Alert - Brady Campaign Email and "Gun Show Loophole" Bill gaining momentum

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

Today's email from Bradys:

We are going to close the gun show loophole.

Yesterday — thanks to the many calls from you and other Brady members and supporters — Senator Frank Lautenberg introduced a bill to close the gun show loophole.

Right now, people can buy as many guns as they want from unlicensed dealers at gun shows without a Brady background check. No questions asked.

That's how the Columbine killers got three of the four weapons used 10 years ago this month.

Please contribute now to the Brady Campaign to help us close the gun show loophole.
The momentum is building. Today, more Senators signed on. We can get this bill passed. We can make this happen — with your support.

Since the elections, we've been pressing the new Congress to make Brady background checks on all gun sales a priority, starting with the gun show loophole.

We've bird-dogged the media to get wide coverage in support of commonsense gun laws. Brady activists and staff have been on ABC News "20/20", CNN, NPR, Fox News, and local TV across the country.

We've been quoted in the Washington Post, Los Angeles Times and the Christian Science Monitor, to name just a few, and we've had editorials in the Tennessean, Duluth News Tribune, Raleigh News Observer, US News, along with many more.

It's all to build support for closing the gun show loophole. Yes, we can get this ridiculous loophole closed. But I need your help.

Click here to donate to the Brady Campaign to get this done.

We will continue our media push — providing facts to reporters about our weak guns laws, pitching stories to news programs, and posting our hard-hitting blogs and Internet ads.

And we will lobby Congress to get more co-sponsors. It won't happen overnight. Jim and I — and you — kept up the fight for the Brady bill for years before we got it passed.

We can do this. We can close the gun show loophole. Please support the Brady Campaign today.

Sincerely,

Sarah Brady, Chair

 

[AllAmerican]

Man I cant wait till she passes away from natural causes.

 

[rbernie]

So - maybe it's time to mount a mail campaign to your CongressCritters, telling them that you resent the lawful face-to-face transfer of private property being portrayed as a 'loophole' to some non-existent law...

 

[Pack]

Rbernie,

Exactly! It's amazing how changing a seemingly minor detail - they say "unlicensed dealer" as opposed to "private citizen" - can make a world of difference.

I guess if I put a car up for sale on Ebaymotors, autotrader.com, or the like, I'll be an "unlicensed dealer", too. Here I thought I'd have been "guy with a car"...

This is just emblematic of the belief on the part of many folks like this. There is no such thing as the "private citizen" for them. We are ALL to be defined by/through our relationship to the regulatory state and the community.

 

[MT GUNNY]

Someone post a Well Written Short Letter, That we can Copy paste and send it out to our Critters!

 

[Igloodude]

A quick websearch shows it to be named "Lautenberg-Reed Gun Show Background Check Act of 2008". Nothing on the official congressional sites yet - anyone know what the lag time on that is?

 

[Ben Shepherd]

Dr. Winslow-

Any links to a specific bill number? Doesn't do any good to try to contact Congressmen if we can't tell them specifically what we're contacting them about.

 

[Phatty]

That's how the Columbine killers got three of the four weapons used 10 years ago this month.

Uhhmm, no. I love how the anti-gun crowd always point to an example where even if the law they wanted was passed it wouldn't have made a difference in the cited example. The three guns referenced by Brady were purchased by a friend of Klebold and Harris at a gunshow and then given to them by the friend. This friend was legally able to purchase the firearms, so even if she had walked into an FFL store, she could have just as easily purchased the weapons there. The fact that she got the weapons at a gunshow was completely irrelevant.

 

[everallm]

The bill is S:843, the text is as yet to be posted although this is what in on Lautenbergs site

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.


Assuming that this is what will be in the bill, it neither changes existing law nor closes the actual "loophole" which is the FTF purchase of firearms OUTSIDE of a gun show.

Set up your booth, complete the transaction as a legal FTF outside the doors remains legal........

This does NOT impact, alter, restrict or change legal FTF.

Of course we will have to wait on the full text of the bill.

 

[TexasRifleman]

What's the problem? It's just background checks.

We just did a 10 page thread on why background checks are not an "infringement".

Why the outrage now?

http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=444566

And I expect the usual suspects will be here shortly to tell us not to worry about this, that it's not as bad as it seems, that we just misunderstand......

<sniff> Smell that? That's creeping incrementalism with just a hint of BBQ sauce to make it go down easier........some gun owners will be lined up at the trough.

You may not realize but he tried this last year too. Full text here:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s110-2577

 

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

Well, I don't like it, but I will say it's not as bad as other definitions in prior similar bills, which regulated and criminalized any "gathering" of 3 or more people to buy/sell guns, which could be you, me, and Joe getting together. This one is a "50+ firearms" minimum before kicking in.

It's pretty clearly a prelude or stepping stone by the antis to ban all private non-FFL transactions, since obviously if this passes, they will be clamoring about the "private sale loophole" before the ink is dry. It's incrementalism for sure.

 

[TexasRifleman]

This one is a "50+ firearms" minimum before kicking in.

Which means paperwork for events, just in case the number exceeds 50. How is a "promoter" supposed to know ahead of time if there will be 30 or 60 guns? They don't, which means this has to happen pretty much all the time:

(b) Responsibilities of Gun Show Promoters- It shall be unlawful for any person to organize, plan, promote, or operate a gun show unless that person--

(1) before commencement of the gun show, verifies the identity of each gun show vendor participating in the gun show by examining a valid identification document (as defined in section 1028(d)(3)) of the vendor containing a photograph of the vendor;

(2) before commencement of the gun show, requires each gun show vendor to sign--

(A) a ledger with identifying information concerning the vendor; and

(B) a notice advising the vendor of the obligations of the vendor under this chapter;

(3) notifies each person who attends the gun show of the requirements of this chapter, in accordance with such regulations as the Attorney General shall prescribe; and

(4) maintains a copy of the records described in paragraphs (1) and (2) at the permanent place of business of the gun show promoter for such period of time and in such form as the Attorney General shall require by regulation.

 

[Poper]

Which means paperwork for events, just in case the number exceeds 50. How is a "promoter" supposed to know ahead of time if there will be 30 or 60 guns?

Even if the participant only brought 40 guns to the show, how many will pass through his hands during the course of the show? Just his 40? An additional 40? More?
You can see the traps being laid in this one....

Poper

 

[Duke of Doubt]

Does anyone know Sarah Brady's home address so I can sign her up for gift deliveries of Hickory Farms sausages, Angus red meat, and other fine foods guaranteed to clog her arteries? Or maybe I'll buy her a lifetime gift membership in the NRA -- that ought to get her heart racing.

 

[sernv99]

TXRifleman:

rather than harbor bitterness towards some on here who don't support your views, write to your congressman/woman and Senators and present your argument to them, especially how felons should have the RKBA I would like to see the response you get from that

 

[TexasRifleman]

rather than harbor bitterness towards some on here who don't support your views, write to your congressman/woman and Senators and present your argument to them, especially how felons should have the RKBA

As I said, here come the "pro gun" people to claim this is not an infringement.

It's all for the common good, it's not "gun grabbing", it's merely some paperwork. What could it hurt?

Oh, as a matter of record MY Senators both agree with me, and one helped kill it in committee before it came up for vote last year.

Not having background check and allowing felons to own guns are 2 different things but again, some gun owners want to leave that out since it destroys their justification for having more laws on the books.

But hey, let's not let facts get in the way here. This is important legislation and all! The world will be safe after this one I'm sure.....just one more.....

 

[sernv99]

now you shy away from your support of felons having the RKBA, since you said it was an infringement of the 2nd amend.

Oh, as a matter of record MY Senators both agree with me, and voted against this bill the last time it came up.

yeah, both senators agree felons should have the RKBA.

 

[TexasRifleman]

now you shy away from your support of felons having the RKBA, since you said it was an infringement of the 2nd amend.

Neither this nor the previous thread was about felons having guns.

They are about the fact that background checks don't STOP prohibited persons from getting guns. They ALWAYS find a way to get them, even though it's already illegal.

Note the argument presented here, that the "gun show loophole" enabled the Columbine shooters to get guns. That did not happen. A law abiding citizen with no criminal background bought guns for these 2 criminals. That's against the law, but background checks would not detect or stop it.

You were presented with facts that showed that background checks do not deter crime, and your rebuttal is that you think we are arguing for felons to get guns. That doesn't even make sense.

Those are 2 different issues. That you try to connect the 2 shows what we tried to explain before, your feelings on this get in the way of rationale. Gun laws don't stop criminals from using guns in crime.....no matter how many you pass, and you simply cannot show any evidence to the contrary.

 

[sernv99]

You were presented with facts that showed that background checks do not deter crime

so inject your opinion that these "facts" do not deter crime. Well again you are engaging in a one-sided debate,so why bother arguing?

Neither this nor the previous thread was about felons having guns. you have been flip-flopping back and forth. once you get your mind right, then come back to me and present your argument and defend it without flip-flopping. On one thread you support felons having RKBA and call this an infringement of the 2nd amend, you bring this argument of infringement up again on here and now you shy away....gimme a break dude

 

[Blackbeard]

I wonder what the definition of "offered for sale" is. If you go to a show and just show your guns with no prices on them, are they "offered" for sale? Or can you just claim you're exhibiting your collection, and if someone attending the show wants to make an offer to purchase, well that's just fine.

 

[BMcCoy]

Servn99... I have to agree with Texasrifleman here. It looks like you are one of the one's that don't mind the Gubment taking care of you... Even though you are on a gun related internet forum, and act like you are pro 2nd amendment, you really are a liberal gun grabber just posing as a Real American.


Ben

 

[Redneck with a 40]

Sounds like a back-door registration scheme on private gun sales. I doubt Harry Reid will put this thing on the floor, he's up for re-election next year and he is from Nevada.

 

[JImbothefiveth]

What's the problem? It's just background checks.

We just did a 10 page thread on why background checks are not an "infringement".

Why the outrage now?

Because ordinary citizens can't check someone's background. We have to go to a licensed dealer and pay whatever fee the dealer wants to charge us.

 

[TexasRifleman]

Well again you are engaging in a one-sided debate,so why bother arguing?

You 've been asked for days now to show evidence supporting your claim that background checks deter crime. We're still waiting. It's only one sided because you can't find any support.....

On one thread you support felons having RKBA and call this an infringement of the 2nd amend

I've repeatedly said that the law against felons having guns is a separate issue. It has been, and remains, illegal for felons to have guns. Background checks do not stop that from happening despite your "feelings" that somehow they do.

You kep trying to turn this into a debate about whether or not felons should have guns. That has nothing to do with the actual topic.

 

[DocBoCook]

I was just at the Hampton VA gun show. I saw a private sale get turned down, purely because the guy trying to buy it couldn't speak well of enough english and just kept going up to anyone and everyone just trying to get any gun he could, it wasn't like he was looking for something in particular. All he kept doing was, "what about that one, okay, that one?" and the private sellers kept telling him no, he was getting belligerant and the security escorted him out. No one would sell to him. Another thing that was suspiscious was that he never went up to a Vendor where you have to do Background checks. the private citizens, buying and selling privately, protect their own.