The sellers are exploiting an enormous loophole in the nation’s gun laws. While federal statute requires licensed gun dealers to perform background checks on all prospective gun buyers, unlicensed sellers — like those who often set up shop at roaming gun shows — are exempt. The background checks are designed to prevent sales to those legally ineligible to own guns, including felons, illegal immigrants and the severely mentally ill.

Federal law does prohibit unlicensed dealers from making sales if they have reason to believe that the buyer wouldn’t pass a background check. Yet in 19 of 30 cases, investigators were sold weapons even after they’d made comments indicating that they would likely fail such a test. “That’s good about the background check because I probably couldn’t pass one,” says one undercover buyer. The smiling dealer responded, “I wouldn’t pass either, bud.”

The loophole can have fatal consequences. The Department of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms estimates that 30 percent of all trafficked guns originate at gun shows. The issue is particularly a concern in places like New York, where shootings and gun trafficking are endemic. ATF investigations have also revealed that weapons purchased freely at gun shows are also making their way into Mexico, where violent cartels are using them to protect their drug trade.

“The gun show loophole is a deadly serious problem,” Bloomberg said in a statement, “and this undercover operation exposes just how pervasive and serious it is.” The mayor said he plans to send a copy of the findings to every member of Congress.

He has a difficult road ahead. While some Democrats have, for years, had their eyes on closing the gun show loophole, the gun lobby has proven too powerful to get the legislation through Congress. Indeed, even in the wake of the 1999 Columbine killings, the National Rifle Association was successful in killing a Senate-passed bill to close the gun show loophole. If that political environment wasn’t electric enough to pass the legislation, it’s hard to imagine that a few videos — as compelling as they are — would inspire in lawmakers a change of heart.

That was a contentious issue at her confirmation hearings, with Republican gun enthusiasts warning that she doesn’t support gun ownership as a “fundamental right.” Democrats — and Sotomayor — argued that she’d never had the opportunity to rule on the issue.  In one case, she’d held that the Second Amendment did not forbid states from regulating gun possession, but she’d ruled based on her reading of what Supreme Court precedent required, she said.

Today, the court announced it would take a new gun case, McDonald v. Chicago, that will directly address the issue that’s so far been left undecided: whether the Second Amendment provides a “fundamental right” that states must respect.

The Chicago law at issue in this case bans virtually all handguns. A previous ruling from the Supreme Court, Heller v. District of Columbia, struck down a similar ban but applied only to the federal government’s authority to regulate handguns.

Arizona allows people to openly carry guns, including semiautomatic assault rifles, so no one was arrested. After all, they were just exercising their Second Amendment rights, right? The man captured on camera said he was carrying his assault rifle slung over his shoulder “Because I can do it. In Arizona, I still have some freedoms.”

Meanwhile, a reader at TPM raised a good point:

“Lynette “Squeaky” Fromme was released from prison this week, after 34 years in prison. The gun she pointed at President Ford had no bullet in the firing chamber — unlike Sarah Jane Moore, she never even pulled the trigger or fired. Presumably, these gun nuts showing up for the health care events have their weapons actually loaded.”

So when does carrying a loaded weapon to a president’s speaking event become a threat?  Police officers reportedly kept an eye on the two guys with the assault rifles, but what about the other eight who just carried handguns? How many officers have to be tied up watching individuals who come to see the president fully armed? Does the right to bear arms at some point give way to the ability of police and Secret Service to reasonably protect the president?

“If we need to intervene, we will intervene at that time,” said one Arizona detective. Unless, of course, it’s too late.

Yesterday Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, called on the National Rifle Association and other gun-rights groups to tell their members to leave their weapons at home when attending presidential events:

Bringing loaded firearms to any Presidential event endangers all in attendance. Even though our weak national and state gun laws may allow this dangerous behavior, we should use a little common sense.

Individuals carrying loaded weapons at these events require constant attention from police and Secret Service officers, thus stretching their protective efforts even thinner. The possibility that these weapons might be grabbed or stolen or accidentally mishandled increases the risks of serious injury or death to all in attendance.

The National Rifle Association and other ‘gun rights’ groups need to send a message about ‘gun responsibilities’ to their members and all gun owners. Loaded weapons at political forums endanger all involved, distract law enforcement, and end up stifling debate. Presidential protesters need to leave their firearms at home – no exceptions.

[This post has been updated for clarity.]

–

You can follow TWI on Twitter and Facebook.

The engagement of the Second Amendment community will long be remembered as the most significant aspect of this confirmation battle.  Although the NRA’s decision to oppose Judge Sotomayor and score her confirmation vote got the most attention, the grassroots mobilization of gun owners from the bottom up is probably the biggest story.  As a result, gun rights emerged as the most influential issue in this and probably future Supreme Court confirmation battles.

Worth mentioning: Levey, among other opponents, held out hope that some Democrats would oppose Sotomayor based on the NRA score and make this a “bipartisan no vote.” They did not succeed.

Full statement:

“Although the numbers in the Senate ensured that the confirmation of Sonia Sotomayor was never in doubt, those of us committed to restoring the rule of law to the federal judiciary have many things to be happy about in how Sotomayor’s confirmation battle played out.  Those include Republican senators’ courage in mounting a strong opposition; the repudiation of the living Constitution philosophy that has been so fashionable in recent decades; the multi-edged defeat of identity politics; the strong signals sent to the White House about future Supreme Court picks; and the profound change in the politics of judicial confirmations wrought by the explosion of the Second Amendment issue.

“The engagement of the Second Amendment community will long be remembered as the most significant aspect of this confirmation battle.  Although the NRA’s decision to oppose Judge Sotomayor and score her confirmation vote got the most attention, the grassroots mobilization of gun owners from the bottom up is probably the biggest story.  As a result, gun rights emerged as the most influential issue in this and probably future Supreme Court confirmation battles.

“By adding a large and influential constituency to the coalition opposing the nomination of judicial activists, the Second Amendment issue has forever changed the political dynamics of the judicial confirmation process.  It is no coincidence that most of the GOP senators from states with both large Hispanic and gun-owning populations decided to vote against Sotomayor, or that the 30-plus Republican votes against confirmation far exceeded the expectations of liberals and conservatives alike.  By all reports, the White House was very surprised at how big the gun issue turned out to be, and it is unlikely that a President will ever again choose a Supreme Court nominee with a record that can be characterized as hostile to the Second Amendment.

“One need only recall the mere three GOP votes against the elevation of Ruth Bader Ginsburg to the Supreme Court to know that the Republican leadership – Sens. McConnell, Kyl, Thune, Cornyn, and on the Judiciary Committee, Sen. Sessions – and most of the party’s other senators deserve tremendous credit for refusing to be cowed by the ‘you better vote for the first Hispanic Supreme Court nominee’ attitude of the White House and Senate Democrats.

“Republican senators should be proud not only of their votes today, but also of the tough but fair questions they asked Sotomayor during her hearings and of the powerful floor statements they made in opposing her.  As a result, Americans got the teaching moment they deserved.  For the first time since the nomination of Robert Bork in 1987, the confirmation battle saw a serious debate about judicial philosophy and the proper role of judges, rather than just an argument about case outcomes.

“It could have been an even grander debate if Judge Sotomayor and her White House handlers had not chosen to run away from, rather than defend, the philosophy of empathy and ethnicity-based judging espoused by the President and by his nominee in her many speeches.  Perhaps the most memorable moment of Sotomayor’s confirmation hearings was her explicit and complete repudiation of President’s Obama’s call for judges who rule from the heart in the most difficult cases.

“I share the frustration of liberal legal commentators over Sotomayor’s refusal to stand and fight for the concept of a living Constitution, but there’s a huge silver lining: the living Constitution is now dead as a defensible judicial philosophy outside academia.  There is no doubt that judicial activism will live on surreptitiously in the courts, but it is doubtful we will ever again see a Supreme Court nominee who has openly espoused it, no less one willing to defend it during his or her confirmation hearings.

“Finally, it has been a bad summer for the purveyors of identity politics. Not only was the President forced to beat a hasty retreat from his old-school, victim-based take on last month’s incident in Cambridge, but his Supreme Court nominee denied any knowledge of the race-base theories of judging she and other liberals have long championed.  Meanwhile, Democrats failed miserably in their attempt to convince Republican senators that they opposed a Hispanic nominee at their ‘own peril’ (quoting Sen. Schumer).  Polls showing that Hispanics and non-Hispanic whites shared the same unimpressive levels of support for Sotomayor generally, as well as the same levels of specific concern about her Second Amendment record, dealt a further blow to identity politics.  Those of us who believe that racial favoritism has no place in law or politics should celebrate.”

It’s the first time the NRA has weighed in against a Supreme Court nominee and warned senators that their votes affect how the NRA “scores” their records. Although that’s clearly had some affect, eight of the 36 senators endorsed by the NRA in their last elections have said they will vote to confirm her. Those include Democrats Max Baucus and Jon Tester of Montana, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and Tim Johnson of South Dakota, as well as Republicans Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Lamar Alexander of Tennessee and Mel Martinez of Florida.

The NRA has also wavered on how strongly it will weigh this vote, perhaps realizing that it would alienate some key supporters. NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam told the LA Times that the Sotomayor vote was important but might count for less than a future Senate vote on gun control. “The NRA has yet to determine the weight of this vote, but we have informed people that this vote will count,” he said. “Sounds to me like the NRA has been getting some pushback of its own,” observes Christy Hardin Smith of Firedoglake.com.

Meanwhile, gun control groups are relishing the notion that the NRA may be losing its sway. “This vote is a test of the conventional wisdom that they are an 800-pound gorilla capable of scaring up votes,” Doug Pennington, a spokesman for the Brady Center to Prevent Handgun Violence, tells the LA Times. “Well, so far, they have been unable to keep the votes of the senators they endorsed in the last campaign.”

The gun issue was a hot topic at Sotomayor’s hearing, of course, with senators grilling her on why she would not acknowledge that the right to bear arms was an individual “fundamental” right enforceable against the states. Sotomayor answered that she was just following settled court precedent, and carefully avoiding what Jeff Sessions has called “the siren call to judicial activism.”

Since then, Republicans have increasingly turned against Sotomayor, with Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) the only one on the Judiciary Committee to support her nomination. In her report, Totenberg said Sotomayor will be lucky to get even ten Republican votes, and half of those are lawmakers who are retiring. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said on Sunday that he’s still “going back and forth” on whether he’ll vote for the nominee, despite the large Latino population in his home state.

While some Republicans, like Graham, realize the Hispanic vote is growing and will be important to Republican influence in the future, many more are simply eager to appeal to their conservative white base in upcoming elections. And with influential conservative TV pundits like Pat Buchanan saying that white working class folks are the most discriminated-against group in America today, as he did on MSNBC, and Fox News commentator Glenn Beck saying President Obama “has a deep-seated hatred for white people,” the Republicans’ immediate fears seem to be getting the best of them.

Here’s how the senator put it in a statement:

“I have long said that to be a Supreme Court justice, a person must meet three main criteria: personal integrity, professional competence, and a view of important issues that is within the mainstream of contemporary judicial thought. After personally meeting Judge Sotomayor, thoroughly analyzing her judicial record, and reviewing her nomination hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Judge Sotomayor unquestionably meets each of these criteria,” he said. “Thus, I am proud to support her nomination and will vote to confirm her as a justice to the United States Supreme Court.”

Here’s Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), quoted yesterday by The Hill:

“I’m very disappointed. [NRA seems] to be going beyond their Second Amendment issues, particularly when I think the judge’s positions on those issues are still fairly open,” Warner said. “I trust in her judgment and temperament. I think the NRA at some point has gone beyond its mission, and are perhaps allowing themselves to get hijacked by those who are in the extreme.”

Warner joins Sens. Tim Johnson (D-S.D.), Jon Tester (D-Mont.) and Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) as an A-rated lawmaker in the eyes of the NRA who has recently announced his support for Sotomayor.

Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), for the record, says he has no clue how he’ll vote on the nominee, The Hill notes.

“I think the fact the NRA is scoring that vote is dumb,” McCaskill told CQ Politics. “I’ll be surprised if she doesn’t get everybody’s support.”

I’m told by Sotomayor opponents that the NRA’s decision to “score” the Sotomayor vote will be responsible for “no” votes from several Republicans, such as the two senators from Utah. And they’re optimistic that a Democratic senator, possibly Sen. Mark Begich (D-Alaska) or Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), will be cowed into opposing the president because of the NRA’s pressure.