Loophole or individual right?

Posted at 4:08 PM on February 19, 2009 by Tom Scheck (17 Comments)

Say hello to Jerry Dhennin, of Coon Rapids, who brought some heavy machinery to a news conference in St. Paul. Dhennin, who is a self-described "gun nut", is a member of Citizens for a Safer Minnesota. During his remarks, Dhenin pulled out his Ruger mini 14 which he says he bought at a gun show four years ago "with no questions asked" besides a driver's license. Before he had the gun disabled by a gunsmith, Dhennin said he could fire the pistol gun at four rounds per second.

"There's no reason to have that kind of firepower that I know of except maybe for law enforcement and the military. But yet I was able to buy this at a gun show, no questions asked, except that I was required to show a driver's license by Minnesota law."

Dhenin said he also bought a Springfield Armory 9mm semiautomatic pistol at a gun show just the other day with "no questions asked" but the driver's license requirement.

Citizens for a Safer Minneota and DFL Rep. Michael Paymar want to make it tougher for those transactions to take place and are calling for the closure of what they call a "loophole" in law. Paymar's bill would require background checks on any pistol or semiautomatic weapon purchases

Current law requires licensed dealers to conduct background checks but allows individuals to sell firearms at gun shows, over the internet or through newspaper ads without a background check.

"All we're trying to do is make a very clear statement and believe that we can save lives and keep some guns out of the streets in Minnesota if we plug these loopholes by trying to ensure that dangerous people don't possess dangerous weapons," Paymar said

Supporters of the legislation point to a study that says illegal "straw purchases" are much more common in states that don't have tighter regulation laws than California, which does require background checks for any gun purchase.

But Joe Olson, with the Gun Owners Civil Rights Alliance, points to a University of Maryland study that says such laws did not reduce homicides or suicides.

Olson says the bill is more about harassing legitimate, law abiding gun owners. He said Minnesota law has allowed individuals to sell guns to one another since 1974. He said there are different standards between purchases from licensed dealers and private transactions because private transactions are "not a significant source of anything other than the recreational firearms."

In other words, Olson said, "If you and I are at the gun range and you're shooting your gun and I say 'Gee, that looks just like the one my grandfather used to have. Would you like to sell it to me?' You could do it."

But he said the sale couldn't be made if the bill became law unless a background check was done first. Olson also added that this legislation doesn't deal with the "people who are selling guns of a car in north Minneapolis at 3 and 4 AM. Those are the people who are putting guns in the hands of gang members..." He added that people engaged in illegal drug selling can acquire guns through illegal activity.

"This bill has no effect on criminals at all. It's not intended to have an effect on criminals. It's only intended to make gun ownership and gun possession a bigger hassle.."

Question of the Day: Will this bill make a difference if it became law?

---

Comments (17)

Your ignorance is showing. A Ruger Mini-14 is not a pistol, it is a rifle.

If Mr. Dhennin is a "gun nut" I'm the pope.

Is Mr. Dhennin a criminal? If so, what's the problem with him having purchased two firearms at gun shows?

You explain the law later on in your piece...so it's obvious that you understand that this provision in the law was intentionally included to protect the privacy and property rights of citizens...it is NOT a "loophole"...and you understand that this provision applies anywhere, not just at gun shows; so why do you insist upon inaccurately referring to it as "the gun show loophole"? Are you reporting news or spreading propaganda? (Rhetorical question...we already know the answer).

The Wintermute study referred to regarding California gun shows was not a "study" by any reasonable definition. Dr. Wintermute and associates attended gun shows and made assumptions about what they observed. Assumptions...especially those made by devoted anti-gun activists and colored by their biases and predispositions...hardly can be counted as objective evidence.

Answer to your Question of the Day: It depends on what "difference" you're trying to make.

If your goal is to complicate the lives of law abiding private citizens, infringe upon their privacy and property rights, and potentially criminalize otherwise law abiding citizens who are unaware of the restrictions...then yes, it will make a huge difference.

If your goal is to reduce crime or decrease the availability of guns to criminals, then the answer is absolutely not. Criminals generally just don't get their guns at gun shows, or even through private sales. They get them by stealing them, by buying them from someone else who stole them, or by using "straw purchasers" with no criminal records who can buy them for them.

Posted by Sailorcurt | February 20, 2009 7:58 AM

---

For the record, I made an error in my writing. Thanks for pointing it out. I know the ruger is not a pistol but screwed up that part of the copy. I will correct.

I was also careful not to call it a loophole but said "what they call a loophole." I added that Olson considered these "private transactions" and the law has been in effect for 35 years.

Thanks for the correction, your post and for reading the blog. I hope you comment again in the future. It's always healthy to have a vibrant discussion on policy being debated at the Legislature.

Posted by tom scheck | February 20, 2009 9:06 AM

---

It seems like when this subject comes up, supporters of gun rights admit there's a problem, but fail to offer a solution. In this case, Joe Olson (with the Gun Owners Civil Rights Alliance) admits "this legislation doesn't deal with the "people who are selling guns of a car in north Minneapolis at 3 and 4 AM. Those are the people who are putting guns in the hands of gang members..." " Exactly. How do we address the problem of people selling guns out of their trunks at 3 or 4 AM without restricting the rights of law abiding citizens? If you don't want rights to keep & bear be restricted, it would be helpful to suggest alternatives that address the problem of people using guns for illegal behavior.

Posted by bsimon | February 20, 2009 10:26 AM

---

I am wondering why Joe Olson does not think background checks work. Since the Brady Bill passed in 1994, 1.6 million prohibited purchasers have been stopped from buying guns. This is a system that works. Why not make it consistent so that all gun buyers have to follow the same rules? Perhaps those guns bought out of car trunks in the middle of the night would be fewer if fewer prohibited purchasers bought them at gun shows and flea markets. Yes, guns are stolen and bought through straw purchases but a good 40% of all guns purchased are purchased at gun shows. That means that some of those sales are to people who should not have guns. The Columbine shooters obtained their guns through a friend who bought them at a gun show. She said in the trial that she would not have bought the guns if she would have had to have a background check. The Virignia Tech shooter's name should have been in the NICS data base because he was adjudicated mentally ill. In that case, had his name been in the system as it should have been, 32 innocent lives would have saved by a background check. This law will not infringe on lawful gun owner's rights to own guns or hunts. If they don't want to bother with a background check, why not?? And Mr. Dhennin is not a criminal. He was making a point- it is too easy for potentially dangerous people to get dangerous weapons in Minnesota.

Posted by japete | February 20, 2009 1:51 PM

---

How do we address the problem of people selling guns out of their trunks at 3 or 4 AM without restricting the rights of law abiding citizens? If you don't want rights to keep & bear be restricted, it would be helpful to suggest alternatives that address the problem of people using guns for illegal behavior.

The problem is that you are assuming that there IS anything that can be done about it.

The sale and use of most recreational drugs has been completely prohibited in this country for decades. How's that working out for us?

Criminals do what criminals do. That's simply a fact of life. An alternative to address the problem of people using guns for illegal behavior? That's easy: put them in jail and keep them there. Our revolving door judicial system is at least half of the problem. An FBI report just came out sometime in the past couple of weeks estimating that 80% of crimes in this country are committed by gang members. Most of those gang members have rap sheets pages long including violent crimes...yet they are still walking the streets.

The fact is that cases like Virginia Tech where the perpetrator has no criminal record are extremely rare. The vast majority of the murders and violent crimes committed in this country are committed by criminals against criminals.

Put.Them.In.Jail.And.Keep.Them.There.

Since the Brady Bill passed in 1994, 1.6 million prohibited purchasers have been stopped from buying guns. This is a system that works.

How very telling.

Japete's definition of "success" is the numbers of people prevented from exercising a constitutionally protected right.

Not reductions in crimes or reduced numbers of criminals apprehended with guns...just the fact that X number of people were prevented from buying them. I guess that would be considered successful to people who's primary goal is to prevent gun ownership.

Hmmm...

Of that 1.6 million, how many were false positives that were appealed and the appellants were subsequently allowed to complete the purchase?

Of the remaining, how many of those attempts were actually criminal in nature and resulted in the perpetrator being convicted?

And how did those denials translate into reduced criminal activity...which is supposed to be what this is all about right?

It's almost funny: The Brady campaign, extols the success of background checks in preventing criminals from obtaining guns while, at the same time, decrying the rate of violent crimes committed with guns.

Either they work, or they don't. You can't have it both ways. When an action proves to be ineffective at its purported purpose..."do it more...only harder" is hardly the most reasonable response.

Perhaps those guns bought out of car trunks in the middle of the night would be fewer if fewer prohibited purchasers bought them at gun shows and flea markets.

Perhaps if frogs carried hand grenades, snakes wouldn't mess with them.

Perhaps if we give criminals a big hug, they'll change their ways and become productive members of society.

Perhaps if...well...you get the idea. "Perhaps" is not a rational basis for setting public policy.

Both the CDC and the DOJ (neither big fans of private ownership of guns), in separate studies, failed to find any gun control regulation to be effective at reducing crime.

None.

Two separate DOJ studies looked at this issue. One found that less than 2 percent of criminals obtained their guns at gun shows...the other found the number to be so statistically insignificant as to be unreportable as a separate category. I have yet to see a credible study that refutes these findings.

Tell me: how, specifically, do you come up with that "40% of gun sales occur at gun shows" number? Um...if private sales at gun shows are unregulated and unreported, how could you possibly know that???

In other words, that is nothing more than a statistic ginned up out of thin air. As they say...75% of all cited statistics are made up on the spot.

The two cases you choose to cite both belie your point.

In the first, the person who bought the guns would have passed a background check. AFTER the fact, she claims she wouldn't have purchased the guns had she been required to have a background check run...but the fact remains that she would have passed the background check so the distinction is moot. People say a lot of things that they "coulda shoulda woulda" after it's all over with.

In the second, the perpetrator DID have Brady checks run and passed them. The incident had absolutely nothing to do with private sales. Perhaps the Brady checks japete was just touting as so successful aren't quite as effective as he would have us believe?

I hate to break it to you, but being "potentially" anything is not a crime. Infringing on rights because they MAY be abused is not only ineffective, but tyrannical.

The anti-gun forces know that this proposal would do no more to curb criminal activity than any of the other "good first steps" that they've proposed over the years. This is nothing more than one more effort to make gun ownership as difficult, complicated and legally risky for the law abiding as possible and would have no effect on crime.

Posted by Sailorcurt | February 21, 2009 6:11 PM

---

Here is a simple fact: If the improved background check bill (HF 953), aka "gun show loop hole bill", becomes law, every law abiding person, of proper age and mental acuity, could still purchase or sell any firearm they could have purchased or sold under current Minnesota law.

If you are not one of these persons, it will become more difficult. Period.

Posted by Shooter | February 23, 2009 2:06 PM

---

If you are not one of these persons, it will become more difficult. Period.

BS.

The only people whom will find it more difficult ARE the law abiding.

What part of "criminals don't get their guns at gun shows" is not clear to you?

This is feel good legislation that does nothing more than complicate the lives and violate the privacy of law abiding gun owners.

And you don't address the simple fact that a certain percentage of people are simply going to be unaware of the law and break it by accident.

Any law that is different depending upon what piece of real estate you're standing on is guaranteed to criminalize unwary, otherwise law abiding citizens....or maybe that's the goal? If we pass enough laws, everyone will be a criminal and, therefore, a "prohibited person"...

This is a solution in search of a problem. It is unnecessary and ineffective, violates the privacy and property rights of citizens and creates confusing "special cases" in the law that will serve to entrap law abiding citizens.

Posted by Sailorcurt | February 24, 2009 2:41 PM

---

In otherwords, you're okay with private gun owners legally selling their guns to convicted felons, domestic abusers, and the mentally ill and dangerous.

In this, you will have it both ways. Protecting the "privacy and property rights of citizens", especially at gun shows, also allows those citizens to sell dangerous weapons to dangerous people.

And, that's no BS.

Posted by Shooter | February 26, 2009 12:45 PM

---

you're okay with private gun owners legally selling their guns to convicted felons, domestic abusers, and the mentally ill and dangerous.

You are aware that transferring guns to convicted felons, domestic abusers and the mentally ill are already federal felonies right?

In one fell swoop you paint every one of the millions of gun owners in this country as criminals while, at the same time, accuse me of supporting criminal activity.

I guess if you think that poorly of gun owners, I can understand why you fear our freedom.

But regardless of that; ignoring points that are raised because you have no response doesn't negate those points. It only demonstrates unequivocally that you have no rebuttals...well...other than mischaracterizing my position in an effort to disparage it.

Funny, that's exactly what gun banners like the Brady Campagn et al do...because they can't justify their positions on the merits, they are forced to misstate the position of gun right advocates to paint them as "unreasonable" and make up emotion laden, inaccurate catch phrases and labels in an obvious effort to mislead and obfuscate.

The vast majority of gun owners are just as concerned about keeping guns out of the hands of prohibited persons as anyone else. But we are not willing to compromise the privacy and property rights of that vast majority due to the actions of a very very small minority...especially when the measures proposed won't do ANYTHING to stop the minority from doing things that are ALREADY crimes. If they're already willing to do something illegal, I'm thinking that making it "illegaler" isn't going to stop them.

Posted by Sailorcurt | February 26, 2009 2:59 PM

---

Like I tell my wife: "listen to what I say, not what you think I mean". Your assumptions of what I mean are inaccurate.

Current Minnesota (and federal) law allows gun owners at gun shows, who are not federally licensed, to transfer any gun to anyone over the age of 21. As long as there is "don't ask - don't tell", a person selling a pistol or assault weapon at a gun show could easily be selling it to a felon or other prohibited person. I believe it is your desire, based on what you have said, that you don't want to see a law in place that would make this practice illegal.

That's not saying you support criminal activity. Although, you might want to explain your remark of Feb. 20th: "Is Mr. Dhennin a criminal? If so, what's the problem with him having purchased two firearms at gun shows?"

What I know is that criminals do buy guns at gun shows, and that Rep. Paymar's bill would help prevent that, while not preventing transfers between law abiding persons.

Posted by Shooter | February 26, 2009 8:55 PM

---

Under current law, it is a felony to transfer a firearm to anyone whom you "knew or should have known" was a prohibited person.

You are right in that THE SELLER is not breaking any laws as long as they don't know the buyer and don't know that they are a prohibited person. Of course, it is still a felony for the prohibited person to take possession of the firearm, but you were very careful to word your comment in such a way as to leave that part out, while still being technically accurate.

At any rate, your "solution" is to make such private transfers illegal at gun shows. In other words, to create a special case in the law that only applies at gun shows.

There are three problems with this:

1. Criminals and the unscrupulous will transfer the guns anyway. They simply don't do it at gun shows in any significant numbers as it is, and those few who would, can simply step across the street and complete the transfer there.

This law would do absolutely NOTHING to prevent these types of transactions.

2. Laws that vary depending upon a property line (actually, in this case, it's even more confusing than that...a transfer that could occur perfectly legally in a location one day or time, would become illegal on a different day or time if a gun show is being held in the same location)...these types of special cases in the law are confusing and lead to otherwise law abiding citizens being criminalized when they had no criminal intent.

3. As mentioned before, it restricts the privacy and property rights of the law abiding, while not affecting the availability of guns to criminals in the least.

You seem to be saying (and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) that you understand that this law wouldn't do anything to cut down on the transfers of firearms between individuals who are willing to break the law...but that this would prevent gun owners from unknowingly selling their firearms to prohibited persons. Is that accurate?

If so...there is a better solution. It's simple, it won't violate anyone's rights, it can be applicable anywhere, not just gun shows, and it would actually be supported by gun owners:

Make NICS available for private transfers free of charge.

Basically, conscientious gun owners, under current law, are not only not REQUIRED to run background checks....they are not PERMITTED to do so. The general procedure is to have the buyer provide ID and sign a bill of sale that includes their name and address. That way if the ATF comes knocking on the door in ten years because the gun was used in a crime, you can prove that you sold it and provide the ATF with the next link in the tracing chain.

BTW...that's why prohibited persons generally don't buy from conscientious private sellers..they don't like that whole "show ID and sign a bill of sale" thing.

People willing to break the law by selling to a prohibited person, are going to transfer the firearms without background checks whether it's illegal or not...and there's no practical way to stop them; therefore, there's no reason to make it illegal to not run the checks. That way, if I'm selling a gun to a buddy from my gun club that I've known for 20 years and I know not to be a prohibited person, I don't need to run the checks. But if I'm selling to a stranger, I can do so. There could be other incentives added to encourage sellers to run the checks...immunity from criminal or civil prosecution for crimes committed with the gun if the checks were run...that sort of thing.

Making it free of charge will guarantee that the largest number of people will take advantage of the service. This system is being instituted to benefit the general public. Those who benefit should pay for it, so it should be paid for by the general public.

Obviously, the NICS system would have to be altered slightly to allow for this, and controls would have to be put in place to prevent abuse...but those are minor details, not show stoppers.

Unfortunately, this proposal will never fly with the gun controllers: it doesn't cause gun owners to give up control...and that's what it's all about.

That's not saying you support criminal activity. Although, you might want to explain your remark of Feb. 20th: "Is Mr. Dhennin a criminal? If so, what's the problem with him having purchased two firearms at gun shows?"

I think it's pretty obvious that that was an editorial error. It obviously should have read "If not, what's the problem..."

Out of all the points I've raised, if that's the best rebuttal you can come up with...

Posted by Sailorcurt | February 27, 2009 11:47 AM

---

Let's start with a basic fact that I think we can both agree on: All firearms (at least the ones we're concerned with) were manufactured, distributed, and retailed legally. Except for corrupt federally licensed dealers (FFLs) and straw purchasers, they were purchased legally. It is at this point where our discussion begins.

I presume you haven't yet read the June 2000 report from the U.S. Treasury / Bureau of Alchohol, Tobacco and Firearms report titled "Follow the Gun: Enforcing Federal Laws Against Firearms Trafficking". I quote from the section titled "Conclusions": "Gun shows and flea markets are a major venue for illegal trafficking".

Right behind these venues was trafficking by unlicensed sellers not associated with gun shows and not straw purchasers. This latter group alone trafficked twice as many firearms as were stolen from residences, FFLs, and common carriers combined.

I am making an assumption here that because we're talking gun trafficking the guns involved are mostly pistols and assault weapons.

I'm sure that vendors at gun shows are very much aware of the laws that regulate their activity, so your concern that unknowing sellers would be caught violating the law is unfounded.

Of course there will be individuals who are willing to break the law. But, without laws regulating these activities there can be no consequences. Most gun sellers will comply with these regulations, and those that won't do so at their peril.

Your suggestion of NICS checks, even free of charge, has some merit. We agree that it probably "won't fly", but for different reasons: "Gun controllers" wouldn't care because NICS doesn't keep records of buyers and sellers. The taxpaying public would object, and therefor so would legislators and our govenor. Suggesting that the public should pay because the public benefits flies in the face of all the many user fees and taxes already being levied.

Finally, your remark "If so, what's the problem?" being an obvious editorial error, that doesn't fly either. These posts are not edited, they are either accepted as is or are denied. And if it was an error, why was such a glaring mistake not corrected immediately? (My apologies for ending on a somewhat antagonistic note).

Posted by Shooter | February 27, 2009 8:23 PM

---

I said editorial error because it occurred when I was editing the comment just before posting. The way I initially worded the sentence wasn't grammatically sound, but when I edited it to fix it, I missed changing one word. It was not "corrected immediately", because I didn't even realize I'd made the mistake until you pointed it out to me. Also, you can edit comments after they're posted? How?

And you're saying that it's not obvious to you, given the context of the entire comment, what I was trying to say? You're grasping at straws here.

Yes, I'm very aware of the ATF report you referenced. It's one that the Brady campaign (and other astroturf organizations of their ilk) relies very heavily on (and routinely misrepresents) in support of their agenda. I've read it several times. Curious that you would know about it.

Curiouser that you've begun using one of the misleading terms that the Brady's throw about regularly..."vendors at gun shows". What do you mean by "vendor?" I thought this discussion was about private sales, not people selling firearms as a business. Uncle Bob, wandering around a gun show with an old duck gun over his shoulder for sale is hardly a "vendor"....and he's EXACTLY the kind of person who very well may not be intimately familiar with every facet of the gun laws.

But I digress. The ATF report that you mentioned does not say what the Brady campaign says it does. First of all, the report was regarding high volume trafficking cases. The report does list gun shows as being involved in the second highest number of high volume trafficking cases...but what it does NOT do is provide a breakdown of how many of those high volume cases involved crinminal FFL's at gun shows and how many involved private individuals without FFL's.

There is absolutely no way to say that that report in any way supports that PRIVATE SALES at gun shows are a problem (what this discussion is about after all) because it doesn't even attempt to do that.

Now to engage a little common sense. A private individual at a gun show, unless liquidating a large personal collection (possible, but very rare...I've seen it twice in all the gun shows I've been to...and I go to a lot of them) generally has one or two firearms to sell. The report involved HIGH VOLUME trafficking cases. So, logically, would you imagine that these high volume cases would have most likely involved Licensed dealers who regularly have...um...high volumes of guns on hand? Or private citizens who generally have one or two to sell?

The bottom line is that the ATF report you cite simply does not support the claim that private sales at gun shows are a problem.

If you insist upon using the report as a basis for public policy, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that gun shows in general are a problem...not just private sales. In that case, the proposal should be to outlaw the shows, not just private transfers at them.

Good luck with that.

ps. What is an "assault weapon?" Be specific. What, specifically, makes an "assault weapon" different from, say, a "defense weapon"...or a "target weapon"...or a "hunting weapon"? What characteristics about an "assault weapon" make them more suitable for assault than for any other use?

Posted by Sailorcurt | February 28, 2009 10:19 PM

---

Okay, let's forget "editorial error". Just don't put the burden on me to figure out what you meant.

Maybe you had a different meaning for (on Feb. 24th) "What part of 'ciminals don't get their guns at gun shows' is not clear to you?" Confronted with an official report from the ATF to the contrary, you are now talking private sales only? Fine with me, though, because that is my concern.

I wouldn't worry about Uncle Bob and his old duck gun. He'll be advised of the law when he pays his admission. I recently saw cousin Larry with his old AK at a gun show, and that does concern me.

Mostly, though, I'm concerned about the "vendor" who has a table with numerous hand guns, along with other firearms, for display, and who is not a FFL. I doubt they're liquidating their own private gun collection because they keep appearing at new shows with new inventory. Every show has them, and I've been to more than a few myself. Maybe they should be licensed. If so, why aren't they?

Perhaps the ATF report doesn't break it down to identify private sellers at gun shows. But, if gun shows are a major souce of crime guns, and all shows have vendors who are private sellers, and criminals can figure that out - then there is a problem. There will be, in 2009 in Minnesota, at least 27 major gun shows. That makes the problem significant.

What is an assault weapon? What makes them more suitable for assault than for any other use?

1) The State Crime Bureau (BCA) describes them by characteristics and by make and model.

2) Typically, they are designed to afford the shooter stable handling while engaged in rapid fire, such as the military requires, have high capacity magazines, and muzzles with flash suppressors.

Sure, they can be used for defense - but defense against what? They're a little bulky for concealed carry. In the home Uncle Bob's duck gun would be better than adequate. Target use and hunting? I suppose so, if that's what you need to "pull your trigger".

Posted by Shooter | March 1, 2009 2:09 PM

---

Yes, I'd hate to burden you with having to apply some common sense. I'm sure that would be way too much of an inconvenience.

Of course, I was engaging a little oversimplification in my rhetorical question of February 24th. I had just established that very few criminals get their guns from gun shows in a prior comment. Less than 2 percent to be specific. Apparently sarcasm is beyond your ken as well. My bad.

Let's be perfectly clear what we're talking about here.

This issue revolves around PRIVATE SALES at gun shows. That's what the proposed law would affect, that's what the post that I was responding to was about, and that's what my comments throughout this thread have been addressing. Not FFL's, which are already required to run background checks on all sales, regardless of where they are conducted.

The Report that you insist upon relying upon, as has already been established, had nothing to do with PRIVATE SALES.

Trying to shift the focus of your argument around to obfuscate the issue does not make your points valid, it only demonstrates that you can't support your points without resorting to such obfuscation.

If you regularly see non-FFL's at gun shows selling large numbers of guns, have you reported them to the ATF or local law enforcement? Law Enforcement is typically present at every gun show. It would be very easy for them to follow up on it.

It is already illegal to "engage in the business" of selling guns without an FFL, so if the people you supposedly see regularly are doing so, they are committing a felony.

And here's the thing: BECAUSE ATF and local law enforcement regularly attend gun shows and would notice and investigate people who regularly show up at gun shows to conduct business without an FFL...I must admit that I'm a bit incredulous about your claims.

The last gun I bought at a gun show was from a table without a company sign or any outward indication that this was a licensed dealer. It was, in fact, a local Police Officer who does have an FFL but does not own a storefront. He only sells guns at gun shows in his off duty time. He is regularly at the gun shows in this area with several tables of guns for sale. To an observer, it would appear that this was one of the infamous "unlicensed vendors" but I can assure you, all proper paperwork is filled out and background checks are run on every gun that he sells. The point being: are you SURE that the people you regularly see selling guns at gun shows are not federally licensed, or are you just making assumptions?

Regarding "assault weapons". I looked at the BCA website and couldn't find the information about characteristics and model numbers. Could you please provide a link?

Where does your information about how "assault weapons" are "typically" designed come from? That sounds like someone's opinion to me, not anything rooted in fact. I'd like to see your source.

I assume that, by features "designed to afford the shooter stable handling while engaged in rapid fire", you are referring to pistol grips. Assuming that you are correct (which is most definitely not a given), why is stable handling not desirable in self defense, target or sporting use? In other words, why are features that improve handling only suitable for assault?

How does a flash suppressor make a rifle more suitable for assault?

How long does it take to change a magazine in a semi-automatic firearm? Does it make any practical difference whether someone is carrying one 30 round magazine or three ten rounders?

Low to medium powered, carbine length rifles are VERY suitable for self defense in the home. Handguns of any caliber are relatively weak and ineffective. Their only advantages are portability and concealability. Shotguns are effective at short range and can be very well suited for home defense if they are configured for that use...which makes them virtually useless for hunting or sporting purposes. Hunting shotguns and rifles are impractical for home defense because with their weight, long barrels and fixed stocks, they are too unwieldy to use in tight spaces.

Low to medium powered, carbine length rifles are ideal for home defense. They are MUCH more effective than handguns of any caliber, even through heavy clothing that could render handgun rounds ineffective, yet they are maneuverable enough to be practical for use in enclosed spaces. They are more versatile than shotguns because they are effective at longer ranges and are more precise.

In short, although carbine length, low to medium powered utility rifles are not practical for concealed carry, they are most definitely useful for home defense. Whether you feel that I "need" one for that purpose is irrelevant.

As far as your snide "pull your trigger" comment...I've found that people tend to blithely dismiss things that they have no other way to address. Basically what you are saying is "I have no good REASON to oppose the use of these rifles for target or hunting use, so I'll just dismiss the possibility as ridiculous or unreasonable."

That's just your bigotry showing, nothing more.

Posted by Sailorcurt | March 2, 2009 9:15 AM

---

So "Handguns of any caliber are relatively weak and ineffective." And "...heavy clothing that could render handgun rounds ineffective...". I don't know where you read that. I've carried and fired handguns that were capable of breaking engine blocks, and would bring down the largest game on this continent. And that was before the really powerful handguns on the market today.

We are apparently too far apart in levels of experience to argue pros and cons of the various firearms and their uses. Nor is there much likelyhood of finding practical common ground regarding a reasonable effort to keep dangerous weapons from dangerous people.

You have been insulting throughout this discussion. Now you're offended by my "pull your trigger" comment? That's incredulous.

The BCA website has the information on assault weapons you're looking for. You can find it with a little searching. Or call them.

You get the last word - I'm done.

Posted by Shooter | March 2, 2009 1:25 PM

---

About BCA: I take it that means you couldn't find it either.

No matter, I was just curious as to whether they listed the SKS as an "assault weapon" considering that it doesn't have a pistol grip, removable magazine or flash suppressor.

I agree that we have very differing experience levels. I spent 21 years in the US military, am still an active member of the US Navy Marksmanship team and have been shooting since I was a kid.

I've also had a Virginia Concealed Handgun permit for almost ten years and am a hobby gunsmith.

I have serious doubts as to your credibility, which is probably why I'm coming across as insulting. It's nothing personal...I just don't believe you are who and what you are representing yourself to be.

You tout Brady Campaign talking points as if they were gospel, make unfounded claims as if they were proven fact, and don't even attempt to refute my points, just try to either steer the subject away from them or ignore them completely.

You know just enough about guns and shooting to make an attempt to sound credible, but to someone like me who knows better, you simply aren't.

Here's the thing: I'm not trying to convince you of anything. Your mind is clearly made up and no amount of facts or logic are going to dissuade you. What I'm doing here is making sure that the facts and the truth are presented so that others reading this thread...perhaps others who aren't so emotionally invested in their position and so patently unable to judge this issue on its merits...have all the facts so that they can form an opinion based upon knowledge, rather than ignorance disguised in the illusion of knowledge.

Which brings me to:

I've heard those claims about "breaking engine blocks" as well. Primarily I've heard it regarding the .357 magnum, but I'm sure the claim has been made for other handgun rounds as well. And that demonstrates the power of handguns relative to rifles in what way exactly?

Apparently a quick lesson in some basic ballistics is needed.

The muzzle energy of a relatively low powered rifle cartridge, the 5.56x45mm used in the AR-15 and M-16 pattern rifles is about 1200 foot pounds (compared to a common hunting round, say the .30-06, which generates a muzzle energy of almost 3,000 foot pounds).

The Muzzle energy of a .357 magnum is about 550 foot pounds. The muzzle energy of a .44 magnum is about 1000 foot pounds.

Yes, there are specialty handguns made these days in loadings that exceed some rifle cartridges in muzzle energy...but muzzle energy isn't the whole story.

The muzzle energy formula includes the mass of the bullet. The very large caliber handguns that you mention, derive a significant portion of their muzzle energy numbers from bullet mass.

The problem with that is that those large bullets also have a very large frontal area which significantly slows the bullet in flight, reducing the kinetic energy of the bullet much more significantly than occurs with a more streamlined rifle bullet over the same distance.

That large frontal area also causes less penetration through cover or heavy clothing, hence my statement to that effect.

Finally, rifles are more effective than pistols because the shape and relatively high velocities of rifle bullets tend to cause them to tumble and/or fragment upon penetrating soft tissue. This causes the rifle to be more effective at neutralizing threats, over pistol bullets which generally cause less disruption.

Can handguns be effective? Yes. Are there some very large and powerful handgun calibers out there? Yes. Can they be used for taking big game? Yes.

Does that mean that they are as powerful or effective as rifles? Nope.

So, in summary...you don't know what you're talking about.

Again.

Oh...and you still didn't address my substantive points. You just picked out one statement that you thought you could "disprove" and latched onto that to avoid addressing the real issues.

Posted by Sailorcurt | March 3, 2009 12:46 AM

---

• E-mail this page
• Print this page
• Tweet this page
• Share this

Services

• Hourly Newscast
• HD Radio
• iPhone App / Mobile
• E-mail newsletters
• RSS feeds
• Podcasts
• Submit your photos
• Videos
• Weather
• Most e-mailed stories