Amendment #22 purports to close the so-called "gun show loophole," the provision of federal law that exempts the private sale of firearms from background checks. The amendment's supporters claim it will prevent incidents like the terrorist attack on Columbine High School and stop criminals from obtaining guns by exploiting this legal "loophole." Amendment 22 will do neither--but it will seriously undermine the liberties of all law-abiding citizens while failing to accomplish its stated goals.
First, there is no such thing as a "gun show loophole." Federal law explicitly and intentionally exempts the private sale of firearms from federal regulation. Lawmakers recognize that sales and exchanges of goods and services between private individuals are not subject to the control or scrutiny of the government. They also recognize that such laws are unenforceable at best and threats to personal liberty at worst.
Further, private citizens are not permitted access to the National Instant Check System--only federally licensed dealers have access, and they are forbidden by federal law to use it for any transaction in which they have no interest. If #22 passes, the private citizen could not sell or trade a gun at a traditional gun show unless a licensed dealer agrees to violate federal law.
The proponents of #22 claim gun shows are a "weapons bazaar" for illegal buyers; however, a study by the National Institute of Justice found that only 2 percent of criminal guns come from gun shows. The vast majority of sales at a gun show are from federally licensed dealers who are already required to perform a background check. Most criminals get their guns on the street, by theft, or through a "straw purchase"--already federal and state felonies. Tom Mauser, spokesman for the proponents, admits #22 would not have prevented Columbine.
We do not need the government involved in our private, legal transactions. If #22 restricts the right of private citizens to trade at gun shows, what's next? The "newspaper-want-ad" loophole? The "bulletin-board-at-work" loophole? The "father-to-son-gift" loophole? In fact, SAFE co-founder Arnie Grossman states #22 is just a "first step" toward more severe gun laws.
Amendment 22 could turn your home into a "gun show." It defines a gun show as three or more people with a single firearm. If a grandfather, father, and son are sitting around the kitchen table and the grandfather wants to give his grandson his old hunting rifle, that kitchen becomes a gun show! If three hunting buddies sitting around the campfire discuss trading (not even selling) a firearm, they are a gun show and must comply with this new law.
No responsible gun owner wants a criminal to have a firearm. But #22 will only apply to the lawful gun owner. Criminals, by definition, do not obey laws. There is no law that can be enacted that will prevent evil persons from committing evil acts. The more restrictive we make it for the lawful gun owner, the easier we make it for the criminal. Criminals would like nothing more than an unarmed populace upon which to prey.
Many people have the mistaken impression that the United States and Colorado constitutions grant citizens the right to keep and bear arms. This is wrong. Our right to self-defense is an unalienable right and the constitution serves only to prevent government from infringing on that right. Our legislators rejected Amendment 22's language because they realized it would infringe on our rights.
The supporters of #22 are using scare tactics and half-truths to try to get Colorado citizens to give up a little liberty for some supposed safety. As Benjamin Franklin remarked, anyone who would do that deserves neither. I urge voters to reject this thinly veiled attempt to ultimately eliminate our right to keep and bear arms.
Send comments or suggestions to: Webmaster
Copyright © 1999 - 2008 PPFC
Page last updated: 02/14/2008