Beware of gun show loophole
We have more that 4,000 gun shows in the United States every year and every show has private sellers and buyers and each show spews out no-background-check handgun and assault rifle sales each year. The Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms publication "Gun Shows: Brady Checks and Crime Gun Traces" concluded: "A wide variety of violations occurring at gun shows and substantial numbers of firearms associated with gun shows are being used in drug crimes and crimes of violence, as well as being passed illegally to juveniles."
Bill Bunting's statement to the Pasco Commission Tuesday that "criminals are not going where there's law enforcement'' is outrageous. It's true you can see state and sometimes federal officers at these shows who just ignore the private sales going on as none have a law they can use to stop it.
ATF has said it will not confront gun show activity until Congress provides a definition of a seller that will stand up in court. Since we have an NRA-infused Congress, don't look for this to happen anytime soon.
Since there is no record of the buyer, seller or the gun, what would stop anyone from buying at these shows? Even the dumbest criminal knows there is no way to trace buyer/seller of the gun. No one has ever researched these buyers, sellers or their guns as there are no records to search.
Gun show supporters don't seem to know that licensed dealers in other locations have dealt with waiting periods at gun shows like they always have — making delivery at a later date.
The goal of closing the gun show loophole is to kick the no-background-check buyers and sellers out of the show to protect public safety, not to accommodate private sales.
Arthur C. Hayhoe, Wesley Chapel
Mother's act hard to understand
I really question the mother with crack pipe trying to put out a fire without getting her children out first. I think the police should look more closely how this fire killed her children.
Those children should have been taken from her after the Pasco deputy found them in such filthy conditions. It screams neglect.
Holly Edmonds, New Port Richey
Sandy bill had a big side of pork
I have something to say to all the letter writers caterwauling about some Republicans voting "no'' on the final $50.7 billion Sandy Relief Bill: Do the math.
These Republicans voted "yes'' to the $9.7 billion for FEMA and flood insurance going directly to the storm's victims. These Republicans voted "yes'' to a $17 billion bill for direct aid to Sandy victims with spending offsets of small percentages to discretionary programs to help pay for the bill.
What the Republicans objected to was a $51 billion bill with a large side order of pork that contributed to the building of bureaucracies such as the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Amtrak upgrades, the Alaskan Fisheries, FBI salaries, and road projects in states not affected by the storm, just to name a few, with no spending cuts to offset the bill's cost.
President Obama and the Democrats recently rode roughshod over Republicans in debates over the created crisis of the fiscal cliff to garner $600 billion in revenues over the next 10 years from the "fair share" of the so called wealthy in America. No spending cuts promised. In one fell swoop, Democrats (with the help of some Republicans that failed to stand on the platform of limited government) spent the entire 2013 revenue increase from the fiscal cliff debate in the name of disaster relief.
Americans should be as fearful of the man-made disasters in Washington, D.C., as they are of those created by Mother Nature. Perhaps then they would be very aware of the storm rising with our increasing $16 trillion national debt.
Sandy Graves, Land O'Lakes