Editorial: Gun show laws aren't getting the job done [More]I realize no one is going to register to read this, but all we need to look at are the title and subhead anyway.
I don't suppose it would occur to them that if something is proven repeatedly over time not to work you should get rid of it it instead of demanding more of it?
They have a lot of damn gall charging two bucks an article for demonstrable nonsense.
2 comments:
Searching on their Web site I discovered that they ran an editorial on December 1, 2011, where they cited that at a recent gun show, more than one rifle was transferred without a NICS check. Apparently Federal law does not require NICS checks for private rifle transfers at gun shows, but New York state law does. See "Article 39-DD", page 313, for the regulation that the gun show operator must ensure that the services of a FFL are provided to makes sure that BATFE Form 4473 is completed, and that the NICS check is done at cost for all firearm transactions and other arcane details. Also see "265.17", page 317, where criminal purchase by a "prohibited person" and straw purchases for a "prohibited person" are outlawed:
http://www.atf.gov/publications/download/p/atf-p-5300-5/atf-p-5300-5.pdf
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics
Another upstate New York newspaper also ran an editorial on this, but registration is not needed to read it:
http://www.timesunion.com/opinion/article/Editorial-The-gun-show-dilemma-2346828.php
The editorial board acknowledges that it is easy to locate and purchase a weapon without a NICS check for non-gun show purchases from private sellers. Their main concerns appears to be that other states do not have the same law as New York, and that several private transfers occurred at this gun show without the NICS checks. What is confusing to me is that they do not acknowledge that even though New York state outlawed this activity, it still occurred. Magic did not happen. If a police officer did not directly observe the transfer, what would be done? Nothing. Changes in Federal law are not required here. New York needs to enforce their current laws with New York resources.
No mention is made that the alleged "prohibited person" making the purchase has violated the law by then possessing the weapon. Merely making the statement "I have been a bad boy" does not necessarily make you a "prohibited person". If a NICS check was done and passed after a purchaser claimed "I have been a bad boy", the transaction would still be legal in New York. This is merely Kabuki theater.
With articles like this, the headline and subhead are all we need. Most of us can recite the article from memory. It's amazing that they even keep churning them out. They haven't figured out yet they are loosing.
Post a Comment