At gun shows, a background check is required if purchasing from a dealer. The guns used in the Columbine massacre were purchased by a straw purchaser, someone who is legally allowed to buy guns and can pass the background check. She then turned the weapons over to the killers. off the top of my head, I am not sure those weapons were even assault weapons as defined by the 1994 law.

And it is absolutely not true that there are more restrictions on fruits and vegatables. Firearms cannot be sold across state lines except by a federally licensed dealer.

Now what does happen is with so many private citizens there at a show there are many deals between individuals that do not have to meet FFL guidelines. Indeed many vendors who are not gun dealers will sell a firearm or two on the side and even a gun dealer is allowed to sell firearms that they personally own, not the business, that don't need background checks. It's a very small percentage of gun sales, maybe 5%-10% anecdotaly, and impossible to stop when you have that many gun people in one place. Some is selling a rifle and brings it to show the dealers and you see him carrying it and make him an offer. Back when people still read papers there were plenty of adds for guns that you could just pay cash for no big deal.

The sale of guns to felons, underage persons, those declared dangerous to self or others or non-state citizens is already illegal as is the sale of stolen guns. The private sale of firearms is not illegal as long as these rules are followed and there are millions of such transactions each year. (I'll show you my studies if you will show me yours.) And the vast majority of sales this way result in no crimes committed at all.

Also, the Ninth Circuit, argueably the most liberal of the Federal Circuits, has just declared that Heller has been incorporated. This means that the civil right to own a firearm for self protection now is available to the west coast states. If the Ninth is willing to say this, the rest of the country will soon have similar rights. Policy issues such as gun bans will have to be made in light of what will no doubt be several SCOTUS decisions in the future.

The reflex call for gun bans in light of tragedy (and the equally reflex call for nothing to be done) has always been misguided from a policy standpoint – politics is a different animal altogether – millions of gun owners have an undeniable right to own a gun and that has to be weighed against the possibility of decreasing criminal activity. This would be similar to early restrictions on the First Amendment justified by stating that allowing free speech may cause political chaos or that voters have to be restricted to tax payers, land owners, and white males because the choices made by others may lead to corrupt or different leaders.

Are there going to be “reasonable restrictions” on gun ownership? Yes, I am sure there will be. And changing the rules on gun shows may even be one of them, but only after a thorough review that takes civil rights into account and weighs them against the possible benefits gained. If this were an issue of voter equality, Fourth or Fifth Amendment rights or free speech, I think that Ms. Carr might have a more nuanced opinion concerning how these problems of criminal activity need to be addressed.