Results 1 to 25 of 25

Thread: Bill in Congress to ban private sales at gun shows

  1. #1
    Campaign Veteran T Dubya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Richmond, Va, ,
    Posts
    892

    Post imported post

    I don't have the bill number. The Brady Bunch is behind it.
    "These are the shock troops (opencarry.org) of the gun lobby. And, they are not going away."
    Ceasefire NJ Director Brian Miller, NJ.com, August 20, 2009

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran T Dubya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Richmond, Va, ,
    Posts
    892

    Post imported post

    Yep, the Brady Bunch allright.
    "These are the shock troops (opencarry.org) of the gun lobby. And, they are not going away."
    Ceasefire NJ Director Brian Miller, NJ.com, August 20, 2009

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran T Dubya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Richmond, Va, ,
    Posts
    892

    Post imported post

    http://lautenberg.senate.gov/newsroo....cfm?id=311723&





    WASHINGTON, D.C. – Sens. Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ), Jack Reed (D-RI) and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) today joined Paul Helmke, President of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and victims and family members of the Virginia Tech tragedy, to introduce legislation to close the nation’s “gun show loophole.” The bill introduction follows the tenth anniversary of the Columbine tragedy and the second anniversary of the tragedy at Virginia Tech this week. The legislation is cosponsored by Sens. Dick Durbin (D-IL), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Charles Schumer (D-NY), John Kerry (D-MA), Ted Kennedy (D-MA), Carl Levin (D-MI), Ben Cardin (D-MD) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) and Robert Menendez (D-NJ).

    “There is no rational reason to oppose closing the loophole. The reason it’s still not closed is simple: the continuing power of the special interest gun lobby in Washington,” Sen. Lautenberg said. “My legislation would require background checks for every gun purchased at every gun show across America and would help keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Without this change in the law, anyone – from felons to terrorists to fugitives – can buy a gun at a gun show, no questions asked. That needs to change.”

    The Senators’ bill would close the loophole by requiring background checks on all sales at gun shows. The bill defines a gun show as any event where 50 or more guns are offered or exhibited for sale. In addition, the bill would require:


    • gun show promoters to register with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), maintain a list of vendors at all gun shows and ensure that all vendors acknowledge receipt of information about their legal obligations; and

    • federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) to submit information, including the manufacturer/importer, model and serial number of firearms transferred at gun shows to the ATF’s National Tracing Center (NTC). No personal information about either the seller or the purchaser would be given to the ATF. Instead, as under current law, FFLs would maintain personal information in their files. The National Tracing Center would request personal information from an FFL only if a firearm becomes the subject of a law enforcement trace request.

    “As someone who served in the Army, I have great respect for firearms and responsible gun ownership. The Gun Show Background Check Act is a responsible and common sense approach to preventing firearms from winding up in the hands of criminals and straw purchasers,” said Senator Jack Reed. “This legislation is critical to making our communities safer, which is why it is strongly supported by law enforcement officers nationwide. Passing this bill would help prevent the killing of innocent people, and it would do so without infringing on anyone’s right to own a gun.”

    “We don’t need any more evidence that a gun in the hands of the wrong person is a real threat to our schools, our families, and our communities. Allowing sales at gun shows without identification, without accountability and without knowing whether the buyer is a felon or mentally ill, is unacceptable,” Senator Feinstein said. “This legislation proposes common sense protections that do not limit the rights of law abiding citizens to own and purchase guns.”

    “Closing this long-standing, flagrant, irresponsible and increasingly dangerous loophole in federal gun laws will make gun show transactions safer for all our people, and it’s urgently needed. It makes absolutely no sense to tolerate this loophole that allows criminals and terrorists to buy guns at gun shows and avoid the minimal federal regulations that now exist. I commend Senator Lautenberg for introducing this bill, and I look forward to its enactment into law as soon as possible. Too many lives are in danger for Congress to delay any longer,” said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy.

    “Ten years after two dangerous young men used gun show guns to kill and maim, it is way past time to extend the successful Brady background check system in America to gun sales at gun shows,” said Paul Helmke, President of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. “There is no rational reason why as a nation we should not do this. I want to applaud Senator Frank Lautenberg for championing this bill to close the gun show loophole."

    The victims and families of the Virginia Tech tragedy joining the members for the announcement included Omar Samaha, the brother of Reema Samaha, and his father Joe. Omar’s sister Reema was one of 32 victims who were shot and killed at Virginia Tech. Omar was recently followed by ABC News into a gun show where he was able to purchase ten guns, in under an hour, with no questions asked.

    “My sister Reema was shot and killed at Virginia Tech because of a loophole with the background check system for gun purchases. Ever since April 16th I have been working to fix problems with America’s gun background check system – and the gun show loophole is the most outrageous gap. It’s time for Congress to step up and require background checks for all sales at guns shows,” Omar Samaha, the brother of Reema Samaha, said.

    “A national law to close the gun show loop hole will prevent guns from falling into the hands of felons, domestic abusers and the mentally adjudicated. This piece of valuable legislation must be enacted to protect the citizens of this country,” Suzanne Grimes said. Suzanne is the mother of Virginia Tech survivor Kevin Sterne. An Eagle Scout, Kevin saved his own life by putting a tourniquet on himself to stop the bleeding after being shot in his femoral artery.

    In 1993, the Brady Law was passed requiring prospective purchasers of guns sold by federal firearms licensees, like gun shops and pawn shops, to go through a background check. However, a loophole in current law allows people to purchase guns from unlicensed dealers at gun shows without going through a background check. The ATF reports that between 25 to 50 percent of firearm vendors at gun shows are unlicensed.

    As a result of this loophole, convicted felons, fugitives, domestic abusers, the mentally ill and other people who are prohibited by federal law from owning guns are able to purchase firearms at gun shows. For example, the two teenagers who shot and killed 12 students and one teacher at Columbine High School in 1999 used guns obtained from gun shows.

    In 1999, Sen. Lautenberg introduced the first bill in Congress to close the gun show loophole. Later that year, in the wake of the Columbine tragedy, the Senate passed Sen. Lautenberg’s legislation to close the gun show loophole as an amendment to a juvenile justice bill. The legislation passed by one vote, with Vice President Gore casting the tiebreaking vote. However, the gun lobby killed the legislation in House-Senate conference.

    # # #




    GUN SHOW BACKGROUND CHECK ACT OF 2009 FACT SHEET

    At thousands of gun shows every year, people are able to purchase firearms without going through a background check. Under the federal Brady Act, Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) are required to check the purchaser’s background with the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) before transferring any firearm. However, a person does not need a federal firearms license—and the Brady Act does not apply—if the person is not “engaged in the business” of selling firearms pursuant to federal law. These non-licensees make up one quarter or more of the sellers of firearms at gun shows. Consequently, felons, the severely mentally ill, and other prohibited persons who want to avoid Brady Act checks and records of their purchases are able to buy firearms at gun shows. The Gun Show Background Check Act of 2009 will close this loophole in our federal gun laws.

    The bill is virtually identical to the Lautenberg amendment passed by the Senate in the 106th Congress as part of the Juvenile Justice bill. The legislation would take several steps to make gun show transactions safer for all Americans:


    • DEFINITION OF GUN SHOWS: Gun shows are defined to include any event at which 50 or more firearms are offered or exhibited for sale. This definition includes not only those events where firearms are the main commodity sold, but also other events where a significant number of guns are sold, such as flea markets or swap meets.

    • GUN SHOW PROMOTERS: Gun show promoters would be required to register with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF), maintain a list of vendors at all gun shows, and ensure that all vendors acknowledge receipt of information about their legal obligations.

    • BACKGROUND CHECKS FOR ALL TRANSACTIONS: The bill requires that all firearms sales at gun shows go through a Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL). If a non-licensed person is selling a weapon, they would use an FFL at the gun show to complete the transaction. The FFL would be responsible for conducting a Brady check on the purchaser and maintaining records of the transaction.

    • IMPROVED FIREARM TRACING: FFLs would be required to submit information including the manufacturer/importer, model, and serial number of firearms transferred at gun shows to the ATF’s National Tracing Center (NTC). However, no personal information about either the seller or the purchaser would be given to the ATF. Instead, as under current law, FFLs would maintain this information in their files. The NTC would request this personal information from an FFL only in the event that a firearm subsequently becomes the subject of a law enforcement trace request
    "These are the shock troops (opencarry.org) of the gun lobby. And, they are not going away."
    Ceasefire NJ Director Brian Miller, NJ.com, August 20, 2009

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    West Jordan, UT, ,
    Posts
    98

    Post imported post

    A Mississippi outhouse in the summer smells better than this.

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    199

    Post imported post

    I sent a pre-emptive email to my Congressional Rep to oppose this.

    The calls for these bills have never made sense to me. Why focus on gun shows? No one seems to be able to tell me.

    If private person A can sell to another private person without a background check anywhere in the state, why focus on gun shows? Why forbid private sales at place A (gun shows) if the same transaction is fine at places B-Z (anywhere else)?

    Is the sole purpose to drive business away from gun shows? After all, anyone with any common sense would simply advertise their firearm for sale on the internet, then meet up anywhere except a gun show to make the transaction (if this bills goes through). All it accomplishes is losing all the incidental sales (t-shirts, ammo, etc) from those people attending the gun show.

  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    199

    Post imported post

    I finally got an answer to my question:

    Me: I don't understand the "gun show loophole." Private sellers are selling their private firearms to another private person. So, changing this would mean they'd have to drive down the street from the gun show and then do the same thing?

    I don't see how that's changing anything really.

    To clarify a little, the reason I ask is I don't understand the focusing on gun shows. Won't that just drive people away from gun shows for the private sales and they do them elsewhere? As in, what's so important about place A (gun shows) if people can just do the same thing at places B-Z (any other place)?

    Brady: (They deleted their first reply and rewrote it. I didn't think to save it at first, but it was more basic. Along the lines of "We support universal backgrounds checks")

    Me again: I see, so this would be a stepping stone.

    Brady (new reply): Currently at a gun show FFL dealers are at competitive disadvantage because of the need to maintain paperwork and check backgrounds. This law will make it more fair for the small, law abiding FFL gun dealers that perform background checks and will allow them to better compete against the unlicensed sellers.

    The Brady Campaign would like to see comprehensive, universal background checks on all gun sales so that felons and the dangerously mentally ill will not be able to legally buy them.

  7. #7
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    Post imported post

    How sad to see Senator Gillibrand of NY co-sponsoring this ridiculous bill. I hope I never know what it is like to have so totally sold out my core values for the benefit of politics. She must be real proud of herself about now.

    Also very disturbing to see that the Brady Bunch has turned Omar Samaha (VT victim relative) into a total liar. "
    My sister Reema was shot and killed at Virginia Tech because of a loophole with the background check system for gun purchases." The loophole that allowed that murderer to purchase firearms was the overzealous protection of medical records, nothing to do with gun shows. As always, they are barking up the wrong tree in the wrong forrest.

    TFred


  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran T Dubya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Richmond, Va, ,
    Posts
    892

    Post imported post

    hlh wrote:
    I wonder how states rights fit into this?
    Don't you know that talking about states rights, the 10th amendment, or the constitution in general will get you put on a terror watch list?

    Here is the Senator's contact info:

    Hart Senate Office Building
    Suite 324
    Washington, DC 20510

    • Phone: (202) 224-3224
    • TTY: (202) 224-2087
    • Fax: (202) 228-4054
    "These are the shock troops (opencarry.org) of the gun lobby. And, they are not going away."
    Ceasefire NJ Director Brian Miller, NJ.com, August 20, 2009

  10. #10
    Regular Member 2a4all's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Newport News, VA, ,
    Posts
    1,586

    Post imported post

    TFred wrote:
    How sad to see Senator Gillibrand of NY co-sponsoring this ridiculous bill. I hope I never know what it is like to have so totally sold out my core values for the benefit of politics. She must be real proud of herself about now.

    Also very disturbing to see that the Brady Bunch has turned Omar Samaha (VT victim relative) into a total liar. "
    My sister Reema was shot and killed at Virginia Tech because of a loophole with the background check system for gun purchases." The loophole that allowed that murderer to purchase firearms was the overzealous protection of medical records, nothing to do with gun shows. As always, they are barking up the wrong tree in the wrong forrest.

    TFred

    True, but there is no such thing as overzealous protection of medical records.

    That is some of the most sensitive information about an individual that exists. The quandry is whether it should be used to determine an individual's fitness to conduct their own affairs. (Yes, I'm aware of the host of issues that fall under this umbrella, but they're not for this thread.)
    A law-abiding citizen should be able to carry his personal protection firearm anywhere that an armed criminal might go.

    Member VCDL, NRA

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Conifer, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    36

    Post imported post

    I've really got no problem with no private sales at gun shows, it's been that way in Colorado for years. Sure it's a PIA to drive down the street and do the deal. But when they use blatant lies (Cho bought all his guns legally at a store) to get it passed is unacceptable. I'm getting sick of lableing it a "loophole", no such thing, it's just a private sale.

  12. #12
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    San Diego, California, USA
    Posts
    405

    Post imported post

    DHCruiser wrote:
    I finally got an answer to my question:

    Me: I don't understand the "gun show loophole." Private sellers are selling their private firearms to another private person. So, changing this would mean they'd have to drive down the street from the gun show and then do the same thing?

    I don't see how that's changing anything really.

    To clarify a little, the reason I ask is I don't understand the focusing on gun shows. Won't that just drive people away from gun shows for the private sales and they do them elsewhere? As in, what's so important about place A (gun shows) if people can just do the same thing at places B-Z (any other place)?

    Brady: (They deleted their first reply and rewrote it. I didn't think to save it at first, but it was more basic. Along the lines of "We support universal backgrounds checks")

    Me again: I see, so this would be a stepping stone.

    Brady (new reply): Currently at a gun show FFL dealers are at competitive disadvantage because of the need to maintain paperwork and check backgrounds. This law will make it more fair for the small, law abiding FFL gun dealers that perform background checks and will allow them to better compete against the unlicensed sellers.

    The Brady Campaign would like to see comprehensive, universal background checks on all gun sales so that felons and the dangerously mentally ill will not be able to legally buy them.
    Will somebody please tell these morons that felons and the dangerously mentally ill cannot, now, legally buy guns.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    17

    Post imported post

    All those "Dems" up there are just mad because "their" mental status prevents them from legally buying firearms.

  14. #14

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    1,128

    Post imported post

    TexasShooter wrote:
    All those "Dems" up there are just mad because "their" mental status prevents them from legally buying firearms.
    And seeing how all Republicans "up there" are criminalsproblem solved

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    National City, CA, ,
    Posts
    239

    Post imported post

    DHCruiser wrote:
    I sent a pre-emptive email to my Congressional Rep to oppose this.

    The calls for these bills have never made sense to me. Why focus on gun shows? No one seems to be able to tell me.

    If private person A can sell to another private person without a background check anywhere in the state, why focus on gun shows? Why forbid private sales at place A (gun shows) if the same transaction is fine at places B-Z (anywhere else)?

    Is the sole purpose to drive business away from gun shows? After all, anyone with any common sense would simply advertise their firearm for sale on the internet, then meet up anywhere except a gun show to make the transaction (if this bills goes through). All it accomplishes is losing all the incidental sales (t-shirts, ammo, etc) from those people attending the gun show.
    Answer: POLITICAL. Media coverage. Headline: "Heroes who closed the gun show loophole that kills people because that is whatthe public hears about the most". They need people's votes next election.



  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Charlotte, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    242

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    2,247

    Post imported post

    Last weekend I was at a gunshow in SC and one of the booths had a sign saying that you must have a SC drivers license to purchase a gun. I asked the fellow about it and he said that his were a private sale and he decided to put the sign up after one fellow from Wisconsin got terribly upset because he refused to sell him a gun and let him walk out the door with it.

    They can call it a gunshow loophole but it really has nothing to do with gunshows and is already covered by law. It is the people like the one from WI and the ones willing to break existing laws that cause the problems. If someone is willing to bteak the laws and sell a gun at a show illegally then they would have no problem doing it on the street. I could stomach their BS rehtoric a little better if they would leave the gunshow out of it as it has nothing to do with gunshows.

  18. #18
    Guest
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    958

    Post imported post

    Last summer I made two private purchases from two fellows near my area, but not at a gun show. In each deal we both traded Arizona drivers license info and AZ CCW permit info. We had agreed up front if one of failed to produce an AZCCW permit - there was to be no sale.

    Paperwork was typed up in duplicate which contained all gathered information to include weapon serial ##. Both of signed off and kept copies for our records.

    I have attended more than gun shows and I personaly witnessed paperwork transactions between gun sellers and buyers.

    Of course anyone with a criminal mind can just forget any legal gun transactions. Hell, a permit is unnecessary.

  19. #19
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    PT111 wrote:
    Last weekend I was at a gunshow in SC and one of the booths had a sign saying that you must have a SC drivers license to purchase a gun. I asked the fellow about it and he said that his were a private sale and he decided to put the sign up after one fellow from Wisconsin got terribly upset because he refused to sell him a gun and let him walk out the door with it.


    Well, that illustrates the problem with some private sales. Unless the seller does some checking about the buyer, he might illegally sell to a non-resident. A lot of private sales at gun shows don't include any kind of checking whatsoever. That is a problem waiting to happen.

    As far as "Why focus on gun shows?," it's obvious. That's were LOTS of private sales get done in a specific period of time. It's pretty logical to want to regulate that rather large bundle of transactions. And feasible, too, in many respects.

    When I go to a gun show, I often go prepared to trade, buy, or sell a firearm. That's a big part of what gun shows are for me and many others: An opportunity to find some gem of a gun and/or get out of something I'm not shooting anymore or which doesn't work in my collection.

    And I almost always prefer to deal with (legally eligible) private parties. I've only bought one gun from an FFL at a gun show, because I, well, I had to have it. Had to do the NICS/4473 process, and it wasn't too onerous. But it was a small vendor not a big one that has so many sales that you have to wait an hour to get the paperwork done.

    When dealing with private parties, I always ask for ID and keep a record of who I dealt with. But it's a little awkward sometimes. And, frankly, although I would neverdo business with a shadyguy or an obviouslyineligible (e.g., out-of-stater), Istill am concerned about the informality of the transactions sometimes.

    On the whole, I'd rather just agree to a deal with a private party and then let the predominantly used process take care of the transfer. That process (NICS, etc.) is the best process out there (it is flawed, of course) to screen out ineligible buyers and, to some extent, sellers. I figure the screening, which is areally good idea, is the primary responsbility of the government and its designees.

    So, I'm not opposed to a requirement of a NICS/4473 process at gun shows for private party sales. The HUGE problem I see is one of adminstration of the transfer process. But I doubt that the government could set it up so that it would be easy and quick.The gubmint screws everything up.

    But if it could set up a fast, efficient and effectiveway to handle a privateparty transfers at gun shows....it would be appealing to me. I would establish fiveperformance parameters for such a system.

    1. Fast. Very fast.

    2. Free (zero cost).

    3. Fair, sure, and fastway to unpack a failed transfer.

    4. Automaticcheck of transferred gun for stolen/crime involvement status.

    5. Fast. Very fast.


    I could live with that. Such a system would be beneficial to me and others, so I'm pretty sure I'd be in favor of it.




  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Boone, NC, ,
    Posts
    81

    Post imported post

    HankT wrote:
    But if it could set up a fast, efficient and effectiveway to handle a privateparty transfers at gun shows....it would be appealing to me. I would establish fiveperformance parameters for such a system.

    1. Fast. Very fast.

    2. Free (zero cost).

    3. Fair, sure, and fastway to unpack a failed transfer.

    4. Automaticcheck of transferred gun for stolen/crime involvement status.

    5. Fast. Very fast.


    I could live with that. Such a system would be beneficial to me and others, so I'm pretty sure I'd be in favor of it.

    I disagree. Why should we be okay with such infringements on our rights? Thats the only way the antis will ever get their way if they baby step us and chip at our rights slowly saying this or that restriction really isn't that bad and we can live with it, but before we know it there are so many little restrions that add up to an enourmous infringement.

    Therefore, I willstrongly oppose any and all infringements on my rights including this one!


  21. #21

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    1,128

    Post imported post

    Swampbeast wrote:
    HankT wrote:
    But if it could set up a fast, efficient and effectiveway to handle a privateparty transfers at gun shows....it would be appealing to me. I would establish fiveperformance parameters for such a system.

    1. Fast. Very fast.

    2. Free (zero cost).

    3. Fair, sure, and fastway to unpack a failed transfer.

    4. Automaticcheck of transferred gun for stolen/crime involvement status.

    5. Fast. Very fast.


    I could live with that. Such a system would be beneficial to me and others, so I'm pretty sure I'd be in favor of it.

    I disagree. Why should we be okay with such infringements on our rights? Thats the only way the antis will ever get their way if they baby step us and chip at our rights slowly saying this or that restriction really isn't that bad and we can live with it, but before we know it there are so many little restrions that add up to an enourmous infringement.

    Therefore, I willstrongly oppose any and all infringements on my rights including this one!
    But isn't it fair to say that there are different degrees of impingements (if not infringements)?

    E.g. the assault weapons ban, and 1 gun/month restrictions are more burdensome than a gun show loophole bill, while restrictions on sales to persons adjudicated mentally incompetent are less burdensome?

    Also, aren't the differences between instant check bills significant? The Lautenburg bill's definition of a gun show as a place where 50 or more weapons are displayed seems to sweep up a whole lot more private sales than what most people would think of as a "gun show."

    The distinctions are material because they effect how to rate political candidates against each other. Most politicos do not support the repeal of all gun control: if that is what we demand, w/o exception, then it renders us politically impotent.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580

    Post imported post

    The Donkey wrote:
    Swampbeast wrote:
    HankT wrote:
    But if it could set up a fast, efficient and effectiveway to handle a privateparty transfers at gun shows....it would be appealing to me. I would establish fiveperformance parameters for such a system.

    1. Fast. Very fast.

    2. Free (zero cost).

    3. Fair, sure, and fastway to unpack a failed transfer.

    4. Automaticcheck of transferred gun for stolen/crime involvement status.

    5. Fast. Very fast.


    I could live with that. Such a system would be beneficial to me and others, so I'm pretty sure I'd be in favor of it.

    I disagree. Why should we be okay with such infringements on our rights? Thats the only way the antis will ever get their way if they baby step us and chip at our rights slowly saying this or that restriction really isn't that bad and we can live with it, but before we know it there are so many little restrions that add up to an enourmous infringement.

    Therefore, I willstrongly oppose any and all infringements on my rights including this one!
    But isn't it fair to say that there are different degrees of impingements (if not infringements)?

    E.g. the assault weapons ban, and 1 gun/month restrictions are more burdensome than a gun show loophole bill, while restrictions on sales to persons adjudicated mentally incompetent are less burdensome?

    Also, aren't the differences between instant check bills significant? The Lautenburg bill's definition of a gun show as a place where 50 or more weapons are displayed seems to sweep up a whole lot more private sales than what most people would think of as a "gun show."

    The distinctions are material because they effect how to rate political candidates against each other. Most politicos do not support the repeal of all gun control: if that is what we demand, w/o exception, then it renders us politically impotent.
    That statement right there is likely why the NRA is viewed with disdain by some people. As opposed to the current methods used by the NRA, there are those who want the NRA to take a hard line against ALL gun control and ALL infringements right now. Such "all or nothing" views fail to acheive any useful objectives (as you note, "politically impotent"). No matter how much many of us may want to see the repeal of most "infringements," expecting the NRA to be effective by taking that stance would be an exercise in futility.



    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  23. #23
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    Swampbeast wrote:
    HankT wrote:
    But if it could set up a fast, efficient and effectiveway to handle a privateparty transfers at gun shows....it would be appealing to me. I would establish fiveperformance parameters for such a system.

    1. Fast. Very fast.

    2. Free (zero cost).

    3. Fair, sure, and fastway to unpack a failed transfer.

    4. Automaticcheck of transferred gun for stolen/crime involvement status.

    5. Fast. Very fast.


    I could live with that. Such a system would be beneficial to me and others, so I'm pretty sure I'd be in favor of it.

    I disagree. Why should we be okay with such infringements on our rights? Thats the only way the antis will ever get their way if they baby step us and chip at our rights slowly saying this or that restriction really isn't that bad and we can live with it, but before we know it there are so many little restrions that add up to an enourmous infringement.

    Therefore, I willstrongly oppose any and all infringements on my rights including this one!
    Have you ever bought a gun from an FFL who would put you through the NICS/4473 process? Was that an infringement on your rights?

    BTW, is that a picture of John Rambo as your avatar?

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Boone, NC, ,
    Posts
    81

    Post imported post

    Yeah I've bought guns from an FFL before and had a NICS check done, which I do believe was an infringement on my rights. Howver, I do realize its not going away. Still, that doens't mean we can't stop this new spurt of gun control because we definitely have the influence!

    And yup that is John Rambo, good movie.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Pinal County, AZ, ,
    Posts
    164

    Post imported post

    HankT wrote:
    PT111 wrote:
    Last weekend I was at a gunshow in SC and one of the booths had a sign saying that you must have a SC drivers license to purchase a gun. I asked the fellow about it and he said that his were a private sale and he decided to put the sign up after one fellow from Wisconsin got terribly upset because he refused to sell him a gun and let him walk out the door with it.


    Well, that illustrates the problem with some private sales. Unless the seller does some checking about the buyer, he might illegally sell to a non-resident. A lot of private sales at gun shows don't include any kind of checking whatsoever. That is a problem waiting to happen.

    As far as "Why focus on gun shows?," it's obvious. That's were LOTS of private sales get done in a specific period of time. It's pretty logical to want to regulate that rather large bundle of transactions. And feasible, too, in many respects.

    When I go to a gun show, I often go prepared to trade, buy, or sell a firearm. That's a big part of what gun shows are for me and many others: An opportunity to find some gem of a gun and/or get out of something I'm not shooting anymore or which doesn't work in my collection.

    And I almost always prefer to deal with (legally eligible) private parties. I've only bought one gun from an FFL at a gun show, because I, well, I had to have it. Had to do the NICS/4473 process, and it wasn't too onerous. But it was a small vendor not a big one that has so many sales that you have to wait an hour to get the paperwork done.

    When dealing with private parties, I always ask for ID and keep a record of who I dealt with. But it's a little awkward sometimes. And, frankly, although I would neverdo business with a shadyguy or an obviouslyineligible (e.g., out-of-stater), Istill am concerned about the informality of the transactions sometimes.

    On the whole, I'd rather just agree to a deal with a private party and then let the predominantly used process take care of the transfer. That process (NICS, etc.) is the best process out there (it is flawed, of course) to screen out ineligible buyers and, to some extent, sellers. I figure the screening, which is areally good idea, is the primary responsbility of the government and its designees.

    So, I'm not opposed to a requirement of a NICS/4473 process at gun shows for private party sales. The HUGE problem I see is one of adminstration of the transfer process. But I doubt that the government could set it up so that it would be easy and quick.The gubmint screws everything up.

    But if it could set up a fast, efficient and effectiveway to handle a privateparty transfers at gun shows....it would be appealing to me. I would establish fiveperformance parameters for such a system.

    1. Fast. Very fast.

    2. Free (zero cost).

    3. Fair, sure, and fastway to unpack a failed transfer.

    4. Automaticcheck of transferred gun for stolen/crime involvement status.

    5. Fast. Very fast.


    I could live with that. Such a system would be beneficial to me and others, so I'm pretty sure I'd be in favor of it.



    The amount of BS that you spew out is so great, I can smell it through the computer.

    Please cite the location of the last gun show you went toin NEW JERSEY ?????


Posting Permissions

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