Illinois To Close Gun-Show Loophole
The House voted 89-28 to close a loophole that allows people to buy firearms at gun shows without going through the normal criminal-background check…
Background checks are already required for people buying guns at stores to ensure they don’t have a criminal record that would bar them from possessing firearms. But those checks are not conducted on purchases at gun shows. [Emphasis mine]
That’s funny, because every time I go to a gun show and buy from a FFL holder, he runs a NICS check on me, as per federal law. I guess federal law doesn’t apply to Illinois. After all, the guy that wrote this works for the AP, which has all those checks and balances and procedures and stuff in place so that they don’t print stuff that’s not true, like us bloggers do.
(And yes I’m going to flog that horse every chance I get)
May 31st, 2005 at 11:52 am
Well, Illinois government is the originator of the department of redundancy and repeated effort department. That’s why we have State Police, Secretary of State Police, and University Police (same powers as state police but different uniforms). Besides, how many points does Blago make with Daly over a hollow act that both can use to mollify their idiotic voter base?
May 31st, 2005 at 4:32 pm
Note how easily this:
magically converts into this:
Never mind that the original article didn’t say anything about FFL holders.
May 31st, 2005 at 4:43 pm
I wondered when you’d say this. The article says “[background] checks are not conducted on purchases at gun shows.” Period. Does it not?
May 31st, 2005 at 6:07 pm
Yes, it does. And strictly speaking, that is true: background checks are not imposed on purchases at gun shows. They are imposed on purchases from FFLs, but that’s beside the point.
May 31st, 2005 at 6:11 pm
IOW, the most natural reading of “background checks are not conducted on purchases at gun shows” is that background checks are not imposed on sales by virtue of the fact that the sales take place at gun shows, not that gun shows create a magical exemption for sales that would otherwise require them.
Uncle admits he’s flogging a dead horse here, but I’m not sure I agree this horse was ever alive to begin with.
May 31st, 2005 at 10:15 pm
I didn’t know you were a member of the SPCDH.
I also disagree with your “most natural” reading. The statement is an unqualified generalization, which I take to be universal. As such, it is demonstrably false. I can show that there ARE purchases at gun shows that require background checks.
June 1st, 2005 at 12:34 pm
Oh, please. If I said we don’t execute dissidents, speeders and petty thieves in this country, would you call me a liar for making such a “demonstrably false” generalization? By your logic, you should; after all, we do execute a few hundred first-degree murderers every year, and it’s a safe bet that at least some of them have also dissented, driven in excess of posted speed limits and committed petty theft at some point in their lives. But you’d still be wrong, for exactly the same reason you are wrong here; the clear point of the statement is that we don’t execute people for those offenses, not that committing Offense A gives anyone a “get out of jail free” card to escape punishment for Offense B. That’s exactly the issue with the gun show non-loophole; certain acts trigger background checks, but gun show sales, as such, do not. Maybe that’s a good law, or maybe it’s bad. [And yes, I do agree with you and Uncle on the narrower point that is dishonest of the Ass. Press to use the word “loophole.” The underlying issue is a point of legitimate debate, but the nomenclature is not. If the Legislature thinks private citizens should be able to sell guns without background checks, allowing them to do the same at a gun show is a reasonable, deliberate policy decision, not a “loophole,” which implies that it happened by accident.]
I never heard of the SPCDH, and even after following the link and Googling the term I’m none the wiser. ‘Splain?
June 1st, 2005 at 12:38 pm
Uncle –> Thib
That’ll teach me to read a post carefully before commenting.
June 1st, 2005 at 6:35 pm
I bet I can say “no it ain’t” for as long as you want to say “yeah it is.” It’s up to you.
I just don’t see things your way. No matter how many analogies you want to throw at me, I insist that the statment “[background] checks are not conducted on purchases at gun shows” means “for all purchases at gun shows, background checks are not required.”
June 2nd, 2005 at 11:41 am
Insist all you want, but it won’t make you right. Rather than debate with me over what the author of this article supposedly meant, why not ask him?
June 2nd, 2005 at 1:24 pm
The same goes for you, although I’m sure you know it: Your saying it doesn’t make you right, either. And I’m not trying to debate with you; you keep telling me I’m wrong, and I’m telling you I’m not. That’s not really debate, since an argument, after all, isn’t just contradiction.
Oh, the SPCDH: “Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Dead Horses.”
June 2nd, 2005 at 5:48 pm
This is beginning to sound like Argument Clinic. I know my repeated statements that you are wrong do not make you wrong; that’s why, unlike you, I didn’t use the phrase “I insist” to bolster my position. What makes you wrong is your own stubborn insistence that the Ass. Press story must have meant what you said it meant, and couldn’t have meant what I suggested it meant. If both readings are plausible – and they are – then it is unreasonable of you to assume he must have intended to say something ridiculous rather than something which is true. Unless, of course, you can actually get him to admit having intended the unreasonable reading (i.e., the reading you and I both know to be unreasonable – of course he won’t admit that it’s unreasonable).
June 3rd, 2005 at 9:08 am
Wait a minute…you’re saying my reading is plausible?
June 3rd, 2005 at 4:53 pm
Sure. It’s just not the only plausible reading.