I have mentioned before that I believe that the front on which the gun prohibitionists have the greatest chance of success (at the federal level) is closure of the mythical "gun show loophole."
Such a measure is not their first choice--they have made very clear that banning so-called "assault weapons" is what they really want (the "jewel in the Obama crown," as my colleague David Codrea called it). The gun haters seem to be coming to grips, though, with the realization that for the time being, at least, support for such a radical measure just isn't there.
First, it was Nancy Pelosi repsonding to Attorney General Eric Holder's call for a renewed AWB with the NRA's "enforce existing gun laws" (neither Peloisi or the NRA seems interested in explaining how to reconcile "enforcing existing gun laws" with shall not be infringed). Then, it was 65 House Democrats writing a letter to Holder expressing their intention to actively oppose such a ban, and then, Holder himself changing his tune to "enforce the laws on the books." After that, it was White House spokesman Robert Gibbs joining the "enforce the laws already on the books" chorus. Finally, frothing-at-the-mouth-gun-grabbing Senator Dianne Feinstein herself told "60 Minutes" that she "wouldn't bring up [the ban] now." Clearly, the anti-rights crowd has decided to settle for lower hanging fruit . . . for now.
The Brady Campaign cannot help but to have noticed:
"It's weird," Peter Hamm, the communications director for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, told Newsweek. "When you see people like [Attorney General] Eric Holder or Hillary Clinton or [White House chief of staff] Rahm Emanuel become muted on this issue, you feel like you want to call up a friend and say, 'What's up?' "
"What's up," Petey, is that the public is growing less and less receptive to your citizen disarmament message.
So--on to Plan B.
At the 10th year anniversary this month of the Columbine massacre in Colorado, the Brady Campaign urges Congress to require Brady criminal background checks on all gun sales, including at gun shows.
Congress should introduce legislation to close the gun show loophole immediately.
It's instructive to note that they had to go back ten years to find a sufficiently horrendous shooting in which guns obtained at a gun show were used (and the person that bought them would have passed a background check at a gun shop, anyway).
Keep in mind also that the "loophole" the Brady Bunch wants to close is really the "private sales loophole." They talk mostly about gun shows, because those are easy to demonize, but a private sale at a gun show is no different in principle from a private sale anywhere else, and one of the Brady Campaign's favorite slogan is "no background check, no gun, no exceptions."
In the Orwellian world of the forcible citizen disarmament lobby, privacy is a "loophole." That's a world liberty loving Americans should want no part of.
Check out other Gun Rights Examiners:
- Atlanta: Mainstream media misleads on the gun permit issue
- Austin: Gun control and saving Captain Phillips (Part 1)
- Boston: Massachusetts: Gun Control in a State of failure
- Charlotte: Myths of armed self-defense: 'If I only had'...the truth
- Cleveland: Being realistic about keeping kids safe involves more than warning about guns
- DC: 6 Va. Democrats flip flop & vote to limit military members to 1 handgun a year
- Denver: Why we can't close the "gun show loophole"
- Los Angeles: Is the Anti-gun personality backing down or being brought down?
- Milwaukee: Vote today for Constitutional justice- Vote Koschnick
- Minneapolis: A Cowboy's Easter
- National: Is ATF playing politics with firearm classifications?
- Seattle: Feinstein: 'I'll pick the time and place, no question about that'
- Wisconsin: New judge in town
Comments
Thanks, Kurt.
GRE Readers:
The constitutionality of the government (particularly the federal gov) prohibiting private sales of personal property will likely turn on Heller's holding, where it was considered "presumptively lawful" to "impos[]e conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."
I tend to suppose that the private sale of used, personal property is not engaging in the "commercial sale" of arms. Certainly not when considered in the context of Congress's authority to regulate arms, which I believe is entirely predicated upon "enumerated power to regulate interstate commerce."
Think about it ... the fed bases it's authority to regulate guns on their (Article 1, Section 8) power to "regulate Commerce ... among the several States ..." Correct me if I am wrong, but under current law, gun sales (both commercial and private) across state lines must be mediated by a federal firearms licensee. Private sales, including those that happen to take place on the premises of "gun shows," may ONLY be transacted between citizens of that state.
If my analysis is correct, the prohibition of private, in-state sale of lawfully owned property (arms) will likely not stand constitutional muster.
The Brady's will then invent some other boogeyman to pursue.
Very good point, Carl--thank you.
They would probably word the legislation in terms of "firearms that have, or are made of any components or materials that have, at any time, passed through interstate commerce..." Which pretty much covers them all.
Also, I believe there is judicial precedent that "regulating" the production of items, even for purely personal use or for local sale, passes the "interstate commerce" test because doing so may indirectly affect the pricing of similar items that ARE passing through interstate commerce.
The interstate commerce clause has been thoroughly corrupted by the legislative and judicial branches. It was intended to prevent states from instituting import or export tariffs, embargoes and the like for commerce between states, not as a tool for the federal government to regulate every aspect of any item that ever has or will be sold across state lines.
At any rate, I think that the framing of this issue can go a long way in clarifying it. We have, to date, allowed the gun controllers to frame the issue as "selling guns without a background check."
The true issue actually doesn't have anything to do with guns. The issue is that they are attempting to require private citizens to get explicit permission from the government in order to legally buy or sell personal property. This flies in the face of the entire premise of a free people and individual liberty.
It is a sign of our increasingly statist society that such a concept is even under consideration.
Interesting re: them going back ten years and he would have passed a background check, anyway.
If you look at the Brady's state rating system (which is skewed for political purposes, of course) the single biggest item is whether or not brady background checks are required on every gun purchase.
Here in Colorado after Columbine we did end non-background checked gun sales at gun shows by defining a gun show as anywhere that more than 25 guns are for sale. One more confusing law to deal with, but at least I can trade rifles with a shooting buddy and not face a felony charge. As long as I don't do it at a gun show or in the parking lot of a gun shop.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!