Tennessean: Private sale; also, anyone have contact with Bill Goodman re: gun show?

[mikegideon]

Well... if Brian reports it like he sees it, he can't really push the loophole idea. There won't be a bunch of seedy looking criminals hanging out in the parking lot.

Criminals are gonna get their tools, no matter what. The way to stop criminals is to lock them up and throw away the key.

[Guest ukhayes]

Brian, Gail Kerr recently did a "hit-and-run" article on this very thing. She had done some interviews with Bob Pope who, as other gun show promoters, dislike private sales at shows. Some vendors believe this takes money from their pockets when people can buy weapons at a discounted price and also avoid paying sales tax by purchasing from an individual. If a vendor feels this happens on a large enough scale, they may no longer reserve booths at certain shows.

The private sellers are usually doing so because they need money, want money for another purchase, or just did not like the weapon. Delaers typically pay 40-50% for a used weapon so they can make a decent profit. Private sale is about the only way an indiviual can recoup a reasonable amount for the weapon. Any sale I have ever been involved in, a valid Tn drivers license was exchanged whether I was buyer or seller. This is all that is required by law, as an FBI background check can not be done by an individual.

[mikegideon]

Liberal rule #1. People must be forced to do the right thing.

[Guest Geigeroo]

I sold a pistol to Greg in a parking lot once. In fact, I have done several parking lot deals, mostly trades. Don't think i've done one with someone that didn't have a permit, so I'm reasonably certain that they could pass a background check anyway

I agree with you mike but just to make you aware, I'm a nice responsible citizen who I believe would pass a private sale (he doesnt look like a bad guy) test. I have also been cleared to get my carry permit by the DOS. But TBI won't allow me to purchase because of a 2003 conviction. I'm appealing that and hope I will be cleared. Just wanted to put it out there that I could have just taken the class, got my permit and made a private purchase. Now it took a lot of work and digging through laws and a good bit of time talking with DOS, something I don't think a person with criminal intent would do, but it is very possible.

[Guest Geigeroo]

And I don't think it's a loophole I've found, just a failure to communicate between departments.

[Volzfan]

If you have a handicap tag they wave that fee.

I didn't know that!

[Volzfan]

Brian, Gail Kerr recently did a "hit-and-run" article on this very thing. She had done some interviews with Bob Pope who, as other gun show promoters, dislike private sales at shows. Some vendors believe this takes money from their pockets when people can buy weapons at a discounted price and also avoid paying sales tax by purchasing from an individual. If a vendor feels this happens on a large enough scale, they may no longer reserve booths at certain shows.

The private sellers are usually doing so because they need money, want money for another purchase, or just did not like the weapon. Delaers typically pay 40-50% for a used weapon so they can make a decent profit. Private sale is about the only way an indiviual can recoup a reasonable amount for the weapon. Any sale I have ever been involved in, a valid Tn drivers license was exchanged whether I was buyer or seller. This is all that is required by law, as an FBI background check can not be done by an individual.

I ask if they have an HCP and every sale that I have made has been to someone who has one.

[mikegideon]

I agree with you mike but just to make you aware, I'm a nice responsible citizen who I believe would pass a private sale (he doesnt look like a bad guy) test. I have also been cleared to get my carry permit by the DOS. But TBI won't allow me to purchase because of a 2003 conviction. I'm appealing that and hope I will be cleared. Just wanted to put it out there that I could have just taken the class, got my permit and made a private purchase. Now it took a lot of work and digging through laws and a good bit of time talking with DOS, something I don't think a person with criminal intent would do, but it is very possible.

Well, I sure am glad our stupid gun laws are protecting the public from you . I know a few convicted felons that could absolutely be trusted with gun ownership, and then there's Leonard Embody.

[daddyo]

Here's an example of how the typical media outlet tries to use unrelated events to push their agenda. Never mind the fact that Jared Loughner did not buy his Glock 19 at a gunshow, nor did he buy it from a private seller. Passing a law requiring private sellers to go through an FFL for the background checks would have done NOTHING to prevent Loughner from doing what he did, yet the so-called "gunshow loophole" is being dishonestly used to push gun control.

Makes me sick and is nothing but "dancing in the blood of the victims".

Tucson shooting survivors push for stricter gun laws

[Fourtyfive]

Leave your photographer at home , NO CAMERAS .........

[gregintenn]

SO did you go, Brain? If so, let's hear about your experience.

[Guest boatme99]

Wow. A professional journalist is looking here for info on a gun show? Did The Tennesseean print his obit? Has he checked the morgue files for his info?

Come on. What were you doing all those years in college?

[Lumber_Jack]

Wow. A professional journalist is looking here for info on a gun show? Did The Tennesseean print his obit? Has he checked the morgue files for his info?

Come on. What were you doing all those years in college?

Huh?

Sent from my Mom's basement

[Guest brianhaas]

SO did you go, Brain? If so, let's hear about your experience.

Yup, I went. Unfortunately, the organizers never got back to me. So I just showed up. With a photographer.

The photog they stopped from even buying a ticket. So I bought at ticket and went in.

At the door, they saw my press badge and said I couldn't come in. They were nice about it and refunded my money. Then, we started talking to folks in the parking lot (I believe it's county property, so I'm not sure there are any restrictions) and then they came out (no so kindly) and said they were calling Metro Police on us.

Sensing that it wasn't worth the trouble, even if I legally was in the right, I cut my losses and we left.

I see a few people on here are questioning my motives and the motives of the paper in writing about this. While I understand that many people well-versed in Second Amendment issues are ardent that there is no such "loophole" and, as such, no issue here, there are some significant differing of opinions on this issue in the arena. Not only that, but the general public isn't always aware of some of the complexities and nuances of such rules.

The fact of the matter is, we're at an interesting crossroads here in terms of Second Amendment issues. With the Supreme Court deciding it was an individual right, with expansions of gun rights in states like Tennessee (guns in bars, etc.), Wisconsin and other states, this is an issue ripe for public debate. Just because you think the matter is settled and you are right does not make it a dead topic to discuss.

The Loughner story cited above is a great example. That is not a case of the media pushing an agenda. That is the case of the media covering the fallout of a highly publicized incident. The victims in the case want legislation. It's no different than when I wrote about parents of dead children in Florida calling for stronger legislation on various issues. Or bicyclists here calling for harsher driving laws after bicyclists get hit.

Like the other stories I've written, I've got no bone to pick in this debate. I think it's a fascinating issue, particularly since we appear to be headed toward some interesting times when it comes to gun rights in America. Our job in the media is to get ahead of these debates and promote discussion on issues like this.

[Guest brianhaas]

I am a very conservative individual when it comes to gun laws. With that said, I believe most folks use their best judgement when selling a gun to another individual in a private sale. There is actually a lot at stake. If that person you sell to takes that gun and commits a crime, you could possibly be held partially responsible. I actually make people sign a Bill of Sale and show me an I.D. when I trade or sell a firearm. It covers my behind and makes me feel confident that individual is not a felon or criminal. You just have to use your best judgement. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck....it's a duck! If I feel that a person is possibly a "bad guy" I will not sell him a gun. Now, even if this "loop hole" is closed it will not mean anything. People will still find a way around it. A dealer is a licensed retail sales business that has to obide by federal and state regulations and taxes. Once I buy a gun it is my property and I have the right to do what I want with it. If I want to take it and smash it with a hammer it is my business, not the governments or anyone else's. It is a statistical fact that gun owners are much less likely to be victimized than non gun owners. A criminal will get a gun no matter what because other criminals will sell them that gun. If government blocks an everyday citizen from gun ownership in any way criminals will exploit that and they will prey on those same innocent individuals. The right to bear arms is paramount to keeping those dirt bags at bay. I know that is a different issue entirely, but if government closes this "loop hole" it will only lead to further and more strict gun laws in the future. This is not a loop hole at all. It is part of the liberty and freedom that was fought for throughout our countries history. It should not be taken away by anyone.

Interesting. I like your take on things. Could I use your comment for my story? While I know you're going above and beyond what a person is technically required to do in a private sale, it might prove helpful for others to hear how you handle it.

I'd just need your full name and city of residence (I assume Maryville, but I don't get paid to assume things).

[R_Bert]

Yup, I went. Unfortunately, the organizers never got back to me. So I just showed up. With a photographer.

The photog they stopped from even buying a ticket. So I bought at ticket and went in.

At the door, they saw my press badge and said I couldn't come in. They were nice about it and refunded my money. Then, we started talking to folks in the parking lot (I believe it's county property, so I'm not sure there are any restrictions) and then they came out (no so kindly) and said they were calling Metro Police on us.

Sensing that it wasn't worth the trouble, even if I legally was in the right, I cut my losses and we left.

That's too bad. I would have hoped that they responded in a kinder manner.

[DaveTN]

Yup, I went. Unfortunately, the organizers never got back to me. So I just showed up. With a photographer.

The photog they stopped from even buying a ticket. So I bought at ticket and went in.

At the door, they saw my press badge and said I couldn't come in. They were nice about it and refunded my money. Then, we started talking to folks in the parking lot (I believe it's county property, so I'm not sure there are any restrictions) and then they came out (no so kindly) and said they were calling Metro Police on us.

Sensing that it wasn't worth the trouble, even if I legally was in the right, I cut my losses and we left.

It’s a shame you were treated that way. I can see the photographer not be allowed to take pictures inside; many gun owners while claiming to be pro-gun have their tin foil hats screwed on pretty tight when it comes to anyone knowing that they own or buy guns.

They were dumbazzes for not allowing you in and then forcing you off the property. Some in the public will want to know what they had to hide. They had nothing to hide; they were just scared of you (the press).

Mayor Bloomberg’s people didn’t ask. They just went in with hidden cameras and took video of their conversations.

[East_TN_Patriot]

Hope you have an expense account.

Very true. The only thing it would really accomplish would be to outlaw the Christmas present I just gave my father-in-law, for example. Very, very few guns used in crime come from gun shows.

Here is a link to a PDF of the actual BJS report. Those stats are located on page 10 of the report.

http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ffo98.pdf

[Smith]

Yup, I went. Unfortunately, the organizers never got back to me. So I just showed up. With a photographer.

The photog they stopped from even buying a ticket. So I bought at ticket and went in.

At the door, they saw my press badge and said I couldn't come in. They were nice about it and refunded my money. Then, we started talking to folks in the parking lot (I believe it's county property, so I'm not sure there are any restrictions) and then they came out (no so kindly) and said they were calling Metro Police on us.

Sensing that it wasn't worth the trouble, even if I legally was in the right, I cut my losses and we left.

I see a few people on here are questioning my motives and the motives of the paper in writing about this. While I understand that many people well-versed in Second Amendment issues are ardent that there is no such "loophole" and, as such, no issue here, there are some significant differing of opinions on this issue in the arena. Not only that, but the general public isn't always aware of some of the complexities and nuances of such rules.

The fact of the matter is, we're at an interesting crossroads here in terms of Second Amendment issues. With the Supreme Court deciding it was an individual right, with expansions of gun rights in states like Tennessee (guns in bars, etc.), Wisconsin and other states, this is an issue ripe for public debate. Just because you think the matter is settled and you are right does not make it a dead topic to discuss.

The Loughner story cited above is a great example. That is not a case of the media pushing an agenda. That is the case of the media covering the fallout of a highly publicized incident. The victims in the case want legislation. It's no different than when I wrote about parents of dead children in Florida calling for stronger legislation on various issues. Or bicyclists here calling for harsher driving laws after bicyclists get hit.

Like the other stories I've written, I've got no bone to pick in this debate. I think it's a fascinating issue, particularly since we appear to be headed toward some interesting times when it comes to gun rights in America. Our job in the media is to get ahead of these debates and promote discussion on issues like this.

People question your motives because you work for the beast that has targeted and intentionally petitioned against the fundamental right we exercise and most other beliefs I hold both politically and morally. Don't take it personally, but trust has to be gained and one guy who may be fair is still subject to the authority of the Tennessean which has lost ALL trust with me and many like me. Hope your story goes well and you can turn that trust back around, but it will be a long time before I visit the Tennessean website or accept any product from that company. in fact, all the free papers they keep throwing in my driveway I have been collecting and intend to return them in mass at some point.

[mikegideon]

Interesting. I like your take on things. Could I use your comment for my story? While I know you're going above and beyond what a person is technically required to do in a private sale, it might prove helpful for others to hear how you handle it.

I'd just need your full name and city of residence (I assume Maryville, but I don't get paid to assume things).

I think the majority of this crowd feels the same way. None of us like criminals, and certainly don't want to contribute to their efforts.

[daddyo]

The fact of the matter is, we're at an interesting crossroads here in terms of Second Amendment issues. With the Supreme Court deciding it was an individual right, with expansions of gun rights in states like Tennessee (guns in bars, etc.), Wisconsin and other states, this is an issue ripe for public debate. Just because you think the matter is settled and you are right does not make it a dead topic to discuss.

Brian, the very fact that you refer to the law as "guns in bars" indicates to me that you have a bias that is typical of the media. The bill had nothing to do with carrying in "bars", and everything to do with allowing law-abiding citizens to be able to protect themselves and their families while eating in a restaurant that serves alcohol (provided they do not drink, of course).

Gail Kerr's hit pieces on that bill constantly referred to it as the "guns-in-bars" bill, which was a misnomer and went a LONG way in poisoning the general public's opinion about it, which we know was based on emotions and not fact. I believe that was the media's intent and they were almost successful in getting the bill defeated.

I wrote Ms. Kerr a couple of times asking her to provide facts for her assertions, and I was ignored. That told me everything I needed to know.

Edited January 17, 2012 by DaddyO

[Oh Shoot]

...The bill had nothing to do with carrying in "bars",...

Except that you can now carry in bars and not just restaurants. You know, those places that serve booze but not food.

- OS

[mikegideon]

Except that you can now carry in bars and not just restaurants. You know, those places that serve booze but not food.

- OS

Yeah, but nobody knows about that, or we would have had all those killings they predicted. It's obvious to me that nobody is carrying in bars.

[Guest Sgt. Joe]

Except that you can now carry in bars and not just restaurants. You know, those places that serve booze but not food.

- OS

Yep, that Loony-Tunes Judge should have just left the original law alone.

It still dont seem very logical to me how a law can be passed, vetoed, over-ridden and placed on the books only to have ONE person's opinion toss the whole thing.

I wonder how that Judge feels about the whole thing now, other than the Gun-Buster signs it seems that her interference with what the "people" clearly wanted has back-fired on her. They called it the "guns in bars" law so much that it became just that.

As for our OP, I guess that trying to be a fair and unbiased reporter in these days and times is one tough, if not impossible job. The industry in which they work is steady working against them and I dont know of anyone who actually trusts the media anymore. A tough job indeed.

[UncleJak]

I wish Brian could have got inside and seen for himself. How is he supposed to be unbiased if he cannot even get in the door and see things for himself....