VA Declines to Close "Gun Show Loophole"; Media Continues to Misrepresent Issue

**Syme** · 02-04-2009, 06:42 PM

So just yesterday, the Virginia State Senate defeated a bill that would have "closed the gun show loophole" by requiring private (non-FFL) sellers to conduct background checks when they sell at a gun show, just like the FFL dealers have to. I actually wouldn't have been too bothered if this bill had passed, since it wouldn't apply to private sales outside of gun shows, and the NICS hotline is pretty easy to use. Of course it's defeat doesn't bother me too much either, since we all know how pointless it would have been as a public safety measure (guns bought from gun shows make up less than 1% of guns used in crime, and guns bought in private sales at gun shows of course make up an even smaller percentage).

What bothers me far more is the coverage the issue received in the Washington Post. Today's top story in the Metro section was about the bill, and it REPEATEDLY claimed that the bill would simply have "required merchants selling guns at gun shows to perform background checks on all sellers", without ever mentioning that most sellers at gun shows ALREADY have to do this, and that the bill would have applied only to the minority of sellers who are non-FFL dealers. It also never once mentioned that the reason these people can sell without a background check is that they're private sellers, NOT that they're at a gun show; the gun show has nothing to do with it, background checks are never required for private sales. So all the people who read the Washington Post and don't understand gun-related issues (i.e., a lot of people) have yet again been given the impression that gun shows are places were background checks aren't required due to the "gun show loophole", when the fact of the matter is that it's actually "private sales loophole" that exists regardless of whether you're at a gun show, and that has nothing to do with gun shows at all. In other words, more scare-mongering and BS from the media on gun-related issues.

The worst part is, I know that not ALL the Post's staff writers are as clueless as the clowns who wrote this story, because just last week, when the bill was being introduced, they ran a story that accurately discussed the issue. It made it clear that FFLs at gun shows have always had to do background checks, and that the bill only extended the requirement to non-FFL sellers. But apparently it's too much to ask for them to run two accurate articles on the same issue in a row. I like the Post a lot, but this kind of thing bothers me. So I've sent a letter to the editor about this; I'll let you all know if it gets published.

**fm2176** · 02-05-2009, 07:32 AM

I never did read the Post much; always preferred the more homely feel of the Richmond Times Dispatch.

**HotelKilo47** · 02-10-2009, 03:38 PM

When in lived in Franklin Co, I always enjoyed going to the gunshows in Roanoke and Salem. I hope they don't ever pass noise like that.

**Syme** · 02-10-2009, 04:10 PM

Originally Posted by HotelKilo47

When in lived in Franklin Co, I always enjoyed going to the gunshows in Roanoke and Salem. I hope they don't ever pass noise like that.

I agree that the bill is pointless, but how would it prevent you from going to, and enjoying, gun shows? You'd still be able to enjoy going to gun shows just as much as you ever have.