One of Ms. Cleland's chief concerns, however, is what happens after the initial sale.
The same gun that she sells to a customer can be resold virtually without scrutiny and without a trace in five minutes, five days, or five years.
A private individual also can sell a handgun at the ever-popular gun shows around the state without paperwork or scrutiny. Federal firearms license holders and dealers at the same shows, however, do have to fill out the forms.
"It's a loophole. We do all this paperwork, but to me that is the big loophole. We're regulated to the teeth, but then we have this huge gray area where people just go out and sell them without keeping any records," Mrs. Cleland said. "It makes it look like we're controlling guns, but we're not. That's what we're dealing with, with the Virginia Tech thing. It's not the gun issue but that the system failed."
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here, Mrs. Cleland, that your statement was taken out of context, or you didn't mean what it sounds like you're saying.
Because if I thought for a minute you're endorsing for what it sounds like you're calling for, I'd be making some recommendations to my friends about where to shop...
[Via Nathan F]
Why wouldn't a gun dealer endorse making it harder for individuals to sell firearms? That would increase her business. If nothing else, requiring background checks would force private sellers to come to her to get the background checks done...for which she would, of course, charge a nominal fee...
ReplyDeleteHopefully Ohioans will get the word about this Judas Goat and her business will suffer the appropriate consequences.
I think more to the point, the "Gun Free Zone" at V.T. is what failed!
ReplyDeleteOh, yeah. That loophole? That wouldn't be the Second Amendment, would it?
This is the same cry you hear of children. "What about him? Why doesn't he have to do it?"
ReplyDeleteThis is the same garbage you will hear regarding taxes. "They aren't paying their fair share."
This is how you get the oppressed to call for more oppression. They don't see that it will come back on themselves.
Instead of calling for restrictions on others, we should be calling for more freedom for everyone.
If an infringement is illegal, then why ask for more people to be infringed?
In a conversation someone asked, "How did this guy slip through the system?"
ReplyDeleteI said, "That is the wrong question. The right question would be, WHY DO WE HAVE A SYSTEM????"
Here we go. The peanut gallery is trotting out every action item on their tired, old agenda. Since they're taking advantage of the mass murders at VT to bring this up, it's fair to apply it to my Standard Template:
ReplyDeleteQ: Would plugging the "gunshow loophole" have been more effective at stopping the murderer Cho Seung-Hui than an armed defense?
A: No.
Why: It isn't relevant, since he didn't buy his weapons at a gunshow.
Regardless, he passed a background check, because NICS does not currently include health records. He also lied on the ATF form, and no one caught it after two months.
I'm not actually blaming the authorities here, red tape is thick**. What I'm saying is that it's real hard to hit the wrong guy when you stop him in the act, and it's more efficient and effective that preemptive justice (which is science-fiction anyway) or legal proceedings after the fact.
**(Except for the de facto suspect in the case, apparently chosen because he was a known gun owner and knew the victim, not because he was placed anywhere near the crime scene, had an MO, and was known to be violent.)
-TJH
This sort of comment is a surprise? Look at GCA '68 and who were some of its biggest supporters: Remington, Winchester, etc, etc, etc.
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes down to it, gun dealers are going to be for legislation that makes it harder on their competition.