Gun Games

The new radio ads from the misleadingly named "Americans for Gun Safety" feature John McCain and Joe Lieberman making a variety of bogus claims as part of their campaign against gun shows.

McCain states: "A few years ago, Congress passed a law to make sure people undergo a simple background check before buying a gun." Lieberman chimes in, "That's right, John. That law has stopped 700,000 criminals from buying a weapon."

But that's not true. The 700,000 figure is simply the number of initial denials under the National Instant Check System and its predecessor, the Brady waiting period. The figure includes people who were initially denied a gun because they had the same name as a criminal, but who appealed and were later authorized to purchase. It also includes people denied for improper reasons, such as unpaid traffic tickets.

McCain continues: "Problem is, there's a dangerous loophole because right now the law doesn't cover most of America's gun shows." Lieberman then adds, "That means criminals are getting around the law and buying guns with no questions asked."

These quotes create the entirely false impression that gun shows are some kind of Brigadoon, where the normal gun laws do not apply for a weekend at a county fairground. To the contrary, federal gun laws apply at gun shows precisely as they apply anywhere else. If you are "engaged in the business" of selling guns, you must have a Federal Firearms License (FFL). Your customers must fill out the federal registration paperwork, and you must put your customers through the National Instant Check System (or its state equivalent). This is true whether you sell from a retail store, from a home-based business, or at a gun show.

Conversely, if you are not engaged in the business, then the federal paperwork laws do not apply to you — nor should they, since federal power to regulate gun sales is based on the interstate commerce power, and a collector who sells three guns a year to people in his home state is not engaged in interstate commerce.

The legal status of a small-time collector remains the same whether he sells his three guns a year to friends at work, at meetings of his hunting club, or at a gun show where he rents a table one weekend.

In other words, there is no "gun-show loophole." The phrase is an audacious lie, invented by people who want to abolish privacy for firearms owners. Indeed, the figure of 700,000 gun purchasers who were turned down includes people who were turned down when attempting to buy at gun shows from federally licensed firearms dealers.

AGS is simply using Fabian tactics. Its own internal strategy documents state that its top long-range goal is the licensing and registration of every gun owner in the United States. But AGS doesn't have the honesty to admit that goal to the public. Instead, AGS/McCain/Lieberman offer mendacities about a "gun-show loophole" — a warm-up for claiming that any gun which isn't registered by the federal government was obtained through a "loophole."

Lieberman concludes by claiming that the McCain/Lieberman anti-gun-show bill "respects the rights of law-abiding people to own firearms." Given that Senator Lieberman spent years telling his constituents that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual right to own guns, his assertion that his bill is protective of gun rights should be taken with many grains of salt.

And, in fact, McCain-Lieberman does far more than impose federal registration and background checks on small-time, non-business vendors at gun shows. As I detail in the Issue Paper "Should Gun Shows Be Outlawed?" McCain-Lieberman is a cornucopia of poison pills which would allow a future anti-gun executive branch to shut down gun shows entirely.

In particular, the bill makes it illegal for a person to operate a gun show without a federal license, and structures the license application process so that licenses need never be issued. The bill indirectly requires that people who attend gun shows must be registered. The bill even requires that people who don't sell guns (e.g., the numerous book, food, and clothing vendors at gun shows) be registered; and it would allow the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms to demand a list of every book being sold by a book vendor. Finally, McCain-Lieberman authorizes BATF to create additional, limitless gun-show regulations, which could be used to make it nearly impossible for gun shows to be held.

Not one of the McCain-Lieberman bills is necessary to mandate background checks by the small-time gun collectors who occasionally sell guns at gun shows. Colorado enacted such a law by initiative in the 2000 election. The Colorado law simply defines "gun show" and then requires a background check by all gun sellers at a gun show.

The overwhelming share of money to support this Colorado ballot initiative came from AGS (which is based in D.C.), and McCain did AGS-funded television commercials touting the initiative. Thus, AGS and McCain are hardly ignorant of the contents of the Colorado law. If they really wanted only to impose background checks at gun shows, they could propose a federal version of the Colorado law. But while the Colorado law contains just a few paragraphs, the AGS/McCain/Lieberman bill fills dozens of pages.

The fact that AGS, McCain, and Lieberman fail to describe their own bill accurately suggests that — regardless of what opinion polls might say about the abstract issue of gun shows — they recognize that their covert agenda does not enjoy the support of the American public.

Hi,There are a number of facts I would like to share regarding gun laws and the Brady bill. First I'll tell You I've been a legal dealer for about 10 years through all of the brady bill mess. Soon, I am going to work for another company and happily getting rid of the FFL.The 700,000 figure would be delays, not denials. Denials are very few. Delay suposedly means that more info was needed before making a decision. The government is quick to use words like "criminals denied", It makes them sound like they are doing something and They are. They are driving up the cost of guns, making them more valuable and encouraging criminals to steal them, thus increasing burglaries and robberies. They are also delaying honest people on gun purchases, which I believe a reasonable person would feel is an infringement of 2nd amendment rights. They are also pressuring dealers, with vague and open ended rules and laws, which they interprit any way they want, making dealers liable to fines and possible criminal charges. they infringe upon free comerce, forcing honest customers to wait sometimes a week or more, without any explanation. It makes some customers nervious and they don't buy. My company has lost at least 15,000.00 in business since this thing started. I tell You this from personal experience. I related this story, to My senators and congressmen after it happened. More later about their response. Here we go: a guy walks into My shop and wants a handgun. He says He has another one to trade in. I say OK. We strike the deal. Then He fills out the 4473 yellow form. I call it in to the FBI. The FBI says delay. That means up to 3 business days, acording to their magic definition. I tell the guy, it could be an hour or a week, or anywhere in between. He says OK and leaves Me his handgun as a trade in on the new one. He goes home and said he would check with Me tomorrow, in case they call.Now this is where it gets bizarre. An hour later, the FBI calls and says He is denied. Not delay, DENY, I said OK, but what do I do with the handgun He was going to trade in? She said "keep it." I said It doesn't belong to Me. She said "Sell it". I said that it wasn't Mine to sell. She said " Well, You can't give it back to Him". I said "What do You want me to do with it?" She went to talk to a supervisor 3 times and each time said I could not return His gun. Finally she talked to a supervisor agian and said "Is it on Your books?" I told Her no, that it had only been here an hour and only guns that stay overnight have to be booked in. She said "Give it back to Him." I said "Are You sure?" She said "Yes, give it back." I asked " You mean I can give Him a gun, but I can't sell Him one?" She said " I guess so. Give it back to Him."I gave it back. The story gets even better. After 3 months of trying to clear up the mystery, He walks in agian. This time with a letter on FBI letterhead stating that He may purchase this one gun, It said "present this letter to the dealer where You applied for the purchase, further stating that if he wished to purchase others in the future, He would have to go through the process agian. He said, "What do You make of this?" I....I.....don't know. He asked if I could find out why they did this, because they refused to tell Him. I told him I could not, because they never tell Me why. He was a little frightened to buy the gun and I was a little paranoid about selling it to Him, anyway, He didn't buy it. I called and wrote My senators and congressmen and woman trying to get a handle on this. I contacted 3. One, a conservative did try to find out, He said that the justice Dept. (circa RENO) told him basically to take a hike. The other 2 Couldn't find out either. One is a lib. demo. She quit answering all together. The overwhelming majority of mistakes that allowed the "wrong" person to recieve a gun are made by the FBI, The BATF, or the sheer disfunctional charactor of the law. I have lots of examples of the failure of the brady bill. Gunshow "loopholes are not one of them. I can back these examples with facts. Hope You liked this one.

"They are driving up the cost of guns, making them more valuable and encouraging criminals to steal them, thus increasing burglaries and robberies." This is the plan: 1) Scare people that don't know the difference between a machine gun and an "assault weapon" Make it look and sound as evil as possible. Don't include the fact that less than 1/2 of one percent of ALL crimes commited with a gun are assault style weapons. 2) Appeal to lawmakers that have know idea what they are talking about, telling them that these guns are only used by criminals, and has no other purpose. In the rare instance that you run in to a politician that supports the 2nd Amendment, Remind him/her that they are not in the "mainstream," and surely support "common sense gun laws." 3) Use the "shark attack" approach, and keep nibbling away at any gun issue, until no more rights exist. 4) Drive up the cost of firearms and related items so that it will be too expensive to own them. 5) High weapons cost increases crime, so more need for more laws. 6) Drive FFL holders out of business, so fewer places for law abiding citizens to purchase firearms. This also goes for liability insurance. 7) Quote misleading facts as many times as possible, hoping that people will believe you. These are just a few things that really get to me. I feel your pain there Louburger

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.