If there were no gunshow loophole, then you wouldn't be so strongly opposed to closing it now would you?
The concern is that Congress may only regulate interstate commerce; that's why they can require gun dealers in interstate commerce to get an FFL which requires background checks. When a father gives his rifle to a daughter, or a grandson inherits a rifle from his grandfather, or a man loans his rifle to his boyfriend for a hunting trip, that is not interstate commerce. Closing the "gunshow loophole" is the idea that non-gun dealers must also get a federal license to sell or transfer guns, even if they only have one.
Unless SCOTUS has reversed
Wickard v. Filburn when I wasn't looking, those examples of yours all constitute interstate commerce. You'd be on far firmer ground sticking to the separation of powers issue you raised than on whether transfers of property constitute interstate commerce. That said, closing the gun show loophole isn't about restricting transfers of single guns but those of multiples by people who are acting as dealers without registering as such because they don't use a fixed location of business.
Poll
