. . . Mike Bloomberg, that is.
Perhaps stung by jealousy at the amount of publicity NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg got from his little (possibly illegal?) "sting" operation against gun shows, the Brady Campaign is now hyping a similar operation of its own. Says Brady Campaign president Paul Helmke:
Should someone who wants to buy a military-style assault weapon be required to undergo a criminal background check?
This, remember, is about the "gun show loophole" (by which Helmke and his ilk really mean the private sales "loophole"), rather than so-called "assault weapons," but after one has invested so much effort into ginning up fear of a certain class of firearm, it would be foolish, I suppose, to let that effort go to waste. Just keep in mind that, despite what the Brady Campaign's question might indicate, they're not calling for background checks on just so-called "assault weapons"--they want them for every firearm.
Why do criminals and traffickers go to gun shows? As the bank robber Willie Sutton might have put it, "Because that's where the guns are."
Except that criminals don't tend to get their firearms at gun shows:
Previous federal studies have found few criminals using gun shows. A 2000 BJS study, “Federal Firearms Offenders, 1992-98,” found only 1.7% of federal prison inmates obtained their gun from a gun show. Similarly, a 1997 National Institute of Justice study reported less than 2% of criminals’ guns come from gun shows.
And as I keep pointing out, the entire "gun show" issue is a red herring--the Brady Campaign wants to ban all private sales, whether at gun shows or not.
SOLUTION: Congress must pass legislation to require Brady criminal background checks on all gun sales and in the short-term, close the gun show loophole, requiring Brady criminal background checks at gun shows. More states must pass legislation to require universal background checks and to close the gun show loophole to put pressure on Congress to act.
Gun shows, being more visible and more easily demonized, are the "short-term" (as the Brady Campaign puts it) target, but they're not trying to hide that their eventual goal is to ban all private sales--even those between friends and family members.
"But wait," you might say, "they aren't talking about banning private sales--just requiring background checks." I suppose that kinda depends on how one defines "private." To my way of thinking, if there's a legal mandate that the sale cannot proceed without approval by the government, after the FBI runs a check on the prospective buyer, we're talking about the kind of "privacy" that only shows up in Orwell novels.
For readers who need some more reason not to surrender that privacy, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO) has assembled some information pointing alarmingly to the conclusion that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) is correlating all the trace data into a de facto (and illegal) gun registry.
When we allow the government to know where all the guns are, we have voluntarily chained ourselves. We're better than that.
"Gun show loophole" legislation (about which I've written often) is probably the biggest threat on the federal horizon (on the legislative front, anyway--executive orders and administrative "rule changes," along with international treaties, are a different sort of threat, and one that completely bypasses the entire legislative process). Even "pro-gun" Republicans, including U.S. Senator and former presidential candidate John McCain, have enthusiastically endorsed such laws. Keep a close eye on H.R. 2324 and S. 843.
Atlanta: Ed Stone | Austin: Howard Nemerov | Boston: Ron Bokleman | Charlotte: Paul Valone | Cheyenne: Anthony Bouchard | Chicago: Don Gwinn | Cleveland: Daniel White | DC: Mike Stollenwerk | Denver: Dan Bidstrup | Grand Rapids: Skip Coryel | Knoxville: Liston Matthews | Los Angeles: John Longenecker | Minneapolis: John Pierce | National: David Codrea | Phoenix: Douglas Little | Seattle: Dave Workman | St. Louis: Kurt Hofmann | Wisconsin: Gene German
Comments
Isn't language something? The very word "loophole" implies that some party is exploiting a flawed rule for its own aggrandizement.
In completely unrelated news, the government and its apologists will now (again, as always, evermore) lecture us unwashed masses upon matters ethical, such as fraud, aggression and theft.
What the Brady "Mass-Murderer Fan Club" *really* fears is the "freedom loophole".
So he bought an AK-47 assault rifle, naturally implying that it's a fully automatic rifle. And it has a 30-round clip?
Why must anti-gunners be so ignorant?
So after hundreds of years of Americans legally buying, selling, trading and giving away firearms without government interference, instead of going after gang-bangers, turf-warriors, ex-cons, criminal illegal aliens and all the like holding gun shows in back-alleys and making out-of-the-trunk sales of stolen firearms, the Brady bunch focuses on private legal sales--first those at gunshows with the plan in mind to get a ban on all private sales. Then of course, on to a national registration of all firearms and the once-and-for-all end to all GUN CRIMES. Uh, huh.
Hardly worth mentioning at this point the Founders predicted all of this and intentionally wrote a law against any infringement by the Federal government on the right of the people to keep and bear arms via the IIA.
Nary a day passes when I don’t wonder if most of the problems facing Americans at present wouldn’t exist at all had the people heeded the Founder’s advice and maintained our well regulated Militias.
Another fine article Mr. Kurt Hoffmann
One significant commonality between MB, the BC’ers, the MMMarchers, the 1 or 2 members of the VPC and other statists of anti-American ilk--is the whole lot of ’em can’t control crime in their own front yards.
MB admitted to a disproportionate number of drug, sex and gun crimes committed on public owned property, so failing at that, he dispatches his minions to break laws in other states.
The Brady’s home office is in the District of Criminals, a less-than-100sq.mile plot of territory with the most stringent ‘GUN CONTROL LAWS’ in America, probably has the highest concentration of armed agents of government as anyplace in the nation, but consistently ranks among the top of the list for crimes of all types. ( google metro dc pd for stats )
The MMM’s are noted for passing out flyers in airports warning tourists of lax GUN CONTROL LAWS, and consistently marching right past crime infested areas to shriek at legislators.
Mr. Kurt Hofmann
Note; please ignore the double-tap 'f'...
and thanks for all the fine articles.
Ah, yes, the dreaded, terrorist enabling "ability of a free, sovereign American citizen to sell their own property" loophole. After all, why shouldn't citizens be forced, under threat of capital punishment, to sell their used vehicles through a liscensed car dealer? Rummage and household items through a liscensed salesperson or auctioneer? Who knows what kind of mayhem might be caused by items sold at yard and garage sales? It's for the children!
Thanks, everybody.
Quagmire--if I got offended every time someone spelled my name incorrectly, I'd be too consumed with rage to get anything done (although your case is a little unusual--generally, the mispellers also leave off the second "n"). Comes with the territory of being part of one of the few families to spell it that way. If anyone is wondering, I don't THINK I'm related to Albert Hofmann, the discoverer of LSD.
"Should someone who wants to buy a military-style assault weapon be required to undergo a criminal background check?" Yes, they are already required to get a background check when applying for their permit to own a machine gun from the BATFE.
My supermarket sells something the label says is "processed, pasteurized, cheese-style food." I'm not making that up. I'm not sure what it is, but I guess I can assume it's not cheese but may be safe to eat. They also sell "artificially flavored juice style beverage". Again, not juice but might be tasty and OK to drink.
Could someone remind me what a "semi-automatic, military-style, assault weapon is"? Is it one of the ones that Rep. Carolyn McCarthy says, "has that shoulder thing that goes up"?
Actually, the answer to the question, "Should someone who wants to buy a military-style assault weapon be required to undergo a criminal background check?" is NO! The right to bear arms, is not to be infringed. That means the Federal, State, or any local government has no 'legal' Constitutional power to make or enforce such a law. The laws on the books, that are being enforced today, are unconstitutional, regardless of what someone thinks.
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!