GBRedneck Posted December 14, 2015 Share Posted December 14, 2015 There is no gunshow loophole. The wikipedia link above explains it pretty well. All dealers have to do background checks on every sale, even at gun shows. Private sellers do not have to do background checks no matter where the private sale occurs. There is also no Internet loophole. All gun purchases on the Internet must be shipped trough a licensed dealer and background checks are required. Link to comment
StPaulHusker Posted December 14, 2015 Share Posted December 14, 2015 There is no gunshow loophole. The wikipedia link above explains it pretty well. All dealers have to do background checks on every sale, even at gun shows. Private sellers do not have to do background checks no matter where the private sale occurs. There is also no Internet loophole. All gun purchases on the Internet must be shipped trough a licensed dealer and background checks are required. You are assuming that there are no private sales going on at a gun show? Quote: referring to sales of firearms by private sellers, including those done at gun shows, dubbed the "secondary market". Link to comment
GBRedneck Posted December 14, 2015 Share Posted December 14, 2015 There is no gunshow loophole. The wikipedia link above explains it pretty well. All dealers have to do background checks on every sale, even at gun shows. Private sellers do not have to do background checks no matter where the private sale occurs. There is also no Internet loophole. All gun purchases on the Internet must be shipped trough a licensed dealer and background checks are required. You are assuming that there are no private sales going on at a gun show? It has nothing to do with a gunshow. "Gunshow loophole" is a misnomer. Private sales occur lots of places, with gunshows being a fairly rare one. Private sales do not require background checks, no matter where they occur. It's not even a "loophole". Requiring all citizens to perform background checks on anyone (including family members) they might sell or gift a weapon to is unconstitutional. Forcing dealers to do it is an acceptable cost of doing business. Link to comment
GBRedneck Posted December 14, 2015 Share Posted December 14, 2015 I saw you added some more to your post. So I'll add some more info. It is illegal for a private seller to sell or give a gun to a known felon. Most private sellers would happily use a background check system before selling to someone they don't know. In fact, the vast majority of private gun owners would never sell a gun to someone they don't know in a private transaction. But, think about it for a sec. If they actually opened up the background check system so private sellers could voluntarily use it, what would happen? There would be one HELLUVA lot more private sales. All those private owners afraid to take a chance on selling to someone they don't know, could now sell a gun safely and legally to anyone who passes the check. Private sales would skyrocket. There is no epidemic of private sales between unknown parties. It's too risky, and even riskier at a gun show where the ATF is always well represented by plain clothes agents. 1 Link to comment
StPaulHusker Posted December 14, 2015 Share Posted December 14, 2015 There is no gunshow loophole. The wikipedia link above explains it pretty well. All dealers have to do background checks on every sale, even at gun shows. Private sellers do not have to do background checks no matter where the private sale occurs. There is also no Internet loophole. All gun purchases on the Internet must be shipped trough a licensed dealer and background checks are required. You are assuming that there are no private sales going on at a gun show? It has nothing to do with a gunshow. "Gunshow loophole" is a misnomer. Private sales occur lots of places, with gunshows being a fairly rare one. Private sales do not require background checks, no matter where they occur. It's not even a "loophole". Requiring all citizens to perform background checks on anyone (including family members) they might sell or gift a weapon to is unconstitutional. Forcing dealers to do it is an acceptable cost of doing business. It isn't unconstitutional. Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted December 14, 2015 Share Posted December 14, 2015 There is no gunshow loophole. The wikipedia link above explains it pretty well. All dealers have to do background checks on every sale, even at gun shows. Private sellers do not have to do background checks no matter where the private sale occurs. There is also no Internet loophole. All gun purchases on the Internet must be shipped trough a licensed dealer and background checks are required. You are assuming that there are no private sales going on at a gun show? It has nothing to do with a gunshow. "Gunshow loophole" is a misnomer. Private sales occur lots of places, with gunshows being a fairly rare one. Private sales do not require background checks, no matter where they occur. It's not even a "loophole". Requiring all citizens to perform background checks on anyone (including family members) they might sell or gift a weapon to is unconstitutional. Forcing dealers to do it is an acceptable cost of doing business. Requiring everyone to do a background check on absolutely everyone you sell or give a gun to is something that will never happen. Heck, even if somehow that law was passed, it still wouldn't happen. If I died tomorrow, my son would get all my guns. Soo...someone's going to do a back ground check on him? NOT!!!!! Link to comment
GBRedneck Posted December 14, 2015 Share Posted December 14, 2015 There is no gunshow loophole. The wikipedia link above explains it pretty well. All dealers have to do background checks on every sale, even at gun shows. Private sellers do not have to do background checks no matter where the private sale occurs. There is also no Internet loophole. All gun purchases on the Internet must be shipped trough a licensed dealer and background checks are required. You are assuming that there are no private sales going on at a gun show? It has nothing to do with a gunshow. "Gunshow loophole" is a misnomer. Private sales occur lots of places, with gunshows being a fairly rare one. Private sales do not require background checks, no matter where they occur. It's not even a "loophole". Requiring all citizens to perform background checks on anyone (including family members) they might sell or gift a weapon to is unconstitutional. Forcing dealers to do it is an acceptable cost of doing business. It isn't unconstitutional. Yes, it is. (You're not talking semantics here, are you? Just because there is a law on the books doesn't mean it's constitutional. As soon as someone contests any of the existing state laws requiring it, they will be struck down.) Requiring background checks for all private party transfers is a clear infringement of the right to keep and bear arms. There must be a clear compelling governmental interest to infringe on that right. What possible interest is there in forcing a father to order a background check on his own 17 year old son so he can give him a gun for his 18th birthday? Link to comment
StPaulHusker Posted December 14, 2015 Share Posted December 14, 2015 There is no gunshow loophole. The wikipedia link above explains it pretty well. All dealers have to do background checks on every sale, even at gun shows. Private sellers do not have to do background checks no matter where the private sale occurs. There is also no Internet loophole. All gun purchases on the Internet must be shipped trough a licensed dealer and background checks are required. You are assuming that there are no private sales going on at a gun show? It has nothing to do with a gunshow. "Gunshow loophole" is a misnomer. Private sales occur lots of places, with gunshows being a fairly rare one. Private sales do not require background checks, no matter where they occur. It's not even a "loophole". Requiring all citizens to perform background checks on anyone (including family members) they might sell or gift a weapon to is unconstitutional. Forcing dealers to do it is an acceptable cost of doing business. It isn't unconstitutional. Yes, it is. (You're not talking semantics here, are you? Just because there is a law on the books doesn't mean it's constitutional. As soon as someone contests any of the existing state laws requiring it, they will be struck down.) Requiring background checks for all private party transfers is a clear infringement of the right to keep and bear arms. There must be a clear compelling governmental interest to infringe on that right. What possible interest is there in forcing a father to order a background check on his own 17 year old son so he can give him a gun for his 18th birthday? If it was a clear infringement, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted December 14, 2015 Share Posted December 14, 2015 There is no gunshow loophole. The wikipedia link above explains it pretty well. All dealers have to do background checks on every sale, even at gun shows. Private sellers do not have to do background checks no matter where the private sale occurs. There is also no Internet loophole. All gun purchases on the Internet must be shipped trough a licensed dealer and background checks are required. You are assuming that there are no private sales going on at a gun show? It has nothing to do with a gunshow. "Gunshow loophole" is a misnomer. Private sales occur lots of places, with gunshows being a fairly rare one. Private sales do not require background checks, no matter where they occur. It's not even a "loophole". Requiring all citizens to perform background checks on anyone (including family members) they might sell or gift a weapon to is unconstitutional. Forcing dealers to do it is an acceptable cost of doing business. It isn't unconstitutional. Yes, it is. (You're not talking semantics here, are you? Just because there is a law on the books doesn't mean it's constitutional. As soon as someone contests any of the existing state laws requiring it, they will be struck down.) Requiring background checks for all private party transfers is a clear infringement of the right to keep and bear arms. There must be a clear compelling governmental interest to infringe on that right. What possible interest is there in forcing a father to order a background check on his own 17 year old son so he can give him a gun for his 18th birthday? Ummm.....no. Requiring that is very impractical. But, it's not unconstitutional. Just because there is a back ground check, doesn't mean they are preventing someone who legally can own a gun from doing so. And, it is very constitutional for the government to regulate who can own a gun and who can't. If I have just gotten out of prison from a violent crime, it is constitutional for me to not be allowed to own a gun. Link to comment
GBRedneck Posted December 14, 2015 Share Posted December 14, 2015 There is no gunshow loophole. The wikipedia link above explains it pretty well. All dealers have to do background checks on every sale, even at gun shows. Private sellers do not have to do background checks no matter where the private sale occurs. There is also no Internet loophole. All gun purchases on the Internet must be shipped trough a licensed dealer and background checks are required. You are assuming that there are no private sales going on at a gun show? It has nothing to do with a gunshow. "Gunshow loophole" is a misnomer. Private sales occur lots of places, with gunshows being a fairly rare one. Private sales do not require background checks, no matter where they occur. It's not even a "loophole". Requiring all citizens to perform background checks on anyone (including family members) they might sell or gift a weapon to is unconstitutional. Forcing dealers to do it is an acceptable cost of doing business. It isn't unconstitutional. Yes, it is. (You're not talking semantics here, are you? Just because there is a law on the books doesn't mean it's constitutional. As soon as someone contests any of the existing state laws requiring it, they will be struck down.) Requiring background checks for all private party transfers is a clear infringement of the right to keep and bear arms. There must be a clear compelling governmental interest to infringe on that right. What possible interest is there in forcing a father to order a background check on his own 17 year old son so he can give him a gun for his 18th birthday? If it was a clear infringement, we wouldn't be having this discussion. It's definitely a clear infringement. If you understand the meanings of words, there can be no debate about that. The only debate is if the infringement is constitutionally acceptable. To pass constitutional muster, a gun law that infringes on the 2nd amendment (which would be practically every gun law) must pass strict scrutiny: Strict scrutiny is a form of judicial review that courts use to determine the constitutionality of certain laws. To pass strict scrutiny, the legislature must have passed the law to further a ‘compelling governmental interest,’ and must have narrowly tailored the law to achieve that interest… So what is the compelling governmental interest in requiring fathers to run background checks on their sons, and how does requiring fathers to run background checks on their sons achieve that compelling interest? Link to comment
GBRedneck Posted December 14, 2015 Share Posted December 14, 2015 There is no gunshow loophole. The wikipedia link above explains it pretty well. All dealers have to do background checks on every sale, even at gun shows. Private sellers do not have to do background checks no matter where the private sale occurs. There is also no Internet loophole. All gun purchases on the Internet must be shipped trough a licensed dealer and background checks are required. You are assuming that there are no private sales going on at a gun show? It has nothing to do with a gunshow. "Gunshow loophole" is a misnomer. Private sales occur lots of places, with gunshows being a fairly rare one. Private sales do not require background checks, no matter where they occur. It's not even a "loophole". Requiring all citizens to perform background checks on anyone (including family members) they might sell or gift a weapon to is unconstitutional. Forcing dealers to do it is an acceptable cost of doing business. It isn't unconstitutional. Yes, it is. (You're not talking semantics here, are you? Just because there is a law on the books doesn't mean it's constitutional. As soon as someone contests any of the existing state laws requiring it, they will be struck down.) Requiring background checks for all private party transfers is a clear infringement of the right to keep and bear arms. There must be a clear compelling governmental interest to infringe on that right. What possible interest is there in forcing a father to order a background check on his own 17 year old son so he can give him a gun for his 18th birthday? Ummm.....no. Requiring that is very impractical. But, it's not unconstitutional. Just because there is a back ground check, doesn't mean they are preventing someone who legally can own a gun from doing so. And, it is very constitutional for the government to regulate who can own a gun and who can't. If I have just gotten out of prison from a violent crime, it is constitutional for me to not be allowed to own a gun. So how about we require people to get licenses before they are allowed to exercise their free speech? How about a permit before being allowed to join a church? But the impractical part is also part of the reason why it's unconstitutional. It's not narrowly tailored to meet a specific compelling governmental interest. Link to comment
StPaulHusker Posted December 14, 2015 Share Posted December 14, 2015 There is no gunshow loophole. The wikipedia link above explains it pretty well. All dealers have to do background checks on every sale, even at gun shows. Private sellers do not have to do background checks no matter where the private sale occurs. There is also no Internet loophole. All gun purchases on the Internet must be shipped trough a licensed dealer and background checks are required. You are assuming that there are no private sales going on at a gun show? It has nothing to do with a gunshow. "Gunshow loophole" is a misnomer. Private sales occur lots of places, with gunshows being a fairly rare one. Private sales do not require background checks, no matter where they occur. It's not even a "loophole". Requiring all citizens to perform background checks on anyone (including family members) they might sell or gift a weapon to is unconstitutional. Forcing dealers to do it is an acceptable cost of doing business. It isn't unconstitutional. Yes, it is. (You're not talking semantics here, are you? Just because there is a law on the books doesn't mean it's constitutional. As soon as someone contests any of the existing state laws requiring it, they will be struck down.) Requiring background checks for all private party transfers is a clear infringement of the right to keep and bear arms. There must be a clear compelling governmental interest to infringe on that right. What possible interest is there in forcing a father to order a background check on his own 17 year old son so he can give him a gun for his 18th birthday? If it was a clear infringement, we wouldn't be having this discussion. It's definitely a clear infringement. If you understand the meanings of words, there can be no debate about that. The only debate is if the infringement is constitutionally acceptable. To pass constitutional muster, a gun law that infringes on the 2nd amendment (which would be practically every gun law) must pass strict scrutiny: Strict scrutiny is a form of judicial review that courts use to determine the constitutionality of certain laws. To pass strict scrutiny, the legislature must have passed the law to further a ‘compelling governmental interest,’ and must have narrowly tailored the law to achieve that interest… So what is the compelling governmental interest in requiring fathers to run background checks on their sons, and how does requiring fathers to run background checks on their sons achieve that compelling interest? The definition of infringement is the act of limiting or undermining something. A background check does not limit nor undermine the right to bear arms. Link to comment
GBRedneck Posted December 14, 2015 Share Posted December 14, 2015 There is no gunshow loophole. The wikipedia link above explains it pretty well. All dealers have to do background checks on every sale, even at gun shows. Private sellers do not have to do background checks no matter where the private sale occurs. There is also no Internet loophole. All gun purchases on the Internet must be shipped trough a licensed dealer and background checks are required. You are assuming that there are no private sales going on at a gun show? It has nothing to do with a gunshow. "Gunshow loophole" is a misnomer. Private sales occur lots of places, with gunshows being a fairly rare one. Private sales do not require background checks, no matter where they occur. It's not even a "loophole". Requiring all citizens to perform background checks on anyone (including family members) they might sell or gift a weapon to is unconstitutional. Forcing dealers to do it is an acceptable cost of doing business. It isn't unconstitutional. Yes, it is. (You're not talking semantics here, are you? Just because there is a law on the books doesn't mean it's constitutional. As soon as someone contests any of the existing state laws requiring it, they will be struck down.) Requiring background checks for all private party transfers is a clear infringement of the right to keep and bear arms. There must be a clear compelling governmental interest to infringe on that right. What possible interest is there in forcing a father to order a background check on his own 17 year old son so he can give him a gun for his 18th birthday? If it was a clear infringement, we wouldn't be having this discussion. It's definitely a clear infringement. If you understand the meanings of words, there can be no debate about that. The only debate is if the infringement is constitutionally acceptable. To pass constitutional muster, a gun law that infringes on the 2nd amendment (which would be practically every gun law) must pass strict scrutiny: Strict scrutiny is a form of judicial review that courts use to determine the constitutionality of certain laws. To pass strict scrutiny, the legislature must have passed the law to further a ‘compelling governmental interest,’ and must have narrowly tailored the law to achieve that interest… So what is the compelling governmental interest in requiring fathers to run background checks on their sons, and how does requiring fathers to run background checks on their sons achieve that compelling interest? The definition of infringement is the act of limiting or undermining something. A background check does not limit nor undermine the right to bear arms. Of course it does. Please explain how you can possibly think it doesn't. Link to comment
StPaulHusker Posted December 14, 2015 Share Posted December 14, 2015 There is no gunshow loophole. The wikipedia link above explains it pretty well. All dealers have to do background checks on every sale, even at gun shows. Private sellers do not have to do background checks no matter where the private sale occurs. There is also no Internet loophole. All gun purchases on the Internet must be shipped trough a licensed dealer and background checks are required. You are assuming that there are no private sales going on at a gun show? It has nothing to do with a gunshow. "Gunshow loophole" is a misnomer. Private sales occur lots of places, with gunshows being a fairly rare one. Private sales do not require background checks, no matter where they occur. It's not even a "loophole". Requiring all citizens to perform background checks on anyone (including family members) they might sell or gift a weapon to is unconstitutional. Forcing dealers to do it is an acceptable cost of doing business. It isn't unconstitutional. Yes, it is. (You're not talking semantics here, are you? Just because there is a law on the books doesn't mean it's constitutional. As soon as someone contests any of the existing state laws requiring it, they will be struck down.) Requiring background checks for all private party transfers is a clear infringement of the right to keep and bear arms. There must be a clear compelling governmental interest to infringe on that right. What possible interest is there in forcing a father to order a background check on his own 17 year old son so he can give him a gun for his 18th birthday? If it was a clear infringement, we wouldn't be having this discussion. It's definitely a clear infringement. If you understand the meanings of words, there can be no debate about that. The only debate is if the infringement is constitutionally acceptable. To pass constitutional muster, a gun law that infringes on the 2nd amendment (which would be practically every gun law) must pass strict scrutiny: Strict scrutiny is a form of judicial review that courts use to determine the constitutionality of certain laws. To pass strict scrutiny, the legislature must have passed the law to further a ‘compelling governmental interest,’ and must have narrowly tailored the law to achieve that interest… So what is the compelling governmental interest in requiring fathers to run background checks on their sons, and how does requiring fathers to run background checks on their sons achieve that compelling interest? The definition of infringement is the act of limiting or undermining something. A background check does not limit nor undermine the right to bear arms. Of course it does. Please explain how you can possibly think it doesn't. Because it doesn't keep you from owning them. Unless, of course, you are found to be a felon that isn't allowed to have them anyway. Link to comment
GBRedneck Posted December 14, 2015 Share Posted December 14, 2015 There is no gunshow loophole. The wikipedia link above explains it pretty well. All dealers have to do background checks on every sale, even at gun shows. Private sellers do not have to do background checks no matter where the private sale occurs. There is also no Internet loophole. All gun purchases on the Internet must be shipped trough a licensed dealer and background checks are required. You are assuming that there are no private sales going on at a gun show? It has nothing to do with a gunshow. "Gunshow loophole" is a misnomer. Private sales occur lots of places, with gunshows being a fairly rare one. Private sales do not require background checks, no matter where they occur. It's not even a "loophole". Requiring all citizens to perform background checks on anyone (including family members) they might sell or gift a weapon to is unconstitutional. Forcing dealers to do it is an acceptable cost of doing business. It isn't unconstitutional. Yes, it is. (You're not talking semantics here, are you? Just because there is a law on the books doesn't mean it's constitutional. As soon as someone contests any of the existing state laws requiring it, they will be struck down.) Requiring background checks for all private party transfers is a clear infringement of the right to keep and bear arms. There must be a clear compelling governmental interest to infringe on that right. What possible interest is there in forcing a father to order a background check on his own 17 year old son so he can give him a gun for his 18th birthday? If it was a clear infringement, we wouldn't be having this discussion. It's definitely a clear infringement. If you understand the meanings of words, there can be no debate about that. The only debate is if the infringement is constitutionally acceptable. To pass constitutional muster, a gun law that infringes on the 2nd amendment (which would be practically every gun law) must pass strict scrutiny: Strict scrutiny is a form of judicial review that courts use to determine the constitutionality of certain laws. To pass strict scrutiny, the legislature must have passed the law to further a ‘compelling governmental interest,’ and must have narrowly tailored the law to achieve that interest… So what is the compelling governmental interest in requiring fathers to run background checks on their sons, and how does requiring fathers to run background checks on their sons achieve that compelling interest? The definition of infringement is the act of limiting or undermining something. A background check does not limit nor undermine the right to bear arms. Of course it does. Please explain how you can possibly think it doesn't. Because it doesn't keep you from owning them. Unless, of course, you are found to be a felon that isn't allowed to have them anyway. Did you read the definition of infringement that you posted? It says nothing about "keep you from owning them". Forced background checks limit your right to keep and bear arms (yes, even when you pass the background check). I don't see how that can be debated. Link to comment
Recommended Posts