Tennessean: Private sale; also, anyone have contact with Bill Goodman re: gun show?

[gregintenn]

While I understand that many people well-versed in Second Amendment issues are ardent that there is no such "loophole" and, as such, no issue here, there are some significant differing of opinions on this issue in the arena.

This isn't an opinion. It is a black and white fact that no firearms laws are suspended at a gun show. Every single gun law in effect is in effect at a gun show as well as at any other location. THERE IS NO "GUN SHOW LOOPHOLE"!!!!!!!

Our job in the media is to get ahead of these debates and promote discussion on issues like this.

I thought this was the job of the op ed writer and the talk show host. When did the job of a reporter stop being the breaking of stories and the reporting of facts?

[Hershmeister]

Yup, I went. Unfortunately, the organizers never got back to me. So I just showed up. With a photographer.

The photog they stopped from even buying a ticket. So I bought at ticket and went in.

At the door, they saw my press badge and said I couldn't come in. They were nice about it and refunded my money. Then, we started talking to folks in the parking lot (I believe it's county property, so I'm not sure there are any restrictions) and then they came out (no so kindly) and said they were calling Metro Police on us.

Sensing that it wasn't worth the trouble, even if I legally was in the right, I cut my losses and we left.

I see a few people on here are questioning my motives and the motives of the paper in writing about this. While I understand that many people well-versed in Second Amendment issues are ardent that there is no such "loophole" and, as such, no issue here, there are some significant differing of opinions on this issue in the arena. Not only that, but the general public isn't always aware of some of the complexities and nuances of such rules.

The fact of the matter is, we're at an interesting crossroads here in terms of Second Amendment issues. With the Supreme Court deciding it was an individual right, with expansions of gun rights in states like Tennessee (guns in bars, etc.), Wisconsin and other states, this is an issue ripe for public debate. Just because you think the matter is settled and you are right does not make it a dead topic to discuss.

The Loughner story cited above is a great example. That is not a case of the media pushing an agenda. That is the case of the media covering the fallout of a highly publicized incident. The victims in the case want legislation. It's no different than when I wrote about parents of dead children in Florida calling for stronger legislation on various issues. Or bicyclists here calling for harsher driving laws after bicyclists get hit.

Like the other stories I've written, I've got no bone to pick in this debate. I think it's a fascinating issue, particularly since we appear to be headed toward some interesting times when it comes to gun rights in America. Our job in the media is to get ahead of these debates and promote discussion on issues like this.

Brian - I appreciate your effort to reach out to our community. you seem to be looking to present both sides.

I will challenge you, however, that in matters of settled law there are no opinions. So while there may be some who don't like the 2nd amendment or the various gun laws on the books, they can't simply be swept aside and given as equal a footing as an "opinion"

I would encourage you to use your column inches to help educate the public on gun laws as you mentioned. It's a great idea.

[Lumber_Jack]

Brian,

I suggest you go sometime, as a citizen and not a reporter. No note pad, no camera, no recorder. Just go observe transactions. Then use that as 'personal experience' later.

Sent from my Mom's basement

[Mike.357]

Not letting him in sure would seem that there is something goi ng on in gun shows that they want to keep hidden.

I think is is absolute BS Brian was not allowed in.

Fwiw guns in bars does not bother me, i could care less what it is c alled.

[monkeylizard]

FWIW, by staying in the parking lot and talking to some people out there, you got to see the best part of a gun show anyway.

[RobertNashville]

Yup, I went...

Mr. Hass,

For what it’s worth, I think it was a mistake for the show to not let you in as a reporter with you photographer…any reason I could give for the decision of the show staff would be pure speculation on my part so I’ll just let that be. However, I did want to comment (assuming you are still reading the thread!).

I can’t speak for everyone but for me, the very term “gun show loophole†is a misnomer…a term used to garner a desired emotional response. Most of us who support second amendment rights are well acquainted with this tactic because those who want more and more restrictions on those rights use emotional arguments almost exclusively. They do so because they can’t win arguments based on facts. More to the point, calling the ability of two private parties to buy/sell a weapon without the necessity of a “background check†presupposes that the background system actually accomplishes anything; I would submit that it does not. This “loophole†bypasses a worthless law that is itself nothing but the result of an emotional appeal…a law passed to appease those with an irrational fear of firearms.

I would submit to you that “background checks†do not and cannot keep criminals from obtaining firearms…as such, private sales that don’t go through the background check system are not more or less dangerous to the public safety than sales that do go through the background check system. I will agree that the law does have one positive affect, it creates employment for many government workers; beyond that all it accomplishes is making it more difficult and costly for (i.e. infringes on) law abiding citizens as they try to exercise a right that is not supposed to be infringed.

Supposedly, the background system is supposed to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals…criminals who have been convicted of serious crimes. Even assuming that criminals get, or at least attempt to get most of their firearms through legitimate means, one has to wonder why convicted felons who cannot legally possess a firearm are free to walk the streets…shouldn’t they be in jail???

[hipower]

Bravo, Robert.

[BigK]

I see a few people on here are questioning my motives and the motives of the paper in writing about this. While I understand that many people well-versed in Second Amendment issues are ardent that there is no such "loophole" and, as such, no issue here, there are some significant differing of opinions on this issue in the arena. Not only that, but the general public isn't always aware of some of the complexities and nuances of such rules.

I can't apologize for splitting hairs about this comment...they aren't rules, they are LAWS! It's as important to stress that point because Kroger can make a rule against me wearing pink ballet slippers in their stores. While I may be forced to shop elsewhere in my cute lil' shoes, I'm not going to get arrested for it at Walmart. Referring to them as rules instead of laws, whether intended or not, demeans their importance as if to say they don't matter, since some people on the left don't like them.

Just because you think the matter is settled and you are right does not make it a dead topic to discuss.

I agree with you on this point whole-heartedly. If we'd listened to the IPCC, CNN, and Al Gore when they said the man-made global warming debate was over, we'd all be driving SMART cars.

My only gripe is that the debate on some topics is fueled by the media and not others. The right of law-abiding private citizens to buy/sell firearms amongst themselves is a story that would go away if left alone. If nobody stirred the pot about gun laws, we'd quietly go on exercising our rights and the anti-2a crowd would see no effects whatsoever other than decreased crime rates.

How about stirring the pot in favor of a federal balanced budget amendment or congressional term limits? I'd read about that!

Like the other stories I've written, I've got no bone to pick in this debate. I think it's a fascinating issue, particularly since we appear to be headed toward some interesting times when it comes to gun rights in America. Our job in the media is to get ahead of these debates and promote discussion on issues like this.

I implore you to expand upon what you mean by "headed toward some interesting times". I hope you don't mean interesting times like the 'blood in the streets' or the 'wild west' predictions some seemed sure would happen.

Instead, I hope you mean that it will be interesting to see how fighting to exercise our God-given rights on issue like the 2nd Amendment might lead to clarifications about our other rights. You know, like 1) the federal government cannot force me to buy health insurance, 2) the federal government cannot restrict whether California allows doctors to prescribe marijuana, and 3) the federal government cannot tell Arizona they can't uphold laws against illegal imigration.

Edited January 17, 2012 by BigK

[hipower]

And a big "Bravo" to you as well, sir.

[Guest RichieRich]

Yup, I went. Unfortunately, the organizers never got back to me. So I just showed up. With a photographer.

The photog they stopped from even buying a ticket. So I bought at ticket and went in.

At the door, they saw my press badge and said I couldn't come in. They were nice about it and refunded my money. Then, we started talking to folks in the parking lot (I believe it's county property, so I'm not sure there are any restrictions) and then they came out (no so kindly) and said they were calling Metro Police on us.

Sensing that it wasn't worth the trouble, even if I legally was in the right, I cut my losses and we left.

I see a few people on here are questioning my motives and the motives of the paper in writing about this. While I understand that many people well-versed in Second Amendment issues are ardent that there is no such "loophole" and, as such, no issue here, there are some significant differing of opinions on this issue in the arena. Not only that, but the general public isn't always aware of some of the complexities and nuances of such rules.

The fact of the matter is, we're at an interesting crossroads here in terms of Second Amendment issues. With the Supreme Court deciding it was an individual right, with expansions of gun rights in states like Tennessee (guns in bars, etc.), Wisconsin and other states, this is an issue ripe for public debate. Just because you think the matter is settled and you are right does not make it a dead topic to discuss.

The Loughner story cited above is a great example. That is not a case of the media pushing an agenda. That is the case of the media covering the fallout of a highly publicized incident. The victims in the case want legislation. It's no different than when I wrote about parents of dead children in Florida calling for stronger legislation on various issues. Or bicyclists here calling for harsher driving laws after bicyclists get hit.

Like the other stories I've written, I've got no bone to pick in this debate. I think it's a fascinating issue, particularly since we appear to be headed toward some interesting times when it comes to gun rights in America. Our job in the media is to get ahead of these debates and promote discussion on issues like this.

Maybe here's an angle for a story to promote discussion: "Reporter barred from premises for attempting to exercise his First Amendment right."

Sort of like honest law abiding gun owners barred by facilities every day in this state for attempting to exercise their Second Amendment rights (i.e., gunbuster signs).

[Guest pfries]

Maybe here's an angle for a story to promote discussion: "Reporter barred from premises for attempting to exercise his First Amendment right."

Sort of like honest law abiding gun owners barred by facilities every day in this state for attempting to exercise their Second Amendment rights (i.e., gunbuster signs).

"THE GUN SHOW LOCK OUT"

[Guest WyattEarp]

Yeah, I'm sure I'd be allowed full access if I just showed up unannounced with a photographer and started asking questions

I may end up having to do that anyway, but I'm trying to be as considerate as possible to the show's organizers.

sometimes you gotta be the wolf in sheep's clothing to get what you want.

[Guest FiddleDog]

I wish Brian could have got inside and seen for himself. How is he supposed to be unbiased if he cannot even get in the door and see things for himself....

This is true, and I believe that Brian has a track record for being conscientious and objective. I for one would have appreciated his take. While I think that the "mainstream media" has being uncharitable in many instances, the fact that Brian has come into the proverbial lion's den to try and get multiple perspectives shows that he's willing to expose himself to possible animosity in order to be objective.

I for one welcome dialogue. We've got to remember that objectivity precludes a journalist from editorializing - and this also prevents them from being a champion for gun owner's rights. We've got to have the confidence that the facts presented will speak for themselves.

[Guest brianhaas]

I implore you to expand upon what you mean by "headed toward some interesting times". I hope you don't mean interesting times like the 'blood in the streets' or the 'wild west' predictions some seemed sure would happen.

Instead, I hope you mean that it will be interesting to see how fighting to exercise our God-given rights on issue like the 2nd Amendment might lead to clarifications about our other rights. You know, like 1) the federal government cannot force me to buy health insurance, 2) the federal government cannot restrict whether California allows doctors to prescribe marijuana, and 3) the federal government cannot tell Arizona they can't uphold laws against illegal imigration.

Definitely not "blood on the streets." I meant that there appears to be a national dialogue waiting to happen on the extent of exactly what our Second Amendment rights are and what the practical reality is of those rights.

[mikegideon]

Definitely not "blood on the streets." I meant that there appears to be a national dialogue waiting to happen on the extent of exactly what our Second Amendment rights are and what the practical reality is of those rights.

Waiting to happen? I thought it had been happening. If you mean on the floor of Congress, I'm doubtful.

[Guest brianhaas]

Waiting to happen? I thought it had been happening. If you mean on the floor of Congress, I'm doubtful.

Well, you guys gotta understand that you guys are really in the know on Second Amendment issues. The general public is not. That's where I come in to (hopefully) help them understand what's on the way or already here.

[gregintenn]

How about an article shining a light upon the fallacy of "the gun show loophole"? If that goes over well, it could be an ongoing segment. The second installment could be the fallacy of "the separation of church and state". I'll bet $20 you can't get it published in the Tennessean.

[mikegideon]

The fallacy is the impact that gun laws have on criminals. There are too many guns in this country to keep them away from criminals that will actually use them as tools. New York and Chicago are living examples of that.

[rgaper]

I wish Brian could have got inside and seen for himself. How is he supposed to be unbiased if he cannot even get in the door and see things for himself....

It's not right that he was denied access to beanie babies, pork rinds, and beef jerky!

[Guest brianhaas]

How about an article shining a light upon the fallacy of "the gun show loophole"? If that goes over well, it could be an ongoing segment. The second installment could be the fallacy of "the separation of church and state". I'll bet $20 you can't get it published in the Tennessean.

There's no way I could get either published, you're correct. Not because of any sort of bias, but because I can't take sides on issues where there are significant matters in dispute. I cannot advocate for one side or the other, all I can do is try to present both sides fairly and accurately.

If I were a columnist, it would be far different. But as it is, I don't get paid enough to spout off on my opinions

[daddyo]

.

[Mykltn]

Well, you guys gotta understand that you guys are really in the know on Second Amendment issues. The general public is not. That's where I come in to (hopefully) help them understand what's on the way or already here.

So I must have been mistaken for the last 46 years. I thought I was part of the "general public". Is there something about owning a firearm that precludes me from being a member of the "General public"? Because I choose to exercise my 2A rights, does that give me some special insight into the constitution that is not available to the average Joe? The "general public", I feel, is well aware of the 2A and what it represents. There is really no magic in its language, or mystery in its meaning.

The issues surrounding the 2A are really quite simple. There are those who believe they have a pre-existing right to defend one’s self, family and property from those who wish to take or do harm. They also believe they have the right to defend themselves from a government that would wish to do the same.

And then there are those who, despite all the facts and laws regarding 2A, believe no one should have the power to protect themselves. No one but the government and police should have the power to own arms. And that those who do own guns are a threat to these beliefs.

I find it interesting that no one argues against the merits of the first amendment. I see no one challenging the right of the people to free speech, or freedom of religion. Or even of the right to peaceable assemble and petition the government for a re-dress of grievance. These all seem like very common sense rights that every person should be allowed to exercise. But the Second Amendment, the very one that enables us to exercise those first amendment rights. Well, that’s considered an open topic for public debate.

Take away the right of the people to defend themselves and you take away their rights to all the other amendments. Ask the German Jews of 1938, or the Turkish Armenians of 1915. See how those "Responsible Gun Laws" turned out for them.

But that’s just my two cents.

[RobertNashville]

So I must have been mistaken for the last 46 years. I thought I was part of the "general public". Is there something about owning a firearm that precludes me from being a member of the "General public"? Because I choose to exercise my 2A rights, does that give me some special insight into the constitution that is not available to the average Joe? The "general public", I feel, is well aware of the 2A and what it represents. There is really no magic in its language, or mystery in its meaning.

The issues surrounding the 2A are really quite simple. There are those who believe they have a pre-existing right to defend one’s self, family and property from those who wish to take or do harm. They also believe they have the right to defend themselves from a government that would wish to do the same.

And then there are those who, despite all the facts and laws regarding 2A, believe no one should have the power to protect themselves. No one but the government and police should have the power to own arms. And that those who do own guns are a threat to these beliefs.

I find it interesting that no one argues against the merits of the first amendment. I see no one challenging the right of the people to free speech, or freedom of religion. Or even of the right to peaceable assemble and petition the government for a re-dress of grievance. These all seem like very common sense rights that every person should be allowed to exercise. But the Second Amendment, the very one that enables us to exercise those first amendment rights. Well, that’s considered an open topic for public debate.

Take away the right of the people to defend themselves and you take away their rights to all the other amendments. Ask the German Jews of 1938, or the Turkish Armenians of 1915. See how those "Responsible Gun Laws" turned out for them.

But that’s just my two cents.

Very well said, Sir.

[LCPfraTN]

So I must have been mistaken for the last 46 years. I thought I was part of the "general public". Is there something about owning a firearm that precludes me from being a member of the "General public"? Because I choose to exercise my 2A rights, does that give me some special insight into the constitution that is not available to the average Joe? The "general public", I feel, is well aware of the 2A and what it represents. There is really no magic in its language, or mystery in its meaning.

The issues surrounding the 2A are really quite simple. There are those who believe they have a pre-existing right to defend one’s self, family and property from those who wish to take or do harm. They also believe they have the right to defend themselves from a government that would wish to do the same.

And then there are those who, despite all the facts and laws regarding 2A, believe no one should have the power to protect themselves. No one but the government and police should have the power to own arms. And that those who do own guns are a threat to these beliefs.

I find it interesting that no one argues against the merits of the first amendment. I see no one challenging the right of the people to free speech, or freedom of religion. Or even of the right to peaceable assemble and petition the government for a re-dress of grievance. These all seem like very common sense rights that every person should be allowed to exercise. But the Second Amendment, the very one that enables us to exercise those first amendment rights. Well, that’s considered an open topic for public debate.

Take away the right of the people to defend themselves and you take away their rights to all the other amendments. Ask the German Jews of 1938, or the Turkish Armenians of 1915. See how those "Responsible Gun Laws" turned out for them.

But that’s just my two cents.

This was worth repeating a second time. Very thoughtful response to the OP. I recall that Brian came on the forum a few months ago seeking input on an article he was writing, and although he would say the article that he wrote was fair and balanced, it seemed a little biased to me because of the things that were left out. I'm not in the mood to go back and be specific, but I think some of the other members here were a little disappointed too.

[Guest lostpass]

So I must have been mistaken for the last 46 years. I thought I was part of the "general public". Is there something about owning a firearm that precludes me from being a member of the "General public"? Because I choose to exercise my 2A rights, does that give me some special insight into the constitution that is not available to the average Joe? The "general public", I feel, is well aware of the 2A and what it represents. There is really no magic in its language, or mystery in its meaning.

The issues surrounding the 2A are really quite simple. There are those who believe they have a pre-existing right to defend one’s self, family and property from those who wish to take or do harm. They also believe they have the right to defend themselves from a government that would wish to do the same.

And then there are those who, despite all the facts and laws regarding 2A, believe no one should have the power to protect themselves. No one but the government and police should have the power to own arms. And that those who do own guns are a threat to these beliefs.

I find it interesting that no one argues against the merits of the first amendment. I see no one challenging the right of the people to free speech, or freedom of religion.

You're not looking very hard. There are countless examples. I'd give you a wikipedia link but it is currently blacked out because an infringement on free speech known as SOPA is up for debate.

Or even of the right to peaceable assemble and petition the government for a re-dress of grievance. .

Yep, cause nothing happened to those

. Pretty sure that right is under attack as well.

These all seem like very common sense rights that every person should be allowed to exercise. But the Second Amendment, the very one that enables us to exercise those first amendment rights. Well, that’s considered an open topic for public debate.

Take away the right of the people to defend themselves and you take away their rights to all the other amendments. Ask the German Jews of 1938, or the Turkish Armenians of 1915. See how those "Responsible Gun Laws" turned out for them.

But that’s just my two cents.

Don't go blindly into the night imagining that only one right right is crucial. If you don't stand up for the rest of your rights, besides the 2nd, you'll only be left with one right,