Gun Show Loophole Debated in Delaware
This week Delaware Online noted that “a rhetorical gunfight broke out” over the so-called “gun show loophole.” The state’s governor, Jack Markell, is being accused by the NRA of looking to ban all private sales.
Gun control types say this is the right move, and that all private sales should be banned unless a background check is conducted. According to the article:
“Senate Bill 39 would require background checks to be conducted for all sales at gun shows. Licensed firearms dealers would have to request the checks through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System on behalf of unlicensed vendors making sales. Sales between private citizens not taking place at gun shows would not be affected.” Read more
DNC Chief: Background Checks on All Gun Purchases
We are against background checks on “all” gun purchases, because that is just silly. All gun purchases means that fathers can’t give guns to sons without a background check. Buddies can’t trade guns, etc. It could also create a national data base of all firearms – if of course everyone complies, and we know not everyone will.
But that doesn’t seem to matter to matter to Rep. Debbie Waserman Schultz, D-Fla., who is also the incoming head of the Democratic National Committee.
FoxNews.com notes that she supports background checks for all gun purchases, and says she’ll co-sponsor a bill in Congress to enact a new law requiring them. The news site notes:
“Wasserman Schultz announced her support for the measure at a Miami rally held by Mayors Against Illegal Guns. The Hill reports the Florida congresswoman, who is also set to take the helm at the DNC, told rally goers she was ‘outraged’ by loopholes that allow buyers to purchase guns without a background check.”
Will guns be an issue that decides the 2012 election?
We shall see. And we shall vote.
Crimson Offers Naïve Commentary on Background Checks
Last week the University of Alabama student newspaper, The Crimson, offered a commentary on Mayors Against Illegal Guns and its “Fix Gun Checks Act.” The author of this op-ed piece titled “Gun checks necessary,” makes a bold statement:
“The Fix Gun Checks Act would make states accountable for updating their background check databases to help ensure nobody ineligible for a firearm ends up with a weapon. It would also require a background check for every American who wishes to purchase a gun, thus closing the gun show loophole.”
Let’s revisit this statement: “To help ensure nobody ineligible for a firearm ends up with a weapon.” That is probably one of the most naïve and bold statements ever written about gun control. There is absolutely no way to ensure that criminals can’t get guns. There are millions of unaccounted guns in the world, and as we have seen in places where guns are banned – China for example – there is a thriving black market.
The author also fails to address what the background check for every American means. What about a father who gives a gun to a son? Background check would be required. What about two buddies who hunt together and swap rifles? Background check would be required.
Where is the money to pay for this? There isn’t even a system in place to accomplish such background checks, and in the end it won’t work. People will ignore it and thus create a black market in the process.
Christian Science Monitor on Reasonable Gun Laws
The Christian Science Monitor gave kudos to Jim and Sarah Brady, and while we feel for them, as we agree no one should have to have suffered as both Jim and Sarah have suffered these past 30 years, the paper offered some misguided – and misleading – thoughts on gun control.
The paper notes:
“Reasonable steps to reduce gun violence will never be taken if Democrats, Republicans, and the president don’t stand up to the NRA. They can steel themselves with this knowledge: Even though polls show the country split on the broad subject of gun control, when you ask Americans to consider individual restrictive measures, they support them.”
Once again this is a total misread of the NRA. It is again somehow essentially made out to be a nefarious organization that has sinister motives and power that comes out of the ether. Again, the NRA is powerful, because it is vocal and it is just merely stating what the people want and demand.
But CSM adds:
“87 percent approve of criminal background checks for all gun purchases, even those at gun shows – which are not currently covered by federal law, but which should be. This was the finding of a 2008 poll done for a bipartisan coalition of mayors who support more restrictions on guns. Another large majority, 82 percent, support limiting the sale of military-style assault weapons, according to a 2007 University of Chicago poll. A 2011 poll for the bipartisan mayors group shows that 58 percent approve of a ban on the sale of high-capacity ammunition magazines (so does former Vice President Dick Cheney, by the way).”
What isn’t stated here, and usually is never said by gun control zealots, is that this “background check for all gun purchases” would make it impossible for a father to give a gun to a son, for a friend to sell a buddy a gun. It would create a national database of EVERY gun purchased.
Finally the paper notes:
“Every year, about 30,000 people in the United States are killed by gun violence. That’s too many. Reasonable steps can be taken to bring that number down; to prevent criminals and others who shouldn’t have guns from getting them; to keep military-style assault weapons off the streets.”
Again, this is misleading. How many of those people were criminals killing criminals? How many of those criminals would ever bother with the background checks? Instead, they’d still get guns from the black market and possibly put law-abiding citizens at risks.
How many of those 30,000 people were criminals shot by police? How many of those 30,000 people were criminals shot while trying to rob or harm someone? Notice those figures aren’t supplied.
And we wonder… why a “military-style” firearm is a problem. It is not a “military” gun, and just looks like one. What’s next, banning military style boots as they are intimidating?
Dennis A. Henigan Notes Obama Finally Says Something
This week Dennis A. Henigan, Brady Center Vice President, penned a piece for the Huffington Post titled, “The President on Guns: What Does it Mean?” Well, considering that the POTUS probably spent more time actually making his March Madness picks than he did writing the op-ed for last Sunday’s Arizona Daily Star – notably given that he probably had it ghost written for him – we don’t think it means much, if anything.
Of course Henigan, a true anti-gun zealot, sees this as the beginning of the end of gun ownership. But it there are some points that Henigan makes that are truly interesting.
First, he actually labels himself as “gun control advocate.” This is contrast to the very way that gun control is addressed. Note that this is the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, as that sounds less threatening to gun owners than the Brady Center for Gun Control. Henigan writes:
“Although one gets the distinct impression that the president would prefer not to receive a positive reaction from gun control advocates like myself, I can’t do him that favor.”
But let’s look deeper into this piece. Again, Henigan specifically says things that gun control advocates have denied. Here is what drew our attention most:
“But the ‘gun show loophole’ is really part of a larger loophole: in most states private sales do not require a background check, whether they occur at a gun show or not. This means that criminals and other legally prohibited gun buyers may be turned away at a licensed dealer, only to ‘effortlessly’ purchase guns elsewhere. Significantly, the president did not mention gun shows in particular, but rather said ‘we can’t allow’ the broader private sale loophole to persist. The president clearly articulated the rationale for extending Brady background checks to virtually all gun sales. It is a reform the Brady Campaign has been advocating for many years.”
For years we’ve heard about the “gun show loophole,” but here Henigan makes it clear it is really about private sales in general. To end private sales would in turn create a national database of gun ownership, where every legally owned gun would be tracked. And yet criminals would still be armed. Can any law-abiding gun owner imagine a worse case scenario?
Of course according to Henigan this is what the American people want! He writes:
“As recent polling has shown, the proposal to extend Brady background checks to all gun sales is solidly in the middle of public opinion on this issue, receiving strong support even from gun owners. An astounding 86% of Americans, and 81% of gun owners, support universal checks.”
So who conducted the poll and who released the findings? Only Mayors Against Illegal Guns. Imagine the findings if the National Rifle Association conducted the poll?
Finally, Henigan says the problem with all this is, of course, the NRA. He writes:
“Far from being part of the solution, the NRA has shown, once again, that it is the problem. If President Obama truly wants a system that no longer allows countless violent criminals to ‘effortlessly’ avoid background checks, eventually he will have no choice but to confront the gun lobby, and defeat it.”
Here we agree – in a way – with Henigan. We feel that Obama should make gun control the cornerstone of his reelection campaign. The defeat of course won’t be of gun owners, but of the POTUS.
Human Events: Why Liberals Want Guns Stopped
We’ve covered the topic of gun shows and the so-called “gun show loophole” many, many times. But this week Human Events’ Mike Piccione summed it up very well indeed in a piece titled, “Why Liberals Want Gun Shows Stopped.”
Here is what Piccione writes – which describes the situation all too well:
“Closing the ‘gun show loophole’ enables the government to curtail person to person sales. That is what is really behind the attack on gun shows. Every gun would have to be turned into a gun dealer so that it could be tracked by the Federal Government and then the transfer process would be monitored by the Federal Government. The right you have now to sell your neighbor your shotgun will be gone, forever.
“What is even more disturbing is the loss of the right to pass on your gun to a family member. The tradition of passing on grandpa’s gun to his grandson will be legislated out of existence. Gramps will have to pass the gun to a federally authorized entity that will then register it and pass it on to the recipient. Often the gifting of the first firearm is to someone thirteen or fourteen years old. Because they can not legally own a gun at that age it would have to be transferred to someone who would then hold the gun until it could be then transferred to the final owner when legal age is reached. That’s a lot of red tape to give someone your squirrel rifle.
“Anti-gun liberals know that more bureaucracy on law abiding citizens is the easiest form of gun control and hidden under the label of ‘common sense gun measures.’ If the government can make criminals out of people that have never committed a criminal act with administrative measures then people will avoid buying, owning and transferring guns altogether. Then they accomplish what they set out to do; stop legal citizens from owning guns.”
Kudos to Piccione for summing up this issue so well.
Media Misinformation: Gun Show Loophole
This one comes up time and time again, the nefarious “gun show loophole.” This has been in the media a lot because of the unfortunate shooting in Tucson, followed by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s so-called “sting” in a subsequent gun show.
But what is exactly the “gun show loophole?” To hear the media talk, it is essentially a failure of the system where criminals, the mentally ill and others who shouldn’t legally be allowed to buy a gun, so easily obtain one. The argument is that guns are sold without background checks and therefore anyone can buy a gun at a gun show.
The truth is that this isn’t technically inaccurate. Individuals who are in the business of selling guns as dealers can in fact get a table at a gun show and sell as private individuals. No license is generally needed. This is thus private sales of guns. And this is where the point gets tricky. Read more
Tehran Times: US Needs Gun Control
If ever there was an argument for why the United States should never adopt any form of gun control, it comes from Tehran Times: Iran’s Leading International Daily. In an editorial titled, “Gun control in Congress: Lawmakers must shed their fear of the NRA” the editors write:
“Bills to ban high-capacity gun ammunition clips and close the ‘gun show loophole’ have been introduced in Congress. The Tucson shootings demand a courageous effort by lawmakers to pass this legislation.”
Now in fairness, it seems that this editorial actually cites The Christian Science Monitor, a paper that is notoriously anti-gun. But if Iran’s largest international daily thinks gun control is good then isn’t that enough of a case against gun control?
Firing Back: Bloomberg Blames Congress – Where Does New York City End?
Where does New York City end? Isn’t the border on the Hudson River? Apparently, the honorable Mayor Michael Bloomberg seems to think he knows what is best for the rest of the country. Not only did he send a team out to Arizona gun shows, post videos (heavily edited mind you) online and even draft a post for the Huffington Post, but he is even blaming Congress for gun sale loophole.
In an article for the good old Huff and Puff, Bloomberg’s actions were described:
“Citing findings from a recent investigation of Arizona gun-show sales, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg offered a harsh indictment Monday of Congress’ failure to close gun-control loopholes that allow individuals to buy weapons from private sellers without a background check.”
“Gun control loopholes” – could that be a new statement we hear? We’re also seeing “gun sale loopholes.” In other words, Bloomberg isn’t looking to just close the nefarious “gun show loophole,” but we think he’ll aim at all private sales of firearms – something that could prove difficult.
But what is so bothersome is that Bloomberg is over reaching his authority. He’s mayor of a city, albeit the nation’s largest, and that’s it. He’s not in Congress and he doesn’t even represent the people of the State of New York, just the people of the City of New York. And yet, he’d like to change the laws not only for the 20 million in the New York area but for the 350 million throughout the country. So where does he think New York ends? More importantly, where does he think his power ends?
Is NPR Doing the Pushing?
In a piece for NPR it is noted that there are renewed calls for gun control. But is the story titled “Obama Pushed to Address Gun Control” part of the pushing? It offers this insight:
“President Obama has been under increasing pressure to say something — anything — about whether he intends to push for stricter gun control measures in the wake of the Jan. 8 massacre in Tucson.”
The story goes on to reference New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s so-called “gun show sting” in Arizona and notes coverage in The Washington Post. But are real American really pushing for gun control? Or is part of the push from NPR and the media?
