Shafer has a valid point, but doesn't any widely disseminated print medium sometimes have to utilize the colloquialisms of its audience/readership? After all, newpapers theoretically appeal to a broad diverse readership that, while seeking deeper analysis than tv, radio or a blogger provide, still must rely on a vernacular in digesting stories of aspects of, for example, complex tax or campaign finance laws.

Yes, the term loophole carries some editorial semiotics, but nothing approaching the calculated deformation -- to which all media have acquiesced -- of terms like "conservative" (used universally to identify even the most reactionary political elements) and "reform" (as in "tort reform," meaning the stripping away of the ability of people to seek legal redress against the more powerful.)

I see your point, but I also see Jack's. "Loophole" is a convenient shorthand, but it also can be a loaded word. Just for example, I collect firearms, and people who don't want me to pursue that hobby speak frequently of "closing the gun show loophole."

What they're talking about is making it difficult or impossible for me to buy or sell firearms at gun shows. Now, what happens in this sort of exchange is that one legal citizen owning a legal product sells said product to another legal citizen. It isn't a loophole, it's just private commerce.

I don't really want to get into a debate over gun control here -- my point is that one side of that issue sees the word "loophole" as descriptive of the event, and the other sees that they are complying with the law, just as described in the article. I agree with the article that the description of the campaign "loophole" allowing candidates to "skirt" the law rings pretty editorial. When I was an editor, I think I'd have told the reporter to rewrite those sentences to take out the loaded words. The idea is, or should be, that a simple reporting of the facts is enough, and if the candidates appear to be doing something wrong the reader can and will draw that conclusion from the facts.

Do you really believe what you posted?

You must know that the "loophole" example you referred to is not to the sale itself but the ability to avoid the background check at a gun show that would be mandatory if the sale had been made at a licensed gun shop.

As a gun owner/purchaser/seller in MA, I can assure you that this particular "loophole" is not necessary or even burdensome. All gun sales in MA, public or private, must include a background check. This is easy in the shops and shows where I have purchased firearms and only takes about 5 minutes. It does take a little more effort in the case of private person to person sales.

If this "loophole" exists in your state, as it does in the federal law, I suspect that, like most others that you can think of, it was designed into the law so the the politicians could have it both ways in their re-election speeches. When speaking to gun control advocates, they can say "Look at the gun control law I passed that makes background checks mandatory" while at the anti-gun control rally they can say "I preserved your right to buy and sell firearms unencumbered (at gun shows, nod, nod, wink, wink)."

The intent of the "mandatory background check" law is to try to insure that the wrong people don't get the guns, so the gun show exemption from the background check is a "loophole" in the "spirit of the law", whether by design or by lack of imagination (or incompetence) by the drafter of the legislation.

The same thing applies to all of the "loophole" examples Shafer uses; They're all designed into the law so that the politicians making the law can show people how to thwart the spirit of the statue while adhering to the letter.

I don't guess you've ever been to a gun show, but the ones I attend require a background check for all exchanges. Although this isn't required under state law, it is done by the show promoters to ensure no legal difficulties. Having said that, what about classified ads? It isn't illegal in most states for me to buy a firearm from a classified ad, without ever entering a gun store and going through the national Insta-Check system. When this occurs, neither the buyer nor the seller has broken any federal law (and in Missouri, where I grew up, they also wouldn't have broken any state or local law, unless they were tranferring a handgun, which requires no Insta-Check, but does require a permit from the county sheriff). So if I sell you grandaddy's shotgun, I haven't violated the law, even though you haven't gone through the Insta-Check system.

But we have descended into a discussion of gun control. I would never willingly live in the Peoples Republic of Taxachusetts, and you have my sympathy for some of the laws there (not all of them relating to firearms).

My point is and remains what you've demonstrated -- that "loophole" can simply mean compliance with the law. For example, the now defunct Assault Weapons Ban eliminated certain types of weapons based on their appearances. Some functionally identical guns were modified to meet the law's requirements, and immediately this was not labeled "compliance" but was called a "loophole." That's probably the example I should have used in the first place.