To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (891962 ) 10/7/2015 7:01:22 AM From: longnshort 2 RecommendationsRecommended By
Read Replies (1) | Respond to The gun-show loophole should be closed, and closing it would prevent some criminals from obtaining weapons. must go through an FFL. No FFL is going to jeopardize their hard-won license for a criminal sale. You may not purchase a firearm from across state lines as dealers are barred via the Gun Control Act of 1968 from selling or transferring firearms sans FLL across state lines. may purchase a firearm from an occasional seller, not a dealer (differences matter) in your state of residence if you are legally allowed to own a firearm (no domestic violence record, no felonies, no drug use, et al.) -- meaning you are not a prohibited possessor oreven suspected of being a prohibited possessor . If you are a prohibited possessor and you buy a gun regardless you're breaking the law and will be charged with a crime. If a person knowingly sells a prohibited possessor a firearm they are breaking the law and will be charged with a crime. If they claim cluelessness they still may be charged depending on the results of the investigation. That's not a loophole , that's a criminal act . If your driver's license is suspended due to a DUI and yet you continue to drive, that's not a loophole in the law, it is a criminal act . What anti-Second Amendment advocates mean when they use the rhetorical scam term "loophole" is that they want the federal government to treat every single American as a federal firearms dealer, meaning they would have to establish a national, quasi-registry (current law prevents the federal government from compiling a registry based off of the NICS information) to make it work and make your husband doubly-answerable to the ATF if he legally buys your son his first hunting rifle. Cho was adjudicated mentally unfit and should not have been able to purchase a gun.WaPo: Yes, We Want Your Guns 8 danaloeschradio
