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

[runrabbitrun]

TexasRifleman nailed it again.

Common sense is sometimes not so common it seems
as others have demonstrated.

 

[Owen Sparks]

This law really has no teeth. About the only effect it could have is restricting the exhibitors to all being FFL holders. There is no way to restrict a private deal that you and I might make on the floor or in the parking lot. It MIGHT cause us to go across the street to make our actual trade (where the man is not watching). I personally have bought, sold and traded guns in many other places. Off hand I can remember trading in a beauty salon, in the gym parking lot, in the front office at work, several times at the range and in my driveway.
Are they going to close all those loop holes?

This legislation will not work. So what will be the next step?

Criminalizing possession of an unregistered firearms with
a federal law that will get you locked up for possessing a gun that has not been registered to you or transfered to you through a licensed dealer.

THAT is a real danger.

 

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

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.

I must say, that is far too onerous, particularly the parts I bolded - we have to stop this one.

 

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

Guys this ain't a "background check" thread - it's about the gun show bill. Well, nevermind, I guess they're sortof inseparable issues.

 

[TexasRifleman]

Guys this ain't a "background check" thread - it's about the gun show bill.

A thread about a bill that requires a background check can't discuss background checks?

The entire reason given that this bill is necessary is to require background checks at more places in order to reduce crime.

How do you possibly not see the 2 things as connected?

 

[TravisB]

How do you know a background check would have denied him a purchase?

I don't. But the original post stated that this individual noticeably only went to sellers who did not require a background check. This fact raises the probability that he was avoiding a background check for a reason.

I see no evidence shown that he was a prohibited person in any way, just that his English skills were poor and that maybe he was frustrated by that.

If the original poster's account is accurate, the private sellers at the gun show disagree with you. For some reason they all rejected this man. Which was presented as evidence that all private sellers can be trusted to do their own intuitive background checks, so mandating real background checks is unnecessary.

 

[rbernie]

I know lots of people who avoid papered transactions. Doesn't mean that they're disqualified individuals; it just means that they value their privacy. There is no correlation between desiring privacy/anonymity and being a felon/other disqualified person, and suggesting otherwise is a VERY slippery slope.

 

[TexasRifleman]

. Which was presented as evidence that all private sellers can be trusted to do their own intuitive background checks, so mandating real background checks is unnecessary.

I get your point but arguing that we can be "self policing" seems to be a dangerous path. It admits that some kind of check needs to be in place at all. The rebuttal is that since there is no system in place to make these self policing checks the same, we need a legislated system.

Puts us right back where are are now.

Absolutely, private sellers may refuse to sell to anyone they want, and it's great that some make refusals, but that can't be our reason that we don't need this bill, that we'll just "take care of it ourselves".

 

[Rockwell1]

I don't. But the original post stated that this individual noticeably only went to sellers who did not require a background check. This fact raises the probability that he was avoiding a background check for a reason.

I'v avoided the background check on every gun I ever bought ( although I blew my anonymity when I got my CHP) does that make me a prohibited person?

BTW in Colorado they worded the law such that any sale in which any part of the sale takes place at a gun show requires a check. If you bring a rifle and I want to buy it we can't legally leave the grounds to complete the transaction.

 

[kyo]

It won't happen, know why? In GA you don't have to register your firearm at all. So, if I go to a gunshow this weekened, and sell it to someone, how on earth are they gonna find out I sold it to them? The gun might have been passed 10 times by then. I think its just retarded. Another bill to waste our money so some politician can be popular and get people to think he "did" something

 

[googol]

Gun Show Loophole

Whenever Wayne LaPierre confronts an antigun activist proposing new legislation, he insists that no new laws are needed--we only need to enforce the laws already on the books. So which laws are being broken to allow guns into the hands of patently unsuitable people? Seems to me that stricter enforcement of existing laws is going to require closer oversight of gun sales, private or public. And progun activists will label that kind of increased oversight as "harassment by government agents."

Let's have some workable suggestions to solve the problem of guns getting into the wrong hands. A lot of pro-RKBA rhetoric is concerned with preventing tyranny, so there no talk of compromises is allowed. But the only kind of government that doesn't involve compromise is tyranny. We will have to work out some kind of solution both sides can live with. Otherwise, we may end up having to swallow a bad solution we can't live with.

 

[TexasRifleman]

So which laws are being broken to allow guns into the hands of patently unsuitable people? Seems to me that stricter enforcement of existing laws is going to require closer oversight of gun sales, private or public.

The Brady Law, passed in 1993, started this whole "background check" stuff.

By the Brady Law's passing, it became illegal for a prohibiited person to ATTEMPT to buy a gun, not just have one.

The FBI admits that the prosecution level for Brady Law violations is almost zero.

So, there is an example of a law on the books that is absolutely NOT being enforced in any meaningful way. Why not?

Why not arrest someone that tries to buy a gun illegally? You argue that these laws help, but they are not enforced. So you want MORE laws to not enforce?

Let's have some workable suggestions to solve the problem of guns getting into the wrong hands.

Gun crime continues. Only 27% of guns used in crimes were obtained in any legal manner according to the FBI (or DOJ, can't remember right now which report had that in it).

The workable solution to crime has nothing to do with where the criminals get their tools.

 

[runrabbitrun]

I wonder what would happen if a new fad emerged
and a criminal's preferred weapon was a drill?

Do we regulate drills too?
OMG I have unregistered drills

Like the man said:
The workable solution to crime has nothing to do with where the criminals get their tools.

 

[TexasRifleman]

I wonder what would happen if a new fad emerged
and a criminal's preferred weapon was a drill?

Do we regulate drills too?

I'll just leave this one here as an example

Gordon Brown has pledged the Government will take immediate action to tackle the scourge of knife crime, in the wake of four stabbing deaths in one day in London.

The Prime Minister said new measures would be announced on Monday by Home Secretary Jacqui Smith.

The Prime Minister's comments were echoed by Britain's most senior police officer, Sir Ian Blair, who said his officers were doing everything possible to get knives off the streets.

And if you want a good laugh, read this article calling for mandatory registration and background checks for knives

http://www.scragged.com/articles/how-many-more-must-die-regulate-knives-now.aspx

 

[blkbrd666]

Let's have some workable suggestions to solve the problem of guns getting into the wrong hands.

Depending on how you look at it, there may not be anything that works. The ultimate punishment for murder is death, but that doesn't stop some people from committing murder. Not to mention those on death row languish there for years. At one time, you were hanged/hung on the spot for stealing a horse. Today, you are not hanged/hung for stealing a car...so what happened??? Did the whole country just go soft? Sometimes it seems the government WANTS to protect the criminals...they claim they have rights like anyone else. So, why not give them a gun and punish them severely if they use it in a crime??? Denying them a particular tool is not going to stop them from doing the crime. Basically, as long as there are bad people out there, they are going to do bad things until they can't anymore. Putting them in prison for 2 or 3 years and turning them back out on the street with nothing is like saying, "Run along now and do it again and when you get back here we'll have a hot meal waiting for you". In some cases, they might as well...it's the only way they're going to get dinner tonight.

Just some pessimistic thoughts to add fuel to the fire.

 

[6_gunner]

Okay, folks. I intend to write to my representatives. It's been a while since I've written such a letter, so I thought I'd post it here first. Does this sound appropriate?

I wasn't sure how to refer to the bill. Did I use the appropriate terminology?

Is this letter sufficiently "to the point" or did I ramble too much?

Senator .....,

I am writing to ask that you oppose S. 843, and encourage your colleagues to do likewise. This bill is intended to close the alleged “gun show loophole.” However, as I am sure you are aware; the phrase “gun show loophole” actually refers to the private transfer of firearms between individuals. To prohibit the private sale of firearms is an affront to one’s private property rights, as well as an affront to the right to keep and bear arms.

The proponents of this bill are falsely claiming that the “gun show loophole” allowed the Columbine killers to obtain the firearms with which they committed their terrible and senseless acts of violence. However, my understanding is that the firearms were purchased through an illegal transaction known as a straw purchase. Obviously, additional firearms laws would have done nothing to prevent the already-illegal transaction. I find it terribly offensive that the proponents of this bill are making false claims about the very real tragedy at Columbine in order to advance their agenda. If I lost a loved one to a similar tragedy, I would be outraged at the prospect of someone twisting the facts surrounding it in order to promote their own agenda.

I hope that you will oppose S. 843 for the sake of all Americans.

I will continue to pray that all the leaders of the United States will be granted the wisdom to do what is best for our great nation.

Sincerely,


.... ....... ......

 

[ripcurlksm]

sernv99, the principle is that either way, gun laws will only effect YOU as a law abiding citizen. whether felons are legally allowed to purchase guns or not, they will have them. Your vote to allow more gun restrictions in the end will only put more hurdles from YOUR ownership.

With that said, I don't think violent felons should be allowed to legally purchase firearms

 

[TexasRifleman]

I bet you use that website to get your "facts" from huh? That's like going to Fox news to get an unbiased report of what;s going on in politics today. You have no credibility

Yes, I get that it's humor.

You are hopeless........

 

[sernv99]

Yes, I get that it's humor

correct, that one link your posted is humor, unfortunately, they also try to do "news" reporting a la Drudge Report

 

[TexasRifleman]

correct, that one link your posted is humor, unfortunately, they also try to do "news" reporting a la Drudge Report

I don't think you understand the point.

The blog on knife registration is a parody, taking an argument to it's most absurd extreme to poke fun at it.

Thing is I've seen those exact same arguments applied here to guns.

So, if it's humorous and absurd to apply those arguments to knives, why all of a sudden do those same arguments make sense for firearms?

 

[Art Eatman]

Too much Low Road personal BS for this thread to live.