The Truth about Gun Shows
Prepared by David B. Kopel & Linda Gorman, Independence Institute
Synopsis: There is no “gun show loophole.” Guns sales at gun shows are subject to exactly the same laws as apply to gun sales anywhere else. Research for the U.S. Department of Justice, by scholars, and even by SAFE's national affiliate shows that gun shows have almost nothing to do with criminal gun acquisition.
Proposed Amendment 22 is titled "Background Checks at Gun Shows." This title is fraudulent, because the Amendment regulates as "gun shows" many activities which have nothing to do with real gun shows--such as private gifts between family members.
I. Everything is a "Gun Show"
When you hear “gun show” do you think of a father who wants to give his son a gift by letting him choose a gun from his collection? How about a widow who pulls her husband’s guns out of the closet and lets her children take their pick? According to SAFE Colorado, these activities are "gun shows" if twenty-five or more firearms are displayed OR if three or more people are present. “Firearms” are “any handgun, automatic revolver, pistol, rifle, shotgun, or other instrument or device capable or intended to be capable of discharging bullets, cartridges, or other explosive charges.”
If the SAFE initiative passes, the dad will have to post a sign informing his son that he will have to get a background check. The widow will have to post the same sign notifying her children that they will have to have background checks as well. As father and the widow are both “gun show promoters” and “gun show vendors” under the language of the initiative, they will also have to arrange for a licensed gun dealer to be “on the premises” to run a background check.
Likewise, if a single gun collector invites a friend over for an evening, and the friend buys one rifle from the collector, then that sales is a "gun show"--since the collector had 25 or more guns available.
Advocates of Amendment 22 are now claiming that the Amendment only applies to places allowing "public access." This is plainly false. When John Head, the director of SAFE Colorado raised the "public access" issue, the Colorado Legislative Council responded: "The proposal's definition of gun show does not specifically require public access before a gathering can be considered to be a gun show."
The effect of this extremely broad definition is a “bait-and-switch.” Although sold to the public as legislation about gun shows, Amendment 22 covers thousands and thousands of people who have never been inside a real gun show. This definition is inconsistent with the Colorado Constitution’s requirement that the subject matter of every bill or initiative be clearly expressed in the title.
When a person hears the phrase “gun show,” he naturally thinks of weekend events where dozens of people rent tables at a specific location, to sell firearms and firearms-related accessories, books, and clothing. But Amendment 22's far-reaching definition of "gun show" could include the monthly meeting of a local gun club, a competitive target shooting event, or a group of friends on a hunting trip.
Of course most people participating in target shooting competitions, family gift-giving, and the like would not think of themselves as participating in a “gun show.” Failing to comply with the special restrictive laws that Amendment 22 for “gun shows,” ordinary people who never go to real gun shows would be turned into criminals. For example, if a gun club held a target shooting match, one participant might offer to buy a gun belonging to another participant. Both participants would become criminals.
II. Everything is a "Firearm"
Rejecting the well-established definition of "firearm" in Colorado state law, Amendment 22 invents a new definition which includes much, much more than real firearms. According to Amendment 22, “Firearms” are “any handgun, automatic revolver, pistol, rifle, shotgun, or other instrument or device capable or intended to be capable of discharging bullets, cartridges, or other explosive charges.”
All it takes is a couple of nail guns for construction projects, a staple gun for crafts, some paintball guns for family fun, a BB gun or two for target shooting, and a kid with a passion for model rockets. (Model rocket launcher engines use explosions to fire the rocket.) Thus, people who don't own a single firearm, but who have collections of model rockets, BB guns, or construction tools are turned into "gun show promoters." Want to sell your teenager's Estes rockets at the neighborhood garage sale? Make sure to pay a licensed firearms dealer to run background checks on all your customers, and post the mandatory legal notices about the "gun show" that you are running.
III. There is no "Gun Show Loophole"
“Close the gun show loophole,” demand Handgun Control, Inc., and its Colorado surrogate, SAFE. In fact, existing gun laws apply just as much to gun shows as they do to any other place where guns are sold. Since 1938, persons selling firearms have been required to obtain a federal firearms license. The federal Gun Control Act specifically states that a licensed dealer must comply with all laws, including record keeping, when making a transfer at a gun show. 18 U.S.Code § 923(j).
If a dealer sells a gun from a storefront, from a room in his home or from a table at a gun show, the rules are exactly the same: he can get authorization from the Colorado Bureau of Investigation for the sale only after the CBI runs its “instant” background check (which often leads to false denials based on CBI’s inadequate records).
Conversely, people who are not engaged in the business of selling firearms, but who sell firearms from time to time (such as a man who sells a hunting rifle to his brother-in-law), are not required to obtain the federal license required of gun dealers or to call the CBI before completing the sale.
Similarly, if a gun collector dies and his widow wants to sell the guns, she does not need a federal firearms license because she is just selling off inherited property and is not “engaged in the business.” And if the widow doesn’t want to sell her deceased husband's guns by taking out a classified ad in the newspaper, it is lawful for her to rent a table at a gun show and sell the entire collection.
If you walk along the aisles at any gun show, you will find that the overwhelming majority of guns offered for sale are from federally licensed dealers. Guns sold by private individuals (such as gun collectors getting rid of a gun or two over the weekend) are the distinct minority.
Handgun Control, Inc., claims that “25-50 percent of the vendors at most gun shows are unlicensed dealers.” That statistic is true only if one counts vendors who are not selling guns (e.g., vendors who are selling books, clothing or accessories) as “unlicensed dealers.”
Now, suppose that someone claiming to be a gun collector is actually operating a firearms business. He rents a table at a gun show 50 weekends a year, and sells 20 guns each weekend. Selling firearms at the rate of 1,000 per year, and conducting a business week after week, he appears to be engaged in the business of selling firearms. If this man does not have a federal firearms license, then he is guilty of a federal felony. Indeed, every separate gun sale constitutes a separate federal felony. (The federal laws are section 922 and 923 of volume 18 of the U.S. Code.)
In short, gun shows are no “ loophole” in the federal laws. If a person is required by federal law to have a federal firearms license, then the requirement applies whether or not the person sells at a gun show. And if a person is not required to have a license, then the person’s presence at a gun show does not change the law.
The gun prohibition lobbies express outrage that a person can buy a firearm at a gun show without going through the state background check, though this is only the case when the purchase is made from the minority of tables that do not have an FFL. However, even if the non-FFL gun collector sold his gun from his home rather than from a gun show, a federal background check still would not be required.
Why should the location of the sale determine whether a background investigation will be required?
IV. Are Gun Shows Really a Source of Crime Guns?
Denver Congresswoman Diana DeGette says that 70 percent of guns used in crimes come from gun shows. SAFE head Arnie Grossman claimed in the Denver Post that “most guns used for criminal purposes are purchased at guns shows.”
The true figure is rather different, according to the National Institute of Justice, the research arm of the U.S. Department of Justice. According to an NIJ study released in December 1997, less than 2 percent of criminal guns come from gun shows. (Homicide in Eight U.S. Cities, page 99; the report covers much more than homicide.) The same study found that twenty-five percent of crime guns came from gun stores, even though FBI permission is required for every purchase from a gun store.
A June 2000 federal study, Federal Firearms Offenders, 1992-98 likewise finds only 1.7% of federal prison inmates obtaining their gun from a gun show. (Plus 1.5% from a "flea market.")
That finding is consistent with a mid-1980s study for the NIJ, which investigated the gun purchase and use habits of convicted felons in 12 state prisons. The study (later published as the book Armed and Considered Dangerous) found that gun shows were such a minor source of criminal gun acquisition that they were not even worth reporting as a separate figure.
At the November 1999 recent meeting of the American Society of Criminology, a study of youthful offenders in Michigan reported that only 3 percent of the youths in the study had acquired their last handgun from a gun show.
Even for the tiny percentage of criminal guns acquired at for gun shows (and the 25% figure for gun stores) does not mean that the criminal necessarily purchased the gun himself at that location. Many persons with criminal records use a “straw man” purchaser--someone with a clean record who buys the gun, and then transfers it to the criminal.
“Straw man” purchases have been classified a federal felony since the Gun Control Act of 1968; the federal law against straw purchases was strengthened in 1986 by the NRA-sponsored Firearms Owners Protection Act.
According to the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence (the legal/educational arm of Handgun Control, Inc.), the group's own survey of major-city police chiefs found only 2 out of 48 who said that guns from gun shows (both “legal and illegal sales” according to the questionnaire) were a major problem in their city. According to the Handgun Control, Inc., website, SAFE is one of "the state groups we work with."
At the command of the Clinton White House, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms produced a paper in early 1999 which said that 10% of gun traces (not crime guns) came from gun shows (included purchases made from licensed dealers, and purchases from private individuals). As the Congressional Research Service has explained, BATF gun traces reveal no meaningful information about gun use in crime; traces are initiated at the request of local police, and can be requested for all sorts of reasons (e.g., to aid the recovery of a stolen gun, for curiosity). Most BATF gun traces do not involve crime guns taken from violent criminals.
What about the other charges against gun shows, such as Denver Congresswoman Diana DeGette’s highly-publicized charge that gun shows allow illegal “ assault weapon” sales? In fact, the 1994 Clinton “ assault weapon” law bans the future manufacture of certain firearms based on cosmetic characteristics, such as whether the gun has a bayonet lug (as if criminals were conducting bayonet charges against convenience stores). The law imposes no controls on the pre-1994 supply of so-called “ assault weapons.” It is perfectly legal to own, buy, and sell these pre-1994 guns. It is legal for a licensed federal dealer to sell such guns from his store, or at a gun shows; and it is just as lawful for a private individual to sell such guns.
V. Columbine and other Notorious Crimes
Several months before the Columbine massacre, the killers obtained firearms from two suppliers. The first was a 22-year-old Columbine graduate named Mark Manes (ironically, the son of a longtime Handgun Control, Inc., activist). Manes bought a pistol at a gun show and gave it to the two killers (who were under 18 at the time). Colorado law prohibits giving handguns to juveniles, with certain exceptions, and Manes is currently serving time for this offense in a Colorado prison. The second supplier was an 18-year-old fellow student at Columbine, Robyn Anderson, who bought three long guns for the killers at a Denver-area gun show in December 1998.
Both Manes and Anderson were lawful gun purchasers and could legally have bought the guns from a firearms dealer at a gun store, a gun show, or anywhere else.
Nevertheless, shortly after the Columbine killings, the various gun prohibition groups began putting out press releases about the “gun show loophole.” This is an audacious lie, since there is no “loophole” involving gun shows. The law at gun shows is exactly the same as it is everywhere else.
Mark Manes committed a felony by obtaining a handgun for the young killers. He has never claimed that the existence of another law, regarding gun show sales, would have deterred him.
What about Robyn Anderson?
On June 4, 1999, Good Morning America presented a “kids and guns” program. Anderson was flown to Washington for the segment. The first part of the program discussed various proposals, including background checks on private sales at gun shows. Immediately after the introductory segment, Diane Sawyer introduced Robyn Anderson and asked:
“Anything you hear this morning [that would] have stopped you from accompanying them and help[ing] them buy the guns?” Anderson replied: “I guess if it had been illegal, if I had known that it was illegal, I wouldn’t have gone.” On January 26, 2000, Anderson began claiming that even if the purchase were legal, but there had been a background check of her entirely clean record, she would not have purchased the guns.
Whichever version is true, the facts show that Anderson was not afraid to divulge her identity when buying a gun for her wicked friends. When Good Morning America asked, “And they actually paid for the guns, or did you?” Anderson replied: “It was their money, yes. All I did was show a driver’s license.” (The private collectors asked to see a driver’s license to verify that she was over 18, even though there was no legal requirement that they do so.) Since Anderson did not mind revealing her identity to three separate sellers, is it realistic to believe that revealing her identity for an instant check would have stopped her? The Colorado instant background check does not keep permanent records on gun buyers, so even with background checks on private sales at gun shows, there would have been no permanent record of Anderson’s purchase. And Anderson’s new and improved talking points claim only that the prospect of a permanent record would have deterred her.
Putting aside Anderson’s shifting stories, she is plainly an irresponsible, self-centered person. After the murders took place, she refused to come forward and help the police investigation. It took an anonymous tip for the police to find out about her. And in marked contrast to Mark Manes, Anderson has never apologized for her role in the Columbine murders.
Even if you accept the version of Robyn Anderson’s stories that is most supportive of gun control, no gun-show crackdown would have prevented Columbine. The older of the two killers could have bought his own guns in a store legally. Indeed, in a videotape made before the killings, the murderers said that if they had not obtained their guns the way they did, they would have found other ways. There is no reason to disbelieve them on this point.
The only law that would have some effect on Robyn Anderson and similar gun molls was introduced in the Colorado legislature this year by Colorado State Representative Don Lee, whose district includes Columbine. His “Robyn Anderson Bill” now makes it a crime to give a long gun to a juvenile without the consent of his parents. This law covers Anderson’s first version of her story, in which she told Good Morning America that the only deterrent for her would have been a law making her conduct illegal.
Whatever the other merits of proposals to impose special restrictions on gun shows, these would not have prevented Columbine, and it is cynical for their proponents to use Columbine as a pretext.
Unfortunately, anti-gun lobbyists have also attempted to falsely exploit other tragedies by making bogus claims about gun shows.
The man who perpetrated the Oklahoma City bombing stole guns from an Arkansas gun store. He sold those stolen guns, as well as racist literature, at gun shows. Imposing more controls on gun shows patrons would have had no effect on the Oklahoma City perpetrator. He was a vendor, not a customer. His customers weren’t the criminals; he was.
David Koresh’s Branch Davidian organization often rented a table at gun shows, where they sold novelty items, such as empty grenade hulls and ready-to-eat meals (army-type survival foods). One of Koresh’s devotees, Paul Fatta, was a licensed firearms dealer who sold firearms at gun shows in full compliance with federal laws. The major source of the Branch Davidian arsenal came from purchases through another licensed firearms dealer: Hewitt Handguns. Purchased in full compliance with federal laws, these guns were registered by the dealer on the 4473 forms, which were made available to BATF agents when they began the investigation of Koresh.
The federal firearms crimes which Koresh and his group allegedly committed--illegal manufacture of machine guns and explosives without registration--were conducted entirely in private. Gun shows had nothing to do with them.
VI. Stopping Firearms Acquisition by Law-Abiding Citizens--but not by Criminals
John Head, leader of the campaign for Amendment 22, claims that opponents believe that criminals have a constitutional right to buy guns. This is an outrageous falsehood.
What Head refuses to acknowledge is that the new regulations he and his group would impose throughout Colorado (not just at actual gun shows) have already been demonstrated to be worthless at preventing gun acquisition by criminals. Instead, these proposals increase the victimization of law-abiding citizens.
When the Brady Act was being pushed in Congress, proponents claimed that it would save thousands of lives. This extravagant claim turned out to be totally. false. The Brady Act had no effect on gun homicide, report Jens Ludwig and Philip Cook in August 2 issue of JAMA (the Journal of the American Medical Association). The only benefit the authors could find was a reduction in gun suicide (but not overall suicide) among persons over age 55.
Yale Law Professor John Lott’s more sophisticated research on the Brady Act is consistent with the JAMA study. (Lott controlled for variables such as law enforcement effectiveness, and the length of different state waiting periods, which the JAMA authors did not) Lott found no statistically significant effect on gun deaths, which were the focus of the JAMA study. Lott also looked at other violent crimes, which the JAMA authors did not. For most crimes, there was no statistically significant impact, except that rape rose 3.6% and aggravated assaults against women rose 2.5%--perhaps because the Brady waiting period delayed handgun purchases by five government working days, even for women who needed immediate protection against stalkers and similar threats. (The research is reported in Lott's book More Guns, Less Crime.)
Despite the evidence that the Brady Act increased crime, Amendment 22's advocates want to spread the Act even further.
In Colorado and nationally, various gun prohibition advocates brag about how many people have been denied the right to purchase a firearm under the state or federal background check system. From the point of view of a firearms prohibitionist, every denial is necessarily a good denial. But the public deserves to know that the very large majority of denials have nothing to do with real criminals. In Colorado, only 11% of all denials for firearms purchases are based on criminal convictions. For these denials, the vast majority are for non-violent or low-level offenses. For example: two brothers who pleaded guilty to misdemeanor assault twenty years ago after they got into a fistfight on the front lawn, and the neighbors called the police; these people have been barred from gun possession because they are guilty of “domestic violence.”
Most denials in Colorado are based on the mere fact that a person has been arrested. Because of the neglectful attitude of the Colorado Bureau of Investigation (which performs the background checks), many Colorado criminal records include arrest information, but not disposition information--such as the fact that the charges were dropped after they realized that the arrest was based on mistaken identity.
The stream of Clinton administration press releases about how many hundred thousand people have been rejected under the Brady Act does not undermine the Ludwig/Cook study. Many of the Brady rejections are based on incomplete criminal justice records (e.g., the records show an arrest, but not that the case was dismissed). Another large group of people rejected by Brady is people who aren’t really dangerous; As for the small number of active violent criminals who actually attempt to buy guns in gun stores, nothing in the Brady Act could stop them from buying a black market gun.
VII. The Real Basis for the Campaign against Gun Shows
Gun shows are huge gathering points for people who are interested in Second Amendment issues. Gun rights groups frequently set up booths at gun shows to distribute literature and recruit members. Gun shows are places where Americans properly exercise their First and Second Amendment rights, and neither gun show patrons nor vendors deserve the mean-spirited campaign of abuse to which they have been subjected.
According to Arnie Grossman, co-founder of the SAFE lobby which is pushing Amendment 22, the proposal , is only a "first step" towards more severe laws. Notably, SAFE's very name (Sane Alternatives to the Firearms Epidemic) likens gun-owners to disease-carriers. SAFE runs expensive newspaper advertisements complaining about how many firearms Americans own--implying that mere gun ownership is something that must be sharply reduced.
SAFE's leadership has been captured on tape explaining that the "gun show" initiative is just an "incremental" step towards the goal of requiring government approval for all firearms transfers, even between two private indiduals.
In California, Handgun Control, Inc., has achieved its objective of outlawing all private gun sales. In California, you cannot give a .22 squirrel rifle to your cousin for Christmas, nor can you sell an old shotgun to a member of your hunting club. Instead, you must route the transaction through a licensed gun dealer, pay a fee for a background check, undergo a two-week or longer. waiting period, and have your sale registered by the California Department of Justice. The California black market in criminal guns continues to thrive, notwithstanding laws about secondary transfers that only affect law-abiding people.
Attacking gun shows (and classifying home meetings for BB-gun trading as "gun shows") is the first step to abolishing all privacy regarding firearms, en route to implementing universal gun registration—which is now being pushed in California.
And the step after that? New York City, England, and Australia have already used gun registration lists to confiscate long guns. They are following the strategy enunciated by HCI founder and President Nelson “Pete” Shields, who explained in 1976:
“The first problem is to slow down the number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered. The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition--except for the military, police, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors--totally illegal.” (Richard Harris, “ A Reporter at Large: Handguns,” New Yorker, July 26, 1976, p. 58.)
Conclusion: The mean-spirited campaign of vilification against gun show operators, vendors, and customers is unjustifiable. All available data about crime guns show that gun shows play virtually no role in criminal gun acquisition. The so-called “gun show loophole” is a fraud; laws at gun shows are already the same as everywhere else. To impose additional restrictions solely on gun shows is to make laws at gun shows more restrictive than at any other location. Such special legislation would entrap many people at target shooting events, gun club meetings, political meetings, hunting trips, and similar events into unintended criminal violations. The effect is to punish people for exercising their constitutional right to assemble and their right to arms at the same time.
Prepared by David B. Kopel & Linda Gorman, Independence Institute
Synopsis: There is no “gun show loophole.” Guns sales at gun shows are subject to exactly the same laws as apply to gun sales anywhere else. Research for the U.S. Department of Justice, by scholars, and even by SAFE's national affiliate shows that gun shows have almost nothing to do with criminal gun acquisition.
Proposed Amendment 22 is titled "Background Checks at Gun Shows." This title is fraudulent, because the Amendment regulates as "gun shows" many activities which have nothing to do with real gun shows--such as private gifts between family members.
I. Everything is a "Gun Show"
When you hear “gun show” do you think of a father who wants to give his son a gift by letting him choose a gun from his collection? How about a widow who pulls her husband’s guns out of the closet and lets her children take their pick? According to SAFE Colorado, these activities are "gun shows" if twenty-five or more firearms are displayed OR if three or more people are present. “Firearms” are “any handgun, automatic revolver, pistol, rifle, shotgun, or other instrument or device capable or intended to be capable of discharging bullets, cartridges, or other explosive charges.”
If the SAFE initiative passes, the dad will have to post a sign informing his son that he will have to get a background check. The widow will have to post the same sign notifying her children that they will have to have background checks as well. As father and the widow are both “gun show promoters” and “gun show vendors” under the language of the initiative, they will also have to arrange for a licensed gun dealer to be “on the premises” to run a background check.
Likewise, if a single gun collector invites a friend over for an evening, and the friend buys one rifle from the collector, then that sales is a "gun show"--since the collector had 25 or more guns available.
Advocates of Amendment 22 are now claiming that the Amendment only applies to places allowing "public access." This is plainly false. When John Head, the director of SAFE Colorado raised the "public access" issue, the Colorado Legislative Council responded: "The proposal's definition of gun show does not specifically require public access before a gathering can be considered to be a gun show."
The effect of this extremely broad definition is a “bait-and-switch.” Although sold to the public as legislation about gun shows, Amendment 22 covers thousands and thousands of people who have never been inside a real gun show. This definition is inconsistent with the Colorado Constitution’s requirement that the subject matter of every bill or initiative be clearly expressed in the title.
When a person hears the phrase “gun show,” he naturally thinks of weekend events where dozens of people rent tables at a specific location, to sell firearms and firearms-related accessories, books, and clothing. But Amendment 22's far-reaching definition of "gun show" could include the monthly meeting of a local gun club, a competitive target shooting event, or a group of friends on a hunting trip.
Of course most people participating in target shooting competitions, family gift-giving, and the like would not think of themselves as participating in a “gun show.” Failing to comply with the special restrictive laws that Amendment 22 for “gun shows,” ordinary people who never go to real gun shows would be turned into criminals. For example, if a gun club held a target shooting match, one participant might offer to buy a gun belonging to another participant. Both participants would become criminals.
II. Everything is a "Firearm"
Rejecting the well-established definition of "firearm" in Colorado state law, Amendment 22 invents a new definition which includes much, much more than real firearms. According to Amendment 22, “Firearms” are “any handgun, automatic revolver, pistol, rifle, shotgun, or other instrument or device capable or intended to be capable of discharging bullets, cartridges, or other explosive charges.”
All it takes is a couple of nail guns for construction projects, a staple gun for crafts, some paintball guns for family fun, a BB gun or two for target shooting, and a kid with a passion for model rockets. (Model rocket launcher engines use explosions to fire the rocket.) Thus, people who don't own a single firearm, but who have collections of model rockets, BB guns, or construction tools are turned into "gun show promoters." Want to sell your teenager's Estes rockets at the neighborhood garage sale? Make sure to pay a licensed firearms dealer to run background checks on all your customers, and post the mandatory legal notices about the "gun show" that you are running.
III. There is no "Gun Show Loophole"
“Close the gun show loophole,” demand Handgun Control, Inc., and its Colorado surrogate, SAFE. In fact, existing gun laws apply just as much to gun shows as they do to any other place where guns are sold. Since 1938, persons selling firearms have been required to obtain a federal firearms license. The federal Gun Control Act specifically states that a licensed dealer must comply with all laws, including record keeping, when making a transfer at a gun show. 18 U.S.Code § 923(j).
If a dealer sells a gun from a storefront, from a room in his home or from a table at a gun show, the rules are exactly the same: he can get authorization from the Colorado Bureau of Investigation for the sale only after the CBI runs its “instant” background check (which often leads to false denials based on CBI’s inadequate records).
Conversely, people who are not engaged in the business of selling firearms, but who sell firearms from time to time (such as a man who sells a hunting rifle to his brother-in-law), are not required to obtain the federal license required of gun dealers or to call the CBI before completing the sale.
Similarly, if a gun collector dies and his widow wants to sell the guns, she does not need a federal firearms license because she is just selling off inherited property and is not “engaged in the business.” And if the widow doesn’t want to sell her deceased husband's guns by taking out a classified ad in the newspaper, it is lawful for her to rent a table at a gun show and sell the entire collection.
If you walk along the aisles at any gun show, you will find that the overwhelming majority of guns offered for sale are from federally licensed dealers. Guns sold by private individuals (such as gun collectors getting rid of a gun or two over the weekend) are the distinct minority.
Handgun Control, Inc., claims that “25-50 percent of the vendors at most gun shows are unlicensed dealers.” That statistic is true only if one counts vendors who are not selling guns (e.g., vendors who are selling books, clothing or accessories) as “unlicensed dealers.”
Now, suppose that someone claiming to be a gun collector is actually operating a firearms business. He rents a table at a gun show 50 weekends a year, and sells 20 guns each weekend. Selling firearms at the rate of 1,000 per year, and conducting a business week after week, he appears to be engaged in the business of selling firearms. If this man does not have a federal firearms license, then he is guilty of a federal felony. Indeed, every separate gun sale constitutes a separate federal felony. (The federal laws are section 922 and 923 of volume 18 of the U.S. Code.)
In short, gun shows are no “ loophole” in the federal laws. If a person is required by federal law to have a federal firearms license, then the requirement applies whether or not the person sells at a gun show. And if a person is not required to have a license, then the person’s presence at a gun show does not change the law.
The gun prohibition lobbies express outrage that a person can buy a firearm at a gun show without going through the state background check, though this is only the case when the purchase is made from the minority of tables that do not have an FFL. However, even if the non-FFL gun collector sold his gun from his home rather than from a gun show, a federal background check still would not be required.
Why should the location of the sale determine whether a background investigation will be required?
IV. Are Gun Shows Really a Source of Crime Guns?
Denver Congresswoman Diana DeGette says that 70 percent of guns used in crimes come from gun shows. SAFE head Arnie Grossman claimed in the Denver Post that “most guns used for criminal purposes are purchased at guns shows.”
The true figure is rather different, according to the National Institute of Justice, the research arm of the U.S. Department of Justice. According to an NIJ study released in December 1997, less than 2 percent of criminal guns come from gun shows. (Homicide in Eight U.S. Cities, page 99; the report covers much more than homicide.) The same study found that twenty-five percent of crime guns came from gun stores, even though FBI permission is required for every purchase from a gun store.
A June 2000 federal study, Federal Firearms Offenders, 1992-98 likewise finds only 1.7% of federal prison inmates obtaining their gun from a gun show. (Plus 1.5% from a "flea market.")
That finding is consistent with a mid-1980s study for the NIJ, which investigated the gun purchase and use habits of convicted felons in 12 state prisons. The study (later published as the book Armed and Considered Dangerous) found that gun shows were such a minor source of criminal gun acquisition that they were not even worth reporting as a separate figure.
At the November 1999 recent meeting of the American Society of Criminology, a study of youthful offenders in Michigan reported that only 3 percent of the youths in the study had acquired their last handgun from a gun show.
Even for the tiny percentage of criminal guns acquired at for gun shows (and the 25% figure for gun stores) does not mean that the criminal necessarily purchased the gun himself at that location. Many persons with criminal records use a “straw man” purchaser--someone with a clean record who buys the gun, and then transfers it to the criminal.
“Straw man” purchases have been classified a federal felony since the Gun Control Act of 1968; the federal law against straw purchases was strengthened in 1986 by the NRA-sponsored Firearms Owners Protection Act.
According to the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence (the legal/educational arm of Handgun Control, Inc.), the group's own survey of major-city police chiefs found only 2 out of 48 who said that guns from gun shows (both “legal and illegal sales” according to the questionnaire) were a major problem in their city. According to the Handgun Control, Inc., website, SAFE is one of "the state groups we work with."
At the command of the Clinton White House, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms produced a paper in early 1999 which said that 10% of gun traces (not crime guns) came from gun shows (included purchases made from licensed dealers, and purchases from private individuals). As the Congressional Research Service has explained, BATF gun traces reveal no meaningful information about gun use in crime; traces are initiated at the request of local police, and can be requested for all sorts of reasons (e.g., to aid the recovery of a stolen gun, for curiosity). Most BATF gun traces do not involve crime guns taken from violent criminals.
What about the other charges against gun shows, such as Denver Congresswoman Diana DeGette’s highly-publicized charge that gun shows allow illegal “ assault weapon” sales? In fact, the 1994 Clinton “ assault weapon” law bans the future manufacture of certain firearms based on cosmetic characteristics, such as whether the gun has a bayonet lug (as if criminals were conducting bayonet charges against convenience stores). The law imposes no controls on the pre-1994 supply of so-called “ assault weapons.” It is perfectly legal to own, buy, and sell these pre-1994 guns. It is legal for a licensed federal dealer to sell such guns from his store, or at a gun shows; and it is just as lawful for a private individual to sell such guns.
V. Columbine and other Notorious Crimes
Several months before the Columbine massacre, the killers obtained firearms from two suppliers. The first was a 22-year-old Columbine graduate named Mark Manes (ironically, the son of a longtime Handgun Control, Inc., activist). Manes bought a pistol at a gun show and gave it to the two killers (who were under 18 at the time). Colorado law prohibits giving handguns to juveniles, with certain exceptions, and Manes is currently serving time for this offense in a Colorado prison. The second supplier was an 18-year-old fellow student at Columbine, Robyn Anderson, who bought three long guns for the killers at a Denver-area gun show in December 1998.
Both Manes and Anderson were lawful gun purchasers and could legally have bought the guns from a firearms dealer at a gun store, a gun show, or anywhere else.
Nevertheless, shortly after the Columbine killings, the various gun prohibition groups began putting out press releases about the “gun show loophole.” This is an audacious lie, since there is no “loophole” involving gun shows. The law at gun shows is exactly the same as it is everywhere else.
Mark Manes committed a felony by obtaining a handgun for the young killers. He has never claimed that the existence of another law, regarding gun show sales, would have deterred him.
What about Robyn Anderson?
On June 4, 1999, Good Morning America presented a “kids and guns” program. Anderson was flown to Washington for the segment. The first part of the program discussed various proposals, including background checks on private sales at gun shows. Immediately after the introductory segment, Diane Sawyer introduced Robyn Anderson and asked:
“Anything you hear this morning [that would] have stopped you from accompanying them and help[ing] them buy the guns?” Anderson replied: “I guess if it had been illegal, if I had known that it was illegal, I wouldn’t have gone.” On January 26, 2000, Anderson began claiming that even if the purchase were legal, but there had been a background check of her entirely clean record, she would not have purchased the guns.
Whichever version is true, the facts show that Anderson was not afraid to divulge her identity when buying a gun for her wicked friends. When Good Morning America asked, “And they actually paid for the guns, or did you?” Anderson replied: “It was their money, yes. All I did was show a driver’s license.” (The private collectors asked to see a driver’s license to verify that she was over 18, even though there was no legal requirement that they do so.) Since Anderson did not mind revealing her identity to three separate sellers, is it realistic to believe that revealing her identity for an instant check would have stopped her? The Colorado instant background check does not keep permanent records on gun buyers, so even with background checks on private sales at gun shows, there would have been no permanent record of Anderson’s purchase. And Anderson’s new and improved talking points claim only that the prospect of a permanent record would have deterred her.
Putting aside Anderson’s shifting stories, she is plainly an irresponsible, self-centered person. After the murders took place, she refused to come forward and help the police investigation. It took an anonymous tip for the police to find out about her. And in marked contrast to Mark Manes, Anderson has never apologized for her role in the Columbine murders.
Even if you accept the version of Robyn Anderson’s stories that is most supportive of gun control, no gun-show crackdown would have prevented Columbine. The older of the two killers could have bought his own guns in a store legally. Indeed, in a videotape made before the killings, the murderers said that if they had not obtained their guns the way they did, they would have found other ways. There is no reason to disbelieve them on this point.
The only law that would have some effect on Robyn Anderson and similar gun molls was introduced in the Colorado legislature this year by Colorado State Representative Don Lee, whose district includes Columbine. His “Robyn Anderson Bill” now makes it a crime to give a long gun to a juvenile without the consent of his parents. This law covers Anderson’s first version of her story, in which she told Good Morning America that the only deterrent for her would have been a law making her conduct illegal.
Whatever the other merits of proposals to impose special restrictions on gun shows, these would not have prevented Columbine, and it is cynical for their proponents to use Columbine as a pretext.
Unfortunately, anti-gun lobbyists have also attempted to falsely exploit other tragedies by making bogus claims about gun shows.
The man who perpetrated the Oklahoma City bombing stole guns from an Arkansas gun store. He sold those stolen guns, as well as racist literature, at gun shows. Imposing more controls on gun shows patrons would have had no effect on the Oklahoma City perpetrator. He was a vendor, not a customer. His customers weren’t the criminals; he was.
David Koresh’s Branch Davidian organization often rented a table at gun shows, where they sold novelty items, such as empty grenade hulls and ready-to-eat meals (army-type survival foods). One of Koresh’s devotees, Paul Fatta, was a licensed firearms dealer who sold firearms at gun shows in full compliance with federal laws. The major source of the Branch Davidian arsenal came from purchases through another licensed firearms dealer: Hewitt Handguns. Purchased in full compliance with federal laws, these guns were registered by the dealer on the 4473 forms, which were made available to BATF agents when they began the investigation of Koresh.
The federal firearms crimes which Koresh and his group allegedly committed--illegal manufacture of machine guns and explosives without registration--were conducted entirely in private. Gun shows had nothing to do with them.
VI. Stopping Firearms Acquisition by Law-Abiding Citizens--but not by Criminals
John Head, leader of the campaign for Amendment 22, claims that opponents believe that criminals have a constitutional right to buy guns. This is an outrageous falsehood.
What Head refuses to acknowledge is that the new regulations he and his group would impose throughout Colorado (not just at actual gun shows) have already been demonstrated to be worthless at preventing gun acquisition by criminals. Instead, these proposals increase the victimization of law-abiding citizens.
When the Brady Act was being pushed in Congress, proponents claimed that it would save thousands of lives. This extravagant claim turned out to be totally. false. The Brady Act had no effect on gun homicide, report Jens Ludwig and Philip Cook in August 2 issue of JAMA (the Journal of the American Medical Association). The only benefit the authors could find was a reduction in gun suicide (but not overall suicide) among persons over age 55.
Yale Law Professor John Lott’s more sophisticated research on the Brady Act is consistent with the JAMA study. (Lott controlled for variables such as law enforcement effectiveness, and the length of different state waiting periods, which the JAMA authors did not) Lott found no statistically significant effect on gun deaths, which were the focus of the JAMA study. Lott also looked at other violent crimes, which the JAMA authors did not. For most crimes, there was no statistically significant impact, except that rape rose 3.6% and aggravated assaults against women rose 2.5%--perhaps because the Brady waiting period delayed handgun purchases by five government working days, even for women who needed immediate protection against stalkers and similar threats. (The research is reported in Lott's book More Guns, Less Crime.)
Despite the evidence that the Brady Act increased crime, Amendment 22's advocates want to spread the Act even further.
In Colorado and nationally, various gun prohibition advocates brag about how many people have been denied the right to purchase a firearm under the state or federal background check system. From the point of view of a firearms prohibitionist, every denial is necessarily a good denial. But the public deserves to know that the very large majority of denials have nothing to do with real criminals. In Colorado, only 11% of all denials for firearms purchases are based on criminal convictions. For these denials, the vast majority are for non-violent or low-level offenses. For example: two brothers who pleaded guilty to misdemeanor assault twenty years ago after they got into a fistfight on the front lawn, and the neighbors called the police; these people have been barred from gun possession because they are guilty of “domestic violence.”
Most denials in Colorado are based on the mere fact that a person has been arrested. Because of the neglectful attitude of the Colorado Bureau of Investigation (which performs the background checks), many Colorado criminal records include arrest information, but not disposition information--such as the fact that the charges were dropped after they realized that the arrest was based on mistaken identity.
The stream of Clinton administration press releases about how many hundred thousand people have been rejected under the Brady Act does not undermine the Ludwig/Cook study. Many of the Brady rejections are based on incomplete criminal justice records (e.g., the records show an arrest, but not that the case was dismissed). Another large group of people rejected by Brady is people who aren’t really dangerous; As for the small number of active violent criminals who actually attempt to buy guns in gun stores, nothing in the Brady Act could stop them from buying a black market gun.
VII. The Real Basis for the Campaign against Gun Shows
Gun shows are huge gathering points for people who are interested in Second Amendment issues. Gun rights groups frequently set up booths at gun shows to distribute literature and recruit members. Gun shows are places where Americans properly exercise their First and Second Amendment rights, and neither gun show patrons nor vendors deserve the mean-spirited campaign of abuse to which they have been subjected.
According to Arnie Grossman, co-founder of the SAFE lobby which is pushing Amendment 22, the proposal , is only a "first step" towards more severe laws. Notably, SAFE's very name (Sane Alternatives to the Firearms Epidemic) likens gun-owners to disease-carriers. SAFE runs expensive newspaper advertisements complaining about how many firearms Americans own--implying that mere gun ownership is something that must be sharply reduced.
SAFE's leadership has been captured on tape explaining that the "gun show" initiative is just an "incremental" step towards the goal of requiring government approval for all firearms transfers, even between two private indiduals.
In California, Handgun Control, Inc., has achieved its objective of outlawing all private gun sales. In California, you cannot give a .22 squirrel rifle to your cousin for Christmas, nor can you sell an old shotgun to a member of your hunting club. Instead, you must route the transaction through a licensed gun dealer, pay a fee for a background check, undergo a two-week or longer. waiting period, and have your sale registered by the California Department of Justice. The California black market in criminal guns continues to thrive, notwithstanding laws about secondary transfers that only affect law-abiding people.
Attacking gun shows (and classifying home meetings for BB-gun trading as "gun shows") is the first step to abolishing all privacy regarding firearms, en route to implementing universal gun registration—which is now being pushed in California.
And the step after that? New York City, England, and Australia have already used gun registration lists to confiscate long guns. They are following the strategy enunciated by HCI founder and President Nelson “Pete” Shields, who explained in 1976:
“The first problem is to slow down the number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered. The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition--except for the military, police, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors--totally illegal.” (Richard Harris, “ A Reporter at Large: Handguns,” New Yorker, July 26, 1976, p. 58.)
Conclusion: The mean-spirited campaign of vilification against gun show operators, vendors, and customers is unjustifiable. All available data about crime guns show that gun shows play virtually no role in criminal gun acquisition. The so-called “gun show loophole” is a fraud; laws at gun shows are already the same as everywhere else. To impose additional restrictions solely on gun shows is to make laws at gun shows more restrictive than at any other location. Such special legislation would entrap many people at target shooting events, gun club meetings, political meetings, hunting trips, and similar events into unintended criminal violations. The effect is to punish people for exercising their constitutional right to assemble and their right to arms at the same time.
