are generally 3 types of offenders Habitual and people that actually fall off the horse and then never commit another crime, and then there are people that land in between those two ends of the scale to say otherwise is intellectually dishonest.

        “Your second point, without an intervening disclaimer or change of topic,”

        There is this nifty little thing in writing called punctuation that separates one thought from another.

      • Rodney Lawler

        You are wrong I was charged with a felony charge for trying to possess 1 pound of Marijuana for personal use.It was 22 years ago in which I have been a productive citizen no negative contact with the law.

      • TexTopCat

        Like the PA, black mother that had a valid carry permit that was stopped for a traffic offense in NJ? She was a real threat, NO!

      • John E. Conway

        A gun is not an incentive. if it is, you have problems. Besides, virtually all efforts by the left to create rehabilitation convicts have been shot down by the right. They see it as punishment, not rehabilitation. So your argument is moot, our system is not designed to rehabilitate, it is designed to punish. If you want to change that, stop siding with the right.

      • Charles Vincent

        “A gun is not an incentive.”

        Straw man argument, I never said a gun is an incentive in fact I directly stated that incentives were needed to rehabilitate people(in this case convicts).

        “our system is not designed to rehabilitate, it is designed to punish.”

        This is why we have 707 per 100k people in jail that’s tied for number 1 in the world you need to wake up and smell the shit you’re shoveling.

      • John E. Conway

        The way you worded it, getting gun rights back is the incentive, so it is not a straw man, but nice try. As for your second point: that was my point. You really need some reading comprehension courses instead of telling em to wake up. I said that if you want to change it, you need to stop siding with the right. We on the left have been trying forever to make it more focused on rehabilitation, but keep getting the programs stripped down or completely cut.

      • Charles Vincent

        I don’t side with the right or left too much party line Koolaide.

        “I want to allow a pcp using ex con to be able to own an ak-47.”

        ^^Your comment^^

        “Felons already own them in both semi auto and full auto what’s your point.”

        ^^My comment in regards to yours^^

        “Second in order to get a criminal to rehabilitate you have to give them incentives to do so. I also think we should differentiate between career criminals and people that made a mistake or two.”

        ^^neither sentence has anything to do with guns being and incentive and are more of an observation on my part.

        JT is the one that tried to equate guns as incentives not I.

      • John E. Conway

        Since the topic of the thread was about giving felons back their right to own guns, and my comment was to that point, it is implied that your response was also to that, so the incentive would be getting their right to own guns back. If that was not your intent, then you needed to clarify that, as the English language uses the topic at hand as the subject when no other subject is presented.

      • Charles Vincent

        “If that was not your intent, then you needed to clarify that, as the English language uses the topic at hand as the subject when no other subject is presented.”

        I did clarify it by making it two separate comments. One was a comment addressing your comment on not wanting felons to have guns, an AK47 to be specific to which I replied felons already own them in both semi auto and full auto versions and they do so regardless of the law.
        I then made a second unconnected statement about criminals needing incentive to rehabilitate which was unconnected to the first statement.

      • Bryce Malmberg

        Hello Mr. Conway. A gun should not necessarily be used as an incentive, but certainly one’s freedom can be. And let’s admit that the freedom to own a gun is one of those freedoms.

        We know for a fact that the ability to own a gun provides a lot of incentive to a lot of people, so much so that people are willing to pay hundreds if not thousands of dollars in order to own just one gun. So regardless of our individual hobbies and pastimes, there is plenty of incentive to own a gun for many people and therefore could be plenty of incentive to rational people to reform if they knew they could own a gun afterward.

        In fact there should technically be nothing wrong with providing the ownership of a gun as an incentive to reform if you do indeed believe that these people are capable of reforming. If they are capable of reforming, then they’re not going to be using guns as a means to criminal violence but for their various other uses in recreation, hunting or self-defense.

        My point is that there is still a stigma among liberals surrounding guns that does not need to be there. I hope this post addresses that. You treat them with respect, you educate people about their safe use and storage and about the state-specific laws regarding their use, and you require this education to be mandatory in our public schools.

        If someone breaks a gun law then you have punishments that fit the crime. Eye-for-eye, tooth-for-tooth. That is the meaning of justice. Justice is not reformation. It is proper payment for the price of a criminal’s crimes he has inflicted on others. Justice is taboo in western civilization today, but it has served society well for millennia and has earned a place in our courts. I, for one, want a society built on the principles of freedom and justice.

      • John E. Conway

        The stigma exists because conservatives refuse to acknowledge the statistics and the fact that this nation has a problem with gun obsession. Once they understand that we need more iniversal and blanket controls keeping people from getting guns who shouldnt have them, and limiting weapons which have little use for sport or even self defense ( a pistol is better in urban environments than rifles as you can clear corners faster and dont generally need to shoot for distance) while still leaving a huge variety open to. Exercise the 2nd ammendment with, then maybe we can tslk about liberals not stigmatizing guns.

      • Bryce Malmberg

        Why stop there? Why not say that the only thing one really needs for self-defense is mace or a taser? I’m sure our British counterparts would agree with that statement. But maybe the reason we don’t want to use that sort of minimalist approach is because limiting armaments to tasers and mace is in itself a breech of the Second Amendment.

        What if we say that it’s ok to infringe on our right to bear certain arms? Would that be copacetic? Let’s use your interpretation of the Constitution and see where it eventually leads us:

        Now we only have the right to bear pistols. Someone else comes along and says that you must reduce pistol magazine capacity to 6 rounds, then another still upset about gun violence says we must have biotech on all guns to prevent their misuse, yet another wants to rid our society of guns, because tranquilizers, tasers, mace and knives are still arms and only crazies believe that a partisan Nazi white supremacist would be elected president and subjugate us all to his will, right? So we have no need for lethal arms. And it won’t abridge our Second Amendment rights! Plus it will make us a safer country!

        Meanwhile illegal guns flow in from the unsecured Mexican border, because it’s unchristian to build border walls.

        Concurrently, criminals take a page from the Muslim countries’ playbook and form gangs to rape, kill and kidnap single women, because who cares if one of them gets a little shock from a taser? It’s not like it’s going to kill them.

        Male teachers take a page from the Chinese playbook and bring knives to school to murder 20+ children and any female teachers that try to stop them.

        Others take a page from France’s playbook and drive trucks into crowds of pedestrians, killing and injuring dozens. Some make bombs or Molotov cocktails and kill dozens more.

        Meanwhile the executive branch continues to consolidate its power and abuse executive orders. By this time we’ve wilfully given up our freedoms for some odd reason, and America is sure looking a lot safer. Just like anti-gun Chicago and Washington, D.C.

        Every example used in this post is taken from reality. You have the right to give yourself as much freedom as you want. Remember that. Also remember that whatever choice you make today will pave the way for future generations to further that agenda more to the extreme.

        But if you want a more stable country, secure your state borders, and support local gun laws and state laws for our individual rights – not universal laws that try to hamfist every society and culture into the same square hole.

    • surfjac

      I would give them the right to vote again.
      They can try to elect people who will allow them to have the right to keep and bear arms to hunt down runaway slaves.

      • Charles Vincent

        Argumentum absurdum, you should change your name to Mr. Hyperbole.

      • JT

        Ad hominem attack while (incorrectly) calling someone else out for a logical fallacy: classy.

      • TexTopCat

        In this day and time, “runaway slaves”? Are you talking about citizens that do not have the training and tools to provide protection from criminal violence? Maybe CT, NJ, MA, CA and NY residents come too close to being slaves. Many people refer to these states as “slave states” for a reason.

      • surfjac

        Try reading up on history…it’s amazing!

    • B Jones

      That’s right. Let Charles Manson out and tell him he’s free to buy a machine gun…pfft!

      • Matthew Reece

        Why would he ever be let out?

      • B Jones

        Well done on missing the point.

      • TexTopCat

        If a person is a threat to the degree that they should not be allowed there civil right of gun ownership and thus self defense, then they should be in a location where the police have the duty to provide criminal protection to them as an individual.
        Currently, about the only places where that happens is mental facilities, and prison. Of, course, high public office holders also get protection. Maybe we just make them assistants to Holder?

    • TexTopCat

      The whole idea of permanent removal of civil rights does much more damage than good.
      Every person has the right to be protected from criminal violence. Since police have no duty to protect an individual, protection is only possible via self defense.
      So, a criminal has to make a choice, either ignore the law and obtain the tools necessary for self defense or become a helpless victim. To make matters, worse, ex-felons have a hard time getting high paying jobs so they end up living in the more violent and dangerous areas.
      I think we should make a much more limited number of crimes that result in loss of civil rights and then have a time limit on how long rights can be removed for any given event.

    • Rodney Lawler

      Yes because of a THC possession charge from 22 years ago I am not allowed to own a gun thankfully I was re enfranchised my right to vote.And for my job I was required to pass a department of homeland security background check giving me access to sensitive parts of the airport but they won’t trust me with a gun.

  • Bine646

    Manny is such a clown

    • Me

      I guess you believe your comment is cute but the reality is that it adds nothing to the discussion. For instance, is Manny a clown that’s his day job with a circus? Is he a clown because he tells great jokes? Because he juggles? Is he a clown because you disagree with him? Your comment is perfect if you want to be regarded as an unserious person with nothing to contribute. But if you want to be taken seriously you might consider making comments that reflect some seriousness of purpose.

      • Charles Vincent

        “But if you want to be taken seriously you might consider making comments that reflect some seriousness of purpose.”

        this is ironic considering i been making attempts at serious discussion for something like 2 years now and mostly I still suffer insults and such on a regular basis from people on the left.

      • Sandy Greer

        Ah. But when a man suffers insults – and does not himself resort to retaliation:

        That’s when he really shines.

        Such a man is to be respected, for his ‘very nature’. An Inspiration, is he.

        Would that we all could be that Man.

      • Charles Vincent

        Inorite I ran out of patience after about 2 months of posting.

      • Sandy Greer

        Patience isn’t my strong suit. So I understand. Retaliation, especially, I understand. Though I’d still argue against it.

        But this OP wasn’t retaliation. It was the first stone thrown.

        Name-calling is the lowest form of argument. Graham’s Hierarchy. You’d probably agree.

      • Charles Vincent

        Indeed I do hehe but i love me some devils advocate lol

      • Me

        Part of the problem may be with how we, as a society, seem to have chosen sides. Ignorance and intolerance abounds on all sides of the political spectrum. “The Left” has often been guilty of slinging insults at those who don’t agree just as “The Right” has been guilty of the same thing. I think much of the problem is rooted in a perception that we are dealing with a lot of competing interests when all most people want is to live a decent life of dignity and respect but we tend to forget that it’s a two way street. When the bus runs off the cliff it won’t make a lot of difference who is sitting on which side of the bus because we’re all on the same bus. And we all tend to forget that. Me included. I made a flip comment in your direction earlier that was lacking in respect. I apologize for that.

      • Charles Vincent

        I concur with your line of thought here. And No worries and no apologies needed it happens.

    • TexTopCat

      If you consider the quality and correctness of this article, I would have to agree. The sad thing is that some of the readers did not recognize that.

  • disqus_9wVn6Rldo6

    The dumb thing is, an article like this becomes further ‘proof’ among right wing people that gun control is futile. Or, they’ll argue the point that everyone is supposed to do a background check, or that anyone they ever bought from does a background check.

    All it would take is a simple check, that everyone does, and suddenly you would force a lot of criminals into the black market. As it is, criminals don’t need to go to a black market to obtain guns. They just need to go to a gun show. Why bother with anything more dangerous than that, when all you have to do is go to a state with loose laws, buy a gun, then drive it back?

    • Arch Stanton

      VERY few criminals have purchased weapons at guns shows. Also, at least in my home state Florida, one MUST be a resident of the state to purchase a firearm in a private purchase from another resident of the state. To make such a private purchase, unless the state has no such provision, is IIlegal.

    • TexTopCat

      I think you need to actually go to some gun shows before making such misleading statements.

  • Sandy Greer

    I live in a state where background checks are required. I’m happy about that. Still, I can drive two hours, cross a state line – and be home free. So I’d like that loophole closed.

    I’d allow private ‘giveaways’. Not sales. But I should be able to give one of my guns to a sister, if we both want that. Or a friend. I’m a pretty good judge of Character, and nothing of mine would go to a ‘crazy’. I think we pretty much know who (among folks we know) we’d hate to see with a gun in their hands.

    What I’d really like is a way to weed out the ‘crazies’. I don’t know how to do it – but think that’s where our problem lays. The ‘crazies’, with too easy access. I’d add licenses (for new) with refresher courses in gun safety and handling required to maintain them.

    While I don’t equate politicos to sociopaths, I agree with Matthew that felons should have their rights restored – be they gun ownership rights, voting rights – or the ‘right’ to jury duty. The last in particular is an irony – when so many ‘good’ upstanding citizens do their best to avoid it. To say nothing of voting rights – which all too many of us fail to exercise.

    We ask they rehabilitate themselves; come out with an attitude more conducive to society. Well, let’s treat them like proper citizens, then. Let them shoulder their responsibility to vote and jury duty, and exercise their right to a gun (if they choose) They’ve done their time – let that be the last of it.

    Finally, anybody thinks marijuana a ‘gateway’ drug, leading straight
    to PCP and AK-47s (old-school, compared to what’s out there today)

    ^^^Well, I just SMH at that.

    • Charles Vincent

      All states have background checks vis the Brady bill passed in 1992-3. Congress has no power to regulate private sales in any way.

      • Sandy Greer

        http://en DOT wikipedia DOT org/wiki/Brady_Handgun_Violence_Prevention_Act

        >The Brady Act requires that background checks be conducted on individuals before a firearm may be purchased from a federally licensed dealer, manufacturer or importer—unless an exception applies.

        ^^^What constitues an ‘exemption’?

        http://www DOT governing DOT com/gov-data/safety-justice/gun-show-firearms-bankground-checks-state-laws-map DOT html

        >most states do not require background checks for firearms purchased at gun shows from private individuals — federal law only requires licensed dealers to conduct checks.

        ^^^It goes on; describes ‘private individuals’ – FOPA (1986) “loosely defined private sellers as people who do not rely on gun sales as the principal way of obtaining their livelihood.”

        There’s your ‘exemption’, right there.

      • Charles Vincent

        Gun shows are hosted by FFL dealers they are required by law to perform the background check. The gunshow loop hole is a red herring used to gin up fear to promote a political agenda. The exception is a private individual anytime anywhere selling a firearm. Gun shows cater to FFL dealers and manufacturers same as auto shows. The ATF and the ICC definite the difference between a private sale and a for profit business in terms of firearms and other things. Private people are not for profit and therefore cannot be regulated the same as and FFL dealer or manufacturer.

      • Sandy Greer

        Did you read that second link?

      • Charles Vincent

        http://www DOT nssf DOT org/factsheets/PDF/MythofGunShowLoophole DOT pdf

      • Sandy Greer

        >Most of the vendors at gun shows — up to 75 percent — are licensed dealers.

        >If an individual is “engaged in the business” of selling firearms, they must be licensed. This is defined as, “a person who devotes time, attention and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood.

        ^^^Plenty of room for loopholes:

        1) Up to 75% – can be under 75%; no more than 75%. Leaves AT LEAST 25% unaccounted for.

        2) Engaged in the business. Just the point. They’re NOT ‘engaged in the business’ w/’principal objective of livelihood’.

        Even you aren’t arguing ‘private individuals’ aren’t selling at gun shows. Again, your ‘exception’.

      • Sandy Greer

        >the firearms industry has never opposed instant background checks at these events. The reason why this has not come to pass is that anti-gun legislators do not support an instant check. They, along with the gun-ban lobby, have tried to incorporate waiting periods for all buyers at gun shows. Such an action is not only unnecessary, as the FBI National Instant Check System would require only seconds to conduct a federal background check, but must be considered a de facto ban of all gun shows, as implementing a five-day waiting period for a two-day gun show is impossible.

        ^^^First link, page 2: Leads me to believe NO background checks are conducted at gun shows. Am I reading that correctly? We can’t have Instant Checks because of the ‘anti-guns’ and we can’t have 5-day waits at 2-day shows – so we’re not having ANY background checks?

        Does your NIJ link refer to Who Has Guns and How Are They Acquired? I get several pages of info is why I ask. Please quote from NIJ link.

        All due respect to Rand Report link. Nothing to do with gun shows. I need to focus. Can’t be led astray.

        Do you argue for NO changes? If you confirm that’s your position – NO changes for whatever reason – my respect for you will accept that we’ve reached an impasse. I’ll let it go.

      • Charles Vincent

        “Do I read that correctly?”

        No you didn’t read it correctly

        “We can’t have Instant Checks because of
        the ‘anti-guns’ and we can’t have 5-day waits at 2-day shows – so we
        don’t have ANY background checks?”

        Background check take 30 minutes to 2 hours on average.

        “Claim: There is a gun show “loophole.”
        There is no gun show loophole.
        Most of the vendors at gun shows — up to 75 percent — are licensed dealers. If you are a licensed firearms dealer, you are allowed to sell at gun shows in your own state. However, all the same rules apply. You must run a federal background check on any individual you sell a firearm to through the FBI’s National Instant Criminal
        Background Check System (NICS). The same paperwork, recordkeeping, age restrictions, and other rules also apply, as if the sale occurred in the dealer’s place of business. Further, only a small percentage of tables at gun shows, about 20 to 25 percent, actually sell firearms. The others
        sell books, accessories or other items.”

        “Is your NIJ link Who Has Guns and How Are They Acquired?”

        “Claim: Criminals get their guns at gun shows.
        According to a November 2001 study by the U.S.
        Department of Justice of state and prison inmates, less than one percent (0.7) of criminals that possessed a firearm during their current offense acquired their guns from gun shows.By contrast, nearly 40 percent reported acquiring their guns illegally, such as by theft.”

      • Sandy Greer

        >No you didn’t read it correctly. Background check take 30 minutes to 2 hours on average.

        ^^^That’s what I thought. But it was on page 2 of your 1st link – your material. That’s part of the problem right there:

        You mentioned “red herrings used to gin up fear to promote a political agenda”. Well, that’s one, right there – “a de facto ban of all gun shows”. And not even true – as you pointed out yourself. Just SMH

        >Most of the vendors at gun shows — up to 75 percent — are licensed dealers.

        ^^^I already quoted (and spoke to) in another post:

        >Leaves AT LEAST 25% unaccounted for.

        Do you posit the 25% sell “books, accessories or other items”? I don’t think either of us believe 25% of
        UNLICENSED dealers (aka ‘private individuals’) confine themselves to “books, accessories or other items.” Just saying. But IDK how we’d prove it, so I’ll let it go. Because I see you’re getting at the ‘meat’ of the matter in another post.

        We agree (last point) But our agreement doesn’t negate my wish for background checks on EVERY sale – including those at gun shows.

      • TexTopCat

        Most of the gun shows in this area (DFW Texas) have a much higher percentage of gun sellers that are FFLs. I would estimate greater than 90%. Also, every single show has multiple ATF agents checking on all sellers (with or with out a booth). Many times the sellers are approached by under cover ATF buyers to attempt to get them to sell to a person they believe to be denied.
        Many (most) private sellers demand to see either a police id or CCW license before the sale.

      • Charles Vincent

        “Is your NIJ link Who Has Guns and How Are They Acquired?”

        I just realized I linked the wrong NIJ information, apologies;

        http://www DOT nraila DOT org/media/10883516/nij-gun-policy-memo DOT pdf

      • TexTopCat

        I think most of us want changes to NICS to make it a free service that is optional for all.
        I think we want “powerful” people to be held accountable for law violations the same as ordinary citizens. Take the two publicly known violations on 4473 forms by Mark Kelly (Gabby Giffords husband).

      • Charles Vincent

        Yes read page two. Of the NIJ report.

      • TexTopCat

        Since, we now have data from CO that makes private sales use FFL to transfer guns, we know that less than 4% of guns are sold by individuals. So, this issue is not really worthy of much discussion.

      • Charles Vincent

        That information wasn’t available when this article posted.

      • Charles Vincent

        There have never been checks on private sales and there never should be. If the government can force that they can force you to jump through any hoop for any sale, for any reason. This is one of the reasons I don’t agree with the ACA(off topic but if government can force people to contract when they don’t want to etc)

      • Sandy Greer

        Here is where we differ. My OP said I’d allow private ‘giveaways’. I meant exactly that: Free – NO sales. I think ALL sales should go through licensed dealers only – who perform background checks.

        We can sell used guns to a licensed dealer. As a woman – I’d feel safer, doing so. I don’t want to know the precautions even a man would have to take to advertise, and sell, on the open market, to strangers. Don’t want to know who we have to deal with to get that done. And don’t equate that to ‘jumping through hoops’.

        New NIJ link is interesting. Universal Background
        Checks says:

        >These figures indicate informal transfers dominate the crime gun market … The secondary market is the primary source of crime guns.

        Target Straw Purchasers says:

        >Straw purchasers are the primary source of crime guns … straw purchasers have no record of a prohibiting offense … they are quite different from those who actually commit crimes … this population could potentially be deterred from initiating this illegal activity … effort should be focused here.

        Goes on to describe efforts made (too lengthy to quote) with some limited success. *I* suggest – with respect – Straw Purchasers are ‘private individuals’, conducting ‘private sales’.

        ^^^Exactly why I suggest (again, with respect) that ALL gun sales be required to go through LICENSED dealers – able, and willing, to conduct background checks. No more ‘private sales’.

        And, finally, under Gun Shows:

        >Gun shows do provide firearms to the illicit market, but the problem is not uniquely about gun shows but rather secondary transfers of unregulated private sellers.

        ^^^Exactly the problem: Private sellers – by definition
        – unregulated.

        Page 2 speaks to Gun Buybacks. No bearing, here.

      • Charles Vincent

        “My OP said I’d allow private ‘giveaways’. I meant exactly that: Free – NO sales. I want ALL sales going through licensed dealers only – who perform background checks.”

        This is by definition a straw purchase. Because someone bought it then gave it to someone else who didn’t get a BG check.

        The only way a Universal Background Check will work is with gun registration and as you already know that is illegal under the FOPA law. Society is to large and to complex to centrally control and doing what you want creates more straw purchases than already exist.

        On the whole 0.7% of illegal guns come from gun shows most are stolen from someone that got them legally.

      • Sandy Greer

        Hah! You caught me! I was trying to ‘tighten’ my post; get it small enough you didn’t need to ‘see more’…

        I admit to flaws in ‘giveaways’. But, like I said, I’m a good judge of Character – and trust you are, too.

        But your assumption I bought it – just to give it away. Straw Purchasers don’t stop and use that gun in the middle.

        We spoke to registration and FOPA before. My position is registration for NEW gun owners (leave grandfathered in place – and yes, I admit to flaws there, too) But I think it’ll ‘fly’ – and said so, in our prior gun debate.

        It’s not a perfect world. I don’t offer perfect solutions. But think it better than nothing. Better than offering NO changes to what we have today.

      • Charles Vincent

        “I admit to flaws in ‘giveaways’. But, like I said, I’m a good judge of Character – and trust you are, too.”

        Although this is true it excludes the people that aren’t good judges of character or the people who are good a fooling others.

        “But your assumption I bought it – just to give it away. Straw Purchasers don’t stop and use that gun in the middle.”

        If you buy it as a gift to give to a daughter/son, dad, mom etcetera that’s a straw purchase. Also if I buy one and I shoot it or have it and decide I don’t like it I wouldn’t be able to sell it with out a lot of regulatory hassle. For instance if I bought a gun and didn’t like it I could sell it and use that money to purchase one that is what I like/want. Now I cant do that because I have to go pay the money to have the background check on whom ever I sell the gun to, and I am out the money if I have to get more than one if someone gets a false positive on the check or just fails and I think a check runs 25-50 dollars for a gun I might only get 100-400 for this is a load of road apples IMHO.

        “It’s not a perfect world. I don’t offer perfect solutions. But think it better than nothing. Better than offering NO changes to what we have today.”

        I think gun owners have done enough to mitigate the problem we gave up unregulated ownership of full auto weapons(which have a legitimate Military use for civilian militia and private citizens) and we instituted the current iteration of Back ground checks through NICS Via the Brady Bill.

      • Sandy Greer

        ‘Road apples’ – Hah! (I had to Google) But as to the paragraph:

        Who buys a gun without trying it first? Geez; they all feel different; some comfortable, some not. They all ‘handle’ different. I just don’t see that being a problem. Even buying as a ‘gift’ – for a daughter (etc) you’d want them to try it, and feel familiar – wouldn’t you? Not get used to it afterwards – when their only choice is that one gun? Like you say – Road Apples.

        Save yourself the trouble; sell to a gun dealer. You might not get the price you would on the open market. But easier, and a heckuva lot safer. That’s worth quite a bit, in my book. More than money.

        And seriously – full autos? Come on! Only use I can see is against a SWAT raid in the middle of the night on your pot plants (general you) Or a Ruby Ridge. And even then – I’d argue against its being a ‘legit’ use.

        You’re trying to sell me a ‘load of road apples’. I’m not buying.

      • Charles Vincent

        I thought presents/gifts were a surprise?

        “sell to a gun dealer.”

        and get even less no thanks.

        “full autos? Come on! Only use I can see is against a SWAT raid in the middle of the night on your pot plants (general you) Or a Ruby Ridge.”

        DC v Heller
        “(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.”

        And if you look into the cases referenced you will see decisions that talk about weapons used for traditional military i.e. full auto weapons

        US v Miller
        “The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.”

        Fully automatic weapons have a definite military use and by default militia and individual use.

        Why individual use you ask.

        Militia act 1792

        “That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.”

        You see the people are to provide their own firearms for use as the militia.

        /tips hat

      • Sandy Greer

        More reading (look into the cases referenced) At this
        point, I’m going to take your word for what they say. But here’s the thing, for me:

        I do NOT believe full-autos belong in the hands of civilians. They weren’t even in production in 1792. Modern day peace officers don’t want to have to face that kind of firepower. And they shouldn’t have to. Even our military doesn’t like facing that weaponry.

        You and I are just going to have to agree to disagree on that.

        Also don’t believe anything 200+ years old is sacred and written in stone, like the Ten Commandments. 200+ years ago – I’d be wearing a corset. And you (if you didn’t own property) couldn’t vote. Our children might be in Debtor’s Prison.

        Nope. Road Apples. Stewed in Rocky Mountain Oysters.

        /curtsey of thanx 😉

      • Charles Vincent

        I do NOT believe full-autos belong in the hands of civilians. They weren’t even in production in 1792.

        Neither were cell phones or computers hehe I digress we should agree to disagree.

      • TexTopCat

        “They weren’t even in production in 1792” –

        In 1718 a guy named James Puckle demonstrated a flintlock single barrel
        gun which was loaded with a nine shot cylinder magazine. It worked well
        in all temps. and came with a cylinder with round balls to be used
        against Christians and a cylinder with square dice shot to be used
        against Turks. There was a a single flint which ignited each chamber of
        the cylinder as it was rotated by hand crank. The gas escaping and
        fouling must have been horrendous. No one bit but I think this was only
        because he was really ahead of his time. A model of this firearm is in
        the Tower of London Armoury.

        Gatling gun, first came into use during the American Civil War. Invented by Richard J. Gatling in 1862 and an integral part of the U.S. military arsenal until 1911

      • TexTopCat

        Most gun dealers offer 10% of the value of a gun offered by an individual, if anything at all.
        I personally witnessed a person with at $1000+ Colt high end 1911 being offered less than $100 by several dealers. The best offer was $250 if it was used as a trade in for a new gun.
        There is really not much profit for the retail gun seller, most of the money they make is on services and add-ons. Transfers (BC) are an easy way to make $50 in less than 5 min.

      • TexTopCat

        “And seriously – full autos? Come on! Only use I can see is against a
        SWAT raid in the middle of the night on your pot plants (general you)
        Or a Ruby Ridge. And even then – I’d argue against its being a
        ‘legit’ use.”
        So, three round bursts have no place for home defense? What about against looters in Ferguson?
        What about Mexican drug cartel using your farm as way across the boarder?

        I think that burst mode and suppressors both have good arguments for being legal and unregulated.

      • TexTopCat

        “If you buy it as a gift to give to a daughter/son, dad, mom etc. that’s a straw purchase.” You know of course of the SCOTUS just held that a police officer was guilty of a straw purchase for giving a gun to his farther and using an FFL to accomplish a “legal” transfer?
        So, there is not any fairness in such laws. They can always be used to punish ordinary good people.

      • Charles Vincent

        I never said anything about fairness. You should also look at the dates on replies this thread is well…old and before you reply in the future reap all replies so you understand the context of a discussion.

      • TexTopCat

        So, you want to wait a few years before all guns are in a registry? Maybe the next liberal president can then confiscate all guns easily? Or just make all guns “smart guns” and just them off for all except the “special people”?
        2A was intended to stop exactly this kind of non-sense.

      • TexTopCat

        You know of course, anyone can purchase an 80% gun blank without any check and finish the remaining 20% with no oversight of any kind?
        For that matter, most people with a little training can build (or print) the part of the the gun that is tracked without much effort from scratch.

      • tomrkba

        “But I can drive two hours to another – and be home free.”

        Doing so is a felony.

    • TexTopCat

      “I can drive two hours to another – and be home free.” – it depends on the states involved. Generally, you will have broken laws in both states to do as you propose. Of course, you may have exceeded the speed limit on your trip and “got away” with that violation also.
      Since background checks only result in about 11 cases where legal charges are made, it seems that our current BC system that costs us $600 million every year is not exactly something that is efficient. (Also, note the 11 people charged are rarely actually convicted)

  • Eg Kbbs

    Agree but would amend that you don’t have to hang out on gun groups. I’m on a group for yard sales and seen several similar weapons for sale.

    • TexTopCat

      “yard sales and seen several similar weapons for sale” – since ATF makes regular visits to people that have a Class III license, I doubt that any seller would sell such a weapon at a yard sale.
      Just because you can commit a felony does that mean that you should?

  • Dean

    maybe we should take away ones right to sell an automobile. Or any private sales to anyone. You make the point, gun show loop hole? what loop hole? you bought a rifle from a private citizen and one doesn’t have to be at a gun show. Be a good citizen and buy from an FFL dealer ass holes.. So you have ti get a background check. Please tell me what state doesn’t require a background check? I would like to know so I can go an purches one or a dozen or maybe a few hundred

    • B Jones

      Dumb analogy. Last I heard automobiles had to be registered and to operate one you needed to take a test to obtain the license.

      • Arch Stanton

        But an automobile is mostly registered for TAX purposes and is a privilege, NOT an enumerated, identified and federal government RESTRICTED CONSTITUTIONALLY observed RIGHT!

      • B Jones

        Oh yes, you need a license to operate a car to prove that you are competent to do so.

  • Asuri Kinnes

    I guess pointing out the factual errors in the article is a *bad thing*.

  • Random Dude

    To purchase a real assault rifle I need to pay the $200 NFA tax stamp, then file the Class III license paperwork, wait over a year while the ATF processes it, hope they approve it, then pay upwards of $20,000 for a pre-Hughes Amendment rifle. But before all that I need to remember I live in a state which has banned Class III firearms. So I’d say it’s pretty damn hard to get an assault rifle.


    File this under “WAH!!! WAH-WAH-WAH!!!”

  • Bill

    Let me correct a few mistakes. First, the very definition of an assault rifle is that it is a machine gun. A semi-automatic weapon cannot be classified as an assault rifle. You should have fact checked that. Second, you choose to show a rifle, the Keltec Sub 2000 as your second example of a pistol. I can only wonder what else you get wrong with every thing you write if you cannot get a simple definition right and understand the difference between a pistol and a rifle.

  • Bill

    Addressing the theme of the article directly, let me explain that a private sale between two residents of the same state does not involve interstate commerce. Therefore, the Feds cannot use the interstate commerce clause to regulate intra-state commerce. So, what part of the Constitution do you think gives the Feds the right to regulate these types of gun sales? Please cite the article in the Constitution. Thank you.

  • doesky

    “Below we have two high-capacity pistols…..The two weapons above have zero usefulness when it comes to hunting.”

    A keltec sub2000 is a rifle not a pistol. Once again you demonstrate the typical quality of a gun article written by a leftist. BTW, that rifle is the primary self-defense weapon for my wife and daughter because it weighs 50% of an AR15 and is much more accurate for her than a pistol. That gun for our purpose has nothing to do with hunting, but rather we use it for fun plinking at the range and in a pinch stopping a potential rapist in our house. I prefer my daughter to pull a trigger versus peeing her pants when approached by a rapist.

    The pro-2A side is tired of the lies from the Left that you wants a “discussion”. We know what your objective is and that’s the complete ban of all rifles just like Diane Feinstein is shown saying on YouTube. For that reason we will yield nothing. You get your abortions unfettered, and we get our 2nd amendment unfettered (well after following the 10K current laws on guns). Remember, it was your Leftist side that poisoned the well of discussion.

  • Roger V. Tranfaglia

    Personally….I would privitely buy or sell thru an FFL just to keep my nose clean…….why set myself up when I have a bunch of ignorant self rightuios yahoos trying to convict me of something I had nothing to do with……….
    just saying……….

    • TexTopCat

      Maybe you want to sell to your neighbor that have lived next to for the last 20 years? Maybe you want to sell (or give) to your son or daughter? Maybe you want to loan your gun to a new shooter to try out and practice with?
      When I was a new shooter, a neighbor loaned me a Barretta 84 (.380ACP) to practice and learn with. I used that borrowed gun to pass my CHL qualifications. My first gun to actually carry was loaned to my by my long term employer (Glock 26) and then given to me. So, in your opinion should I be charged with multiple felonies under your proposed gun law?

  • Arch Stanton

    Please stop bashing gun shows. ALL..ALL..ALL FFL dealers at gun shows must perform the required background checks for firearms purchases. And the state laws that apply to the private purchases are not only LEGAL at gun shows, but can occur anyplace else within the state between two state residents. Where you a resident of the state where you bought your firearm at the gun show? If not, you committed a felony. It is also YOUR fault as a would be law abiding Citizen, to NOT ask and receive the name and address and state residency status of the person from whom you bought the firearm. It sound like YOU were just trying to make your point and would have bought a gun illegally just to make that point.

  • Arch Stanton

    These are indeed the very definition of an “assault rifle.” – No…they are NOT NOT NOT “Assault Rifles”. That term is made up by the news media and politicians. NONE of those rifles you deem are the “very definition” do NOT< NOT NOT have a selector switch position for Full auto or Burst mode. Those rifles are SEMI_AUTOMATIC SPORTING RIFLES. And do not function any differently than any similar type of automatic rifle made in the last century.

  • TexTopCat

    If you really wanted to allow citizens selling their personal weapons to not sell to “denied” individuals you would allow citizens to access NICS database. Otherwise, the “going thru and FFL” is just a way to increase the price of gun ownership in one more step to make an effective gun ban for ordinary citizens. Just as I can legally own a machine gun, however, the cost of owning a machine gun is about 50K and 18 months of hassle by ATF. I do not want one, but I should be able to purchase one at a reasonable cost, Take for example the Glock 17 Semi-automatic vs the Glock 18 full automatic handgun is exactly 1 additional small part and an extra hole in the slide. (There is also a add on back panel accessory for the same function sold to “authorized” people, not ordinary citizens, for about $100)

  • Rocketanski

    Author is an idiot. Next?