|
May
21, 2002 9:55 a.m.
Gun
Games
Truth
is a casualty of the anti-gun cause.
|
 |
he
new radio ads from the misleadingly named "Americans
for Gun Safety" feature John McCain and Joe Lieberman making a
variety of bogus claims as part of their campaign against gun shows.
McCain states:
"A few years ago, Congress passed a law to make sure people undergo
a simple background check before buying a gun." Lieberman chimes
in, "That's right, John. That law has stopped 700,000 criminals
from buying a weapon."
But that's not true. The 700,000 figure is simply the number of initial
denials under the National Instant Check System and its predecessor, the
Brady waiting period. The figure includes people who were initially
denied a gun because they had the same name as a criminal, but who
appealed and were later authorized to purchase. It also includes people
denied for improper reasons, such as unpaid traffic tickets.
McCain continues: "Problem is, there's a dangerous loophole because
right now the law doesn't cover most of America's gun shows."
Lieberman then adds, "That means criminals are getting around the
law and buying guns with no questions asked."
These quotes create the entirely false impression that gun shows are
some kind of Brigadoon, where the normal gun laws do not apply for a
weekend at a county fairground. To the contrary, federal gun laws apply
at gun shows precisely as they apply anywhere else. If you are
"engaged in the business" of selling guns, you must have a
Federal Firearms License (FFL). Your customers must fill out the federal
registration paperwork, and you must put your customers through the
National Instant Check System (or its state equivalent). This is true
whether you sell from a retail store, from a home-based business, or at
a gun show.
Conversely, if you are not engaged in the business, then the
federal paperwork laws do not apply to you — nor should they, since
federal power to regulate gun sales is based on the interstate commerce
power, and a collector who sells three guns a year to people in his home
state is not engaged in interstate commerce.
The legal status of a small-time collector remains the same whether he
sells his three guns a year to friends at work, at meetings of his
hunting club, or at a gun show where he rents a table one weekend.
In other words, there is no "gun-show loophole." The phrase is
an audacious lie, invented by people who want to abolish privacy for
firearms owners. Indeed, the figure of 700,000 gun purchasers who were
turned down includes people who were turned down when attempting to buy at
gun shows from federally licensed firearms dealers.
AGS is simply using Fabian tactics. Its own internal strategy documents
state that its top long-range goal is the licensing and registration of
every gun owner in the United States. But AGS doesn't have the honesty
to admit that goal to the public. Instead, AGS/McCain/Lieberman offer
mendacities about a "gun-show loophole" — a warm-up for
claiming that any gun which isn't registered by the federal government
was obtained through a "loophole."
Lieberman concludes by claiming that the McCain/Lieberman anti-gun-show
bill "respects the rights of law-abiding people to own
firearms." Given that Senator Lieberman spent years telling his
constituents that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual
right to own guns, his assertion that his bill is protective of gun
rights should be taken with many grains of salt.
And, in fact, McCain-Lieberman does far more than impose federal
registration and background checks on small-time, non-business vendors
at gun shows. As I detail in the Issue Paper "Should
Gun Shows Be Outlawed?" McCain-Lieberman is a cornucopia of
poison pills which would allow a future anti-gun executive branch to
shut down gun shows entirely.
In particular, the bill makes it illegal for a person to operate a gun
show without a federal license, and structures the license application
process so that licenses need never be issued. The bill indirectly
requires that people who attend gun shows must be registered. The
bill even requires that people who don't sell guns (e.g., the numerous
book, food, and clothing vendors at gun shows) be registered; and it
would allow the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms to demand a
list of every book being sold by a book vendor. Finally,
McCain-Lieberman authorizes BATF to create additional, limitless
gun-show regulations, which could be used to make it nearly impossible
for gun shows to be held.
Not one of the McCain-Lieberman bills is necessary to mandate background
checks by the small-time gun collectors who occasionally sell guns at
gun shows. Colorado enacted such a law by initiative in the 2000
election. The Colorado law simply defines "gun show" and then
requires a background check by all gun sellers at a gun show.
The overwhelming share of money to support this Colorado ballot
initiative came from AGS (which is based in D.C.), and McCain did
AGS-funded television commercials touting the initiative. Thus, AGS and
McCain are hardly ignorant of the contents of the Colorado law. If they
really wanted only to impose background checks at gun shows, they could
propose a federal version of the Colorado law. But while the Colorado
law contains just a few paragraphs, the AGS/McCain/Lieberman bill fills
dozens of pages.
The fact that AGS, McCain, and Lieberman fail to describe their own bill
accurately suggests that — regardless of what opinion polls might say
about the abstract issue of gun shows — they recognize that their
covert agenda does not enjoy the support of the American public.
—
Dave Kopel is
research director of the Independence Institute.
|