OK. It isn’t so. But for those still insisting that it is, such as in the U.S. edition of the UK’s Guardian newspaper, an explanation is needed.
First, yesterday’s Guardian headline: In a major victory for gun control advocates, the story begins, the legislation aims to close longstanding loopholes in federal law, which requires criminal background checks when guns are sold by licensed dealers but allows private citizens to sell and transfer guns to each other without any background check.
They got that part right. But the first eight words of that sentence (with our emphasis) was exceedingly premature. That’s nothing new for gun controllers and their collusive media partners. To them, anything beyond a plea for help is a “victory.” So, concentrating on the other part, “loopholes,” the Guardian leaves it up to their readers to assume there’s some nefarious element left out of existing background checks law. There is. That is, if the authors of the law either forgot or had reason to forget, or ignore, that the law was written so as to make sure legitimate gun retailers didn’t sell a gun without first requiring the purchaser to fill out the 4473 background check form. So, to put the full blanket on the bed of uncertainty, the contemporary crop of real gun nuts reviewed the law and, noting that it didn’t include George, your neighbor next door who had smitten eyes for your old 1955 Colt .357 Python that you were considering selling to him, they rose to the occasion and deemed the miscue “a loophole.” Then somebody said, “No! We can’t include George. We’d get shot!” Uh, probably not.
Well, that’s almost the gist of it. In fact, the House Democrats yesterday boldly introduced legislation to expand the current background checks law to include sales at gun shows and between some unrelated individuals. But that goes on the assumption that it will pass muster in both chambers of Congress, the House AND the Senate, the latter controlled by the Republican majority, not always inclined to follow orders of House members.
Earlier this week we reported on the celebratory introduction of former Arizona representative Gabby Gifford, namesake of the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, who Democrat House members will honor by introducing the universal background check loophole removal bill. We noted that the bill will be co-sponsored by Republican Peter King of New York State, home of the infamous SAFE Act. https://safeact.ny.gov/
But before any further debate, action or victory speech could commence, the Guardian’s other shoe dropped: While the new bill – a top priority of the new House Democratic majority – is expected to pass the House, it is likely to be blocked from becoming law by the Republican-controlled Senate. So, in the spirit of genuine bipartisan compromise, the newspaper in essence confessed its caveat and, in the process, tacitly admitted that a victory seen was seen only in the rearview mirror of their dreams.