Fact checking is hard
Looks like another federal law is in the works regarding the mythological gun show loophole and the media is still taking anti-gun group dictation. Repeat after me, sales at gun shows are subject to the exact same federal regulations as sales not at gun shows.
January 31st, 2008 at 12:53 pm
I got the PSH letter from the Brady Bunch yesterday.
January 31st, 2008 at 1:17 pm
With the predictability of low tide, the media is right on board.
January 31st, 2008 at 4:17 pm
Repeat after me, sales at gun shows are subject to the exact same federal regulations as sales not at gun shows.
I’m sorry, but that’s still a highly disingenuous argument. If I want to buy a gun without undergoing a background check, I can do that at a gun show. Yes, I can also do it by going to some private individual’s house and buying a gun from that private individual. But it strikes me as especially disingenuous to argue that there’s no real difference between going to an individual’s house and going to a gun show, where there will be lots of individuals with lots of guns for sale.
Put it like this: Is a gun show closer to (a) a gun shop; or (b) a private residence?
January 31st, 2008 at 4:24 pm
no, it’s not.
January 31st, 2008 at 7:58 pm
The rules are there in the exact same measure as they are everywhere else in the country. How the Hell is that a loophole?
January 31st, 2008 at 8:56 pm
See, this, to me, is why pro-gun types so often come across as disingenuous and unreasonable to ordinary people who don’t ascribe to either extreme. To try to argue, with a straight face, that buying a gun from John Q. Public at his house is absolutely, positively indistinguishable in any fashion from buying a gun from John Q. Public at a heavily-advertised for-profit gun show is simply ludicrous. You can argue the semantics of whether or not it’s a “loophole,” but the fact remains that by far the easiest place to find and purchase a gun without undergoing a background check is at a gun show!
Why? Because I’m sure to find quite a selection of John Q. Publics selling different guns to choose from, and that’s a hell of a lot easier than trolling the papers and the message boards and going from place to place until I find what I want. It’s one-stop shopping.
But what’s supremely frustrating about all of this is that it would be so incredibly easy to fix, with no meaningful infringement upon anybody’s rights. Simply centralize the background checks at gun shows. Rather than having the individual licensed sellers do their own background checks, and have the private sellers do none, the show organizer takes care of all the background checks. It would be little more than a minor inconvenience, and would eliminate the whole “gun show loophole” argument/mess in one fell swoop.
But instead, the pro-gunnies’ reflexive rejection of any law that contains the word “gun” and does not actively expand access to firearms makes them appear reactionary and unreasonable. And, from what I can tell, they don’t care that they appear that way.
January 31st, 2008 at 9:24 pm
the laws are the same. and, of course, less than 1% of crime guns come from gun shows anyway.
oh, horse shit tom. many of us supported the NICS bill.
January 31st, 2008 at 10:40 pm
You’re totally right. John Q. Public’s house usually isn’t crawling with dozens of State/local police officers and ATF agents who tend to make gun shows rather uninviting for most criminals. Not to mention making gun shows a less attractive venue for John Q. Public to sell more than one or two old guns, lest he run afoul of the part of US Code which makes it unlawful to”engage in the business of.. dealing in firearms” without a license. Any more than one or two sales at a time generally counts as a “business” to the ATF.
As such, the whole premise of unlicensed John Q Public selling tables full of guns at a gun show is already illegal!
January 31st, 2008 at 11:34 pm
I’m sorry, but I still fail to see how it would be the End of Western Civilization (or even of the Second Amendment) if we were to require background checks for all gun sales at gun shows, irrespective of the seller. It’d be an easy, “See, we’re reasonable” PR win for the pro-gun movement, at zero cost in liberty. But then, PR has never been the pro-gun movement’s strong suit, has it?
And I never said that each John Q Public had an arsenal for sale; only that there’d be a lot of John Q Publics to choose from.
Mind you, I’m not arguing that the world would end if no such gun show requirement was made, either. Just that I don’t see what the big deal is, and why pro-gunnies are so vehemently opposed to the idea. It would prevent absolutely no one from buying a gun who is legally allowed to do so, and would prevent no one from selling their gun, either. So why the PSH when the subject comes up?
February 1st, 2008 at 1:24 am
If I understand tgirsch correctly, convenience is the principle we should apply. It shouldn’t be convenient for citizens to exercise their rights, but it should be convenient for government law enforcement to restrict them.
Are we sure he is on our side? I think, maybe not.
February 1st, 2008 at 1:44 am
I certainly don’t think convenience is the be-all and end-all. But it is what it is, and the two standards exist. Why should it be an acceptable “inconvenience” to go through a background check when buying from some gun show sellers, but not others?
My understanding of the argument against requiring such checks when private sellers are involved is that it unduly inconveniences the seller, not the buyer. But if the show organizer takes care of the background checks, then the private seller doesn’t have to deal with that inconvenience.
How this observation makes me not “on your side” is mystifying to me, unless being “on your side” requires 100% agreement on all issues…
[For what it’s worth, I don’t consider myself to be “on your side,” but I don’t consider myself to be against you, either. Real life isn’t so black and white…]
February 1st, 2008 at 9:42 am
Who said it would be? My issue with the bill is that private transfers not at gun shows would be next. And on and on.