WAMU's Inaccurate Segment on "The Gun Show Loophole"

[bdcheung]

If you live in DC/MD/NoVA and listen to NPR (through its member station, WAMU 88.5), please consider writing to the station regarding a factually inaccurate reporting segment by Armando Trull this morning.

In brief, Armando Trull stated that (and I'm paraphrasing) "federally licensed firearms dealers are not required to conduct background checks at gun shows".

Here is the email I am sending to WAMU through their Contact Us form (http://wamu.org/help). I'll also be calling their news desk at (202) 885-1233.

To: Newsroom
Subject: Factual Error This Morning by Armando Trull
Message:
To whom it may concern:

While listening to WAMU this morning, I heard a report by Armando Trull regarding potential gun control legislation under consideration in the Commonwealth. In that segment, Armando inaccurately reported that (forgive my paraphrasing) "federally licensed gun dealers are not required to conduct background checks when selling guns at a gun show". This is patently false; all federally licensed firearm dealers are required, by law, to perform background checks through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) prior to transferring a firearm to a purchaser.

I regard WAMU and NPR as exemplars of truthful and fact-based reporting and strongly urge you to consider making an on-air correction of this segment; the importance of delivering accurate information is ever heightened during this time of heated discourse in America.

Warm regards from a longtime listener,
******** *********

[RoyGBiv]

Trull was technically wrong, but the "gun show loophole"... more correctly called the "private sale loophole" does exist.
How easy is it in your state to conduct a private sale and the only verification you can get that the buyer is not a "prohibited person" is to take their word for it?

I would personally appreciate it if somebody would devise a not-terribly-inconvenient-or-expensive means for me, as a private buyer/seller to 1. Confirm that the weapon I'm buying is not stolen goods and 2. That the seller I'm selling to (or buyer I'm buying from) is not a "prohibited person" and 3. Assure that the transfer is sufficiently documented such that if the weapon someday is identified as having been stolen or used in a crime (before or after I buy/sell it) that that documentation can be used to exonerate me.

Yes... I can always use an FFL to do the transfer... At a cost of ~$25 (not terrible). I've taken that route on a private sale. But I've never seen an FFL booth at a gun show, or in the parking lot at the range. And making it convenient certainly won't mean that everyone will do it voluntarily.

Should FFL transfer, or some other method that includes a NICS check be mandatory for all transfers?
I won't buy/sell without it, but I get a TON of flack from other Texas shooters about making it mandatory.
I get it... Private property, Liberty, you don't have to sell me.

What, if any, obligation do we have as firearms owners to help make sure "bad guys" don't get guns and what system might we find palatable to accomplish this goal? Maybe "take the guy's word for it" (or Gal) is sufficient? Not for me.

[bdcheung]

Trull was technically wrong, but the "gun show loophole"... more correctly called the "private sale loophole" does exist.

And my gears wouldn't have been ground had Trull said that "individuals not in the business of selling firearms are not required to perform a background check if they sell a gun to another individual". But he didn't. He made it sound like gun shows were a way for licensed dealers to skirt the NICS requirement. They aren't.


I would personally appreciate it if somebody would devise a not-terribly-inconvenient-or-expensive means for me, as a private buyer/seller to 1. Confirm that the weapon I'm buying is not stolen goods and 2. That the seller I'm selling to (or buyer I'm buying from) is not a "prohibited person" and 3. Assure that the transfer is sufficiently documented such that if the weapon someday is identified as having been stolen or used in a crime (before or after I buy/sell it) that that documentation can be used to exonerate me.

I'd appreciate that, too, provided it was a service and not a requirement. I'd even pay a nominal fee for such a service; I don't expect to get anything for free.

[RoyGBiv]

I think we're in agreement.
Sorry for the OT spin on addressing the loophole.
I get a strong feeling that if this "loophole" can be adequately addressed, it'll take much of the wind out of the sails of those with open minds.

[pr1042]

I asked my FFL earlier this week about this. He stated that if I ever wanted to use him to sell one of my guns that all I had to do was set it up in advance, drop the gun off at his place, and then he will run the check/4473 on the seller and collect his fee (10 w/ CHL, 15 without).

I think if there were dedicated tables for FFL transfers (10-15 per transfer is common for FFLs in my area) at gun shows, a lot of people would be willing to use them. I'd rather see gun shows doing this on their as opposed to being required to do so by law though.

[JV_]

I asked my FFL earlier this week about this. He stated that if I ever wanted to use him to sell one of my guns that all I had to do was set it up in advance, drop the gun off at his place, and then he will run the check/4473 on the seller and collect his fee (10 w/ CHL, 15 without).
In general, I don't do FTF transactions unless they're a friend. My FFL charges me the same fee for a VA to VA transfer, $30.

[Dagga Boy]

I have told many that this is one area that could get fixed very quickly AND it could be done with the NRA and BATF working together. This is simple. BATF sets up a booth at gun shows (multiples at bigger shows) and in conjunction with the NRA staffing those booths, they could easily run free background checks for those who want to do private party transfers. I would even suggest that local L/E could help. A majority of the folks I know would like the idea of having a quick computer check being done on the buyer (without a 4473, a simple call in) and the local L/E could run the gun so that it is confirmed to not be stolen. Free service. I don't know many who wouldn't take advantage of this. It ensures the seller that the buyer is legal, ensures the buyer that the gun isn't stolen. Obviously, if the buyer has a CCW this wouldn't be needed, but for others it would be a "piece of mind" and would go a long way to protect all parties involved. I think it would be a huge red flag if a buyer didn't want the gun run, and the seller didn't want a insta-check done.

[RoyGBiv]

I have told many that this is one area that could get fixed very quickly AND it could be done with the NRA and BATF working together. This is simple. BATF sets up a booth at gun shows (multiples at bigger shows) and in conjunction with the NRA staffing those booths, they could easily run free background checks for those who want to do private party transfers. I would even suggest that local L/E could help. A majority of the folks I know would like the idea of having a quick computer check being done on the buyer (without a 4473, a simple call in) and the local L/E could run the gun so that it is confirmed to not be stolen. Free service. I don't know many who wouldn't take advantage of this. It ensures the seller that the buyer is legal, ensures the buyer that the gun isn't stolen. Obviously, if the buyer has a CCW this wouldn't be needed, but for others it would be a "piece of mind" and would go a long way to protect all parties involved. I think it would be a huge red flag if a buyer didn't want the gun run, and the seller didn't want a insta-check done.

If there's a consensus (still TBD) that this is a good idea, why is there so much resistance to making it law?
Are we (the 2A community in general) behaving poorly when we resist something we think is a good idea just because it would be made mandatory?

The argument I could make against this is that it amounts to de-facto "registration".
The government can promise forever that the transfers data will not ever be used for nefarious purposes, but, trust is pretty low on that one.

What other objections can be made to mandatory NICS/stolen checks on all transfers?

[LHS]

I’ve heard a lot about the so-called ‘gun show loophole’. When an anti-gun politician harps on this, what they’re really going after is complete gun registration. After all, how can you mandate background checks for every sale if you don’t know who owns the gun in the first place? They don’t care about background checks, they want to restrict private gun ownership to people like themselves. Every major confiscation scheme in history required registration to be successful. As such, it is imperative that we resist any kind of mandatory registration. They can’t take away what they don’t know we have. Instead, let us address the so-called ‘gun show loophole’ in a constructive manner, without sacrificing our rights as free Americans. For gun shows, and ONLY for gun shows, require all sales (dealer or private party) to use the NICS system for background checks. Allow dealers to facilitate the transaction for the same price they charge for a regular transfer (i.e. $20-$50 or so), and retain the 4473 for legal purposes. But exempt private sales outside of gun shows (and no, I’m not talking about the parking lot of the show), and demand reiteration and reinforcement of the federal ban on non-NFA firearm registration. If, after this, the antis still scream about the ‘gun show loophole’, then expose their lie for what it is: a shallow ploy to register everyone’s firearms.

[bdcheung]

Armando Trull himself wrote back to me. I did not have his expressed or implied permission to reproduce his response, but I'd like to fact-check what I'm fixing to send him before I hit "Send".

Are there any circumstances under which a licensed firearms dealer (whether licensed by BATFE or Virginia State Police) can sell or transfer ownership of a firearm to an individual without first performing a background check?

[JV_]

Are there any circumstances under which a licensed firearms dealer (whether licensed by BATFE or Virginia State Police) can sell or transfer ownership of a firearm to an individual without first performing a background check?

If it were one of his personal guns....

[Dave J]

What other objections can be made to mandatory NICS/stolen checks on all transfers?

I'd like having the ability to do a NICS check on a prosepctive buyer, but would much rather see any laws governing private sales implemented at state level, instead of yet another misapplication of the interstate commerce clause.

We'd definitely need strong safeguards against it becoming a backdoor form of gun registration.

[LHS]

Armando Trull himself wrote back to me. I did not have his expressed or implied permission to reproduce his response, but I'd like to fact-check what I'm fixing to send him before I hit "Send".

Are there any circumstances under which a licensed firearms dealer (whether licensed by BATFE or Virginia State Police) can sell or transfer ownership of a firearm to an individual without first performing a background check?

Not sure about VA, but in AZ, a valid CCW permit qualifies as a substitute for a NICS check. You still have to do the 4473 regardless.

[JeffJ]

I've always gone through an FFL to do a sale with the exception of personal friends as well. I'm really not opposed to transfers being required to go through NICS but I do have few concerns:

1. Why does the 4473 need the make, model, serial #? - it should be a go/no-go for "firearm - not regulated by the NFA"
2. How does this work for inheritance? Once the transfering party is deceased - how do they transfer?

How do you enforce this without a registration component? Since we're talking about FTF transactions what is to stop someone from leaving the gun show and walking across the street?

I'm all for keeping guns out of the hands of people who do not have the legal right to own them, however, I don't see how to regulate it further than it is without a registration component; and I am absolutely opposed to a registration component.

[Dagga Boy]

Like I said in my post, you make it voluntary and require no 4473. It is not a licensed transfer it is in fact a simple transaction between to citizens to sell an item from one to another who are not in the business of selling guns that is regulated by the government. What I propose is simple free access to NICS via BATF or FBI and I would like to see the NRA involved to insure that this is simply a service. Heck, you wouldn't even need the feds there, maybe just the NRA to run the NICS checks and local L/E to check for stolen. No registration, just a simple background and confirmation of the gun not being stolen. Protection for both buyer and seller alike. Of course, if places were better about issuing CCW's, you could eliminate this altogether because people with CCW's are already clear.

[Al T.]

Are there any circumstances under which a licensed firearms dealer (whether licensed by BATFE or Virginia State Police) can sell or transfer ownership of a firearm to an individual without first performing a background check?

It's a bit complicated, so bear with me.

Yes. If it's one of their personal owned firearms. If it's a gun that they received for re-sale, no. If the gun is on their "bound book", it's either present, sent for repair/replacement or transferred to an individual via a 4473.


If the gun is on their "bound book" (record of firearms received), it's either present, sent for repair/replacement or transferred to an individual via a 4473.

That's what I'd recommend you tell the NPR guy.

http://www.atf.gov/publications/download/p/atf-p-5300-4.pdf

P. 111 for NICS specifics:

The Brady Act requires the Attorney
General to establish a National Instant
Criminal Background Check System
(NICS) to be contacted by any licensed
importer, licensed manufacturer, or
licensed dealer of firearms for information
as to whether the transfer of a firearm
to any person who is not licensed
under 18 U.S.C. 923 would be in violation
of Federal or State law.

P. 181 for personal sales:

A licensee may sell a firearm from
his or her personal collection, subject
only to the restrictions on firearm
sales by unlicensed persons, provided
the firearm was entered in the
licensee’s bound book and then transferred
to the licensee’s private collection
at least 1 year prior to the sale.
When the personal firearm is sold, the
sale must be recorded in a "bound
book" for dispositions of personal
firearms,

[RoyGBiv]

Like I said in my post, you make it voluntary and require no 4473. It is not a licensed transfer it is in fact a simple transaction between to citizens to sell an item from one to another who are not in the business of selling guns that is regulated by the government. What I propose is simple free access to NICS via BATF or FBI and I would like to see the NRA involved to insure that this is simply a service. Heck, you wouldn't even need the feds there, maybe just the NRA to run the NICS checks and local L/E to check for stolen. No registration, just a simple background and confirmation of the gun not being stolen. Protection for both buyer and seller alike. Of course, if places were better about issuing CCW's, you could eliminate this altogether because people with CCW's are already clear.

You and I see the merit in a voluntary system. The Anti's will not.
I like the idea of managing the NICS database at the Federal level and the checks at the state level.
I also like the idea of doing away with the intrusive 4473 and just boiling it down to two check boxes...
1. Is the buyer prohibited?
2. Is the weapon stolen?
If both are "No", buyer and seller each get a receipt that the check was done (since the serial number was checked, having the s/n on the receipt shouldn't be a heartache at this point).

If everyone could agree to this and swallow making it mandatory, (I'm willing to go that far, as long as the Feds can't use it to back-door "registration"), I think this is a reasonable step. It takes away the argument from the Anti's. But what do I know? I voted for the other guy. :D

ETA: The thing this proposal obviously doesn't address is those who would circumvent the law regardless. The hard core Anti's seem to have this fantasy of a gun-free world. We'll never win those folks over with reason. To "reasonable people", something like this proposal should be a winner.

[Dagga Boy]

The reality is that the technology is there to simply run your driver's license or ID card through a machine and get a "approved" or "declined", why this isn't happening, I have no idea. Why we are still messing around with 4473's is stupid.

[LHS]

The reality is that the technology is there to simply run your driver's license or ID card through a machine and get a "approved" or "declined", why this isn't happening, I have no idea. Why we are still messing around with 4473's is stupid.

Because it's a distributed form of registration, and that's the best they can get under current law.

[Dagga Boy]

I don't see the difference between running a card and making a phone call with essentially the same info. The gun info would stay with the dealers books.

[nycnoob]

A slight digression.

I have been thinking about "loopholes" in general, where do they come from? Why do we have them in the laws?

Well it seems to me that these loopholes come from the laws having exception cases and various sorts of enumerated if/case clauses. Hmm, these weird logical constructs are there because of someones special interest (for better or worse) so really all the loopholes are compromises that were worked out when the bill was signed.

So really if you are arguing to remove loopholes but not wanting to debate the whole bill over again it must be that you are removing all the compromises.

[Palmguy]

The so-called "gun show loophole", or as another poster called it the "private sale loophole", is not a loophole. It has always been legal in this country to privately sell your property (in this case, a firearm). It's not until relatively recently that there a.) were federally licensed firearm dealers and b.) background checks were required on sales through FFLs.

[G60]

"Loophole" is really just newspeak for "something that's not illegal yet".

[Corvus]

Of course the extra checks will require the 11% excise tax that is now only on new firearms to be charged on the transfer of used ones as well.

It is always about the money if the gov't is involved.

[Sparks2112]

Just to be clear the information provided on the 4473 form allows the Feds to ID you without having your social security number or drivers license number.

[John Ralston]

For private checks, I would be fine with a Call for Approval, but I don't think we should be required to do a 4473.

[Drang]

"Loophole" is really just newspeak for "something that's not illegal yet".
"Loophole" is libtard for "Something legal that we don't like."

If you're not comfortable selling to a guy, don't sell to him. It is common here in Washington State to only sell to someone who has a WA CPL; you'll even see that disclaimer in Little Nickle ads. Or sell to an FFL, or see if your FFL will (or can) sell on consignment for you.

Big Government is not the answer to helping you sleep at night because it's too easy for you to dispose of your personal property.

To be more precise, Big Government is not the answer to helping you sleep at night because you think it's too easy for me to dispose of my personal property.

[NETim]

Did WAMU happen to mention anything about the necessity of shutting down the Holder Loophole?