Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Everyone please contact Ray McAllister today

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    830

    Post imported post

    Everyone please contact Ray McAllister today. Mr McAllister is a staff writer for the Richmond Times Dispatch. His article this morning praises Gov Kain and advocates closing the non existent "gun show loop hole" as well as the ability to do person to person sales. He correctly states that sales between individuals are exempt from background checks but in the same breath states that gun show sales are also exempt from background checks. That is news to me as every gun i have purchased through a dealer at the gun show has required paperwork and waiting for state police approval to come back.

    Mr McAllisters contact info is:

    804-649-6333 or mcallister@timesdispatch.com

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    830

    Post imported post

    this is a copy of the email i sent to ray mcallister



    Mr. McAllister,

    I would like to respectfully ask that you correct a statement that appeared in todays edition of the Richmond Times Dispatch. In your column, you state that sales at gunshows are exempt from background checks. This statement is not true. Gun sales from aFFL dealer, even at a gun show require the same paperwork and background check required outside of a gunshow. The only sellers at a gun show not required to conduct a background check are those private citizens selling their private firearms and not conducting a business enterprise. These same citizens are allowed to sell their firearms outside of a gunshow as well without a background check or paperwork. It is your rightguaranteed bythe First Amendment to write in support of gun control. I just require that you don't mislead the public with incorrect facts as you have in this instance. Thank you for your time.

    Sincerely,
    Joe Ligon

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    , Virginia, USA
    Posts
    348

    Post imported post

    Here's a copy of mine, a modified version of 67GT390FB's email:

    Code:
    Mr. McAllister-
    
    I would like to respectfully ask that you correct a statement that appeared in today's edition of the Richmond Times Dispatch. 
    
    In your column titled "One loophole closed; rest still available" you state that background checks "do not affect sales...at gun shows -- the so-called gun-show loophole." This statement is not entirely accurate: sales of firearms from a Federal Firearms Licensed (FFL) dealer--even at a gun show--require the same paperwork and background check as would be required outside of a gun show. 
    
    The only sellers at a gun show who are not required to conduct a background check are those private citizens selling their privately-owned firearms and not conducting a business enterprise. These same citizens are not required to fill out paperwork or perform a background check in private sales outside of a gun show, either.
    
    Please consider the information I have presented here. To publish your opinion on Gun Control is your right, of course, but I would prefer that you do so based on correct and non-misleading information.
    
    Thank you for your time.
    
    Sincerely,
    -MY NAME


  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    This just goes to show how the media can report half the story and most of it is not accurate.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    830

    Post imported post

    This is the response that I received from McAllister.



    Mr.Ligon,

    Thank you for writing. The previous paragraph, I think, made that clear: "Moreover, the background checks still affect only sales made by gun dealers."

    Thank you again.

    Sincerely,

    Ray McAllister
    I am not sure how to proceed. I'm not an idiot and if his statement of facts were clear then I would not have written in regards to his article.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    830

    Post imported post

    Keep unstable people from buying guns.

    Not just ones who might be mentally ill.

    Ones we know are.

    The ones a judge has ruled are a danger to themselves or others.

    But the tragedy at Virginia Tech made it clear there are still pitfalls with background checks.

    So yesterday, Gov. Timothy M. Kaine, with the advice of Attorney General Bob McDonnell, issued an executive order that should close one loophole related to outpatient treatment.

    Others remain, however.

    The irony is that everyone wants to keep guns away from the unstable.

    The feds require states to report data to be checked by gun dealers before making sales -- yet only 22 states do. Virginia is the best at reporting mental-health information to the database, state officials say. Yet reporting decisions often end up being made not by judges but by clerks.

    It was that inconsistency that Kaine and McDonnell went after.

    At a news conference yesterday, the two announced Kaine's executive order directing state police and state mental-health officials to report anyone ordered into not only inpatient treatment but also outpatient treatment.

    That's how the Virginia Tech killer and apparently others have avoided being reported.

    Blame falls to the interpretation of a 2005 state law that requires reporting someone involuntarily "admitted to a facility." That might seem to mean admission to a hospital or other facility.

    Kaine and McDonnell agreed the wording has been interpreted that way. But they chose the "expansive" definition that is elsewhere in the state law: "admitted to a facility" means outpatient treatment as well.

    The key, they said, is not the location. The key is the finding that someone is dangerous.

    Still, Executive Order No. 50 doesn't end the problem.

    After the news conference, McDonnell agreed the order could be challenged by an outpatient treatment recipient later denied the right to buy a gun.

    McDonnell said the General Assembly will be asked to change the law to unequivocally require that outpatient treatment be reported.

    A spokesman for the attorney general likened it to a 2005 order from then-Gov. Mark R. Warner restricting the sales of over-the-counter cold and allergy medications sometimes used to make methamphetamines. The next year, the assembly made those into law.

    But there are still more loopholes.

    For instance, neither the law nor Kaine's order affects someone voluntarily committed for treatment. Kaine said yesterday that he's not able to rewrite state law.

    Moreover, the background checks still affect only sales made by gun dealers.

    They do not affect sales between individuals or at gun shows -- the so-called gun-show loophole.

    McDonnell, a Republican considered likely to run for governor in 2009, was asked afterward about that tricky issue. He said, "I haven't formed a position on that loophole, as it's called."

    There are still a lot of issues on the table.

    One day, we may find the mentally incompetent have been fully barred from legally possessing guns.

    That day is still too far away.
    here is the text of the article

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    830

    Post imported post

    Here is the reply I sent to McAllister:


    Mr. McAllister,

    Thank you for your response as it made me reexamine your article from this morning. Here are the two sentences to which we are both referring in their original context.The following textfrom your column is from the RTD website my comments are in italics:


    Moreover, the background checks still affect only sales made by gun dealers.(You are correct in this statement)

    They do not affect sales between individuals or at gun shows -- the so-called gun-show loophole.(Here you mislead the public no matter what you said in the previous paragraph.)

    You are clearly statingthatall sales at gun shows are not affected by background checks. How else can your sentence be interpreted? You do not state that FFL dealers are still required to do background checks at gun shows or anywhere else they do business. You are either being redundant in regards to the lack of restrictions onperson to personsales of firearms or purposefully inflammatory. You could have either stated that background checks do not affect sales between individuals period no matter the location,or you could have stated that background checks do not affect sales between individuals whether in public or within the confines of a gun show, thus defining the so-called gun-show loophole. You chose to leave out this critical distinction between how the law pertains to individuals and businesses. As such I will reiterate my request that you correct the misleading information contained within your column. Once more thank you for your time.

    Sincerely,



    Joe Ligon




  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    830

    Post imported post

    LEO 229 wrote:
    This just goes to show how the media can report half the story and most of it is not accurate.
    well technically mcallister is not reporting he is opining. the problem is too many opinions get mixed in with factual reporting and too few people pick up on the difference. I would be even more upset if this was a reporting piece and not an opinion piece.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    67GT390FB wrote:
    LEO 229 wrote:
    This just goes to show how the media can report half the story and most of it is not accurate.
    well technically mcallister is not reporting he is opining. the problem is too many opinions get mixed in with factual reporting and too few people pick up on the difference. I would be even more upset if this was a reporting piece and not an opinion piece.
    Ah Gotcha.



Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •