You can’t vote, but here’s a gun for you
By Danae Jones Aicher | Thursday, February 5th, 2009 | PolicySo I’m wondering… What, exactly, is wrong with trying to keep guns out of the hands of felons and crazy people? That’s the question that stumped me when I read the brief in this morning’s Richmond Times Dispatch.
I don’t personally have a fondness for guns, but I don’t particularly care if my neighbor- assuming he/she isn’t a violent criminal- packs one. I actually grew up with guns in the house, my father being in law enforcement and all. So, again, I DO NOT CARE if regular, law-abiding citizens have guns. In our democracy, we put some restrictions on who can vote, requiring convicted felons (who have paid their debt to society) to jump through hoops to cast their votes, but we give them a free loophole to buy a gun?
Maybe I’ve missed something, so I’m depending on readers of this blog to give me thoughtful, reasoned explanations for why Virginia lawmakers voted against the latest gun show loophole bill.
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Comments
19 Responses to "You can’t vote, but here’s a gun for you"
Please explain to me what loophole you are speaking about?
To answer my own question: THERE ISN’T A LOOPHOLE!
Yes there is – anyone can walk into a gun show and buy a gun – including felons, terrorists, heck even members of Al Qaeda – why do you hate America so much you want to give Muslim terrorists guns?
I’d call that a loophole…
Perhaps because this proposal was a solution in search of a problem. I mean, the best the proponents of this law could come up with in support of it was to exploit the grief and anger of the victims (and their family members) of a heinous crime that had nothing to do with gun shows or loopholes.
Perhaps because this would not be “closing a loophole”…the law is currently exactly the same inside a gun show as it is outside a gun show. What this proposal would have done is create a special case in the law that applied ONLY at gun shows. Patchwork quilt laws that provide for different things at different times and places are a recipe for entrapping and criminalizing unwary, otherwise law abiding citizens.
Perhaps because according to two separate Department of Justice studies, Gun Shows are an insignificant source of guns used in crimes and there is no credible research to date that demonstrates otherwise.
Perhaps because the supporters of this bill consistently uses false claims, misleading terms, misrepresented statistics and emotionalism to support it. It’s kind of hard to take someone’s proposal seriously when you know they’re lying to your face to defend it.
Perhaps because the proposed law would do absolutely nothing to prevent anyone from buying guns. In the virtually nonexistent event that a criminal wanted to buy a gun without a background check, and the seller was unscrupulous enough to do it, all they’d have to do is go across the street and make the sale there, or exchange numbers and meet at some other time and place. As usual, the only people affected by this law would be lawful gun owners and it would do nothing but inconvenience and add unnecessary expense.
Perhaps because there is no value added to gun owners. This proposal doesn’t benefit law abiding gun owners. We already know that we aren’t criminals or crazy and that, to the best of our ability, we are not going to transfer firearms to criminals or crazy people. Heck, it’s already a federal felony to do so. The only thing this law does is make YOU feel better. So if you are the only beneficiary, why don’t you pay for it? The added expense should not be shouldered by those who gain nothing by it, it should be shouldered by those who benefit (meaning, of course, not specifically you, but society as a whole).
I could go on (actually, I did, but I deleted over half the comment because it was getting ridiculous), but I think I’ve made my point.
Mark: “I’d call that a loophole…”
I could call you a pink elephant. That doesn’t make it so, no matter how vigorously I insist it.
[quote]
loop?hole
? ?/?lup?ho?l/
noun, verb, -holed, -hol?ing.
3. a means of escape or evasion; a means or opportunity of evading a rule, law, etc.
loophole. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Retrieved February 05, 2009, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/loophole
[end quote]
The law in question specifically requires federally licensed dealers to conduct background checks (whether at a gun show or elsewhere).
It also specifically (and purposefully) exempts private citizens who are not federally licensed dealers from that requirement (whether at a gun show or elsewhere) .
That means when a private citizen sells their personally owned property to another private citizen without running a background check, they are expressly obeying the law, not exploiting loophole to “evade” the law.
That’s why you are wrong.
You can argue that the law should be changed, that private citizens should be subject to conducting background checks. I would disagree with you, but at least your argument would be legitimate; but to characterize a specific and intentional provision in the law as a “loophole” is misleading. Sometimes also known as “propaganda”…but where I grew up, we called it something much simpler: “a lie”.
Everything that Sailorcurt said is true, but one more reason to oppose this bill exists. Gov. Kaine explains it:
“There isn’t any reason why somebody who is dangerously mentally ill, or a felon should be able to get a gun under any circumstances in the commonwealth,” Kaine said before the vote. “And I continue to be surprised that people feel like that is OK.”
Many proponents of this bill see it as the first step to monitoring all gun transactions and then introducing universal registration.
Why are you all so interested in selling guns to terrorists and criminals?
It’s the Constitution.
We must also be well armed in case Barack Obama tries to become a dictator or acts like a tyrant, In that case we would eith lead a revolution or press Virginia to Secced.
“anyone can walk into a gun show and buy a gun – including felons, terrorists, heck even members of Al Qaeda”
Total and complete bullshit. I know, because the last gun purchase I made was at the SGK gun show at the Hampton Coliseum on Nov. 29, 2008. The transaction was delayed 30 minutes so the dealer could take my paperwork (including 2 forms of ID) to the state police booth so they could run a criminal background check.
Mark, I suggest you learn some basic facts (rather than Brady Bunch propaganda) before you open your piehole and display your ignorance.
SST – BS. The only one displaying ignorance or simply propaganda (as usual) is you.
I really don’t get it. Do y’all care so little for your family’s safety? I grew up around guns, I don’t think they’re that big of a deal, but I sure as hell do not want to see any idiot criminal or mentally unstable person able to buy a gun.
PW – if you paid any attention, the only President in the recent past who has acted anything like a dictator was W with his theory of the “Unitary Executive” (fancy way of saying I’m a near-dictator). Where were you then?
Don’t feed the trolls.
Mark said,” Why are you all so interested in selling guns to terrorists and criminals?” You are absolute right Mark. If they had any decency and liberal-progressive sensibility, they would put aside their profligate greed and simply give away the guns. Greed never solved anything. “Combat violence against women, Disarm the women!!”
Does what you wrote make any sense, even to you?
Mark is a troll.
Sailorcurt has already explained quite clearly that gun dealers at gun shows MUST run a background check on anyone buying. I’ve been to gun shows, they have telephones and the paperwork for running the checks. The only people at a gun show who are allowed to sell guns at the show are people with valid Federal Firearms Licenses. If you don’t have an FFL, all you can sell is food, trinkets, knives, etc.
Also, if you are a private citizen with a gun to sell, and you sell it to a felon or other prohibited person, you have committed a felony. Private citizens are not obligated to run the background check, but they are still legally responsible for making sure their customer can legally own a firearm.
And there is a threshold for how many firearms a private citizen can sell without being considered a dealer. Sell above that threshold, and you’d better get an FFL.
well, I was going to answer Danae’s question but I see it has already been effectively disposed of…
Madrocketscientist said that if you are a private citizen with a gun to sell, and you sell it to a felon or other prohibited person, you have committed a felony. How would you know if the person is a felon or terrorist without a background check? These ineligible buyers do not wear name tags. The VA State Police are not allowed to conduct background checks for private sellers. The call-in or computer checks are only available for FFLs.
He also said thre is a threshold for how many firearms a private citizen can sell without being considered a dealer. Can anyone provide the numerical threshold? This “catch 22″ in federal law states that if you are “engaged in the business” , then you must get an FFL. Some sellers sell hundreds of guns, but claim it is a hobby because they are employed elsewhere.
I don’t believe that requiring background checks for gun sales at gun shows will stop all criminals from buying guns, but ineligible buyers will be forced to look elsewhere. Law abiding gun owners will not be affected since they have nothing to hide.
I don’t believe that requiring background checks for gun sales at gun shows will stop all criminals from buying guns, but ineligible buyers will be forced to look elsewhere.
Craigslist, Tidwater Trading Post, Classified ads. Or you can get one from Bubba Jim who needs beer money or your local crack head who needs another rock bad.
There is no loophole. This is simply “feel good” legislation introduced to make a group of loud mouth constituents happy with their electeds.
The majority of the guns on the street today in the hands of people (used very cautiously) who use them for criminal purposes, were neither bought at a gun show, nor private sale through classifieds. They are stolen, passed around, used, dumped, found, used again, traded for drugs, and so on.
And were probably purchased legally through a licensed firearms dealer by a citizen who did in fact go through the required checks prior to purchase.
How would you know if the person is a felon or terrorist without a background check?
Well, one would hope that you either know who you are selling/transferring too (between family members or friends), or you would be smart enough to ask a stranger who wishes to buy your guns to let the local gun shop run an NICS check on him. This is the reason a lot of private gun sales are done through consignment, so the seller doesn’t have to worry about it.
Could a private law-abiding citizen (a person who truly wants to follow the law) unknowingly sell his guns to a felon or terrorist who would not be able to buy one through a gun store or show? Sure, one could, but why would a bad guy try to find such a person and run the risk of the person twigging to his ill intentions or asking for an NICS and possibly alerting the authorities when it is a whole lot easier for a prohibited person to either arrange a straw purchase or just purchase a gun from a street dealer. From the trace data and the studies I’ve seen, a gun purchased from a law abiding citizen is rarely ever used in a crime, and in the few cases such happened, the crime was committed years after the date of sale. Most crime guns are stolen or bought from illegal dealers on the street, not your average Joe. Mandating a check is a solution looking for a problem.
Some sellers sell hundreds of guns, but claim it is a hobby because they are employed elsewhere.
I believe the rule of thumb is if you are selling more than 10 guns a month or otherwise showing a significant profit from the sale of guns, you had better have an FFL. If you are moving that many guns and you don’t have an FFL, chances are, you are buying old guns, fixing them and cleaning them, and reselling them locally. You are not buying new AR-15′s or SKS’s and selling them at a profit because the manufacturers won’t sell to you directly without an FFL. You are also not selling them across state lines (because you need an FFL to do that, too). So yeah, you can have hobbyists selling guns, but again, that is such a small number of people as to be insignificant to the source of crime guns. Joe Thug is not gonna seek out a hobbyist gunsmith for his piece, he’s gonna go find the local illegal weapons dealer.
I don’t believe that requiring background checks for gun sales at gun shows will stop all criminals from buying guns, but ineligible buyers will be forced to look elsewhere. Law abiding gun owners will not be affected since they have nothing to hide.
As I said above, the law abiding citizen seller is an insignificant source of crime guns, and forcing checks will not cause criminals to look elsewhere, because they don’t, as a rule, seek out the private seller or the gun show. It will, however, be just one more law on the books that does NOTHING to alleviate crime but can be used to trip up law abiding citizens on a technicality. I’m all for laws that fight crime, but that law had better have a measurable effect within a few years, or it needs to go away.
look, i committed a felony by getting into a bar fight with a drunk. i lost the case because he had more witness and i didn’t have the money for a big shot lawyer. this was the only time i got into trouble and now i can’t have a gun. what i’m getting at is just because you have a felony doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be aloud guns. there should be another way of who can have guns and who can’t.
[...] Of course, anyone who knows me knows that I can’t leave a question like that unanswered…so I responded in a reasoned and civil manner. [...]
Leave your response
The comments section is for meaningful discussion. Readers are reminded to post comments that are germane to the article and write in a common language that steers clear of personal attacks and/or vulgarities.
Please take a moment to review our comment policy.