Pls let us know about this supposed loophole we're missing out on...

LOOPHOLE:  An ambiguity or inadequacy in a law or set of rules that can be exploited.

Nobody is using any ambiguity to avoid background checks.  The laws are EXTREMELY detailed and clear as to who is required to undergo a background check and when.

When the laws were written, the INTENT was to require background checks of new handgun buyers.  period.

States like Hawaii and others extended that to include all firearms, whether purchased from an FFL or a private seller.

Go to the Gun Show at the Blaisdell, and try to buy a rifle without a current long gun permit.  Go to anyone selling a pistol that isn't exempt from the permitting laws and see if you can do cash & carry.

If some states on the mainland decide to follow the actual federal laws and not require permits, registration, and background checks for long guns and in-state, private handgun sales, that is not a loophole.  That is called following the law as written and intended.

Calling an act you don't think is right, and that should be included in a particular law, does not a loophole make.  There is absolutely nothing ambiguous about the law as written.

call it what you want, basically mauidog spelled it out for you. its a beautiful thing.  you need more, should be on pm.

Maybe the initials BS stand for something............

call it what you want, basically mauidog spelled it out for you. its a beautiful thing.  you need more, should be on pm.

It's a slippery slope. 

First, background checks for only new handgun purchases.  Since most crimes are committed with handguns, surely no one will reject this "common sense" requirement.

What?  Checks on new handgun buyers isn't working?  Crime still happening with handguns?    Now ALL FLL and PRIVATE handgun sales require a background investigation.

Holly cow!  Now 4-5 crimes are happening with AR-15s!  We need to start doing backgrounders on all FFL and Private LONG GUNS sold, too.

Still crime is happening?  AMMUNITION!  Let's do background checks on all ammunition sales.  The person might have passed his firearm investigation years before.  Ammo is purchased more often, so this will catch the whack jobs who are buying ammo to shoot up schools and malls.

Ammunition checks aren't preventing gun crimes?  ANNUAL BACKGROUND CHECKS FOR ALL GUN OWNERS, INCLUDING PSYCH EVALS!!

Crap!  None of these background checks and psychological tests are catching the CRIMINALS!  How many background checks does it take to find the people most likely to go Rambo out there???

The answer is pretty obvious when you look at the PROBLEM, and quit trying to push an AGENDA.  Criminals do not submit to background checks.  No matter how difficult you make it for the law abiding gun buyers, the criminals find guns through theft, black market, loaners from friends/gang members, straw purchasers (girl friends and parents), and on and on. 

Having said that, the laws have to punish anyone who knowingly transfers a firearm to someone twho is ineligible to possess one.  Whether through negligence (leaving it out where it's easily stolen) or purposeful, the laws should be strict and STRICTLY ENFORCED.  We have a market for illegal drugs just like illegal guns.  When you find a solution that really stops one, it ought to work for the other, too. 

Until we do find that solution, making it more and more difficult for legal gun owners to purchase guns or ammo is not a solution. Making guns UNAVAILABLE to criminals is the solution, and as we all know background checks don't catch every at-risk person.  Background checks only catch obvious read flags.  They in no way guarantee a gun buyer will not commit a gun crime.

BTW, gun show sales only account for less than 4% of gun transfers in the country.

Only 2 percent of criminal guns come from gun shows.

Straw purchases have been federal felonies since 1968.

3 LIKES

365 DISLIKES   

Both this Oxygen Thief and Aberchrombie are both neck deep in the eligibility scandal ... I know.. everyone thinks there is no there; there.. Just wait...

It appears Like/Dislike has been disabled for his Youtube vid... Guess his political team can't stand to see how unpopular his stand is, and I'm sure they don't want his supporters to see as well.

Well he's certainly never had my vote, no way in hell he'll have it now...

Boomah 

 This says a lot about his team. "Comments are disabled for this video."    I'm not sure if anyone said it, but I think his agenda is national now, not so much Hawaii state laws. BHO parrot.

They are.......As long as you agree with them. If you don't you're a racist, hater, bigot, homophobe. 

+Infinity. Then they go to Hollywood/CNN and make propaganda movie or news feature about the issue

Ratings are disabled for the video lol

Ratings are disabled for the video lol

That's their legal option in posting videos on Youtube. I didn't know they could remove the ratings that had been left up to the point of disabling, but they were able to. (Thanks to everyone who took the time to view it and rate it!  ) It's probably disturbing to them to see that the ratings against their lies are 100 to 1, meaning that their supporters are minimally interested in what their campaign actually promotes, while those opposed are active and vociferous.

I also watched the two other campaign ads they have posted on Youtube (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCqy3X-eY2yNorf1mxcFLXQg), in one of which Schatz repeats the lies about women being significantly underpaid for the same work as men... JFC, Christina Hoff Sommers clearly showed those statistics to be lies back in 1994 in her book "Who Stole Feminiism?". And nothing has really changed. And they still repeat the same lies 20 years later. What I found out is that even though it doesn't say "ratings disabled", and it shows the few ratings that have been made, MY RATING ability has been disabled! It's like Huffington Post or Moms Demand Action where all the "negative" (aka disagreeing) comments are removed, and you, as someone "disagreeable", are automatically banned/blocked from leaving any more comments. That's their right, or privilege actually, but I just wish they'd quit pretending that they are "reasonable" and welcome civil discussion, because they aren't and they don't. Of course, what's one more lie?

Did anyone notice that when he quotes the bogus "40% of gun sales occur without a background check" that he doesn't quote the actual article from which that stat was pulled, but rather quoted what BHO said?

Plausible deniability should the stat ever be questioned??

Did anyone notice that when he quotes the bogus "40% of gun sales occur without a background check" that he doesn't quote the actual article from which that stat was pulled, but rather quoted what BHO said?

Plausible deniability should the stat ever be questioned??

nope
just a direct suckup to the golden child

Did anyone notice that when he quotes the bogus "40% of gun sales occur without a background check" that he doesn't quote the actual article from which that stat was pulled, but rather quoted what BHO said?

Plausible deniability should the stat ever be questioned??

Utterances from the Lightworker shall not be questioned.

Similar to papal/scriptural inerrancy/infallibility. if he/it says it, it is, ipso facto, true.

Just ask his followers, er, constituents.

 

Plus, Schatz knows that saying the word "Obama" garners him about another 50,000 votes from the people that go into a trance and obey when they hear that word. See above.

ratings just got disabled.  what a snake.

I bet you she would beat Schatz if she was running against him!

I'd vote for her. 

Lt. Col?  What's up with the cup-and-saucer grip though?  And her grip is kinda low.... 

I bet you she would beat Schatz if she was running against him!

Probably would beat him in a fight, but in an election? Hardly. Ernst is far to the right of Lingle, who, when she ran for Senate in 2012 against Hirono, got a grand total of 37% (62% for Hirono) of Hawaii's citizens/voters to vote for her (And Lingle had defeated Hirono for Governor in 2002 51% to 47%... not a good trend.). Ernst may have a chance in Iowa, but we're not in Iowa Toto. Which really sucks if you'd prefer to be represented  in the United States Senate by someone who believed in upholding the Constitution.

I bet you she would beat Schatz if she was running against him!

I'm always wary about former military running in civie leadership....my opinion.

I'm always wary about former military running in civie leadership....my opinion.

Yeah.  Hillary, Bill, and Obama have done great things for our nation's foreign policies and  use of the military around the world with their keen civilian, no military experience insight.

.