Of Arms & the Law has a post up with this link to a video clip of the ATFU hearings. At least the first part of them. It's about an hour & 20 minutes long & deals with the allegations made by the gun show operator, a firearms dealer & an NRA hired investigator.
Aside from the details of racial discrimination (which may not be anything new with the ATFU) a couple of things were interesting - in a morbid sort of way. They spent quite a bit of time talking about the "good" the ATFU had done in "reducing gun related crime". Also they spent a while discussing closing the "gun show loophole" with an firearms dealer at least partially agreeing that record keeping requirements should apply to non-dealers.
So I see that as a sign that despite their crimes the ATFU will recieve a slap on the wrist. I also see a push for closing the "gun show loophole" coming at some point from the House. I could be wrong; it could just be one representative wanting to push it, but with a firearms dealer not outright opposing her & even partially agreeing then that might sway enough for a majority.
The next hearing is supposed to be on the 28th of February. That's when the ATFU will be present & answering questions. A whole bunch of difficult questions I'd hope. But there's no listing of it in the committee schedule for that day. If it turns out to be a closed hearing then my cynicism towards a desirable outcome will not be eased.
Update: via Say Uncle there's a link to the written statement of the firearms dealer I spoke of earlier in this post.
Posted by Publicola at February 21, 2006 07:20 AM | TrackBackLet's see.
If the "gun show loophole" is closed and private sales or transfers of guns require background checks and recordkeeping, who will be tapped to provide those background checks and recordkeeping functions?
Uhhh, let me guess: Gun dealers.
And guess what? They will be able to charge for those services.
A gun dealer supports a measure that would directly and positively impact his profit margin by opening up an entirely new market to him? Duh!
Can you say "conflict of interest?" Sure you can.
Posted by: Curtis Stone at February 22, 2006 06:07 AM