Once again, we come to a point at which we must question the use of the word "responsible" in terms of gun ownership. The "gun show loophole", as it is often described, is still a contentious argument in the gun control debate. Investigators in Arizona, working on behalf of New York City, have highlighted the problem: ... New York City sent undercover investigators to an Arizona gun show and found instances in which private sellers sold semiautomatic pistols even after buyers said they probably could not pass background checks, city officials said .... .... Private, unlicensed sellers are not required to run federal background checks, but it is a violation of federal law to sell guns to people if sellers suspect they are felons or mentally ill or are otherwise prohibited from buying .... .... In two instances, the New York undercover officers specifically said before buying a gun, “I probably couldn’t pass a background check,” but were still sold guns, city officials said .... .... Crossroads of the West holds dozens of gun shows annually, in Arizona, California, Nevada and Utah. “When we find someone who isn’t complying with the law, we ask them to leave or don’t allow them back,” said Bob Templeton, president of the gun show. After similar transgressions were uncovered at gun shows in other states, some operators entered into agreements with New York City requiring that private sellers arrange background checks of all gun buyers. According to a transcript from one investigator’s purchase of a Sig Sauer pistol at the Phoenix show, the exchange went like this: Investigator: “So, you’re not one of those, you know, dealer guys, right?” Seller: “No. No tax, no form, you don’t have to do transfers or nothing.” Investigator: “Yeah, yeah.” Seller: “Just see an Arizona ID and that’s it with me.” Investigator: “So no background check?” Seller: “No.” Investigator: “That’s good, because I probably couldn’t pass one, you know what I mean?” The seller sold the gun for $500. (Lacey) Josh Feinblatt, an advisor to Mayor Bloomberg, said the background check system has repeatedly failed: "If we don't fix it now, the question is not whether another massacre will occur, but when." Or, as cartoonist Tom Tomorrow reminds, the gun control debate is largely settled—"The occasional horrific civilian massacre is just the price the rest of us have to pay. Over and over again." But the "gun show loophole" is not yet settled. Indeed, we find in this latest episode that it needs to be reconsidered. ____________________ Notes: Lacey, Mark. "New York City Investigates Arizona Gun Show". The New York Times. January 31, 2011; page A9. NYTimes.com. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/31/us/31guns.html Tomorrow, Tom. "Don't go blaming guns". This Modern World. January 10, 2011. Salon.com. January 31, 2011. http://www.salon.com/entertainment/comics/this_modern_world/2011/01/10/this_modern_world/index.html
I love how nowhere in that article does it discuss why NYC felt the urge to send investigators outside their jurisdiction to prove something which has already been proven like 30 times over (that face-to-face purchases can be sketchy), probably using city funds to do it. And rather than report the attempted/completed felony sale to the BATFE and local authorities so they could do their jobs, and you know...enforce the laws we have...they went to the press. Because stepping out of your own jurisdiction in order to make someone else's jurisdiction look bad is some pretty bad form, though de rigeur for a New York politician. Bravo, NYPD, you sure protected and served someone's political interests the rule of law there. For every sketchy person that buys a gun in a FTF transaction there are literally thousands of normal people without any criminal intent that also buy guns face-to-face. I'll agree to background checks for all sales if the government can provide a public NICS that introduces no marginal costs to the current system. (Hint: they can't).
The requirement of no marginal costs is unreasonable. Reasonable marginal costs should be acceptable, including short delays, and the public should of course bear some of them (it's a public safety issue). They would, for example, pay for measures sufficient to protect the privacy of the background being checked. The exact ratio of sketchy to "normal" in such transactions would be an interesting number to establish. I don't share your confidence in the low percentage of sketchy people, even just walking down the sidewalk.
Disagree. I don't know how many times I've had to go through background checks for jobs, the military, and state and federal gun licenses. Some of those checks had hefty fees attached. I had two background checks and finger printings for my present job, despite the fact that I was hired while still active military and holding a TS clearance. My CA concealed handgun permit required the same process from the state as the suppressors for my handguns did from the FBI/BATFE. It would be nice to skip some of that redundant bureaucracy. As for guns specifically, I could see it streamlining the process just like how my concealed carry permit allows me to now skip the NICS and/or the purchase permits that some states require. The associated cost savings would decrement the majority expense of extending NICS to gun shows, if not mitigate it entirely.
If you agree that a streamlined process involving low marginal costs to gun sellers and buyers, added to their current direct costs of transaction, would be reasonable, we have complete agreement.
Priorities, and all that The question of why is to Bloomberg's prerogative, and speculative from our perspective. Any number of results are possible. To wit, can the states close the gun show loophole within their own boundaries? I don't know the answer to that question. But the question of reporting to federal authorities for prosecution: Have you ever heard of entrapment? Ask any stoner why you can't prosecute in this case. According to the BBC, these were private investigators. Meanwhile, according to investigators, forty percent of all gun sales in the U.S. are private; thirty percent of illegally trafficked firearms in the U.S. are associated with gun shows; in 2009, a similar operation in three states netted a result of sixty-three percent (nineteen of thirty) gun sellers approached sold guns to an investigator who said he probably couldn't pass the background check. And, indeed, as a result of the 2009 investigation, ATF later obtained a search warrant against at least one of the sellers, recovering 799 guns in a single Arizona raid. Well, at least we know what is important to you. Priorities, priorities. You know, money before life, and all that. ____________________ Notes: British Broadcasting Corporation. "NYC investigators conduct Arizona gun show 'sting'". BBC News. February 1, 2011. BBC.co.uk. February 2, 2011. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12328493 Gun Show Undercover. "Gun Show Undercover: Arizona". January 11, 2011. GunShowUndercover.org. February 2, 2011. http://www.gunshowundercover.org/report See Also: Gun Show Undercover. http://www.gunshowundercover.org/
Fair enough. They could, using longstanding regimes employed in numerous states already. Requiring purchase permits (obtained beforehand) for transactions not involving a FFL, or having all transactions at the show be handled through FFLs would be supportable using the existing NICS and cost the states almost nothing to implement. But this was obviously not the goal here, as the results of Bloomberg's little stunt have no bearing on such non-questions. He is (once again) using the Federal government's limited ability to enforce its myriad of existing laws as an argument for...additional laws. It makes me wish Arizona would send some investigators to NYC to buy a shitload of crack, then hold a press conference blaming NY law for a crack epidemic in AZ while demanding Federal intervention. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
That's why we New Yorkers rock. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I think this little exposè was hilarious. Reporting it probably wouldn't have had as salient an effect as running with the story would have.
Depends what you're trying to affect, I suppose. Do you presume to speak for the majority of New Yorkers or something?
If we are to speak about the bad attitudes of gun owners, we must first ban short runty men from owning Dodge Ram pickups. They just go to their heads.
The loophole The "loophole", as such, is the difference between venues. If you go to a store to buy a handgun, you have to pass a background check. If you go to a gun show to get the same firearm, you don't. That's the loophole. One result is that certain aspects are incumbent upon the sellers, and those are the laws allegedly violated. If a dealer at a gun show has reason to suspect that the buyer is prohibited from owning a handgun, they can't sell it to them. Closing the loophole would require that all buyers at gun shows go through background checks, thus eliminating the problem. Sixty-three percent of the dealers approached in the 2009 investigation willingly sold to people that they knew they shouldn't. Making them match their inventories to invoices to background checks would eliminate much of the question.
I'm sorry but putting people's live at risk by making it real easy for a crazy to get a gun so you won't have to wait to get a gun is just plain wrong
NICS checks at gun shows wouldn't stop crazy people from getting guns. Cho and Laughner both passed one before buying the weapons they used at Virginia Tech and Tucson. Likewise, they would do nothing to stop straw purchases, which are the main conduit criminals use to acquire firearms originating at gun shows. Closing the gun show loophole would mean that felons would no longer be able to buy guns directly. That's about it.
