About that non-existent gun show loophole
People like Xrlqy Wrlqy in comments say to me that my definition of a loophole would pretty much render the term meaningless. I think that’s bullshit. The term loophole usually implies some attempt to circumvent a law. The non-existent gun show loophole does not. Therefore, the argument made by some (i.e., changed) is that the loophole must be that a flea market style venue where people could walk around with guns around their shoulders just waiting for someone to walk up and say ‘how much’? As such, exploitation of said market is a loophole. And because Sean is a good liberal, a market must equal exploitation of some kind. But, no. It’s still breaking the law if you unlawfully purchase a weapon whether it occurs at a gun show or somewhere else. A guy who buys illegal drugs from kid on a street corner where drug dealers are known to hang out is not using the street corner loophole. He’s breaking the law.
The other issue that I have with the non-existent gun show loophole is that now it’s called the gun show loophole and activists seek to close it. And by close it, they mean regulate private party transactions that occur at gun shows. This opens up the door to regulating all private party transfers. Because if such a law is passed, we will next have to close the gun show parking lot loophole (which would actually be a real loophole as people would simply step outside to avoid a background check or avoid paying a $10 background check fee – I would do the latter since $10 is $10). Shortly after that, they’ll want to close the in the sanctity of your own home loophole And I recently used this non-existent loophole to buy an Enfield from Les Jones.
That said, it’s not really a hot button issue for me. I do not like seeing it misrepresented as it often is in the press that gun shows are these mysterious places where all kinds of law-breaking occurs and criminals load up on guns. Neither is correct. Less than 1% of crime guns are obtained at gun shows and less than 1% of convicts report getting their weapons at gun shows.
April 29th, 2008 at 11:05 am
In Indiana all pistol transfers must be through a dealer, so the only loophole your liberal friend can go after here is the first amendment right to peaceably assemble.
April 29th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
Short Version:
When gun-prohibitionists use the word loophole what they mean is that the game isn’t adequately rigged in favor of their preferred policy outcome.
April 29th, 2008 at 10:27 pm
The wiki link defines a loophole in part as “a weakness or exception that allows a system, such as a law or security, to be circumvented or otherwise avoided.” From the perspective of a purchaser wishing to bypass background checks in a retail setting, it would appear to be just that.
“Sanctity of one’s home loophole” is a bit more of a stretch, as it’s clear Congress made a deliberate decision to exempt truly private sales from background check requirements. If Congress meant to allow X, X ain’t a loophole, just a policy decision some may disagree with.
April 30th, 2008 at 12:27 am
In Colorado, (where our masters have closed the gun show loophole) the parking lot is part of the gun show – transactions there without a background check are illegal. Which is why I passed up that cheap 10-22, dammit.
April 30th, 2008 at 2:45 am
xrlq, if I recall correctly is a lawyer. Which means he isn’t qualified to form an intelligent opinion.
April 30th, 2008 at 6:47 am
Right, ‘cuz only those who have no training in the law are qualified to form intelligent opinions on the law. Smart lad. While we’re at it, let’s have a debate over evolution but forbid anyone with an advanced degree in biology from participating. Wouldn’t want the discussion tainted by anyone who … um … knows anything about the subject, would we?
Moron.