This from Care2.com ,which begs the question… what is in limbo? Apparently because guns are still legal the issue is in limbo. But this article then throws in bias as news. It does begin as news, as is noted with this introduction:

It’s been exactly one year since the country was stunned by the violent shooting rampage that nearly killed Democratic Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona, and did kill and wound numerous staff, supporters and even a little girl.

That is news and it sums up the situation well, but consider this misinformation at the end of the article:

And others are even using the anniversary to promote weapons. According to Think Progress, the Crossroads of the West gun show has decided to use today as the day to throw their Tuscon exhibit and sale. But at least they don’t appear to be raffling away the same type of gun that nearly killed her, like the Arizona GOP did last fall.

The gun show wasn’t scheduled for any particular reason! But this article would you have believe that was in fact the motive of the Crossroads of the West Gun Show organizers! Shameful that this is bias passes as news.

So it is more than a little puzzling why the Crossroads of the West gun show picked the anniversary of this horrific mass killing to hold one of their shows in the very same town where the Tucson massacre occurred.

Are we really getting to the point where days become “taboo?” The truth is that this was a tragedy that shouldn’t be forgotten, but the organizers of the gun show likely didn’t look to hold it on the same day. Tragic things happen every day.

Should we not allow Japanese tourists to visit America on December 7? Should no one fly on September 11? Our questions are outrageous, but so is suggesting that the gun shows picked the same “town,” especially as the Crossroads of the West gun show has regularly been a staple in Tucson! As for the date, the gun show has also been typically held in early January!

But clearly this is a case where anti-gun reporters look for any excuse to take aim at gun shows.

This week, in a post titled “NRA Complains As NY AG Enforces the Laws Already on The Books,” Media Matters offers this thought:

“Enforce the laws on the books already before passing more” is the plea of the National Rifle Association (NRA) when proposals are made to strengthen guns laws. In April NRA executive vice-president Wayne LaPierre told the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette “We support all kinds of behavioral requirements, restrictions … there are dozens of laws on the books that we support. The problem is they’re not being enforced.”

So what happens when a state starts enforcing gun laws at gun shows? Long-winded jeremiads complaining of “entrapment” by the “anti-gun cabal.” Maybe it’s time to change the slogan to “enforce the laws on the books, but make sure it’s not a law we don’t like you jack-booted thugs.”

On Wednesday New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman announced the arrest of ten people for selling guns at a gun show without performing a background check on the buyers as is required by state law.

What isn’t noted is that this is just another attempt to close the infamous so-called “gun show loophole” and bar all private sales. So while it is possible that those 10 individuals may have broken the law, the NRA has argued – as we agree – that there is no loophole. Private sales are allowed at gun shows and should remain so.

But that is a fact that doesn’t matter to Media Matters as it is never mentioned.

The story notes:

“Alloway pleaded guilty to illegally operating as a gun dealer and income tax fraud.”

This is a disturbing fact especially as Alloway is a retired police officer. But there is a twist to this story. It seems that Alloway and three others weren’t exactly funneling guns to cartels or even necessarily selling guns to criminals. They were conducting their business at gun shows.

Seattle PI adds:

“In a statement filed with the U.S. District Court, the special agent said the investigation was launched after agents came to believe several gun dealers were operating without federal firearms dealer’s licenses — required for anyone ‘engaging in the business’ of firearms dealing — and selling large quantities of guns as ‘private sellers.’”

What is a major concern to this point is what constitutes “large quantities of guns” when “private sales” are conducted? Will gun collectors, who buy and sell, upgrade pieces in their collection face similar charges? What about the gun collector who is facing hard times and needs to raise some cash? If it is a money-making business than one could be considered a “gun dealer.”

The point in the end is that Alloway likely knew he was doing something wrong, especially as he attempted to conceal how much money he was making. But this could open a Pandora’s Box for those looking to make a few dollars while mostly collecting firearms. It gives occasional sellers something to ponder.

Among the statements that Gadahn makes:

“This is a golden opportunity. America is absolutely awash with easily obtainable firearms. You can go down to a gun show … and come away with a fully automatic assault rifle without a background check. … So what are you waiting for?”

The problem with using this statement is that you can’t buy fully automatic assault rifles without a background check at a gun show or anywhere else legally. Fully automatic guns are tightly controlled, and simply are not available at gun shows.

The ad counters:

“Call your member of Congress. Tell them to close the loopholes that let terrorists and criminals buy guns.”

Huff and Puff notes:

“The spot does clarify — in small text at the end — Gadahn’s misleading assessment of the accessibility of firearms at gun shows. In fact, purchasers cannot obtain fully automatic assault rifles at those venues. Consumers can purchase semi-automatics.

“The broader point for the coalition, however, remains the same: A loophole exists in current gun laws. Private sellers are not required to perform the same background checks at gun shows that federal licensed dealers must. By some estimations, private sales make up 40 percent of total gun show sales.”

What Huff and Puff doesn’t say is where they come up with that 40 percent number… a number actually offered by Mayors Against Illegal Guns. So this is the group that uses the words of a terrorists to scare Americans, and Huff and Puff backs up it up with misleading statistics.

Why you trust any of this information?

I am writing to express my concern with the Administration’s silence on critical gun issues and to seek some leadership to better protect the American people. The issues transcend partisanship and could attract bipartisan support.

In January, six Americans were killed and 13 injured, including Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, when Jared Lee Loughner fired 31 bullets in 15 seconds using a Glock with a high-capacity magazine. These magazines dramatically boost a weapon’s firing power and lethality and have become the weapon of choice for the deranged. For that reason, they were prohibited from 1994 until 2004, when the federal assault weapons ban was in place. Since its lapse, high-capacity magazines have become easily accessible. There is no logical reason to encourage the proliferation of these weapons, which is happening. Former Vice President Dick Cheney, a staunch defender of gun rights, even commented recently about the magazine ban with: “We’ve had that in place before. Maybe it’s appropriate to reestablish that kind of thing.”

A second glaring vulnerability is the gun show loophole. At gun shows across the country, buyers can completely avoid background checks otherwise required by the Brady law. The Columbine High School shooters killed 13 people with weapons obtained at a gun show, and gun traffickers regularly patronize gun shows and buy weapons that wind up at crime scenes halfway across the country. Closing the gun show loophole would not prohibit anyone new from buying a firearm—it would simply make sure sellers at gun shows follow the same rules as gun sellers everywhere else. As you stated in a March op-ed to the Arizona Daily Star: “If we’re serious about keeping guns away from someone who’s made up his mind to kill, then we can’t allow a situation where a responsible seller denies him a weapon at one store, but he effortlessly buys the same gun someplace else.” The public agrees with you—recent polls found 89 percent of Americans and even 69 percent of NRA members favor eliminating the gun show loophole.

The Columbine shooters did not buy any guns themselves at a gun show. This is total misinformation. Closing the loophole would not have stopped those shooters, who had others buy the guns for them.

The fact that 89 percent of Americans and even 69 percent of NRA members is quoted from data gathered by anti-gun groups and does not accurately reflect real opinions.

Finally, we must close the dangerous Terror Gap. Under current law, the government does not have authority to deny a known or suspected terrorist from obtaining firearms or explosives. This is not merely a theoretical problem—the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that since 2004, known or suspected terrorists have been cleared to buy firearms or explosives 1,321 times. This defies common-sense so much that 88 percent of Americans and 82 percent of NRA members support closing the terror gap.

What about due process? If these people are suspected of having committed a crime why are they not arrested? Does due process not matter in the case of firearms? Are people not innocent until proven guilty?

I have introduced legislation to close these three gaps in our laws, but your Administration has yet to join us on these proposals and has not shown the leadership to combat gun violence. It was nearly two years before a nominee for the Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) position was chosen. Earlier this year, the Administration convened a working group to examine strengthening our gun laws, but no findings or recommendations have been released. While the gun lobby is always opposed to legislation to curb gun violence, the White House cannot avoid its obligations to protect our people.

Why is there no mention here of the ATF debacle known as Fast and Furious?

Experts have been warning about an increased threat from commando-style terrorism using guns or explosives, such as the 2008 Mumbai attack and the 2009 Fort Hood attack here in the United States. But the latest threat—and what should be the last straw—came earlier this month, when Adam Gadahn, an American-born Al Qaeda member, urged terrorists in a video to exploit weaknesses in U.S. gun laws to carry out terrorist attacks. Gadahn states, “America is absolutely awash with easily obtainable firearms. You can go down to a gun show at the local convention center and come away with a fully automatic assault rifle, without a background check, and most likely, without having to show an identification card. So what are you waiting for?”

Just because Adam Gadahn or any terrorists says something doesn’t make it true. Gadahn is incorrect when he says you can come away with a fully automatic assault rifle. But this misinformation is left to imply otherwise.

The 9/11 terrorist attacks are often blamed on a failure to connect the dots—we cannot repeat such a failure again. I know that we both share the desire to stop senseless gun violence, and now is the time to act.

Now is time to act, to keep anti-gun zealots such as Lautenberg from taking our Constitutional rights away!

Synder adds that what is worse is that gun control groups don’t want to hear this part of the story. He writes:

“Congressional gun grabbers and their supporters are seeking to block the effect of the hearings. They are attempting to blame what they say are weak gun laws for criminal behavior. They’re reiterating their demands for more gun control. They’re seeking to curtail the operation of American gun shows, for instance. They’re even citing false claims by Islamist terrorists. Some terrorists state falsely that they can buy fully automatic firearms at these shows. The gun grabbers cite these false claims as a reason for more gun control.

“Anyone at all familiar with American gun laws knows that no one can buy a fully automatic firearm legally anywhere in the United States without official federal registration. Let alone at a gun show.”

Now if only the mainstream media could pick up on these points, but that is probably hoping for too much.

The post responded to the Al Qaeda’s calls for American-Muslims to take up arms and commit acts of terror. The author believes that the “gun show loophole” would actually allow terrorists to buy guns, and writes:

“As far back as October of 2009, in a story in USA Today, the alarms have been going off about the gun show loophole – the way gun show sellers are not required to do background checks or are too lazy to be bothered even if the computer terminals for instant checks are available. Many don’t even bother to check identifications at all, or limit the amount of guns sold. Why should they? It’s not their responsibility to limit anyone’s second amendment rights.”

How many gun shows have these computer terminals? In fact, the answer is very few. Most of the National Instant Criminal Background System checks are conducted by the phone! The author also fails to note that licensed dealers, even at gun shows, are required to do the background checks. Those who are not licensed dealers, and thus are making “private sales” are not required. That is a big difference.

Next the story notes:

“Mayors Against Illegal Guns is a group of big city mayor trying to get the loophole closed because it is the method by which people acquire guns that are illegal in their cities.”

This is also incorrect. The gun show loophole has nothing to do with guns that illegal in their cities. Someone could still buy a gun in another city or out of state via a gun shop as well. It isn’t against the law to buy a gun where it is legal to own. The buyer is the one breaking the law for bringing it back to their home town if the local law bans it.

The story adds:

“There have been several attempts in congress to close the loophole. Naturally, the National Rifle Association has opposed it and pressured the legislators that it has contributed to to quash the bills. There is need for additional legislation to address a gaping hole in the background check system which is in place and used by licensed dealers. People who are on the terrorist watch lists – those who cannot get on an airplane – are not on the background check list.”

The issue of terror watch list changes daily. People are on it by mistake, because their name is similar to those who might be legitimate targets. Should those who are the list by mistake lose their Constitutional rights? The list is just a “watch list.”

But there is other misinformation in this piece:

“A recent investigation showed that those who are purchasing guns for Mexican cartels are walking away from gun shows with dozens of weapons at a time. If the people running these sales and selling these weapons had an ounce of common sense, they’d know these are not people buying guns for their own use. Who the hell needs a dozen automatic weapons?”

What the story fails to note is that the ATF pushed for those sales, as part of Fast and Furious or Project Gunrunner/Project Gunwalker. This was supposedly part of a government sting. Finally, “automatic weapons” is not correct. The guns are semi-automatic, but the writer implies these are fully automatic.

This biased article makes some interesting points, but the sheer volume of factual errors shows that it is more passion than commonsense. We suggest they get real.

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.”

But isn’t banning “sales between private citizens not taking place at guns shows” going to be the next step? And here is where it gets tricky. Greenfieldreporter.com notes:

“The bill is intended to close what supporters say is a loophole that allows nonlicensed private vendors at gun shows to sell firearms without performing the background checks on purchasers that are required of federally licensed firearms dealers. The legislation would require a firearm seller at a gun show to have a licensed dealer perform a background check on the purchaser before selling or transferring any firearm. For first offenses, gun show vendors and licensed dealers who violate the law would be guilty of a misdemeanor. Subsequent offenses would be felonies, as would the presentation of false statements or identification by a potential purchaser trying to buy a gun.”

Not only would this ban private sales at gun shows, but criminalize such transactions too. However, Greenfieldreporter.com did note:

“Andrew Jennison, a lobbyist with the National Rifle Association… rejected the notion that, instead of buying guns illegally on the street, criminals are going to pay admission to gun shows that are typically attended by ATF agents and police officers and pay retail price for a weapon.”

This is the great mystery with gun shows and the gun show loophole. Do criminals actually frequent these events? Why would anyone think that criminals would venture to a gun show? It is technology a felony for a convicted felon to actually attend a gun show.

The article notes:

“A federal appeals court panel ruled Monday that gun show promoters have failed to show that a ban on firearms at the Alameda County Fairgrounds violates their right to keep and bear arms.

“Rather than dismissing the promoters’ 12-year-old lawsuit, however, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco gave the plaintiffs another chance to produce evidence that the ban unreasonably restricts law-abiding citizens’ ability to obtain guns for self-defense.”

It will be interesting to see how this plays out, and we wish the organizers the best of luck in their case.