Comments on: When you close the non-existent gun show loophole

By: Xrlq

Xrlq — Wed, 17 Aug 2005 21:46:52 +0000

Semantics aside, the underlying legal distinction – i.e., the federal law that requires licensees but not nonlicensees to conduct background checks – is real. Calling it the “so-called gun show loophole” rightly implies that the law exists, but isn’t really a gun show loophole. By contrast, calling it the “nonexistent gun show loophole” implies that it doesn’t exist at all. Which it does – just ask any (former) licensee who has been caught selling a gun wtihout conducting a background check.

In any event, talk of gun shows or loopholes is irrelevant in California, which has been requiring licensees to be involved in all gun sales since long before they started getting weird about gun shows.

By: joe

joe — Wed, 17 Aug 2005 20:46:39 +0000

A “gun user” would be one who uses guns. Though some snort, and a few “shoot” up, most people smoke guns, hence the term “smoking gun.”

Sorry; I couldn’t resist.

One more: I don’t recommend taking guns orally.

By: SayUncle

SayUncle — Wed, 17 Aug 2005 19:18:51 +0000

I still contend that GSL is non-existent because a private person selling a private weapon is not a ‘dealer.’ And an ‘unlicensed dealer’ is already a criminal.

By: Xrlq

Xrlq — Wed, 17 Aug 2005 16:06:06 +0000

California hasn’t had the private transfer exception (a more accurate label for that legal thingy-dingy one liberal media erroneously dubs the “gun show loophole” and the other liberal media erroneously dubs “the non-existent gun show loophole”) for decades, at gun shows or anywhere else, if indeed it ever did. But your greater point stands for states that do: if they’re going to require background checks for private transfers at gun shows, they might as well require them everywhere else.