In the comments, Tom of LeanLeft says this about gun shows:
I’ve long argued that gun rights activists ought to concede this one [background checks at gun shows – ed], since they lose virtually nothing as a result, and would be able to point to it as evidence that they are, in fact, willing to submit to common sense measures in deed as well as in word.
I don’t think this one should be conceded for a few reasons. Namely:
There is no gun show loophole. A sale at a gun show is already subject to the exact same regulations as sales at a gun shop. Private party transfers that are not businesses by nature require no checks, whether at a gun show or in someone’s living room
To enact such a rule would be pointless because those folks at gun shows would just walk to the parking lot to engage in the transaction.
If the law were enacted in such a way to prevent people from going to the parking lot, it would require that checks be done in any private party transfer (such as giving a firearm to a family member as a gift or selling one to a friend).
It makes the anti-gunners cry
That said, being the incremental absolutist I am, if it’s trade they want, I’ll do that. I’ll trade it for either repeal of the sporting purposes language or the 1986 Hughes Amendment.
Related
Posted in uncategorized on April 19th, 2006
by SayUncle | RSS 2.0 |
April 19th, 2006 at 9:55 am
I would concede that if they would concede something. I’ll gladly consent to NICS checks for private party sales if they get rid of the Hugh’s Amendment (no new manufacture of machine guns).
I mean why not regulate the manufacture and sale of machine guns after 1986 the same way we treat those made prior to 1986. A machine gun is a machine gun.
April 19th, 2006 at 10:11 am
Two reasons I wouldn’t concede background checks for transactions between private individucals at gun shows:
First: BECAUSE it would be so easy to get around (agree to meet after the show at another location to complete the transaction legally), the next step would be to require background checks for ANY transaction between private individuals.
That would by necessity lead to gun registrations. Banning sales between private individuals would be compoletely inneffective without some means of tracking the guns. If they don’t know who has them, how can they determine who sold them to whom?
Gun registration, of course, inevitably leads to gun confiscation. This is historically proven fact.
Gun banners can use the “Incremental absolutism” approach as well. That’s why we can’t concede anything.
April 19th, 2006 at 10:51 am
Massachusetts requires registration of “sales” to make sure you’re only selling to licensed gun owners. They also decided that anyone who makes more than 4 private transactions a year is in the business. They just happen to keep all of the forms people have to send in to register their lawful private sales so that now they have this big collection of forms detailing exactly who owns what guns. This is one where I’ve seen how it will be abused by the state and I have to say no to. Remember, I’m paranoid for a reason…
April 19th, 2006 at 4:32 pm
What do the left and Islam share in common? They both want the rest of us to submit to them.
April 19th, 2006 at 4:37 pm
I would concede that if they would concede something. I’ll gladly consent to NICS checks for private party sales if they get rid of the Hugh’s Amendment (no new manufacture of machine guns).
That supposes all of us could buy the new MGs. No, I’ll do without a bullet-hose, and keep my right to private sales without the effing state’s nose in the deal.
April 19th, 2006 at 8:18 pm
I hope nobody tells anti-gunners about the “blackpowder loophole”.
April 20th, 2006 at 12:36 pm
Marc:
Umm, this is unique to “the left” exactly how?
Uncle:
There’s a fundamental difference between a gun show with one-stop-shopping and lots of sellers, and a true private-party transfer. I think you make a fundamental mistake when you attempt to equivocate those two things. I don’t think it’s terribly much to ask that gun shows (for example) have a centralized background checking booth (which makes things easier for Joe Citizen and Guns-R-Us Inc. alike), and simply require buyers to turn in proof of background check irrespective of seller at such events.
You are correct that some will circumvent this in the ways you’ve mentioned, but so what? The fact that some will break the law is not a reason not to have a law. If it were, we’d be abolishing speed limits entirely.
So what’s the point of such checks? If someone wants to buy a gun illegally right now, he has to avoid licensed dealers and find a private citizen seller, because he needs to bypass the background check. A gun show makes finding such a seller much easier for such a potential buyer. Requiring checks for all buyers at gun shows doesn’t have much impact on the unscrupulous seller side of the equation, but does potentially impact the unscrupulous buyer side.