It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by Xtrozero
i can account for 1
it was before his 2nd election tho, so i'm not sure it really counts.
Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by abeverage
What I honestly lack here is any link between Obama, Biden and any gun interests for money. Unlike Darth Vader and his ties back to Halliburton under Bush, there aren't any clear links here.
That leaves me doubting any deliberate move here to run up gun sales. Quite the opposite, I think the higher sales drive people like Obama and Feinstein insane as they see each number as another to have to get BACK some day.
Who knows tho.... games within game, eh?
Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
I have to say something about this fantasy notion of a "gun show loophole" as it's come to be called. As the number this thread is directly based on is, in no small part, a product of gun show commerce, it's certainly relevant.
There IS NO Gun Show "loophole"
The "loophole", as anyone might call it that in the first place, is that private citizens who do not sell guns as a business or regular activity can sell a firearm to another citizen they have no reason to believe cannot own one legally. In other words, a Father can sell to a son, siblings to each other or I could sell a gun of mine to a neighbor, so long as I have no good faith reason to believe he can't buy it.
That isn't a loophole, that's called freedom in America and I'm a little annoyed with the determination to see it regulated away from us. If successful, the chilling effect of Federal Regulations down into the gun show market, while improving the commercial aspects of removing cheap competition, would badly impact the overall activity.
Video Evidence of ...what?
In too many cases, the dealers who they choose to approach and then who they choose as part of their presentation, DO make the sale. That *IS* a problem.
That isn't a problem with the law though. The law already makes it a federal crime to sell a firearm to someone you have any reason to think cannot legally own one or who is circumventing the retail background check for any reason. It already *IS* a crime. The video shows me we obviously can't enforce our OWN laws as they stand now.
Adding more laws to a situation where the biggest problem is simply enforcing what has already been passed is absurd.
Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by Indigo5
You know I normally avoid replies because you and i clash like flaming oil on polluted water.
Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
Having noted that....... I'm going to shock you, I know I am. I agree with you. At least in part. (and no...the world isn't ending as we speak.. lol)
The gunshow issue is a major problem as that video shows. I can tell you it is NOT a problem like that where I live. If I overheard one of those transactions, I'd turn them in myself the moment the "I couldn't pass" was heard yet the deal still carried on, despite that.
Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
Now it isn't all that subjective. What those dealers in the video did are outright, black letter law, criminal actions. No questions. If those had been federal agents instead of undercover reporters, they'd have been good for some prison time over that. It SHOULD be.....and the current laws NEED to be enforced. They aren't....while people clamor for more of them.
Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
I'd go so far as to say, to address that problem, it would be a fair thing to regulate gun shows, as a specific event (Or gatherings of people for the purpose of viewing and/or buying/selling firearms ..to be all legalese about it). That is something I'd see as fair, while I know many on the 2nd amendment side would still cry foul for it being too much.
Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
Well.... I'm with you, again, not to shock you too much, in saying SOME LAW is needed. I do not WANT the average homer with a full automatic Uzi or Mac-10 sub-machine gun under their coat in public just because they can and thought it was a dandy idea to be an unsafe moron.
Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
At the same time?? The answer they are PUSHING for in solving the "Gun Show Loophole" isn't to regulate THOSE EVENTS.....but to flat outlaw ALL private party transactions of ANY kind for ANY firearm, period. This is what California did, by example, and it IS illegal out there for a father to give or sell to his own Son.
I want to sell a gun to another person, i.e., a private party transfer. Am I required to conduct the transaction through a licensed California firearms dealer?
Yes. Firearm sales must be conducted through a fully licensed California firearms dealer. Failure to do so is a violation of California law. The buyer (and seller, in the event that the; buyer is denied), must meet the normal firearm purchase and delivery requirements. "Antique firearms," as defined in Section 921(a)(16) of Title 18 of the United States Code, and curio or relic rifles/shotguns, defined in Section 178.11 of Title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations that are over 50 years old, are exempt from this requirement.
Firearms dealers are required to process private party transfers upon request. Firearms dealers may charge a fee not to exceed $10 per firearm for conducting a private party transfer. Example:
a.For a private party transfer involving one or more handguns, the total allowable fees, including the DROS, safety, and dealer transfer fees, are not to exceed $35.00 for the first handgun and $31.00 for each additional handgun involved in the same transaction.
b.For private party transfers involving one or more long guns, or a private party transfer involving one handgun, the total allowable fees, including the DROS, safety, and dealer transfer fees, are not to exceed $35.00. The dealer may charge an additional dealer-service fee of$10.00 per each additional firearm transferred.
(PC section 12072(d))
Originally posted by xedocodex
I don't believe Obama is trying to drive up gun sales...I think the NRA and the gun industry are using the fear they know people have of Obama to exploit them into purchasing more guns.
These numbers to me show one thing...good marketing.
Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by Indigo5
I don't know what to do with all this agreement.
Originally posted by Wrabbit2000On the last point though, Yes, you're right. You can still transfer a firearm in California. The point I was making was that it CANNOT legally be done without involving state authorities for the change of ownership, even among members of the same household.
Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
Personally, I've always handled the private buying/selling like that in a side lot of a major retailer nearby. They have cameras covering everything from all angles and signs to let everyone know that is the case. It keeps honest people honest.
Originally posted by network dude
The reason sales have skyrocketed is the fear of an all out ban on that type of weapon.
Originally posted by network dude
If Obama would have not been an idiot, he would have not blown the gun stuff out of proportion and sales would have remained the same.
Originally posted by macman
reply to post by Indigo5
Where did your stats come from??
Also, you must have some eye issues
....
You are not being honest.
Also, you must have some eye issues, as there was a decline in sales, but ramped up drastically 2010 to 2011.
You are not being honest.