I'm not seeing a distinction between those two as you put it. If you can skirt the rules, you have a loophole. If criminals can use that loophole to commit crimes under the radar, that's still a loophole. The way you're putting it is to emphasize the legality, but it's not a legality issue so much as it's a process. You can do something illegal through legal means. That's something a loophole allows for.
But it is a legality issue if you are talking about laws and instituting laws. Which we are. If someone broke the law how can it be a loophole? It can't be. They might get away with it. But that doesn't change the fact that they committed a crime.
Yeah, I know a fair amount about expungement. It's not easy and not that common for a lot of crimes. It should be unnecessary. You need a better rehabilitation program and then restore a person's Rights automatically.
Except for the simple fact that such is not the case. An individual cannot take possession of a firearm from a federally licensed dealer and leave the premises until after the background check has already been completed. If the individual has a disqualifying criminal conviction, the sale cannot be completed as their information will be in the system and deny the sale. As a citizen of the united states, there is no excuse on the part of yourself for not knowing such information. Factually incorrect. The question at hand pertains exclusively to murder. That being the deliberate, unjustified killing of another. If such an act is indeed committed, does that fact mean there is a loophole in the prohibition against murder in need of being addressed? For the simple fact that the act in question, be it murder, or the acquisition and/or possession of a firearm by a prohibited individual is a felony offense. It is not the result of some legal loophole being exploited, but rather it is the result of someone simply not caring about the law, and disregarding the rules of society.
Factually incorrect. The law in question never addressed private sales, because it was never intended to address private sales. The legislation in question that required background checks on firearm purchases focused exclusively on federally licensed firearm dealers, who are engaged in the commercial business of selling firearms directly to the public as a means of employment. It is the commercial business the law was intended to regulate, not the secondhand private sale of already owned property.
If an individual commits first degree murder, but it is not discovered they committed the act due to the body not being found, or there being no way of tracing the act back to said individual, is that a loophole? What illegal acts can be committed through legal channels?
Yeah that would be a loophole. If you have to produce a dead body for murder, and you hide the body away that's a loophole for getting away with murder. What illegal acts can be committed through legal channels?[/QUOTE] Dylan Roof. "On that Thursday, April 16, Roof picked up the Glock because his background check hadn’t been resolved — a legal provision that would become known as the “Charleston loophole.”" https://www.postandcourier.com/chur...cle_452b95ea-0705-11e8-8bc9-8723f84ce9dd.html
" "There is a huge loophole in federal law, but it isn't for gun shows," UCLA law professor Adam Winkler said. "What is called the gun-show loophole is misnamed. It should be the ‘private sale loophole’ or the ‘background check loophole.’ ... The reason people talk about gun shows is that they are easily accessible marketplaces for people who don't want to be subject to a background check to find non-licensed gun sellers." Gabriel Chin, a professor at UC Davis School of Law, told PolitiFact that there is a loophole in the sense that it has not been clear how many firearms one has to sell before one is required to obtain a license. "Remember, gun shows are mainly on weekends, so there is room for someone to claim ‘this is a hobby or part of my collection’ when it is also a substantial business," Chin said. Gary Kleck, a criminologist at Florida State University, said the term "gun show loophole" is misleading if it implies that the law didn’t intend to exempt some sellers. "The term ‘loophole’ suggests that it was a minor, unintended flaw in the design of the law, something inadvertently overlooked by lawmakers, when it was actually the very intentional result of a carefully worked-out political compromise between those who wanted background checks on all gun acquisitions and those who did not want any at all," he said." https://www.politifact.com/article/2016/jan/07/politifact-sheet-3-things-know-about-gun-show-loop/
Think of it like schrodinger's cat. Is the person buying the gun legally allowed to do it? Normally we would say that the person is legally and illegally buying a gun, but because we have to assume innocent until proven guilty, the person legally bought a gun. Hence why the felon walking out of a gun store with a gun has to be considered legally purchased a gun until proven otherwise.
So it is considered a loophole if an individual can physically commit a crime, because the law did not serve to physically prevent the crime from being committed? It is not a loophole. Rather it is a feature of the law to ensure the FBI, which performs the background check through the national instant check system, cannot indefinitely suspend the firearms purchase on the basis that it is trying to find a legal reason to deny the purchase. Is the FBI is lax in its duties and responsibilities, that is not a sufficient reason for punishing the law abiding public. There is simply no legal, legitimate reason for a legal firearms purchase to be put on pause for a period of six months or more, simply because no disqualifying information has yet been found by the authorities. The time limit is an incentive for the FBI to actually do its job. Even if the incident relating to Dylan Roof could indeed be described as a legal loophole, did it allow for his subsequent murders to be considered legal as a technicality?
Nope, because it wasn't a crime in the first place. A crime isn't a crime until proven otherwise. It's how you protect a law abiding population from bureaucracy and police forces like the FBI for instance. If you need a body to be convicted of murder, you can hide the body even though it's clear the person has been killed (say for example you've been connected to hitting someone so hard they bleed out to death, and there's enough blood to indicate the person could not have survived the blow). So you've just killed someone, but can't legally be guilty of a crime. A loophole is a feature in the law that allows for something that would otherwise not be allowed. You've just described a loophole. As for your question? I'm not sure what you mean by that, could you rephrase?
What is continually being referred to on the part of yourself as a loophole, is not a loophole. The law in question was never intended to apply to private transactions between private individuals. It was intended to apply exclusively to the commercial sale of firearms, and absolutely nothing else. Even if the private transaction of firearms between private individuals could be accurately described as a loophole, it is not something that can be addressed through legislative attempts at fixing. Even if background checks on private sales were made mandatory, there would be absolutely no way of enforcing the requirement without universal registration of every firearm in existence. Background check requirements can be enforced against federally licensed firearm dealers, as there is a record of which firearms, and subsequently which firearm serial numbers, are shipped to their fixed location of business, and all must be accounted for. The same cannot be said for firearms held by private individuals, as the vast majority of the approximately one half billion firearms currently in circulation in the united states are not registered to anyone. There is no record of who owns what, meaning a private individual cannot be legally compelled to perform a background check on prospective buyers, as there is no way of determining who owned what firearm at what point in time in history. Even if there were such a system in place, to ensure every firearm in circulation is accounted for and subject to background check requirements, it still would not make any difference. The ATF itself has stated such, multiple times. https://www.atf.gov/docs/undefined/cawebsite17183919pdf/download In the cited point of time, the latest year for which data is available, the ATF was asked by the state of California to trace some forty one thousand five hundred and twenty seven firearms that were found in the possession of criminal individuals within the state. Of that amount, the ATF determined, through running the serial numbers on the firearms, that nearly half of the total amount, some forty two percent, were originally sold within the state of California itself. The state of California requires the registration of all firearms held by private individuals without exception. No firearm can be purchased without a background check, and no firearm can be sold without a background check, not even by private individuals. All firearm purchases, regardless of commercial or a private nature, are subject to permits to purchase, and permits to own. All firearms must be stored in a secure manner, and are subject to reporting requirements if they are lost of stolen. Despite all of these requirements and countless others, nearly half of the firearms found in possession of criminal individuals, were acquired within the state of California itself. The second highest amount, a mere five percent, were traced back to the state of Arizona, where there are no such requirements on the private sale of firearms. If these firearm-related restrictions truly worked as their supporters claim, the number of illegally acquired firearms in the state of California would not even exceed one percent of the total number. It would not be physically possible for the amount to reach forty two percent of the total number. Such facts lead to only three logical conclusions to be drawn: 1. A significant number of individuals who purchased firearms in the state of California, in compliance with its firearm-related restrictions, went on to later commit crimes with their firearms. 2. The criminal element in the state of California has no problem acquiring firearms through acts of theft, despite the requirement that privately owned firearms be stored in locked safes and rendered generally inaccessible to anyone other than their legal owners. 3. Those who own firearms in the state of California have no qualms with selling firearms in an illegal manner, regardless of the legal restrictions currently in place. Whatever the reason behind such high failure rates, it does nothing to suggest firearm-related restrictions actually work.
False. Not factually incorrect, but outright false. A felon cannot legally leave a federally licensed firearms dealer in possession of a firearm from the dealer, because an individual cannot legally take possession of a firearm until after the background check has been completed. Pray tell, why is such ultimately proving to be so difficult to comprehend?
Because there are cases where what you say can't happen, has happened. I can cite Dylan Roof as when the process for the background check was not finished but he still got a gun legally when he should not have qualified because the background check wasn't finished in three days. He legally bought a gun because it's innocent until proven guilty. That's the only reasonable way you can justify even having a three day waiting period like this in the first place. What that shows is the facts on the ground are not matching what you're saying.
Either something is a crime, or it is not a crime. An illegal act cannot be considered legal simply because the illegal nature of the act has not yet been discovered. It is not a loophole. It is an intended feature of the law, to force the FBI to do its assigned duties as fast and accurately as possible. It is no different than laws that hold law enforcement officers must either bring official charges against a suspect, or release them. Law enforcement cannot hold a suspect indefinitely while searching for a legal justification for holding them. If one is to accept the hypothetical argument it was a legal loophole that allowed Dylan Roof to acquire a firearm he would have otherwise not been able to legally possess under normal circumstances, would such ultimately mean the murders that were Dylan Roof committed with the firearm could not legally be counted as acts of murder and had to be considered legal acts as a result of some technicality?
There is no loophole. The only ones who claim otherwise are those who have absolutely no understanding of how laws actually work.
Dylan Roof was never convicted of a disqualifying criminal offense that would have legally precluded him from legal firearms ownership in the first place. Therefore it is not a loophole in need of being addressed. The delay on the purchase could have lasted a year, and it still would have made no difference, as no recording of a disqualifying criminal record existed.
Yes it can because innocent until proven guilty. So what you're saying is, an intended feature of the law was created which allows for a person to purchase a gun without a background check? That's a loophole, that's an exemption to the rule. Any exemption to the rule, you need to have a background check is a loophole. I'm not a fan of citing dictionaries but would this help? " Definition of loophole (Entry 1 of 2) 1: a means of escapeespecially : an ambiguity or omission in the text through which the intent of a statute, contract, or obligation may be evaded " https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/loophole I'm not following your logic with that. They're separate crimes, or are you relying on the idea that legal gun owners can't commit crimes with guns? I'm not following. I'm going to assume moving the goal posts was your intention with that post.
" His name was run through three FBI databases: the Interstate Identification Index, a collection of rap sheets; the National Crime Information Center, which stores details on people and property; and the NICS Index, which carries documents about those already known to be prohibited from gun ownership. The search revealed a red flag: information indicating Roof, 21, might be an unlawful drug user, a prohibiting factor. He had been arrested that Feb. 28 at the Columbiana Centre mall, where Columbia officers found him with medication used to treat opioid addiction. He didn’t have a prescription." https://www.postandcourier.com/chur...cle_452b95ea-0705-11e8-8bc9-8723f84ce9dd.html
Then it is not actually a loophole, but rather outright incompetence on the part of those who are in charge of managing the system. Someone, somewhere down along the line, did not enter the relevant information into the right system, and as a result Dylan Roof was overlooked because someone in charge was not doing their job. The firearm used by Dylan Roof was purchased on the eleventh day of the month of April, whereas the mass shooting took place in June. The FBI had a period of two months to find the relevant information and initiate procedures to go about retrieving the firearm from the address on the paperwork. Yet it failed to do such.
So because there was incompetence in merging of data... he was able to legally purchase a fire arm when he might not have been able to do otherwise. Loophole. Not don't get me wrong, it doesn't say he was convicted of it. Just that this was the charge. But if this guy wasn't cleared in three days from a technical error, what does that say about felons trying to buy a gun and the system? If they can legally purchase a hand gun by waiting three days because of "incompetence", that's a loophole.
Now it is being stated, on the part of yourself, that the basis of the justice system in the united states, is a loophole? Except for the fact that it is not a loophole. Rather it is a requirement for the FBI to do its job in the most expedient and accurate manner possible, especially in the modern world where everything is interconnected through computers, and a background check can be finalized before the individual is even finished filling out the necessary forms. If the FBI cannot resolve an issue within a three day period then it is the organization that is at fault, not the individual. Incompetence on the part of the government is not a legitimate reason to punish private individuals who are simply seeking to exercise their constitutional rights. If the three day window were removed, there would be nothing serving to legally prevent the FBI from simply refusing to process anymore background check requests, and subsequently put an end to all future firearm purchases. The three day wait exists to protect the public against government corruption by elected officials. Even if the acquisition of the firearm in question was through a so-called "loophole" that made it legal, the resulting murders that followed were not a legal act to commit with the firearm. Therefore there is no loophole that was involved in the aforementioned event. Use of a firearm to further a criminal offense is a crime in itself, and the legal purchasing of a firearm will not prevent an individual from being charged with such. No moving of the goalposts has been attempted, as the only point to be made on the part of myself in this discussion, is that you simply do not have any understanding of what you are attempting to talk about.
It is not a loophole, but an included feature to prevent government corruption and incompetence from being used as an excuse to deny private individuals their constitutional rights. If the evidence used to convict an individual of a certain crime cannot later be found during the appeal process, should the courts assume the evidence used was adequate at the time and deny the appeal on that basis? If he was not convicted, then no criminal record existed to disqualify Dylan Roof from the purchase in the first place. Charges mean absolutely nothing. If mere charges were a legitimate ground for denying private individuals their constitutional rights, law enforcement could be directed to arrest anyone for whatever reason, only to let release them after the fact, and the arrest would be cited as a legal ground for prohibiting future firearm sales. Do convicted felons actually succeed in their attempts at purchasing firearms from federally licensed firearm dealers? So government should be authorized to deny the people their constitutional rights, and cite government incompetence as the legal basis for that denial? It cannot do its job properly, so the people can be made to suffer, devoid of any legal recourse? Should such be limited exclusively to firearm purchases, or should it be expanded to cover all constitutional rights equally?
Except that the law has already determined that the person buying the gun that previously committed a crime that would disbar them from obtaining a gun. If they attempt to obtain a gun then they are committing a crime. Because it is illegal for them to. The law doesn't care how someone obtains a gun. It just cares that they even attempted to obtain a gun.
