I appreciate the op-ed submissions we get from thoughtful and informed Daily Post readers, such as the piece running in today’s issue, written by legal expert and gun rights advocate Gary Beatty — OPINION: Thoughts About the ‘Gun Show Loophole.’
This discussion is especially timely, considering recent events in various US cities.
In his essay, Mr. Beatty quotes some of the laws that apply to licensed gun dealers, related to firearm sales conducted at ‘gun shows.’ He suggests that complaints about the ‘gun show loophole’ by gun-control advocates have a similarity to a belief in unicorns, and that the complaints are laughable — and he suggests that the true intention behind these complaints is to eventually outlaw all gun ownership by private individuals.
As we’ve all been made aware, when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.
Mr. Beatty also asks the reader to point out flaws in his analysis. “I once asked a couple of my ATF agent acquaintances about the ‘gun show loophole’ and they laughed. They said there is no such thing. All the federal laws which apply to licensed firearms dealers apply when they sell firearms at gun shows. Again, if you disagree then point out in the statutes where these agents are wrong. Again, if you disagree then point out in the statutes where these agents are wrong.”
Not many of us are laughing about guns, at this particular time in our nation’s history. Gun rights advocates are fearful of government overreach and excessive control of gun ownership. Gun control advocates are fearful that, without some kind of change, the current epidemic of mass shootings will only get worse.
But specifically in reference to the ‘gun show loophole’ I believe Mr. Beatty’s fear of gun control has led him to an incorrect conclusion.
As he rightly points out, a licensed gun dealer is required to perform a background check before selling firearms to any customer. It doesn’t matter if the sale takes place in the dealer’s store or at a ‘gun show.’ A background check is required, either way.
But some of the sellers who sell weapons at ‘gun shows’ are private individuals, not licensed dealers. These private individuals are not required, by federal law, to perform background checks. Nor does federal law require background checks when private, unlicensed transactions take place outside of gun shows. The complaint about the ‘gun show loophole’ actually refers to the sale of firearms by private sellers at gun shows. Mr. Beatty did not acknowledge this fact in his essay. He discussed only licensed sellers.
The Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) has estimated that 5,000 gun shows are held annually in the US. These shows attract tens of thousands of attendees, and result in the transfer of thousands of firearms. I have not seen an estimate of how many of these sales result in background checks, and how many don’t.
Federal ‘gun show loophole’ bills were introduced in seven Congressional sessions between 2001 to 2013 — two in 2001, two in 2004, one in 2005, one in 2007, two in 2009, two in 2011, and one in 2013. None of them passed.
It’s my understanding that 19 states and the District of Columbia have established gun show background check requirements. Nine states — California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, New York, Nevada, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Washington — require background checks at the point of sale for all transfers, including purchases from unlicensed sellers. In Maryland and Pennsylvania, background checks are required for handguns only. Gun show gun buyers in Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, and New Jersey are required to obtain a state-issued permit. Iowa, Michigan, Nebraska, and North Carolina require state-issued permits for handguns only.
In 32 states, there are currently no laws — federal or state — regulating firearms sales between private individuals at gun shows. However, even in states where background checks of private sales are not required by law, the organization hosting the gun show may require them as a matter of policy.
In addition, private sellers are free to have a third-party federally-licensed gun dealer run background checks even though they may not be required by law.
In 2009, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg weighed in on the gun show debate by hiring private investigators to conduct ‘sting’ operations at various gun shows. In a report released by Bloomberg’s office, 22 of 33 private sellers sold guns to undercover investigators who informed them that they “probably could not pass a background check,” while 16 of 17 licensed sellers allowed straw purchases by the undercover investigators.
A straw purchase involves an individual, who is prohibited from purchasing a firearm, recruiting someone else to purchase a gun for him/her.
A distinction can easily be drawn between the sale of a gun taking place in my living room — where I might be selling to a friend or acquaintance — and the sale of a gun at a ‘gun show’ — where the buyer is a complete stranger, someone I’ve never met before and will never see again. Mr. Beatty failed to acknowledge that distinction in his essay, for whatever reasons.
On August 8, Wayne LaPierre — the CEO of the National Rifle Association (NRA) — confirmed that “the NRA opposes any legislation that unfairly infringes upon the rights of law-abiding citizens. The inconvenient truth is this: the proposals being discussed by many would not have prevented the horrific tragedies in El Paso and Dayton. Worse, they would make millions of law abiding Americans less safe and less able to defend themselves and their loved ones.”
LaPierre continued, “The NRA will work in good faith to pursue real solutions to the epidemic of violence in America. But many proposals are nothing more than ‘soundbite solutions’ – which fail to address the root of the problem, confront criminal behavior, or make our communities safer.”
I’m not clear what ‘real solutions’ the NRA might be proposing.
Bill Hudson began sharing his opinions in the Pagosa Daily Post in 2004 and can’t seem to break the habit. He claims that, in Pagosa Springs, opinions are like pickup trucks: everybody has one.