They suffer no consequences at all. For example[0]: "The measure that's sure to evoke the most debate — and which has already done so — is his plan to extend t

They suffer no consequences at all. For example[0]: "The measure that's sure to evoke the most debate — and which has already done so — is his plan to extend the use of background checks to cover more sales at gun shows. In 2013, after a strong push from the president, the Senate blocked an effort to expand background checks at gun shows." In fact, existing Federal laws for gun shows are exactly the same as for retail stores. What the claim attacks is gun shows themselves, as an event and meeting place ("nurseries of sedition and rebellion," as Charles II referred to coffeehouses). It goes on to seek exactly one legal opinion -- from a prominent gun ownership opponent: "Here's where we are now: A guy who owns a gun store is a dealer and runs a background check. A guy who wants to sell his one rifle to his neighbor isn't a dealer and doesn't have to conduct one." In fact a dealer wouldn't have to do a background check on a rifle anyway, and it's not the individual owner who does a chack anyway when it is necessary (e.g. handgun transfers) -- it's a licensed dealer, accessing the DOJ system. Later: "Gun shows are the embodiment of that loophole. He imitated a carnival barker. "'Minors! People with felony records! Step right up!'" Again, a flat lie decorated with a deliberately inflammatory example -- laws are the same inside or outside of gun shows. [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/05/is-obamas-executive-action-on-guns-legal-lets-break-it-down https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/05/is...