-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
"Gun show loophole" in NH?
- Thread starter EcHo
- Start date
And would a simple "Hey man, how much were you looking for for that nice rifle over there?" count as conspiring or trying to talk the NH resident into breaking the law?
That's a painfully obvious fact that evaded me while I was writing my hypothetical situation. I guess the point I was trying to make is that the seller would allow the transaction to continue because they didn't know the buyer was a convicted felon, and had no way of finding out.
namedpipes
NES Member
Yeah, it's a little like saying there is a speeding "loophole" on the highway if you don't actually get CAUGHT speeding...
groundscrapers
NES Member
Im going to start the new campaign. Stop the speeding loophole. Mabey I can get MADD involved and make it the stop the speeding while drinking loophole lol.
strangenh
NES Member
Bingo.
Ask yourself this: in a sting operation, you say that to an undercover officer at a gun show. When you pull out the cash but can't produce NH ID, do you think you'll be up for solicitation of a felony or not?
There are way too many laws layered here for this little Socratic exchange, which is starting to verge on legal advice-giving, so I'm going to bow out now. You may want to visit a law school and have a chat with a crim law professor, or seek advice from an attorney in MA or NH for the full working out of all your questions and angles upon angles.
Last edited:
Entertaining read... and total FAIL.
I hope this fool get investigated and thrown out of Umass.
But, he wont... he did it for the children. He gets a pass.
I would like to hear the official word from out NES attorneys on wether he broke the law or not since he did not return with the shotgun.
I hope this fool get investigated and thrown out of Umass.
But, he wont... he did it for the children. He gets a pass.
I would like to hear the official word from out NES attorneys on wether he broke the law or not since he did not return with the shotgun.
He can't even argue that he is taking an unbiased stance:
These are the first few groups he belongs too:
"The Brady Campaign Discussion Group, Enough Violence in Springfield, UMass Democrats, Renew the Assault Weapons Ban, & Support for other Sensible Gun Control"
Mike
These are the first few groups he belongs too:
"The Brady Campaign Discussion Group, Enough Violence in Springfield, UMass Democrats, Renew the Assault Weapons Ban, & Support for other Sensible Gun Control"
Mike
I too saw this article in the collegian this morning. Its general effect on me was the elevation of my blood pressure and the assurance that I would not read any more of the edition's articles. I got to thinking that I should write a response as the author had beseeched, but I quickly came to my senses and realized it was liberal propoganda in a newpaper that's only fit for use as toilet-paper.
But I've got to say, boy am I glad to see this up on the forums with you guys tearing that tool a new one! I won't write a response to the article, but it would be awesome to see one that completely debunks it and begs for the end of the "speeding loophole!"
But I've got to say, boy am I glad to see this up on the forums with you guys tearing that tool a new one! I won't write a response to the article, but it would be awesome to see one that completely debunks it and begs for the end of the "speeding loophole!"
The Op-ed pieces in it are usually pretty well balanced actually, a lot more than I would have thought anyway. But generally speaking, college papers aren't that great, and this is no exception.
Mike
Mike
This is the response I plan on submitting to the Collegian to the ridiculousness. There is a lot more I wanted to include, but couldn't due to size limitations. We are restricted to 550 words and I have 548.
"I am writing this editorial in response to Daniel Entrikin’s article “How a student bought a gun without a license”. I would like to start by saying that I agree with Mr. Entrikin’s opinion that something has to be done to reduce the number of gun crimes committed in this country. However, I believe Mr. Entrikin has vastly inflated the number of Americans who die each year from gun violence. In his article, Mr. Entrikin cited the Department of Justice’s statistics that showed 11,346 gun-related deaths in 2005. What Mr. Entrikin failed to cite was the Center for Disease Control and Prevention statistics that attribute 55% of those gun-related deaths in 2005 to suicide.
Mr. Entrikin stated that “the same sale that is illegal at a gun store is completed easily and legally at a gun show.” This was in reference to the hypothetical situation of an “escaped mental patient” who could go to a gun show and “legally” buy a gun. The claim was that since private sellers are not required to conduct background checks on the buyers, the escaped mental patient could buy the gun legally. What I find interesting about this claim is that Mr. Entrikin himself stated earlier that “Persons convicted of a felony or involuntarily committed to a mental institution are among those that cannot legally own guns.” If persons involuntarily committed to a mental institution cannot legally own guns, then how can they legally buy a gun from a private seller? They can’t. By even attempting to buy a gun the mental patient is committing a crime and the transaction cannot legally take place. Mr. Entrikin goes on to say that “The laws are often broken by private sellers…” If laws are being broken by private sellers, how are more laws going to change the behavior of those same sellers? We already have laws on the books that prohibit felons and mental patients from so much as holding a gun, so what we need is more enforcement rather than more laws. If private sellers are transferring guns to out of state buyers or mental patients, laws are being broken. There is no “legal loophole” here.
With regards to Mr. Entrikin’s escapade to New Hampshire in an attempt to purchase a rifle at a gun show, I have to say that the only thing he proved was that if laws are broken then anyone can buy a gun. A federal felony was committed by the man/woman who sold Mr. Entrikin his rifle, and I am shocked that Mr. Entrikin would knowingly assist in the commission of a felony. Federal law prohibits the private sale or transfer of any type of gun between the residents of two different states. It also prohibits anyone from bringing a gun privately purchased across state lines back into their home state. It is for this reason that there is no legal “loophole” allowing Massachusetts residents to travel to New Hampshire to buy guns. In light of these clearly stated federal laws, I do not see how Mr. Entrikin’s claim that “easy access to guns is but a short drive away” is valid. If several federal and state laws were to be broken then I agree it is possible, but there is no legal way for it to happen."
Any suggestions?
"I am writing this editorial in response to Daniel Entrikin’s article “How a student bought a gun without a license”. I would like to start by saying that I agree with Mr. Entrikin’s opinion that something has to be done to reduce the number of gun crimes committed in this country. However, I believe Mr. Entrikin has vastly inflated the number of Americans who die each year from gun violence. In his article, Mr. Entrikin cited the Department of Justice’s statistics that showed 11,346 gun-related deaths in 2005. What Mr. Entrikin failed to cite was the Center for Disease Control and Prevention statistics that attribute 55% of those gun-related deaths in 2005 to suicide.
Mr. Entrikin stated that “the same sale that is illegal at a gun store is completed easily and legally at a gun show.” This was in reference to the hypothetical situation of an “escaped mental patient” who could go to a gun show and “legally” buy a gun. The claim was that since private sellers are not required to conduct background checks on the buyers, the escaped mental patient could buy the gun legally. What I find interesting about this claim is that Mr. Entrikin himself stated earlier that “Persons convicted of a felony or involuntarily committed to a mental institution are among those that cannot legally own guns.” If persons involuntarily committed to a mental institution cannot legally own guns, then how can they legally buy a gun from a private seller? They can’t. By even attempting to buy a gun the mental patient is committing a crime and the transaction cannot legally take place. Mr. Entrikin goes on to say that “The laws are often broken by private sellers…” If laws are being broken by private sellers, how are more laws going to change the behavior of those same sellers? We already have laws on the books that prohibit felons and mental patients from so much as holding a gun, so what we need is more enforcement rather than more laws. If private sellers are transferring guns to out of state buyers or mental patients, laws are being broken. There is no “legal loophole” here.
With regards to Mr. Entrikin’s escapade to New Hampshire in an attempt to purchase a rifle at a gun show, I have to say that the only thing he proved was that if laws are broken then anyone can buy a gun. A federal felony was committed by the man/woman who sold Mr. Entrikin his rifle, and I am shocked that Mr. Entrikin would knowingly assist in the commission of a felony. Federal law prohibits the private sale or transfer of any type of gun between the residents of two different states. It also prohibits anyone from bringing a gun privately purchased across state lines back into their home state. It is for this reason that there is no legal “loophole” allowing Massachusetts residents to travel to New Hampshire to buy guns. In light of these clearly stated federal laws, I do not see how Mr. Entrikin’s claim that “easy access to guns is but a short drive away” is valid. If several federal and state laws were to be broken then I agree it is possible, but there is no legal way for it to happen."
Any suggestions?
If you watch the video, he admits that he couldn't get a seller to sell him a handgun, or, say, anything a criminal might actually want. All he could get was an ancient bird-gun.
I think the strongest point is that the scenarios he's talking about, breaking the law and getting away with it, isn't a loophole. It's a felony.
EDIT; I'd suggest you don't say "you find it interesting" but be direct and say "this isn't true because" or "this is misleading because".
I think the strongest point is that the scenarios he's talking about, breaking the law and getting away with it, isn't a loophole. It's a felony.
EDIT; I'd suggest you don't say "you find it interesting" but be direct and say "this isn't true because" or "this is misleading because".
Last edited:
strangenh
NES Member
Ok, one more bit before I retire from the field. Reptile's comment asking for a yea/nay answer makes me think the focus is way too narrow. As homework, I'd like to invite all readers to contemplate how 18USC2 might apply to the intentional interstate buyer in such a scenario. Read the historical notes at the link; they are illuminating.
A common trend with easy access to statutory materials over the Internet is to assume that reading one little corner of statutory law gives a "yes/no" as to whether conduct was or was not legal. It's not - nor has it ever been - that simple. Many principles of criminal law remain or have been created in common law form, and many have been codified or replaced through statutory material in other parts of the code. In addition, there is often the layering of federal, state and, varying state by state, local legislative authority.
A common trend with easy access to statutory materials over the Internet is to assume that reading one little corner of statutory law gives a "yes/no" as to whether conduct was or was not legal. It's not - nor has it ever been - that simple. Many principles of criminal law remain or have been created in common law form, and many have been codified or replaced through statutory material in other parts of the code. In addition, there is often the layering of federal, state and, varying state by state, local legislative authority.
Horrible
NES Member
Well-written. The only suggestion that I would offer is to incorporate NamedPipes speeding analogy to illustrate the point that breaking the law is not a "loophole".
Please keep us updated on this thread as to what transpires.
namedpipes
NES Member
I'd cc the dean (or whatever they're called at UMass), the local tv and print media, teh COP in Amherst and the AG to boot. Of course since the law was broken for the "right" reasons it won't matter...
I think this lobbying to get this student expelled/arrested/charged is a little much. As much as I hate to say it college is a time for people to make mistakes and try to make a statement and/or their voice heard. Pretty much any column stands to strike a chord with some group of people. It's unfortunate that gun owners and 2A supporters are the minority and often misunderstood in Massachusetts, but attacking everyone who doesn't hold the same opinion isn't appropriate in all circumstances. If people of our perspective feel the need to defend our position to a college paper, at the very least let it remain among students at this University, there are a handful of us here.
I actually have to give the kid props for going to the lengths he did to get this story, I just wished his analysis of his experience was actually accurate. IE: Couldn't get a handgun, Had a hard time getting any gun, When he finally did get a gun existing laws were already broken. But alas, he has a view to push fourth. He is also wasting a lot of energy on something that isn't a problem, but it's his time.
Mike
I actually have to give the kid props for going to the lengths he did to get this story, I just wished his analysis of his experience was actually accurate. IE: Couldn't get a handgun, Had a hard time getting any gun, When he finally did get a gun existing laws were already broken. But alas, he has a view to push fourth. He is also wasting a lot of energy on something that isn't a problem, but it's his time.
Mike
He did commit a crime. You can not do a ftf across state lines. Period. Him not bringing it into mass has nothing to do with it.
Could you site the specific statute that prohibits the buyer from doing a ftf across state lines? As far as I have been able to tell it is only a crime to SELL ftf to a resident of another state, not to PURCHASE.
A person may only acquire a firearm within the person’s own State, except that he or she may purchase or otherwise acquire a rifle or shotgun, in person, at a licensee’s premises in any State, provided the sale complies with State laws applicable in the State of sale and the State where the purchaser resides. A person may borrow or rent a firearm in any State for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes.
[18 U.S.C. 922(a)(3) and (5), 922(b)(3), 27 CFR 478.29 and 478.30]
At the very least he falls under the section of illegal possession in ma as he doesn't have a fid or ltc.
[18 U.S.C. 922(a)(3) and (5), 922(b)(3), 27 CFR 478.29 and 478.30]
At the very least he falls under the section of illegal possession in ma as he doesn't have a fid or ltc.
Those regulations you cited do not say anything about PURCHASING firearms in another state. They only say that no person may ftf transfer a firearm to someone who does not live in that state and that no person may transport firearms purchased out of state ftf back into their home state. The person in question here did not bring the gun back into MA, so he did not violate the transportation law. He also did not sell or transfer a gun to a resident of another state (although the person who sold him the gun did) so there is no crime there.
Arguably, he turned the gun into a NH cop, and there is no exception made for LEOs in those statutes. Technically, by handing the cop the gun he knowingly transferred the gun to a resident of another state. I'm sure he will never be charged for turning a gun in to a cop even though that cop is a NH resident since that would be completely asinine.
EDIT: Since the gun was never brought into MA, he did not violate possession laws in MA either.
Response to My Article
Tis I! The masked man himself. Coincidentally, I asked about this very gun show on this forum.
I liked the letter to the editor. I encourage you to send it. I could maybe talk to Collegian staff about printing it. You bring up some valid points. I'd re-iterate my point about the over-21 Virginia man with a .38 on my campus. If he is charged with a felony, he can still buy the same handgun at a show in his home state. A criminal background check would stop the sale. His knowledge that he is a prohibited person will not stop the sale. To allow that sale to take place is wrong. His possession of the firearm after the fact would be illegal, but I'd rather not cross my fingers he's arrested in another traffic stop.
Enjoying the discussion I've prompted. Admittedly, the legal language relevant to much of this is pretty murky. Check out the 'known persons' clause on private NH sellers.
Cheers,
Daniel Entrikin
Tis I! The masked man himself. Coincidentally, I asked about this very gun show on this forum.
I liked the letter to the editor. I encourage you to send it. I could maybe talk to Collegian staff about printing it. You bring up some valid points. I'd re-iterate my point about the over-21 Virginia man with a .38 on my campus. If he is charged with a felony, he can still buy the same handgun at a show in his home state. A criminal background check would stop the sale. His knowledge that he is a prohibited person will not stop the sale. To allow that sale to take place is wrong. His possession of the firearm after the fact would be illegal, but I'd rather not cross my fingers he's arrested in another traffic stop.
Enjoying the discussion I've prompted. Admittedly, the legal language relevant to much of this is pretty murky. Check out the 'known persons' clause on private NH sellers.
Cheers,
Daniel Entrikin
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2007
- Messages
- 11,135
- Likes
- 1,600
it says you can only acquire a gun from a licensee (FFL) in your home state, so he did break the law. You can buy rifles and shotguns from a FFL in any state, provided it follows all applicable state laws in the state of transaction and the buyer's home state. You CANNOT buy or acquire a gun of any sort from a person in another state without using an FFL (or having a C+R for C+R stuff).
If someone is willing to buy a gun illegally, do you really think they care how they get it? Banning private person to person sales isn't going to solve any problems. Criminals will continue to get guns no matter how many laws are passed. Enforce the laws we have, don't invent new ones that only serve to restrict the freedoms of the rest of the law abiding citizenry (who make up the vast majority of gun owners in this country).
namedpipes
NES Member
If clowncakes was a NH resident purchasing a long arm in a lawful f2f transaction then no law was broken and there is no loophole.
If he fits one of the profiles where a law was broken on his part or the NH resident, then a law was broken and there is no loophole.
So there isn't a loophole, gun show or not.
Clowncakes needs to do better research.
If he fits one of the profiles where a law was broken on his part or the NH resident, then a law was broken and there is no loophole.
So there isn't a loophole, gun show or not.
Clowncakes needs to do better research.
This old rag is so tired it's absurd.
Most of the crap they bitch about is already illegal. Making it "more illegal" by forcing dealer transfers for everything will not fix the perceived "problem".
All this crap is, is a canard to ban all private sales of firearms. That's the end game here. They completely ignore the fact that most crime guns do not originate from gun shows, among other things.
-Mike
Most of the crap they bitch about is already illegal. Making it "more illegal" by forcing dealer transfers for everything will not fix the perceived "problem".
All this crap is, is a canard to ban all private sales of firearms. That's the end game here. They completely ignore the fact that most crime guns do not originate from gun shows, among other things.
-Mike
The SELLER already broke the law, and your solution is to enact ANOTHER law?
![[rolleyes]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/042.gif "Roll Eyes [rolleyes]")
FIFY
Can you provide a cite? The SELLER is in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(a)(5), but I can't find a federal statute that puts the PURCHASER in violation.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2007
- Messages
- 11,135
- Likes
- 1,600
SO, yes, what he woudl be doing is illegal. There is no loophole there. He would be breaking the law ALREADY! What you propose is to make it illegal to break the law?! That is what it sounds like!
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2007
- Messages
- 11,135
- Likes
- 1,600
Similar threads
