Brian Linse has his long-awaited post on the "gunshow loophole."
I was going to get around to posting on this eventually, but he basically makes the same point I would have made, only he isn't quite as lazy as me so he took the time to do more research to back it up.
It seems that, in the end, it depends on the meaning of the word "loophole." Instapundit and others have argued that there is no loophole, as federal law applies everywhere (duh), or that if there is a loophole it is simply an enforcement loophole - that the ATF is less likely to do their job at gun shows.
However, there is a Third Way in this, which is what I think Linse is getting at - that the law itself can make enforcement difficult if not impossible at gun shows. One can call it an issue of enforcement if you want, but it doesn't change the fact that would-be gun dealers can likely get away with doing things at gun shows that they couldn't do if they set up their own store. And, this isn't simply because the the ATF is choosing not to enforce the laws at gun shows, it's that the law makes it much more difficult to do so.
I also agree that this isn't necessarily the big deal that some gun control advocates make it out to be, but I also agree with Linse that this is one way for would-be terrorists to get arms without being tracked. But, important or not, the gun show "loophole" is not a myth, states can enact laws to "close" it, and it seems that some Clintonian parsing is required to argue otherwise.
