• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Gun Show Loophole Tactics

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,946
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
imported post

A nice message from Commisar Kaine,delivered by theVirginia Pravda:

http://content.hamptonroads.com/story.cfm?story=137667&ran=1034

Kaine wants gun show sales to require background checks

By WARREN FISKE, The Virginian-Pilot
© November 28, 2007 |
Last updated 9:53 PM Nov. 27

RICHMOND

Gov. Timothy M. Kaine called Tuesday for new restrictions on firearm sales at gun shows but stopped short of declaring passage of the legislation as a high priority for the 2008 General Assembly session.

Under current law, background checks on buyers are not required by unlicensed dealers who privately sell and trade firearms at the shows.

Kaine endorsed closing the loophole, saying it provides an opening for felons and mentally ill people to buy weapons they are otherwise forbidden to purchase.






setTimeout('document.getElementById("adl_S_23942").src="http://mi.adinterax.com/customer/pilot/atlanticbay_bestof1007_VonT.js?adxq=1192109908"',1)

"You either want felons to have guns or you don't,"

Kaine said on a morning radio show. "You want people who are mentally adjudicated to be dangerous to have guns or you don't. If you don't want them to, then you ought to close that gun show loophole."

In the wake of the April 16 shootings at Virginia Tech, the General Assembly this winter is expected to vigorously debate gun control. Seung-Hui Cho, an emotionally troubled Tech senior, fatally shot 32 students and professors before killing himself.

In August, an eight-member task force appointed by Kaine to investigate the killings recommended in its final report that the gun show loophole be closed.

Former state police Superintendent Gerald Massengill, whom Kaine appointed to head the task force, has been calling for the end of the loophole in a series of speeches and interviews. Massengill has said the only exemption to background checks should be for gun sales and trades among family members.

Kaine criticized the gun show exemption when he ran for governor in 2005 and in the days after the Tech shooting. He repeated his concern Tuesday in response to a listener's question during the governor's monthly call-in show on WTOP radio in Washington.

Later in the day, Gordon Hickey, Kaine's press secretary, said the governor has not decided whether he will spend political capital to expand background checks.

"Just because he said it doesn't make it the highest priority," Hickey said. "He hasn't gotten anywhere near making that kind of decision yet."

The legislation will travel an uphill road in the General

Assembly. Bills to close the gun show loophole have been defeated three years in a row in the state Senate. The House of Delegates, which has not taken up the measure recently, strongly backs gun rights.

Gun advocates note that Cho legally purchased his guns, even though he was held overnight in a mental hospital in 2005 and judged an "imminent danger" to himself. Because his hospitalization was brief, it was not reported to law enforcement officials and not detected on background checks when Cho bought firearms.

After the Tech shootings, Kaine issued more rigorous guidelines for reporting dangerous mental health problems to law enforcement officials.

House Majority Leader Morgan Griffith, R-Salem, said if the General Assembly "wants to make sure there's no repeat of Cho," it should focus on mental health reform, not gun control. "That's a much better long-term solution than taking away rights from law-abiding citizens," he said.

Warren Fiske, (804) 697-1565, warren.fiske@pilotonline.com



What ou do not see in the aiticle is the Virginia Pilot (Pravda) synopsis, which was at the bottom of the article on local page 1. Here it is:

govenor speaks out

Under current law, background checks on buyers are not required of unlicensed dealers who privately sell and trade firearms at gun shows. Kaine endorsed closing the loophole.
 

Tess

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2006
Messages
3,837
Location
Bryan, TX
imported post

I sent the following. Please feel free to submit or modify for the governor yourself:

Sir, I reference the story cited at http://content.hamptonroads.com/story.cfm?story=137667&ran=1034.

Please do not let feel-gooders convince you to propose, support, or sign do-nothing legislation that "solves" non-problems.

I submit to you that the idea of a gun show "loophole" is one perpetrated by those who would ensure registration of every firearm. It is not a part of the philosophy of those who understand one of the phrases in the Bill of Rights is "shall not be infringed." The effort to "close" this nonexistent "loophole" is registration, pure and simple, for there is no way to ensure that records are destroyed within a reasonable period after the background check.

I am perfectly within my rights to sit at my kitchen table with a person, known or unknown to me, and sell him my .38 revolver. Now, as a law-abiding citizen who has bought most of my firearms through dealers, I have passed dozens of checks. Being this type of person, I am careful who I sell to. The point, however, is that I am doing nothing at my kitchen table I couldn't do at a gun show while I hawked my beef jerky, custom jewelry, or homemade fudge. Nor is any other private seller at a gun show doing anything different.

Those who sell guns from their private collection are not out to skirt any regulations. Nor are they selling to the earth's scum - the scum buys $100 handguns on the street, not $400+ guns from a private seller after paying to enter a gun show.

You might have realized that gun control is a non-player politically as well. The elections in Virginia this month proved that.

Please do not let feel-gooders convince you to propose, support, or sign do-nothing legislation that "solves" non-problems.

Respectfully
 

LEO 229

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
7,606
Location
USA
imported post

If we are going to push the issue of Bill of Rights is "shall not be infringed."

When are we going to push to allow convicted felons to be allowed to possess guns again? :cool:
 

Neplusultra

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2007
Messages
2,224
Location
Christiansburg, Virginia, USA
imported post

LEO 229 wrote:
If we are going to push the issue of Bill of Rights is "shall not be infringed."

When are we going to push to allow convicted felons to be allowed to possess guns again? :cool:
If non-violent of course. But as you know if you abuse your rights they can be taken away. I would say if someone uses a gun in a crime he would loose his right to that gun. God did not give us the right to keep and bear arms so we could commit crimes.
 

Doug Huffman

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
9,180
Location
Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin,
imported post

God did not give us the right to keep and bear arms so we could commit crimes.
If we allow a man to be disarmed under color of law then the bar will be further lowered until we all are 'felon' and lagally disarmed. Compromise is subjugation on the installment plan.

Safety is a good tool for tyrants since no one can be against safety.

If you can't be safe with ex-felons armed then they should be in or interred under the jail.

Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. LAB/NRA/GOP KMA$$
 

dixiehacker

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2006
Messages
114
Location
, Virginia, USA
imported post

LEO229, I don't think you meant what you said seriously, but that is still a good point. If someone is really so much of a threat to society that he shouldn't have a gun, than he belongs in jail. If we are talking about someone who did somethign whong then paid his debt, I fail to see why that person shouldn't be able to defend himself or his family.

Curently in our society someone who is a convicted felon spends the rest of his life in some meta-state between imprisionmetn and freedom. He can no longer vote, own a gun, run for office, or even get a decent job. Perhaps this is one of the reason for repeat offenders. We never fully allow said people fully back into society but yet we expect them to be on their best behavior. Or perhaps I am just a softie.
 

LEO 229

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
7,606
Location
USA
imported post

I am willing to bet that is they made it a rule that anyone caught speeding could never possess a firearm... would cause most gun lovers to obey the speed limit!!

You always have a few people that are just dumb and would risk it and get caught.

So the idea that if you commit a felony or assault a family member you WILL lose your gun rights can and will cause people to not try it.

But.... You always have those that will do it anyway and risk losing their right to own a gun and even vote. Some things are not that important to people.

Do felons still go out and get a gun to use in a crime? We all know that some do. Many are going to use it for another crime so what do they care.

There is no once hot fix for everything. Not being able to vote of have a gun is just one of many that will attempt to keep people honest. ;)
 

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,946
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
imported post

LEO 229 wrote:
If we are going to push the issue of Bill of Rights is "shall not be infringed."

When are we going to push to allow convicted felons to be allowed to possess guns again? :cool:

Boy did you swallow the pogey bait!

We are being told that our property rights will be taken away from us to make us safer. The further infringement upon the rights of free men will not make us safer or more free.

Fear the felon? No. I take the advice of Thomas Jefferson. My Sig 229 is my constant companion.

Fear autocratic government? Yes. The tyranny of democracy will make slaves of us all.

I do think that federal prohibitions against gun ownership for felony, or misdemeanor convictions are unconstitutional.
 

W.E.G.

Newbie
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
503
Location
all over VA, ,
imported post

Convicted felons have been denied various privileges granted to other citizens since well before the signing of the Constitution, and going all the way back to ancient Rome and Greece. This practice is laced throughout the common law that serves as the basis for U.S. law.

The problem is that the law defining what is a "felony" has changed so much since the days of common law. In Virginia, trace cocaine residue in a pocket is a felony, as is running across the Metro tracks in your PF Flyers. I think we have gone too far on our definition of "felony" as it pertains to automatic loss of civil rights.

But, most importantly in the context of the topic of this thread, where is there any evidence that felons are buying guns by private sale at gun shows? Further, where is there any evidence that felons who might buy a gun at a gun show are then using that gun to commit further violent crime? There is no evidence. Surely we would have seen it in the headlines if there were such evidence. Yet, the gun-haters dance a little dance of joy at the idea of imposing more useless feel-good legislation that deeply offends and handicaps gun owners.

The gas station owner does not run a background check when a stranger buys fifty gallons of gasoline. The buyer could be an arsonist. The car salesman does not check for a valid drivers license when he sells a car. The buyer could be a notorious drunk driver.

There has to be a limit on the point at which government imposes itself on the citizen. In the absence of any evidence that felons are buying private-sale guns at gun shows, any legislation on this issue can only be gratuitous pandering to the gun haters. I hope we elected legislators smart enough to see the reality.
 

Neplusultra

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2007
Messages
2,224
Location
Christiansburg, Virginia, USA
imported post

Remember too, ProtestEasyGuns says that 400 guns were recovered from crimes in Richmond last year/some recent year. The DOJ Bureau of Justice Statistics website says the national average for recovered guns coming from gun shows is only 0.7%. Which if you divide that into 400 means you would expect over 57,000 crime guns to have been recovered in Richmond in a single year!

Now either Richmond is WAY over the average or PEG's numbers are just plain wrong. Guess which one I say :^).

Not only that, but nether PEG nor the DOJ breaks down their gun show statistics into dealer sales with BGC and private sales without BGC. So the quoted statistic is really worthless as far as support for private BGCs since for all we know all of the recovered guns were bought through a dealer with BGC!!!
 

LEO 229

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
7,606
Location
USA
imported post

As I said....

"There is no once hot fix for everything."

You have to fix things where you can. 1% here.... 25% there....

The only true fix is to ban all guns and wait about 50 years for allguns be eventually discovered and destroyed.

So even THAT fix is not a sure thing.... ;)


Note: I am not advocating a total ban..... I love my guns too.
 

Neplusultra

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2007
Messages
2,224
Location
Christiansburg, Virginia, USA
imported post

LEO 229 wrote:
As I said....

"There is no once hot fix for everything."

You have to fix things where you can. 1% here.... 25% there....

The only true fix is to ban all guns and wait about 50 years for allguns be eventually discovered and destroyed.

So even THAT fix is not a sure thing.... ;)


Note: I am not advocating a total ban..... I love my guns too.
Just ban all ammo. That way you can love your guns and be safe at the same time :^).
 

dixiehacker

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2006
Messages
114
Location
, Virginia, USA
imported post

Neplusultra wrote:
LEO 229 wrote:
As I said....

"There is no once hot fix for everything."

You have to fix things where you can. 1% here.... 25% there....

The only true fix is to ban all guns and wait about 50 years for allguns be eventually discovered and destroyed.

So even THAT fix is not a sure thing.... ;)


Note: I am not advocating a total ban..... I love my guns too.
Just ban all ammo. That way you can love your guns and be safe at the same time :^).
I think flintlocks would regain polularity then. All you need is to melt down some wheel weights and mine saltpeter and get some charcole.
 

LEO 229

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
7,606
Location
USA
imported post

Chris Rock said it once.... Charge $50 a bullet!!

People will not be so willing to just shoot their guns at people since it will cost so much. :lol:
 

openryan

State Researcher
Joined
Apr 18, 2007
Messages
1,602
Location
, Indiana, USA
imported post

Tess wrote:
I sent the following. Please feel free to submit or modify for the governor yourself:

Sir, I reference the story cited at http://content.hamptonroads.com/story.cfm?story=137667&ran=1034.

Please do not let feel-gooders convince you to propose, support, or sign do-nothing legislation that "solves" non-problems.

I submit to you that the idea of a gun show "loophole" is one perpetrated by those who would ensure registration of every firearm. It is not a part of the philosophy of those who understand one of the phrases in the Bill of Rights is "shall not be infringed." The effort to "close" this nonexistent "loophole" is registration, pure and simple, for there is no way to ensure that records are destroyed within a reasonable period after the background check.

I am perfectly within my rights to sit at my kitchen table with a person, known or unknown to me, and sell him my .38 revolver. Now, as a law-abiding citizen who has bought most of my firearms through dealers, I have passed dozens of checks. Being this type of person, I am careful who I sell to. The point, however, is that I am doing nothing at my kitchen table I couldn't do at a gun show while I hawked my beef jerky, custom jewelry, or homemade fudge. Nor is any other private seller at a gun show doing anything different.

Those who sell guns from their private collection are not out to skirt any regulations. Nor are they selling to the earth's scum - the scum buys $100 handguns on the street, not $400+ guns from a private seller after paying to enter a gun show.

You might have realized that gun control is a non-player politically as well. The elections in Virginia this month proved that.

Please do not let feel-gooders convince you to propose, support, or sign do-nothing legislation that "solves" non-problems.

Respectfully
Really liked how you worded this Tess -- Good Job!
 

sjhipple

Regular Member
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
1,491
Location
Concord, New Hampshire, USA
imported post

LEO 229 wrote:
If we are going to push the issue of Bill of Rights is "shall not be infringed."

When are we going to push to allow convicted felons to be allowed to possess guns again? :cool:

First, a person who's paid his debt should have his rights restored. However, we all admit that when serving a sentence for a crime, you lose alot of rights...in fact, you lose almost all of them. No right to peacably assemble in jail (isn't that the point, after all) :lol:

Taking guns (and most of the rest of the bill of rights) away from felons is not necessarily harmful to "shall not be infringed."
 

sjhipple

Regular Member
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
1,491
Location
Concord, New Hampshire, USA
imported post

LEO 229 wrote:
I am willing to bet that is they made it a rule that anyone caught speeding could never possess a firearm... would cause most gun lovers to obey the speed limit!!
Castration would probably be even more effective. How about death of the person's first born. Why don't you push for that, LEO 229?

There is a point where the punishment of the state becomes more harmful than the "crime" - whatever it may be - that the state is trying to prevent. If I gave examples, I'd be typing all day.
 
Top