Recently, many politicians and advocacy groups are calling for lawmakers to “close the gun show loophole.” For example, earlier this year President Obama announced in his plan of executive actions to fight gun control that he is going to close this loophole. In doing so, President Obama stated that it will be his goal to require all sellers to submit a federal background check to those who are purchasing the firearm. This is known as a way to end the “gun show loophole,” however, it is worth noting exactly what this so called “loophole” is and how it is misinterpreted as a way to push for gun control legislation.
Gun Show; Image
In order to better understand the legality of selling firearms, one must look at the history of the issue. Under President Lyndon Johnson, the Gun Control Act was passed in 1968. This law required those who frequently sell firearms to acquire a federal firearms license. The law also banned those who were convicted felons and domestic abusers from getting guns. Fast forward to 1993 where the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act was signed into law that required those who were purchasing firearms to undergo a federal background check (see previous post). The question within these two laws is whether there is any loopholes that allow one to skirt the federal background check.
President Johnson signs Gun Control Act into law; Image
In short, there is no gun show loophole. Federally licensed firearms dealers are required by law to issue federal background checks no matter where they sell guns, whether that be at a gun show or not. These dealers are in the business of selling guns and therefore if they are not federally licensed or do not issue background checks, they are breaking the law. Also, congress cannot constitutionally regulate gun shows because of a violation of interstate commerce clause. It is also worth noting that actual gun crime that can be traced back to a purchase at a gun show is relatively small. For example, a Bureau of Justice Statistics report notes that offenders acquired the firearm less than one percent of the time from a gun show.
What is most commonly applied to the myth of the gun show loophole is the selling of firearms by private individuals and surrogate purchases (legal buyers purchasing firearms for illegal buyers, already punishable by law). For example, private individuals selling firearms includes collectors selling off collections to other collectors are exempt from checks however, they must have a federal collectors license. The area that draws the most controversy is the selling between private individuals, for example, passing down a firearm between father to son or a someone selling a firearm to another family member. This area is the most controversial because it presents the notion that the federal government will be involved in the transaction of individuals between individuals. Also, it is notable that notorious shooters such as the Aurora shooter obtained firearms in this way. It is through these highly publicized cases that many latch onto the notion of the “gun show loophole” and the image of gun shows are tarnished.
In conclusion, the notion of a gun show loophole is a fabricated attempt to cast gun shows in a negative light. Rather, the issue revolves around the private selling of firearms that presents a daunting task. One side argues against the invasion of the federal government into the business of private citizens while the other argues the prevention of firearms falling into the wrong hands. I believe both sides have good causes, however this issue will go on for a long time because I find it hard to believe that there will be a policy to please both camps on the issue.
This was a very insightful post. I enjoyed reading about the history of gun control. I also like how much support you had to back your argument. That is obviously really important when it comes to trying to convince your reader. Great post.
I appreciate you speaking out about this issue because many people, like myself, do not know much about this topic and the history surrounding it. I especially liked that you discussed how the Gun Control Act began to prevent criminals from obtaining guns and how the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act further prevented it by requiring background checks on all gun purchases. The thing that I appreciated the most about this post was that you took a firm stance on the issue. Instead of leaving it up to the reader to decide for themselves if there is in fact a loophole, you let him/her know that there is no loophole by using the facts you presented. I’m excited to see where you go with this issue in future posts! Great post, keep it up!