PA Bill Number: HB800
Title: In hunting and furtaking, further providing for interference with lawful taking of wildlife or other activities permitted by this title prohibited.
Description: In hunting and furtaking, further providing for interference with lawful taking of wildlife or other activities permitted by this title prohibited. ...
Last Action:
Last Action Date: Feb 28, 2025
Politico: The 'Gun Show Loophole' Doesn't Exist :: 10/14/2015
Never underestimate the lengths to which the mainstream media will go to clear a path to the nomination for Hillary Clinton. Up to and including knocking down one of the best loved, most repeated justifications for enacting new gun control laws. Case in point: Bernie “Get Off My Lawn!” Sanders’ invocation of the infamous “gun show loophole” during last night’s Democrat debate . . .
As Nick pointed out, there wasn’t a lot of talk about guns last night, mostly because the five candidates were largely in lockstep agreement that Americans’ 2A rights need to be dialed back. But ol’ Bern, defending his marginally less prohibitive stance where firearms are concerned against attacks from Hillary, made sure to play to the crowd and call for closing that supposedly gaping chasm in the law.
Stepping up in the cause of truth (and shoring up Hillary’s flagging poll numbers), this morning’s Politico ‘Wrongometer’ fisks some of the points made last night, letting loose with this one:
Sorry, Bernie: The “gun show loophole” doesn’t exist
When Bernie Sanders mentioned closing the so-called “gun show” loophole—one of the most widely supported gun-control measures on the left. But there’s one problem: the “gun show” loophole doesn’t actually exist.
There’s nothing in particular about gun shows that allows otherwise illegal gun sales to occur. Sanders instead is referring to an exclusion in the gun laws that does not require a background check in a private sale. It doesn’t matter if that sale is at the seller’s home or at a gun show, a background check is not legally required.
A refreshing moment of clarity, no? Not really. Just a prime example of the lengths (even committing a Kinsley gaffe) to which those on the left will go to ding Hill’s biggest rival.
Will this put paid to Dems using the non-existent loophole in order to justify their calls for universal background checks? Don’t bet on it. No fallacy, no juicy bit of agitating anti-gun agitprop is out of bounds when the cause is civilian disarmament. Or getting a Democrat elected.
