Before you buy from Brent Gurtek of French River Muzzleloaders..


PDA






green5594
May 15, 2009, 10:57 PM
Reader's view: Gun maker supports requiring background checks at gun shows

For every sweep of guns off the streets, more guns emerge. It’s like bailing water from a leaking ship. Those doing the bailing, the police, do their job well. They confiscate about half a million illicit guns annually. Regrettably, the ship’s carpenters, Minnesota legislators, fail to plug the holes.

Guns flow into the illicit market like water into a leaking ship. Mere bailing does no real good. The holes must be plugged to staunch the flow.

One such “hole” is the illicit purchase of guns from unlicensed sellers at gun shows. (Not that sealing any one hole solves things, but the “gun show loophole” is a good place to start.)


Having exhibited at about a half-dozen gun shows, I can testify that most gun show exhibitors’ time is spent staring at the walls or at their watch. Doing background checks gives them something to do. And the few dollars earned performing background checks should be welcome. The notion that universal background checks will stifle gun shows is misinformed.

Background checks are quick and easy; 92 percent are completed within 10 minutes (while a good bit of the remaining 8 percent shouldn’t be completed at all because the prospective buyer has raised a red flag in the process).

They’re also effective; since New York passed a universal background check law, about 90 percent of their illicit guns come from out-state sources.

Ultimately, the other “holes” such as gun theft, straw purchase and universal background checks for all gun purchases need to be addressed at the federal level. But since most such initiatives begin at the state or local level, there’s every reason to support a gun show background check bill for Minnesota.

Brent Gurtek

FRENCH RIVER

The writer is a gun maker.


Nice that he wants to throw the rest of us under the bus to boost his business...

If you enjoyed reading about "Before you buy from Brent Gurtek of French River Muzzleloaders.." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
NobleSniper
May 15, 2009, 11:43 PM
What an ass!!!!! :mad:

Oyeboten
May 15, 2009, 11:48 PM
I think you mean, "Before I make sure to never spend even a Dime with that fool..."

What a load of Manure he's spreading...

Ratdog68
May 15, 2009, 11:51 PM
proabably foolish enough to cast his vote for Osama Obama !! :barf: :banghead:

bwkelly
May 15, 2009, 11:52 PM
What does this have to do with blackpowder shooting, other than the fact Mr. Gurtek happens to make muzzleloaders?

Ratdog68
May 15, 2009, 11:58 PM
"What does this have to do with blackpowder shooting, other than the fact Mr. Gurtek happens to make muzzleloaders?"

What does a bucket of chicken stuck on the head of Oprah have to do with her being as big as she is? Her having her head stuck in it affects the rest of us as having to deal with the fall-out of it. She keeps putin' herself infront of the camera for us to have to look at when we least expect it.

This clown should remember where his bread is buttered... it's sure NOT from the a$$-clowns he's trying to impress with his spewage (politicians).

madcratebuilder
May 16, 2009, 12:00 AM
What does this have to do with blackpowder shooting, other than the fact Mr. Gurtek happens to make muzzleloaders?

Exactly nothing. So the man supports a universal gun show back ground check. I really don't care one way or the other about back ground checks at gun shows, they don't effect me other than the cost in time and money, and it's not much. I say give the anti's a back ground law and make them stay away from reinstating a Clinton weapons ban. I like my EBR's to.

BullRunBear
May 16, 2009, 12:11 AM
bwkelly,
What does this have to do with blackpowder shooting? I, for one, want to know if my money could end up with someone who thinks the Bill of Rights is a disposable nuisance. And avoid him. This imbecile will never see a penny of my money and I intend to warn others about him.

armoredman
May 16, 2009, 12:11 AM
No background checks, we got along FINE for over 200 years without them.

Pancho
May 16, 2009, 12:50 AM
Just because we muzzleloaders are exempt from a lot of the restrictions that our modern gun shooters have to put up with we can't fall asleep for two very obvious reasons:
1) Most of us own modern guns too.
2) Even if you are exclusively a muzzleloader you will be next to be regulated out of your passion. Consider how hard it can be to buy blackpowder.

4v50 Gary
May 16, 2009, 01:31 AM
D*mn. I know the man too and shared a workbench with him once.

bigbadgun
May 16, 2009, 07:17 AM
He is never gonna see my money thats for sure.

John-Melb
May 16, 2009, 07:55 AM
It appears any business involving Brent Gurtek needs to be added to a very special list containing names like Cooper Firearms, Jim Zumbo and Russell Mark.

Olmontanaboy
May 16, 2009, 08:26 AM
I say give the anti's a back ground law and make them stay away from reinstating a Clinton weapons ban.
I'm sorry but I disagree with you on this. The antis chip away at our freedom one piece at a time, they will never be satisified untill we are completely disarmed, give them an inch and they will take a mile. A long time ago a politician visited a gun club I belonged to, he was running for governor, he shook our hands, looked us right in the eyes and told us he would never support any laws to restrict our gun rights, and favored only "sensible" "moderate" gun laws. Well he got elected, and was one of the most anti gun politicians to ever stomp on the Second Amendment. We cannot appease these people, they will eat your lunch.

Speedo66
May 16, 2009, 08:37 AM
He, as a dealer, would like ALL sales to be through a dealer.

No self interest there! :rolleyes:

CabofDoom
May 16, 2009, 09:05 AM
I really don't care one way or the other about back ground checks at gun shows, they don't effect me other than the cost in time and money, and it's not much. I say give the anti's a back ground law and make them stay away from reinstating a Clinton weapons ban

Chamberlin "appeased" Hitler, and we all know how that turned out

The world "appeased" the Soviet Union at the end of WW2 and they took Eastern Europe.

We, as a nation chose to "appease" the temperance crowd in the 1920's and as a result, we had to "appease the anti's with the NFA, and again in 1968 we had to appease the anti's after a period of civil unrest.

Now we face a call for more "appeasement" in the name of public safety, and a desire to be looked favorably on by the world stage.

ANYONE who would support ANY subjugation of the second amendment needs to be known and recognized as an enemy to the cause. If they own a business, they should be boycotted, if they are a polotician, they should be run against and defeated. if they are your family, or friends, they should be educated.


How about we appease those who say this or that religion is the wrong faith and close that pesky Freedom of Religion loophole. since some might find these words offensive so we appease them..only selective freedom of speach...please submitt ALL postings, writings, etc. to a thought board for pre screening

Ya'll get my point. To close the so called gunshow loophole would dictate how I can dispose of my privatly held property. Whats next, I can only sell my car though a dealer who can run a background check to assure I dont sell it to a habitual drunk driver? or maybe I will have to sell my zippo collection only after the buyer submits
to a background check to assure they are not an arsonist.

COD

madcratebuilder
May 16, 2009, 09:35 AM
Quote:
I say give the anti's a back ground law and make them stay away from reinstating a Clinton weapons ban.
I'm sorry but I disagree with you on this. The antis chip away at our freedom one piece at a time, they will never be satisified untill we are completely disarmed, give them an inch and they will take a mile. A long time ago a politician visited a gun club I belonged to, he was running for governor, he shook our hands, looked us right in the eyes and told us he would never support any laws to restrict our gun rights, and favored only "sensible" "moderate" gun laws. Well he got elected, and was one of the most anti gun politicians to ever stomp on the Second Amendment. We cannot appease these people, they will eat your lunch.



I do not trust any politician, they well say anything to get elected, then do what benefits them and their friends before they worry about Joe citizen.

I spend several hours each week writing to my state reps about pending gun laws here in Oregon. Gun owners here do have some support at the state capital, but not enough. I have attended hearing at the capital on gun bills and I attend the local neighborhood meeting that the reps put on. They know me and most well listen to what I have to say.

Now all the people that jumped on thew "screw Brent Gurtek of French River Muzzleloaders band wagon" Why don't you send an e-mail to your state reps and federal reps telling then to support gun owners. If everyone did that they would take notice, they want to be re-elected.

Olmontanaboy, I appreciate your civil disagreement, it's the way men should act.

Olmontanaboy
May 16, 2009, 09:44 AM
I spend several hours each week writing to my state reps about pending gun laws here in Oregon.
Were on the same team partner. Good advice and thanks for the good work.

Steven Youngblood
May 16, 2009, 12:51 PM
Well gee fellas, didn't you know that in 1776, those black powder rifles, with rifled barrels were the assault rifle of the time, and those people that used them were nothing more than right wing extremist?
It is like my mother. She once told me that if we were to embrace the terrorist with open arms, that the violence could be avoided.
And if all guns are taken away no one could shoot each other. The drugs in the 60s must have been great.
You just can't reason with people that think like that.
Reality is so far away from these peoples grasp that they don't see the truth until an evil person is preying them upon and then they cannot figure out why.
It is like Rosie O’Donnell. She doesn't want us to own guns, but does want her bodyguard to have one. I think we should do something like the movie, "deterrence"

Just in case you don't know. I am non-welfare, White male, Christian, Pro life, Pro gun, Veteran, anti-gay, pro male-female marriage. So according to the obama government, I am a possible terrorist.
Funny how things go, just one short president ago, I was considered to be patriotic, and now with the new regime, Nancy pelosi defines a patriot as an illegal alien that shows up to a meeting on Saturday to listen to her run down our police and border patrol as thugs, and encourage them to break more laws.
Tax cheats run the treasure, and lawyers at the SEC are caught insider trading.

What a world.
Strength through superior firepower.

WC145
May 28, 2009, 09:39 AM
Here's a link to a comment he posted on SCOTUSBLOG about D.C. v Heller -
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/the-week-ahead-14/

Erich
May 28, 2009, 10:39 AM
I appreciate this thread.

kentucky bucky
May 29, 2009, 02:12 PM
I wouldn't buy one of his goofey looking rifles anyway. They look like hockey stick with a barrel.

green5594
May 31, 2009, 01:50 AM
Here's a link to a comment he posted on SCOTUSBLOG about D.C. v Heller -
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/the-week-ahead-14/

He's a real POS. He really thinks he can throw the rest of us under the bus to boost his business.

green5594
May 31, 2009, 01:51 AM
Here is his contact info.

Brent Gurtek
Duluth, MN

Brent Gurtek grew up in a suburb of Cleveland, Ohio. He graduated from Fenn College in Cleveland with a degree in Mechanical Engineering. He began building Kentucky rifles in 1993. From 1993 to 2000 he completed three rifles. He then became a full time builder and completed eight guns in 2001.

Brent primarily builds Kentucky rifles of Lehigh, Sysquehannah and Sunbury schools. He also builds Nazareth, Pennsylvania and York guns and pistols. He does not make copies of existing guns, but uses the styles previously noted. He uses his own patch box designs and casting mount patterns. His trademark is an exaggerated longhunter

Contact Brent Gurtek at:
1873 Korkki Road
Duluth, MN 55804
phone number: 218-525-7573
bgurtek@gmail.com

JohnKSa
May 31, 2009, 02:03 AM
What does this have to do with blackpowder shooting, other than the fact Mr. Gurtek happens to make muzzleloaders?Well, if you take the cynical view, it has EVERYTHING to do with blackpowder shooting.

As firearms get harder to acquire, more expensive to own and more difficult to use due to legal restrictions, blackpowder shooting gets more attractive and therefore more profitable.

So it makes a lot of business sense for someone in the blackpowder/muzzle-loading business to endorse further restrictions on smokeless powder guns--assuming one has no compunctions about throwing fellow firearm owners under the bus to help his own bottom line.

I like blackpowder shooting but I'm not interesting in having it turned into the only practical way to own/use a firearm.

Similarly, I like bicycles but I'm not interested in being forced to use one as my primary means of transportation.

Ratdog68
May 31, 2009, 02:06 AM
I gotta agree with ya there !! That's just a strange lookin' thing. :barf:

pohill
May 31, 2009, 07:37 AM
I have a question and maybe a comment about this issue.
I live in MA where staple guns are on the endangered list. I believe in the 2nd Amendment. I write letters, I argue with antis, I vote the way a pro-gunner should vote. I get pissed when I cannot buy certain guns that are on the MA NO-NO list, yet the drug selling puke on my street can legally drive a 3,000 lb weapon even with an impressive rap sheet. I have a Class A permit to carry which they don't give away but they're closing in on me still.
OK, so I'm a loyal pro 2nd-er. I just had to establish that.
But I can honestly say that I do not want everyone owning firearms, especially that drug dealing puke on my street. Selfish? Maybe. But he's the one that's going to give legit gun owners a bad name. Wait until some nitwit who shouldn't own a screwdriver buys a black powder gun at a gunshow and does something stupid with it - that's when they'll come down on the rest of us.
Do you guys really believe that everyone should be able to own a firearm? What about your worst enemy? Or a rapist? Child molester?
I'm not in the mood to be flamed so if you're inclined to attack me for posting this question, go pound sand. Attack my message, not me.

jcowan
May 31, 2009, 10:49 AM
"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. Prohibition of private firearms is the goal." - Attorney General Janet Reno

Shultzhaus
May 31, 2009, 10:57 AM
Pohill - I have to agree with you. Gun ownership should require some responsibility. MA is known for its strange gun laws. Maybe you should move down here to Lancaster Co. PA. We would welcome you into our sports club. The regional police use our range for practice, and share with us some of the horror tales of illicit gun use. Felons are regularly sent back to the "slammer" for even possesing a fire arm. There are several cases already here of guys sent up for life for drive by shootings. The number of arrests for illegal gun uses are never reported by the liberal media, because it might hurt their anti agendas. Anyone with a nice collection is labeled as having "an arsenal" in his house. More later

pohill
May 31, 2009, 11:15 AM
If I move from MA, they win. Other than the politics, I like it here. Right on the NH border, within view of the ocean, ME is 20 minutes away.
I have no problem preventing some people from owning firearms. My short list would be:
Politicians who vote against the 2nd Amendment.
Convicted felons
Criminally insane
Wait, those 3 might be one category.
I always ask anti gun people to name everyone they know who has been hurt by a gun, and then everyone they know who has been hurt by a motor vehicle. Guess which list is alot longer...
The fact that law abiding citizens can now carry their firearms onto federally owned parks is, to me,a sign that we're winning, or holding even. I'm optimistic but wary.

Shultzhaus
May 31, 2009, 01:48 PM
I don't think I would give up a view of the ocean either. I have to drive about 30 Min. to the Chesapeake bay, but just think of all the seafood restaurants down there. I have heard that many Demo. congress people are not all that willing to go along with Pres. "O" on severe gun control. Too many are worried about re-election. What may become a problem future wise is the new Supreme court. You know about us white male extremists, we are a dangerous bunch.

arcticap
May 31, 2009, 06:11 PM
This issue isn't about any state's laws about gun show or private party gun sales as much as it's about whether pro-gunners should actively boycott individuals if they personally have a less than staunch stance on the 2A.
1. Is the state regulation of private and gun show sales blatantly against 2A, or is it a moderate stance or can it even be considered to be in the public interest?

While I personally don't want or like additional hurdles and regulations, it's a bona fide issue of debate for those affected by it in Minnesota and Minnesota only. Since very few of us are residents of Minnesota, I don't have a right to claim any harm is done to me by their proposal.
My state requires an authorization for gun show sales but not for private long gun sales. However, if any gun is knowingly sold to a prohibited individual who then commits a crime it can lead to 5 years in jail here.
This state has a hotline for voluntary private sales authorizations and some people just won't sell long guns to individuals without a pistol permit here. Should those individulas be boycotted if they own a business and won't sell a long gun to a non-pistol permit holder in my state? :D
I couldn't care less because even my local gunshop has a sign in the window that states that they reserve the right to not sell to anyone that they chose not to, and that's their right to refuse to do business with those that they don't want to just like a local tavern owner can refuse to serve someone liquor.
I don't like it but as an American I accept it.

2. Should Brent Gurtek be boycotted for his views?
Well are his views rational, less than moderate, anti-2A, against the public interest or against my public interest as a resident of another state?
Not really. I'm not a resident of Minnesota, and while most support an individual's right to own and bear arms, they also support background checks for dealer gun sales. So if they see that a gun show or private sale loophole exists, then that's a bona fide issue for debate within their state.
If a person like Brent Gurtek had a family member who was slain by a gun aquired by a prohibited person without a background check, then maybe he has a logical and valid reason for holding his point of view for additional enforcement against selling to prohibited persons.
If a class of people are already prohibited from ownership of guns, the only thing that's lacking is the method of enforcement. I don't support additional enforcement, but I can understand why some do.
So should the business of anyone who supports such new enforcement be boycotted?
I think that's a personal choice whether to or not.
There's plenty of Americans who would support it and who also own a business.
Generally, I don't boycott Saudi oil companies that might have employees who donate to terrorist linked organizations whether knowingly or unknowingly, even though there certainly are believed to be many such Saudi individuals.
And I don't try to investigate who local businessman make political contributions to for the purpose of deciding whether to boycott them or not.
That's simply because they're Americans who are exercising their rights, and I'm chosing not to excercise my right to boycott them.
I suppose if they blatantly posted signs in their windows that they support more gun control measures, then I would get angry and boycott them.
But in some places, it often doesn't matter which candidate a businessman supports because all of the candidates from both parties support reasonable efforts to oversee unregulated guns sales to prohibited individuals.
The proposal is not quite as anti-2A as many that are already on the books in some states like assault weapons bans, magazine capacity limits, limitations on the length of knife blades, etc...
What Brent Gurtek says gets an abstention from me as far as touting a political position to boycott him over. I already know that I wouldn't have ever bought a gun from him anyway. And neither would 99.99% of the rest of the American population. There's probably more important fish to fry and issues to rally for and against than what his stance is on a proposed Minnesota state law. If I was a Minnesota citizen maybe I would care more, but since I'm not, I don't care very much about what his opinion his. It simpy doesn't affect me and I have no power or influence over his opinion, nor should I. Stating his opinion seems to me to be more about having the freedom to exercise a 1st Amendment right, whether his opinion is right or wrong.

rd5589
June 2, 2009, 01:00 PM
Gurtek is trying to save his keister now at the other THR site.

If you enjoyed reading about "Before you buy from Brent Gurtek of French River Muzzleloaders.." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!