The "Newspaper Loophole"

[John G]

Today I came across gunloophole.com. It's a very dissapointing site, with the usual blurbs on "unlicensed sellers" using classified ads to supply the bad guys with guns. It seems to be two things: one, another attempt to erode gun rights, and two, another attempt at taxing everything in sight. After all, we can't have these unlicensed sellers just selling thier property without paying due tribute.

What's next, the "conversation loophole?"

(edit: here's some of the bile they're spewing)

"WHAT IS THE NEWSPAPER LOOPHOLE?

The unregulated sale of firearms by unlicensed sellers through classified ads in newspapers allows felons, domestic abusers, minors, and other persons who are prohibited by law from possessing firearms to buy guns without a criminal background check. We call this the “newspaper loophole.”

The potential danger to the general public from the private sale of firearms through the classifieds is illustrated by the Mark Williams and Benjamin Smith incidents. See stories below.

The National Campaign to Close the Newspaper Loophole asks newspapers to restrict firearms advertisements to licensed firearms dealers only, and to not accept classified ads for guns from unlicensed sellers. Since the campaign was launched in November 2001, at least 69 newspapers across the country with a combined circulation of 7.9 million have changed their firearms advertising policy."

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Why do we want to give an anti website free advertising?

In any case, calling someone an "unlicensed firearms dealer" is like calling a loan shark an "unlicensed banker". If you make a business out of selling firearms, you need an FFL. If I want to sell one of my guns to my neighbor or give it as a gift to my cousin, I don't need an FFL (and shouldn't need one).

 

[John G]

Advertising was not my intent. I'd hope that anyone on THR would not be swayed by the site's argument, but educated as to it's existence. I in no way support the site, nor do I support banning private gun sales. Heck, I just picked up an old Remington model 34 by way of a classified ad. (I, therefore, bought from a so-called unlicensed seller. Legally, I might add.)

These people want to stop any and all private sales of firearms.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Yeah, I phrased that poorly. What I meant was that we shouldn't give her web traffic that she can point to as proof of her success, use to sell ads, etc.

I am sure that several online versions of newspapers continue to print anti-gun editorials for the sole reason that they know an outraged flood of gunowners will come to their site to read it and they can sell ads based on the hits.

Cut & paste is OK for educational purposes as long as it isn't excessive and is attributed.

 

[boofus]

The only newspaper loophole is the one that lets idiots publish anything they want with no accountability whatsoever.

Fake national guard memos? Intelligence leaks? Fabricated stories ala Jayson Blair?

Maybe it's time for a Bureau of Television, Print, and Radio under the justice department that issues Federal Media Licenses and goes over every article with a fine toothed comb. They should also levy a "transfer of information tax" before anything can be published. The author must send in a $200 check and get the signed form back before doing anything, or face 10 years in federal prison and $10,000 fine.



Gee I wonder where the precedent for an idea like that came from... If 1 right can be taxed like that, what stops them from doing it to all the others?

 

[Warren]

They are not "loopholes" they are Remaining Freedoms and these idiots don't care.

Control freaks disgust me.