2009.11.19
Exploiting the gun show loophole
How hard is it to buy a gun from a private seller at a gun show? Can you buy it without an ID to prove your age or residence? Can you front money for a friend standing right next to you? Can you avoid any background check at all?
You betcha.
At least that's what Colin Goddard, who was shot four times on April 16, 2007 at Virginia Tech, found when he visited gun shows in several states.
RSS feed 
And we all know that Cho, who shot Goddard didn't get his firearms at a gunshow and did go through a background check. Give it a rest already.
Comment by Richard S. — November 19, 2009 @ 4:50 pm
Too bad Colin didn't have that in his hand on April 16, 2007.
Comment by Henry — November 19, 2009 @ 4:58 pm
I saw this and others. The answer is buying a gun is as easy as candy.I hope Colin Goddard the best and maybe, just maybe we can save some lives.
Comment by Bill Hudson — November 19, 2009 @ 5:04 pm
Let's go after the weapon that commits the crime rather than the crime itself. That is REAL effective...
Let's try to use the tragedy of the VT shootings as propaganda to further our left wing views. That is real classy....
Let's ignore the fact that 15 GUN LAWS WERE VIOLATED IN THE COLUMBINE SHOOTINGS. That gun control doesn't work because the criminals don't follow the laws anyway....
Let's pass some more hate crime legislation too while we are at it, that was really effective at VT. Cho didn't hate at all did he.....?
This tune is older and more stale than "Oh Susanna".....
Comment by BobH — November 19, 2009 @ 5:27 pm
@1
Agreed.
Comment by Art Hill — November 19, 2009 @ 5:47 pm
Jeeze...is it time for ANOTHER "Guns are icky" thread?
Before establishing new gun laws, how about enforcing the ones already in place?
Comment by Patrick — November 19, 2009 @ 6:39 pm
Comparing Cho to gun laws is like comparing the terrorists of 9/11 to FAA regulations.
Comment by Elliott — November 19, 2009 @ 6:43 pm
Please allow me to clarify.
By invoking the name of a Va Tech victim in this blurb you are indirectly using the Tech shootings, and Cho as a reason to close the Gun Show Loophole. Cho, and the VT shootings have nothing to do with gun show loopholes as the 9/11 terrorists have nothing to do with FAA regs for airline pilots.
The weapons were the same but the laws applied to neither.
Comment by Elliott — November 19, 2009 @ 6:47 pm
Elliott,
A name of a Cho victim was not "invoked" here. The victim, Colin Goddard, has taken it upon himself to expose how easy it would be for someone like Cho to buy a weapon from a private dealer at a gun show now that the loophole that allowed the mentally disturbed Cho to buy a gun has been closed.
I think Goddard has every right to argue that closing another loophole that makes it easy for disturbed people to buy weapons without a background check is a good idea.
He, after all, knows better than any of us the dangers of letting such people get their hands on guns.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — November 19, 2009 @ 7:10 pm
The handful of gunshows that I have gone to, clearly state that all Federal and State Laws apply. If a person is barred by law by crimminal activity, he or she already is aware of that fact because they have been found guilty of a crime or judged incompetent. That is the person responsible.
Sorry the Colin Goddard was shot. It also happened in an area where citizens were legally banned from carrying guns. It would seem that for everyone to be safe, we would need a police state: think KGB, Gestapo, Stasi: to get rid of all guns. I'll pass on that gun free utopia.
Comment by Patt — November 19, 2009 @ 8:16 pm
To say that the only way we can be safe is to remove all guns is to make this into an extreme issue when it is not one. There ARE more things we can do to make sure that those who should not have a gun have at least a hard time getting one legally. Making it easy or, like the online trend, easier, is ludicrous in a society that does not deal well with any mental illness much less the one's that lead to violence. This whole argument of "taking away" or "infringing" on Constitutional rights is a red herring. We have EVERY right to demand safe gun laws and strict adherence to them. Yes, we do need to enforce the laws, enforce removal of guns when someone loses that right and insure that folks who purchase and carry guns are competent, stable and capable. We can do ALL of that for every legal gun sale if we wanted to and never need to harm, truly infringe or remove the legal rights the rest of gun owners are entitled to. What we cannot do is keep falling for the "leave it alone" argument and accept the statistics we all find repugnant and frightening. There are plenty of options between leave it alone and a "gun free utopia". It is a false and dishonest "choice".
FWIW, I have never met anyone who felt safe in a "police state", nor know of a "police state" that gets rid of all guns. Where, pray tell, is that?
Comment by Sandi Saunders — November 19, 2009 @ 8:54 pm
Sandi, can you ensure that EVERY firearm will be sold legally? How about DEMANDING strict enforcement of the existing laws before you start DEMANDNG more.
The real red herring is the liberal mindset that we are all just one "sensible gun law" away from being safe from gun violence.
Comment by Richard S. — November 19, 2009 @ 10:20 pm
What loophole? The US Constitution gives us all the right to bear arms.
Comment by Dave Cullen — November 19, 2009 @ 11:13 pm
Yep, it's been a while since there's been a post about this topic. Time to get the righties all wired up for the weekend with an inflammatory post exploiting another public shooting.
Comment by scott — November 20, 2009 @ 12:01 am
I know, I know!! If you can make a gun law that criminals will obey how about just making a murder law that they will obey!!!!! Armed robbery law!! Knifing law!!! etc... etc...
What a novel idea!
Comment by TScottW — November 20, 2009 @ 2:17 am
It appears to me that the largest mass shootings have come from people that have or have indicated some type of mental illness. Accordingly, it would seem that we should be spending resources to cross check gun ownership and gun data bases immediately upon diagnosis of a mental illness and while not necessarily confiscating guns, at least have close relatives take control of a sick person's while ill. If no one is available, then the police would hold the guns until the person is well. This technology is available, it is warranted, and it would not infringe rights.
Comment by Richard — November 20, 2009 @ 6:26 am
@15: You're absolutely right, TScott. Laws are just a waste of time. We should just do away with all of them. If you make robbery illegal, after all, only criminals will rob.
Isn't that how it goes?
Comment by Dan Radmacher — November 20, 2009 @ 7:02 am
#17
Dan,
Show me a law that takes effect before a crime is committed....
No one is saying there should not be laws. You are going to the extreme here. At the same time, no one should be under the false pretense that the laws prevent the crime. They take effect AFTER the crime has been committed.
BTW, you libs don't want to punish anybody anyway.....
Comment by Bob H — November 20, 2009 @ 8:00 am
Didn't someone condemn using tragedies for political purposes?
Comment by Henry — November 20, 2009 @ 8:10 am
No, Dan, laws aren't a waste of time. Laws that aren't enforced are.
Comment by Patrick — November 20, 2009 @ 8:15 am
Never mind the bogus ginshow loophole...I wonder how many lives were put in danger when the RT published the list of concealed carry permit holders?
Comment by Patrick — November 20, 2009 @ 8:20 am
"Ginshow".
Ooops...got my tradeshows mixed up! LOL!
Comment by Patrick — November 20, 2009 @ 8:20 am
Zero. The data was already a public record. It remains a public record in localities, so lawmakers must not be too worried about lives being at risk.
Comment by C. Trejbal — November 20, 2009 @ 8:28 am
Questionable about lives being endangered by publishing the concealed weapons permits. As one woman with a violent ex said, it makes it easier for him to find her. No concern for her well being.
The only way to make us 100% safe from guns is to outlaw all guns: police and government included.
Comment by Patt — November 20, 2009 @ 8:44 am
#23 - It was public record that most people didn't know about till YOU made them aware of it.
Keep telling yourself that you didn't put people at risk, Christian.
Comment by Patrick — November 20, 2009 @ 8:45 am
It seems to me that if gun shows are were criminals are getting guns, that FBI and police would be regular attendees of these shows. If someone is buying guns in bulk, then certainly that is easily observable. If not then I assume there are many straw men buying guns at these shows for criminals. If so, then certainly the FBI and police are observing such. Perhaps I am wrong and need correcting on the above.
Comment by Richard — November 20, 2009 @ 9:07 am
According to Bureau of Justice statistics gunshows account for between one and two percent of guns used by criminals. Something along the line of 40% come from friends and family. Others are stolen. Almost over twice as many firearms are purchased at the retail lever WITH background checks by straw purchasers than are bought at gunshows even though a straw purchase is and has been illegal.
Comment by Richard S. — November 20, 2009 @ 11:57 am
Richard S., good factual information. Not sure the gun control supporters understand the facts.
Comment by Patt — November 20, 2009 @ 12:41 pm
Richard S and Patt, help me understand something. Why are there assault weapons available for sale at Gun shows (I am assuming so from the above picture). When I was young they were illegal as were machine guns. Is this just a "Amendment allows all guns" or am I missing the point. (No set up question, I just am not up to point on the gun control battle).
Comment by Richard — November 20, 2009 @ 12:52 pm
First off Richard allow me to correct two apparent misconseptions you appear to have.
Machineguns are not illegal and never have been. If you can legally own a firearm in VA you can own a Title II weapon such as a machinegun. You find the Title II weapon you want to puchase (since the new law that took effect in 1986 individuals can only purchase Title II firearms made prior to 1986) you get the info on the weapon, fill out the required forms, get your local cheif law enforcement official to sign off on the form that he knows of no reason that you should not have the firearm, include a check for the $200 tax stamp along with two passport photos and fingerprints. You then mail it all off and wait 2, 3, 5 or six months, what ever the backlog is until your paperwork is approved then you take possession of the weapon.
The other misconception you appear to have is that
A. Assault weapons are illegal. An assault weapon is by definition capable of fully automatic fire which makes it a Title II firearm which as I explained above.
B. What you see being sold at gunshows and retail stores are semiautomatic clones of assault weapons such as the AK47 clone in the photo at the top of this page. Regardless of it's appearance it is not an "assualt weapon" and is not and never has been illegal. During the so called Assault Weapons Ban of 1994, 1994-2004 semiautomatic clones of assault weapons were prohibited from being imported and or manufactured if they had certain features and or more than 10 foreighn made part. Any firearms owned prior to that ban were exempt and could be legally owned, sold and traded.
In order speak to an issue one must first understand the issue. I hope my explanation is found to be of some benefit to yourself and others.
As a footnote I might add that the only legally owned Title II firearm (machinegun) ever used in a crime was used by a police officer to rob and murder a drug dealer. No other Title II firearm since the passing of the National Firearms Act of 1934 which really established Title II firearms laws and restrictions has ever been used in a crime.
Comment by Richard S. — November 20, 2009 @ 1:23 pm
@29--What is an "assault weapon"?
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — November 20, 2009 @ 1:23 pm
30 Thaks Richard S, that helps. The 1934 act must be what I was aware of as a child. So an fully automatic weapon is (type II) legal if you go through the paperwork and approval? Non-fully automatic weapons (type I)are legal to be sold either retail with proper checks and at gun shows from private sellers? Do I understand?
Comment by Richard — November 20, 2009 @ 2:52 pm
#2: Amen!
First, there is no loophole according to Federal law. Second, using real empirical data, something that seems to be incredibly lacking by anti-gunners, shows that less than 1% of gunshow guns are used in gun-related crimes each year. Statistics also show that guns are used to stop millions of crimes each year.
I'm looking forward to the outcomes in DC, Chicago, and San Francisco in regards to Heller's impact on these Constitutional-ignoring, liberal, rogue cities. Please support the NRA to preserve our rights.
Comment by Jim — November 20, 2009 @ 3:05 pm
Richard #32
You are correct on Title II firearms. Some states have additional restrictions as to the type (some will only allow Curio & Relic listed firearms) which are for the most parts Title II weapons over 50 years of age.
Title I firearms (shotguns, rifles, handguns) are legal to sell in a number of ways.
Private sales can be made at gunshows, your front lawn, Wal-Mart parking lot, etc., as defined by state and local law. That being you can only sell to other residents of your state that are not prohibited persons, (no felons or minors, etc.)
If you engage in the selling of firearms as a business then you must obtain an 01 FFL which comes with it's own record keeping criteria and restrictions such as mandatory background checks, ATFE inpections, etc.
Comment by Richard S. — November 20, 2009 @ 3:27 pm
34 Thanks again, that helps me understand.
Comment by Richard — November 20, 2009 @ 3:51 pm
Da, perhaps you can help me undeerstand the need to close this loop hole. I have not been able to see the problem other than a few guns geting through the system that would probably get through anyway due to the criminal element involved. What is the issue?
Comment by Richard — November 20, 2009 @ 5:08 pm
#34 - If only our elected officials understood as well as Richard S. But then again, I'm not sure they want to.
Comment by Patrick — November 20, 2009 @ 6:12 pm
#9. Please, lets not be obtuse. If you bring up the VT shootings in regard to anysort of gun law you are invoking the name of Cho. That was the point of the author in mentioning a VT survivor in this article.
It is shameful that anyone at the Roanoke Times would do so.
Comment by Elliott — November 20, 2009 @ 10:07 pm
Elliott, I am not the one who is being obtuse. This blog post was about a VT survivor who had undertaken an examination of how easy it is to buy at gun shows with no ID or any kind of background check.
Unless you are suggesting the VT survivor shouldn't be doing this - and I really don't think you want to go there - then "mentioning a VT survivor" was not only not shameful, it was absolutely necessary. Absent the video put together by the VT survivor, there would not have been a post.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — November 20, 2009 @ 10:21 pm
Lots of shameful stuff going on here today. Such as accusing Christians of praying for 0bama's death when the verse cited clearly doesn't say that.
Comment by Suzie — November 20, 2009 @ 10:39 pm
#40 - The left is beginning to panick, Suzie. It's hard to watch their Dear Leader crumble when he was supposed to be the Messiah.
Comment by Patrick — November 21, 2009 @ 7:01 am
Mr. Goddard's time would be better spent visiting universities and investigating the incompetence, indifference, and laziness in the administration, staff and counselors who, frozen in place by political correctness and fearful for their jobs, ignor red flags, let troubled people fall through the cracks, fail to act when action is needed and lose records.
Comment by waynep — November 21, 2009 @ 10:32 am