About that gun show loophole…
posted at 5:31 pm on January 12, 2013 by Jazz Shaw
Among the various helpful suggestions being stressed by liberals seeking areas where gun rights advocates and gun grabbers might find “common ground” is the question of the Gun Show Loophole in places such as Virginia and Kansas (among others). Just imagine… open forums where criminals, the deranged and the idle rich can wander in off the streets, plop down a fistful of cash and walk out with every weapon known to man with no background check. It’s an awful thing, isn’t it? Or at least it would be… if it were real.
In Virginia, one legislator is on the trail of a way to stop the madness whether it happens or not.
Legislators will be dueling over guns this year at the Capitol, with gun-rights advocates set to oppose efforts to close Virginia’s gun-show loophole. Alexandria state Sen. Adam Ebbin (D-30) and Arlington Del. Patrick Hope (D-47) have introduced legislation that would require a background check for every gun purchase. That includes the 40 percent of current gun sales that take place in a private transaction, which do not require any kind of background check to be conducted on the individual purchasing the weapon.
The article actually has some good information in it, even if portions of it are unintentional. The key point we should be addressing when this comes up is the fundamental fallacy of the greatly inflated stories about the “loophole” in question. When you go to one of these shows, there are sellers of all kinds. Some of them are dealers who bring large amounts of stock of various types to sell. And many of them will have some pretty high end, high tech weapons for sale. But here’s the thing… they are registered dealers, most of whom have regular store front operations, and they still have to do a spot background check before the sale.
But there are also other folks there who may only have a few – or even one – gun for sale. Some of them are collectors who are getting rid of their collections. Others may simply no longer have a need for their old hunting rifle and could use the cash. And they largely don’t have access to the system for doing an instant background check. That’s why the so called “loophole” exists. It isn’t a gun show loophole, it’s a private seller loophole.
Now we could certainly have a discussion about stopping people from acting as professional dealers under the guise of private sellers if they are seeking to avoid the normal commerce laws applicable to store owners. But a “solution” which sweeps up every individual who may want to sell their old rifle to their cousin is no kind of answer. Of course, that’s not what anyone wants, right? Oh… wait.
“And so the kinds of things that there’s an emerging set of recommendations, not coming from me but coming from the groups we’ve met with,” said Biden today, before a closed door meeting on gun control. “And I’m going to focus on the ones that relate primarily to gun ownership and the type of weapons can be owned. And one is, there is a surprising — so far — a surprising recurrence of suggestions that we have universal background checks. Not just close the gun show loophole but total, universal background checks, including private sales.”
I suppose that shouldn’t surprise us all that much. But there’s one more aspect to the whole background check and registration thing which doesn’t get quite as much attention. Why would anyone object to gun registration? Neal Boortz had a rather terse answer for Vice President Biden.
Biden was also miffed about the fact that our government doesn’t have a database and a way to track all of the guns in our country…
There is a reason there are laws to prohibit such things, you fool. The fact is that a criminal who is out to kill someone is going to get a gun through whatever means they can, legally or illegally. So why then restrict the people who seek to protect themselves from such evil? Liberals say it is the government’s job to protect you from such evil. But when your house is being broken into and you have a predator aiming a gun at you or your family, the government isn’t there to disarm the thug. That is your life on the line … and don’t let these liberals convince you that you don’t have an “unalienable right” to protect it.
Well, that’s enough depressing, gun grabbing news for one Saturday. So before we close, I’ll just invite you to have a look at some much needed gun control humor. Enjoy.
Related Posts:









Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
So if you and your wife have a pistol for home defense purposes, what happens if you’re incapacitated during the fight, on vacation, at work, running errands, et al.
I guess she’s just grist for the mill, eh libfree? nonpartisan, what about you? She deserves to die because her husband is out getting milk?
Washington Nearsider on May 17, 2013 at 6:03 PM
Make this known
Schadenfreude on May 17, 2013 at 6:04 PM
May I repeat, Liberalism, where “thoughtful” legislation, unsubstantiated by empirical data, unfunded and unwanted by the majority of its law abiding, productive citizens, must be written in an effort to demonstrate “we did something”. (See Obamacare, Guns, War on Poverty, Dept of Ed.,Head Start, “Green” programs, Fannie Mae, Job Stimulus, etc).
hillsoftx on May 17, 2013 at 6:05 PM
Yeah, I’m sure somebody’s going to hack up the Colt 1911 they got from their grandfather just to try to please these whiners.
Something tells me the criminal’s gun won’t have this nifty feature.
CurtZHP on May 17, 2013 at 6:06 PM
Chocolate bullets, now that’s something women would die for.
antipc on May 17, 2013 at 6:06 PM
Probably be programmed to shoot conservatives.
justltl on May 17, 2013 at 6:06 PM
How about knives? Do they want to retrofit knives with this lovely technology?
Baseball bats?
Lead pipes?
How about being strangled by bare hands, do your hands need this as well?
ajacksonian on May 17, 2013 at 6:07 PM
gotta really start teaching gun owners how to double-tap. One in the pumphouse, one in the breakerbox.
kurtzz3 on May 17, 2013 at 6:07 PM
No charges expected against the homeowner.
cozmo on May 17, 2013 at 6:09 PM
Didn’t these clowns pass the ban on plastic guns because of a movie? What was that movie called with John Malkovich?
How can any self respecting human being take any democrat seriously? They live in a fantasyland!
jawkneemusic on May 17, 2013 at 6:09 PM
Isn’t that the point?
If anybody would want a gun like that, it’s the cops, since they face the constant threat of their gun being taken away by criminals and used against them. So, why don’t you see departments armed with them or laws requiring cops to have them? Simple: They don’t exist — at least not with levels of reliability needed when you life depends on them working.
You want us to have a James Bond gun, Congressman Tierney? Government first.
Socratease on May 17, 2013 at 6:10 PM
Once again. I’m humbled by the simple honesty and wisdom of children. :)
*pauses for effect*
I demand that all police officers and military personnel immediately load their guns with chocolate bullets.
Axe on May 17, 2013 at 6:10 PM
It’s tempting to say that Biden’s mind operates on the level of a 2nd grader, but more likely he was just being nice to the kid.
Socratease on May 17, 2013 at 6:13 PM
It’s not about gun control. Do not co-op the language. When they own the language, they own the argument. There is a reason they are doing this… ~ Don Bongino
Fallon on May 17, 2013 at 6:14 PM
A$$clowns.
jawkneemusic on May 17, 2013 at 6:16 PM
Well, my hands are registered as lethal weapons… /
squint on May 17, 2013 at 6:18 PM
Liberals are so dumb. Do they really believe in the sh!t they throw out there as ideas? What a complete waste of time they are.
tommer74 on May 17, 2013 at 6:19 PM
We are talking about the guy who has given notoriously illegal advice on using shotguns on at least two separate occasions. And despite his protestations to the contrary, if he could make chocolate squirt guns the most lethal machine available to the public, he would.
Fenris on May 17, 2013 at 6:20 PM
That’s easy. Tackling:
rogerb on May 17, 2013 at 6:21 PM
Then they’d regulate and penalize chocolate ownership.
catmman on May 17, 2013 at 6:22 PM
Just wait till a kid brings a couple of the chocolate rounds to school.
tommer74 on May 17, 2013 at 6:22 PM
It’s all funny until someone gets “fudged up”.
squint on May 17, 2013 at 6:24 PM
Tierney, sounds like tyranny. Can you imagine, tho, how many jobs in Big Chocolate this would create? With all the different calibers out there the jobs list is endless.
Kissmygrits on May 17, 2013 at 6:25 PM
Only if they have a creamy peanut butter center!
Kingfisher on May 17, 2013 at 6:26 PM
You can take down a unicorn with those chocolate bullets you know.
justltl on May 17, 2013 at 6:32 PM
I volunteer to test the quality of each caliber.
Do you think the bullet shortage will cause this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NPzLBSBzPI
Kingfisher on May 17, 2013 at 6:33 PM
Here’s a sneaky trick. Lick the grip of your handgun. Then, if a bad guy gets it, you’ll know that he is likely to get a really nasty sniffle.
(Don’t know what I’m trying to prove with this. Just made me chuckle when I thought if it)
kurtzz3 on May 17, 2013 at 6:33 PM
Dayum. Just Dayum.
notropis on May 17, 2013 at 6:39 PM
Just wait until they are fully regulated… and if you don’t ask permission for their use, why, they will have to make you mostly armless.
ajacksonian on May 17, 2013 at 6:40 PM
Back in the 1980s when I was an FFL licensed dealer, ammo manufacturer and gunsmith; a few people actually invented and marketed this concept, and a few silly cop shops and a few silly individuals actually purchased and implemented it.
Some were simple magnetic devices that operated from a magnet in a ring. Others were electronic, although I forget what the (un) locking mechanism was.
Batteries failed at inopportune times, Magnetic rings didn’t happen to be on the hand when bad guys broke in. Good people died because of it..
And while the concept might save lives of good guys who get disarmed in a fight, there is no way that a retrofitted firearm couldn’t be ‘unretrofitted’ in minutes, so that wouldn’t prevent crimes from being committed with stolen firearms.
LegendHasIt on May 17, 2013 at 6:45 PM
And as far as chocolate goes…. Milk chocolate may not be instantly lethal….
Lets see, a Hershey’s kiss is about .72 Caliber.
How long before one of the YouTube gun channels loads up a 12 ga shell with one and shoots it at a watermelon?
But some of that dark chocolate is awfully hard, and I don’t think I’d want to be hit by a chunk traveling 1000fps. (You would probably need a gas check and a refrigerated barrel to get much more velocity.. I wonder what Hoppe’s No. 9 and chocolate smell like in solution. ;-)
LegendHasIt on May 17, 2013 at 6:56 PM
This concept has been “developing” for the last 20 years. And has a long way to go before it becomes FOOLPROOF. Last time I checked, their reliability was still between 75-80%. So if you fell into that other 20% at a critical time, guess the manufacturer would give you your money back.
Tierney is a FOOL. Next thing you know, Teirney will be insisting that everyone use Teleporters to go from one place to another.
It works in the movies.
GarandFan on May 17, 2013 at 6:59 PM
Again when the FBI and the Presidential Security Detail adopt both the Chocolate Bullet and this Personalization Technology, I will adopt it…
BTW, a chocolate .40 cal pistol round is just a dangerous at 5-10 metres as a metal, I would imagine. Chocolate, like water isn’t “soft” at hi speeds….1-2 grams of ANYTHING moving at several hundred metres per second is going to hurt and do some damage.
JFKY on May 17, 2013 at 7:06 PM
I was hoping for the Holodeck, first, myself….Veronica Zemanova and I have a “rendezvous” if you know what I mean….
JFKY on May 17, 2013 at 7:06 PM
Ray Nagin was mayor of “Chocolate City”.
Biden wants to be VP of “Chocolate Nation”.
Bitter Clinger on May 17, 2013 at 7:25 PM
Has the race card been played yet? Chocolate bullets has to be code words for something bad.
meci on May 17, 2013 at 7:26 PM
I say we go the whole “Dredd” route….IIRC, when a baddie tried to use the rookie’s gun on her, it exploded, taking off the baddie’s arm! I’dd prefer that I think…
Also, can anyone explain how the Judge’s weapons worked? I’m puzzled how one small ammunition module could produce such a plethora and multiplicity of rounds…..
JFKY on May 17, 2013 at 7:31 PM
They can have my hands when they can pry them from my cold dead wrists!
squint on May 17, 2013 at 7:37 PM
Until the day comes when you find out your kids ate all the ammunition.
Bishop on May 17, 2013 at 7:51 PM
Ok, say this technology was available and my husband was the one the gun was fitted for.
He goes out of town, someone breaks into the house. The gun is of no use to me.
Idiots!!!!
Barred on May 17, 2013 at 8:20 PM
Even earlier, in the Seventies, some (redacted) tried to sell the magnetic ring version to several of our local PDs here. Trouble was, it consistently failed to work when the batteries in the revolver’s butt got weak. And since the default was “fire”, that meant that it would probably work if the perp tried to use the revolver on the officer.
By comparison, we solved the problem on the multi-county level by teaching weapon retention techniques. I.E., if perp tries to grab the sidearm, instead of pulling away, thrust forward with it like a knife. A gun barrel punch in the guts hurts. (Squeezing the trigger at the same time is optional.)
Probably the best solution was, and is, the Smith & Wesson autos with the magazine safety. If you’re about to lose control of the weapon, hit the mag release. It drops out, and the perp can’t fire the round in the chamber. I carried a 645 on duty for years for just that reason. Plus, I’d already come to appreciate the feature on my backup, a P-35 High Power.
I’ve always held that a second loaded gun is the fastest reload there is. And it should have a decently large magazine capacity. The reason being that if you’re in a situation where you need that “fast reload”, there’s a good chance you’re up against multiple assailants. And reloading either the primary or the backup might be a practical impossibility, because you’re in one of those situations in which, as the old river pilot’s saying goes,
cheers
eon
eon on May 17, 2013 at 8:51 PM
Silly, you can poop, pee and vomit on yourself, it’s not like you are DEFENSELESS, *SHEESH*
JFKY on May 17, 2013 at 9:02 PM
Multiplicity, yes; plethora, no. The Lawgiver was based on an idea they apparently snitched from the original novel Logan’s Run by William F. Nolan and George Clayton Johnson, written back in the Sixties.
Never mind the (stupid) movie and (stupider) TV show. The original Sandman Gun was a six-shot revolver, with a cylinder that could be replaced like the magazine in an automatic. Old idea, that; the Remington and Adams revolvers had that feature, and came with spare cylinders, back in percussion days. Watch the Clint Eastwood movie Pale Rider to see the Preacher (Clint) use that feature of the Remington 1861 Army (metallic-cartridge conversion) to “speedload” during the final gunfight.
The Sandman revolver held four types of rounds;
Tangler; fired a ‘net’ of very tough fibers that entangled the target.
Gas; trank round.
Ripper; Basically a Glaser prefragmented round, except with an actual explosive charge in it. Nasty.
Homer; an infra-red homer like a Sidewinder air-to-air missile, with a Ripper “warhead”. It homed on the exact heat of a human body, 98.6 degrees F.
A set of buttons on the grip let the Sandman select the round. Usual load was two Gas, one Tangler, two Ripper, one Homer.
The Lawgiver worked on a similar setup. a triple-stack magazine held three types of round; baton (rubber bullet), standard (armor-piercing), and explosive. The Judge selected the round he or she wanted by either flipping a lever on the side (in the comics) or by voice command (in the movie). The Lawgiver was also selective-fire in the comics; trouble was, once you’d selected the type of round (say, HE), and squeezed the trigger, the gun would cheerfully fire just that type on full-auto. Leaving you without that selection until you ejected that mag and put in a full one.
The mechanism inside apparently worked like the dual-feed on some automatic cannon like the old West German Gepard Flakpanzer anti-aircraft tank (dual Oerlikon/Contraves 35mm, firing 850 rounds per minute per barrel- nasty). That setup lets the gunner shift from, say, proximity-fuzed anti-aircraft to armor-piercing HE, if while he’s on overwatch for enemy tactical air an enemy tank suddenly pops over the next rise and bears down on him. Personally, I have my doubts about anything that sophisticated working consistently in a pistol, even one the size and weight of a freakin’ .50 Desert Eagle.
To add to the hilarity, the lower “box” on the movie version was apparently supposed to be some kind of grenade launcher, which was why when Dredd (Stallone) said “grenade”, its barrel extended, and it fired instead of the “regular” barrel. If you watched the “reimagined” Battlestar Galactica on Sci-Fi Channel, that funky little streamlined widget under the nose of their FN Five-SeveN pistols was supposed to be the same deal.
The problem with any version of the Lawgiver is that at best, its “multistack” magazine will only be able to hold about five or six rounds of any one type of ammo, total of fifteen to eighteen rounds. That’s about what most modern 9mm service pistols hold, and supposedly in Dredd’s Mega-City One a high-capacity 9mm isn’t a big enough gun, with enough firepower, to be survivable. Hence all the Judge firepower.
Maybe what they really need is more range time. I’ve found it can work wonders. Especially with classes of recruits who only know pistols, rifles, and shotguns from…TV cop shows.
(Yes, I’ve trained such. It was emphatically not an experience to calm one’s nerves.)
cheers
eon
eon on May 17, 2013 at 9:25 PM
Meh. Adele’s had much better songs that “Skyfall.”
Even this song by
the male AdeleThe Neighbourhood was better than “Skyfall.”Myron Falwell on May 18, 2013 at 12:49 AM
Clearly what we need is “Men” control.
ronsfi on May 18, 2013 at 7:08 AM
This has been discussed before with excruciating detail. In fact it comes up with nearly every mass shooting. Retrofitting 17th century technology with 21st is at best problematic… but most importantly, the technology is unreliable. It’ll be ready for prime time when the cops and the military adopt it.
John_G on May 18, 2013 at 9:40 AM
Because of the train wreck in Connecticut, I think we should ban trains that carry people. They are definitely dangerous, and Connecticut wants to ban anything that is dangerous. Just think about how many children are in danger because of wrecking trains!
Old Country Boy on May 18, 2013 at 10:57 AM
I know everyone loves the biometric locks on laptops. Why not implement that wildly successful technology on all our potentially life saving devices?
For that matter, if you’re going to have an electronic lockout on your weapon, why not a dual permission system that requires both the confirmed identity of the user and clearance from your local law enforcement agency to fire? They can simply be notified by the device that you have requested clearance to fire, and some lackey can press a little red button to clear you once they feel certain you’re not going to shoot an ex lover. Or any member of a historically disadvantaged or politically favorable group, union, or mostly peaceful protest. Or an animal with a treatable illness like rabies. And no shooting of any kind on Wednesdays, of course, or during regular school hours. Or within 1000 yards of an abortion clinic or mosque. They would of course be scrupulous in ascertaining that you are current in your Obamacare payments, and that you haven’t prayed to any unapproved Deities or donated to admittedly racist tea party groups.
Other than that it would be business as usual under the bill of rights. Carry on!
TexasDan on May 18, 2013 at 11:20 AM
Dude, considering you were answering a question related to a comic book… whoa. You officially know way too much stuff.
And, yes, this is stupid technology; it always has been. If it’s an issue of the gun being picked up while it’s “laying around” then it shouldn’t be “laying around”. If it’s an issue of losing the gun in close quarters, then you probably screwed up tactically to start with, and you should use good weapons retention techniques to keep the gun instead of counting on technology to save your bacon.
BTW, what do you think will happen once the bad guy takes your disabled gun away from you? Now you’re no longer armed. At best, he’s gonna take that handgun and shove it up your Biden. At worst, he’s going to take out his weapon and kill you with it. Better to just hold onto the thing.
(And, good info, LegendHasIt and eon.)
GWB on May 18, 2013 at 11:23 AM