The Washington Post's Volokh Conspiracy blog failed to disclose a writer's relationship with the National Rifle Association, whose piece offered a false attack on expanded background check legislation.
The Volokh Conspiracy is a blog operated by law professor Eugene Volokh that has been published on the Post website since January 2014. The blog is editorially independent from the Post and describes its contributors as "generally libertarian, conservative, centrist, or some mixture of these."
In a November 2 post, writer David Kopel attacked a common version of expanded background check legislation with the false claim that such legislation criminalizes benign activities such as merely handing a friend a gun to look at. He was identified by the site as "Research Director, Independence Institute, Denver, Colorado; Associate Policy Analyst, Cato Institute, Washington, D.C; and Adjunct professor of advanced constitutional law, Denver University, Sturm College of Law" and "author of 15 books and 90 scholarly journal articles."
That description ignores Kopel's longstanding ties with the NRA, which include large grants given by the NRA to the Independence Institute and Kopel's frequent contribution as a writer to NRA publications. Kopel most recently contributed to the NRA's paranoid and inflammatory America's 1st Freedom magazine in the November 2015 issue.
According to an investigation of Kopel's relationship with the NRA by journalist Frank Smyth, "Kopel has managed to establish himself as an independent authority on gun policy issues even though he and his Independence Institute have received over $1.42 million including about $175,000 a year over eight years from the NRA."
Following the publication of Smyth's exposé, The New York Times added language to an opinion piece submitted by Kopel to indicate that the Independence Institute "has received grant money from the National Rifle Association's Civil Rights Defense Fund."
But the Post's Volokh Conspiracy blog made no such disclosure, even though his post helps advance the NRA's agenda in several ways. Kopel uses the Volokh Conspiracy to give credence to the NRA's go-to argument against expanded background check legislation, attacks by name NRA opponent Everytown for Gun Safety for favoring such legislation, and specifically attacks legislative language in an upcoming ballot initiative in Nevada that the NRA opposes.
Moreover, Kopel's claim about expanded background check legislation is baseless.
The NRA previously attacked the legislative language discussed in Kopel's post as it was enacted in Washington state in 2014 via a ballot initiative and in legislation in Oregon in 2015 by claiming that the language was drafted in way that -- either through nefarious design or drafting incompetence -- turned many routine activities involving a gun into crimes.
Law enforcement officials charged with enforcing background check laws have rejected these hysterical claims, calling them "semantics" arguments. And the NRA and other opponents of expanded background checks have been unable to provide reporters examples of gun owners being prosecuted over technicalities of the law.
Following the publication of this post, the Volokh Conspiracy blog added the following language to Kopel's biography: "Kopel is an NRA-certified safety instructor. The Independence Institute has received NRA contributions."
The Las Vegas Review-Journal downplayed gun violence in the United States to attack legislative attempts to address the issue while also claiming guns safety advocates "manipulate" data by including gun suicides in gun death totals.
An October 31 editorial argued against stronger gun laws, specifically mentioning expanded background checks, by noting that while public mass shootings have captured national headlines, the overall number of gun homicides has remained relatively flat over the past 15 years:
Mass shootings leave Americans anguished and angry. Every time one happens, more and more voters want to know how many more mass shootings will happen before our leaders "do something" about it. The unrelenting media coverage of and emotional debate surrounding mass shootings create the impression that the country is awash in worsening gun violence.
The trouble is, as horrific as mass shootings are, the numbers tell a different story.
According to a Pew Research Center study of data collected by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the number of U.S. gun homicides and nonfatal gun victimizations have both held steady for roughly 15 years, and are both down over the past 20.
That mass shootings capture headlines is no surprise. According to an analysis highlighted by The Washington Post, the nation is averaging more than one mass shooting each day this year, and by several metrics, the incidence of mass shootings is increasing.
More so, that the firearm homicide rate has been steady for the past 15 years is not a compelling argument against gun safety proposals because the rate remains staggeringly high compared to other high-income nations. And it's unclear that fewer people are actually being shot: according to the Wall Street Journal the number of serious gunshot wounds that required hospitalization increased by nearly half between 2001 and 2011. Doctors speculate that this may not impact the gun homicide rate because medical advances have increased the survivability of gunshot wounds, the Journal reported.
The Review-Journal also took issue with the inclusion of gun suicides when counting the total number of "gun deaths" that occur in the United States each year, claiming that gun safety advocates "manipulate" the data on "gun deaths" to include suicides so as to "push their agenda":
While gun crimes have dropped over the past two decades, the number of suicides by gun is up (and growing) over the same time period. Not wanting to waste an opportunity to push their agenda, gun control advocates like to manipulate this data by citing growing "gun deaths" as a reason for stricter gun controls.
Gun suicides are widely included by experts on public health and gun violence when counting "gun deaths," which typically include suicides, homicides, accidents, and cases of undetermined intention. There is good reason that gun safety proposals and attempts to reduce suicide are interconnected. According to the Harvard School of Public Health, "Twelve or more U.S. case control studies have compared individuals who died by suicide with those who did not and found those dying by suicide were more likely to live in homes with guns." Studies show that between 89 and 95 percent of individuals who survive a suicide attempt do not become future victims of suicide, but when firearms are involved many victims never have this chance because gun suicide attempts are fatal 85 percent of the time.
The Review-Journal's editorial downplaying gun violence and dismissing gun suicides is the latest piece of commentary from the Nevada paper that attacked proposals for stronger gun laws. On September 14 the Review-Journal published an attack on expanded background checks that was so inaccurate that the authors of a study cited by the Review-Journal wrote a letter explaining how the editorial board had misread the study so as to invert its conclusion.
National Rifle Association board member Ted Nugent weighed in on controversy over a viral video showing a South Carolina deputy ripping a high school student from her desk and throwing her to the ground, claiming that the teenager "had it coming" before comparing the young student to "an animal."
Videos began circulating on social media on October 26 showing South Carolina Deputy Ben Fields dragging a 16-year-old student away from her desk and slamming her onto the ground before arresting her. The student was accused of disrupting the classroom. Following widespread outrage over the officer's conduct, Fields was fired.
In his regular column for conspiracy website WND, Nugent offered "a huge Nuge thank you and SALUTE to Columbia, South Carolina, Senior Deputy Ben Fields," calling him a "master of 'improvise, adapt and overcome' good citizen cop all good Americans have come to admire and respect."
Nugent also lobbed insults at the student, calling her a "disobedient punk," and a "brat." He suggested the student disobeyed her parents, writing, "By all these consistent indicators, how much do you want to bet she disobeyed her parents and every other authority figure her entire life, and got away with it?"
According to news reports, the student is recently orphaned, following the death of her mother.
Nugent also connected the South Carolina incident to several incidents that resulted in the death of African-Americans. Referencing the shooting death of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman, Nugent wrote, "None of my family members would attack a neighborhood watch volunteer and end up getting shot and killed."
He then connected the incident to the deaths of Michael Brown and Eric Garner:
None of my children would steal anything from a store and then assault the shopkeeper.
None of my children would defy orders from a cop, assault him and attempt to steal his gun, then attack him and get shot in self-defense.
None of the Nugent family would sell illegal cigarettes then violently resist arrest.
Nugent also compared the South Carolina student to an animal, writing, "Obey and you won't get ripped from your desk and put under control. Act like an animal and you will end up being treated like an animal."
A new video from the National Rifle Association's (NRA) executive vice president Wayne LaPierre claims that President Obama "has all the laws he needs to stop the bloodshed" of gun violence in big cities but chooses not to because he supposedly refuses to enforce federal gun laws.
In fact, the NRA has engaged in a decades-long campaign to hinder the efforts of the federal law enforcement agency charged with enforcing federal gun laws, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF).
In an October 27 video released by NRA News, LaPierre claimed, "Under the existing federal gun laws, [Obama] could take every felon with a gun, drug dealer with a gun and criminal gangbanger with a gun off the streets tomorrow and lock them up for five years or more. But he won't do it, his Justice Department won't do it, and the media never asks why."
The video also featured LaPierre's continued apparent use of racially coded language by contrasting "thugs like De'Eris Brown," "criminal gangbangers with illegal guns in Chicago," and "violent thugs" with "the good, honest Americans living out in farm towns in Nebraska or Oklahoma or working two jobs in inner-city Chicago or Baltimore." The video was introduced by LaPierre claiming "[n]othing illustrates America's breakdown like the way the president's hometown celebrates its holidays," before describing Chicago shootings as a "kind of third-world carnage."
LaPierre concluded with a false claim: "No organization has been louder, clearer or more consistent on the urgent need to enforce the federal gun laws than the NRA."
The NRA's lie is brazen given widespread reporting explaining how the gun group interferes with ATF operations. As USA Today reported in 2013, "lobbying records and interviews show the [NRA] has worked steadily to weaken existing gun laws and the federal agency charged with enforcing them."
According to The Washington Post, "the gun lobby has consistently outmaneuvered and hemmed in ATF, using political muscle to intimidate lawmakers and erect barriers to tougher gun laws. Over nearly four decades, the NRA has wielded remarkable influence over Congress, persuading lawmakers to curb ATF's budget and mission and to call agency officials to account at oversight hearings."
The NRA's opposition to the ATF has been extreme. The gun group has threatened to attempt to abolish the agency all together and LaPierre infamously called federal law enforcement agents "jack-booted government thugs" who wear "Nazi bucket helmets and black storm trooper uniforms."
Here are four things the NRA does that are detrimental to the enforcement of federal gun laws:
The NRA routinely cajoles its allies in Congress to limit the ATF's budget (even as other federal law enforcement agency budgets grow) and pass riders to appropriations legislation that further limit the agency's ability to enforce federal gun laws. As a 2013 report from Center for American Progress explained, one set of riders, often called the Tiahrt Amendments, "have limited how ATF can collect and share information to detect illegal gun trafficking, how it can regulate firearms sellers, and how it partners with federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies." The NRA has also backed legislation to hamper the ability of the ATF to go after criminal gun dealers, in one instance backing a bill that the Washington Post editorial board explained, "would make it all but impossible for the ATF to press forward with any case."
In 2006, an NRA-backed amendment to the re-authorization of The Patriot Act created the requirement that the Senate confirm permanent ATF directors who are nominated by the president. The NRA subsequently opposed nominees for a permanent director, in one case comparing Obama's 2010 nominee Andrew Traver to an arsonist. After seven years of not having a permanent director, B. Todd Jones was confirmed by the Senate in 2013, but resigned after just two years. Unsurprisingly, law enforcement officials have told The New York Times that having a permanent director vacancy "has inevitably depleted morale and kept the agency from developing a coherent agenda."
While LaPierre repeatedly referenced felons with guns in his video, his organization attempts to make the ATF use its budget to rearm felons. For more than two decades, standard appropriations language prohibited the ATF from using budget money on a program that allowed people who had lost their legal right to buy or own a gun because of a felony conviction to apply for restoration of that right. Without having to operate the program, the ATF has had more funding to enforce federal gun laws. In June, an NRA ally in Congress offered a successful amendment to reverse the longstanding language. While the amendment was under consideration the NRA repeatedly promoted it with the blatant falsehood that the program would only be available to nonviolent felons.
Under current federal law, gun dealers are allowed to proceed with a gun sale if the federal background check is not returned as a "proceed" or "denied" after three business days. Known as a "default proceed" sale, this feature of federal law is also called the "Charleston loophole" after the gunman who perpetrated the massacre at Mother Emanuel AME church, who received his gun without a completed background check (he would have been disqualified because of a drug charge). The "Charleston loophole" allows a significant number of prohibited persons to obtain firearms and diverts the resources of the ATF and other law enforcement agencies who must attempt to recover guns that would not have been sold without a completed background check. The loophole was created by an NRA-backed amendment to the 1993 Brady background check bill and following the Charleston massacre, the NRA vigorously defended the loophole as "a critical safety valve" to shield prospective gun purchasers from undergoing delays in the completion of background checks -- even though more than 90 percent of background checks are completed instantly.
The Washington Post relied on a flawed polling question to conclude that there is a "bitter and stark division" on the issue of gun violence as it relates to the 2016 election.
The Washington Post and ABC News asked respondents, "Which do you think should be a higher priority right now - (enacting new laws to try to reduce gun violence), or (protecting the right to own guns)?" in a survey conducted earlier this month.
46 percent of participants chose "enacting new laws to try to reduce gun violence," compared to 47 percent who chose "protecting the right to own guns." In its October 26 article on the poll, the Post describes the result as an indication of "bitter and stark division on whether new gun laws should trump the constitutional right to gun ownership." But the question presents a false choice: it is entirely possible to both protect gun rights and enact laws to reduce gun violence. For example, as the Post article itself acknowledges, proposals to expand background checks are overwhelmingly popular with the public. Background checks do not interfere with "the right to own guns" for lawful gun owners.
The Post/ABC News question is similar to a question used by Pew Research Center that Pew has acknowledged is flawed. For years Pew has asked the public to choose whether it is more important to "control gun ownership" or to "protect the right of Americans to own guns." Like the Post question, this presents respondents with a false choice.
Daniel Webster, director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research has criticized the Pew question, explaining, "Pew's question presents one side emphasizing the protection of individual rights versus restricting gun ownership. The question's implicit and incorrect assumption is that regulations of gun sales infringe on gun owners' rights and control their ability to own guns. The reality is that the vast majority of gun laws restrict the ability of criminals and other dangerous people to get guns and place minimal burdens on potential gun purchasers such as undergoing a background check. Such policies enjoy overwhelming public support."
In response to the criticism, Pew acknowledged to Mother Jones that the question is flawed and said that Webster "is right to put it in context."
A new CBS Evening News' series that examines gun violence in America has featured prominent conservative misinformers on the issue, including a guest who once suggested that mass shootings are staged by the government. While "Voices Against Violence" has also featured advocates for stronger gun laws, CBS has given airtime to Gun Owners of America head Larry Pratt -- whose group has donated money to a white supremacist group -- and Milwaukee County, Wisconsin Sheriff David Clarke, who has raised the idea of justifiable armed revolution against the government and is well-known for his inflammatory commentary, such as that Hillary Clinton "is willing to prostitute herself to secure the black vote."
The National Rifle Association is promoting an article that suggested "radical" Democrats will attempt to confiscate firearms in the United States and trigger a civil war where "the survivors of the Democrat rebellion" are ultimately hanged.
In an October 17 post, conservative gun blogger Bob Owens claimed that if the "radical left" attempts to "impose their ideas on the American people" -- which Owens claims includes gun confiscation -- "it would end poorly and quickly" for them after they are confronted by "armed free citizens."
Owens has previously fantasized about civil war breaking out in the United States and has responded to Media Matters documentation of his rhetoric by writing that he hopes the "propagandists" at Media Matters "feel threatened."
Owens began his October 17 article with an image of gallows and the caption, "This is where the survivors of the Democrat rebellion will meet their end." His article was promoted by the NRA on social media.
Writing, "I merely hope that we get to the 2016 elections," Owens nonetheless described a scenario where gun confiscation supported by Democrats starts a civil war. Owens warned, "We do not want a civil war against the radical left wing of the Democrat Party, but let it be made abundantly clear that if they start one, they will be utterly destroyed by armed free citizens, as the Founders intended":
I merely hope that we get to the 2016 elections.
The radical left is getting much louder, much more shrill, and much more insistent in their desire to use force to get their way and impose their ideas on the American people.
If they try such a radical path it would end poorly and quickly.
The military and local law enforcement agencies in the United States that the radical left has been trashing in public since the Vietnam War until now will not take part in any plot to disarm American citizens.
Soldiers, Marines and sheriffs may even defect to actively resist any federal officers from a pool of just over 100,000 who would take on the suicidal task of taking on the military, local police, and a hundred righteously-angry million gun owners, led by over a thousand angry Green Berets that warned President Obama in 2013 not push his luck.
Who is left to carrying out these confiscatory fantasies but the radicals themselves?
Are Cornell University Art Professor Carl Ostendarp or Coppin State writing instructor D. Watkins going to going on raiding parties? Are comedian Amy Schumer and her Senator-cousin Chuck going to kick in doors? Somehow, I don't see President Mom Jeans picking up a breaching ram and leading by example.
I'm glad that these totalitarians are finally showing their true colors to their fellow Americans, as it will assure a crushing defeat of their anti-American ideals at the ballot box. Perhaps then sane Democrats like Jim Webb can pick up the remains of the Democrat Party and either return it to something President Kennedy would have respected, or start something new.
Of course, we've got to get the elections, and these radicals are pushing hard for action, now, and they're proving with every passing day that reason and constitutionality are the least of their concerns.
We do not want a civil war against the radical left wing of the Democrat Party, but let it be made abundantly clear that if they start one, they will be utterly destroyed by armed free citizens, as the Founders intended.
A new commentary video from the National Rifle Association admitted that the odds of needing to use a gun for self-defense are exceedingly small while still promoting the ownership of firearms for self-defense.
The admission was made on the NRA's Noir web series, a show hosted by gun blogger turned NRA News commentator Colion Noir. The series is part of the NRA's increasing efforts to appeal to a younger demographic.
The October 20 edition of Noir opened with Noir playing the role of a magician as he laid out a deck of 52 cards in random order. After the skit ended, Noir said, "There are 318.9 million American citizens. The odds of you and me needing a gun to protect our lives is not that much better than Colion the Incredible putting these cards back in the exact order."
This admission from an NRA media product is surprising, but also accurate. The odds of randomly laying out two decks of cards in the same order are infinitesimal.
The odds of using a gun defensively are actually so low that it is difficult to accurately measure the number of defensive gun uses that occur each year. Meanwhile, gun violence is so frequent in the United States that more than 100,000 gunshot injuries are recorded every year (a figure that does not include crimes committed with guns where no one is shot).
Despite admitting the rarity of defensive gun uses, the NRA commentary video did not admit the logical conclusion of that fact, which is that guns do not typically make people safer.
In the commentary video, Noir still promoted guns as a life-saving tool. While acknowledging the long odds of actually needing a gun for self-defense, Noir stated, "Some people like to be prepared for the unlikely but possible. Other people like to cross their fingers and play the statistics. As American citizens we have the right to do both. But we don't have the right to do is limit someone's ability to be prepared for something we don't believe will happen until it does."
And Noir giving equal weight to owning a gun and being "prepared for the unlikely but possible" as opposed to not owning a gun and "play[ing] the statistics" does not make much sense if the ultimate goal is to improve personal safety.
This is because the evidence clearly indicates that gun ownership increases the risk of injury and death. While Noir frequently challenges those skeptical of gun ownership with a hypothetical scenario where it is obvious that having a gun would be better than not having one, firearm ownership on balance makes the average gun owner and his or her family less rather than more safe throughout that person's life. Peer-reviewed research has repeatedly established that gun ownership raises the likelihood of death by suicide, homicide, and through unintentional shooting.
Emerging research has also challenged the notion that guns are the best tools during a self-defense situation.
According to an analysis of federal government data from the National Crime Victimization Survey, "having a gun provides no statistically significant benefit to a would-be victim during a criminal confrontation" because victims who used a firearm to defend themselves were injured 10.9 percent of the time during a "criminal confrontation" compared to 11 percent of unarmed victims who were injured. Furthermore, the research indicated that 4.1 percent of victims were injured "after brandishing a firearm," compared to just 2.4 percent of victims who were injured after running or hiding.
Noir's admission that people are unlikely to actually use a gun in self-defense is also counter to the NRA's typical paranoid message, which posits that guns should be permissively purchased and carried so that gun owners can confront constant threats to their lives.
For example, in a February 2013 op-ed that was widely ridiculed for its outlandish claims and racially charged overtones, NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre suggested that gun ownership was necessary to ensure "survival." LaPierre argued that Americans who don't buy firearms risk death from a number of sources:
Hurricanes. Tornadoes. Riots. Terrorists. Gangs. Lone criminals. These are perils we are sure to face--not just maybe. It's not paranoia to buy a gun. It's survival. It's responsible behavior, and it's time we encourage law-abiding Americans to do just that.
LaPierre used similar language in a 2014 speech at CPAC, raising a number of frightful scenarios including "knockout gamers," "haters," "vicious waves of chemicals or disease" to support his claim that "there is no greater freedom than the right to survive and protect our families with all the rifles, shotguns, and handguns we want":
We don't trust government, because government itself has proven unworthy of our trust. We trust ourselves and we trust what we know in our hearts to be right. We trust our freedom. In this uncertain world, surrounded by lies and corruption everywhere you look, there is no greater freedom than the right to survive and protect our families with all the rifles, shotguns, and handguns we want. We know in the world that surrounds us there are terrorists and there are home invaders, drug cartels, carjackers, knockout gamers, and rapers, and haters, and campus killers, airport killers, shopping mall killers and killers who scheme to destroy our country with massive storms of violence against our power grids or vicious waves of chemicals or disease that could collapse our society that sustains us all.
Politico's Democratic presidential debate "Wrongometer" criticized comments from Sen. Bernie Sanders during the Democratic presidential debate by relying on a misleading definition to conclude that the "gun show loophole" -- a decades-old policy term referring to gun sales without a background check that occur at gun shows -- "doesn't actually exist."
Indeed, Politico itself has repeatedly used the term "gun show loophole."
During CNN's October 13 debate, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) said the United States has to "do away with this gun show loophole."
Politico purported to fact check this statement, concluding, "Sorry, Bernie: The 'gun show loophole' doesn't exist." According to Politico the "gun show loophole" does not exist because "there's nothing in particular about gun shows that allows otherwise illegal gun sales to occur":
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.
But the occurrence of "otherwise illegal gun sales" is not the definition of the "gun show loophole." Instead the term has always referred to the sale of firearms without a background check by so-called "private sellers" at gun shows.
The term "gun show loophole" came to widespread use in the wake of the 1999 Columbine High School massacre. All four guns used in that mass shooting passed through a local gun show in private sales that did not include a background check. (Today the term "private sales loophole" is often used because it encompasses sales without a background check at gun shows, in-person sales outside of gun shows, and sales through other venues such as the Internet.)
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has estimated that between 25 and 50 percent of sales at gun shows are conducted by private sellers without a background check, while the rest are conducted with a background check by licensed gun dealers in possession of a Federal Firearms License (FFL). Under federal law individuals who are "engaged in the business" of selling firearms are required to obtain an FFL and perform checks on customers, while individuals who make "occasional" sales are not. Because these terms are vaguely defined, unscrupulous "private sellers" can exploit the language of the law to operate unlicensed pseudo-businesses.
If the loophole did not exist, several states would not have moved to close it, but that is exactly what has happened. According to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, Connecticut, Colorado, Illinois and New York all "have laws expressly addressing background checks at gun shows, although broader laws also apply." Other states have more expansive laws requiring background checks for all firearm transfers that encompass private sales at gun shows.
There is good reason to believe that the "gun show loophole" is exploited by individuals who would not be able to pass a background check. A 2011 undercover investigation of seven gun shows in three states by the City of New York found that 19 out of 30 private sellers agreed to a sale where the buyer said he probably couldn't pass a background check. The loophole is also ripe for abuse by narco-terrorists, illegal gun traffickers and other dangerous individuals.
Politico's purported fact check of Sanders' statement is also nonsensical because the outlet itself has used the term "gun show loophole" to refer to private sales at gun shows. A 2013 Politico article used the term the same way Sanders did in the debate:
"The 'private sale' loophole is the gaping hole in our federal gun laws which allows anyone who is not a federally licensed gun dealer to sell a gun without a background check -- no questions asked," said Jonathan E. Lowy, legal action director of The Brady Campaign.
It's also referred to as the gun-show loophole, because it can allow collectors to sell each other guns during gun shows, said John Lott, the former chief economist of the U.S. Sentencing Commission. Some states have already passed laws to include running background checks on privatized gun sales, but there's no federal law.
In December 2012, Politico used the term "gun show loophole" in a section header to describe sales without background checks in an article that was billed as "POLITICO's look at the top policy proposals circulating in the wake of the" Sandy Hook Elementary School mass shooting (emphasis original):
Closing the gun show loophole
Requiring every person-to-person gun sale to be subject to a background check -- long a favorite talking point of the gun control crowd -- is perhaps the easiest for lawmakers to support but the most logistically difficult measure to achieve. The 1993 Brady law requires background checks for guns purchased by licensed dealers, but it does not address private sales.
After the 2007 mass shooting at Virginia Tech, Politico again used the term "gun show loophole" to describe private sales at gun shows:
Pennsylvania's experience closely mirrors what happened in Colorado after the 1999 Columbine shootings, in which 12 students and a teacher were killed. Lawmakers failed to close the "gun show loophole" by passing a law requiring background checks at gun shows. Instead, voters petitioned it onto the ballot in 2000, and it passed with more than 70 percent of the vote.
Oregon voters also had to take matters into their own hands after lawmakers failed to close a gun show loophole after a school shooting in 1998. The ballot measure closing the loophole passed with more than 60 percent of the vote.
Larry Pratt, the leader of the firearm lobbyist group Gun Owners of America (GOA), suggested in a recent interview with FoxNews.com that Jews in Europe lacked "determination" to stop the Holocaust.
Although Pratt and GOA routinely promote such extreme views, Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz said at the September 16 GOP primary debate that he was "honored" to be endorsed by GOA. Pratt was once a contributing editor at an anti-Semitic publication.
In an October 12 video posted on FoxNews.com, Pratt was asked by Fox News Radio's Alan Colmes to respond to a recent ahistorical and controversial claim by Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson that the Holocaust "would have been greatly diminished" if not for Nazi Germany's regulation of firearms.
Pratt replied: "Had the Jews had really good amounts of armament, they could have given the Nazis a real headache for a prolonged period of time, and in fact, had they had that determination to fight long before the [Warsaw] Ghetto, it might have been an entirely different story."
Colmes called Pratt's claim "an extremely offensive position to a lot of Jews and also historically inaccurate."
Claims that the Holocaust could have been averted were it not for Adolf Hitler's gun policies have been repeatedly called historically inaccurate by The Anti-Defamation League, a national civil rights group. In fact, Hitler loosened gun laws for his political allies while banning firearms for the people he wanted to oppress, which is an indictment of fascistic policies -- not laws regulating firearms.
Pratt is widely seen as one of the founders of the 1990s militia movement in the United States. In 1996, he was forced to leave the presidential campaign of Republican Pat Buchanan after it was revealed he had spoken at militia gatherings with representatives from white supremacist groups, including the leader of the anti-Semitic Christian Identity movement. He also previously served as a contributing editor to a publication of the anti-Semitic United Sovereigns of America.