Help Shepard Smith understand why the "Loophole" exists


PDA






AKElroy
February 1, 2011, 10:58 AM
Yesterday Shep indicated in a story regarding Bloomberg's expose that he did not understand why the "Loophole" existed. I sent the following to Fox News & I encourage my THR friends to do something similar:

Shepard indicated yesterday in his report on the"Gunshow Loophole" exposed by Michael Bloomberg that he didn't understand why it existed. It exists to allow the private transfer of guns from one individual to another. A father should not be required to force his son or daughter to pass a NICS check to inherit his firearms, nor should a law abiding citizen be forced to undergo transfer fees and NICS checks to buy a gun from his neighbor. The fact that citizens do this at an occasional gunshow is a red herring. The goal of closing the "Loophole" is to outlaw all private transfers. This would simply convert an individual right into a privilege, one that must be agreed to by the state. I doubt Mr. Smith would fail to identify this with clarity if such discussions were applied to the First amendment.

As for Mayor Bloomberg, his surrogates, public employees of the city of New York, traveled to Arizona and committed a felony to purchase these weapons out of state. Where is the investigation into them?

Rights are rights. If evil men abuse them from time to time, then let us work to curb the effects of evil men without infringing on the rights of the law abiding.

Click the email link on Shep's page to voice your opinions--

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/shepard-smith/index.html

If you enjoyed reading about "Help Shepard Smith understand why the "Loophole" exists" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
zoom6zoom
February 1, 2011, 11:57 AM
It exists to allow the private transfer of guns from one individual to another.
I beg to disagree. It doesn't exist, because it's not a loophole.

TexasRifleman
February 1, 2011, 12:10 PM
Right, the argument shouldn't be about any loophole at all.

Since when is following the letter of the law 100% considered a "loophole"?

Don't play their game.

elnonio
February 1, 2011, 01:18 PM
What is, essentially, the difference between a neighbour buying a shotgun from another neighbour, and then him going to the gun store down the road to buy another shotgun. Essentially, there is no difference, but they are treated as different under the law.

So, why should the purchase from a commercial source be required to be treated as a transfer, and satisfy the background checks requirements, while the transfer between individuals be exempt? The fact that he is your neighbour and you know him? Extend this further then. You live in St Louis, and a buyer comes to your house from East Kansas City to buy the shotgun. Still no need for a background check. And in any case, are you really sure you want neighbours to become the judge of character of other neighbours? In your neighbourhoud, sure. Would your answer be the same if the neighborhoud is, say, East St Louis?

As for the estate question, what makes a son or daughter inherently trustworthy? I'm fairly confident Charles Manson was someone's son, too, a Squeaky Fromme was someone's daughter. My own prejudiced mind and experience my tells me that many transfers between family members could stand to be cleared by a check (or a trip to a psychiatrist).

While I am perfectly happy with the current state of affairs, as it makes my life easier, I have to agree that it doesn't actually pass a rational test.

mljdeckard
February 1, 2011, 01:26 PM
This is very simple.

The law requires a dealer transfer with a background check for new firearm purchases, and some other situations, like buying a pistol across state lines. This is to ensure that manufacturers have accountability of what they manufacture and who they ship it to. The paperwork done on these purchases cannot be used to create a database of gun owners. (Save the arguments against this for another thread.)

Private citizens do not have the same responsibilities that gun dealers do. They cannot reasonably be expected to know for certain the criminal records of everyone they do business with. They can CHOOSE not to sell to anyone. The only thing that gives outsiders the willies is that a gun show is a place where it is easy for gun seekers to find private gun sellers.

Do we have the right to keep and bear arms? Yes.

Do we have the right to assemble peacefully? Yes.

Does one man have the right to sell or trade his property to another man? Yes.

There is no loophole.

btw, Bloomberg hired local AZ citizens to participate in the 'sting', they weren't committing felonies, like the LAST time he pulled this cheap publicity stunt. The sellers weren't technically guilty of anything either, since the buyers weren't real felons.

elnonio
February 1, 2011, 02:00 PM
Not exactly.

The law requires a dealer to perform a background check on all firearms sales: new, used, consignment. It has nothing to do with accountability in one case and not the other.

The only reason intra-state transfers are exempt is that the Federal government has been unable to justify the regulation under the commerce clause. Otherwise, rest assured that we would be going through background checks on intra-state purchases too.

In fact, states have stepped in where Federal law couldn't, and so you have California and a few others requiring ALL transfers between private parties to go through a background check; some states say some transfers (e.g. handguns) must have a background check, and finally some states have provisions to enable a seller to ask for a background check if he wants to.

Private citizens actually do have some of the same responsibilities as gun dealers do, to some extent. Try selling a firearm to a known (to you) felon and see what happens. do you have the capability to perform background checks yourself on everyone? No, of course not, unless of course your local LEO allows you to use them for that purpose.

Do you have the RKBA? Sure.

The right to sell or trade your property? If you don't think there are substantial regulations involved in just about every facet of buying and selling property even between individuals, we do not live on the same planet.

There is no loophole. What there is, is a jurisdictional boundary that creates an illogical result, that's all.

AKElroy
February 1, 2011, 02:17 PM
Right, the argument shouldn't be about any loophole at all.

That is why I placed their use of the word in quotes. It is their misunderstanding, not mine. My message makes it clear that the use of that term is in error and is simply a political tool to acheive an objective of restricting private transfers. Now let's set asside the parsing of words & address the reason for my thread.

I was not posting for a critique of my email, but rather calling to action a group to help educate Shepard Smith. I do not mean that in a sarcastic way. I actually hold some hope that certain people simply need to be educated.

Feel free to open a new thread regarding proper use of "anti" terms if that is where the conversation wants to be.

mes227
February 1, 2011, 02:40 PM
"Right, the argument shouldn't be about any loophole at all.

Since when is following the letter of the law 100% considered a "loophole"?"

That's actually what the phrase "Loophole" means: "An exception that allows a system to be circumvented or otherwise avoided" and in NO WAY implies anything illegal. In fact, the term "loophole" expressly means something that is 100% legal.

The law has a loophole for private party transfers that allows them to avoid the NICS process. Loophole is exactly the right word. If we're going to fight a war of words we need to understand the language.

Balrog
February 3, 2011, 12:16 AM
The law has a loophole for private party transfers that allows them to avoid the NICS process. Loophole is exactly the right word. If we're going to fight a war of words we need to understand the language.

While your denotation of the word loophole may be correct, the general connotation of the word loophole is generally negative. Most people will associate the word "loophole" with a shady but technically legal way to circumvent the law.

"Loophole" is a negative term, and makes gun owners using the loophole to transfer arms in a legal fashion look like they are doing something shady.

rajb123
February 3, 2011, 09:21 PM
...there is nothing new here. why is this activism?

TenDriver
February 3, 2011, 09:58 PM
btw, Bloomberg hired local AZ citizens to participate in the 'sting', they weren't committing felonies, like the LAST time he pulled this cheap publicity stunt. The sellers weren't technically guilty of anything either, since the buyers weren't real felons.
Wouldn't this be a straw purchase?

GEM
February 3, 2011, 10:49 PM
I think the original usage of loophole came from them seemingly to claim that ALL transactions at shows (even with FFLs) were not going through NICS.

That was how it was presented. Of course, that was wrong but the usage continued to imply an illegality.

augustino
February 3, 2011, 11:04 PM
I went to the link but saw a story by Shep on the revolution in Egypt. I wanted to write Shep and tell him that in Egypt they did away with ownership of guns, sometime ago. NOW that the people have to defend themselves they're forced to use clubs, knives, machetes, swords, pitchforks, sections of 2X4 with nails driven through the far end and other primitive means of defending themselves against looters and gangs driving through cities looting, robbing and GOD only knows what else.
When firearms are taken away from the law abiding citizens only the criminals will have the guns!
Last night we had some riffraff in the neighborhood. At around 11:30PM or so my phone rings. The neighbor next door says she and her mother, two ladies live alone, both are very scared because a car has cruised by their house numerous times all day and now has parked in front of their house with lights off and are scaring them both.
Out of bed, into clothes and a jacket and out the door I go. I stand a safe distance, not really if they wanted to shoot me, but a COMFORTABLE distance and position myself so that if they pulled a gun I would be a difficult shot. I shined my flashlight into the vehicle and signal them to roll down the window. I ask if they're alright and if they need some help. They say no, so I ask what they're doing at this hour parked where they are? They say we're talking. I explain that our neighborhood watch has seen this vehicle driving up & down our road quite suspiciously all day and now they're parked in a dark area, that looks suspicious and is scaring people. The driver again says we're just talking. I say that's fine, and I'm just hanging out. I walk to the rear of the vehicle and jot down the license plate number at which time they starts the engine and pulls out.
I never did see the police. Now the police in this town are pretty darn good fellows! They work hard, they hustle to catch the bad guys, got no complaints about the police here, I like them just fine. But the point is that when danger and harm are just seconds away, the police are minutes away even if they're rushing with lights flashing and sirens blaring. These poor guys can't be everywhere at once, it's just not humanly possible. So it's best to be able to protect and defend yourself and your neighbors.
I wanted to tell Shep this true story that happened last night but couldn't figure out how the heck to send him an e-mail! Go figure... Makes sense that they make it difficult if not impossible to make contact.
Go figure!

AKElroy
February 4, 2011, 10:52 AM
The whole point of the thread was to call to action the forum to educate Shepard Smith that the "Loophole" is not a "Loophole" at all, but rather the free exercise of a protected right.

I provided the link above for those interested in replying; his email link is to the right side of his page.

The "straw" purchases by New York residents, in addition to the out of state purchases (I would love to know what they did with those purchased Glocks) has yet to be investigated. I am making that demand of my congress folks and media outlets; additional call to action of my peers here to do the same.

I don't mind the arguing over symantics & grammer as long as we actually engage in a little activisim as well. Let's not forget the point while we are eating each other, folks.

AKElroy
February 4, 2011, 10:53 AM
delete

AKElroy
February 4, 2011, 10:55 AM
...there is nothing new here. why is this activism?

1. Educate Shep & Fox News that there is no such thing as a gun-show "Loophole"
2. Demand an investigation through your congress people and media outlets into the straw purchases and out-of state transferes by Bloomberg's hacks.

Seems farily specific to me. Did you read the OP?

WNC Seabee
February 4, 2011, 11:11 AM
Rights are rights. If evil men abuse them from time to time, then let us work to curb the effects of evil men without infringing on the rights of the law abiding.

I'll be stealing this line...it's a good one!

If you enjoyed reading about "Help Shepard Smith understand why the "Loophole" exists" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!