Compromise to close non-existent loophole passes committee

Gun Show Loophole Compromise passes Senate committee and heads to Senate Floor

From the Star City Harbinger

(This is cross posted from their comment section. )

There are so many incorrect things in this.

One - There is NO gun show loophole. VENDORS, by law, are arms dealers and are regulated. This law will regulate private transactions between private citizens and only within the gun show. This is only a precedent to then restrict sales anywhere between citizens. Two - It was protested by any and every citizen tired of the government trying to restrict 2nd Amendment rights, not just “Republicans with loyalties to the NRA.” Three - The Virginia Tech shootings are a straw argument since the shooter followed all laws and his background WAS CHECKED. Four - This isn’t a country/city split. This a fight of 2nd Amendment supporters vs gun controllers. Many urban citizens utilize their right to buy and sell private property.

This “compromise” is nothing of the sort. Weapons of all sorts are still being bought and sold by private citizens. Instead of beating a dead horse about a non-existent loophole, why don’t these politician state what they really mean? They want all private sales to be held through a dealer, thereby increasing the cost and inconvenience of the transaction. Who pays for the background check? Why should a dealer subject himself to liability by putting out a background check on guns that he himself will not be selling? Will it be mandatory that dealers do the background checks when requested? What if there are no nearby FFL’s? What if you want to sell or give a firearm to a friend or family member? Or receive one in a will?

And how would a law enforcement agency find out about these transfers unless the firearms were registered?

For all of the Brady Campaign’s statistics on how many gun sales have been stopped by background checks, only 7 have resulted in arrests. How soon will it be, since this state appears to be turning “blue”, before gun or ammo registration is mentioned to ensure that “keeping firearms out of the hands of convicted felons and the mentally ill ” is necessary.

The whole point of the 2nd Amendment was to ensure an armed populace. A weapon is an inanimate object. If used in a criminal act, hammer that person and throw him in prison for a long time. If a person is mentally unstable enough to be restricted from having a weapon, institutionalize that person for their own and our safety. If the court system had decided that about Cho, no background check would have been necessary. He would have been safely in the hospital.

How far do we go to ensure “safety?” According to the Brady Campaign, all weapons should be restricted. Some want to repeal the 2nd Amendment. If you look at Australia and England, one will see that crime rates have skyrocketed.

2nd Amendment supporters are tired of the incremental attacks on our liberty. As the saying goes, “If you give them an inch, they’ll take a mile.”