In The Blogs

Where to Buy an AK-47 for a Mentally Ill, Abusive Felon This Holiday Season

| Tue Dec. 1, 2009 7:07 AM PST

With legislation to close the gun-show loophole stalled in Congress, Virginia Tech shooting survivor Collin Goddard teamed up with the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence to show just how easy it is for anyone to legally buy firearms—even individuals who would otherwise be barred from gun ownership, such as convicted felons or domestic abusers.

While most gun purchases require prospective buyers to submit to a National Instant Check System background check by the FBI, in 33 states proof of residency is all that's needed to buy firearms from unlicensed private dealers at gun shows. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives estimated that each year some 2,000 to 5,000 gun-shows take place nationwide.

In the video below, Goddard, who was shot four times in the Virgina Tech massacre that left 32 dead, buys firearms in his native Virginia and at gun-shows in Ohio, Minnesota, and Texas with the help of local activists in those states. Wearing a hidden camera, he records the purchase of a weapons cache that includes cheap handgun, a pistol with a silencer, and yes, an AK-47. Goddard and an Ohio resident were even able to obtain the Maadi Egyptian assault rifle without showing any form of ID, as federal law requires.

Advertisement

Corbin Hiar is Mother Jones’ DC intern. For more of his stories, click here. He is also on Twitter.

Comments

I am confused

Submitted by Dimensio (not verified) on Tue Dec. 1, 2009 11:20 AM PST.

How is the "gun show loophole" derived? What specific elements of extant firearms legislation creates this "loophole"? Additionally, how was the purchaser able to obtain a NFA-controlled sound suppressor or an assault rifle without undergoing a federal background investigation, as transfer of any firearm sound suppressor requires registration with the federal government? If such a transfer did occur, then federal law was violated, and the individuals who transferred the relevant items should be arrested and charged with the relevant criminal violations.

The so-called "loophole"

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu Dec. 3, 2009 11:20 PM PST.

The so-called "loophole" comes from the fact that sales from one private individual to another private individual aren't required by federal law to go through a background check. A licensed dealer, however, is always required to do a background check when selling a gun, including for sales made at gun shows. Contrary to what anti-gun advocates claim, the vast majority of sellers at gun shows ARE licensed dealers.

And you're right, a silencer must go through the standard NFA procedures no matter who the buyer and seller are. The sale must go through an authorized dealer, the NFA tax must be paid, and the ATF must approve the transfer. Since apparently none of these procedures were carried out, Mr Goddard and whoever he purchased the silencer from both committed a federal crime.

Where can you buy a gun? ANYWHERE!

Submitted by Orygunner (not verified) on Tue Dec. 1, 2009 2:18 PM PST.

tagged as:

solution

If you think closing the gun show "loophole" will stop criminals from getting firearms, I've got some beautiful oceanfront property in Arizona to sell you...

Why is it that back in the 50's we had much lower crime and ANYONE could buy guns through MAIL ORDER? It doesn't get much easier than that!

Easy access to guns DOES NOT CAUSE CRIME! The whole background check process is a terrible waste of time. There's plenty of dangerous people who PASS the background check, and for those that don't, who are WE to decide if someone's life isn't worth defending?

If someone is really too dangerous to own a gun, why are we allowing them in public without a custodian? Especially since ANYONE can go buy a gun on the street without a background check, and NO LAWS are going to be effective to stop that! (For proof, look at the absolute failure of the war on drugs and easy availability of illegal substances on the street).

If we can commit insane people as a danger to themselves and others, why can't we keep the REALLY dangerous people off the street as long as they're a danger?

Gun control is a smokescreen to avoid resolving the REAL causes of violent crime.

...Orygunner...

I am at a loss here.

Submitted by Red Star (not verified) on Tue Dec. 1, 2009 3:15 PM PST.

At all the Gun shows I have been to they run NCIC checks, so what loophole are you attempting to close? What you are making a "Boogie man" of does not exist. Perhaps it is time for you and the rest of your (I use the term loosely) organizations to admit you are little more than socialist groups that know that firearms in private hands stop your Constitution destruction plans. And the firearm represent Freedom that you wish to eliminate.

Tell the truth, stop telling lies.....Guns save lives everyday.

They still think that

Submitted by christmas gifts (not verified) on Wed Dec. 2, 2009 1:30 AM PST.

They still think that Democrats don't own guns, use guns or hunt. It's not necessarily the gun that is so troublesome. It's the lack of responsibility and accountability that ought to accompany gun ownership / use.Remember when Republicans expressed their nonchalance at being spied on via the Patriot Act. They said, "If you have nothing to hide, why would you care?"Well, if you've got nothing to hide, why would you care if a background check was conducted before you purchased a gun?

BOTH are violations of our rights.

Submitted by Orygunner (not verified) on Wed Dec. 2, 2009 5:12 AM PST.

Both the Patriot Act AND Background Checks for purchasing firearms are violations of everyone's rights.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

The ONLY thing background checks accompolish is letting the SELLER know they are not selling to someone that the government has arbitrarily decided shouldn't buy or own a gun. It does not prevent people intending to use the gun illegally from purchasing, it does not prevent straw purchases, and it CERTAINLY doesn't effect guns bought and sold on the street (black market).

In this ineffective attempt to stop violent firearm related crime, the unintended consequence is that we have taken the right of effective self defense away from many who would NOT harm someone else if they were "allowed" to have a firearm to protect themselves and their families, while the REAL dangerous ones who ARE engaged in violent criminal activities will continue to have guns in spite of any gun control law we make up.

What I mean is, we have this current list of prohibited persons: People convicted of felonies and domestic violence misdemeanors, people with current restraining orders against them, and people who have been committed for mental issues. The tyrants in Congress are now talking about adding those on the terrorism "watch list" to the list of prohibited persons - Further restricting rights WITHOUT even being convicted of anything!

What good is served in society by preventing someone like Martha Stewart from buying a firearm? Estranged spouses slap restraining orders on each other just for spite (I've seen it happen), is that fair to take someone's rights away arbitrarily? What about the non-violent pot smoker that got caught with enough marijuana to make it a felony conviction?

It's rediculous and unfair to remove people's inalienable right of self defense, especially when they'll only obey it if they intend to obey the law, and the ones engaged in criminal activity will continue to get their guns as always.

...Orygunner...

hell yea libertarian people

Submitted by andpinger (not verified) on Thu Dec. 3, 2009 12:47 PM PST.

hell yea libertarian

people base their opinions on fear too much. Oh my, guns aaaaahhh! Oh my, demon marijuana aaaahhhhhh!!! Knives aggggghhhhh! Lets wire tap it will make us safer!!!