Each time a widely publicized shooting incident occurs, media members and politicians immediately attack the "gun-show loophole" as the villain which, if eliminated, will make us all safe. Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton recently announced to the voting world that gun shows and Internet transactions do not require a purchaser's background check -- a loophole which she intends to plug if elected. In the face of such a blatantly inaccurate statement from one who should know better, perhaps it's time to discuss what the so-called gun-show loophole really is, and is not.
A firearms dealer is considered to be a business person who conducts multiple transactions for profit as a means of income. Every federally licensed dealer in firearms (FFL) is required to obtain identification and background data from any prospective buyer and phone the information to an FBI national clearing center. If no disqualifying facts are discovered, the FFL is allowed to proceed with the sale; otherwise the transfer is denied. The decision rests with the National Instant Criminal Background Check System center.
This requirement exists, and is enforced, at any location where the FFL does business, including gun shows. No gun-show loophole.
If any firearm is transferred by mail, it must be delivered through an FFL. When the recipient arrives at the receiving dealer to pick up the firearm, that dealer must initiate a background check before allowing the addressee to take possession. This requirement exists whether transfer arrangements were made via mail order, telephone, or online. No Internet loophole.
Every FFL is required to maintain a log describing each firearm which passes through the business and to whom it is transferred. The Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms is allowed to (and does) conduct frequent unannounced inspections of dealers to inventory the arms on hand, check them against the licensee's records, and evaluate the dealer's compliance with federally mandated accountability procedures.
The "loophole" to which politicians like to refer is probably the private citizen who may give, sell, or trade his gun to a neighbor, friend or family member. Or he/she may take it to a gun show to sell or trade to another attendee. As a private citizen, he or she is not bound by the regulations applicable to a licensed dealer.
The number of guns transferred by private persons is obviously miniscule compared to the number transferred by commercial dealers, and has never been a matter of concern to those having access to statistics regarding the sources of criminally used firearms.
If our government were to close this "loophole" by mandating that private citizens contact the FBI and run a background check before disposing of a firearm, enforcement measures would have to be draconian. Citizens would of necessity be required to submit to unannounced searches or inspections by a policing authority to insure that their arms had not been disposed of without government notification and the required background check. And to know what arms each citizen should have on hand, there would have to have been a previous registration of all citizens' arms, and the owners required to immediately report any changes of ownership to the policing authority. Separate procedures would have to be devised for lending guns, for inheritance of guns, and for sending guns out for repair or modification.
In other words, to attempt to address a so-called loophole which leaves relatively few gun transfers unmonitored, our government would have to initiate a new bureaucracy which will cost billions, and which will seriously invade the privacy of every hunter, target shooter or gun collector, and anyone who owns a gun for family protection. These colossal enforcement requirements are unlikely to be explained to the public until after the simple "plug the loophole" law is passed and signed by President Whoever.
Don Neal is a retired soldier and occupational safety professional who has lived in Alaska for 47 years, currently in Anchorage.
The views expressed here are the writer's own and are not necessarily endorsed by Alaska Dispatch News, which welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, email commentary(at)alaskadispatch.com.