The Denver Post published an advertisement from the father of a Columbine victim in Tuesday’s paper urging Sen. Mark Udall, a Democrat, to sign Senate Bill 843.
The ad said, “On the 11th anniversary of the Columbine tragedy, I urge you to stand with Senator Bennet and the vast majority of Coloradans by working to close the Gun Show Loophole.”
A “Gun Show Loophole,” does not exist, period. What gun control advocates want to change, they wrongly-identify and sensationalize as a loophole.
In reality, what they seek is to require all transfers of firearms between private individuals under government control; those are the only transactions at gun shows not already subject to current firearm control laws.
He says the gun control folks are wrongly identifying and sensationalizing the situation by calling it a "loophole." He prefaces that explanation with the point-blank statement that the "“Gun Show Loophole,” does not exist, period."
I find this extremely tedious. Everyone involved in this debate understands perfectly well what is meant by "gun show loophole." By taking issue with the wording, we are diverted from the issue. By claiming that the wording, is somehow purposely utilized to make it sound worse, is just silly. If anything, it has the opposite effect now. If "loophole" ever had a negative connotation, it's been diluted by overuse.
The bottom line is continuing to allow anyone and everyone to buy guns without a background check is unacceptable. Gun rights advocates know this. That's why they try everything they can to divert us from the issue by any means they can.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
The solution is simple. Lower the price of an FFL back down to $30, so people who sell guns can do background checks.ReplyDelete
Anything less is unacceptable.
The definition of a legal loophole is an unintentional characteristic of a law which allows one to circumvent the law's intention without actually breaking that law.ReplyDelete
The Brady law was written to only apply to sales made by a dealer. The NICS check was never intended to apply to private transactions and was not written to do so. Therefore, there is no "gunshow loophole". That is a term made up by the anti-freedom crowd.
If you want to ban private sales, just say so. Or are they afraid that if they present the law for what it is that the public will not go for it? So instead they try to make it sound like people are skirting the law's intention and we need to fix an unintended gap in the law. The use of the term "gunshow loophole" is deceptive and designed to mislead. Anyone that uses that term is at best, uneducated about the law they seek to manipulate, but more likely is just a liar.
MikeB: “I find this extremely tedious. Everyone involved in this debate understands perfectly well what is meant by "gun show loophole."”ReplyDelete
Yes, everyone involved in this debate understands, but what about all the people who don’t follow gun rights? Those voters are the target audience here.
Bloomberg's aggressive stance against gunsReplyDelete
By David Kopel
Denver Post 4-24-2010
Michael Bloomberg, the billionaire mayor of New York City, has been funding a national advertising campaign to promote his congressional gun- control bill. Monday's Denver Post featured a full-page ad urging Sen. Mark Udall to support the Bloomberg bill; Colorado's other senator, Michael Bennett, is already a co-sponsor.
According to the ad, the Bloomberg bill would nationalize Colorado's rule about background checks at gun shows. But in fact, only a small fraction of the Bloomberg bill addresses the issue of background checks. The rest of the bill has a much more aggressive agenda.
Details at the link:
Dave Kopel is dishonest. Anything he says is likely untrue.ReplyDelete
Weren't you just chastising us for misusing the term 'draconian'? Maybe you should get a dictionary out and look up the term 'loophole'.ReplyDelete
I agree the phrase "gun show loophole" is not the best. I disagree that it's an intentional attempt to malign something that is wholesome, which is what some of you seem to be saying, and I disagree that the "target audience" in these blog discussions is the non-informed folks out there who don't know the difference. It's here that the discussion keeps bogging down over the wording.ReplyDelete
So, yeah, you're right, the wordings not the best, but I think we're stuck with it. Now it's simply a case of education.
So, yeah, you're right, the wordings not the best, but I think we're stuck with it.ReplyDelete
No, you are not stuck with it. You can use correct language such as 'private sale ban'. Or you can choose to participate in the 'a lie repeated long enough...' camp.
RuffRidr, don't you think that's a bit inaccurate: "You can use correct language such as 'private sale ban'."ReplyDelete
Why do you guys like to use the word "ban" so much. Did you mean to say "private sale without background check ban?" That's a little cumbersome even for you, isn't it?
The point is we were not talking about banning anything until you stepped up with the spin.
"The point is we were not talking about banning anything until you stepped up with the spin."ReplyDelete
Actually, once you force the government and a dealer into the transaction, it is no longer a private transfer so, yes, what you propose would "ban private sales".
If you force me to go through an FFL then it is no longer a "private sale" thus you have banned private sales.ReplyDelete
Your reasoning skills leave much to be desired MikeB.
I think you guys have got it wrong. It's not the lack of a background check that makes it a private sale, it's the lack of the FFL. So, you could continue to have private sales, e.g., ones without an FFL holder present, but which require a background check. I know that brings up all the questions about how to do it, giving everybody access to the system or requiring a document from an FFL guy before doing the deal, but the point is, you would still have private sales.ReplyDelete