Senators Introduce Bill to Close ‘Gun-Show Loophole’

By
Tuesday, April 21, 2009 at 3:45 pm

It’s a curiously enormous loophole in the federal effort to keep firearms out of the hands of felons, fugitives, minors and the mentally ill: Unlicensed gun-show vendors — unlike their licensed counterparts — have no obligation to do background checks on prospective weapons buyers.

Today, Democratic Sens. Frank Lautenberg (N.J.), Jack Reed (R.I.) and Dianne Feinstein (Calif.) re-introduced legislation to close that loophole by requiring all gun-show vendors to perform background checks on potential customers.

“Allowing sales at gun shows without identification, without accountability and without knowing whether the buyer is a felon or mentally ill, is unacceptable,” Feinstein said in a statement. “This legislation proposes common sense protections that do not limit the rights of law abiding citizens to own and purchase guns.”

But the bill has a tough road ahead. The National Rifle Association, which opposes the proposal, is a juggernaut of political influence in Washington, and Democratic leaders, including President Obama, have all but conceded that gun reforms are likely going nowhere this year.

It’s a familiar scenario. Indeed, when the Senate passed a similar gun-show proposal in the immediate wake of the 1999 Columbine High School massacre, the NRA lobbied it dead in negotiations with the House. If it couldn’t pass in that political environment, don’t go holding your breath for passage in this one.

Comments

5 Comments

foo
Comment posted April 23, 2009 @ 7:33 am

Newsflash: Murder is already illegal and piling law upon law and INFRINGING on Americans' rights does nothing to prevent it, as has been proven time and time and time again. I have never once seen a law fly up and deflect bullets, knife stabs, poisoning, bombs, hammer strikes, chokes, etc etc etc etc etc. There is NO compromise when it comes to freedom. Too many people already died defending our rights and people like me won't allow that to be forgotten. People such as yourself don't seem to cherish things like the Constitution and thats ok, it is your right to do so. But don't think for a second people like me are going to sit by while our rights are swept aside. Good thing for us is, we have the guns so it makes defending our rights a bit easier.


Brendan
Comment posted April 23, 2009 @ 1:47 pm

Well, here the Dems go again. I guess they just can't resist the urge to
do a reverse-Newt-Gingrich and get their butts trounced in 2010. If they get
this turkey passed, then just as sure as rain they'll go “ga-ga over gun control”
and the end results will be similar to 1994's midterms. MORE so, because they
will get all the “Fudds” who voted for Obama in the last election turned against
them. And remember, support for gun control is at an all-time-low in the U.S.!
WHY can't they just leave the gun issue alone? Especially with as many issues
as they've got to deal with right now. The Democrats remind me of a retard with
an itch… they just can't stop “scratching it”, can they???


Tony Wigfield
Comment posted April 23, 2009 @ 5:08 pm

The Hill quoted Lautenberg as claiming “Thirty percent of the guns that go to Mexico are bought at gun shows,” (see: http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/lautenberg-…) yet I have not seen or heard of any news organization confronting him on these numbers. Where does he get these statistics? Does he have anything to back up such a statement?


foo
Comment posted April 24, 2009 @ 9:17 am

I've heard as low as 17% and as high as 90%. People are just pulling statistics out of their butt to sound dramatic, like they always do. The “news” reports it because they point at someone else who said it so technically they are just reporting what someone said, and not presenting the info themselves so they don't get in trouble. Its an old media trick.


foo
Comment posted April 24, 2009 @ 4:17 pm

I've heard as low as 17% and as high as 90%. People are just pulling statistics out of their butt to sound dramatic, like they always do. The “news” reports it because they point at someone else who said it so technically they are just reporting what someone said, and not presenting the info themselves so they don't get in trouble. Its an old media trick.


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.