Brian Linse, another confused liberal, writes about the practical, as opposed to legal, gun show loophole here.
In effect, what is happening is that the law allows private individuals who are not in the business of selling guns, much like private individuals who are not in the business of selling cars, not to comply with a bunch of regulations designed in the case of cars to defend consumers, and in the case of guns to regulate who can buy and how.
Now, on paper, this distinction is just fine, and perfectly clear, as has been pointed out ad nauseum by, among others, The Professor. I’m a private individual, and should I decide to unload…er, sell…a gun, I can do so to a private individual and not be in violation of various laws.
Personally, unless I knew the individual I was selling to, I’d run it through a dealer and make the buyer go through the background check anyway; I’d feel pretty crummy sitting on the witness stand after my buyer did a drive-by. And my insurance would be kinda bummed as well. But that’s just me.
And, practically, I have to give one to Linse, because I’ll bet there are people who make a living selling guns at gun shows, but do not register as dealers, just as I’ll bet there are people who make a living selling cars and not registering as dealers, or running ‘permanent’ garage sales. They’re cheating, breaking the law, and in our society the fact is some people get away with it.
On the other hand, in my experience, at the gun shows at Pomona, Ventura, and Orange County, I have never interacted with a seller who wasn’t going to run me through the paperwork and waiting period, and wasn’t going to act like a dealer…whether they were or not, I can’t say because I never asked for a copy of their FFL.
And politically, I have to wave my hands in the air and go “are you kidding??” THIS is the important public safety legislation you want to waste your time and my money on?
In other words, I think that “closing the gun show loophole” legislation is symbolic, probably unnecessary, and generally useless. And I oppose it, flatly.
Why? I’ll tell you simply; because it has little to do with gun crime or violence, and everything to do with legislators who confuse passing laws with solving problems.
Look, there are probably a hundred million guns in circulation in the U.S. The genie isn’t going back into the bottle. I won’t get into what kind of regulation of firearms I could or don’t support…my mailbox isn’t that big. But I am abso.damn.lutely clear on one thing.
Most of the gun laws that are passed…and they probably are a good proxy for most laws…have little to do with solving the problem, and everything to do with the sociology of electoral and administrative politics in our day and age.
The reality is that if I want to buy an illegal weapon, I probably just have to ask my son in high-school. Give me 5 benjamins, drop me in MacArthur or Will Rodgers Park here in L.A., and I’ll come home with a gun.
But the fact that it will have no impact doesn’t matter. The fact that that there is a regulatory loophole simply infuriates those who look for intellectually solid, completely realized regulatory programs. (note, in case you haven’t figured it out: I believe that liberal goals are better accomplished in other ways)
The gun show loophole crisis is like the .50 caliber rifle crisis. It doesn’t exist.
I don’t doubt that some guns are sold at gunshows to people who couldn’t get them at a traditional dealer. Some being a very small number, near the limit of statistical measurement. I don’t doubt that someone has, or likely will, commit a crime using a .50 caliber rifle.
But in terms of impacting the overall level of crimes using guns in this county, we’re looking at something less than rounding error.
And, simply, it’s time to stop passing laws because a) they give legislators something to say they did come re-election time; and b) because they sound good on TV. You want to propose gun laws?? Make a convincing argument, not based on anecdote, but on statistically valid research, that it will have an impact. And, best of all, convince me that the laws you are passing aren’t simply turning up the heat under the frog.
When someone proposes a package of gun legislation that a) has some reasonable likelihood of measurably reducing crimes where firearms are used; and b) has some built in, irrevocable, defendable baseline guarantee of my right as a noncriminal citizen to arms, I’ll look really hard at it and probably support it.
It’s all just re-election posturing until then.