Mayor Barrett of Milwaukee wants a push that all sales of firearms have a background check. The shooter at Brookfield made a private purchase a day or two before of a gun from a private party he found advertising on line. It wouldn't bother me to close the "gun show loop hole" have people with FFL and lap tops doing business on the side clearing sales. On the other hand I think it would do zip in keeping gun out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them. It would be a sop thrown to those with a irrational fear of firearms (the Brady Bunch)

Wisconsin makes you fill out their own version of a 4473 form as the Feds require when buying handguns. It is stupid and a waste of time considering the Feds database is more complete. Many years ago, during one of his many incarnations as Mayor of Madison, Paul Soglin passed a "cop killer bullet law". It was so poorly written that it outlawed the type of ammo the DNR requires for hunting. The result was the state passed a preemption law which meant that Madison's and Milwaukee's laws against the sale of handguns were no longer valid. 30 years later when concealed carry was passed, Dane County discovered that they could not outlaw this practice because of the long ago ill advised actions of a mayor.

Private commerce between residents of a state should not have any Federal laws governing them. I'd wager that most new guns owned in Chicago or Greater Cook County were not bought locally.

The counter-arguement to the Brookfield shooting is to ask how many privately traded guns killed nothing but paper, cans or game.

If a crime is committed with a gun, punish the perpetrator of the crime. Do not make crimes where none existed before. We tried that on a national level with alcohol and it faild, tried it with drugs and it is failing.

I would require a Bill of Sale for any firearm that I disposed of privately for my own protection. I'd get a picture of the buyer's DL or Non-DL with CCW endorsement on my iPhone and email it to myself. If a crime was committed with any firearm I sold this would lend me protection as to not have been the one who illegally supplied a firearm to someone. If outside my knowledge the purchaser was barred from firearms ownership, I could then make a case to FORCE the ATF to make a NICS style check available to private sellers.

Joel pretty much said it all for me.

Soglin is still an ass and still making Madison worse every time he opens his damn fool mouth. His latest brilliant idea is to force all the homeless to take a bus to somewhere else. He's one reason I was damn glad to move to the great north woods.

I have to record private transfers with the commonwealth.

Inquisitor wrote:I have to record private transfers with the commonwealth.

Oregon closed the 'Gun Show' loop hole. Every sale requires NICS clearance through the state police before one leaves the event.

I personally have no objection to similar requirements for private sales. Not certain how that would work though...telephone call from one's living room while the buyer sits there playing with the gun the buyer wants to purchase?? I can see a whole lot of 'not good' with that picture.

Rather, I actively support Oregon requiring private sales being completed through an FFL. An added inconvenience and minor expense certainly, but nothing when compared to preventing a tragedy. It has the added benefit of mitigating any liability that the seller might otherwise face should the gun they sell injure an innocent.

Here in CA, except for C&R longguns, we have to transfer every private sale or trade through a FFL; its what we call a PPT (private party transfer). Although it doesn't stop criminals from selling to criminals, it does discourage criminals from buying a gun from the many law abiding gun owner/sellers they find online.

Personally, although I do find it somewhat inconvenient, I think it does help in reducing some would be black market sales. I've actually seen an ex con get turned away at Turners once.

rolandson wrote:Oregon closed the 'Gun Show' loop hole. Every sale requires NICS clearance through the state police before one leaves the event.

I personally have no objection to similar requirements for private sales. Not certain how that would work though...telephone call from one's living room while the buyer sits there playing with the gun the buyer wants to purchase?? I can see a whole lot of 'not good' with that picture.

Rather, I actively support Oregon requiring private sales being completed through an FFL. An added inconvenience and minor expense certainly, but nothing when compared to preventing a tragedy. It has the added benefit of mitigating any liability that the seller might otherwise face should the gun they sell injure an innocent.

I don't support this. You don't have to go through a NICS check to buy a car--arguably a considerably more dangerous weapon than a firearm is--so why do so for firearms? As Seung-Hui Cho demonstrated 5 1/2 years ago at Virginia Tech, going through an FFL doesn't do a doggone thing for "preventing a tragedy".

If you're concerned about how the firearm you sold to X Person might be subsequently used, then just write up a Bill of Sale which you both sign. Then you're covered. A BG is going to do bad stuff regardless of whether the firearm went through an FFL or not.

CowboyT wrote: I don't support this. You don't have to go through a NICS check to buy a car--arguably a considerably more dangerous weapon than a firearm is--so why do so for firearms? As Seung-Hui Cho demonstrated 5 1/2 years ago at Virginia Tech, going through an FFL doesn't do a doggone thing for "preventing a tragedy".

If you're concerned about how the firearm you sold to X Person might be subsequently used, then just write up a Bill of Sale which you both sign. Then you're covered. A BG is going to do bad stuff regardless of whether the firearm went through an FFL or not.

Guns aren't cars and a bill of sale isn't going to protect the seller from lawsuits filed by injured third parties.

CowboyT wrote:

rolandson wrote:Oregon closed the 'Gun Show' loop hole. Every sale requires NICS clearance through the state police before one leaves the event.

I personally have no objection to similar requirements for private sales. Not certain how that would work though...telephone call from one's living room while the buyer sits there playing with the gun the buyer wants to purchase?? I can see a whole lot of 'not good' with that picture.

Rather, I actively support Oregon requiring private sales being completed through an FFL. An added inconvenience and minor expense certainly, but nothing when compared to preventing a tragedy. It has the added benefit of mitigating any liability that the seller might otherwise face should the gun they sell injure an innocent.

I don't support this. You don't have to go through a NICS check to buy a car--arguably a considerably more dangerous weapon than a firearm is--so why do so for firearms? As Seung-Hui Cho demonstrated 5 1/2 years ago at Virginia Tech, going through an FFL doesn't do a doggone thing for "preventing a tragedy".

If you're concerned about how the firearm you sold to X Person might be subsequently used, then just write up a Bill of Sale which you both sign. Then you're covered. A BG is going to do bad stuff regardless of whether the firearm went through an FFL or not.

If the dealer transfer for private sales is so useless, then why is there a thriving illegal business bringing guns to my city from Nevada and the Southwest and in particular Texas?

Fukshot wrote: If the dealer transfer for private sales is so useless, then why is there a thriving illegal business bringing guns to my city from Nevada and the Southwest and in particular Texas?

Same reason why Windsor, ON got so rich in the '30's and why BC is amongst the largest exporters of marijuana in the world. When you can provide something that is hard/difficult to get, those who do not desire to follow teh law can do so. Take good from where they are cheap and sell themn were they are expensive.

Many private sellers in TX require the buyer to show a CHL or FFL03 as proof they are not felons. These days days there aren't many enthusiasts that don't have a license.

ErikO wrote:

Fukshot wrote: If the dealer transfer for private sales is so useless, then why is there a thriving illegal business bringing guns to my city from Nevada and the Southwest and in particular Texas?

Same reason why Windsor, ON got so rich in the '30's and why BC is amongst the largest exporters of marijuana in the world. When you can provide something that is hard/difficult to get, those who do not desire to follow teh law can do so. Take good from where they are cheap and sell themn were they are expensive.

Well said, ErikO. Fukshot is in California. These guns are coming into "her city" illegally, by her own admission. That's a violation of already-existing Federal and State law, and probably local municipal law as well, so it just reinforces my point that laws requiring FFL and NICS checks don't stop bad things from happening.

Serendipity is a wonderful thing, isn't it? This topic--the need for preservation of the truly private sale--is slated for the very next podcast. I finished writing it just last night.

CowboyT wrote:

ErikO wrote:

Fukshot wrote: If the dealer transfer for private sales is so useless, then why is there a thriving illegal business bringing guns to my city from Nevada and the Southwest and in particular Texas?

Same reason why Windsor, ON got so rich in the '30's and why BC is amongst the largest exporters of marijuana in the world. When you can provide something that is hard/difficult to get, those who do not desire to follow teh law can do so. Take good from where they are cheap and sell themn were they are expensive.

Well said, ErikO. Fukshot is in California. These guns are coming into "her city" illegally, by her own admission. That's a violation of already-existing Federal and State law, and probably local municipal law as well, so it just reinforces my point that laws requiring FFL and NICS checks don't stop bad things from happening.

Serendipity is a wonderful thing, isn't it? This topic--the need for preservation of the truly private sale--is slated for the very next podcast. I finished writing it just last night.

What I'm saying is that person to person transfers in other states that are legal in those states are going directly to illegal interstate transport and transfer. That, to me, is a real crime that could be reduced by eliminating the paperless private sale. The reservoir of guns to feed that illegal business would become much smaller. Unlike most gun legislation, this is a change that could have real numerical impact on the occurrence of a now common crime.

That is a pretty different situation from most proposed gun legislation that serves to do nothing to reduce the occurrence of an actual crime.

Would I rather see real money spent on enforcement of existing laws to meet the same goal? Of course I would. I would rather lots of things. In the real world of "the gummint spends too much of rich peoples' money!!11!!!!!!1!!!" this is an option to reach the desired effect of reducing the availability of illegally trafficked guns.

Obviously, the difference between a proposal like this and an AWB is of no significance to those who hold that there should be no difference between a gun and a blender regarding sale and ownership.

CowboyT wrote: Well said, ErikO. Fukshot is in California. These guns are coming into "her city" illegally, by her own admission. That's a violation of already-existing Federal and State law, and probably local municipal law as well, so it just reinforces my point that laws requiring FFL and NICS checks don't stop bad things from happening.

Serendipity is a wonderful thing, isn't it? This topic--the need for preservation of the truly private sale--is slated for the very next podcast. I finished writing it just last night.

I want to repeat that so it isn't lost in translation:

...so it just reinforces my point that laws requiring FFL and NICS checks don't stop bad things from happening.

Cowboy...seriously?? Has anyone ever conducted a study of the number of crimes not committed because someone was turned down at a gun shop?

put another way...have you ever been in a gun shop and overheard someone being denied a purchase because NICS came back negative? I have witnessed such an event three times in six years. To me, that is an example of the system working. How many of those were crimes not committed nobody will ever know.

Expand that to include private sales and it is safe to expect similar results: Guns being denied to persons who are in the system as persons who shouldn't have guns.

You mentioned cars earlier and equated them with weapons, yet cars are not designed as, or intended to be weapons. Guns on the other hand are. In Oregon, one is subjected to far more paperwork in transferring a car title than in purchasing a gun, yet the gun is a weapon by design and the car is not.

I am convinced that asserting the sanctity of gun 'rights' serves to advance the agenda of of those supporting broader bans. They point to things like cars and wail that licenses and registration and insurance are required for these innocent devices but guns are exempt. They gain considerable traction in doing so.

I submit that without a responsible answer to that wailing, those who draft legislation will be sorely tempted to pay attention. The sanctity of "our rights", as valid as it may be, is not a responsible answer...it's emotional and weak compared to the cries of those who have suffered injury from guns. We ought be prepared with a solution far more substantial than "our rights" lest we find ourselves in the throws of another AWB.

Ah, a good sampling of the various Brady whining points here (see, i can use judgmental words, too, like "wailing"). I wish I had more time right now to properly respond to this in the appropriate detail, but I've got to go to work. For now, I'll just point out that there is no "gun show loophole". Such a concept is ludicrous and against the original intent of the 2A.

And yes, Rolandson, "seriously".

BTW, looks like the next podcast (Episode 5) is already over 30 minutes, as I spent a fair amount of time taking apart a right-wing extremist's position advocating discrimination. That was fun. Therefore, we'll take this on in Episode 6, because the topic is important.

I'm standing with my earlier comments both on this thread and others that prohibition does not work. Illegal guns in California are a Federal problem and can not be solved unless there is a total ban of firearms along with a collection of all guns that are in private ownership.

Is that really what we want?

Should I stop my efforts to ensure that my grand kids have the same rights that I enjoy now? I might as well be like so many other 'old white guys' and just say screw it, I've got mine and too bad for you.

Serious question here, what is the "gun show loophole" exactly?

whitey wrote:Serious question here, what is the "gun show loophole" exactly?

It's when a seller's responsable for not selling to buyers he knows are not barred from ownership. Private sales are seen by many as the same as a guy selling defaced guns to folks who would be turned away from gun shops.

ErikO wrote:

whitey wrote:Serious question here, what is the "gun show loophole" exactly?

It's when a seller's responsable for not selling to buyers he knows are not barred from ownership. Private sales are seen by many as the same as a guy selling defaced guns to folks who would be turned away from gun shops.

To say that it does not exist is being irresponsible.

I maintain there is a difference between someone selling their private goods privately and someone selling guns illegally. The actual 'gun show loophole' asserts that anyone can walk into any gun show and buy any gun with no background check. This is patently false. There would be no way to get enough support to stop private sales.

ErikO wrote:I maintain there is a differencebetween someone selling their private goods privately and someone selling guns illegally. The actual 'gun show loophole' asserts that anyone can walk into any gun show and buy any gun with no background check. This is patently false. There would be no way to get enough support to stop private sales.

Bullshit, I've seen it firsthand.

whitey wrote:

ErikO wrote:I maintain there is a differencebetween someone selling their private goods privately and someone selling guns illegally. The actual 'gun show loophole' asserts that anyone can walk into any gun show and buy any gun with no background check. This is patently false. There would be no way to get enough support to stop private sales.

Bullshit, I've seen it firsthand.

There's some important details being left out here. This is the current state of Federal Law:

Let's go to GunSHOW2012. Seller A and Seller B both have tables full of guns. Seller A is a FFL01. Seller B is Joe Snuffy who does this once a year for Christmas Money.

I buy a Glock 19 from Seller A. He has to fill out a 4473 and run a NICS check on me. If it comes back Hold or Deny, he can not legally transfer the firearm to me just as if he were in a store front.

I buy a S&W Model 10 fro Seller B. He asks me if I am a resident of the state the show is in, I say yep and hand him my money. He hands me the revolver. We shake hands as I go my way. This was a private sale and that is all that is required.

Those who complain about about the "Gun Show Loophole" either think that Seller A is not regulated like Seller B and that both should be or that Seller B should be regulated like Seller A. The more extreme position is that gun shows should be banned and all transfers should have to go through a FFL01's store ignoring the "Insta-Black-Market" that would create.

Personally I would like it if I were allowed to run a NICS check before I sell but I am not sure that the results of requiring everyone to do so would outweigh the costs. There are still quite a few paranoid types out there who are certain that someday the "Ebil Gub'ment" is going to gather up 40+ years of 4473's and supposedly use them to confiscate all the nation's firearms.

wlewisiii wrote:

whitey wrote:

ErikO wrote:I maintain there is a differencebetween someone selling their private goods privately and someone selling guns illegally. The actual 'gun show loophole' asserts that anyone can walk into any gun show and buy any gun with no background check. This is patently false. There would be no way to get enough support to stop private sales.

Bullshit, I've seen it firsthand.

There's some important details being left out here. This is the current state of Federal Law:

Let's go to GunSHOW2012. Seller A and Seller B both have tables full of guns. Seller A is a FFL01. Seller B is Joe Snuffy who does this once a year for Christmas Money.

I buy a Glock 19 from Seller A. He has to fill out a 4473 and run a NICS check on me. If it comes back Hold or Deny, he can not legally transfer the firearm to me just as if he were in a store front.

I buy a S&W Model 10 fro Seller B. He asks me if I am a resident of the state the show is in, I say yep and hand him my money. He hands me the revolver. We shake hands as I go my way. This was a private sale and that is all that is required.

Those who complain about about the "Gun Show Loophole" either think that Seller A is not regulated like Seller B and that both should be or that Seller B should be regulated like Seller A. The more extreme position is that gun shows should be banned and all transfers should have to go through a FFL01's store ignoring the "Insta-Black-Market" that would create.

Personally I would like it if I were allowed to run a NICS check before I sell but I am not sure that the results of requiring everyone to do so would outweigh the costs. There are still quite a few paranoid types out there who are certain that someday the "Ebil Gub'ment" is going to gather up 40+ years of 4473's and supposedly use them to confiscate all the nation's firearms.

Yeah, I should have waiting until I was off the train before I posted to ensure clarity.

Add in the states that require a 'cool off period' while others don't and you see the rest of why folks in cool-off states want to see the other states' laws get changed. Personally, I don't see any particular need for an arbatrary timeframe before someone can take delivery of a firearm if they are not precluded from ownership, but that is a seperate issue.