Today/MSNBC Report Offers Misleading Facts
This week Today/MSNBC offered a story titled “Rossen Reports: Anyone can buy guns, no questions asked,” which attempted to suggest that we need stricter gun laws because of so-called loopholes. The article begins simply enough:
Some say it’s a major loophole in the law. At gun stores, you have to get a background check before you can buy a weapon. But online in most states, anyone from law-abiding citizens to dangerous criminals – even terrorists – can get just about any weapon they want, no questions asked. Our hidden camera investigation shows the deals going down in broad daylight, in suburban mall parking lots.
No, this isn’t true. This isn’t a loophole because any gun sent through the mail needs to be from a Federal Firearms License holder to another when sales occur, and depending on the local laws a permit might be necessary. This point is lacking, so in these cases the law is actually being broken – so it isn’t technically a loophole in the law.
The article adds:
We bought everything from a police-grade pistol to a semiautomatic assault rifle. We did it over and over again, even hinting that our buyer is a criminal.
Within 12 hours, we bought eight dangerous guns – even a 50-caliber weapon so powerful it could take down a helicopter.
We agree that this is a problem, one we’ll address in a minute, but let’s first note that this is typical biased reporting. What exactly is a “police-grade pistol,” as we’re not sure? This is an attempt to make it seem like something that wouldn’t be available to the average consumer. Additionally, the point about the .50-caliber (it should read .50 not 50) being able to take down a helicopter is only partially accurate. The truth is this weapon still needs someone with some level of experience and training to be able to hit a helicopter. So while there is always the chance someone could get very lucky, in most cases without proper training and skill it would just be a heavy gun where the shooter couldn’t hit the side of a barn!
There was more on this weapon:
The online ad was for a 50-caliber sniper rifle, the most powerful gun legally sold in the U.S.: bullet range 5 miles. It can pierce armored vehicles, even bring down a helicopter. But the seller was so laid-back, you’d think he was hocking a used bicycle.
All these points are only semi-true. It really doesn’t have a range of five miles, and it can “bring down a helicopter” but so can a .22 if you shoot at the right place!
The article then adds:
So what’s the government doing about it? It turns out there’s a bill that would close this loophole, and require background checks for all gun sales, even online. But that bill has been tied up in committee for nearly a year. Its sponsor, New York senator Chuck Schumer, told us: “The NRA is one of the most powerful lobbies in Washington, and despite the overwhelming evidence that we should do something … the odds of us being able to do something are not high.”
Again this is a half-truth. Online sales are NOT except from background checks. This isn’t so much a loophole as it is people just disregarding the law. So a law that bans the sales and puts background checks on all gun sales only works if people follow the law – and in most cases the law was already being broken in the examples noted.
Finally the article concludes with this point:
This is legal, and lots of people in this country support private gun sales without background checks. They say it’s not about making money; it’s about individual rights. As for the eight guns we bought, we turned them over the the [sic] Phoenix police department… where they will be destroyed.
This isn’t just about money. There are points missing in this reporting. First, who is going to pay for the background checks on ALL sales? Does this mean ALL guns need to be registered? Because unless EVERY gun is registered the background check system wouldn’t work, and if ALL guns need to be registered there is the issue of who will pay for it? There are reasons for fighting this, as the first step to banning guns is knowing who has them – in other words many citizens might be wary of having to register their guns, and in essence any law would turn them into criminals.
KnoxNews Suggests Illegal Online Gun Sales Thriving
With an opening like this the reader is already convinced:
The gun buyer was eager to make a purchase, and the online seller was willing to help him out, even if it meant breaking the law.
This type of biased introduction, in this case from KnoxNews, makes it seem like this is common and yet, the story also implies it is easy to stop. KnoxNews further quotes Mark Glaze, director of “advocacy group” Mayor Against Illegal Guns, noting:
“There is [sic] a significant percentage of sellers who are willing to put guns in the hands of people who aren’t allowed to have them. That should be a problem for the people of Tennessee. It’s a public safety problem for mayors across the country.”
The article notes that licensed sellers need to perform background checks and suggests this is a loophole of sorts that allows guns to flow into the hands of criminals. The problem is that it is illegal to sell guns through the mail unless the buyer and seller have Federal Firearms Licenses anyway. In other words, the law is being broken but creating news that require background checks doesn’t solve the fact that if the buyer/seller are willing to break the law today why would a law requiring a background check on ALL sales make any difference?
This point is never stated or addressed in this article.
The Daily Beast Offers Misleading Headline and Skips Facts
This headline says all that many people need to hear: “More Cops Shots as Felons Buy Illegal Guns Online,” but what The Daily Beast doesn’t note is that crime has actually fallen as gun sales have increased.
The story also fails to note that legal guns sales have been on the rise as well, and that Black Friday saw one day record sales. All those facts are missing in this biased take on guns.
The article offers this passage as well, which again sort of offers a fuzzy – not exactly accurate take:
The Brady Act mandated federal background checks for people buying firearms from federally licensed gun dealers, but not for private sellers. The thinking was that it was an exemption for hobbyists, says John Feinblatt, Bloomberg’s criminal-justice coordinator. But it became what gun-control advocates call the gun-show loophole, through which 30 to 40 percent of gun sales pass, according to the Department of Justice. With the Internet, that loophole has become a “24/7 black market for firearms,” says Feinblatt. “It’s even more anonymous than a gun show, which is already a magnet for criminals. But at least at a gun show you’re selling side by side with honest dealers and the ATF could be around. There’s none of that online.”
Gun dealers and even hobbyists cannot legally sell guns online. But as with prostitution and illegal drug sales this is just a very open marketplace.
The “Fix Gun Checks Act” doesn’t even really apply as The Daily Beast suggests – simply because those selling guns online are already breaking the law. You can’t mail guns to someone who doesn’t have a Federal Firearms License, so these sales would likely continue even WITH new laws.
Thus this is just about criminals not the guns. Criminals will continue to break the law.
National Rifle Association: NRA Supports Lawsuit Challenging the Obama Administration’s Multiple Gun Sales Reporting Requirement
National Rifle Association:
The National Rifle Association is fully funding and supporting a lawsuit challenging the Obama administration’s demand that Federal Firearms License holders report multiple sales of long guns in Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas.
The lawsuits filed assert that the ATF lacks statutory authority to demand these reports.
NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action Executive Director Chris W. Cox has long expressed skepticism for the motivation and the timing of this ATF effort. Read more
National Shooting Sports Foundation: NSSF Looking For Retailers to Join Lawsuit
From National Shooting Sports Foundation:
Dear Federal Firearms Licensee:
As you may know, the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has announced that it will begin requiring the approximately 8,500 firearms retailers in the Southwest border states (Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California) to keep records of and report to ATF sales made to the same individual – within a five (5) business day period – of more than one semi-automatic rifle that accepts a detachable magazine greater than .22 caliber (Multiple Sales Reporting of Certain Semi-automatic Rifles).
ATF has stated it is imposing this requirement pursuant to its “demand letter” authority under the Gun Control Act. This week, ATF began sending “demand letters” to border state firearms retailers implementing this new multiple sales record keeping and reporting requirement effective August 14, 2011.
The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) – the trade association for America’s firearms industry – will be filing a lawsuit challenging the legal authority of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and ATF under the Gun Control Act to impose this new multiple sales reporting requirement. When Congress authorized the reporting of multiple sales of handguns it could have required the same for the sale of long guns, but it did not. ATF is clearly exceeding its lawful authority under the Gun Control Act. Current ATF Acting Director Ken Melson himself has previously questioned ATF’s legal authority to impose this new requirement. Read more
CalGunLaws.com: Was it an Accident? What FFL’s Should Know About Willful Violations
From CalGunLaws.com:
“Willful” acts in violation of law by a firearm dealer can carry dire consequences. Criminal prosecution is possible, and under federal law, a single “willful” violation of the Gun Control Act (“GCA”) can result in the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (commonly referred to as “ATF”) revoking a dealer’s Federal Firearm License (“FFL”).
MAPC has released a memorandum to educate FFL’s on how to avoid these problems.
As commonly used, “willful” means deliberate, voluntary, or intentional. But words can have a different meaning in the legal world than they do in normal use. “Willful” for example.
Originally, the GCA did not have a “willfulness” requirement. FFLs could be revoked by ATF for even innocent violations. This led to injustice, and, in 1986, ATF abuses led Congress to amend the GCA – specifically, 18 U.S.C. § 923(e)) – “to ensure that licenses are not revoked for inadvertent errors or technical mistakes,” as stated in the Senate Report on the issue.
In amending the law n 1986, the Senate adopted the view of the court in Rich v. United States, 383 F. Supp. 797 (S.D. Ohio 1974), which rejected mere negligence as a standard for revoking an FFL license. Instead, the Senate endorsed the position that “willful” means “purposeful, intentional behavior.”
Although Congress adopted this more limited standard, courts have nonetheless continually struggled to articulate a definitive standard for “willful.” Several distinct definitions have resulted. The court decisions discussed in the MAPC memo show that a dealer’s acts can be considered “willful” when done repeatedly, after prior warnings, and even without any deliberate intent to violate the law.
Thus, in the legal realm, “willful” may include reckless or indifferent acts. Consequently, repeated mistakes and oversights can be considered “willful” even without intent to violate the law involved, especially if they are committed after warning and instruction from ATF. And when courts determine whether a dealer’s acts are “reckless” or “indifferent,” the dealer is at the mercy of the court, because even those terms are not expressly defined. Dealers would do well to educate themselves by reading the MAPC memo posted at www.michellawyers.com/ffl-resources.
Is ATF “Scaring People Out of Gun Shows”
The Seattle PI offered a story this week titled, “Target of gun sting: ATF is ‘scaring people out of the shows.’” That is an ominous statement indeed, but it is actually the truth for Mark Skiles, who is reportedly among four men indicted last week on charges of “unlawful gun dealing.”
According to the story:
“Federal prosecutors contend Skiles, 46, and the others were essentially professional gun dealers who sold hundreds of firearms without obtaining a Federal Firearms License. Such licenses are issued to those who buy guns in order to resell them, rather than collect them.
“Speaking Tuesday, Skiles described himself as a hobbyist and disputed claims made by prosecutors that he sold guns to undercover Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives agents.”
While it is true that “anyone engaging in the business” of selling firearms is required to obtain a Federal Firearms License, collectors and hobbyists are not even required to have the FFL C&R (Curios and Relics), so clearly there is more to this story. Read more
Gun Collecting: Understanding the Basics of Buying a Machinegun
Separating the truth from the fiction can be difficult at times. When it comes to buying certain types of guns you certainly don’t want to cross into any gray area. This is especially true when it comes to machineguns. Despite numerous misconceptions, buying a fully functional machine gun involves a lot more than merely going to a gun show. It can be a long and often times tedious process, one that includes no small amount of paperwork, and when all that is done, be prepared to do some waiting.
With the kind help from our friends at GunBoards.com they offered some thoughts on what it is actually involved in buying a machinegun. Read more
Gun Collecting: Machine Guns Vs. Assault Weapons
This week we launch a new column that will run every weekend on facets of gun collecting.
As we’ve reported on since launching this site more than a year ago, the fact is simple: the mainstream media does a terrible job in reporting on guns, and much of it is misunderstood even when the reporting is close to accurate. The media would have you believe that “assault weapons” are in fact “machine guns,” but that’s not really the case. Here is why. Read more
Firing Back: Gun Show Loophole
What is this infamous gun show loophole? According to the mainstream media it is how guns go from legal to illegal. It is how guns are sold to criminals. Does the mainstream media believe that gun shows are some sort of illicit black market event out of a James Bond movie?
No, gun shows attract hunters, sport shooters and collectors. And while some sales are made by private individuals “not engaged in the business” of dealing firearms, this is hardly a loophole. In fact, the term “gun show loophole” has only been used since 1996 when it was coined by the Violence Policy Center in a published study.
One point that is routinely missed is that individuals are free to sell guns at a gun show, a flea market, their place of business (that isn’t a gun shop) or their home. If the gun show loophole were closed these private sales by those “not engaged in the business” of dealing firearms would go on. The mainstream media often fails to note this, but we also fear where this will lead.
If the loophole – if there were really such a loophole – were closed, it would mean that anti-gun zealots would go after gun sales everywhere else. They would seek out to close the “private gun sale loophole,” meaning that all gun sales need to be through those with a Federal Firearms License. For those who only buy or sell a gun once in a blue moon this could greatly increase the cost. Is this really fair to those occasional sellers, especially when it hasn’t been proven that criminals are even getting their guns from gun shows, loophole or otherwise?
