Three Men Arrested After Buying Gun At Gun Show In OKC

[henschman]

Well, there certainly is a double standard with the current laws, in which FFL transfers require a BG check and private sales do not. My solution is to repeal the background check requirement altogether. While we're at it, repeal the '68 GCA and the FFL transfer requirement. The background check is a prior restraint on a right. It puts a burden on millions of innocent people who aren't hurting anyone just to try to catch a few "bad apples." This means it is incredibly overbroad, and violates the rights of all those innocents. It also has a chilling effect on people exercising the right in question. We don't tolerate licenses and background checks to engage in free speech, and I don't see why we should with regard to RKBA either.

If they try to ban face to face sales, I am still going to do them... I am just going to have to be more careful about it. If its not going to stop me, it sure isn't going to stop guys who are wanting guns to commit crimes with. It may be stating the obvious, but it is a point apparently some of you don't understand... it is already illegal for a felon to own a gun. It is already illegal to knowingly sell a felon a gun. This law won't work, because it relies on people voluntarily doing the BG check. Felons and those who sell to them will just not obey this law, just like they already disobey the current ones.

I agree it is sad how many of our gun owning brethren are in favor of selling us down the river to the antis. Many of them are FFL holders and/or CCL trainers who stand to benefit financially from such an arrangement.

 

[mugsy]

I happen to agree with you here. Looks has nothing to do with whether a person is "worthy" of buying a gun or not. In fact, looks has very little to do with much of anything at all except intitial perceptions -- which more often than not are just plain old wrong ... I've met plenty of shucksters, rapists, murderers and child molesters who look perfectly "fine" ... In fact, the ones that came to mind when I saw okiebryan's post were our former Insurance Commissioner, a retired (highly decorated) military officer, an ex-OHP Trooper and a pharmacist of recent notoriety ... ...

BB,

Understood and point taken BUT be realistic - the odds are higher that if one looks and acts and dresses like a gang-banger or a hood or a low-life (in general) that that person might actually be what they dress like...or at least want to be like that or endorse it or cooperate, etc. It isn't perfect, and looking clean, straight, neat, whatever, proves nothing but it does mean you have at least not opted to proudly proclaim your love of hooligans (in the old meaning of the word)

I am a military retiree (a retired officer) - and I knew one or two fellow officers I would not want anywhere near my wife or daughters but that was relatively few compared to the random teeming masses about whom I knew nothing. I would also be a darn sight extra cautious if a person I met was clearly - by their modes of speech, ways of dressing, or way of behaving - VOLUNTARILY identifying himself as affiliated with or sympathetic to some type or criminal lifestyle.

It isn't perfect, nothing is - nor are background checks for security clearances, for example, but by weeding out the most obvious cases of trouble you at least limit, not eliminate, the probability of something bad happening.

 

[UnSafe]

FYI- You can save both sites on your smart phone to check out a buyer. Be sure to use the name as printed on their OK State license or ID. Be aware that neither site is perfect, but still pretty good.

Be sure to think through how you're going to approach the subject of a records search with a buyer as you're both standing in a parking lot between cars, as so many of us do during FTF deals. Probably best to tell of your intentions via phone ahead of time if possible. Could prevent a potentially exciting encounter.

On Demand Court Records http://www1.odcr.com/

DOC's Offender Lookup (Pretty much shows only Felons) http://docapp065p.doc.state.ok.us/servlet/page?_pageid=395&_dad=portal30&_schema=PORTAL30

 

[BadgeBunny]

BB,

Understood and point taken BUT be realistic - the odds are higher that if one looks and acts and dresses like a gang-banger or a hood or a low-life (in general) that that person might actually be what they dress like...or at least want to be like that or endorse it or cooperate, etc. It isn't perfect, and looking clean, straight, neat, whatever, proves nothing but it does mean you have at least not opted to proudly proclaim your love of hooligans (in the old meaning of the word)

I am a military retiree (a retired officer) - and I knew one or two fellow officers I would not want anywhere near my wife or daughters but that was relatively few compared to the random teeming masses about whom I knew nothing. I would also be a darn sight extra cautious if a person I met was clearly - by their modes of speech, ways of dressing, or way of behaving - VOLUNTARILY identifying himself as affiliated with or sympathetic to some type or criminal lifestyle.

It isn't perfect, nothing is - nor are background checks for security clearances, for example, but by weeding out the most obvious cases of trouble you at least limit, not eliminate, the probability of something bad happening.

I don't disagree with anything you have said, mugsy ... But, again, because of my legal background (and dealing with perfectly normal looking sociopaths on a regular basis) that I don't trust anybody ... Especially the ones who go out of their way to look perfect ... You can ask poor old GC ... I was looking him up on every database I had access to when we first met ... (No worries ... he was doing the same thing to me! LOL)

 

[Cavagan]

Well, there certainly is a double standard with the current laws, in which FFL transfers require a BG check and private sales do not. My solution is to repeal the background check requirement altogether. While we're at it, repeal the '68 GCA and the FFL transfer requirement. The background check is a prior restraint on a right. It puts a burden on millions of innocent people who aren't hurting anyone just to try to catch a few "bad apples." This means it is incredibly overbroad, and violates the rights of all those innocents. It also has a chilling effect on people exercising the right in question. We don't tolerate licenses and background checks to engage in free speech, and I don't see why we should with regard to RKBA either.

If they try to ban face to face sales, I am still going to do them... I am just going to have to be more careful about it. If its not going to stop me, it sure isn't going to stop guys who are wanting guns to commit crimes with. It may be stating the obvious, but it is a point apparently some of you don't understand... it is already illegal for a felon to own a gun. It is already illegal to knowingly sell a felon a gun. This law won't work, because it relies on people voluntarily doing the BG check. Felons and those who sell to them will just not obey this law, just like they already disobey the current ones.

I agree it is sad how many of our gun owning brethren are in favor of selling us down the river to the antis. Many of them are FFL holders and/or CCL trainers who stand to benefit financially from such an arrangement.

What you're saying is basically the point of this article I read yesterday. Preventative Law which applies to the innocent law-abiding citizen is not only grossly ineffective, it's an egregious violation of your individual rights.

(not saying I agree wholesale, just pointing out one school of thought.)

 

[okiebryan]

No one wants the bad guys getting guns, I'm betting we all agree on that. However, it's a problem not easily solved. You can count on there being legislation soon to make it more difficult for them. Private sales at gun shows is a big target right now, so you can pretty much count on something being done fairly soon.

This is kind of my point. If we were to get in front of this, then we get to decide how this is best to be accomplished, rather than waiting for someone to do it for us. to us.

I'd rather agree to requiring background checks on private gun show sales that to end up with a ban on private sales altogether.

 

[saddlebum]

I happen to agree with you here. Looks has nothing to do with whether a person is "worthy" of buying a gun or not. In fact, looks has very little to do with much of anything at all except intitial perceptions -- which more often than not are just plain old wrong ... I've met plenty of shucksters, rapists, murderers and child molesters who look perfectly "fine" ... In fact, the ones that came to mind when I saw okiebryan's post were our former Insurance Commissioner, a retired (highly decorated) military officer, an ex-OHP Trooper and a pharmacist of recent notoriety ... All of these men (with exception of our former Insurance Commissioner, I believe) are now roomies at Lexington Correctional Facility, last I heard ...

Problem is, if you wander around a gun show trying to sell a gun, well ... what else are you gonna go by?? (This is why I, personally, would NEVER sell a firearm at a gun show. Give it to any number of friends to place on their table and pay them a fee? Sure ... Let some bozo just walk up to me and say "Hey, cool gun ... What 'cha want for it?" No way ... )

ETA: GC reminds me that the "ex-OHP Trooper" "technically" was not an "OHP Trooper" when he was arrested ... so ... po-taaa-toe, po-taahhhhh-toe ...

He also points out that how the heck do you guys know when you sell a gun on the Classified here who you are dealing with ... especially in light of all the folks who no longer use OSA to "meet like-minded folks" but simply use OSA to "sell their latest acquisition for a new and improved price"?? You want that to go away? Because that's exactly what will happen if they close the "gunshow loophole" ...

i wouldn't sell a gun to you ,cause you skeer me

 

[superdave65]

Every gun show I have been to has had multiple uniformed officers present. We are already paying for their time to be there. Why not have them run the background checks for no charge for the private sales?

The uniformed officers at the gun shows are paid for by the promoter for security. The NICS bacground check is free for licensed dealers. In California you used to have to involve a dealer for a transfer. The dealer would receive it in to his books, then transfer it to the buyer. But in Kalifornia there is a fifteen day waiting period on all purchases. I suspect one of the Laws that will be pushed by the "left" will be mandatory checks on all purchases at gun shows. I personally would hate to see it, but there would be an opportunity for a dealer to make $10 or so for a few minutes work and a phone call.

 

[DavidMcmillan]

The "Gun Show Loophole" has received so much publicity in recent months, the uninformed section of the public will pick up on this report and agree that something must be done to stop these criminals from getting those bad guns. The result will end up being either the end of gun shows, or the requirement that all sales must go through an FFL at a show. That would then bring about calls to make private sales, such as between OSA members, family members or neighbors also go through the FFL process.

Gun shows have become our worse enemy. Think back to the last show you attended, and being honest, within a 25 foot radius of you, there are at least half a dozen folks that shouldn't even be allowed out in public without adult supervision, much less be allowed to own a gun. I strongly support the 2nd amendment, but there are just so many nut jobs that have given us a bad name. Somehow, we need to find a way to clean up our image, and self police our shooting community.

 

[BadgeBunny]

i wouldn't sell a gun to you ,cause you skeer me

You are smarter than the average bear, then ...