Times Sun Union Calls for Background Checks on All Gun Sales
This week the editors at the Times Sun Union in Albany, New York offered an editorial that basically calls for the closing of the gun show loophole, and demands reporting of sales of all firearms. The editorial offered this thought:
A loophole in the federal law exempts private sales at gun shows from undergoing a NICS check. Only seven states, including New York, require the checks to be done for all sales. That should be mandatory nationwide.
The rest of the editorial notes the so-called “gun show loophole,” argues that criminals can get guns, and states many facts such as how licensed dealers must report all sales. All this makes good points and a very convincing argument, but there are some counter-points that the editors should think about.
Namely, “for all sales.” What about friends that give guns to one another? Or a father giving a son a gun? Would these need to be done through a dealer so a background check is done? And couldn’t people just “give” guns if cash isn’t exchanged? In other words, doesn’t this just create other “loopholes?”
And finally, this so-called nationwide background check would only affect law-abiding citizens, and wouldn’t have any effect on illegal gun sales. That is something to think about. Isn’t this really just about making it harder for the law-abiding to arm themselves?
AP Offers Biased Take on Gillbrand Bill
This week the Associated Press, via The Long Island Press, noted that U.S. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) is looking to close the so-called “gun show loophole.” The story presents a variety of dubious, misleading and even contradictory facts including:
-90 percent of firearms used in New York City gun crimes come from out of state
-Most of the guns are illegal
-Closing the “gun show loophole” would “keep operators responsible”
Now here are some points the article doesn’t note. New York City has extremely strict gun laws, and apparently these only deter law-abiding citizens from being armed, especially if criminals are going out state. But the article implies that 90 percent of crime guns come from out of state, which may or may not be true, as it is probably difficult to track many of these guns in the first place.
But let’s consider that New York State doesn’t have any significant gun industry, so wouldn’t all crime guns be from somewhere else? See how easy it is to skew the facts?
And now let’s review the second fact listed above, “most of the guns are illegal,” so what does that have to do with gun shows, where the vast majority are illegal. This sort of reporting implies that gun shows are akin to black market arms fairs, which they are not.
As for the loophole, here are two more points. One, what is to stop illegal dealers from selling guns off the books beyond gun shows? Nothing, which is how most criminals get their guns anyway. In other words, criminals aren’t going to gun shows. Closing private sales – and make no mistake that this is what it is really about – would only further punish the law-abiding.
Anti-Gun Author Questions: “Is Gun Control Racist?”
While there is a long standing argument to be made that gun control is racist, it is ironic that author Adam Winkler is only seeing it now. Of course he offers some strange opinions while making this argument in a post for The Daily Beast via MSNBC:
“And one of the few places you can easily find virulent racist literature is at a gun show. In what bizarro world is gun control racist?”
Is it really fair for Winkler to suggest that “virulent racist literature” can be “easily” found? No gun show actually promotes this, and while we disagree that it is “easy” to find this literature, isn’t it really just an example of a few individuals.
But once again Winkler goes over the same points in his book, sharing misinformation along the way, suggesting that the NRA was about gun control of minorities and implying that this is still their stand today.
Virginia Citizens Defense League Gun Shows And Events
Virginia Citizens Defense League:
The Virginia Citizens Defense League thanks the following member-activists who generously gave of their time to advance and help defend the rights of their fellow gun owners by working our recruiting and information booths at gun shows and events around the state. Read more
Algemeiner: “Gun Control Loopholes Please Terrorists”
Writer Maxine Dovere of The Algemeiner notes that “Gun Control Loopholes Please Terrorists,” and while she expresses a concern that Adam Gadahn is inciting Muslims to commit acts of terror, she seems to miss a few points.
While her editorial is long and rambling, it is best summed up in this one line:
“Tougher laws will discourage or prevent Al Quada operatives from acquiring guns as freely.”
What proof is there for this statement? There is not one shred of proof? So if someone is on a terrorist watchlist and is denied buying a gun, then all he has to do is have a friend or relative buy the gun anyway. Would someone next suggest that anyone on a terrorist watchlist would not put their friends and relatives on the list as well? This is basically what it sounds like Dovere wants!
And what groups such as Mayors Against Illegal Guns want is to ban sale of all guns, and they are using this ad campaign to strike fear into the average American. Tougher laws can only work if people follow the law.
That’s the problem. Criminals and terrorists don’t follow laws. Box cutters were not allowed on planes before 9/11. Hi-jacking of planes was a crime before 9/11. And yet terrorists used box cutters to hi-jack planes on 9/11. They broke the law before they crashed those planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
So how would tougher laws discourage terrorist? It wouldn’t!
Could tougher laws prevent terrorists from acquiring guns? The answer is probably not. Do you really think terrorists shop at gun shows? Guns can be stolen, smuggled, etc. So making tougher gun laws would only take the guns out of the hands of the law abiding, while letting the criminals remain armed.
Senator Frank Lautenberg: Letter to Obama
Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) is a truly dangerous – or stupid – man. Probably both. He wrote a letter last week to President Obama calling on more gun control. The problem is that his facts are skewed, misleading or just plain wrong. For example, he quotes a reported terrorist stating that you can buy fully automatic assault weapons at gun shows. You cannot. You never could and probably never will be able to do so. But that didn’t stop Franky from penning this very serious letter.
Here is the full transcript of Lautenberg’s letter to President Obama:
June 15, 2011
Dear President Obama:
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.
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.
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.
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?”
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.
Media Matters Ties Al Qaeda Claims to Gun Show Loophole
Maybe the anti-gun zealots from the Brady Campaign should thank terrorist Adam Gadahn, American spokesman for Al Qaeda. Left leaning blogs are trying to note that Gadahn’s call for Muslim Americans to buy guns to commit terrorist attacks wouldn’t be such a stretch.
In a piece run last week Media Matters includes video of Gadahn, as well as a refresher course on those “undercover” (not to mention likely illegal) stings at gun shows.
What the site doesn’t note is that making it harder for terrorists to get guns would also mean law-abiding Americans would lose their rights to. We notice that anything freedom is taking away the left yells and says that we shouldn’t give up those freedoms, but if it is guns they can’t do enough to take away freedoms as fast as is humanly possible.
And yet if anyone were suggesting that maybe Muslim Americans should be watched, scrutinized or otherwise persecuted the left would cry foul. So apparently the rights of one group – Muslims – must be protected, while the rights of another group – gun owners – can be trampled.
NY Daily News: Gun lobby hampers the war on terror
In response to the “chilling video” from Al Qaeda spokesman Adam Gadahn, New York Daily News offered an op-ed piece titled, “gun lobby hampers the war on terror.” Seriously!
The New York Daily News offered this nonsensical argument:
“Gadahn owes thanks to the National Rifle Association, whose political muscle has kept open two indefensible gun-rights loopholes that all but invite terrorists to buy weapons.
“Unlike those who purchase guns from a dealer, people who buy firearms from private sellers at gun shows don’t have to pass a background check.”
A few counter points. First, how many terrorists have bought guns at gun shows? So far the number appears to be low. Even mass shooters we’ve noted in recent weeks haven’t bought guns at gun shows.
Second, unless the “terrorists” is in America illegally or has committed a crime, they’d be able to buy a gun and likely pass a background check. Note that Gadahn has called on American-Muslims to buy guns… meaning that most would likely pass such a check. Thus this is a moot point.
So while the editors are free to write their opinions on such matters, it is shocking that they disregard the facts to make their point.
Mayor Bloomberg Responds to Al Qaeda Call
Apparently Mayor Mike Bloomberg of New York City agrees with terrorists. That’s our reaction to his statement, released in response from calls from Al Qaeda to buy guns and commit acts of terror. Bloomberg said:
“The terror statement released today is absolutely accurate in one respect: terrorists and other criminals can easily buy guns in the United States with no background check, and no questions asked. This video may help Washington understand that weak gun laws aren’t just a crime problem, they’re a national security threat.”
So Bloomberg agrees with terrorists. That’s the take away.
Salt Lake Tribune Calls for “Common sense weapons bill”
Gary C. Sackett offered a commentary titled “Common sense weapons bill that would makes us safer” for The Salt Lake Tribune. Sackett, who also happens to be on the board of directors at the Gun Violence Prevention Center of Utah, writes:
“Do we have such legislation in the United States? No. Why not? The simple answer is that the National Rifle Association and its followers oppose these measures — often through their omnipresent ‘slippery slope’ argument: If we enact any restrictive legislation, where will it all stop — a Nazi-like confiscation of all weapons and ultimate subjugation of the populace?
“The more complex answer is that the NRA and many of its members have bamboozled an entire generation of legislators into believing that support for any restriction on the availability of firearms is a third-rail issue: Touch it and your re-election possibilities are history. But, acceptance of this political ‘wisdom’ shows a serious lack of responsible leadership and a distressing disregard of public safety.”
Mr. Sackett seems to imply, like many anti-gun zealots, that the NRA is some nefarious organization with untold power. Why can’t he accept that the NRA is just a powerful organization because it has a lot of members and those members vote “guns” in elections? Thus it isn’t the NRA, it is the ballot that determines this legislation.
However, Mr. Sackett also plays politics, and offers misleading information. He notes various shooters from recent high-profile shootings, including Seung-Hui Cho, Nidal Malik Hassan and Jared Loughner but then calls on the closure of the “gun show loophole.”
What Mr. Sackett doesn’t note is that none of those shooters bought guns at gun shows. This type of misleading information is used time and time again. He then adds:
“The Fix Gun Checks Act would not only close the gun show loophole and require background checks for all purchasers, it would force states to provide information to the national background check database on ineligible individuals, such as the mentally ill and those subject to stalking orders and domestic-violence crimes.”
And yet all those shooters above still bought guns, from dealers and passed the existing background checks. Doesn’t this imply that the problem is with something besides gun shows?
Finally, note that Sackett calls on “background checks for all purchasers.” This implies that he means every sale. As we’ve noted many times, this means every sale to everyone. Family transfers, sales between hunting buddies, etc. would all require background checks – and it would criminalize not conducting the background check, thus ensuring that anyone who violated the background check would be barred from own a gun. That sounds pretty much like the road to “Nazi-like confiscation of all weapons” to us.
