It's worse.
(If you missed the original story: GUN SHOW BILL IS NOT WHAT THEY SAY click here -- http://www.gunlaws.com/newstuff.htm )
by Alan Korwin, Author
Gun Laws of America
The attorney I worked with on "Gun Laws of America"
(the unabridged guide to federal law), Michael P. Anthony, made
the following astounding conclusion after studying the McCain-Lieberman
gun show bill. I rechecked the bill and found he's correct (as
usual). Good going, Mike.
1. CAN THIS BILL SHUT DOWN GUN SHOWS ALTOGETHER?
Easily.
Here's the real hidden Catch 22. If a gun show operator allows even a single unlicensed gun vendor to attend the show, the feds can lock up the operator. They have a ton of extra money in this bill for enforcement of such things.
If any person attending the show offers (not even sells, but offers) a gun to anyone else at the show -- even a gun they don't have with them -- they become, by definition, an unlicensed vendor, and everyone is subject to arrest and imprisonment -- the seller, the buyer, AND the gun show operator. You don't even need to have a prohibited possessor (a criminal) involved. No operator is going to run a gun show exposed to that kind of legal risk.
To protect against this, the only way a gun show operator can safely run a show, is to pre-register everyone in attendance AS A VENDOR, not just as an attendee. That means personal ID and centralized registration at pretty much the level an FFL (licensed gun dealer) must endure.
The McCain-Lieberman gun show bill, advertised as a way to prevent a criminal from avoiding a background check, is instead a sneak attack on the very existence of gun shows as we know them.
[The citations: SEC. 102, 18 USC 921(a)(39) -- Anyone who is not an FFL (a federally licensed gun dealer) and who "exhibits, sells, offers for sale, transfers or exchanges 1 or more firearms" at a gun show is a "special firearms event vendor"; A gun show operator is subject to two years imprisonment (SEC. 103 (b)(7)(a)(1)(I)), unless the operator "verifies the identity of each special firearms event vendor participating in the special firearms event by examining a valid identification document (as defined in section 1028(d)(2)) of the vendor containing a photograph of the vendor" (Sec. 931(a)(1)(D)), and that person must sign "a ledger with identifying information" (a)(2)(E)(i). The ledger must go to the Secretary of the Treasury (see (a)(2)(G)) within five days of the close of the gun show.]
I took lots of calls and emails after my original article on the McCain-Lieberman gun show bill, like this one --
"You must have it wrong Alan.
I read the bill myself on thomas.loc.gov; It's a pretty bad bill
all right, but
I don't see half the things you're claiming."
I rechecked everything, and ran it by more experts. It all stands, and here is clarification for everyone concerned.
2. ARE ALL VENDORS -- NOT JUST GUN VENDORS -- TO BE REGISTERED?
Yes.
The gun show operator must give 30-day notice directly to the Secretary of the Treasury, of "the vendors planning to participate" (SEC. 103, Sec. 931(a)(2)(B)). This is not limited, as in the next paragraph, (a)(2)(C), where 72-hour notice applies only to "special firearms event vendors planning to participate". (Gun dealers are called "special firearms event vendors" under the bill.)
Subtle and deceptive distinctions like this are quite common in law, and frequently serve to slip in controversial conditions. When found, bill sponsors sometimes claim clerical error. When undetected, they pass into law and are enforced as they read. Unless changed, this would require a book seller like me to pre-register or be in violation and subject to arrest (and jeopardize the operator too).
3. IS REGISTRATION OF ANYONE WHO ATTENDS PART OF THE BILL?
Yes.
McCain's and Lieberman's offices are denying it over the phone, according to numerous people who have corresponded with me.
If a gun show operator cannot prove that "each person who attends" the gun show has been notified of every requirement (see Sec. 931 (a)(2)(F)) in this 3,900-word bill, in accordance with regulations that are not even know at this time, the operator can be arrested and imprisoned (for 5 years) and fined and have the license to operate suspended or revoked.
For operators to meet such a requirement (and run the show without those legal exposures) they would need proof that each attendee was in fact notified, which will basically amount to your signature in a book or on a not-yet-designed form. This must be saved by the operator and the federal authorities have unrestricted access.
A sign at a doorway, as some people have mistakenly interpreted this, does not provide legal "constructive notice" and would provide an inadequate defense. Because we've discovered and exposed this "loophole," McCain and Lieberman may be forced to deny and eliminate this particular goal.
This issue has confused many people. Certain red flags are left out of bills to help them pass, and afterwards the public, law enforcement, and even Congress finds out what they actually enacted. That's quite common, especially at the federal level. The statute does not explicitly say that information must be collected on attendees -- that would be way too inflammatory and make passage difficult or impossible.
Instead, it says operators must notify each person who attends of every requirement in this lengthy bill (see (a)(2)(F)), subject to fines and long-term imprisonment of the operator for failure to do so, and that the operator "submits to the Secretary a copy" of the notice (see (a)(2)(G)) within five days. If the notice to all attendees is just some special sign that the government says must be posted, submitting it in five days would serve no purpose.
The legal challenges this forces on gun show operators are obvious. Imagine this. The feds say you failed to notify Joe (a plant) who went to your show, they have photos of Joe inside, and they seek to close your show and arrest you, the operator (using the millions of new tax dollars conveniently allocated for additional enforcement). Go ahead. How do you prove they are wrong and that you notified Joe without his signature and some proof that it's actually him? But I could be mistaken. Maybe they'll just take your word for it, and no documentation of any kind will be needed.
4. CAN THE FEDS CHANGE THE GUN SHOW RULES AFTER PASSAGE?
Yes.
Repeatedly throughout the bill are references to "in accordance with regulations the Secretary shall prescribe" or similar. These regs are not known and will not be known until after the passage of the law. They will be drafted in secret and are not controllable by the public or even by Congress, if the past is any gauge. For an appearance of fairness, a "routine" bureaucratic review process will be conducted before implementation.
Such unlimited grants of power to the Treasury Dept. are downright scary -- you'd think McCain and Lieberman would know better -- since we have seen huge abuses of this in the past. For example, federal authorities record and keep NICS background check data under Brady "regulations," in direct violation of the McClure-Volkmer Act and the Brady law itself, and Congress has been unable or unwilling to stop them. My use of adjectives in the original article may seem strong to some readers, but personally, in the interests of remaining a voice of reason, I believe I held back on what could be much stronger implications.
Because "any other information" is required under the unwritten regulations, your guess is as good as mine as to what that might include. Again, I tried to voice my concerns on this conservatively; if you're one of those slope-headed paranoid kooks the media writes about all the time, who thinks the federal government might get sneaky or extreme, then gun serial numbers, social security numbers, gun types and the name of your first born might be possibilities (I don't think so). If the phrase "any other information" (or similar) was used one time it would be a red flag. It is used in Sec. 931 (a)(2)(B), (a)(2)(C), (a)(2)(E)(i), (a)(3)(B), (d)(1)(E), (d)(3), (d)(4) and elsewhere.
5. ARE THE GUN SHOW REGISTRATION RECORDS CENTRALIZED?
Yes.
All of the new licenses and reports must be filed with the Treasury Dept. (the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms). Some of the record keeping starts out with the show operators ("notifies each person who attends"), but the feds are granted unqualified access and it will be centrally recorded afterwards ("submits to the Secretary a copy of the ledger" or "notifies the Secretary of the date, time, duration, and location of the special firearms event, the vendors planning to participate" and similar requirements.
I suppose it might be more accurate to say that some of the registration "handling" is distributed, though they all end up centralized (even the attendee notice must be submitted to the federal government within five days of the end of the show, at (a)(2)(G)). Show organizers keep their own copies of some of it, under guidelines that are not yet known. Depending on the regulations that have not been written, authorities could easily require filing all papers that are not explicitly centralized under the statute, or create new paperwork. Certainly, nothing in this bill stops them or even pretends to protect the rights of the innocent. And here we thought it was all about keeping guns out of the hands of criminals.
6. IS THE GOVERNMENT PURSUING "BIOMETRIC" NATIONAL ID?
Yes.
The term "biometric" does not appear in the McCain-Lieberman Gun Show Bill. You must read the cross-referenced statute for this term and related requirements. That citation, 18 USC 1028, is made in (a)(2)(D), for mandatory inclusion of the federal government national ID requirements (only for the gun vendors at this time). While I agree there may be value in making identification documents secure for some purposes, the potential for abuse is gigantic.
In at least two previous and deliberately secretive attempts, federal agents have tried to slip a national ID card requirement into law, were discovered in the eleventh hour, and were stopped (and got their hands slapped lightly). Perhaps you recall the first attempt, in a transportation bill, by trying to force states to make their driver licenses conform or withholding highway funds, and the second time, under the guise of health insurance, with a medical ID card for every American. There may be more, I wouldn't be surprised.
Congressman Henry Waxman's (D., Calif.) recently publicized national "sting" that proved you could bypass gun laws by using phony ID at gun shows really had nothing to do with guns or gun shows, in my opinion, though that was the media spin. It's part of a concerted effort to require airtight security ID for any citizen.
The fears of national ID mandates are relaxed by many Americans when it's "only" gun owners they're after. The same way the Brady gun scare got the quarter billion dollars in funding the FBI wanted for its centralized national citizen checking computer (NICS, in Clarksburg, WV), gun owners are, well, handy when pushing for a national ID card.
Eventually, it might seem, you won't be able to get an elevator to come if your fingerprint on the button doesn't match the national file. Why would an honest person be against that? The AAFIS national fingerprint database is running full bore and includes, along with the criminals, bus drivers, child care providers and so many others. Even DNA is being federally databased, but there's no need to worry, since they're only doing it to protect us and help fight crime and terrorism.
7. MY LIBERAL FRIENDS CAN'T BELIEVE ALL THIS, BUT IS THERE MORE?
Yes.
There's probably more, but I need a rest.
Permission is granted to post this material to any place where your friends and other readers can get the full story.
Crass commercial announcement: Please look at our line of books -- if you knew all your rights you might demand them. http://www.gunlaws.com. You can also send me a message from there, get on our update list, and freely read my prior editorials and updates.
Sincerely,
Alan Korwin, Author
Gun Laws of America
Bloomfield Press
4718 E. Cactus #440
Phoenix, AZ 85032
602-996-4020