Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) Still Pretending to Not Understand What The Gun Show Loophole Is

[mikeb302000]

The Washington Post

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) said Sunday that the “gun show loophole” doesn’t exist, pushing back against gun control advocates’ call for background checks in all guns sales.

“You know, there actually isn’t the so-called ‘gun show loophole,’” Cruz, a gun-rights advocate, said on NBC News’s “Meet The Press.” “That doesn’t exist. Any licensed firearm dealer who sells at a gun show has to have a background check. It’s a requirement that applies to every licensed firearm dealer. What it doesn’t apply to is personal sales one on one. And that’s true whether it’s at a gun show or not.”

President Obama unveiled a sweeping slate of gun control proposals last week, including a call for Congress to pass a law requiring universal background checks for gun sales, including those between private citizens that don’t involve licensed gun dealers, which are currently not subject to checks.
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), a leading gun control advocate, said on the same program that the proposal to require universal background checks “is the sweet spot in terms of actually making us safer and having a good chance of passing.”

If I were a gun-rights fanatic, I'd fight against this tooth and nail too. I might even pretend to not understand what the gun show loophole actually means and thereby render the discussion as tedious as possible.The alternative is to admit that once we have universal background checks, licensing and registration are right around the corner. Nothing short of a comprehensive and complete approach to gun control will have the desired effect.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
Cross posted at Mikeb302000

[Oneka]

1. Slippery slope much?

The alternative is to admit that once we have universal background checks, licensing and registration are right around the corner.

And you wonder why gun rights folks won't just quietly submit to your brand of tyranny, masquerading as
" reasonable restrictions"

[Duckhunter935]

2. If you would just call it what it is

You would not have to keep trying to explain it over and over again because what you say is false.

IT IS A INDIVIDUAL SALE BETWEEN TWO PEOPLE WITHIN THE SAME STATE THAT ANYWHERE WITHIN THAT STATE (intrastate, feds do not have jurisdiction. some states do require background checks but it is up to the state.).

can be anywhere within that state gun show or not. All FFL transactions even at gunshows must have NICS check completed or they are breaking federal law. All internet sales must be completed via an FFL in that state and require background checks.

and no I will not post on your blog

[iiibbb]

3. Republicans ignore the elephant in the room (excuse the pun)

That private party sales (at or away from a gun show) are legal without a background check and that maybe private parties should have access to the background checks somehow - I think a lot of people would use it if they were selling to an unknown buyer.


Gun rights advocate refuse to call it anything but a "gun show loophole" in spite of the fact that it is independent of gun shows.


But I'm told here at DU that words don't matter and that laws can be written using imprecise terms and still get at the issues.

[kudzu22]

12. This is what I've been saying for a long time

Not many people know that a private party selling a gun CANNOT use the NICS system to do a background check, even if he wanted to. The Feds don't allow it. If they were really serious about getting universal checks, they'd open it up to private parties. I'd bet 99% of private sellers would use it voluntarily.

[mikeb302000]

13. Couldn't they go to the local FFL guy and pay a small fee? nt

[hack89]

4. This quote is absolutely true.

Any licensed firearm dealer who sells at a gun show has to have a background check. It’s a requirement that applies to every licensed firearm dealer. What it doesn’t apply to is personal sales one on one. And that’s true whether it’s at a gun show or not.

[jimmy the one]

5. translated

Oneka Slippery slope much?
citing mikeb: The alternative is to admit that once we have universal background checks, licensing and registration are right around the corner.
oneka: And you wonder why gun rights folks won't just quietly submit to your brand of tyranny, masquerading as " reasonable restrictions"

Slippery talk much, oneka? I think you took mikeb out of context, he was referring to what a gun rights fanatic might say.

what mikeb wrote, as I perceive it to mean, edited for clarity by me: If I were a gun-rights fanatic, I'd fight against this {gunshow loophole rationale} tooth and nail too.
I might even pretend {as ted cruz did} to not understand what the gun show loophole actually means and thereby render the discussion as tedious as possible. The alternative {an alternative tactic ted cruz might use} is to admit that once we have universal background checks, licensing and registration are right around the corner. Nothing short of a comprehensive and complete approach to gun control will have the desired effect.

You did word it a bit awkwardly, mikeb, if I'm reading you correctly.

[Oneka]

6. Forgive me if i don't take your word for it

Mike B can defend his own words , if he chooses to do so.
Ted Cruz understands Exactlywhat the supposed gun show loophole means. It is a deliberate obfuscation, and propaganda term, used to dupe folks who are less than informed, about current federal gun restrictions.

[Eleanors38]

7. Let's say POTUS issues an exec. order opening the NICS system...

Can he, by order or legislation, compel the states or the citizens therein to utilize the NICS system before a gun purchase is made? If so, under what theory of law could this be done?

[Straw Man]

8. It could be legislated ...

... in just the same way that NICS and the FFL requirement were legislated in the first place. FFL is a federal license, and NICS applies even to intrastate transactions between an FFL dealer and a non-licensee.

I don't think it could be done by executive order, though. It goes beyond the original boundaries of the NICS registration, which applied to FFLs only.

[Eleanors38]

9. But can the feds require states, or more specifically, the

citizens of the various states to take the NICS? Is this "requirement" a state power?

[Straw Man]

10. I believe they can, at least by precedent.

Requiring a firearms dealer to be federal licensed (FFL) establishes that precedent, I believe, although IANAL.

I won't argue the relative merits of that requirement except to say that it is a significant assertion of federal authority over state sovereignty. I wouldn't have a problem with NICS requirements for private sales, but I would rather see it done through individual access to NICS rather than funneling everything through FFLs, who would then be in the position of demanding whatever fee the traffic will bear.

[mikeb302000]

14. I didn't think it was awkward at all. Comprehensive gun control laws is what we need. nt

[jimmy the one]

11. Overwhelming support for bg checks on gun buys

duckhunter:.. what you say is false. IT IS A INDIVIDUAL SALE BETWEEN TWO PEOPLE WITHIN THE SAME..{ETCETRA ETCETRA}

iiibbb: That private party sales (at or away from a gun show) are legal without a background check and that maybe private parties should have access to the background checks somehow .. Gun rights advocate refuse to call it anything but a "gun show loophole" in spite of the fact that it is independent of gun shows.

oneka: It {gunshow loophole} is a deliberate obfuscation, and propaganda term, used to dupe folks who are less than informed, about current federal gun restrictions.

Eleanors: Can he {obama}, by order or legislation, compel the states or the citizens therein to utilize the NICS system before a gun purchase is made?

Aren't 'you all' spitting in the wind on this one?:

cbs: "Do you favor or oppose a federal law requiring background checks on all potential gun buyers?"
1/11-15/13 .....92 FAVOR 7 - OPPOSE
Republicans ....89 FAVOR 10 -OPPOSE
Democrats.......93 FAVOR 6 - OPPOSE
Independents... 93 FAVOR 5 - OPPOSE
http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm

gallup: Require criminal background checks for all gun sales"
1/19-20/13 .. 91 Support 8 Oppose

Fox same as gallup, 91 to 8

ABC: 1/10-13/13 88 to 11

Looka that readers, only about 8% of americans object to 'closing the gunshow loophole'; & seems about half of them are posting on democrat underground!

[mikeb302000]

15. You know why?

Because just like on the Daily Kos, gun forums on the DU have been hijacked by gun-rights fanatics, many of whom are no more "democratic" than Rush Limbaugh.