And simultaneously guarantee that he’ll never be elected to another political position in Virginia.
And if the facts of the story weren’t bad enough, the Pilot reporters felt it necessary to engage in a bit of PSH in reporting it:
The state’s rules do not require the checks on people who buy guns privately through unlicensed dealers at the shows. [emphasis added]
I’ve heard this canard so many times it is taking on a life of its own. Time to put this one to rest:
Title 18, US Code, Chapter 44, §921(a)(11): The term “dealer” means (A) any person engaged in the business of selling firearms at wholesale or retail…
Title 18, US Code, Chapter 44, §921(a)(21): The term “engaged in the business” means – …a person who devotes time, attention and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms, but such term shall not include a person who makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or port of his personal collection of firearms [emphasis added].
Title 18, US Code, Chapter 44, §922: (a) It shall be unlawful- (1) for any person- (A) except a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer, to engage in the business of importing, manufacturing, or dealing in firearms…
Title 18, US Code, Chapter 44, §923: (a) No person shall engage in the business of importing, manufacturing, or dealing in firearms…until he has filed an application with and received a license to do so from the Attorney General.
(Virginia’s “state rules”, as the reporters put it, mirror US Code in this respect)
In other words: an “unlicensed dealer” in firearms is, by definition, ALREADY BREAKING THE LAW.
Oh…What? You mean they aren’t talking about people “engaged in the business” of selling firearms? They’re only talking about private individuals who are selling or trading their own personal firearms as a hobby or to enhance their collection?
A private individual selling personal firearms from his own collection is, by definition, NOT a “dealer”. I guess that’s just too complicated a concept for journalists or politicians to grasp.
Do journalists regularly refer to private citizens selling their personally owned vehicles as “unlicensed dealers” in automobiles? No, because the term in inaccurate and misleading.
I repeat: by definition, private citizens are NOT dealers. Using that term is nothing more than propaganda and those who insist upon doing so are nothing more than liars.
The loophole gives felons and mentally ill people access to weapons they should not be allowed to buy, said Kaine, speaking at the annual AP Day at the Capital, a legislative forum sponsored by The Associated Press and the Society for Professional Journalists.
1. A way of escaping a difficulty, especially an omission or ambiguity in the wording of a contract or law that provides a means of evading compliance.
“loophole.” The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. 05 Dec. 2007.
The provision in the law that exempts private individuals from the requirements under which dealers operate is not an “omission” or “ambiguity”. This provision is very specifically and clearly spelled out; in that light, in no way can private citizens selling personal firearms be said to be “evading compliance” with the law in any way.
As a side-note: isn’t it interesting that Governor Kaine chose a conference of Journalists as his venue to make his big announcement? Don’t politicians generally address controversial topics in front of friendly audiences? Nope…no bias to see here, move along folks.
The reporters then happily embrace the time honored rite of Saltatus Cruoris as they callously invoke the victims of Virginia Tech as an emotional bludgeon to further their obvious agenda.
In as predictable a fashion as night following day, any horrific event involving guns is immediately followed by the anti-gunners proposing or endorsing laws that have no bearing on what happened and would not and could not have prevented the event. I must admit they are learning: this time they’re TRYING to rationalize their crass and utterly dishonorable attempt to politically profit from the misfortune of others. They do acknowledge that the perpetrator didn’t get his weapons this way, but they desperately and ineffectually attempt to make a tenuous connection by claiming “if he hadn’t been able to get his guns the way he got them, he MIGHT have gotten them from a private individual at a gun show”. Of course, he MIGHT have just used gasoline and matches to do the deed but you don’t see them trying to prevent private citizens from selling gas cans now do you?
And here is the most telling quote in the whole article:
“Cho could not buy that weapon today,” from a licensed dealer, Massengill indicated. “So the question we have to ask is, where would he get it? Because he would still get it. And likely get it at a gun show.”
The anti-gun chairman of the anti-gun panel that “reviewed” the Virginia Tech incident ADMITS that “he would still get [a gun].”
The fact is, no matter how many laws are passed, no matter how many restrictions are put in place, they will never be enough. Because the bad guys will “still get [guns]” and the anti-gunners will just move on to the next “loophole” that they want to close until the Second Amendment is nothing more than a historical footnote and we are all nothing more than defenseless wards of the state.
That is the agenda. And THAT is why we must fight them tooth and nail. We cannot let the camel get his nose any further into the tent than it already is because gun control is one camel that I do not want to sleep with.
With regard to the Pilot and its reporters: I could give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that they are either too incompetent or lack the intelligence to even realize that they are just fomenting propaganda…but I don’t believe that. They don’t practice journalism; they practice evangelism. Their goal is not to inform, it is to convert; and they have demonstrated repeatedly that they will resort to any tactics…even to the level of blatant lies…to ply their trade.
I’m going to e-mail the authors of this gun-control support solicitation masquerading as news (Matthew Bowers and Richard Quinn)and give them a link to this post. If anything I’ve said is inaccurate or any conclusion I’ve drawn flawed, I’d be happy to hear their comments.