Gun-show loophole rising to top of Senate’s gun-control agenda
“One of the first things you want to do is close the gun-show loophole,” said Mr. Leahy, in an interview for C-SPAN’s “Newsmakers,” referring to a legal provision that permits unlicensed gun sellers to sell to people without conducting background checks. The loophole is a small piece of a much broader agenda introduced by Mr. Obama on Wednesday, one that faces considerable, though not insurmountable, odds on Capitol Hill.
The view of Mr. Leahy, a Democrat with a history of supporting some gun rights, is crucial because the work of his Judiciary Committee will be central to advancing any new gun legislation.
He declined to detail precisely how the committee, which will hold hearings on potential gun legislation this month, would proceed with Mr. Obama’s request to push legislation that includes a renewal of an assault weapons ban, a limit on magazine size and universal background checks.
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
Yup, that’s what they’re up to.
If this comes to pass, we citizens (at least the ones that will not submit) should declare the law to be an INTOLERABLE ACT that will result in CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE.
Do not allow this fascist regime to further erode that which is inalienable.
turfmann on January 20, 2013 at 8:08 AM
Freedom is not a loophole, it’s the purpose.
single stack on January 20, 2013 at 8:09 AM
Given that the right to bear arms is inherent, one would think that no license is warranted, and that “infringement” is only warranted in the case of crimes committed with a gun. Even mental illness does not mean that a gun will be used in an illegal manner.
Whatever happened to “innocent until proven guilty”?
OldEnglish on January 20, 2013 at 8:14 AM
You can see the propaganda is thick in this one when you read “a legal provision that permits unlicensed gun sellers to sell to people without conducting background checks”.
This actually means regular citizens selling their guns to other regular citizens without government being a middle man.
bictech on January 20, 2013 at 8:15 AM
What bictech said.
If I want to sell a firearm to a relative, friend, or stranger in a face to face transaction, I do not need the federal government intervening. There are already myriad laws on the books about knowingly selling firearms to felons, etc.
There is no loophole, and it has nothing to do with gun shows.
tom daschle concerned on January 20, 2013 at 8:33 AM
What about our PENUMBRA of rights to self defense? Any democrat who still argues that the Constitution allows abortion but not the owning of guns should be forced to get a lobotomy and then be sent to Mali for the rest of the worthless lives.
Flange on January 20, 2013 at 8:37 AM
agenda introduced by Mr. Obama on Wednesday, one that faces considerable, though not insurmountable, odds on Capitol Hill.
MikeA on January 20, 2013 at 8:43 AM
Their trick is to call the “loophole” that which allows uninfringed rights rather than calling their infringement rule the loophole against our rights. We should straighten out the language.
Buddahpundit on January 20, 2013 at 8:49 AM
West Point just put out a paper about the danger of the American Right. It exposed one truth, that the Right is focused on their Rights and must be watched. Nice to know the Long Grey Line is so concerned about dangers of the folks in the Land of McDonalds.
Limerick on January 20, 2013 at 8:55 AM
West Point
Limerick on January 20, 2013 at 8:58 AM
Unintended Consequences
fossten on January 20, 2013 at 9:05 AM
How are they defining the “far right”?
tom daschle concerned on January 20, 2013 at 9:09 AM
I gave the link in the next block. It seems any who are focused on their rights are white supremacist. All of them. Just checked my drivers license to see if white supremacist is listed anywhere.
Limerick on January 20, 2013 at 9:15 AM
tom daschle concerned on January 20, 2013 at 9:30 AM
last I checked, it wasn’t a “loophole”
jediwebdude on January 20, 2013 at 9:36 AM
The house shouldn’t consider anything out of them until after they pass a serious budget.
JeffWeimer on January 20, 2013 at 10:01 AM
You know, I was TOTALLY going to go out and buy a gun from this guy who sells guns to criminals, because I have this crime I was determined to commit, but this new law requiring him to do a background check on me has COMPLETELY ruined that plan.
Oh well, guess I’ll go back to my accounting job.
greggriffith on January 20, 2013 at 10:04 AM
A loophole ? You mean exercising your 2nd Amendment right is a loophole? Up is down , down is up. America in general: You’re stupid.
CW on January 20, 2013 at 10:10 AM
How’s about we do background checks on congressmen and senators first and work our way down. If you can’t pass a background check to buy a firearm should you be in a position to cast votes on the welfare of the nation?
Oldnuke on January 20, 2013 at 10:12 AM
But what about the David Gregory loophole?
Socratease on January 20, 2013 at 10:26 AM
Please answer this question:
Are you comfortable with people who would be denied permission to buy a gun from a gun dealer because they fail an FBI background check, say because of a felony conviction, a history of mental illness, or for whatever reason, could buy a gun at a gun show without a background check? Why or why not?
I understand the vigilance in protecting gun ownership rights, I really do. But if you claim on the one hand that the assault weapons ban is just political grandstanding because Lanza would not have been able to buy a gun legally, how can you simultaneously argue he should not be subject to a background check depending on the circumstances of the gun purchase?
Ted Torgerson on January 20, 2013 at 10:28 AM
They first have to define how many unlicensed gun sellers there are and how much in taxes and fees are they avoiding but not getting a FFL.
They have a hard time defining how many unlicensed drug sellers there are, as 100% of all cocaine sales done on the street corner are done without a drug license and the government are doing a bang up job stopping that. Most if not all gun violence is still a offshoot of illegal drug trade.
tjexcite on January 20, 2013 at 10:41 AM
You’re being purposefully obtuse, as per usual. Privately selling a gun or really any other personal item you own to a friend, relative, or aquaintance is one thing. Taking your items to an organized event, open to anyone, to attempt to sell to the PUBLIC, is something else entirely.
If it was food you were selling to the public and not your neighbor you’d be required to have a license and permits and a variety of other qualifications before you could sell to the general public.
I agree you should be able to make a private sale to your relative or friend, and you can. But to the PUBLIC is a different ball of wax and you’re being disingenous to pretend its not.
And if you follow the logic of you guy’s arguments, I should be able to own sarin gas, patriot missile batteries, and functional long range bombers with plenty of ammo, otherwise you’re just “infringing” on my constitutional right to bear arms. The constitution never said anywhere that it only meant handguns and rifles, right? And the 2nd’s purpose is to give the people the ability to fight the government if need be, right? Right?
Well the government has all that stuff, how can you expect me to fight back with a little pea-shooter of an AR? Should we be able to purchase chemical and biological weapons to stockpile as well as missiles and the technology to put them right on target, you know, just in case? I’m mean, my right to that is inherent, no? Innocent until proven guilty, right?
Where’s the nearest Sarin distributer? I better get there before they require background checks… Geez. The fascists.
Genuine on January 20, 2013 at 10:52 AM
First one has to define how many people sell at guns shows who do not have a Federal Firearm licenses. If one has a FFL and sell a gun “under the table” at a gun show and does not do the background check as they are required to under law, they can risk losing their FFL and their whole livelihood. Just like a bar that sells to underage kids they risk losing their liquor license.
The problem is not to protect privacy but the loophole is a red hearing that is not part of the overall problem of guns in the street. Show some real numbers that can be checked on how many people buy a space at a gun show that do not have a FFL and sell a large quantity of new guns. Not some weak poll where they got the 40% number.
If there was one shooting event where they gun was bought at a gun show without a background check or by someone who would fail, the media would play that over and over. As they can not find a token there has to be very little number in all shootings.
tjexcite on January 20, 2013 at 11:06 AM
Slippery slope. Lanza was too young at 20 to buy the guns. It wasn’t the background check. But you are now advocating for “thought police”. According to West Point now I and probably most people on this board are guilty of thought crimes that will make us criminal gun owners. You ok with that?
Harbingeing on January 20, 2013 at 11:10 AM
The problem with this “loophole” is in order to track every single purchase of firearms in this country, every single firearm must be recorded in some database. So that way if you sell your old shotgun to your cousin it doesn’t match their database and if they ever find out, you’re in for it.
That’s the problem with any idea about monitoring private sales. You lose your privacy.
ButterflyDragon on January 20, 2013 at 11:21 AM
If the government has such a dramatic advantage militarily, then why resist? This question sums up your logic. But, what about the converse, why with such a military advantage does the Federal government insist on keeping citizens from exercising their second amendment rights?
It’s all about tyranny and we resist because we don’t want to be ruled by overlords. We are a free people because our rights are enshrined by the constitution. The Federal government is only charged with protecting those inherent freedoms not destroying them.
A regular citizen can’t own the type of weaponry precisely because we are not in a war situation with the Feds yet. Until then, we will have our guns, but know for surety that if the Feds begin to overstep their bounds and violate our rights, at that point you have tyranny. And to repell and eventually defeat that tyranny, all of those weapons (by right) you talked about are on the table come hook or crook to take down any tyranny that would put Americans back in chains.
milemarker2020 on January 20, 2013 at 11:42 AM
Freedom is not a “loophole”. The “gun show loophole” scam is a stalking horse for universal gun registration. We all know where that leads.
novaculus on January 20, 2013 at 4:04 PM