Doing Nothing, Simply Because We Can

There was a news story in the local paper a couple of days ago about "straw" gun buyers. In the story, police authorities note that perhaps 90% of gun crimes are committed with guns coming from straw buyers. The gun dealer in the article didn't appear to voice any objection to the laws requiring him to ensure that if he notes a gun will not be used by the buyer but instead by another party, that he not sell such a gun. He also noted that he hands any prospective buyer a federal registration form, something I believe came as an outgrowth of the Bradey law and used to document and confirm the identify of the buyer.


In the same story, there was a comment about the loop-hole in the registration law which allows for private gun-show sellers to not document buyers at such shows. The comment from the National Rifle Association's spokesperson Rachel Parsons, was that such requirements would otherwise prevent a "Grandfather from giving a gun to his grandson." Further, that it's not a problem because only 1% of crimes appear to be related to private gun-show sales. Her recommendation was that the government should enforce the laws already on the books rather than close this loop-hole.


My reaction is.. "HOGWASH!"

First, it's utter nonsense to say that Grandpa couldn't give a gun to his grandson. If I chose to give my son a car, all I have to do is fill out the title transfer section on the title of the car. It takes 5 minutes. I certainly don't see any reason such a transfer document couldn't exist for transferring ownership of a firearm, and it could easily document who the recipient was.

Second, while the story didn't clarify why the NRA felt that Grandpa was somehow prevented, so we are left only to guess. The reaon which comes to mind most quickly is that as a minor "Johnny" can't easily be registered because Johnny may be a minor. If that is the reason, then overriding fact is that Johnny (as a minor) can't legally own that firearm (or anything else really). The weapon (and any other gift generally) is the property of his parents. Any transfer could easily be done by having Grandpa fill out the title transfer to the father or mother, and then give "Johnny" the gift just as he always did before. The legal owner is the parent either way. So this is just a nonsense unless you feel documenting a firearms transfer should be less onerous than something which takes 5 minutes to complete. It MIGHT require someone to update a federal firearms database after the sale, but if so, so what? Is that any different than what is required for a licensed dealer to do in sales from a store? If it isn't, why have any difference at all? Clearly Grandpa can still give Johnny a gun.

Lastly, with respect to "enforcing the laws that exist," this is the height of hubris and hypocrisy coming from the NRA. They vehemently oppose the Bradey law and national registration. Given their choice there wouldn't be any compelling law tracking (or therefore preventing) straw buyers. For them to say that "big gov'mint" should now use that law which they object to entirely to go after straw buyers is them suggesting that they think an authority they don't like should do something they don't want to enforce a law they don't want in the first place. I believe this is just smoke and mirrors from the NRA and their zealous members. It seems they don't want anything done to close the loop-hole, so they've come up with a bogus objection which can easily be dealt with through a process no more difficult than giving someone a car. They don't want crime, and they want straw buyers stopped (supposedly), but they want to repeal the law which would allow authorities to do so.

The Heller decision and the McDonald decision after it made it clear that regulating and documenting gun ownership is fully constitutional so long as gun ownership isn't unfairly prevented. Preventing those who cannot legally own guns from getting them is in everyone's best interests, yet the NRA and other supposed 2nd Amendment defenders would rather we do nothing at all, and will tell us either bogus reasons or lie and suggest we enforce laws which they are working hard to get rid of rather than allow for us to move forward with closing loop-holes. Even if the loop-hole only leads to 1% of crimes, is that any real reason to not act to simply require a private seller to do the same thing a licensed store must do? Consistency in the law is something all of us say we support, there isn't any meaningful reason not to support it here. Well, that is, unless you prefer nothing be done with respect to keeping guns out of the hands of those who should not have them. In the case of the NRA, what seems equally plausible is that they are also opposed because they have consistently shown bent toward making it easier for gun-makers to sell more guns. The 2nd Amendment "zealots" talk about stopping crime and personal protection, but when it comes to adhering to the Constitution or stopping criminals from getting guns, it certainly appears they'd rather we didn't act at all. If there are any of you free and easy gun ownership types out there, please correct this impression if you like, tell me which laws you feel fully comfortable having, which you think the NRA is wrong to try to overturn that attempt to restrict gun buying to those which truly are allowed to buy them for their use, and then give me a good reason not to require private shows to do the same thing other sellers do, for the reason the NRA gave to me is nothing less and nothing more than smoke.