There was an AP story in the my local paper today about a certain presidential candidate proposing additional gun control. I have no idea why, but the same distortions that we have all read far too many times irked me enough today to email the editor and challenge the factual basis of the story. An excerpt of my email follows:
The article states, "Under current federal law, such checks [background checks on gun purchasers] are not required for sales made at gun shows or over the internet." Although that statement is often repeated and forms the foundation of arguments for increased regulation of firearms, current law in fact makes no distinction between sales made at gun shows and sales made at other locations, and does not exempt internet purchases from background checks.
A person who purchases a firearm from a dealer is subject to a background check and any waiting period applicable to the jurisdiction, whether the purchase is made at a gun show or at a retail outlet. A person selling a personally owned firearm does not have to run a background on the purchaser, and indeed cannot, because he or she has no access to the data base.
Guns purchased online cannot be shipped directly to the purchaser under current federal law; rather, they can only be shipped to a federally licensed firearm dealer who is then obligated to submit the background check before turning over the firearm to the purchaser.
The article states that, "Clinton pledged to require anyone 'attempting to sell a significant number of guns' to be considered a firearms dealer, and therefore need a federal license." The law already contains that provision, vague as it is.
As soon as I hit the "send" button I thought, "I just wasted my time. This isn't going to get a second look." To my surprise, the local editor replied fairly promptly that he had forwarded my note to the AP, and someone at AP replied before the day was out that they intended to investigate the things I wrote.
I am encouraged that there may yet be some people open to reason.
The article states, "Under current federal law, such checks [background checks on gun purchasers] are not required for sales made at gun shows or over the internet." Although that statement is often repeated and forms the foundation of arguments for increased regulation of firearms, current law in fact makes no distinction between sales made at gun shows and sales made at other locations, and does not exempt internet purchases from background checks.
A person who purchases a firearm from a dealer is subject to a background check and any waiting period applicable to the jurisdiction, whether the purchase is made at a gun show or at a retail outlet. A person selling a personally owned firearm does not have to run a background on the purchaser, and indeed cannot, because he or she has no access to the data base.
Guns purchased online cannot be shipped directly to the purchaser under current federal law; rather, they can only be shipped to a federally licensed firearm dealer who is then obligated to submit the background check before turning over the firearm to the purchaser.
The article states that, "Clinton pledged to require anyone 'attempting to sell a significant number of guns' to be considered a firearms dealer, and therefore need a federal license." The law already contains that provision, vague as it is.
As soon as I hit the "send" button I thought, "I just wasted my time. This isn't going to get a second look." To my surprise, the local editor replied fairly promptly that he had forwarded my note to the AP, and someone at AP replied before the day was out that they intended to investigate the things I wrote.
I am encouraged that there may yet be some people open to reason.