I've been going to gun shows since 1981; I've purchased many guns there up until the past 5 years, as there are fewer shows; I always had to fill out a Fed form 4473, and when NICS came in had that on top of the IL check. Some individual private sellers who had, say, a collector gun to sell but couldn't get a fair price at wholesale from one of the FFL holders would occasionally sell to another individual looking for that particular item, but such has been exceedingly rare, in my experience. Most criminals either steal the (illegal), have someone else buy them (illegal for both) or obtain them from another criminal in exchange for cash, drugs, goods, services (all illegal). Laws do NOT affect the criminals... they are criminals!

Truth lives here.

I'm always amused/annoyed when such conversations turn to the word "compromise".. not mentioned in the above post, but apropos. The concept of compromise that I learned of in school was a give-and-take of proportionality; what passes for compromise ongun control boils down to "how little can we gun owners sacrifice for no gain THIS time". There was no way restrictions were going to be lifted, or that concealed-carry reciprocity would fly; anyone passing through LaGuardia with a gun in their checked baggage would still be a felon.

So let me get this straight... the author thinks that the best solution to national tragedies is to make knee-jerk decisions on short notice with little concern for the potential unintended consequences, such as we have seen under the ill-named Patriot Act that deprives citizens of freedoms and privacy. Am I right so far?

I happen to be one of those who is routinely delayed at the "Instant" check, usually for a week or so, as there are bandits out there who fir some part of my name, age, whatever. That goes into the "denied purchase" column. I remain convinced that incrementalism is at play; the more difficult it becomes to own, load, shoot, carry, or otherwise use a firearm, the less inclined one is to own one. Add to that the schools systematically taking apart the Constitution and BOR, the perfect storm of lost liberties is upon a generation not far away.

These "background checks" are merely a means of transporting amendments that would do what Dhuck Schumer, DiFI and the rest of the gun-banning crowd intend; a last-minute, you-can't-find-out-what's-in-the-bill melee' of magazine restrictions, registrations of guns and individuals for later confiscation (see NY this past week), etc. What other right must one prove oneself to be "approved by Chuck Schumer" in order to enjoy? That is the fundamental problem; these pre-suppose guilt, antithetical to our nation.

Luscious Lars mentions that lying on a Federal form 4473 is a felony...like what Gabbie Giffords spouse did when he did his little self-appointed "sting" operation. Mr. Kelly, to which precinct will you turn yourself in for prosecution? Oh, I see, you're simply an uninformed astronaut. Yeah. Right.

Not "'Til death do us part" any longer; it's _-until you get fat, or until something better comes along, or until you P#ss me off, or any of a host of reasons. Yes, the "instant gratification" reasons; commitment is a joke to far too many people..... this from a man still married to his first wife at 26 years and growing.

I haven't read the comments; too many of them for the little time I have. That said, NAMBLA must be lapping this up!

Without regard to the content/comments of other respondents, I find particular interest in the point of the FTC issue. That's patently obvious, isn't it?

Yep, there was one used in a murder.... by a cop.