Virginia gun bill killed
- Thread starter 98C5
- Start date
- Status
ZeSpectre
Member
Gotta love this phrasing. More like "decided to maintain the standing laws and regulations in effect throughout Virginia with respect to private property rights".
Here is The Roanoke Times spin on this: 
Source: http://www.roanoke.com/news/breaking/wb/147586
I love it. "Seeking out" as if he was looking for a drug dealer or some illegal activity.
Source: http://www.roanoke.com/news/breaking/wb/147586
I love it. "Seeking out" as if he was looking for a drug dealer or some illegal activity.
ZeSpectre
Member
that would be because
1) it wouldn't do anything to prevent criminals from obtaining their tool(s) of choice (they ignore the law)
2) it would place a burden on/punish those who obey laws but who haven't done anything wrong.
Perhaps those of you that live in Virginia might point out to the media, not to mention the governor, that an individual who is not a licensed gun dealer (FFL) cannot make a background check on a potential buyer. This procedure, which is part of a Federal law, is limited to Federally Licensed Gun Dealers only, and even excludes the Police.
Therefore if a private seller at a gun show wanted to sell a firearm, and was required to have a background check made first, he or she would have to turn the firearm over to a licensed dealer, who in turn would require the buyer to fill out a #4473 form, and then the dealer could make the mandated background check. What would likely happen is that sellers would sell their guns elsewhere, which would soon lead to a demand that ALL private sales be conducted through dealers. This of course is what the anti's want, but if such was enacted a lot of present legislators from rural districts might find themselves retired at the next following election.
It is improbable that any laws can prevent a determined killer from obtaining a firearm somehow. Therefore it would be much better if these parents and officials turned their attention to how to limit the time a shooter has to do what they intend too do. They might consider the saying, "when seconds count the police are only minutes away." This is the main reason the victim count at Virginia Tech was so high.
Therefore if a private seller at a gun show wanted to sell a firearm, and was required to have a background check made first, he or she would have to turn the firearm over to a licensed dealer, who in turn would require the buyer to fill out a #4473 form, and then the dealer could make the mandated background check. What would likely happen is that sellers would sell their guns elsewhere, which would soon lead to a demand that ALL private sales be conducted through dealers. This of course is what the anti's want, but if such was enacted a lot of present legislators from rural districts might find themselves retired at the next following election.
It is improbable that any laws can prevent a determined killer from obtaining a firearm somehow. Therefore it would be much better if these parents and officials turned their attention to how to limit the time a shooter has to do what they intend too do. They might consider the saying, "when seconds count the police are only minutes away." This is the main reason the victim count at Virginia Tech was so high.
rc109a
Member
That has been pointed out. Just another reason why this bill would not have worked.
Zeke/PA
Member
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Except for the backround checks and regulations on long guns, most of the buying/ selling is covered in The National Firearns act of 1934.
Thats 74 year old legislation in my book.
Simply put, handgun sales are to be executed by FFL's only, NOT between private individuals.
Zeke
Except for the backround checks and regulations on long guns, most of the buying/ selling is covered in The National Firearns act of 1934.
Thats 74 year old legislation in my book.
Simply put, handgun sales are to be executed by FFL's only, NOT between private individuals.
Zeke
W.E.G.
Member
OK. You stand corrected. You are wrong.
We sell/trade handguns in Virginia among private owners with out any intervention whatsoever of any FEDERAL LICENSEE.
We're still free in Virginia, and we're working hard to stay that way.
There is no such thing as a gun show "loophole."
There is no such thing as an "unlicensed dealer." The term "dealer" - in the context of federal firearms law - is a person who holds a federal license to "deal" in firearms. Further, federal law allows the BATF to regard somebody as a "dealer" if he is "engaged in the business" of selling guns.
Some guy who sells three of four guns a year as part of managing a hobby collection is hardly "in the business" of selling guns.
All dealers have to do the background check thing. I have no problem with that. But hobbyists and collectors are not required - and SHOULD NOT BE REQUIRED - to go through the same rigmarole that a dealer must accept.
There are some people who act like they think the only rights we have are the "rights" which the government "allows" us to have. To that, I say "STEP BACK!" England tried to pull that on free Americans once. It did not go well for them.
We sell/trade handguns in Virginia among private owners with out any intervention whatsoever of any FEDERAL LICENSEE.
We're still free in Virginia, and we're working hard to stay that way.
There is no such thing as a gun show "loophole."
There is no such thing as an "unlicensed dealer." The term "dealer" - in the context of federal firearms law - is a person who holds a federal license to "deal" in firearms. Further, federal law allows the BATF to regard somebody as a "dealer" if he is "engaged in the business" of selling guns.
Some guy who sells three of four guns a year as part of managing a hobby collection is hardly "in the business" of selling guns.
All dealers have to do the background check thing. I have no problem with that. But hobbyists and collectors are not required - and SHOULD NOT BE REQUIRED - to go through the same rigmarole that a dealer must accept.
There are some people who act like they think the only rights we have are the "rights" which the government "allows" us to have. To that, I say "STEP BACK!" England tried to pull that on free Americans once. It did not go well for them.
Zeke/PA
Member
I goofed, I stand corrected.
Gunshow loophole??
I agree, there is no such thing,
My last purchase, two years ago at a gunshow, bears this out.
From the minute the dealer and I made an agreement till the time I left his table with my purchase in hand, a total of one hour and twenty minutes had passed as the dealer complied with regs.
Hardly a loophole.
Zeke
Gunshow loophole??
I agree, there is no such thing,
My last purchase, two years ago at a gunshow, bears this out.
From the minute the dealer and I made an agreement till the time I left his table with my purchase in hand, a total of one hour and twenty minutes had passed as the dealer complied with regs.
Hardly a loophole.
Zeke
And a lot of us are going to the Capitol on Monday to let our legislators know where we stand.
Yes, there are "unlicensed dealers" at gun shows... they're the ones selling beef jerky and crappy jewelry. But these are the ones that the antis use to come up with the stat that "30% (or whatever) of dealers at gun shows are unlicensed".
ZeSpectre
Member
Zoom6Zoom, I'm going to use that as a chance to plug Virginia's "lobby day" one more time <grin>.
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=329862
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=329862
graybeard321
Member
Federal and state law already requires federally licensed firearms dealers to conduct a background check on all prospective purchases. This legislation is simply a first step toward requiring government approval before individuals may sell their private property, even between family and friends.
Robert Hairless
Member
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2003
- Messages
- 3,983
But Cho didn't do that.
Cho also could have transmutated himself into a giant killer amoeba or a tyrannical and rather stupid Virginia Governor or a dimwitted University President, oozed through the locked bedroom doors of young maidens, and whisked them off to another planet for his own evil purposes. But Cho didn't do that either.
What Cho did do was use an educational institution Gun Free Zone as his personal killing field. Cho did it just a few months after a criminal found his way into that very same place and eluded police there for a while. Cho knew he could do it because the state allowed the University to make itself a Gun Free Zone where he could expect no resistance from anyone with the means for self defense.
Cho is one in a long line of mass murderers who were enabled by the law in Virginia and other states that allows the establishment of zones in which many potential victims gather defenseless.
Governor Kaine's solution is to try to make even more people defenseless. Lori Hass, whose daughter was wounded by Cho, can't wrap her mind around the reason why it's senseless to beat the dog when the cat meows.
Standing Wolf
Member in memoriam
Have you heard about the new speeding loop hole? As long as commoners aren't quite exceeding the speed limit, there's nothing police officers can do about it!
Scandalous!
Scandalous!
graybeard321
Member
We only won round 1. A bill sponsored by Henry Marsh III (D-Richmond), is scheduled for a hearing before the Senate's Committee for Courts of Justice on Monday, Jan. 21. If passed, house members will consider the issue again.
I have to disagree with you. Even the jerky and jewlery people are not dealers. If they do not hold a FFL, they are NOT a DEALER of ANY kind. They are a private seller.
If a person has a few cars for sale in their front yard, are they an "unlicensed car dealer?" No.
There is no such thing as an "unlicensed dealer" at a gun show.
But yes you're right...the anti's make their "30%" statistic by simply taking the total number of tables at a gun show, and comparing it to the total number of FFLs who have a table at the show. Of course it's going to be low. There are a bunch of war memorabilia/books/airsoft
/jewlery/mags/ammo tables there.John4me05
Member
Correct these arent dealers cause if they were they would have a liscense in the firt place.. The dealer term needs to be taken out.... Unliscesed seller would be a good term but still not completely correct cause there is no law saying you have to have a liscense to sell a firearm...
exactly...I see it as the same thing as saying "unregistered guns" because if there isn't gun registration, they aren't "unregistered" they just plain aren't registered.
I still prefer the term "private seller" because that's exactly what they are, and it sounds positive.
I still prefer the term "private seller" because that's exactly what they are, and it sounds positive.
I was at the hearing this morning. I did not know that Marsh is also the Chairman of that committee. You'd think he would have to recuse himself or something.
As expected, the proponents of the bill worked mostly on an emotional level. When they did use statistics,they were pulled out of thin air and could not be validated. One of the Senators on the panel was pretty good at calling them on that.
Of course, the antis also packed the room with Virginia Tech people. Now, Cho bought neither of his two guns at a show, both were purchased through dealers and passed background checks. But let's not let that get in the way of a good show.
The bill will not be voted on until Wednesday.
Vern Humphrey
Member
Why not a bill to close a loophole that allows universities to deny citizens their constitutional rights?
ZeSpectre
Member
zoom6zoom
I don't know about you, but that hearing 'bout made me want to puke.
I don't know about you, but that hearing 'bout made me want to puke.
- Status