Tweet
Finally! OP will make himself useful.
-
-
You are correct Mike, private citizen gun sales to other private citizens are exempt from background checks as part of a political compromise. Talent has covered the applicable federal legislation that governs firearm sales in a commercial capacity.
Good place to start, author frames the current state of firearm laws and gun sales in US.
Our findings show that there is, in fact, an exemption in the law. But the exemption pertains to who sells the guns rather than where they sell them.
1. Federally licensed gun sellers are required to run background checks. But not all sellers are required to be licensed. Some of those unlicensed sellers sell at gun shows.
Federal law requires that persons who are engaged in the business of dealing in firearms be licensed by the federal government. Obama’s goal with his new plan is to tighten the screws on who is included in that group.
Announced Jan. 5, Obama’s plan requires those in the business of dealing in firearms -- including sellers at stores, gun shows and on the Internet -- get a license. Once they’re licensed, they are required to conduct background checks on all buyers.
But private sellers without a federal license don’t have to meet the same requirement. Though this exception is often referred to as the "gun show loophole," it actually applies more broadly to unlicensed individuals, whether they are selling at a gun show or somewhere else. (Some states have implemented their own background check requirement beyond federal law.)
Bush’s argument centers on the fact that the loophole doesn’t single out gun shows.
A Bush spokesman pointed to a 2000 article by David Kopel, a policy analyst at the libertarian Cato Institute. (The spokesman also cited a brief from Politico that made a similar argument to Kopel’s.) Kopel wrote that for decades, dealers have been required to obtain a federal firearms license. But those who sell firearms from time to time -- such as to a relative -- aren’t required to obtain such a license.
"Existing gun laws apply just as much to gun shows as they do to any other place where guns are sold," he wrote. "If you walk along the aisles at any gun show, you will find that the overwhelming majority of guns offered for sale are from federally licensed dealers. Guns sold by private individuals (such as gun collectors getting rid of a gun or two over the weekend) are the distinct minority."
Kopel, a law professor at Denver University, told PolitiFact that his own research was based on gun shows in Colorado in the 1980s and 1990s.
2. It’s not clear how many sellers are licensed and how many are not. Some studies are out of date.
Nationwide, how many gun sellers are not required to hold a license is difficult to determine. Some of the research we found about the percentage of gun show vendors who are licensed was outdated or limited in scope.
A 1999 federal study by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms found that those with federal firearm licenses make up 50 to 75 percent of the vendors at gun shows. But that included vendors who sold guns or other paraphernalia and accessories, so it was difficult to tell how many sold only guns. ATF has not updated that study, a spokeswoman told PolitiFact. (A separate outdated study looked at what percentage of gun sales escape background checks, but that study had various shortcomings, according to PolitiFact Virginia.)
Professors at Northeastern and Harvard universities conducted a gun survey in 2015 that isn’t yet published. The national survey of 4,000 non-institutionalized adults found that 22 percent of the people who purchased guns -- at gun shows, stores or elsewhere -- underwent no background check, said Matthew Miller, professor of Health Sciences and Epidemiology at Northeastern University and co-director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center.
When researchers excluded purchases between family and friends, that number dropped to 15 percent, which equates to approximately 5 million gun owners whose most recent purchase did not involve a background check.
3. Experts warn that the phrase "gun show loophole" is imprecise at best. But people do buy guns without having to undergo background checks.
Several experts said the phrase "gun show loophole" isn’t the most accurate way to describe the gap in the law.
"There is a huge loophole in federal law, but it isn't for gun shows," UCLA law professor Adam Winkler said. "What is called the gun-show loophole is misnamed. It should be the ‘private sale loophole’ or the ‘background check loophole.’ ... The reason people talk about gun shows is that they are easily accessible marketplaces for people who don't want to be subject to a background check to find non-licensed gun sellers."
Gabriel Chin, a professor at UC Davis School of Law, told PolitiFact that there is a loophole in the sense that it has not been clear how many firearms one has to sell before one is required to obtain a license.
"Remember, gun shows are mainly on weekends, so there is room for someone to claim ‘this is a hobby or part of my collection’ when it is also a substantial business," Chin said.
Gary Kleck, a criminologist at Florida State University, said the term "gun show loophole" is misleading if it implies that the law didn’t intend to exempt some sellers.
"The term ‘loophole’ suggests that it was a minor, unintended flaw in the design of the law, something inadvertently overlooked by lawmakers, when it was actually the very intentional result of a carefully worked-out political compromise between those who wanted background checks on all gun acquisitions and those who did not want any at all," he said.
"Whole milk, not the candy-ass 2-percent or skim milk."Comment
-
I never said it was racist. I said it was economic. Many poor people do not have state issued ID. That discriminates against the poor (unless the state is willing to provide ID free of charge). Walking up and telling the poll worker your name and residence of record has been fine forever. To create obstacles that adversely impact specific groups is wrong. (Race is coincidental, the issue is economic - can you afford to obtain the newly mandated ID?) Again, IDs are a solution to an imaginary problem. It adversely affects people that (not coincidentally) are not likely to vote for the party legislating these laws.Originally posted by Da Geezer View Post
Lazy people aren't voting regardless so they're not part of the equation. It is the intentional activity by lawmakers to exclude potential voters that probably won't vote for the GOP that makes the activity wrong. Rather than encourage people to vote by making it easy, thereby strengthening the democratic process, these laws make it difficult for some.
There isn't a voter fraud problem. If there were, we'd have a House and Senate controlled by the GOP. Wait a minute....“Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read.” - Groucho MarxComment
-
The integrity of the electronic voting machines and the data they transmit is of far greater concern to me than in-person voter fraud.Comment
-
Of course Roe is an affirmative prohibition on the states from violating the Constituiotnal rights of its citizens. Much like brown v board of education or Miranda or Voting rights cases. It's the nature of the thing but it does not restrict rights.Originally posted by iam416 View Post
As to the Billion dollars, someone else (Geezer maybe?) suggested getting everyone biometrics lot scanned and registered and that it would only be a billion dollars.
I don't think any libertarian would have an issue with the idea of a man loving and having relationships with multiple women. However there are too many property rights issues (including end of life things, who controls bank accounts, and who inherits for a few) to make it a feasible solution.Originally posted by Da Geezer View Post
Basically that we have to watch the state because they can kill folks and have to make sure that power is used appropriately and restrained. I.e. Don't kill black folk.Originally posted by Da Geezer View PostTo be a professional means that you don't die. - Takeru "the Tsunami" KobayashiComment
-
[URL][http://whowhatwhy.org/2016/02/21/a-hollow-victory-for-election-transparency/URL]Originally posted by Mike View Post
Sent from my SM-G900P using TapatalkComment
-
Sorry...on mobile. Story about e-Voting lawsuit in Kansas.
Sent from my SM-G900P using TapatalkComment
-
Sounds like a bunch of Tea Party Republicans got purged out in Kansas today in state primaries. 3-term Congressman and all-around colossal asshole Tim Huelskamp was among the tragic casualties.
Comment
-
ungracious words removed.
Jon, I guess I do read this as calling requirements for voting to be racist. I think I have made it clear that I believe voting should be cost free. Your tirade reminds me of Trump.
Which state, Jon? Where do you do all this walking up to the polls, all of your adult life, signing your name and address and voting?Last edited by Ghengis Jon; August 25, 2016, 09:13 PM.Comment
-
Dubya went after Trump today for what I think is the first time?
Comment
-
And if you hadn't heard, today's FoxNews poll has Clinton up by 10 points.
FoxNews personalities are expected to issue a rebuttal and repudiation of this poll any minute now.Comment
-
Originally posted by Dr. Strangelove View Post
I believe he's done it before when his brother was still running. His wife has as well...
Sent from my iPad using TapatalkGrammar... The difference between feeling your nuts and feeling you're nuts.Comment
-
The 2012 election was the first election where I had to produce ID. All the other times you just said name and address.Comment
-
Grammar... The difference between feeling your nuts and feeling you're nuts.Comment
Comment