Gun Control Debate: Loopholes, Part II - There Is No “Online Gun Store Loophole”

Liberals have now taken the “gun show loophole” argument into cyberspace. But despite their claims, there is no “online gun store loophole” for gun purchases.

As I wrote previously, despite the failures of any gun legislation to move forward — even the Manchin-Toomey amendment, hailed as a “compromise” that largely addressed expanding background checks, among other provisions — gun control advocates vowed the fight for gun control is not over. We should expect to see many of the recent arguments resurface later this year. Along with the so-called “gun show loophole” exposed here as a fraud, we can also expect to see the so-called “online loophole” again.

It is a myth to claim there is an “online loophole.” This myth is designed to sound scary to those who are ignorant of what the law already requires. A loophole is defined as “A way of escaping a difficulty, especially an omission or ambiguity in the wording of a contract or law that provides a means of evading compliance.” An online loophole could only exist if there were a law meant to restrict gun sales which some were evading by purchasing online.

What does the law say? According to the ATFE, per § 18 U.S.C. 922(a)(3) and (5), 922(d) “A person may sell a firearm to an unlicensed resident of his State, if he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law.” And per § 18 U.S.C. 922(a)(3) “A person may only acquire a firearm within the person’s own State, except that he or she may purchase or otherwise acquire a rifle or shotgun, in person, at a licensee’s premises in any State, provided the sale complies with State laws applicable in the State of sale and the State where the purchaser resides.” The ATF further clarifies, per § 18 U.S.C. 922(a)(3) and 922(b)(3) “A person not licensed under the GCA [Gun Control Act] and not prohibited from acquiring firearms may purchase a firearm from an out-of-State source and obtain the firearm if an arrangement is made with a licensed dealer in the purchaser’s State of residence for the purchaser to obtain the firearm from the dealer.” So the law requires a buyer to buy in his own state or make an in-person purchase in another state; or, if purchased out of state and not in person, for the firearm to ship to a licensed Federal Firearm Licensee (FFL) in the buyer’s state, where it may then be transferred to the buyer. Note that all FFLs must conduct background checks through FBI-run NICS for every purchase, regardless of location.

In plain English this means it it 100% legal to purchase a gun from anyone in the state you live in; it is 100% legal to purchase in another state in-person at a licensed dealer; and it 100% legal to purchase from an out-of-state seller as long as the firearm is shipped to a licensed FFL in your state. This means you can find a gun to buy in paper classified ads, online classified ads, physical store retailers, and online retailers legally already. No loophole exists.

A buyer may legally go to online classified ads or auction sites like Gunbroker, Guns America, or Armslist and order (pay for) a gun, but if the seller is out of state, it must be shipped to a FFL in-state for the transfer (taking physical possession) of the firearm. Failure to do so is already a federal crime per § 18 U.S.C. 924(3)(C). If the seller is in your state, the law stipulates it is perfectly legal for the buyer to meet the seller in person to complete the transfer of the firearm, regardless of whether the parties first got in touch through an online classified, paper classified, met at a local fundraiser, or whatever. It is 100% legal under the law to purchase (pay for), a firearm from an online retailer such as as Atlantic Firearms, Centerfire Systems, or Bud’s Gun Shop, but transfer of the gun must be done via in-state FFL. It is not legal for those retailers to ship the firearm to your front door, like your last order from Amazon.com, however – it must go to a FFL. Shipping it to your front door, and not to a FFL, is already a federal crime.

Many gun control advocates continue to be either ignorant, or willfully ignorant, of what the existing law says in order to perpetrate these myths and scare or dupe the public. This is the basis for the “gun show loophole” and the “online loophole” arguments.
 
Education defeats propaganda. It is critical to examine precisely what the law and federal law enforcement agencies say about these issues.

By Matt MacBradaigh. Matt is a Christian, Husband, Father, Patriot, and Conservative from the Pacific Northwest. Matt writes about the Second Amendment, Gun Control, Gun Rights, and Gun Policy issues and is published on The Bell Towers, The Brenner Brief, PolicyMic. TavernKeepers, and Vocativ.

Follow Me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/2AFight  

Follow Me on Facebook:   https://www.facebook.com/2ndAmendmentFight
 

This article also appears on The Brenner Brief. (Original publication June 13, 2013).

There Is No “Online Gun Store Loophole”

by Matt MacBradaigh | Jun 13, 2013 | Gun Control Facts | 1 comment

Liberals have now taken the “gun show loophole” argument into cyberspace. But despite their claims, there is no “online gun store loophole” for gun purchases.

As I wrote previously, despite the failures of any gun legislation to move forward — even the Manchin-Toomey amendment, hailed as a “compromise” that largely addressed expanding background checks, among other provisions — gun control advocates vowed the fight for gun control is not over. We should expect to see many of the recent arguments resurface later this year. Along with the so-called “gun show loophole” exposed here as a fraud, we can also expect to see the so-called “online loophole” again.

It is a myth to claim there is an “online loophole.” This myth is designed to sound scary to those who are ignorant of what the law already requires. A loophole is defined as “A way of escaping a difficulty, especially an omission or ambiguity in the wording of a contract or law that provides a means of evading compliance.” An online loophole could only exist if there were a law meant to restrict gun sales which some were evading by purchasing online.

What does the law say? According to the ATF, per § 18 U.S.C. 922(a)(3) and (5), 922(d) “A person may sell a firearm to an unlicensed resident of his State, if he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law.” And per § 18 U.S.C. 922(a)(3) “A person may only acquire a firearm within the person’s own State, except that he or she may purchase or otherwise acquire a rifle or shotgun, in person, at a licensee’s premises in any State, provided the sale complies with State laws applicable in the State of sale and the State where the purchaser resides.” The ATF further clarifies, per § 18 U.S.C. 922(a)(3) and 922(b)(3) “A person not licensed under the GCA [Gun Control Act] and not prohibited from acquiring firearms may purchase a firearm from an out-of-State source and obtain the firearm if an arrangement is made with a licensed dealer in the purchaser’s State of residence for the purchaser to obtain the firearm from the dealer.” So the law requires a buyer to buy in his own state or make an in-person purchase in another state; or, if purchased out of state and not in person, for the firearm to ship to a licensed Federal Firearm Licensee (FFL) in the buyer’s state, where it may then be transferred to the buyer. Note that all FFLs must conduct background checks through FBI-run NICS for every purchase, regardless of location.

In plain English this means it it 100% legal to purchase a gun from anyone in the state you live in; it is 100% legal to purchase in another state in-person at a licensed dealer; and it 100% legal to purchase from an out-of-state seller as long as the firearm is shipped to a licensed FFL in your state. This means you can find a gun to buy in paper classified ads, online classified ads, physical store retailers, and online retailers legally already. No loophole exists.

A buyer may legally go to online classified ads or auction sites like Gunbroker, Guns America, or Armslist and order (pay for) a gun, but if the seller is out of state, it must be shipped to a FFL in-state for the transfer (taking physical possession) of the firearm. Failure to do so is already a federal crime per § 18 U.S.C. 924(3)(C). If the seller is in your state, the law stipulates it is perfectly legal for the buyer to meet the seller in person to complete the transfer of the firearm, regardless of whether the parties first got in touch through an online classified, paper classified, met at a local fundraiser, or whatever. It is 100% legal under the law to purchase (pay for), a firearm from an online retailer such as as Atlantic Firearms, Centerfire Systems, or Bud’s Gun Shop, but transfer of the gun must be done via in-state FFL. It is not legal for those retailers to ship the firearm to your front door, like your last order from Amazon.com, however – it must go to a FFL. Shipping it to your front door, and not to a FFL, is already a federal crime.

Many gun control advocates continue to be either ignorant, or willfully ignorant, of what the existing law says in order to perpetrate these myths and scare or dupe the public. This is the basis for the “gun show loophole” and the “online loophole” arguments. Education defeats propaganda. It is critical to examine precisely what the law and federal law enforcement agencies say about these issues.

This article was originally published on Brenner Brief. Original publish date Jun 13, 2013. Original author, Matt MacBradaigh.

Gun Control Debate: Loopholes, Part I - There Is No “Gun Show Loophole”

The ATF states “A licensed importer, manufacturer, or dealer may not transfer a firearm to a non-licensee at a gun show without first complying with the requirements of the Brady law. ”

Since the shootings at Newtown, the gun control debate has been intensely reignited in America. Many have called for an open and honest national dialogue. Honesty is a prerequisite to any such discussion.

Despite the failure of the so-called “assault weapons” ban and “high capacity” magazine legislation, and the failure of the Manchin-Toomey amendment which was touted as a “compromise”, gun control advocates have vowed to continue to push for more legislation. Bottom line: we can expect to see many of the same arguments witnessed recently to resurface later in the year. One we are virtually guaranteed to see again addresses closing the so-called “gun show loophole.”

President Obama and others have falsely claimed “up to 40%” of guns are bought without a background check via the so-called “gun show loophole”. The Washington Post Fact-Checker gave Obama three “Pinocchios” for this statement. According to the rating system used, this means there are “significant factual error and/or obvious contradictions”. This false claim comes from a 1994 study of 251 people from before the Brady Bill required Federal Firearms Licensed (FFL) retail sellers to run background checks on all sales. The Washington Post reconnected with the original study authors who informed them the actual range is 14-22% with a +/- error margin of 6%, meaning the final range is 8-28%; neither end of the range approaches 40%. Further factor in the low sample size (251 people), the age of the study (1994), and that the survey was from before the Brady Law was enacted, and it’s apparent how weak this claim is.

Political wordplay in the choice of words must be considered. Loophole is defined as “A way of escaping a difficulty, especially an omission or ambiguity in the wording of a contract or law that provides a means of evading compliance.” Therefore, this would only be accurate if there were a law meant to restrict sales at gun shows that someone were evading.

What does the law say? According to the ATF, federal law 18 U.S.C. 922(t), 27 478.102 requires “Federally licensed firearms importers, manufacturers, and dealers must comply with the Brady law prior to the transfer of any firearm to a non-licensed individual.” This means that all FFL holders must run a background check on every sale, regardless of the location of the sale. Period. Specifically regarding gun shows, the ATF states “A licensed importer, manufacturer, or dealer may not transfer a firearm to a non-licensee at a gun show without first complying with the requirements of the Brady law. ”

The ATF Federal Firearms Regulations Reference Guide, last updated in 2005, states that it is already a federal crime for a licensed gun dealer (FFL) to fail to run a background at a gun show, or anywhere else. Per 18 U.S.C. 922(t)(1), “a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer shall not transfer a firearm” (p.13) unless they run a check through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). The penalty per § 924(a)(5) includes fines and up to a year in prison per violation (p.19). If the gun dealer knowingly sells to a prohibited person (§ 922(d)) which covers prohibition to felons, mentally ill, and certain other classes from possessing guns, they are subject to a fine and up to 10 years imprisonment per § 924(a)(2).

This means we already have a law that requires gun dealers to run background checks at gun shows. No loophole. The only other guns available at gun shows are available from private citizens wishing to sell personally owned guns. This is 100% legal from any location including one’s driveway, a parking lot, a back alley, or at a gun show – either inside at a table, or even in the parking lot outside of a gun show. Again, no loophole. Private sales are legal at any location and have been since the nation’s founding.

There is nothing special about gun shows. Gun control advocates’ focus on guns shows as a problematic location for private sales is specious: the Department of Justice studies show that less than 1% of felons acquire firearms from gun shows. The majority — nearly 80% — of them gets them from (already) illegal transfer via family or friends, or from the illegal trafficking on the black market.

There never has been a law making private sale firearms subject to background checks. The Brady Law requiring FFL licensed dealers wasn’t even enacted until 1994, and only covers licensed gun dealers. The law already requires FFL dealers to conduct background checks even at gun shows. The law does not require private sellers to conduct background checks at any location.

If gun control advocates wanted to close private sales, then it should be rightly referred to as such. Use of the words “gun show” in addition to “loophole” is political wordplay aimed at scaring those who don’t understand the law as it is currently written. Focusing on guns shows as the location associated with this so-called “loophole” only serves to obfuscate the fact that all private sales are legal, and it is a far cry from open and honest discussion

By Matt MacBradaigh. Matt is a Christian, Husband, Father, Patriot, and Conservative from the Pacific Northwest. Matt writes about the Second Amendment, Gun Control, Gun Rights, and Gun Policy issues and is published on The Bell Towers, The Brenner Brief, PolicyMic. TavernKeepers, and Vocativ.

Follow Me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/2AFight  

Follow Me on Facebook:   https://www.facebook.com/2ndAmendmentFight
 

This  article also appears on The Brenner Brief. (Original publication May 31, 2013). 

There Is No “Gun Show Loophole”

by Matt MacBradaigh | May 31, 2013 | Gun Control Facts | 0 comments

The ATF states “A licensed importer, manufacturer, or dealer may not transfer a firearm to a non-licensee at a gun show without first complying with the requirements of the Brady law. ”

Since the shootings at Newtown, the gun control debate has been intensely reignited in America. Many have called for an open and honest national dialogue. Honesty is a prerequisite to any such discussion.

Despite the failure of the so-called “assault weapons” ban and “high capacity” magazine legislation, and the failure of the Manchin-Toomey amendment which was touted as a “compromise”, gun control advocates have vowed to continue to push for more legislation. Bottom line: we can expect to see many of the same arguments witnessed recently to resurface later in the year. One we are virtually guaranteed to see again addresses closing the so-called “gun show loophole.”

President Obama and others have falsely claimed “up to 40%” of guns are bought without a background check via the so-called “gun show loophole”. The Washington Post Fact-Checker gave Obama three “Pinocchios” for this statement. According to the rating system used, this means there are “significant factual error and/or obvious contradictions”. This false claim comes from a 1994 study of 251 people from before the Brady Bill required Federal Firearms Licensed (FFL) retail sellers to run background checks on all sales. The Washington Post reconnected with the original study authors who informed them the actual range is 14-22% with a +/- error margin of 6%, meaning the final range is 8-28%; neither end of the range approaches 40%. Further factor in the low sample size (251 people), the age of the study (1994), and that the survey was from before the Brady Law was enacted, and it’s apparent how weak this claim is.

Political wordplay in the choice of words must be considered. Loophole is defined as “A way of escaping a difficulty, especially an omission or ambiguity in the wording of a contract or law that provides a means of evading compliance.” Therefore, this would only be accurate if there were a law meant to restrict sales at gun shows that someone were evading.

What does the law say? According to the ATF, federal law 18 U.S.C. 922(t), 27 478.102 requires “Federally licensed firearms importers, manufacturers, and dealers must comply with the Brady law prior to the transfer of any firearm to a non-licensed individual.” This means that all FFL holders must run a background check on every sale, regardless of the location of the sale. Period. Specifically regarding gun shows, the ATF states “A licensed importer, manufacturer, or dealer may not transfer a firearm to a non-licensee at a gun show without first complying with the requirements of the Brady law. ”

The ATF Federal Firearms Regulations Reference Guide, last updated in 2005, states that it is already a federal crime for a licensed gun dealer (FFL) to fail to run a background at a gun show, or anywhere else. Per 18 U.S.C. 922(t)(1), “a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer shall not transfer a firearm” (p.13) unless they run a check through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). The penalty per § 924(a)(5) includes fines and up to a year in prison per violation (p.19). If the gun dealer knowingly sells to a prohibited person (§ 922(d)) which covers prohibition to felons, mentally ill, and certain other classes from possessing guns, they are subject to a fine and up to 10 years imprisonment per § 924(a)(2).

This means we already have a law that requires gun dealers to run background checks at gun shows. No loophole. The only other guns available at gun shows are available from private citizens wishing to sell personally owned guns. This is 100% legal from any location including one’s driveway, a parking lot, a back alley, or at a gun show – either inside at a table, or even in the parking lot outside of a gun show. Again, no loophole. Private sales are legal at any location and have been since the nation’s founding.

There is nothing special about gun shows. Gun control advocates’ focus on guns shows as a problematic location for private sales is specious: the Department of Justice studies show that less than 1% of felons acquire firearms from gun shows. The majority — nearly 80% — of them gets them from (already) illegal transfer via family or friends, or from the illegal trafficking on the black market.

There never has been a law making private sale firearms subject to background checks. The Brady Law requiring FFL licensed dealers wasn’t even enacted until 1994, and only covers licensed gun dealers. The law already requires FFL dealers to conduct background checks even at gun shows. The law does not require private sellers to conduct background checks at any location.

If gun control advocates wanted to close private sales, then it should be rightly referred to as such. Use of the words “gun show” in addition to “loophole” is political wordplay aimed at scaring those who don’t understand the law as it is currently written. Focusing on guns shows as the location associated with this so-called “loophole” only serves to obfuscate the fact that all private sales are legal, and it is a far cry from open and honest discussion,

This article was originally published on Brenner Brief. Original publish date May 31, 2013. Original author, Matt MacBradaigh.

Gun Control Debate 2013: Why Aren't 90% Of Americans Mad As Hell About Background Check Defeat?

A Washington Post article, "Why the American Public Isn't mad As Hell About the Failure Of the Gun Bill (In Numbers)" by Chris Cillizza and Sean Sullivan on April 24, 2013 discusses the failed Manchin-Toomey gun control amendment and the American public's reaction to it.

Presumably the Washington Post, and major news publications like them, hold themselves to a strict standard of journalism that embodies fact-checking and accurate reporting on any issue as a matter of integrity. It may be shocking to some, then, to learn that the linked sources that provide the basis for the claims in the Cillizza and Sullivan article are misleading. The end result — either from willfully misrepresenting the original sources, or resulting from sloppy or yellow journalism — is that the reader is misled on the question about the percentage of Americans that supported unconditional expanded (often referred to as universal) background checks, and by extension the Manchin-Toomey amendment.

Cillizza and Sullivan's Washington Post article reports that according to a Washington Post-Pew Research Center poll, 47% of American's are 'net' angry or disappointed versus 39% 'net' happy or relieved. Technically, a closer look at the poll shows just 15% are "angry", while 20% are "very happy"; the rest fall into "relieved", "disappointed", "indifferent" and "no opinion."

The authors go on to say: "That's a far cry from the 90-ish percent that support expanding background checks — the centerpiece of the proposed legislation — enjoyed."

The first observation of this statement "expanded background checks" is that the word "expanded" is not synonymous with "universal" — as many referred to the legislation by.

Second, there are no qualifications to the statement, or explanation of what precisely "expanded" means. Does it mean no private sales at all? Just all gun show sales required to have background checks? No private transfers to family members? Does it mean everyone registers all guns in a national registry? These possibilities have all been suggested in the gun debate, so clarification as to what is meant in stating that 90% of Americans support "expanded" background checks is warranted.

Third, if one follows the link for the cited source behind the statement "That’s a far cry from the 90-ish percent support that expanding background checks," it leads to another Washington Post article: "90% of Americans want expanded background checks on guns. Why isn’t this a political slam dunk?" by Scott Clement.
Clement's article says: "Nine in ten Americans support expanding background checks on gun purchases in a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll, an extraordinary level of agreement on a political issue and a finding that’s been duplicated in nearly every major public poll. Surveys show broad support spans gun owners and non-gun owners alike, Democrats and Republicans, and even among members of the National Rifle Association, whose leadership is leading efforts to spike the measure from pending legislation."

This statement "nine in ten" from the Washington Post-ABC News poll is where Cillizza and Sullivan (the "Mad as Hell" article authors) base their claims. Again, no criteria or qualifications are provided, just simply "expanded" background check. However, deeper analysis (simply clicking on the link) shows the Washington Post-ABC News poll question is actually "Q: Would you support or oppose a law requiring background checks on people buying guns at gun shows?"

So "expanded" is narrowly defined in the Washington Post-ABC News poll as "requiring background checks on people buying guns at gun shows." Therefore, if the proposed legislation narrowly expands background checks to just people buying guns at gun shows, legislators could expect to receive 90% of the American public's support. But if the proposed legislation involved more than just expanding background checks to "people buying guns at gun shows," then the claim that 90% of Americans support it is bogus.  Support or oppose, the Manchin-Toomey proposed legislation included many more things than just "expanding" background checks at gun shows, according to a summary of the legislation on Senator Toomey's website. Many of the summary points sound good to this author, though as they say "the devil is in the details". At any rate, to define the proposed legislation "expanded background checks" is misleading, and that is what the cited survey question asked. To claim that because 90% of Americans support expanded (though undefined) background checks at gun shows means that 90% of Americans should be mad as hell about the failure of Manchin-Toomey's amendment is misleading.

Cillizza and Sullivan are either not bothering to click on two links to fact-check what the survey actually says, or they are calling it "close enough" (i.e. that 90% of Americans supporting expanded background checks at gun shows is close enough to supporting all of Manchin-Toomey's amendment). The Washington Post — as well as anyone and everyone engaging in debating as emotional of a topic as gun control is — ought to accurately cite facts. Major news outlets have an additional obligation to accurately report. People believe them to be impartial and credible. Articles with loosely cited sources damage that reputation.

By Matt MacBradaigh. Matt is a Christian, Husband, Father, Patriot, and Conservative from the Pacific Northwest. Matt writes about the Second Amendment, Gun Control, Gun Rights, and Gun Policy issues and is published on The Bell Towers, The Brenner Brief, PolicyMic. TavernKeepers, and Vocativ.

Follow Me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/2AFight  

Follow Me on Facebook:   https://www.facebook.com/2ndAmendmentFight
 

This article also appears on PolicyMic. (Original publication April 25, 2013).

Note: Original title: "Obama Needs to Look in the Mirror to Find Out Why Gun Control Failed" - picked by editors, not really reflective of article content.

Obama Needs to Look in the Mirror to Find Out Why Gun Control Failed

The Senate failed to pass the Manchin-Toomey background check plan last Wednesday.  The amendment, touted as "gun control compromise," was crafted by Senators Joe Manchin (D-W.V.) and Pat Toomey (R-Penn.) and it was defeated in the Senate in the first major vote of the session.

That the Manchin-Toomey background checks plan failed to pass the Senate is a good thing; the amendment was not a "compromise" as it had been touted, and would not have solved any gun crime issues. The marketing propaganda mustered to attempt to sell it was itself built upon lies and misinformation, and President Obama's feigned moral outrage over its failure is both insulting and the true shame.

 
President Obama lost his mind when he told reporters at the White House: "Instead of supporting this compromise, the gun lobby and its allies willfully lied about the bill". The President called the day "shameful," and the White House sent out a mass email with the same wording.  The president will forgive me if I'm not moved. If you watched his address immediately following Sandy Hook and witnessed the fake tears flicked away from the outside of his eyes, you'll know what I mean. Shameful? This same president, who used many an opportunity to stand with children and parents of the victims (some would call that exploitation or grandstanding) in pleading the case for his version of a solution to children being senselessly murdered, also orders drone strikes that senselessly murder innocent. Lies? This is the same president who lied about Benghazi being a "spontaneous demonstration" for weeks. This amendment itself was based on lies. As I said, you'll forgive me if I'm not moved by yet another false show of "moral outrage."

Let's talk about lies. This amendment was supposed to close the so-called "gun show loophole." There is no such "loophole." The amendment was also supposed to close the "online loophole." This is an even bolder of a lie.

The president had falsely claimed that "up to 40%" of guns are bought without a background check via the so-called "gun show loophole," for which the Washington Post Fact-Checker gave him two "Pinocchios" (update: upped to three pinocchios) for being misleading. This false claim comes from a 1994 study of 251 people from before the Brady Bill required Federal Firearms Licensed (FFL) retail sellers to run background checks on all sales. The Washington Post reconnected with the original study authors who informed them the actual range is 14-22% with a +/- error margin of 6%, meaning the final range is 8-28%. That's nowhere near 40%. Also, factor in that it was before the Brady Bill was passed and it was from 1994. According to the ATF, federal law requires FFL holders to run a background check on all sales no matter where they are, retail storefront, and gun show, what have you. Failure to do so is already a crime.

What about private sales? Private sales are from any private citizen who does not hold a FFL. These are, and have been since before the beginning of time, been 100% legal to another private, non-FFL holding person. Technically, the law states that if someone knowingly transfers a gun to a prohibited person (felon, mentally ill, etc.) they are breaking the law. But if you are not knowingly selling a firearm to such a person, you are not breaking the law. What about location? Does it matter if the private sale is in your driveway, parking lot, swap meet, gun show, or back alley? Nope. Private sale is private sale, regardless of whether there happen to be FFL's at the next table, or in the next county. Ostensibly, the concern is that continuing to "allow" the "inbred, non-showering, redneck hicks" that attend gun shows the "privilege" of selling their private property at gun shows is that crazed mass killers and terrorists are going to frequent gun shows to get fully automatic machine guns only to drive to the nearest mall or Kindergarten class with 2,000 rounds of ammunition and go out with a blaze of hellfire on our innocent hindquarters. This is pure fairy tale. The Department of Justice studies of where felons acquire their firearms show that less than 1% get them from gun shows. The majority — nearly 80% — of them gets them from (already) illegal transfer via family/friends, or from the black market.

 
The myth about the online loophole is a clever-ish sort of new lie perpetrated by anti-gunners. To listen to them, you'd think one could hop onto Amazon.com or some sort of "Guns-R-Us.com," and order your made-for-mass-murder killing machine sent via UPS to your front door. Pure hogwash. There are plenty of online gun retailers, but none of them will ship you personally a gun; it must go to a FFL retailer who then must run a background check on you. Failure to do so is a crime. They are retailers, not black market underworld kingpins; they're in business to make money, not go to prison for yours or my sake. These retailers only ship guns to FFL holders. Not to mention that they themselves hold FFLs and must comply with the law governing retail sales regardless of location.

What about private sales conducted online via classifieds? This is a little trickier. For one, many places like Craigslist, don't allow guns sales. But for classified ad sites that do allow them, this is no different than placing a classified ad in your local newspaper. It is, and always has been 100% legal. All the same rules discussed above still apply. If shipping out of state, it must go to an FFL; failure to do so is already a crime. If sold locally, there are no restrictions as has always been the case. If the president and gun control advocates wanted to refer to closing all "private" sales, and be honest about the fact that you're changing the law. Don't call it a "loophole;" which as I wrote previously, calling something a "loophole" that was never illegal to begin with, and doesn't involve "getting around" something on a technicality, is itself a war waged with words and dishonest political gamesmanship. Gun control advocates might garner more support and sympathy if they didn't rely on lies to make their case.

Ultimately, the president acts as if the Senate just guaranteed another mass shooting (though even Vice President Biden admits their anti-gun efforts won't prevent another mass shooting). The truth is that this amendment failed to address any of the issues inherently existent in our current system: failure to fund NICS (the background check system), failure of many states to report mental health and felony data to NICS, failure to address straw man purchases, failure to enforce and prosecute illegal transfer and background check fraud. And it fails to address the black market, illegal weapons trafficking (which is done by trans-national gangs according to the FBI), and theft - including targeted theft of police and military equipment.

The greatest lie of all is that this amendment would have done anything to decrease homicides or prevent another great tragedy. The decision to engage in lies and propaganda in lieu of actually addressing the underlying causes of violence and homicide in the U.S. is the real tragedy. That's what Obama and other politicians like him ought to be ashamed of.

By Matt MacBradaigh. Matt is a Christian, Husband, Father, Patriot, and Conservative from the Pacific Northwest. Matt writes about the Second Amendment, Gun Control, Gun Rights, and Gun Policy issues and is published on The Bell Towers, The Brenner Brief, PolicyMic. TavernKeepers, and Vocativ.

Follow Me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/2AFight  

Follow Me on Facebook:   https://www.facebook.com/2ndAmendmentFight
 

This article also appears on PolicyMic. (Original publication April 23, 2013).

Obama’s lies: POTUS loses his mind when Gun Control fails

by Matt MacBradaigh | Apr 23, 2013 | Gun Control Facts | 2 comments

The Senate failed to pass the Manchin-Toomey background check plan last Wednesday.  The amendment, touted as “gun control compromise,” was crafted by Senators Joe Manchin (D-W.V.) and Pat Toomey (R-Penn.) and it was defeated in the Senate in the first major vote of the session.

That the Manchin-Toomey background checks plan failed to pass the Senate is a good thing; the amendment was not a “compromise” as it had been touted, and would not have solved any gun crime issues. The marketing propaganda mustered to attempt to sell it was itself built upon lies and misinformation, and President Obama’s feigned moral outrage over its failure is both insulting and the true shame.

President Obama lost his mind when he told reporters at the White House: “Instead of supporting this compromise, the gun lobby and its allies willfully lied about the bill”. The President called the day “shameful,” and the White House sent out a mass email with the same wording.  The president will forgive me if I’m not moved. If you watched his address immediately following Sandy Hook and witnessed the fake tears flicked away from the outside of his eyes, you’ll know what I mean. Shameful? This same president, who used many an opportunity to stand with children and parents of the victims (some would call that exploitation or grandstanding) in pleading the case for his version of a solution to children being senselessly murdered, also orders drone strikes that senselessly murder innocent. Lies? This is the same president who lied about Benghazi being a “spontaneous demonstration” for weeks. This amendment itself was based on lies. As I said, you’ll forgive me if I’m not moved by yet another false show of “moral outrage.”

Let’s talk about lies. This amendment was supposed to close the so-called “gun show loophole.” There is no such “loophole.” The amendment was also supposed to close the “online loophole.” This is an even bolder of a lie.

The president had falsely claimed that “up to 40%” of guns are bought without a background check via the so-called “gun show loophole,” for which the Washington Post Fact-Checker gave him two “Pinocchios” (update: upped to three pinocchios) for being misleading. This false claim comes from a 1994 study of 251 people from before the Brady Bill required Federal Firearms Licensed (FFL) retail sellers to run background checks on all sales. The Washington Post reconnected with the original study authors who informed them the actual range is 14-22% with a +/- error margin of 6%, meaning the final range is 8-28%. That’s nowhere near 40%. Also, factor in that it was before the Brady Bill was passed and it was from 1994. According to the ATF, federal law requires FFL holders to run a background check on all sales no matter where they are, retail storefront, and gun show, what have you. Failure to do so is already a crime.

What about private sales? Private sales are from any private citizen who does not hold a FFL. These are, and have been since before the beginning of time, been 100% legal to another private, non-FFL holding person. Technically, the law states that if someone knowingly transfers a gun to a prohibited person (felon, mentally ill, etc.) they are breaking the law. But if you are not knowingly selling a firearm to such a person, you are not breaking the law. What about location? Does it matter if the private sale is in your driveway, parking lot, swap meet, gun show, or back alley? Nope. Private sale is private sale, regardless of whether there happen to be FFL’s at the next table, or in the next county. Ostensibly, the concern is that continuing to “allow” the “inbred, non-showering, redneck hicks” that attend gun shows the “privilege” of selling their private property at gun shows is that crazed mass killers and terrorists are going to frequent gun shows to get fully automatic machine guns only to drive to the nearest mall or Kindergarten class with 2,000 rounds of ammunition and go out with a blaze of hellfire on our innocent hindquarters. This is pure fairy tale. The Department of Justice studies of where felons acquire their firearms show that less than 1% get them from gun shows. The majority — nearly 80% — of them gets them from (already) illegal transfer via family/friends, or from the black market.

The myth about the online loophole is a clever-ish sort of new lie perpetrated by anti-gunners. To listen to them, you’d think one could hop onto Amazon.com or some sort of “Guns-R-Us.com,” and order your made-for-mass-murder killing machine sent via UPS to your front door. Pure hogwash. There are plenty of online gun retailers, but none of them will ship you personally a gun; it must go to a FFL retailer who then must run a background check on you. Failure to do so is a crime. They are retailers, not black market underworld kingpins; they’re in business to make money, not go to prison for yours or my sake. These retailers only ship guns to FFL holders. Not to mention that they themselves hold FFLs and must comply with the law governing retail sales regardless of location.

What about private sales conducted online via classifieds? This is a little trickier. For one, many places like Craigslist, don’t allow guns sales. But for classified ad sites that do allow them, this is no different than placing a classified ad in your local newspaper. It is, and always has been 100% legal. All the same rules discussed above still apply. If shipping out of state, it must go to an FFL; failure to do so is already a crime. If sold locally, there are no restrictions as has always been the case. If the president and gun control advocates wanted to refer to closing all “private” sales, and be honest about the fact that you’re changing the law. Don’t call it a “loophole;” which as I wrote previously, calling something a “loophole” that was never illegal to begin with, and doesn’t involve “getting around” something on a technicality, is itself a war waged with words and dishonest political gamesmanship. Gun control advocates might garner more support and sympathy if they didn’t rely on lies to make their case.

Ultimately, the president acts as if the Senate just guaranteed another mass shooting (though even Vice President Biden admits their anti-gun efforts won’t prevent another mass shooting). The truth is that this amendment failed to address any of the issues inherently existent in our current system: failure to fund NICS (the background check system), failure of many states to report mental health and felony data to NICS, failure to address straw man purchases, failure to enforce and prosecute illegal transfer and background check fraud. And it fails to address the black market, illegal weapons trafficking (which is done by trans-national gangs according to the FBI), and theft – including targeted theft of police and military equipment.

The greatest lie of all is that this amendment would have done anything to decrease homicides or prevent another great tragedy. The decision to engage in lies and propaganda in lieu of actually addressing the underlying causes of violence and homicide in the U.S. is the real tragedy. That’s what Obama and other politicians like him ought to be ashamed of.

This article was originally published on PolicyMic.com, now Mic.com. Original publish date Apr 23, 2013. Original author, Matt MacBradaigh.