WHAT IS THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ARMS SHOWS?

The National Association of Arms Shows, Inc. (NAAS), is the only organization in America committed exclusively to protecting gun shows and enhancing professionalism in their management. In so doing, NAAS protects an important segment of our economy and preserves a cultural and historic heritage cherished by many Americans.

HOW DOES NAAS ACCOMPLISH ITS MISSION?

NAAS improves show management and addresses public safety concerns and through education, self-regulation and common-sense public policy solutions.

THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION SAID IT WAS SEEKING TO IMPROVE GUN SHOWS BY "CLOSING THE GUN SHOW LOOPHOLE" AND BY TAKING ACTION "TO ENSURE THAT FIREARMS SOLD AT GUN SHOWS ARE NOT EXEMPT FROM FEDERAL FIREARMS LAWS." WHAT'S WRONG WITH THAT?

First, firearms transactions at gun shows or anywhere else in America are indeed subject to firearms laws. Second, those in search of a "loophole" will find laws that are iron clad and carefully crafted.

WHAT SORT OF LAWS EXIST TO PREVENT CRIMINAL WRONG-DOING AT GUN SHOWS?

There is a web of federal laws prohibiting gun transfers to criminals and other prohibited persons -- whether the gun is sold at a gun show or anywhere else, and whether the gun is sold by licensed dealers or private individuals selling from their collections.

AREN'T PRIVATE, UNLICENSED INDIVIDUALS SUBJECT TO PROSECUTION FOR SELLING WITHOUT A LICENSE?

Yes. People dealing in firearms without a license are subject to prosecution -- but prosecution is rare. The August '98 FFL Newsletter, produced by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, noted 4 cases and identified licensed dealers exhibiting at gun shows as an important source for leads involving such cases.

Persons "engaged in the business" of selling firearms must have a Federal Firearms License -- and "business" is carefully defined by federal law. The legal definition of "engaged in the business" was designed in part to continue to allow individuals not engaged in business to sell firearms from personal gun collections.

HOW DO YOU RESPOND TO THE OBSERVATION THAT GUN SHOWS HAVE BECOME "CASH-AND-CARRY CONVENIENCE STORES FOR WEAPONS USED TO MAIM AND KILL?"

Criminals continue to obtain guns through unregulated channels -- primarily theft and the black market. In a study published in December 1997, the National Institute of Justice found only 2 percent of guns used by criminals came from gun shows. In a previous study of criminal gun acquisition, based on a survey of 2,000 convicts, criminal acquisitions at gun shows were found to be so insignificant that researchers did not find gun show acquisitions significant enough to delineate as a separate category.

NOT ACCORDING TO "CRIME TRACE ANALYSIS: THE ILLEGAL FIREARMS YOUTH MARKET IN 27 COMMUNITIES" -- A REPORT BY ATF/TREASURY DEPARTMENT. THE NEW YORK TIMES (Feb. 21, 1999) STATED THAT THE ATF/TREASURY REPORT FOUND THAT 51 PERCENT OF THE GUNS USED IN CRIMES BY JUVENILES AND PEOPLE AGES 18 TO 24 WERE ACQUIRED BY INTERMEDIARIES ACTING ON BEHALF OF THE REAL BUYER....WITH "10 PERCENT...SOLD AT GUN SHOWS..." WHAT IS YOUR RESPONSE?

First, the 51 percent New York Times citation appears nowhere in the ATF/Treasury report. Second, the report itself states that data from the survey "does not constitute a fully developed statistical series from which reliable comparisons can be made..." In other words, the report itself concludes that the data cannot be used to describe national trends or conditions, so it cannot be used to prescribe new national policy.

Even when a gun is successfully traced to a specific dealer, according to a previous review of gun tracing by the Congressional Research Service, there is often no indication whether the gun was actually purchased from a dealer, stolen from the dealer or stolen from a law-abiding citizen who had purchased the gun from the dealer. Moreover, most guns used to commit violent crimes are not recovered by the police and, therefore, cannot be traced. These are among the many reasons why the Congressional Research Service counsels against drawing inferences from aggregate trace data -- and the ATF/Treasury report is, in essence, a collection of inferences drawn from an unrepresentative sample of gun trace data.

The ATF/Treasury report makes it clear that conclusions are based on completed gun traces in 26 cities. The authors state that their analysis leaves out traces that were not successfully completed and that some cities did not participate fully. In fact, the report indicates that a disproportionate number of traces occurred in a few cities -- notably Chicago. As such we have a collection of inferences drawn from a nationally unrepresentative sample of gun trace data.

THE FORMER PRESIDENT WANTED A POLICY OF REQUIRING A CHECK ON ALL GUN PURCHASES AT GUN SHOWS -- AND HOLDING GUN SHOW PRODUCERS RESPONSIBLE SHOULD THOSE CHECKS NOT OCCUR. WHAT'S WRONG WITH THAT?

The government's own research confirms that shows are an unimportant source of felon arms, but if that were not the case, more checks alone will still not mean more safety. More safety can be achieved only by self-regulation, zero-tolerance prosecution of armed criminals, and public policies to recognize disenfranchised dealers. There is already federal law requiring licensed dealers to conduct checks. There are already federal laws that prohibit private citizens from transferring a firearm to a criminal. Those individuals -- licensees and private citizens -- must be held accountable should they violate those laws. There is no room in that chain of accountability for a third party not involved in the sale, the purchase or the law enforcement function.

IF MORE GUN REGULATION WON'T WORK, WHAT WILL?

More prosecution of gun-armed criminals. The effective crime reduction strategy is a zero-tolerance policy for armed criminals, especially on the part of U.S. Attorneys nationwide. The Administration has failed to prosecute felons attempting to purchase guns and rarely enforces minimum mandatory sentences for felons found in possession. When the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia adopted this zero-tolerance prosecution policy -- under which all criminals were prosecuted who were found possessing or attempting to acquire guns -- armed crime plummeted.

AREN'T GUN SHOW PRODUCERS OPPOSING THE INITIATIVE TO AVOID TAKING RESPONSIBILITY FOR CONDUCT AT THEIR SHOWS?

Not at all. To the contrary, gun show producers are actively pursuing improved show management, and that includes cooperation with law enforcement, self-regulation and education of show exhibitors and attendees. The fact is, the former President's scheme to create a new license for show producers is just a move to reduce if not eliminate gun shows in America. We have only to look at his record in the licensure of federally licensed firearms dealers. Since 1992, the Clinton Administration drove thousands of legitimate federally licensed firearms dealers (FFLs) out of business. In 1992, there were some 220,000 FFLs; today, there are less than half that figure. There is every reason to expect the Clinton Administration will follow the same pattern with gun show producers should his proposal to license them become law.

BUT THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION HAS NOT CALLED FOR AN END TO GUN SHOWS. HE HAS ASKED ONLY THAT CONGRESS PASS A LAW REQUIRING GUN SHOW PRODUCERS TO SEE TO IT THAT ALL GUN SALES AT THEIR SHOWS ARE CHECKED. WHAT'S WRONG WITH THAT?