Gun Show Loophole, here we go AGAIN

Representative Bobby Scott (D-VA3rd District) will host a Close the Gun Show Loophole Forum tomorrow using his position as the chairman of the judiciary subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security.

This will not be a fair and balanced hearing of the evidence It is a sham press conference where Rep Carolyn McCarthy and Rep Mike Castle will promote H.R. 2324 the Gun Show Closing Act of 2009.

We really need to crush the Brady Bunch on this.

I have tried to get Rep Forbes involved. I asked him to show support to gun owners and our constitution, or just wear a pro gun button even. No dice Congressman Forbes is AWOL.

Here is a link to my efforts: http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...hting-quot-gun-show-loophole-quot-legislation

Maybe somebody else can convince their representative to stand up to this unconstitutional infringement.

Here is a link to the Brady Bunch announcement (vomit warning): http://www.bradycampaign.org/legislation/backgroundchecks/gunshowloophole

Live Free or Die,
Thundar

Remember this IS about fundamental rights for 18-20 year olds

Why would somebody PM me about this not being OC related?

Remember 18-20 year olds cannot buy from a dealer. They need to obtain their handguns from private sellers.

Yeah, this legislation makes it hard as hell for an 18-20 year old to buy a handgun, but hey it isn't like owning a handgun is a fundamental right or anything!

This pisses me off to no end.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS "A GUN SHOW LOOPHOLE!"

Dealers do background checks no differently than in their stores. Private Citizens don't. This is not a 'loophole.'

This is the same ploy as the so-called 'assault weapons' ban. Lie about what is going on, pretend to make a law to solve it, but in reality, make a completely different law using the support for a made-up problem that doesn't exist.

Of course I would support a ban on using toxic waste as baby food! Who wouldn't? But since there is no baby food made of toxic waste, what would that law really be doing?

Thundar said:

Representative Bobby Scott (D-VA3rd District) will host a Close the Gun Show Loophole Forum...

Click to expand...

Er, that would be the "Close the Private Sales Ban Forum Thinly Disguised (but effectively so for leftists, moronic idealists, and others who would readily part with their hard-won Constitutional rights) as a 'Gun Show' Loophole Issue."

I can hardly equate "loophole" with following the gun laws. If the law says it is legal, then it isn't a "loophole". Straw purchasers and dealers who don't do BG checka are "loopholes." Obeying the law isn't a loophole. A loophole is something you do to circumvent the law.

Is driving 54 MPH in a 55 zone a "loophole" if the observer thinks you are driving too fast?

Is there a difference between this "forum" on the bill and a subcommittee "hearing" on the bill?

Is it possible that Bobby Scott cannot get the bill referred by the judiciary committee to his subcommittee, and has decided to host a one-sided forum as the next best thing?

Thundar said:

Why would somebody PM me about this not being OC related?

Remember 18-20 year olds cannot buy from a dealer. They need to obtain their handguns from private sellers.

Yeah, this legislation makes it hard as hell for an 18-20 year old to buy a handgun, but hey it isn't like owning a handgun is a fundamental right or anything!

Click to expand...

You know, this is the best argument I have heard so far for getting worked up about the "Gun Show Loophole" issue, which has otherwise struck me as somewhat innocuous.

I wonder though, whether the 21-year-old limit in the Brady regs may be low hanging fruit for a Heller challenge. 18-20 year olds certainly should have the right to defend their households with firearms under Heller. And they probably should not be dependent on an exception to the Brady law to do it.

cabbitone said:

I've always been a believer in, if they can drive, own property, serve and/or be drafted in the armed services they should be able to have all the rights afforded to them as an "adult" who is 21+.

Click to expand...

Personally, I don't like it that children are discriminated against at all. "Age of majority"? Sounds like a mixture of ageism and mob-rule to me.

Would color of majority be acceptable? Religion of majority? Sex of majority?