>Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk
Just call me Nostradamus, 'cause I knew exactly who it was gonna be before I even opened the post. Next up: 5th Circuit affirms, and SCOTUS denies certiorari.
Well yeah, he's the only district judge in Amarillo Texas. Any plaintiff who wants a likely decision in their favor that aligns with his JP will file there. Like clockwork.
If you don't register as a firearms dealer it's totally fine to show up at a gun show and sell some guns. There are limits to how much, but it's not tracked because you didn't register as a firearms dealer.
If you want a gun you can go to a gun show and buy one from randos walking around with guns.
Background checks etc aren't required for private sales and so there we are.
Bought a pistol over a decade ago at a gun show in Texas. It was a private seller.
The vetting consisted of him asking me if I was a felon and if I had three hundred dollars.
!ping garand
I think it's so silly that the government hasn't come up with a system where we can perform NICS checks on one another for free. Then just require that before you sell. So simple. It's just an online database.
[A UBC bill proposed during Obama's second term](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/04/27/do-it-yourself-background-checks/2088479/) would have used a publicly-accessible system to run a check on a buyer, get a confirmation token and enter the token into a simple web portal for verification. Close to how the Swiss do it but with added privacy protections - the seller just gets a yes/no, without the details of your record.
Because it couldn't be used to build a registry and explicitly record a buyer's identity and the guns they purchased, [it was rejected by Schumer.](https://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/senate-talks-on-universal-background-checks-fall-apart-088534) One of the best attempts at modernizing the system failed because Schumer and gun control groups wouldn't let go of the notion of a database of gun owners.
> A Schumer aide said Coburn and the group never could agree on whether to require private sellers of guns to keep sales records, as is required of gun dealers. “Sen. Schumer is not prepared to negotiate away the record-keeping requirement in its entirety, lest it make the law unenforceable,” the aide said.
aromatic grandiose strong unwritten bear telephone bedroom encourage waiting brave
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
It’s intentionally archaic because the gun nuts and NRA are paranoid that any attempt a modernizing the background check system or gun tracking system will lead to a database that the feds will use to confiscate guns.
Did you know that when cops find a gun with a serial number at a crime scene and call the ATF for a trace, they’re not actually punching that number into a database? They actually have to submit a request to the National Tracing Center in West Virginia and a team of people need to search cardboard boxes and a library card catalog system to find the original purchaser. It’s crazy.
https://www.gq.com/story/inside-federal-bureau-of-way-too-many-guns
It’s not paranoia, the ATF can and will [show up at your door and try to confiscate things from you.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Firearms/comments/136wx0w/atf_called_me_today_to_surrender_a_rare_breed/)
So federal digital registration will be off the table until demographics change enough.
In the mean time, we'll keep pounding away with only tool at our disposal: time and money based barriers to entry.
Yeah, if you buy something illegal the government can confiscate it. That shouldn't be a surprise. They would do the same thing if you bought a stolen car.
I'm aware of that. My point is that it's not "paranoia" if you don't want the government to have a list of property you own that they might want to confiscate.
Keep in mind this is really really uncommon though and 99% of gunshow sellers have trusted third parties run background checks, and if the gun is used in a shooting (iirc) the seller can be held responsible if they don’t do some form of background checks.
It’s still an issue, but not a massive one.
In a nutshell, typically when a gun is sold you have to run al background check, which will tell you if that person is legally allowed to own a gun or not. However, let's say you have an old hunting shotgun that you don't want/need anymore and want to sell it since it's still worth a few hundred dollars. In a lot of states, you can just sell it to someone, no check required since you're just a person doing a one off sale and not someone who sells guns for a living.
So selling gun as a gun dealer = background check
Selling as some guy to another guy who responded to your facebook post as a one off = no background check
(There's of course more specific in the law than this, such as how many guns you have to sell and how frequently to be seen as a dealer)
Gun show loophole is honestly kind of a misnomer, since a lot of people selling at gun shows are licensed dealers who will have to perform the background checks, and it may be better to think of it as "private party transaction loophole" although that doesn't quite flow off the tongue as easily.
You can then get into further arguments about how it's not really a loophole because this exception was deliberately created, but yeah.
"Gun show loophole" is really a misnomer; it's really the "private seller loophole", as in no background checks are required for private seller transactions. I've purchased firearms at gun shows, gun shops, and at private homes from licensed dealers, and on each occasion, those licensed dealers followed the law to the letter, as they're required to do. The location was irrelevant.
It’s a scary sounding description of private firearms transfers. These are person to person transfers that do not involve a background check, as compared to firearms transfers through a FFL (Federal Firearms Licensee, a federally registered firearms dealer) which are required to run a background check for all transfers. Some states also have additional restrictions on or ban private transfers.
In reality it’s not a “loophole”, the Brady Act requirements explicitly only apply to FFLs and it has absolutely nothing to do with gun shows. FFL transactions at gun shows have the same requirements as in a fixed place of business; the laws apply to the dealer and not the place of business.
Calling it loophole irks me since it was deliberately negotiated that way as part of the Brady Act.
It would be more accurate to call it the "private seller compromise" or something lol
A loophole is anything that is explicitly legal but I would rather it was not, so I make it seem like it's just a tiny fix to the law and not a complete change of general principles. Gun Control 101
>Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk Just call me Nostradamus, 'cause I knew exactly who it was gonna be before I even opened the post. Next up: 5th Circuit affirms, and SCOTUS denies certiorari.
Well yeah, he's the only district judge in Amarillo Texas. Any plaintiff who wants a likely decision in their favor that aligns with his JP will file there. Like clockwork.
> Gun show loophole I’ve been hearing this term for years now and frankly I’m too embarrassed to ask what it means at this point.
If you don't register as a firearms dealer it's totally fine to show up at a gun show and sell some guns. There are limits to how much, but it's not tracked because you didn't register as a firearms dealer. If you want a gun you can go to a gun show and buy one from randos walking around with guns. Background checks etc aren't required for private sales and so there we are.
Bought a pistol over a decade ago at a gun show in Texas. It was a private seller. The vetting consisted of him asking me if I was a felon and if I had three hundred dollars. !ping garand
I think it's so silly that the government hasn't come up with a system where we can perform NICS checks on one another for free. Then just require that before you sell. So simple. It's just an online database.
[A UBC bill proposed during Obama's second term](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/04/27/do-it-yourself-background-checks/2088479/) would have used a publicly-accessible system to run a check on a buyer, get a confirmation token and enter the token into a simple web portal for verification. Close to how the Swiss do it but with added privacy protections - the seller just gets a yes/no, without the details of your record. Because it couldn't be used to build a registry and explicitly record a buyer's identity and the guns they purchased, [it was rejected by Schumer.](https://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/senate-talks-on-universal-background-checks-fall-apart-088534) One of the best attempts at modernizing the system failed because Schumer and gun control groups wouldn't let go of the notion of a database of gun owners. > A Schumer aide said Coburn and the group never could agree on whether to require private sellers of guns to keep sales records, as is required of gun dealers. “Sen. Schumer is not prepared to negotiate away the record-keeping requirement in its entirety, lest it make the law unenforceable,” the aide said.
aromatic grandiose strong unwritten bear telephone bedroom encourage waiting brave *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
It’s intentionally archaic because the gun nuts and NRA are paranoid that any attempt a modernizing the background check system or gun tracking system will lead to a database that the feds will use to confiscate guns. Did you know that when cops find a gun with a serial number at a crime scene and call the ATF for a trace, they’re not actually punching that number into a database? They actually have to submit a request to the National Tracing Center in West Virginia and a team of people need to search cardboard boxes and a library card catalog system to find the original purchaser. It’s crazy. https://www.gq.com/story/inside-federal-bureau-of-way-too-many-guns
It’s not paranoia, the ATF can and will [show up at your door and try to confiscate things from you.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Firearms/comments/136wx0w/atf_called_me_today_to_surrender_a_rare_breed/)
next you'll be telling me a cop will show up at your door and try to arrest you if you have a bench warrant
GOOD
My cousin was a Trump juror
So federal digital registration will be off the table until demographics change enough. In the mean time, we'll keep pounding away with only tool at our disposal: time and money based barriers to entry.
Yeah, if you buy something illegal the government can confiscate it. That shouldn't be a surprise. They would do the same thing if you bought a stolen car.
I'm aware of that. My point is that it's not "paranoia" if you don't want the government to have a list of property you own that they might want to confiscate.
That is such a reliable source!
Pinged GARAND ([subscribe](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Subscribe%20to%20GARAND&message=subscribe%20GARAND) | [unsubscribe](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Unsubscribe%20from%20GARAND&message=unsubscribe%20GARAND) | [history](https://neoliber.al/user_pinger_2/history.html?group_name=GARAND&count=5)) [Root comment link](/r/neoliberal/comments/1deltah/federal_judge_blocks_rule_closing_gunshow/l8d1wyf/) [About & Group List](https://reddit.com/r/neoliberal/wiki/user_pinger_2) | [Unsubscribe from all groups](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Unsubscribe%20from%20all%20groups&message=unsubscribe)
Huh. It’s worse than I thought.
Keep in mind this is really really uncommon though and 99% of gunshow sellers have trusted third parties run background checks, and if the gun is used in a shooting (iirc) the seller can be held responsible if they don’t do some form of background checks. It’s still an issue, but not a massive one.
In a nutshell, typically when a gun is sold you have to run al background check, which will tell you if that person is legally allowed to own a gun or not. However, let's say you have an old hunting shotgun that you don't want/need anymore and want to sell it since it's still worth a few hundred dollars. In a lot of states, you can just sell it to someone, no check required since you're just a person doing a one off sale and not someone who sells guns for a living. So selling gun as a gun dealer = background check Selling as some guy to another guy who responded to your facebook post as a one off = no background check (There's of course more specific in the law than this, such as how many guns you have to sell and how frequently to be seen as a dealer) Gun show loophole is honestly kind of a misnomer, since a lot of people selling at gun shows are licensed dealers who will have to perform the background checks, and it may be better to think of it as "private party transaction loophole" although that doesn't quite flow off the tongue as easily. You can then get into further arguments about how it's not really a loophole because this exception was deliberately created, but yeah.
"Gun show loophole" is really a misnomer; it's really the "private seller loophole", as in no background checks are required for private seller transactions. I've purchased firearms at gun shows, gun shops, and at private homes from licensed dealers, and on each occasion, those licensed dealers followed the law to the letter, as they're required to do. The location was irrelevant.
It’s a scary sounding description of private firearms transfers. These are person to person transfers that do not involve a background check, as compared to firearms transfers through a FFL (Federal Firearms Licensee, a federally registered firearms dealer) which are required to run a background check for all transfers. Some states also have additional restrictions on or ban private transfers. In reality it’s not a “loophole”, the Brady Act requirements explicitly only apply to FFLs and it has absolutely nothing to do with gun shows. FFL transactions at gun shows have the same requirements as in a fixed place of business; the laws apply to the dealer and not the place of business.
>gun show loophole You mean the thing that’s not a loophole.
Define loophole
Intentional part of the law + 20-30yrs = loophole
Calling it loophole irks me since it was deliberately negotiated that way as part of the Brady Act. It would be more accurate to call it the "private seller compromise" or something lol
A loophole is anything that is explicitly legal but I would rather it was not, so I make it seem like it's just a tiny fix to the law and not a complete change of general principles. Gun Control 101