Biden Administration to close gun show loophole

"Attorney General Merrick Garland said of the change 'Under this regulation, it will not matter if guns are sold on the internet, at a gun show, or at a brick-and-mortar store: if you sell guns predominantly to earn a profit, you must be licensed, and you must conduct background checks.'

"He called the regulation 'a historic step in the Justice Department's fight against gun violence.' "
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/wh...ose-gun-show-loophole-buy-firearms-rcna147370

This certainly sounds like a step in the right direction. The new rule will go into effect in a month.

Everyone who buys a gun should be able to pass a background check. Period.

 

There is no such thing as the "gun show loophole". That's a lie that the anti-gunners have been parroting for decades.

And you know what? Even with this "rule change", I can still go to a gun show and sell a gun without an FFL, or doing a background check.

The opposite is true: I can buy a gun from an individual at a gun show, without doing a background check.

 

So more regulation is necessary? I'm interested in finding out more about the details of this change.

 

Necessity is irrelevant. What's relevant is the DOJ can't change laws. Only the Legislative Branch can do that.

 

do you know why congress could pass the Brady act that requires background tests? Because Federally Licensed Dealers have the obligation to do this and since they have a federal license to buy and sell firearms INTERSTATE-the FDR mutations of the commerce clause gave congress the power to do this

UNDER FEDERAL LAW-UNLICENSED (private citizens) cannot sell or buy firearms from other unlicensed individuals ACROSS STATE LINES. If I want to sell a gun to my brother in law who lives in KY, we have to use a licensed dealer to broker the sale and a background check will be required. If however, I sell it to my neighbor here in Ohio, congress does not have that commerce clause jurisdiction. That is one reason why the Brady Bill only involved those with federal firearms. INTRASTATE sales were seen as dubious in terms of the commerce clause jurisdiction

SECONDLY. FFL (licensed dealers) are required by federal law to maintain records of all firearms they received and how they dispose of them. THUS when the ATF investigates or does routine inspections of a licensed dealer, (and has records from the wholesalers and manufacturers that dealer does business with) the ATF can ascertain if the dealer has conducted the necessary background check. WHY? because when someone buys a firearm at retail from a dealer, the buyer fills out FORM 4473 and on it, the dealer is required to write a code that comes from the background check agency to prove that the buyer passed the check.

Now private individuals have no such duty and congress does not have the legal authority (nor constitutional authority) to require private citizens to keep a record of guns they own or guns they sell. The OBAMA DOJ concluded that enforcement of a private sale background check is impossible given this lack of records.

Those who push for private background checks do so for three reasons

1) to pretend they are doing SOMETHING about crime even though most of the gun control advocates who push this crap know it is ineffective

2) to create criminals out of unsuspecting or negligent sellers of privately owned firearms . the people most likely to get caught are the least likely to commit real crimes. Most criminals get their firearms from people who already know that the buyer or recipient is a felon

3) to create a clamor for complete registration.

 

They are counting on the majority of their constituents to have no clue about such laws

 

how many gun banners or those pushing increased harassment of lawful gun owners have ever demonstrated they know anything about guns or gun laws?

 

They just know that they have a burning disdain for the second amendment and that anything that sounds like a restriction of any sort sounds like a good idea for them.

I say that when the government gives up guns then and only then should the citizens do the same..... And only if they chose to do so.

 

As a gun owner, I agree. Most states already conform to this although I have run into a "loophole" situation once in my life. I was amazed, frankly. We must be diligent, however, to ensure that the rights to privacy are maintained.

 

given most people who supply criminals with guns, know the recipient is a criminal, I will assert that these private sales checks are almost worthless and are designed to push for complete registration

 

Good discussion on PBS today.. An interview with Merrick Garland, and also an interview with Chris Brown of the Brady Campaign. WTG Joe Biden.

View attachment 243850

 

Forgot the PBS Link.

 

Wait for it….. collective scream “But this won’t stop the Cree-min-als!”

 

And there it is - impossible expectations. Just reducing gun crime is not enough - no matter how many lives it saves

 

1) there is no evidence it will save lives
2) saving lives is not the real goal
3) most of this is unconstitutional

 

and you don't care about stopping criminals neither does Gallileo. He's on record wanting to ban private ownership of firearms. when someone who is on record wanting to ban private firearms, only a moron would think that any gun control scheme he advocates is NOT designed to achieve gun bans

 

there is no gun show loophole. Congress only had the authority under the commerce clause to require those who can buy and sell guns in INTERSTATE commerce to conduct background checks

ANYONE without said license can only sell INTRASTATE

 

the gun banning cabal Garland is opposed to private gun ownership. The Brady bunch is opposed to private gun ownership and of course senile Joe hates people being able to own guns. those scum are a main reason why we have a second amendment

 

I think Garland knows a little bit more about this topic than you do.

 

What does 'predominantly to earn a profit' mean? If I sell a gun for more than I bought it for, I need a liscense?

...and that reduces guns sold in the black market how exactly?

 

I think he's just another hypocrite who has no problem with being protected by men with guns but he doesn't want men with family to be able to protect their family with guns.

His life is no more valuable than the life of any citizens life or that of their families.

 

I doubt it. People who know a lot about guns and people who think they can reduce the market for them with legislation are two groups with almost no overlap.

And the overlap is people who want to have their guns but don't want you to have any guns. And those are the people we most need to worry about defending ourselves against.

 

Then they didn't really know what the "gun show loop hole" is. If someone is an FFL there is no loophole. You have to do the fake background check even at a gun show when buying from such a person.

The loophole isn't a loophole and it has nothing to do with a gun show. It's people that aren't dealers selling their own guns.

No it went into effect on November 30, 1993 it's called the Brady law.

If I sell a gun to my neighbor how would anybody know?

 

Then he would know the so called "gun show loophole" is fake. No such loophole exists.

If it did I would have explored the f out of it.

 

no he doesn't. he knows very little about firearms and he's intrinsically dishonest. I was a world class shooter-he never was. I was a line prosecutor, for 24 years, his tenure as a line prosecutor was much shorter. most of his time he was a political appointment.